Sitting of 13 March 2001

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

  KENT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER) MEDWAY COUNCIL BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)
  Orders for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Thursday 22 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  HEALTH

    Breast Cancer (Nottingham)
    Mr. Vernon Coaker: What discussions he has had with Trent regional health authority about a new breast cancer unit at Nottingham city hospital. [151948]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): The Trent regional office and the Nottingham health authority strongly support the scheme for a new breast care unit at Nottingham city hospital. It will replace the 23-year-old prefabricated accommodation with a new purpose-built unit. The local breast team is internationally recognised as being at the forefront of clinical care and research into the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. The regional office expects to receive the full business case by September this year, at the latest.
    Mr. Coaker: Will my right hon. Friend take a personal interest in the development of the breast cancer unit at Nottingham city hospital? There has been some slippage over the past couple of years, so his intervention would be very welcome. As he said, this is an internationally renowned breast cancer unit, and many people come from abroad to see it. At the moment, it is housed in prefabricated buildings. Will my right hon. Friend take a personal interest in the matter and ensure that if September is the target date for the business plan, September is also the reality for Nottingham city hospital's breast cancer unit?
    Mr. Denham: I will certainly take a personal interest in the matter, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his keen interest in the success of the project. It is planned to
    802
    spend more than £5.2 million on it from different sources, and it is clearly in everyone's interest to get it under way as quickly as possible.
    Mrs. Marion Roe: As one of the chairmen of the all-party breast cancer group, I welcome any new facilities for the new breast cancer unit at Nottingham city hospital. However, will the Minister tell the House what role clinical need plays in the treatment of patients who present to their general practitioners with suspected cancer? What response would he give to the president of the Royal College of Surgeons, who claims that clinics are being snowed under with inappropriate referrals for breast cancer because of the Government's two-week target?
    Mr. Denham: The whole point is to ensure that patients with the highest clinical need are referred urgently to a consultant. The two-week waiting time is for urgent referrals. In support of that, we have published referral guidelines for use by general practitioners that have been drawn up with leading clinicians. The whole point is to enable general practitioners to identify women in need of an urgent referral. I believe that we have a policy that is designed and aimed to give the highest priority to those with the greatest need.

    NHS Plan
    Mr. Paul Burstow: What assessment his Department has made of the number of additional nurses required to meet the requirements of the NHS plan and enable private sector providers to comply with the Care Standards Act 2000 and regulations made thereunder. [151949]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): The NHS plan contains a commitment for 20,000 more nurses to be provided by 2004. Private sector providers are represented on the new local organisations charged with planning the numbers of nursing staff needed in local communities.
    Mr. Burstow: The Secretary of State will know that about one in four nurses is due to retire in the next four to five years. The Royal College of Nursing, in its report last year, said that there would be a shortage of about 57,000 nurses over the next five years. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept, therefore, that increasing the number of posts in the NHS potentially increases the number of vacancies? Will he guarantee that in the effort to recruit more nurses, the international recruitment nursing director will not strip bare developing countries of their valued nurses? Will he also ensure that there will be a dramatic expansion of nurse training places in this country, so that we can grow our own nurses to fill the vacancies?
    Mr. Milburn: That is precisely what is happening. It is true that nurse training places have been cut in the past; they were certainly cut under the previous Government in the mid-1990s. The number of nurses was cut in the mid-1990s, too. The national health service is still feeling the effects of that. However, the number of nurses is now consistently rising, the number of training places is up by one third, and the number of UK-based

    803
    applications for nursing and midwifery courses has increased by more than 56 per cent. in the past two years alone.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the private sector that before it gets the same input of taxpayers' money that it got last year, it is essential that it complies with care standards? That is a question of the private sector having to come up to those standards not after new nurses have been trained, but before. That is a simple lesson that I would have thought would be in the interests of every patient.
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is right: standards should be high wherever care is provided. That is particularly the case if the resources for that care, whether it is given in the private or the public sector, are provided at NHS expense. Standards are what count, which is why the action that we are taking to raise standards and to expand the number of nurses working in the NHS and the health care system overall is so important.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: The RCN survey shows that 70,000 trained nurses are staying at home, but in his evidence to the Nurses and Midwives Pay Review Body the Secretary of State said:
    "The central message of the evidence from the Departments was that there was no case for a special pay response from us this year on grounds of recruitment and retention."
    What changed his mind?
    Mr. Milburn: The difference between this Government and the previous one is that we are paying nurses' pay awards in full, not staging them. Indeed, there is extra pay to address shortages in particular areas, so where need is highest, but where the cost of living is also the highest, we are paying extra money to nurses—up to £1,000 a year extra. There is more money for ward sisters. Last year, there was more money for staff nurses. The year before, there was more money for newly qualified nurses. All the investment that we are making is contributing to the expansion in NHS nursing numbers.
    We all know the hon. Lady's view of the NHS. She says that she occasionally visits NHS hospitals to see what they are like for those who do not have the privilege of private health insurance. There are two views of the NHS: there are those who use it and those who regard it as a spectator sport.

    Cancer
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: What progress is being made in improving services which will cut the incidence of cancer and improve cancer survival rates. [151950]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): National health service cancer services are receiving more investment and greater priority than ever before. Waiting times are falling, the number of cancer specialists is rising and I can tell the House today that the NHS has the fastest-improving cancer services in Europe.
    Dr. Starkey: I thank my right hon. Friend for the investment that he has so far made in cancer services in
    804
    Milton Keynes. My constituents welcome the priority that has been given to improving cancer services, but if he had a further half a million pounds to invest in Milton Keynes, would he rather spend it on further improving cancer services or subsidising private health insurance?
    Mr. Milburn: For a moment or two, I thought that that question would cost me money, so I approach the answer with trepidation. It is right that we invest in our cancer services. Cancer kills well over 100,000 people a year and we know that many of the deaths could have been prevented had earlier action been taken. Although the focus will inevitably and rightly be on improvements in treatment services to get waiting times down, to ensure that more operations are carried out and to provide more scanners and more equipment, the biggest gains in improving cancer care will come from improved prevention.
    That is why the action that my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health and others are taking to improve smoking cessation services, reduce cigarette consumption and ban tobacco advertising is so critical to the future of cancer care in our country. There is a choice: either spend an extra half a billion pounds a year on modernising cancer services, as we are doing, or spend half a billion pounds a year on subsidising those with private health insurance, as the Conservative party proposes.
    Sir Peter Emery: Will the Secretary of State consider for a moment prostate cancer? The excellent service that I have received from the national health service at Charing Cross hospital only goes to prove what can be done if such services are carried through properly. How much extension work is being done to provide radiotherapy at more hospitals to deal with the problem of prostate cancer?
    Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman; his comments about improvements in prostate cancer services will provide reassurance to many men. Inevitably, when people read newspaper reports about the state of cancer services, they do not always get the most accurate picture. As he knows fine well, by and large NHS cancer care is of a very high standard. We need to expand the range of services available and, most importantly of all, we need to ensure that those services are timely and of the highest possible standard.
    That is why more investment is being made, particularly with the new generation of scanners—magnetic resonance imaging scanners, linear accelerators and computerised tomography scanners. Some investment comes through lottery money and some through mainstream NHS money. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that additional investment is going into research into prostate cancer because treatments are not as good as they should be. However, I hope that, in time, we shall discover new ways to treat a deadly disease that kills far too many men in our country.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: When a patient with suspected cancer visits a GP, often the GP's first question is, "Do you smoke?" That is an important question, but patients are seldom asked where they work or used to work, and in what conditions. The ex-vinatex workers group in my constituency feels that GPs and consultants should ask those questions, so that the position

    805
    can be checked and action can be taken to ensure that workplaces are safe environments. Does my right hon. Friend agree?
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend makes an important point, although there is a direct correlation between smoking and cancer—and, indeed, between smoking and heart disease. If we succeed in doing what we want to do—improving heart-disease and cancer services, especially on the prevention side, and cutting tobacco consumption—we shall save an awful lot of lives in our country. Finding out where people have worked provides an important clue to the cause of problems, and we are certainly prepared to think about that.
    Mr. Philip Hammond: I am sure the Secretary of State agrees that a key part of the Government's strategy is the pledge in the NHS cancer plan that there will be nearly 1,000 extra non-surgical cancer consultants by 2006. Does he deny that that figure is acknowledged in his own Department to be unachievable, that Ministers at the highest level—including the Prime Minister—were advised at the time that it was unachievable, and that it was included in the cancer plan only on the Prime Minister's specific insistence?
    Mr. Milburn: I would be amazed if that were the case, but if the hon. Gentleman hands me his briefing I shall gladly look into it for him.
    The figures that we have announced in both the NHS plan and the cancer plan are based on modelling done in the Department. They show that over the next five years we will increase the number of cancer specialists by 25 per cent. We are having to do that precisely because of the failure to invest in cancer services in the past—a shameful failure, in my view.
    When the Government came to power, we found that not a single penny piece had been earmarked for improvements in cancer services. That cash is now being earmarked: there will be hundreds of millions of pounds of extra investment in cancer services next year, rising to £570 million in just two or three years' time.

    GPs
    Mr. Andrew Stunell: What steps he plans to take to improve the retention of experienced general practitioners within the NHS. [151951]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): GPs do a vital job exceptionally well, so the retention of experienced and skilled GPs is crucial to the successful delivery of the NHS plan and a modernised NHS.
    In his Budget statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a new fund to tackle shortages of key staff in the health service. Some of it will be devoted to the creation of incentives for experienced GPs to remain in practice, and to encouraging GPs currently on retainers to increase their NHS commitment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will give further details later.
    Mr. Stunell: I thank the Minister for his answer. Three quarters of general practitioners consulted in a recent
    806
    survey in my constituency said that they were less satisfied with their conditions in the NHS than they had been two years earlier, and 60 per cent. said that they were considering leaving. Does the Minister accept that there has been a catastrophic drop in morale among GPs? Does he agree that it is vital for us to plug the gap and to restore confidence in their work and in the NHS?
    Mr. Denham: What is important is that we underline our commitment to putting general practice at the heart of our NHS reforms. We are already doing that with the creation of primary care groups and, now, primary care trusts. Measures that we are taking today to encourage further GP recruitment will help to bring into general practice the extra numbers that we have promised. We are also taking measures to reduce GPs work loads by cutting bureaucracy, and we wish to develop extended roles for other members of the primary care team staff so that GPs can concentrate on the patients who need their support most.
    In all those ways, we are committed to improving the working and the professional life of GPs, because they play a particularly important role in the delivery of a modern NHS.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement on the provision of additional support for GPs, which is obviously an urgent matter. However, will he also take into consideration current patient waiting times to see GPs? I have problems in my constituency with that matter, and it would be helpful if he would examine it with some urgency with a view to reducing waiting times for patients.
    Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We have said that by 2004 we want patients to be able to see a GP within 48 hours. We are already showing, in the work done by the primary care development team, how practices can reorganise themselves to meet that access target without—this is very important—increasing the work load and burden on GPs. Additionally, we have allocated funds from the record investment that we are making this year in the NHS to enable primary care practices to extend and improve patient access.
    Mr. David Tredinnick: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the best ways of retaining GPs and cutting surgery waiting times is to make greater use of complementary and alternative therapies? Is he also aware that many doctors refer to a proportion of their cases as heart-sink patients whom they cannot help, whereas 70 per cent. of those patients get relief if they are referred to acupuncturists, herbal medicine practitioners or homeopaths? Does he not think that now that 30 per cent. of the United Kingdom population have tried herbal medicines, it is time that the Government responded positively to the Lords report on complementary medicine and made such medicine more widely available on the national health service at the point of delivery?
    Mr. Denham: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman—whom I always think of as the hon. Member for Holland and Barrett—on his consistent contribution to our debates. Clearly, there is a level of interest among GPs in making use of complementary medicines. The British Medical Association has produced guidance which has been

    807
    circulated to all primary care groups and primary care trusts on the prescribing of and referral to complementary medicine. Additionally, as the hon. Gentleman has said, the House of Lords has produced an important report on the issue, which the Government are considering.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my right hon. Friend accept that Burnley and east Lancashire are areas of deprivation where there are health problems because of some of their traditional industries? Does he also accept that they are also the very areas where it is difficult to retain GPs and to attract new GPs? Will he ensure that money is targeted towards attracting and retaining the GPs whom we need to provide services in such areas?
    Mr. Denham: One of the measures that my right hon. Friend has announced today is a £5,000 payment to newly qualified GPs finishing their period as a GP registrar and entering general practice. The payment will be £10,000 in deprived and under-doctored areas. We have taken that action not only to increase the proportion of doctors entering general practice, but particularly to encourage them to work in areas that are currently short of doctors or facing high deprivation levels. I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that we have tried to design the scheme that we have announced today around the types of needs that he has described.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: We welcome the attempts being made to reimburse GPs. However, as the father of a GP—I declare an interest—may I ask what research has been done into why 40 per cent. of GP trainees do not enter general practice? Is the Minister convinced that it is simply a matter of money, or does he think that other action is needed to reform the system, so that we can not only attract GPs but retain them?
    Mr. Denham: That is a very good question. There is no doubt that the financial incentive that we announced today, which has been welcomed by the BMA, will help. However, there are other barriers. One is that it can seem to be a fairly daunting step to move from the fairly structured environment of training to taking on the full responsibilities of a GP principal. Therefore, one of the additional measures accompanying the financial package which we have announced today is 20 days of additional training in the first year of practice as a GP principal—something that has been argued for by the BMA. By doing that, we hope to provide greater support for doctors who want to go into general practice. We want to ensure that they can maintain their professional skills and overcome the inevitable challenges of their first year in practice.
    Dr. Liam Fox: According to this week's edition of the Doctor newspaper, 70 per cent. of GPs surveyed supported some form of action to highlight their "anger and disillusionment" with the Government. The Government have been in office for four years, so how does the Minister account for that finding?
    Mr. Denham: One of the things that GPs know is that for the past three years this Government have paid pay review body awards in full and without staging. In contrast, the Conservative Government regularly failed to
    808
    implement those awards in full and without staging. GPs therefore know the difference between this Government and the previous Conservative Government.
    One of the problems is that there are currently too few GPs. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the number of GP registrars fell by 20 per cent. under the previous Government. Under this Government, there have been four consecutive years of increase in the number of GP registrars in training. That means that there will be more GPs in the future, and that we will achieve our target of at least 2,000 more GPs by 2004. As has so often been the case, we have had to undo the damage done by the previous Government. If there had not been the cut in the number of GPs in training under the previous Government, it is a reasonable assumption that we would have 700 more GPs in the NHS today than we do.
    Dr. Fox: The real causes of GPs anger and disillusionment have been four years of non-stop reorganisation and change, increased centralisation by the Secretary of State, the scapegoating of the profession by Ministers in this House, increased paperwork and form-filling, and less time for patients. All of that has led to the lowest morale that anyone can remember.
    The Minister has just told the House that he accepts that there are too few GPs. Will he therefore say why his team of Ministers told the pay review body this year that the Department's findings showed no support for suggestions of a retention problem? They said that
    the findings were very encouraging, pointing to the continuing improvement in recruitment indicators".
    Which version of those two truths would the Minister like us to believe?
    Mr. Denham: The number of people leaving general practice is at its lowest level for five years. That is a fact. We are addressing the real problems that we inherited from the previous Government, who failed to train enough GPs and nurses or to invest enough in primary care. We have shown our commitment to putting primary care at the front line of the new NHS by saying that we will devolve £25 billion of NHS resources to primary care, to be controlled by primary care groups and primary care trusts. Those resources will give GPs and other practice staff a say in and an influence over the shape of the NHS that they have not had previously.
    Practice facilities will improve as we continue to invest in GPs and link them to NHS Direct. In addition, the 3,000 premises that will be modernised under NHS LIFT will mean that GPs will have better premises from which to work. The neglect of the NHS that was the hallmark of the previous Government is being reversed—in primary care as well as in hospitals.

    Hospital Waiting Times (South-West)
    Mr. David Heath: If he will make a statement on hospital waiting times in the south-west. [151952]
    The Minister for Public Health (Yvette Cooper): At the end of January 2001, the number of south-west residents waiting for in-patient treatment in the region was 98,579—a drop of 10,422, or 9.6 per cent., on the position that we inherited in June 1997. As waiting lists have come down, the number of long waits is also falling.
    Mr. Heath: I asked about waiting times. Does the Minister accept that the money given to acute hospital trusts under the Budget will often be soaked up by the financial deficits that the trusts have accumulated over recent years? Constituents of mine who need routine operations, such as hip operations, do not want to pay for private treatment, which is what the Conservative party advocates. However, neither do they want to wait for 18 months for the operation, which is the current waiting time at the Royal United hospital in Bath. When are things going to get better?
    Yvette Cooper: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the NHS in the south-west is treating more patients than ever, and is carrying out more hip operations than ever. I think that the trust in his area, along with the trust in my area and those right across the country, will strongly welcome the extra money that they have been allocated in the Budget, on top of the boost to their resources that they have had from this Government, who are doubling the real increase that they have had over the past 20 years.
    The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to bring down waiting lists. That is why we have set a target in the NHS plan to bring down waiting times from 18 months to six months by 2005. That requires extra investment, which this Government are putting in and which, frankly, the Opposition could not match.
    Ms Julia Drown: Will my hon. Friend congratulate staff at Swindon's Princess Margaret hospital who have worked extremely hard to reduce waiting times in ophthalmology and audiology? The dedication of staff teams and the Government's investment in resources have led to massive reductions in audiology and cataract waiting times. Will my hon. Friend assure my constituents that this investment will continue and that we will see further reductions in waiting times, increases in the quality of services and less pressure on our very hard-working NHS staff?
    Yvette Cooper: I assure my hon. Friend that the increase in investment in the NHS of more than 6 per cent. in real terms each year will continue for the next few years. I congratulate staff across the NHS who are working to bring down waiting times, often through new innovative programmes, including the cancer collaboratives. It is not simply about extra resources—it is about modernisation as well.
    Mr. John Bercow: Does the Minister understand the deep-seated resentment of the droves of people in the south-west who languish indefinitely on the waiting list to get on the waiting list? Does she recognise that it is unacceptable that in many cases cheap, simple and non-urgent operations are leapfrogging expensive, complicated but urgent operations simply to satisfy the Government's ludicrous waiting list initiative? In answering that question, will she bear it in mind that her response is of the keenest possible interest throughout
    810
    the south-west, not least to the excellent prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate for the Somerton and Frome constituency, Mr. Jonathan Marland, who will shortly be replacing the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) as that constituency's representative in this House?
    Yvette Cooper: I am reluctant to intrude on this private argument. The extra investment in the NHS is about bringing down waiting times across the board. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should consider the fact that his party's policy to cut £340 million from resources for tackling waiting lists would push up waiting times. Patients would have to wait longer, apart, of course, from people needing hip, hernia and cataract operations—they would not have to wait at all, because Conservative party policy would deny them any treatment on the NHS.

    Community Hospital (Gravesend)
    Mr. Chris Pond: If he will make a statement on the proposed timetable for establishing the new community hospital in Gravesend. [151953]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): The public consultation on the proposal to develop integrated health and social care facilities on the Gravesend and North Kent hospital site is due to begin this month.
    Mr. Pond: I thank my hon. Friend not only for that reply but for the considerable support that she has given to our efforts to rebuild the health service in Dartford and Gravesham and for the extra resources to open the new ward at the Gravesend and North Kent hospital and to keep it open. In addition, there are plans for a community hospital of more than 100 beds with the full range of out-patient services.
    Does my hon. Friend understand that after years of neglect of the health service in our area under the previous Government, my constituents are impatient to have the new community hospital in Gravesend? Will she make it clear to everybody involved in the project—and I pay tribute to the primary care trust for its work—that it is essential to stick to the time scale proposed for the community hospital? Will she also make it clear to all concerned that this is a hospital? If it has beds like a hospital, if it has nurses like a hospital and if it has out-patient services like a hospital, it is a hospital, and that is what we should call it.
    Ms Stuart: Under the private finance initiative, my hon. Friend's constituents have benefited from a £94 million new hospital. In due course—I share his impatience, and certainly want it to happen on time—they will benefit not only from a new community hospital with about 100 beds and 200 day care places per week, but from extended new community facilities. The hospital is in addition to the new facilities—a new, innovative project with social services. People will benefit from extra investment and see in reality what modernisation means—bringing health and social care together under one roof.

    Health Care (Older People)
    Mr. Tom Clarke: What measures he has taken to promote a strategy of health care for older people that is based on keeping them in the community. [151955]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): The Government are committed to promoting older people's independence and ensuring that they are helped to remain in their own homes for as long as possible. The NHS plan announced a range of measures to promote independence and improved quality of care for older people, including additional intermediate care beds and places, extra rapid response teams, additional home care and other support services, improved community equipment services, and carers respite services. In 1999–2000 an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 more older people were being helped to live at home than in 1998–99.
    Mr. Clarke: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that for many disabled elderly people the provision of aids and equipment can make the difference between enjoying living in their own homes and being forced into residential care? Does he agree that tackling that approach and ensuring that there is proper funding lie at the heart of modern care in the community?
    Mr. Hutton: I certainly agree with my right hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to his work in the House and outside to support people with disabilities. He is right about the importance of community equipment services. That is why in the NHS plan we announced a further £100 million of NHS expenditure in the next three years to support new types of equipment and ensure that they reach older people more quickly. That is the key to improving the independence of older people. By the same token, it is a matter of real regret that the Conservative party has not yet been able to match our commitment to making those investments in community equipment services. The Conservatives have refused to match our spending on social services, which lies at the heart of the new investments that we are making. Until they do so, their promises to older people will be treated with utter and total contempt.
    Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: Is my hon. Friend aware that the report that, thankfully, he commissioned in Rochdale on the care of older people looks as if it will show that there has not been enough investment in intermediate and intensive home care for the elderly? Will he do everything he can to ensure that the investment is there to help our council to prioritise that much-needed home care, rather than there being an over-average reliance on putting people into residential homes?
    Mr. Hutton: I agree with my hon. Friend. Most Members, and most of our constituents, would certainly prefer to be looked after at home whenever possible—it is certainly where I would want to be, and I am sure that every right hon. and hon. Member would want that option too. For far too many older people that option has not been available because the necessary health and social care services have not been available. We are putting that right. Nearly £900 million in new investment is going into health and local authorities in the next three years. I repeat
    812
    that the Conservative party will not match that expenditure, and that would compromise the health and well-being of millions of older people—I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to take advantage of that fact in the next few weeks.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: Whatever the Minister's plans for home care for elderly people, may I urge him not to allow the Nunnery Fields geriatric and stroke hospital to be closed until alternative provision is genuinely available? It is now only a few weeks since 97-year-old Connie Jones died after a two-day wait in a corridor for a proper medical bed. Yet again, over the weekend all three of our accident and emergency units were completely overloaded, leaving many elderly people waiting; one unit was closed to new entrants. Will the Minister ensure that we have enough bed provision for elderly people before that hospital closes?
    Mr. Hutton: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not familiar with the facility that he describes—but I will certainly write to him about the issue that he has raised. I am sure that he will be the first to acknowledge that the Government are making significant additional resources available both for the NHS in Kent, and for Kent county council to improve the range of services for older people. I know that it is the common practice of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to bemoan rates of expenditure, but until he can persuade his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to match the expenditure to which we are committed, his words will sound rather hollow.
    Mr. Nick Harvey: I welcome the objective of treating more people in their own homes. However, is the Minister not alarmed that social services budgets throughout the country are expected to finish the financial year more than £200 million overspent? Although he has announced rises in the standard spending assessment for next year, social services directors expect next year to be even tougher. What hope is there that the services the Government talk about can be provided for people in their own homes, if social services departments struggle to meet even their existing commitments out of their existing resources?
    Mr. Hutton: I am aware of the concerns to which the hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention—as are most right hon. and hon. Members. However, during the past three years we have provided 12 per cent. real-terms growth in social services spending. More real-terms growth is coming. It is worth comparing like with like: during the previous Parliament, real-terms growth in social services spending was 0.1 per cent. During this Parliament and over the comprehensive spending review period, it will be 3.4 per cent. in real terms.
    The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are always saying that we must have more—I am sure that is what he is saying today—but when we look at the small print of the Liberal Democrats' policies on public finances, we realise that that is a complete load of old cobblers. The money does not add up; there is the same one penny on income tax—they recycle it time after time after time.

    813
    The hon. Gentleman's policies on public finance are kindergarten economics; they stand up to no scrutiny whatever.
    Mr. David Taylor: Most Labour Members support the sentiments in the main question. However, when I addressed the Caretalk conference for care home proprietors and managers at Leicestershire county cricket club last Friday, I heard that far too many elderly people, when they are eventually admitted to care, are poorly nourished, lonely, depressed, frail and more ill than they might otherwise have been, because of the failure of home care services. Is the Minister confident that we can improve those services so that it really is worth while to encourage elderly people to stay at home?
    Mr. Hutton: If more older people are to be looked after properly at home, there is no doubt at all that we shall have to provide not only more but better quality services to support them in that environment. Last year, through much hard work and sensible use of resources, local authorities were able to provide a significant number of additional care packages to support more older people so that they could remain independent at home for longer. We intend to build on and develop that, but it is important—and fundamental to our plans—that if we are to encourage more older people to stay at home, which is the right thing to do, we provide better and more easily accessible services that are better supported and resourced. That is precisely what we are trying to do.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: The Minister knows, however, that from time to time older people have to go into respite care. Is he aware that in my constituency, South Staffordshire health authority now plans to close Hammerwich hospital and to halve the number of beds in the Victoria hospital in Lichfield? Is he further aware that Staffordshire MPs held a meeting with the health authority, and were told that the Government had uplifted prescribing costs by 9 per cent? That is good, except for the fact that the full cost of prescriptions is likely to be 12 per cent.—bad—and that, as a result of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, the Government have made an extra commitment of £500,000 for South Staffordshire health authority—good—except that the result of the cost will be an extra £2 million—bad. We currently suffer a £4.7 million rolling deficit. Come on, let us have adequate funding.
    Mr. Hutton: I am probably not the only hon. Member in the House who did not follow the hon. Gentleman's question. Perhaps there is a chance that when I read it in Hansard it might make better sense. The hon. Gentleman ended his question—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) has asked a question. The Minister must be allowed to reply.
    Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. The only point that I understood in the question put by the hon. Gentleman was the request that the Government should spend more on the national health service. No one in the House could regard that as a serious question or a serious proposition. The official Opposition have not even
    814
    committed themselves to matching the expenditure that we have provided for. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, we have."] No they have not. Of course Opposition Members want to claim that, but it is complete and utter nonsense.
    One of the points that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends refuse to deal with is their plan to spend £500 million more on subsidising private health insurance. Where is that going to come from? The hon. Gentleman should have a conversation about that with the hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench. His party will not match our expenditure on health and social services, so his question is complete nonsense.

    Coronary Heart Disease
    Ms Sally Keeble: What progress is being made in improving services which will cut the incidence of coronary heart disease. [151956]
    The Minister for Public Health (Yvette Cooper): Two of the biggest causes of heart disease are smoking and lack of access to fruit and vegetables. That is why the action to cut the incidence of heart disease includes comprehensive support for smokers who want to give up, and rolling out free fruit in infants schools.
    Ms Keeble: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Is she aware that this Friday, a new chest pain clinic is opening at Northampton general hospital, and does she agree that such measures will not only help to cure heart disease but will help people to monitor their own condition and get it under control?
    Yvette Cooper: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I certainly welcome the arrival of the new rapid-access chest pain clinic in Northampton. In the national service framework we have set out plans for rapid-access chest pain clinics throughout the country. Those are being opened as we speak, and are starting to provide services throughout the country, because it is important that when people are suspected of suffering from heart disease they can be seen very swiftly and properly diagnosed.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: Is the Minister not concerned about the lack of fitness among our young people, and does she not consider that that is due to a lack of sporting facilities and sports education in our schools? We may accept that that is largely due to the selling of school playing fields and the requirements of the national curriculum, but what talks is the Minister having with her counterparts in the Department for Education and Employment to ensure that sport is made compulsory in our schools?
    Yvette Cooper: We have had considerable discussions with the DFEE and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport about promoting sport in schools. The hon. Lady will be aware that considerable work has been done to promote sport in schools, and to create school sports co-ordinators to increase access to exercise among young people. However, this issue is not just about sports; it is about exercise and access to exercise across the board.

    815
    The creation of safe routes to school for many of our young people is another important way of increasing their access to exercise.
    Mr. Dennis Turner: I am not sure whether Ministers, particularly my right hon. Friend himself, are aware of the deep affection in which the Secretary of State is held by my constituents, following his recent announcement of a state-of-the-art £44 million coronary care unit for Wolverhampton and the black country. My right hon. Friend is aware, as all our Ministers are, that we have the highest incidence of heart disease in the whole west midlands region, but the lowest access to such important life-saving facilities. Thank you very much, Ministers.
    Yvette Cooper: I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the new state-of-the-art cardiac surgery centre in Wolverhampton, and pay tribute to his very persistent lobbying on behalf of his constituents for the cardiac centre these past many months. He is right that it is important to increase access to heart operations and to increase the number of heart operations taking place in this country. He is also right that it is important to target those services exactly where we need them, in order to tackle the health inequalities as well, because the blunt fact is that a person on a low income is three times more likely to suffer from heart disease than a person on a high income. That health inequality is morally wrong.

    Consultants Contracts
    Mr. David Amess: What representations he has received on the negotiations for new consultants contracts. [151957]
    Dr. Julian Lewis: If he will make a statement on the recruitment and retention of consultants. [151961]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): The Government's proposals for a new consultants contract were published last month. We are now in negotiation with the British Medical Association on our proposals and its own. In the meantime, the number of consultants in the NHS has increased by almost 3,000 since 1997. We are committed to further significant increases as part of the NHS plan. By 2004, there will be 7,500 more consultants working in the NHS.
    Mr. Amess: I take all that with a pinch of salt. Surely the Secretary of State realises that, even by the standards of this deeply sinister, incompetent—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rotten Government"]—rotten Government, his policy on consultants contracts is wrong. Will he now undertake to look carefully at the evidence given to the Select Committee on Health, which showed that morale in our health service will plummet as a result of that policy? Will he undertake to stop his wicked attack on our hard-working consultants and realise that although we need more hospital consultants, we certainly do not need a Labour Secretary of State for Health?
    Mr. Milburn: I know that the hon. Gentleman is parliamentary adviser to the Caravan Club—which probably explains why he is undertaking his political tour
    816
    of Essex constituencies at the moment—but not everyone has the luxury of having two jobs at once. It is right that we correct this historic anomaly, and our proposals are designed to do something very simple indeed. The consultants contract has remained unreformed since 1948; it is about time it was changed. I want to put the NHS in a better position to compete for consultants valuable time, expertise and skills, for the benefit of NHS patients.
    Dr. Lewis: Does the Secretary of State's policy not show that he thinks he knows a lot better than the founding fathers of the NHS, who recognised the problems that would be caused if consultants were forced into the NHS and not allowed to engage in private practice? What makes him think that he has a better solution to the problem, which is fundamentally the same now as it was when Aneurin Bevan and other Labour Ministers, who knew what they were doing, decided that the course that he proposes to adopt was totally wrong, counter-productive and would result in consultants being lost from the NHS?
    Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman is the oddest looking Bevanite that I have ever seen in my life; poor old Nye would be turning in his grave at the prospect of the hon. Gentleman supporting him. The contract has remained unreformed since 1948. It has remained as it was then for the past 53 years, and it has to change. The whole assumption behind the consultant contract has been that the best way for NHS consultants to get on is by opting out of NHS work. We must turn that on its head. There is a fair deal on offer for NHS consultants. We will pay them more for doing more NHS work, in exchange for which we expect them to do less private practice. We have proposed the deal, and we shall negotiate it.
    Mr. David Hinchliffe: The Health Committee's inquiry into consultants contracts was mentioned a moment or two ago. Does my right hon. Friend remember that during that inquiry, we received evidence that, in certain parts of the country, NHS waiting lists were being artificially lengthened to stimulate a demand for private consultations and private treatment? In the negotiations with the consultants, has that matter been considered?
    Mr. Milburn: I understand that there are concerns about precisely those issues. Many patients find being confronted with such potential conflicts of interest extremely uncomfortable, but that is not the primary purpose of what we seek to do. Given that we have a limited number of NHS consultants—we shall have more in future—our primary purpose is to ensure that we get the maximum amount of NHS time from them. That seems reasonable; it is not a something-for-nothing deal.
    We are seeking to pay NHS consultants more for doing more NHS work. They will receive an average of £10,000 a year extra when they start out as NHS consultants. They will have extra access to discretionary points and extra access to £20,000 worth of extra rewards in exchange for doing less private practice. That is the deal that we have proposed. It makes a fundamental break from what has

    817
    gone before, but I believe that in the end, it will be welcomed not only by NHS consultants, but, most importantly, by NHS patients.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: I wish my right hon. Friend well in his endeavours. Do we not all know that, contrary to what Tory Members have said, Nye Bevan wanted to do exactly what my right hon. Friend is attempting to do today? The money was not there then, but we have now got an economy that enables us to achieve what we could not do in the 1940s. My right hon. Friend should not worry when the Tories talk about doctors and consultants with more than one job, because nearly every Tory MP moonlights as well.
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend, as always, makes a very good point. I will not take much notice of what the Conservatives say, but of course we shall listen to what the consultants say. There will be a negotiation, and we have set out our position very clearly indeed. We shall negotiate on it, and I fully expect us to make progress.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: Although I accept that it is normally desirable to retain experienced and dedicated consultants in the NHS, will the Secretary of State set up an inquiry into why Mr. Lennox Kane, a consultant gynaecologist at Hemel Hempstead who had been diagnosed with Parkinson's disease, was allowed to continue operating? Will the inquiry investigate the complaints of 27 of his women patients about the treatment that they received? Will the right hon. Gentleman use his good offices to ensure that the chief executive and chairman of the health authority and the trust agree to meet the members of the action group that was set up to represent those patients before such an inquiry, not after, which is all that they have agreed to at present?
    Mr. Milburn: The circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman describes are extremely disturbing. As I understand it, the trust is already reviewing the way in which the complaints were or were not acted upon. I promise him that I shall look into precisely the matters that he has raised with me.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: On 11 June last year, the Secretary of State told BBC television:
    "In most walks of life employees have got a choice haven't they about whether they work part-time or whether they work full-time … We are not going to deny that to consultants. Surely, why should we? It would be a pretty odd state of affairs if we said to highly trained consultants, some of the most expert people, professionals that we have in the Health Service, you are going to be denied a set of rights that everybody in the NHS has."
    Can the Secretary of State explain what change has brought about the pretty extraordinary state of affairs that we now find, or was that statement, like the concordats with the private sector, just part of the mood music? Is not the authentic Secretary of State the authoritarian that we see before us at the Dispatch Box now?
    Mr. Milburn: Welcome to Health questions. The hon. Gentleman should read the Government's proposals.
    Mr. Graham Brady: Answer the question.
    Mr. Milburn: If the hon. Gentleman will stop hollering, I will try to answer the question. If he calms down and keeps taking the pills, he will be fine.
    If the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) reads the Government's proposals, he will see that there is perfect consistency between what was said then and what is being said now. We have made it perfectly clear that, in exchange for extra rewards, we will expect newly qualified consultants not to work in private practice for up to seven years. Following that seven-year ban, it will be perfectly permissible for consultants to undertake a limited amount of private practice. That seems to me to be the right thing to do. It is right for consultants, because it gets them extra rewards, and it gets NHS patients the extra skills, the extra commitment and the extra expertise that they need.

    Pace of Change Policy
    Dr. Brian Iddon: If he will make a statement on the pace of change policy. [151958]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): Each year, the Government decide how extra resources should be deployed between across-the-board increases to maintain continuity and stability in the service and to make progress nationally in priority areas, and differential distribution to bring under-target health authorities nearer to equity.
    Dr. Iddon: Whichever indicators are used, they show that people in my constituency are desperately in need of extra resources to improve their health. Figures in my possession show not only that in the financial year 1993–94, the Bolton part of Wigan and Bolton health authority was 6 per cent. off its target, but that the situation has not improved in the current year, and we are still 6.5 per cent.—£13 million—under target.
    I congratulate the Government on allocating, this year and next year, the most extra resources to the health authority that it has had since the NHS was created—but will my right hon. Friend ensure that the money is targeted at people such as my constituents, who are in the greatest need?
    Mr. Denham: Four years ago, Wigan and Bolton health authority was almost 5 per cent. below target; now it is less than 3 per cent. below target. The important point is that it has received a cash increase of 9.1 per cent. for next year. My hon. Friend will know that the health authority's ability to address poverty and inequality is far greater with such an increase in resources than it would be if the Conservative party was in power, implementing its pledge to cut £16 billion from public spending—which would of course include cuts in health service spending.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Francis Maude: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The ministerial code of conduct published by the Prime Minister states:
"It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister".
In recent days, an account has been published of events surrounding the publication of the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Sierra Leone and, in particular, reporting certain actions of the Foreign Secretary and his press secretary, Mr. John Williams.
It has been alleged that those actions, whose factual accuracy has not, I understand, been challenged, are simply inconsistent with the account given to the House and its Committees on no fewer than three separate occasions. In particular, the apparent telephoning of a reporter by Mr. Williams at 6.45 am on the day of publication seems inconsistent with the Foreign Secretary's assertion:
"There was no briefing—no leak to the press in advance of publication by the Foreign Office or any Minister in the Foreign Office."—[Official Report, 24 February 1999; Vol. 326, c. 416.]
Also inconsistent is the allegation that the Foreign Secretary himself also phoned the same reporter some hours before publication.
Next week, the Foreign Secretary has to represent Britain at the Stockholm summit. His ability to do so has been seriously affected by the cloud now hanging over him. It is urgently necessary in the national interest that the matter be resolved at the earliest possible opportunity. Has the Foreign Secretary asked to make a statement to the House which would clear up this disturbing matter for good?
Mr. Speaker: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Foreign Secretary has not asked me whether he can make a statement.
Helen Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter raised in paragraph 50 of the fourth report of the Public Administration Committee, which states that
"the Official Opposition and its auditors were unable to give a categorical assurance that its Short Money funding was used exclusively for parliamentary business."
It states also that the Opposition afterwards approached the Fees Office to arrive at a new description of parliamentary business, without consideration by the House. Is it in order for any party to act in that way, without recourse to the House? Will you investigate the matter and ensure that any rule changes are introduced by the House and no one else?
Mr. Speaker: I feel that it would have been helpful if I had received notice of that point of order. I will look into the matter and get back to the hon. Lady.
Mr. Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to raise a matter relating to motion 13 on the Order Paper. On 7 March, European
820
Standing Committee C spent some two hours debating issues of interest to millions of people about the pricing and servicing of new cars in the context of the European Commission review of the exemption enjoyed by motor vehicle manufacturers from the general ban on anti-competitive agreements. I moved an amendment tabled by the Chairman of the Trade and Industry Committee, the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and others of that Committee's members. At column 26 of Hansard, the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs said:
"I am happy to accept the amendment because it reflects the Government's intentions "
He also said:
"It sharpens the motion and is a good indicator of our thinking".—[Official Report, European Standing Committee C, 7 March 2001; c. 26.]
The amendment was agreed, and the amended motion was carried unanimously and reported to the House by the Chairman of the Standing Committee. Today, without warning, the Government have tabled motion 13, which is the unamended version. What is the purpose of a Standing Committee if amendments that are agreed with Government support are, a few days later, deemed not to have been accepted? Will you, Mr. Speaker, accept a manuscript amendment phrased in the same terms as the amendment that was accepted in Committee so that the motion can be amended if the Government press it?
I remind the House and you, Mr. Speaker, that in 1991, the Procedure Committee said that tabling a motion which did not reflect the Standing Committee's decision made a mockery of the scrutiny process. In 1997 it further said that the outcome of Committee proceedings should not be swept under the carpet if the system is to retain credibility. The Government are riding roughshod over the procedures of the House and the scrutiny process.
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. If he tables such an amendment, I shall give it careful consideration. In addition, I am sure that Ministers heard what he said.
Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My concern is straightforward. You will be aware that we were due to finish the Criminal Justice and Police Bill in Committee last Thursday. You will also know that we debated the Government motion on that until the early hours of this morning and that, at about 2 am, we agreed to go ahead without finishing the Committee stage. The Bill is due back on the Floor of the House tomorrow. In the light of the fact that some hon. Members do not have the normal opportunity for tabling new clauses or amendments, would you be willing to select such proposals for debate if they were tabled today for consideration tomorrow? In such circumstances there is usually at least an intervening weekend, giving hon. Members five days' notice, but last night's unprecedented decision means that notice has been shortened to less than a day and a half.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks whether I would select new clauses and amendments for debate.

821
I can only do that when I see what is on the amendment paper. When I see what is tabled, I shall give the matter due consideration.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware of the devastation that is being caused in the west country by the foot and mouth crisis. It is affecting not only agriculture but other industries, especially tourism, which is suffering from massive cancellations of places and hotels. With that in mind, have you received a request from the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to make a statement to the House on today's announcement by the Prime Minister that a taskforce will be set up under the chairmanship of the Minister for the Environment, to consider—as we understand it from press reports—compensation arrangements that flow from the foot and mouth crisis? I should like to think that you have received such a request, which you would, no doubt, treat favourably. Once again, an interesting press statement has been released, but its terms of reference need to be examined in the House. That issue is of vital concern to anyone who comes from an area where foot and mouth is rampant.
Mr. Speaker: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I have not received such a request, but I am sure that Ministers will take on board his deep concerns.
Mr. John Redwood: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, a Committee of this House reported on the conduct of the Minister for Europe, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz). One of the many disturbing features of the report was a statement that several important allegations could not be properly investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards because the Minister and some of his close associates in his constituency organisation were not prepared to co-operate with the inquiry.
Is there a way that the commissioner can be asked to reopen the inquiry and that the Minister and his friends and associates can be required to comply with the wishes of the House? I thought that the Government wanted to bust sleaze, but now we have a Minister who does not. Many of us think that the hon. Gentleman should resign while the matter is investigated. Can you advise us on how to pursue that?
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Committee; it is up to it to look at it.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At Health questions, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), announced that the Secretary of State would make a statement on GP recruitment and retention payments, which are a new Government initiative. However, that was announced on the lunchtime news today, and was also in The Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Independent. Is that not an abuse of the House by a Government who make a habit of abusing the House?
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Minister, not the Chair.
Mr. Derek Twigg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr.
822
O'Brien) commented on concern about the transportation of cattle slaughtered because of foot and mouth; the carcases were going through Cheshire to a rendering plant in Widnes in my constituency. That has caused great concern in my constituency, and I have asked several questions and made representations to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I received a phone call late this morning from a local radio station saying that some farmers in Cheshire were threatening to block roads into my constituency, to stop the carcases getting to the plant.
As I said, there is general concern about that. I am worried that, if transportation were stopped, that might cause more of a problem. Would you look favourably on any request for a statement on transportation, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: I understand that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is coming to the House. If the hon. Gentleman catches my eye, he may be able to put the matter to him.
Miss Anne McIntosh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Pursuant to your ruling on the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), would it be appropriate to remove motion 13 from today's Order Paper until the full text has been agreed by European Standing Committee C—on which I too serve—so that it can be considered by the whole House?
Mr. Speaker: I have been told informally that there was a mistake and that the motion may not be moved. That may be helpful to the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope).
Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A moment or two ago, you indicated that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was coming to make a statement. Could you clarify that, please?
Mr. Speaker: Not today, but this week. I understand that the Minister has indicated that he will come this week. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tomorrow?"] It may be tomorrow; it is certainly not today.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg), Mr. Speaker. The transportation of infected carcases through Cheshire is causing grave concern. I raised that in a point of order yesterday and, quite rightly, the hon. Member for Halton has referred to farmers' anxieties. No one in the House would condone actions that did not conform with the law but, apart from the dangers of vented trucks carrying carcases passing through an area, neither the police nor the trading standards authorities were informed of the transportation before it took place.
I urge you to use your best offices, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Minister to attend the House as soon as possible so that those matters can receive proper attention and so that assurance can be given to farmers, who are desperately worried.
Mr. Speaker: I understand that it must be a worrying time for hon. Members who have farming communities,

823
but I have to say that many of the questions being asked by hon. Members on points of order are really matters for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I have said that I understand that that the right hon. Gentleman is coming to the House this week.
Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to the report in that journal of truth and wisdom, The Sunday Telegraph, to the effect that the application for a passport by Mr. Duncan Fletcher, the excellent Zimbabwe-born coach of the England cricket team, has been refused, have you received any indication from a Minister at the Home Office that he or she intends to come to the House to explain that curious conduct, particularly to assure hon. Members that the rejection is not explained by the fact that Mr. Fletcher is neither a donor to the Labour party nor a sponsor of the millennium dome?
Mr. Speaker: I have had no such indication.
Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a separate point of order from my earlier one. First, may I apologise to you, and give an explanation for losing my normal calmness and amiable demeanour following the answer to my question at Health Question Time? May I explain that I was quoting from the South Staffordshire health authority report, so I could not understand why the Minister said that the contents of the report were nonsense? Furthermore—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that he is not raising a proper point of order.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you for showing your understanding and sympathy for constituencies that are badly affected by outbreaks of foot and mouth disease. It is encouraging that you have informed the House that we can expect a statement some time later this week. However, we ought to have had a statement today, following the Prime Minister's summit, because our constituents are ringing us and asking us about the television and radio reports of that meeting. It would have been a little more respectful if the Government had arranged a statement today on these important matters. Many people in my constituency just want information about the restrictions on movement that are being discussed.
Mr. Speaker: Once again, I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, but I can do nothing about the matter.

Recycling (Doorstep Collection)
3.46 pm
Mr. Paul Marsden: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the doorstep collection of recyclable waste from all residential properties in England and Wales; to set 20-year targets for increasing levels of recycling in accordance with European Union requirements; and for connected purposes.
The Bill has cross-party support and is also supported by various environmental organisations, including Friends of the Earth. I thank Martyn and Claire from Friends of the Earth for their support in preparing the Bill. Recycling makes sense and is popular among constituents. People taking bottles, cans and newspapers to the supermarket recycling banks are a familiar Sunday sight. I have taken my children there on many occasions.
The environmental benefits of recycling are clear. It reduces the need for landfill sites, and we should remember that to meet EU targets we must reduce waste to landfill sites by 25 per cent. by 2010, and by 65 per cent. by 2020. We must reduce the need for incinerators and their potential for giving off cancer-inducing dioxins. We need to protect the earth's resources, which continue to be plundered, and we must reduce the potential for pollution.
There are clear cost benefits. Recycling aluminium cans alone could save £21 million a year, and in the process cut greenhouse gas emissions by 95 per cent., compared with the use of raw aluminium. Recycling can create jobs. Wastewatch, the organisation that prepared a report on the subject, found that a 30 per cent. recycling target could create 45,000 new jobs.
The benefits are evident. The question is how much recycling is already undertaken. Nationally, 9 per cent. of household waste is recycled. In Shrewsbury, we are above average, with 11 per cent. household waste recycling covering 87 per cent. of that rural borough. My congratulations go to Shrewsbury and Atcham borough council on what it has achieved, but I know that the council wants to achieve far more.
In their document entitled "Waste Strategy 2000", the Government set out a series of targets. Within two years, 17 per cent. of household waste should be recycled. By 2010, the target is 25 per cent., and by 2020, it is 33 per cent. In the next two years, we need to double the amount of household rubbish being recycled, but after that, the increases tail off. That is not good enough. The targets are too low.
Let us consider the position further afield. In Switzerland, 52 per cent. of rubbish is recycled, and in Holland the figure is 48 per cent. Even the United States, which is renowned for its greedy culture, recycles 22 per cent. In the Scandinavian countries, Austria and Germany, the recycling of half of household rubbish was achieved more than five years ago. The potential is massive, but we need a new partnership between businesses, councils, residents and the Government. In "Recycler Review" this month, it is reported that Daventry district council recycles up to 70 per cent., Wealden council 53 per cent. and Sutton council 44 per cent. I believe that 60 per cent. of household rubbish could be recycled, and that that is achievable in the short term. It is not rocket science; it is simply a case of being serious about recycling.

825
My Bill would make the process far more efficient by ensuring doorstep collection for all households. We already collect rubbish door to door, so we need only to build on the best available practices and ask people to separate waste ready for collection. Once we have created a recycling network, we can include batteries and electrical goods in addition to newspapers, tin cans, food cans in general, glass bottles and plastics. The cost, about which everybody invariably asks, is £10 per household, or an estimated £240 million a year. Where would that money come from? Last year alone, the landfill tax brought in £462 million, so all I ask is that the Treasury give half that money directly to recycling schemes so that we can extend them nationwide.
The Government—especially my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment—are to be congratulated on their dedication to pushing a green agenda. On 24 October last year, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in a speech to the Green Alliance:
"I want to see every local authority offering doorstep recycling to take advantage of these new markets."
If we harness my right hon. Friend's new determination to use the latest technology, establish partnerships between the public and private sectors and enlist public support, we can, at the dawn of the 21st century, begin the task of protecting the environment with far more recycling. Once and for all for future generations, we can then begin to save the environment as we keep promising to do.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Paul Marsden, Mr. David Chaytor, Mr. Lembit Öpik, Sir Sydney Chapman, Valerie Davey, Mr. Don Foster, Dr. Doug Naysmith, Mr. Torn Brake, Ms Joan Walley and Mr. Simon Thomas.

Recycling (Doorstep Collection)
  RECYCLING (DOORSTEP COLLECTION)
  Mr. Paul Marsdenaccordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the doorstep collection of recyclable waste from all residential properties in England and Wales; to set 20-year targets for increasing levels of recycling in accordance with European Union requirements; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 6 April, and to be printed [Bill 61].
Orders of the Day
  WAYS AND MEANS
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [7 March].

  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.]
  Question again proposed.

  Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
  3.52 pm
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): Our first duty in government has been to secure economic stability for the country. Stability is the foundation on which prosperity and progress can be built and is the basis for sustained investment in strong public services. In last week's Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer locked in the stability that the Government have created.
  When the Government came to office in 1997, inflation was back in the system, interest rates were rising and the public finances had spiralled out of control. In the previous 18 years, the national debt had doubled and the economy had been allowed to lurch between the deepest recessions and ever-shorter periods of unsustainable growth. Mass unemployment and a growing debt burden had skewed public spending. For every £1 of extra public expenditure, 42p was being spent on servicing the national debt and paying the social security bills of economic failure.
  Today, just 16p in every pound is spent on those debt and social security payments. Interest payments on debt used to exceed payments on schools, but today, schools are the Government's priority. The public finances are back under control. Interest rates, and therefore mortgages, are averaging half their rate under the previous Government. Our inflation rate is among the lowest in Europe, there are 1 million more jobs in the economy, and manufacturing, despite its significant difficulties, is expanding, investing and exporting. After decades of neglect, public investment is also growing, especially in the key services: health, education, transport and the fight against crime.
  None of that has come about by chance. It has happened because of the choices that the Government have made. New fiscal rules, independence for the Bank of England, and new programmes to create jobs and to make work pay have all helped to secure prosperity and progress for our country.
  Each and every step of the way, those choices have been opposed by the Conservative party. In August 1998, the shadow Foreign Secretary predicted a bleak outlook for the economy. Today, Britain has the lowest inflation that it has had for 30 years. The Leader of the Opposition said that independence for the Bank of England was dangerous arrogance. Today, Britain has the lowest long-term interest rates for 35 years.
  The shadow Chancellor warned the House that a minimum wage would lose the country more than a million jobs. Today Britain has a minimum wage; it also has the lowest unemployment for 25 years. Rather than a million jobs being lost, a million have been created. Today's Conservatives, therefore, have been wrong on economic performance, wrong on the Bank of England's independence, wrong on ending poverty pay, and wrong on every prediction and forecast. Not even Michael Fish gets it that wrong. [Interruption.] I am glad that the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) is perking up.
  The Budget has been well received precisely because we avoided the temptation, to which Chancellors have traditionally succumbed, to make judgments for the short
  828
  term that could not be sustained in the longer term. The shadow Chancellor still advocates precisely that approach today. As history proves, that is an economic policy that can end only in boom and bust.
  The right hon. Gentleman will recall that when he was a member of the Government in 1988, the then Chancellor, Lord Lawson, declared that there had been an economic miracle in Britain. The problem was that the then Government assumed that surpluses one year were sustainable every year. The Budget that year cut taxes by £6 billion in 1988 prices. Within just three years, Britain was in the deepest recession that it has ever seen. Where was the right hon. Gentleman at the time? He was in the Treasury, presiding over 15 per cent. interest rates, 10 per cent. inflation rates, 3 million people unemployed, 1 million people in negative equity and a £50 billion public sector borrowing requirement. That truly was a recession made in Downing street. Today, he claims to have enough credibility to run the economy. Frankly, with his record, he does not have the credibility to run a bath, never mind the economy.
  Last week, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer consciously took a balanced approach, involving the repayment of national debt alongside targeted tax cuts for hard-working families; help for pensioners, motorists and savers alongside action to increase employment opportunities; and new measures to boost private sector productivity alongside prudent public sector investment.
  The national health service is a major beneficiary of our approach. The NHS in England will receive an average of £275 million extra a year for the next three years. That is in addition to the record levels of investment that we are already making. Health service spending is now growing by an average of 6.6 per cent. a year in real terms this year and over the next three years. In the previous Parliament, when the right hon. Gentleman was in the Treasury, health service spending grew by just 2.6 per cent. Indeed, in the previous Conservative Government's last year in office—with him in the Cabinet alongside the Leader of the Opposition—they cut health service spending in real terms.
  Today, under a Labour Government, the NHS is the fastest growing health service of any major country in Europe. The whole nation knows that there is a huge amount of catching up to do. Real problems remain in the health service, but real progress is being made too. This year, for the first time in years, the NHS overall will balance its books. Just as we have sorted out the state of the overall public finances, so our prudent management has paid off the NHS debts that we inherited.
  Hospital waiting lists have fallen below the 100,000 target that we promised at the previous general election, and outpatient lists are now falling as well. There are improved waiting times for cancer patients. More heart operations are being carried out than ever before. For the first time, cancer and cardiac services for prevention and for treatment are receiving earmarked funding worth hundreds of millions of pounds.
  This year, for the first time in 40 years, there are more beds in hospitals. The biggest new hospital building programme in health service history is under way. When the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea was Chief Secretary, he cut capital investment in NHS buildings and NHS equipment by almost 6 per cent. in

  829
  real terms. Capital spending in the NHS was lower at the end of the previous Parliament than at the beginning. Over this Parliament, capital investment is growing again by an annual average of almost 10 per cent.
  Mr. Nick St. AubynEven in my own West Surrey health authority area, the number of beds in the system has been cut by 25 per cent. since the Government came to power. If the investment is coming through, it follows some of the most savage cuts ever witnessed made in the shortest time on record.
  Mr. Milburn: With due respect, the hon. Gentleman is on shaky ground. After all, over just 10 years, his party in government cut NHS beds by 40,000. This year, for the first time in 40 years, the number of NHS beds is growing. Indeed, during the next few years, that number will grow still more precisely because of the investment that we are making in the NHS—investment that the Conservative party still refuses to match. The biggest problem that the NHS faces is a shortage not of cash or even of the latest equipment or modern buildings, but of capacity.
  Dr. Peter Brand: Does not the Secretary of State recognise that there is still a shortage of cash as a result of the Government accepting two years of Tory spending plans? A lot of the extra spending goes to meet previous deficits. I hope that I can share his optimism that, a year from now, we shall see some real outputs, but the majority of health authorities are still in debt.
  Mr. Milburn: That is not the case. I can tell the hon. Gentleman, who is normally more assiduous on such issues, that this year, for the first time in seven or eight years, the NHS overall will balance its books. The extra money does not go to paying off debts. It goes on new hospitals, new primary care premises, extra pay for nurses and doctors and more doctors, nurses, therapists and scientists.
  The Liberal Democrats tell us that not enough money is going to the NHS, but at the previous general election they promised a meagre increase of only £700 million a year, which is dwarfed by the amount that we have invested. The Liberals are in danger of becoming the Oliver Twists of modern party politics—they always beg for more and nothing is ever enough. They always want to spend money that they do not have.
  The problem in the NHS is not so much a shortage of cash as a shortage of capacity and of trained qualified staff—doctors, nurses, midwives, therapists and scientists—who have the skills on which NHS patients depend. Those staff are the best asset of the NHS and the NHS simply needs more of them. Here, we have made a start.
  There are 17,000 more nurses working in the NHS than when we came to office. There are 6,700 more doctors, but we need to do much more. The NHS is still short of doctors, nurses and other qualified staff. The NHS plan, which we published last year, sets out our ambition to have by 2004—compared with the l999 position—20,000 more nurses, 7,500 more consultants and at least 2,000 more general practitioners working for the health service.
  Last week, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor outlined a new £135 million fund to help us to achieve those ambitious plans for staff expansion in the NHS.
  830
  Today, I can give the House the details of how we shall deploy those extra resources. I begin with nurses, who are the backbone of our health service. From this Government, they get the recognition and, indeed, the pay rises that they deserve—pay rises paid in full rather than staged. There is extra pay, too, of up to £1,000 in those parts of the country where shortages are greatest and the cost of living highest.
  Mr. Michael Fallon: Will the Secretary of State reconsider the criterion for his cost-of-living supplement, which classifies the whole of west Kent—including high-cost areas in Sevenoaks and Tunbridge Wells—as not eligible, while towns much further away, such as Swindon and Portsmouth, seem to qualify?
  Mr. Milburn: Of course that issue, which the hon. Gentleman has raised with me before, is one that we keep under review. This is the first year in which there will be an increase in the cost-of-living supplement, targeting extra money on areas where we know that, for a variety of reasons—largely to do with property prices—the cost of living is highest. We will continue to keep the matter under review, and I am aware of the representations made by him and, indeed, many of my hon. Friends about the situation in Kent.
  Not every nurse shortage problem has been solved, but progress has been made. Under the present Government—but not under the last—nurse numbers have risen every year: they have risen by more than 6,000 in the last 12 months alone. Nurse training places, which were cut in the last Parliament—incidentally, at precisely the time when the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea had his fingers on the purse strings—have risen under this Government. Training places are up by 36 per cent., and there has been a 56 per cent. increase in United Kingdom applicants for nursing and midwifery courses.
  There is more that we can now do. We will take three steps. The first relates to nurses who are considering returning to work in the NHS. In the last two years, more than 7,000 nurses who left the health service have rejoined it. Many may not have been in nursing for many years, and may need training to get them up to speed with modern practice. Return-to-work courses last an average of 12 weeks. Currently, there is no direct financial support for nurses during that period of retraining; that is a significant disincentive, which I intend to remove. From next month I will introduce a new payment for nurses, midwives and other health professionals who are retraining for a return to work in the NHS. Each payment will be worth at least £1,000. We will consult nursing and other unions on how best to make the new payments work.
  Secondly, there will be more help for nurses with child care responsibilities. About 50 per cent. of nurses have children, and many find it difficult to combine their family and work responsibilities. In the NHS plan, we committed ourselves to spending more than £30 million by 2004 to provide more child care, including 100 on-site nurseries. Today I intend to go further: I will increase spending by half—by £15 million—over the next two years, to provide a further 50 new NHS nurseries. I can confirm that no new NHS hospital development will get the go-ahead unless it contains plans for such a workplace nursery.

  831
  Thirdly, we will increase the incomes of student nurses, midwives and therapists. For much of the 1990s, the student bursary was frozen; in the last three years we have increased it. Each of the 50,000 students currently studying for a nursing diploma now receives £4,805 a year.
  Student nurses are crucial to the future of the health service. One in six currently give up a course before completing it, and that must change. Student nurses deserve more than they are getting now. I can announce that, from September, each student nurse studying for a diploma will receive a £500 bursary increase. That is a 10.4 per cent. rise, and it will extend to all NHS-funded students studying for degrees. It is the biggest increase since the bursary was introduced in 1989.
  Let me say something about family doctors. General practitioners do a brilliant job for the NHS. They are working under real pressure; we have shortages of GPs, and we need more of them. Under the last Government, GP training numbers fell by more than 20 per cent., which has cost the NHS more than 700 family doctors. After big reductions in the number of GP registrars in the mid-1990s, their numbers have risen by more than a quarter.
  In the NHS plan, we said that we wanted to increase GP numbers by at least 2,000 by 2004. We have already taken action to improve both recruitment and retention, but today I can go further still.
  First, we want to retain GPs in the NHS. So today I can announce that GPs who continue working in the NHS beyond 60 will receive a golden thank-you payment on their 65th birthday as an incentive to remain in general practice. On their 60th birthday, £10,000 will be set aside. On their retirement, they will receive the lump sum plus interest.
  Secondly, many family doctors have left general practice but could be persuaded to return—[Interruption.] Even the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) might be persuaded. With the prospect of a general election around the corner, he should think about it. It might be a good career opportunity for him.
  The improvements that we have already made to the GP retainer scheme have enabled more than 1,000 GPs, mainly women, to keep in touch with practice. I intend to do more. From next month, I propose to pay up to £5,000 to GPs on the scheme who return to a permanent post, either full-time or part-time, in the health service.
  Thirdly, I want to deal with the imbalance between the supply of GPs and the health needs of the poorer parts of the country. The Government are determined to tackle the health inequalities that scar our nation. We have set new demanding targets to help us do so. Currently, the areas with the greatest health needs often have the lowest numbers of family doctors. The introduction of the new personal medical services contract is of course helping to deal with that historic problem.
  Today, we can take another step. From next month, we shall make payments of £5,000 to every new GP who chooses to practise in an under-doctored or deprived area for at least three years. Places that will benefit include Barnsley, Brighton, Bristol and Birmingham. The new incentives will be good for family doctors, good for the
  832
  health service and, above all else, good for families in those parts of the country where, for too long, there have been shortages of GPs.
  Our country as a whole is short of family doctors. So today I am making available extra funding for training GPs and for supporting newly qualified GPs in all parts of the country. There is one further step that I want to take to make general practice a more attractive career for young doctors. I have already announced the £5,000 extra for GPs who choose to work in deprived areas. I can also announce that, wherever they work, in any area, north or south, rich or poor, every new family doctor will receive a £5,000 payment for working in general practice in the health service.
  Details will be discussed with GP representatives, but the package that I have been able to announce today will involve new GPs in all parts of the country receiving £5,000, with new GPs in the poorest parts of the country receiving a total of £10,000. Those measures are an important recognition of the work that family doctors do and the need to make their careers more rewarding.
  The measures that I have taken today—for nurses, midwives, therapists and GPs—will help to expand the numbers of those key staff working in the health service. In the next few years, the measures will help to bring more family doctors than ever before, and an average of 5,000 extra nurses per year, into the NHS. Consequently, patients will receive better, faster treatment.
  As a Government, we can make that investment because of the choices that we have made. As the Budget makes clear, our choice is for economic stability, for targeted tax cuts that are affordable and for extra investment in our key public services. As announced in the Budget, spending growth will now average not the 3.4 per cent. annually that was promised in the spending review, but 3.7 per cent. annually in the next three years. That investment is targeted at our priorities: health, education, transport and the fight against crime.
  Mr. John Bercow: Perhaps uncharacteristically, I should like to put an entirely non-partisan question to the Secretary of State. Is he aware that 1.4 million people have been diagnosed with diabetes, but that another estimated 1 million people have not been diagnosed? Is he also aware—I suspect that he is—that serious complications can result from late diagnosis, including heart trouble, kidney failure and even blindness? In the light of those disturbing facts, will he endorse the call by Diabetes UK for commitment to the diabetes pledge, which is a pledge for the Government to commit themselves to a thorough and continuing screening programme?
  Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point. Diabetes is a disease that affects very many people in our country. If it is not diagnosed and treated early, it can have precisely the effects that he described.
  The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that I hope over the next year or so to put together a new blueprint for improvements in diabetes services. The new national standards will apply everywhere, and not just in one part of the country. He will be aware that there is a lottery in care in diabetes services, but that lottery has existed for too long in too many NHS services. However, the choices that we have made and the investment that we are putting in means that we can change that.

  833
  For example, the hon. Gentleman will know that diabetes patients need the support of social services as well as of the NHS. The question for him is whether the shadow Chancellor will promise at the Dispatch Box to match the Government's increases in spending on social services and on the NHS. The hon. Gentleman should understand that I mean not only the social services spending that comes from the Department of Health, but the local government spending through the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The hon. Gentleman's constituents—those who are diabetes patients, and those who are not—will be listening carefully to what the shadow Chancellor has to say on the matter.
  The Government are to increase public spending by 3.7 per cent., but the shadow Chancellor, in contrast, has committed the Conservative party to spending rises of just 2.25 per cent. a year, or even less. How will the Opposition fill the spending gap? That is the challenge that they face. If they grow spending at just 2.25 per cent. a year, they will have to cut the Government's spending plans by more than £16 billion by 2003–04. If they postpone cuts for just one year—as they now say they will—they will have to find more than £10 billion of cuts over the following two years.
  As the Opposition have failed already to find £8 billion of savings to close the spending gap, there is precisely no chance that they will find £10 billion in savings unless they do what they have promised to do in the past—cut into the country's vital public services. Those services—health, education, transport and the fight against crime—are now under threat from the choices made by the Conservative party and the shadow Chancellor. They have chosen unaffordable tax cuts, instead of investment in our key public services.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: Wrong.
  Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman says that that is wrong, but he should read more carefully what the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea has had to say on the matter. Otherwise, he—and, I suspect, his constituents—will be in for a surprise at the next general election.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: Surely it has entered the Secretary of State's brain that the tax cuts proposed by the Conservatives amount to £8 billion, not £16 billion. They have all been carefully costed outside the areas of health and education that we are discussing this afternoon.
  Mr. Milburn: Careful costing is not the preserve of the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea, his Front-Bench team or today's Conservative party. They cannot commit to invest to modernise the NHS, so that is why they are now committed to privatising it. We know that from what the shadow Chancellor and other Conservative Members have said. The shadow Chancellor could not have made it clearer. I think that it was in October last year that he told the "Today" programme that he expected those who were able to do so to make "a little extra contribution".
  Day by day, the Opposition's economic policy becomes more threadbare. They claim savings that they cannot make, they make tax cuts that they cannot afford, and they
  834
  make spending pledges that they cannot meet. It would be laughable were it not so serious. The party that once naturally assumed the mantle of economic competence now lives on the never-never, in a world of fantasy economics, spurious spending pledges and unsustainable tax cuts.
  The Opposition's policies do not make sense. Their sums do not add up: they are unaffordable, unsustainable and unbelievable. The choice before the country could not be clearer—between policies that bring economic stability and policies that would bring a return to boom and bust, between sustained investment in public services and a return to cuts in public services, and between an expanding, reforming NHS and a contracting, privatising NHS.
  Those are the choices for Britain. They are the choices today, and they will be the choices at the next general election.
  4.19 pm
  Mr. Michael Portillo: I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members' Interests.
  I believe that the House will not be overly grateful to the Secretary of State for coming here this afternoon and making a series of announcements that we all read about in this morning's newspapers and heard about from this morning's media. It is typical of the Secretary of State and of the Government to display such discourtesy towards, and contempt for, the House of Commons.
  Every time the Government announce more money for the national health service, they tell us that they will revolutionise the service, but nothing ever improves. Before the last election, the Prime Minister stood in front of posters that said that waiting lists would be shorter, but, in fact, they are longer. Doctors in today's national health service are forced to put Ministers' political priorities ahead of patients' clinical needs, which means that the sickest patients are often those who are made to wait the longest. There are 20,000 nursing vacancies in the national health service. The Government promised to end postcode prescribing, but they have not. They promised to end mixed-sex wards, but they have not. They have imposed dogmatic restrictions on new consultants, which means that many doctors could be leaving the national health service.
  Nothing that the Secretary of State said today was new because we had already read it. Nothing that he said today changes any of the underlying conditions in the national health service.
  Mr. Milburn: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify one aspect of policy? He has made much of matching our spending on the national health service. Will he give a cast-iron guarantee that, were there to be a Conservative Government, he would match our social services spending across the piece and not just in the Department of Health?
  Mr. Portillo: The right hon. Gentleman has obviously forgotten a lot since he left the Treasury. The Government are not in a position to guarantee social services spending because much of it is controlled by local government.
  We have illustrated our £8 billion of savings against the Chancellor's plans; they could be made without affecting social services. We have not had to propose any

  835
  reductions in the Government's plans on social services. The right hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well. That is what made the last part of his speech so appallingly shabby.
  This year's Budget, like all the Chancellor's Budgets, has unravelled very quickly. Now that we have had a chance to study the details, six points emerge. First, it is evident that the Chancellor's speech was, as usual, more spin than substance. That has become a new Budget tradition. Secondly, the Chancellor's claims about economic management completely ignore the golden inheritance that we bequeathed him. In his review of the economy, the right hon. Gentleman completely overlooked the fact that most of our competitors are doing better than we are.
  Thirdly, the Budget continues the process of undermining this country's competitive position. Fourthly, it confirms that the Government plan a programme of unsustainable increases in tax and spending. Fifthly, the Chancellor continues his mission of taking money in taxes from those who can ill afford to pay them and forcing them to go cap in hand to the Government for benefits. Sixthly, the Budget did nothing to reduce Government waste and bureaucracy, so that despite the relentless increases in taxation that the Chancellor has imposed, our public services are actually getting worse. The Government have taxed more and delivered less.
  Under this Chancellor, the Budget speech has become a series of soundbites, intended to mislead rather than inform. For example, the Chancellor claimed that the rate of increase in Government spending was to rise from 3.4 per cent. to 3.7 per cent., something that the Secretary of State for Health dwelt on towards the end of his speech. More plainly, the Chancellor meant that he had underspent this year by £3.4 billion, that he would underspend over three years by £5 billion and that the figure for 2003–04, which is the last year of his plans, is virtually unchanged. That is a very curious way of presenting his figures.
  Similarly, the Chancellor greatly overdid his pre-Budget spinning. The House will remember that there was much talk of tax cuts in advance of the Budget. In the event, the Chancellor brought forth a mouse. The flagship of his tax cuts was his plan to widen the 10p band of income tax. Now that we have analysed it, it turns out to be worth 69p a week.
  When people next go to the petrol station and see that Britain still has the most expensive fuel in Europe and that it still costs £50 to fill the tank of a Mondeo, I do not think that they will feel overly grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the fact that he has allowed them to keep an extra 69p. After 45 stealth tax rises, the right hon. Gentleman has responded with a miserly 69p.
  The Chancellor approached the Budget with a very large surplus, but it is not his surplus; it is the people's surplus. The Government's money is not theirs; it is the people's money. The people have been overtaxed and they had every reason to expect that they would get their money back in this Budget.
  The Chancellor trumpeted his tax cut, which turned out to be worth 69p, but he did not want to talk about the new taxes that he had invented. Even in an election Budget,
  836
  he managed to smuggle in tax rises, for example, £2.90 a week more in national insurance for people earning more than £28,400 a year. There was a new energy tax, which the Confederation of British Industry said will seriously damage United Kingdom competitiveness. Council tax is up on average by £1 a week. A new tax on quarrying will be introduced next year. There are higher fuel scale charges for those who have company cars and extra value added tax is to be imposed on spectacles. None of those merited much of a mention in the Chancellor's Budget speech.
  The Chancellor was not much more frank when he spoke about the economy, which has been growing not, as he would like us to believe, since May 1997, but since the beginning of 1992. By definition, five of those nine years were under the previous Government. Unemployment has been falling not, as the Chancellor would like us to believe, since May 1997, but since the middle of 1993. Indeed, it has been falling more slowly since 1997 than it did between 1993 and 1997.
  It is true—I give the Chancellor this point—that economic growth and falling unemployment enable Governments to spend less on debt interest and on benefits for people who are out of work, but the foundations that brought about those possibilities and changes were laid by the Chancellor's predecessors. In fact, the proud boast of this Government is that, uniquely among Labour Governments, they have not reversed the improving economic trends that they inherited—they have merely slowed them down.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: I grant the achievement of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), but four years have been added to the period from 1993 to 1997. Has the right hon. Gentleman ever known eight years of such stability in the post-war years?
  Mr. Portillo: It was the 18 years drubbing that the Labour party took in opposition that at last convinced it that it had to commit itself to sustainable economic development and the control of inflation. However, I am about to come to the right hon. Gentleman's point, as I think that it is not sufficient for the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the right hon. Gentleman to say that we have had growth for a long period and that that has not happened before.
  We are in a new world and it is not sufficient to say that we are growing. What matters is whether we are growing by comparison with our competitors and the answer to that question is that we are not; we are under-performing the competition. The Chancellor and the right hon. Gentleman need to bring themselves up to date. We may have longer economic cycles, but that is no reason for complacency. This country must benchmark itself against the performance of other countries.
  If they have proved anything, the past four years have proved that the spending plans of the previous Government were economically sound. The Secretary of State for International Development claimed last week that the Government had been prudent for the first two years, thereby betraying the fact that they had ceased to be prudent now. The Chancellor stuck to the Conservative spending plans for two years and, sure enough, he has got his reward for doing so. We do not yet know—we cannot

  837
  know it because it is too early—what will be the economic cost of the rapid acceleration in Government spending that started last year: the return to Labour's tax and spend policies.
  In answer to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the long period of growth that Britain has experienced should not be a reason for complacency. What matters is how well we are doing by comparison with our competitors. During this period of Labour Government, our rate of growth has been half that of the United States and lower than the average rate of the eurozone. Our productivity is growing at half the United States rate; the rate of growth was 50 per cent. higher under the previous Conservative Government. Unemployment has fallen, but 14 OECD countries have had a better record on unemployment during the period that the Labour Government have been in office.
  We have rapidly lost our share of world trade, which went down from 5.1 per cent. to 4.5 per cent. in only three years. Our balance of payments shows an £18 billion deficit and the Chancellor expects to double that during the coming years—I have every confidence that this Chancellor of the Exchequer will do so.
  It is true that during the 1980s and 1990s, Britain developed a reputation for being competitive. That reputation was based on maintaining lower taxation in this country than in Europe and on creating flexible labour markets. British companies succeeded and inward investment flowed. During the past four years, however, the Labour Government have begun to reverse those hard-won gains. The Red Book shows that the burden of taxation has risen by 3 per cent. of national income. Under the Labour Government, since the Chancellor came to office the tax burden has risen by £28 billion. None the less, the Prime Minister takes every opportunity to tell the House that the tax burden is not rising, but falling—something he could accomplish only by holding the graph upside down.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: My right hon. Friend describes the balance of payments problem that this country is encountering and the increased tax burden we face. Is he aware that the OECD has said that since 1997, because of the increased tax burden and regulation imposed by the Labour Government, our competitiveness has fallen from fourth to ninth place in the world league?
  Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is right. Those are new figures. When the Government came to office, we were in fourth place in the competitiveness league. By 1999, we had fallen to eighth place and figures that have just been published show that we have fallen to ninth place. That is hardly surprising, not only because of the relentless increase in taxation and regulation under the Labour Government, but because other Governments are moving in the opposite direction. That is why we are losing competitiveness.
  Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, for 15 successive years, the previous Conservative Government published an assessment of the impact of both direct and indirect taxes on the average family and on families in other income deciles? Is it not a disgrace that the current Chancellor has refused to continue that sensible practice? Was it not, therefore, entirely appropriate that, in March 2000, the Select Committee on
  838
  the Treasury published a report that criticised the Chancellor for his failure in that regard, denouncing him with particular severity at paragraph 35?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Before the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) replies, may I point out to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) that he needs to practise brevity? He has had a great deal of opportunity—I am looking at the length of his interventions.
  Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) was right on both counts. It is indeed a disgrace that the Chancellor suppressed information in that way and he was criticised by the Select Committee. However, I am not sure that it makes much difference whether the information is published. Information on the tax burden is published, but we cannot get the Chancellor or the Prime Minister to admit to the House what it says—that the tax burden is rising. They simply refuse to admit the truth. They are capable of any amount of wriggling in order to avoid addressing the fact that the tax burden has risen under the Labour Government.
  Mr. Bill Rammell: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the Red Book for the last Budget delivered by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) predicted that the tax burden would rise during every year from 1997 to 2002? Why did the Conservatives propose that rise?
  Mr. Portillo: I recall clearly that the tax burden fell by 2 per cent. when I was at the Treasury—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ooh!"] Hon. Members are hopelessly ignorant. I was at the Treasury with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). The tax burden fell by 2 per cent; it was 5 per cent. lower than at present. I just want the House to focus on that fact. The tax burden has risen by 5 percentage points from where it was under the last Conservative Government. That is an extraordinary change in the tax burden.
  Our competitive advantage is being whittled away. PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates that two thirds of the competitive advantage that Britain enjoyed in the mid-1990s has been frittered away. As the Government remorselessly impose taxes on business and impose regulation, other countries are cutting their taxes. The Labour Government are swimming against a global tide, blunting Britain's competitive edge while other countries are busy sharpening theirs. The CBI estimates that the extra burden of tax on business is £5 billion a year, and the Institute of Directors estimates that the extra burden of regulation on business is £5 billion a year, yet the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry just haughtily dismisses all the worries of business.
  In this election Budget, the Government have added a higher minimum wage and have extended paternity leave, without—
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Maternity leave.
  Mr. Portillo: So, the Chancellor of the Exchequer can listen sometimes. That is very revealing. I am so sorry; I thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was

  839
  involved in a much more interesting conversation. I did not think that he would be listening to me, but I am very pleased that he has been.
  The Chancellor should, however, have listened to the end of the sentence. The Government have added a higher minimum wage and have extended maternity leave, without any commitment to make offsetting reductions in the administrative burden elsewhere. The Government should, for example, commit themselves to remove from employers their responsibility to pay the working families tax credit. That is something that should be paid by the Government to parents, who have responsibility for the children.
  The Red Book reveals that the Government's receipts from corporation tax are to rise by £5.7 billion in the coming year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer never indexes the thresholds for corporation tax; he just gets a windfall every year from business. After all, business does not have votes, so what does it matter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Surely those windfall gains should have prompted the Chancellor to do something for the businesses that are in difficulty at the moment; for manufacturing, which Labour Members are meant to represent; for small businesses everywhere; and for farming. Instead, he used this Budget as another opportunity to demonstrate his complete indifference to the suffering of those sorts of business.
  Many Labour Members know that people in the countryside are deeply dismayed that the Budget offered absolutely nothing to them in their hour of need.
  Mr. Christopher Leslie: The right hon. Gentleman is talking about burdens on business. I understand that one of his proposals for savings is to privatise industrial injury compensation benefit and make businesses take out insurance policies against disease or injury that may befall their employees. Is that not a burden?
  Mr. Portillo: When we announced that proposal, we said that we would relieve the burden for business elsewhere, and we have a series of proposals to do so. [Interruption.] Ministers crow and groan because they have never heard a straight answer before. [Interruption.] That is right; things must add up. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would always talk about the national insurance reduction without talking about the climate change levy, for example. I say that if a change is made, an offsetting change must be made elsewhere. I believe that it is absolutely responsible that employers should be obliged to insure their employees against industrial injury, because then they have an even greater incentive to ensure that their employees are safe. If the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) thinks that it is wrong to do that, let him get up and campaign. I am sure that his opponent in Shipley will be happy to take him on on that exact territory.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: May I take my right hon. Friend back to the points that he made on the countryside? He said that many people would have been very disappointed to have heard nothing about
  840
  the countryside in the Budget. Why should they be disappointed? After all, as far as the Government are concerned, the crisis is over.
  Mr. Portillo: Ministers have made a series of very unwise statements that are reminiscent of the Prime Minister's statement during the fuel crisis. The House will recall that he said that it would all be over in 24 hours. That leads us to a broader point. The whole of the Chancellor's strategy is based on never-ending economic growth. Ministers as a group put themselves in a very precarious position when they make such predictions—when they commit themselves to controlling things that are inherently uncontrollable—but the Chancellor is an example writ large of what my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) has just pointed out in relation to agriculture.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: The shadow Chancellor has just clarified the extra costs involved in industrial injuries benefit—incidentally, this year's pay-out is £750 million, which is a burden on business. Will he clarify whether the abolition of the energy levy will be paid for by increasing employers national insurance, the tax on jobs, under his plans?
  Mr. Portillo: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised to reduce people's national insurance in return for the energy levy. The energy levy is an absurd, bureaucratic tax, which will make no difference to our environment. However, it will be extraordinarily damaging to manufacturing, farming, small businesses, newsagents, pubs and all sorts of businesses in this country. Yes, I proudly say that I would reverse it absolutely.
  The Chancellor is raising spending much faster than the economy's underlying; growth rate. He is doing so just when caution would suggest that we should be prudent, given the slow-down in the United States and as other Governments around the world are being prudent. It is no wonder that the European Union and the International Monetary Fund have criticised the Government for their lack of prudence; nor that the Financial Times has said that the Chancellor's self-advertised prudence is now much more a matter of faith than of fact.
  The Chancellor's policy is based on being able to increase the tax burden without limit. He has made a lot of his so-called golden rule that the Government should borrow only to invest, but he offers us no definition of the word "investment". Indeed, he daily abuses the word "investment" and now uses it as though it were absolutely the same as the world "spending", even though we all know that the Government waste much of the money that they spend. We all know how much money was invested in the dome, and we all know what we have to show for it. If the Chancellor's rules have any effect at all—
  Mr. Giles Radice: What are the right hon. Gentleman's rules?
  Mr. Portillo: I am coming to my rules; they have all been set out, and I shall set them out again in this speech.
  If the Chancellor's rules have any effect at all, it is merely to impress on him that if he is to spend a lot, he must tax a lot—a point fully demonstrated by his first four

  841
  years. His rules allow him to spend and tax any proportion of gross domestic product. Irrespective of whether the figure is 40 or 50 per cent., or whatever, it fits his rules so long as taxing and spending increase together.
  The Chancellor is committed to a path of Government spending that will require further tax rises, if he wins the next election. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies said:
  "If spending is to grow by more than GDP growth beyond 2003–04 then further increases in taxes will be required."
  That is undeniable, and because it is undeniable we can expect the Chancellor to deny it with ever-mounting bluster. Perhaps he would like to begin his denials now. No, apparently he would not, but in due course he will, no doubt, deny what the institute says and plain common sense. Increasing public spending relentlessly faster than the growth rate of the economy means that he will have to raise taxes again. Again, they will be stealth taxes, directed at the poorest members of society.
  It is clear that the Chancellor will need to raise taxes further because he can take one of only two positions: either he continues on his current spending path, which means higher taxes; or he admits that Conservative policy on spending is right and he reduces his spending after the three years of his plan. I am absolutely confident that he has put behind him his days of Tory prudence, so I have no doubt that he wants to increase taxes.
  The Chancellor may resemble his Labour predecessors in his addiction to tax and spend, but there are differences between him and his predecessors. Previous Labour Governments prided themselves on taxing the rich; this Government pride themselves on mixing with the rich and taxing the poor.
  The Chancellor has been too cunning to raise income tax rates, so he has adopted every sneaky means of raising revenue, most of which have fallen most heavily on those least able to pay. There have been 45 stealth taxes. He patronisingly believed that his tax increases were too complicated for most people to understand. He does not care that the tax on pension funds will make people much poorer in their retirement than they would otherwise be. All that matters to him is that people should not find out that that is the case before the election.
  The Prime Minister betrayed the Government's real cynicism in answering questions last week. He chose to defend his Government's attack on our pension funds on the ground not that his policies are in any way morally defensible, but that, as it happens, the stock market has risen. That speaks volumes for this Government. They do not think that they have to explain to people why they have the right to take away their hard-earned money; they assume that people should give them a good reason why they should be allowed to keep it. That, in a nutshell, is the difference between the two parties.
  The Chancellor's stealth tax policy was rumbled last September with the fuel protests. He had been too clever by half. No pensioner could overlook—I do not believe that any pensioner will ever forget it—the cynicism with which the Chancellor raised the price of petrol by the rate of inflation, which he calculated at 3.4 per cent., and raised pensions by the rate of inflation, which he calculated at 1.1 per cent. When he was shadow Chancellor, he told a Labour conference that he would do away with the means-testing of retired people, but what he has actually brought about is the most massive increase in dependency. Well over half our pensioners—56 per
  842
  cent. of them—will be required to reveal their intimate details to the state in the hope that they may be granted an income sufficient to pay the Chancellor's 45 stealth taxes. The form that they are asked to fill out runs to 40 pages and it even asks pensioners whether they are expecting a baby.
  There is a better way. We should leave people with more of their own money. This is not just about economics; it is about creating a better society—one in which people are encouraged to save for the future and are rewarded for doing so. People who save have more choices, can face the future with more confidence, and are better able to take responsibility for their families and to recognise their wider obligations to society.
  The Conservatives recognise that the money politicians spend is not their money. We do not believe that we know how to spend it better than the people who earned it. We do not adopt a tone of moral superiority when we take hard-earned money from parents, who would have spent it on their children, and, instead, hurl it into the bureaucracies of the state.
  The Conservative party will campaign on removing savings from income tax. Why should people who have paid income tax on the money that they have earned then be taxed again if they decide, instead of spending their money straight away, that they will put some of it into savings? We want pensioners who have saved to enjoy independence in their retirement, because that was the very reason for which they saved in the first place. We want them to be able to look back on a lifetime of savings and believe that they did the right thing and that they were rewarded for doing so.
  The Chancellor boasts of 7 million pensioners who will pay no tax or pay only at the lowest rate. There are two ways of increasing that figure of 7 million. The Chancellor's way is to tax pensions funds and discourage saving. In that way, the majority of people reaching retirement will have incomes too low to pay income tax, and the Chancellor can gloat as, year by year, the figure of 7 million increases.
  However, there is a different way—our way—which is to encourage saving and to reward those who have saved by a massive increase in the income that they can have before they pay tax. In that way, pensioners will be better off and fewer of them will pay tax. We shall take 1 million of the pensioners who currently pay tax out of income tax altogether and, for many of the remainder, the weekly tax bill will be reduced by £8.50 a week.
  The Chancellor boasts of helping families. Again, there are two ways to do that. The right hon. Gentleman has created hugely complicated systems of dependency, which trap more and more people in the indignity of the means test. The Conservative way is to simplify the system and leave people with more of their own money to spend or save as they wish.
  We shall also remove the tax from the widowed parents allowance and give married couples more choice about whether to work or not to work, enabling a man or woman to transfer his or her allowance to the spouse. Each of those two reforms will be worth about £20 a week off parents' tax bills.
  After the Budget, we should perhaps be grateful for small mercies. I do not mean the crumbs that the Chancellor has handed back, but the collapse of most of the Government's economic arguments. Until recently,

  843
  they claimed that it was impossible simultaneously to cut tax and spend more on services. I think that we will hear rather less of that economic illiteracy from now on. In the late summer, the Prime Minister claimed that petrol tax could be reduced only if hospitals and schools were closed. As he now claims to have cut the price of fuel, we should expect to see the list of closures.
  Over the winter, the Labour Party spent millions on advertisements that referred to the Tories alleged £16 billion of public spending cuts. In his Budget speech, the Chancellor was forced finally to abandon that false claim. In fact, our policy is to raise Government spending in line with what the country can afford, which is by very large amounts.
  The Conservative campaign, "You've paid the tax, so where are the improvements in public services?", has been rather more successful. The Government spend money with extraordinary incompetence. How do they manage to tax so much and end up with 2,500 fewer police officers? How could they take so much money from retired people in extra taxation and in return ask those same elderly people to wait still longer before they can have an operation that will transform their quality of life?
  On education, I received a letter today from a head teacher in Wales, who says:
  "The governors are finding it more and more difficult to support the excellent teaching staff … with the limited and reducing funds at their disposal, whereas the publicly announced Budget"— [Interruption.]
  I know that the Government like to intimidate people and to yell down any public servant who dares to speak up, but I am quoting a head teacher. She says that
  "the publicly announced Budget proclaims that the government is spending more on schools. Not at this school, they aren't!"
  That is what people are saying.
  Throughout the country, even people who voted Labour are frantically calling on the Government to improve services, not to produce meaningless statistics, to double count, to spin and to blame the previous Government. They just want them to do something that means that we can have better schools and hospitals and make our streets safer. The Chancellor's response in his pre-election Budget was to move from double counting to triple counting. He claimed to be adding £1 billion to health, but it turns out to be £290 million in 2003–04. The Secretary of State for Health did not even attempt to repeat the Chancellor's claim, which demonstrates that the deception did not survive even the first 24 hours after the Budget and merely added powerfully to the Chancellor's reputation for being unable to represent any figure accurately and fairly.
  Mr. Fabricant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that health authorities have informed me that the Government have increased funding for the NHS assuming inflation of 2.5 per cent., whereas inflation in the NHS is now running at 5.2 per cent.?
  Mr. Portillo: I am pretty sure that the Government are doing exactly as my hon. Friend says, and calculating their increases using an inflation factor that is flattering to them. My hon. Friend can also count on the fact that they will use the much higher NHS inflation factor when
  844
  they calculate the figures under the previous Government. That will almost certainly be part of their subterfuge and double counting. Fortunately, no one believes anything that the Chancellor says any more.
  In place of spin and double counting we shall introduce truly rigorous economic disciplines. We shall have our own currency, and interest rates will be set in Britain. We shall enhance the independence of the Bank of England and appoint an independent committee of economic advisers. We shall ensure that there are proper national accounts to end the Chancellor's fiddled figures and we shall increase Government spending within the limits of what the nation can afford. We shall set about making Britain competitive, responding to tax cuts abroad with tax cuts at home and lifting the burden of regulation.
  We shall slash taxes on saving and leave pensioners with more of their own money. We shall cut taxes for families, giving help to them when their children are youngest, and giving women more scope to choose how they balance their family and career. The Chancellor has broken his promise not to raise taxes. He has over-taxed the British people and hit hard those who can afford it least. People have seen no improvement in their public services and received almost nothing back in the Budget.
  The Prime Minister once said that a high spend economy is not a high success economy. In that respect at least, time is proving him right. If Labour were returned at the election, we would see higher taxes, more stealth taxes and more crises in our hospitals, schools, transport and the police. Fortunately, there is a better way, and the Conservatives will lead the country along that better way.
  4.54 pm
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: The right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) referred to productivity. I have found the document "Productivity in the 1JK: Progress towards a productive economy" most valuable. Its publication is an interesting aspect of the Budget, which I hope will be repeated. I intend to cover that document in detail.
  Every Budget hay two maxims. One is that a Budget that looks good in the spring appears less favourable in July. The other is that before a general election, bribes must be delivered. Everyone can see that the Budget is consistent with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's aims as they have shown themselves for the past four years. It is a responsible Budget, which will continue to look good in the coming months and perhaps even longer.
  My right hon. Friend has shown himself to be a successful long-term planner—we have not had such a person before in the post-war years. From Hugh Dalton to the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), the consideration has essentially been to keep the show on the road. From the time of his appointment as Chancellor, however, my right hon. Friend began the task of planning for the whole of this Parliament. Right at the beginning of his term of office, he made the momentous decision to give interest rate policy to the Bank of England. That has worked beyond the expectations of many and has underpinned the stability that he sought to bring to public finances.
  I have one comment to make on that aspect of policy. I do not want a wide range of interests to be represented on the Monetary Policy Committee, but it could do with

  845
  having one member who understands manufacturing and who could perhaps reflect a more regional outlook. Apart from that, the change in responsibility for interest rates has been a foundation of my right hon. Friend's success. In the past, the pressures on a Chancellor for decisions on interest rates have been constant—at times weekly, and even daily. As a consequence of removing that pressure, he has been able to devote his energies to economic reform and long-term plans.
  Initiatives include the welfare-to-work programme, greater control of public expenditure, investing for the long term and—of great importance—my right hon. Friend's concern for productivity and the manufacturing industry. I should declare an interest in a small textile company. In the absence of any comments on that industry, I do not believe that it is necessary to inform the House of that, but the Standards and Privileges Committee considers it to be a grey area.
  As I have already said, I especially welcome the document "Productivity in the UK", which was published with the Budget. Although our performance is lower than that in the United States, France and Germany, some factors are more encouraging. First, unemployment has fallen by 1 million under the Government. Although that means that many new employees are entering the work force with less in the way of sills and consequent productivity than those already employed—that is mentioned on page 11—with levels of unemployment much greater in France and Germany, any sharp reduction in their unemployment rates would be likely also to reduce their levels of productivity.
  Secondly, I find it much harder to measure productivity in services than in manufacturing. For example, how do we measure productivity in retailing? Do we consider values sold per member of staff'? Should that take into account the kind of services on offer and the arrangements in place? What about cleaning services? There are other examples. Now that the service industry has grown so large and the number of people in manufacturing has fallen, the computation of general productivity is uncertain at best.
  Thirdly, I believe that productivity is closely related to demand. It is when the pressures to produce are great that improved methods of working are devised. It is one aspect of necessity being the mother of invention. With a pound that is not as competitive as we should like, the demand effect of exports is not as high as I would hope. My right hon. Friend has produced his five economic tests for entry into the euro. I am strongly in favour of entry, but I would add a sixth test: we need to have a competitive exchange rate on entry.
  The relationship between productivity and demand is important. Many years ago, I was the manager of a machine shop for the refrigeration company for which I worked. It had about 100 employees then. There was a problem with a machine doing the boring for compressor heads, which was a limitation on production. Because demand increased so much, all of the company's attention focused on that single machine and, eventually, we managed to raise production levels from eight to 20 compressors a day. That kind of pressure brings about such solutions. Productivity is related to demand, and I hope that demand will come from overseas in due course.
  Finally, on that point, I take issue with box 2.3 on page 8 of "Productivity in the UK", which seems to suggest that gross domestic product per capita is the same as
  846
  productivity. Of course, GDP per capita is greater in London than in the regions. Wherever the more affluent live and work, the more they earn. To say that productivity is greater in the London area than in the regions is too simplistic. In London, people earn more and spend more on goods and services. The entire question of productivity is more complex than the explanation set out in the footnote to box 2.3.
  The table on page 32 is encouraging; it represents a study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development showing that barriers to entrepreneurship are lower in Britain than in any other country. Britain beats the United States, which is in sixth place; Germany, which is in 16th place; and France, which is in 20th place. In terms of administrative burdens on start-ups, we rank third; for regulatory and administrative capacity, we rank first; and on barriers to competition, we rank fifth. The ranking on regulation and administrative burdens is particularly encouraging. Quite rightly, we draw attention to those barriers to entrepreneurship, only to find that we are so much better at removing them than others. That makes one wonder about the bureaucratic labyrinth devised by some countries.
  Mr. Portillo: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Radice: Although the shadow Chancellor says "Hear, hear," he spent most of his speech criticising the Government for putting administrative burdens on industry. The evidence that my right hon. Friend has read out demonstrates quite the reverse; we benefit and are in a good position.
  Mr. Sheldon: There is no doubt about that. However, the position accords with our general understanding. One only has to go to some of those countries and see the bureaucratic nightmare involved in the simplest transaction to realise that, although there is much to be done in this country, we do a lot better than others.
  On investment, at the micro level, I am a great believer in capital allowances for plant and machinery, and, of course, information technology equipment—even up to 100 per cent. I am very pleased indeed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer shares many of my concerns. As Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission, which looks after the operation of the National Audit Office, I had been a little uneasy about the NAO being given the task of verifying the assumptions and conventions underlying the fiscal projections of the Budget. That task was given to the NAO in the Finance Act 1998, so it has a responsibility for what is published in the important document, "Productivity in the UK".
  We now have had experience of such reports, which show that the Treasury's assumptions and forecasts on important matters, which are given to the NAO, are reasonable. At first, there was a little anxiety about involving the NAO in that novel task, as there was concern that it should be a little distant from the Government. However, involving the NAO in that task imposes discipline, not on the present Chancellor—who does not need it—but on those who, from time to time, have strayed outside the areas of proper financial prudence. It would be an interesting exercise to work back and see if previous Chancellors could always claim the same kind of endorsement as that gained by the present holder of the office.

  847
  One great achievement of the Chancellor has been his welfare-to-work programme. With the establishment of the minimum wage, higher levels of employment are reducing the connection between poverty and low paid work. However, poverty and unemployment have still gone hand in hand, so we have the continuing drive to get people into work. The new deal programmes, the child care provisions, and the schemes set out in the "Budget 2001" document on page 71, under the heading "Easing the transition to work", all set out the way in which employment is the key to ending poverty.
  I find all that impressive, but there is one issue that is not fully addressed in the Budget: the high cost of earning a living. Earning a living is an expensive business. It was not always so. In the days when the cotton industry was the mainstay of my constituency, women did not need any encouragement to work. We had one of the highest proportions of working women in the industrialised world.
  Mr. John Hayes: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he find it equally impressive that according to Government figures, the number of registered child minders is falling? He expects people to move from welfare to work, but how does he expect them to find the necessary child care to allow them to do so?
  Mr. Sheldon: In the Budget, the Chancellor has given encouragement to those very schemes.
  In my constituency, the work was always there—just along the road or alleyway—and the cost of earning a living hardly existed. There were grandmothers and aunts to look after the children, transport costs did not arise, as people walked to work, and income tax was for the better-off only. Now we have the expense of travelling to work, the cost of eating away from home and the need to dress more suitably for work. All those large expenditures must be paid for from taxed income and they act as an disincentive.
  Fundamental changes have been necessary for a long time. Ideally, one would wish the costs of transport to be tax deductible, but I know the problems associated with that. The child care provision is a recognition of some of those work-related expenditures. In London, of course, we have the London weighting allowance, but many of the Londoner's expenses are now being faced in other cities around the country, without any comparable allowance. I believe that more should be done to meet the Chancellor's objective of making work pay and reducing the barriers to full employment. These matters need to be considered further.
  I come to a little hobby-horse of mine, concerning hypothecation. As anyone who has worked at the Treasury knows, one must always agree with the Treasury line on hypothecation. To earmark an expenditure is to lose the ability to decide on priorities. That is the argument against it, and it is compelling. Not only that, but the amount of tax collected may not accord with future expenditure plans. For some years, however, I have been pursuing a case for hypothecation—for earmarking some money from taxation for particular purposes. The one case which, to me, satisfies the rare condition that might justify its introduction is expenditure on the health service. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is present.
  848
  It is clear to me that the cost of the NHS will rise ever faster than the rate of inflation or even growth in the economy. That is because the population is ageing. As needs are met, health needs become a, or perhaps the, major area of increasing expenditure. The time is coming when we shall need to think more about private medicine. which I do not favour, or a special NHS tax.
  Anyone who has served in the Treasury has a visceral feeling about hypothecation. The road fund licence still casts its shadow 70 years later. One important weakness of hypothecation is that it does not take account of changing patterns of priorities in expenditure, but, as I said, one certain aspect of the health service is that demand will increase into the indefinite future. People may be more willing to accept an NHS tax if they can see the consequences of that expenditure, whereas other taxes just disappear in the vast generality of public expenditure. The time has surely come to explore sensibly the possibility of introducing such a tax.
  I welcome the decision to ensure free entry to museums—a matter that is dear to my heart. It is necessary to retain the enthusiasm shown in the millennium year, which was wonderful for our museums and galleries, and free entry should help to achieve that.
  People such as me usually make a number of critical comments, but I believe that this Budget could be the best on which I have had the privilege of speaking in the House and I wish my right hon. Friend the Chancellor well.
  5.10 pm
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Conservatives have placed throughout the country a series of posters telling people that they have paid for the taxes, but asking where the doctors, nurses and police officers are. The posters are correct in both respects, and an understanding of why they are correct—the way in which the Government have pursued their economic strategy in this Parliament, and so the fundamental weakness in the Conservative party's decision to place the call for tax cuts at the forefront of its campaign—is the key to understanding the Budget,
  Taxes have been raised to cover a deficit that the Government inherited from the Conservatives: almost pound for pound, that is where the taxes have gone. It was money that the Conservative Government, including the shadow Chancellor, were spending but not receiving in income. As everybody knows, spending in excess of income means going bust sooner or later. That is precisely what happened over and over again when the Conservative party was in office.
  Taxes have risen, but spending has not; indeed, under the current Government, it has been falling as a proportion of national wealth. That is why the Conservative party is in such a dilemma when it tries to offer any coherent explanation of where it will find the money for tax cuts, and why the current Government have been delivering less spending than the previous one.
  The Budget illustrates that process well. As the Conservative shadow Chancellor pointed out, it delivers even lower spending than the Government planned only a year ago in their original spending plans. The Chancellor says that growth is rising from 3.4 per cent. to 3.7 per cent., but unfortunately that is typical sleight of hand. It is possible only because he has failed to spend money that

  849
  he previously announced. Such an approach is typical of the Government, who announce big spending figures that are not delivered, as we can see when we consider them in detail.
  Indeed, our common sense tells us that they are not delivered. If we visit schools, we see that most children suffer from larger class sizes; if we wait for a hospital appointment, we suffer from longer waiting lists even to see a consultant; and when we wonder what has happened to the police, we realise that they are not there because their numbers have fallen. Again and again, the Government say that they are spending more, but although they might have planned to do so, they are not.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Taylor: I shall do so in a moment. By developing my argument a little more, I may help to answer the hon. Lady's question.
  It is not just that the Government have failed to spend the money. Often, their claims on spending bear no relation to reality. Immediately after the Chancellor's statement, briefings were given by Government and Labour party representatives who said that the Budget balances the Government's priorities of cutting tax and investing in health and education. They said that it was so balanced that it meant £2 billion for health and education and £2 billion for tax cuts. When we stripped away the figures, we found that that meant £2 billion over three years on health and education, but more than £13 billion on tax cuts. In other wards, there is no such balance at all. In a mud-wrestling contest with the Conservative party, the Government are spending six times as much on cutting taxes than on health and education. That is why we do not see the police officers, the teachers, the doctors and the nurses.
  Mrs. Mahon: I should like to invite the hon. Gentleman to my constituency, where we have a new hospital, an increase in police numbers and class sizes are going down. Money has been earmarked for a new secondary school and the other schools, which had fallen into disrepair over the previous 18 years, are looking pretty good. Why would my constituency be so different from the hon. Gentleman's?
  Mr. Taylor: I do not know the hon. Lady's constituency as well as she does, but I know that the Government's own figures show that there are fewer police, that there are more children in larger classes and that waiting times to see a consultant have increased massively under this Government. The figures also show that Labour will fail to meet moss of the pledges that appeared on its general election pledge card.
  People know what has been happening. The simple fact is that the Government will deliver lower spending, as a proportion of national wealth, than was delivered in 15 of the Conservatives 18 years in government. People see the results.
  Mr. John Swinney: May I reinforce the hon. Gentleman's arguments by highlighting the fact that, according to parliamentary answers that I have seen, even at the end of the comprehensive spending review,
  850
  public expenditure in Scotland—despite all the much-vaunted largesse—will still not reach the proportion of national wealth that it had reached when the Conservatives left office? Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me on that point?
  Mr. Taylor: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Moreover, that is true across the whole country, not just in Scotland.
  The Labour party has come up with a defence. My arguments, although they undermine the Conservative case, also go a long way towards undermining the Labour case. Labour's defence is, "Ah! Strip out the savings we have made on reduced unemployment and reduced national debt, and you will see that we have been able to reduce spending overall, and yet spend more where it matters in those areas of the public services." However, leaving aside social security and debt, the Government have still spent less over this Parliament on important public services such as health, education and pensions than the Conservatives did.
  During most of this Parliament, total spending—leaving aside social security and debt payments—will have been lower than in any previous year for which we have comparable records, going back to 1955. People know that that is the case, because they know that, on the ground, they are not getting the doctors and nurses who could help to cut waiting lists, and they are not getting reductions in class sizes. That devastates the Conservative case, but it also shows that the Labour Government exaggerate their record.
  We now come to another excuse. The Government say that spending by some Departments has gone down, but that they are making the investment where it matters, on their priorities of health, pensions and education. However, we now know the Government's record. The Budget delivers the definitive position on which Labour will now enter the general election—assuming, as we all do, that it will be called within the next couple of months, if not the next couple of weeks.
  During this Parliament, the Government will have cut the share of national wealth going to education, the NHS and pensioners. That share will be lower than in the last year of the previous Conservative Government, even if calculated right to the end of this Parliament. Even after the end of three years of comprehensive spending review investment, Labour will still be spending less, as a proportion of national wealth—even if we believe the figures—than the previous Conservative Government on their No. 1 priority: "education, education, education". Spending has not been committed to that priority, and that is why there has been such a lack of delivery on the ground.
  Labour Members know that there is a problem. They hear about it every day from the people who voted them in to deliver improvements in vital public services. The Conservative party, which has nothing to offer but cuts, also knows that there is a problem, because its advertisements all around the country ask, "Where are the doctors?", "Where are the nurses?", and "Where are the police officers?" Quite right too, so why are the Conservatives offering cuts? Indeed, why has the Chancellor prioritised cuts in his Budget?
  The figures are appalling, even if we believe Labour's spending plans, which we should not, because year after year after year the Government failed to deliver even the

  851
  spending plans that they announced. It is unusual for any Government to fail to deliver their spending plans. Perhaps that is understandable on capital investment, which is not always easy to achieve, but to fail to deliver revenue spending is remarkable.
  A major reason for that failure is the Government's squeeze on wages. In particular, they have squeezed the salaries and wages of police officers, teachers and health professionals, for whom increases are below private sector levels. The Government have allowed themselves to reach the stage at which they cannot even recruit staff to fill posts that they are funding, so bad is Labour's record.
  The Government have a final excuse: it does not matter if the share of national wealth going to the NHS, schools and pensioners is going down because the economy is growing, which allows them, as the Conservative party argues, to cut taxes and deliver the improvements that are needed. Those improvements may not be made in line with growth in the economy as a whole and those sectors may get a lower share, but, they argue, they will get a share of a bigger cake that is therefore bigger in its own right. That, of course, assumes that there is no need for growth in the public sector to reflect growth in the wider economy. That can be delivered only by holding down incomes—most of all, those of pensioners.
  There are more pensioners than ever before, but we deliver less money to them. That, of course, can be achieved only by giving them lower pensions. Which pensioners do least well out of the Government? It is the 500,000 who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee, but do not claim it because they cannot or because they will not lose their dignity to do so. They expected the pension to deliver them a decent income, but Labour has entirely neglected them.
  The issue goes wider than the basic pension. Income for pensioners as a whole has fallen as a share of national wealth, which is why they have not shared in the benefits of the growth in the wider economy, despite the promise in Labour's election manifesto. That is true in health and education, too. In health, there is more technology and more people need care. We know that, simply to stand still, the health service needs funding growth that exceeds, let alone matches, growth in the wider economy. Under Labour, the share has fallen. If schools are to attract the staff they need, salaries must reflect growth in the wider economy.
  Private sector salaries have risen by more than 15 per cent. under the Government, but the salaries of teachers, nurses and doctors have risen by just over 10 per cent. and those of police officers by only just over 6 per cent. They have all fallen steadily behind, but the Government act as though they are surprised that they cannot recruit people to work in those vital public services.
  For years, doctors, nurses, teachers and police went into their professions even though they knew that they would be paid less than in the private sector. They believed in what they were doing, but there is a limit to how far people will go. We all meet teachers, doctors and nurses who are leaving their professions—qualified, but not practising; dedicated to the health service or to public education, but unable to afford to continue to work for them. We know that that is true because measure after measure announced today by the Secretary of State for
  852
  Health admitted the problem. He targeted small sums to try to buy people back when they really need a decent salary increase.
  The real growth argument is entirely bogus. Any Government who cut the share that goes to those great services cut the great services themselves, as Labour pointed out over and over again in opposition. We have heard the line before from Baroness Thatcher. Her Government kept stating the figures—more money, more money—but the truth was that those services were falling behind those in the rest of the economy. This Government knew that then and, in their hearts, they know it now. Day by day, they hear abort it on the doorsteps and see it in schools and hospitals.
  Mr. Rammell: I think that I heard the hon. Gentleman call for an across-the-board increase in teachers' pay. If that is the policy of the Liberal Democrats, why is it not costed in their alternative Budget?
  Mr. Taylor: If the hon. Gentleman had bothered to look at our alternative Budget—I have my doubts about whether he did—he would have seen that our health proposals include a specific £600 million pledge of an average of £1,000 extra for every low-paid doctor, nurse and health professional in the NHS. Moreover, under our proposals trainee teachers would be paid for the first time. At present they come into the profession and work as teachers work, but without a proper salary.
  So there it is: money for teachers, money for doctors, money for nurses and money for health professionals, funded according to our specific costed proposals.
  Mr. Rammell rose—
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman may not like this, but if he has asked a straight question and been given a straight answer it is pr3bably time for him to sit down and stop talking.
  Mr. Rammell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order, when I have asked a specific question about an across-the-board increase in teachers' pay, for the answer—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know a bogus point of order from a real one, and that point of order is bogus.
  Mr. Taylor: Labour party loyalists do not find this an easy issue to address, because they know that on the ground spending has gone down, waiting lists have lengthened, class size; have increased and police numbers have fallen. I realise that it is difficult to reconcile that with the Chancellor's propaganda, but it is easy enough to work out how truthful he has been according to the number of years that he lumps together in his spending plans.
  Last year, when the Chancellor was making some real spending increases in the comprehensive spending review, he gave us the figures for one year. This year—the bogus year—when he wanted to pretend to his Back Benchers that he was doing something to meet their concerns while actually trying to deal with Conservative attacks about

  853
  taxes by making tax cuts that were much larger than any spending increases that he planned, he lumped three years together.
  Back in 1998, when the Government were undershooting Conservative spending plans that the last Chancellor described as eye-wateringly tight and would never have met himself in any case, the Chancellor not only lumped three years together but bunged in inflation, multiplied it several times and hoped that no one would notice. People did notice, of course, because down on the ground things were getting worse.
  That is the history of this Parliament. Labour cannot go into the next election simply on the basis of promising jam tomorrow; it has been in office for four years, and it must explain its record. Its record is this: less of our national wealth has gone to pensioners, which is why they received just 75p last year; less of our national wealth has gone to the health service, which is why waiting lists are at record levels; and less of our national wealth has gone to schools, which is why most pupils are in larger classes than ever, and why students are having to pay tuition fees—the tax on learning.
  We know that the Government understand that really, whatever the spin and whatever the ability to churn out headlines on Budget day. We know that they know because, when we cut through the nonsense, the real figures are there in the Red Book. The real figures were there when the Chief Secretary was challenged on "Newsnight". There he was, talking about all the extra money for health and boiling it down to
  "a small, but welcome, addition to the health budget".
  Jeremy Paxman asked,
  "what percentage is that of the health budget?"
  The Chief Secretary replied:
  "It is of course a small but welcome addition".
  Jeremy Paxman suggested that it was
  "about half of one per cent."
  The Chief Secretary responded:
  "As I said, a small but welcome addition".
  The truth is that it is a tiny amount—less than half of 1 per cent. It is less than 50p for every £100 already spent on the health service.
  This was not a Budget for health and education; it was a wrestling match with the Conservatives, in an attempt to outbid them on tax cuts. It contained more than six times as much in tax cuts as would be invested in public spending, at a time when the public are crying out for teachers, doctors, nurses and police officers whom they had thought that Labour would deliver.
  Labour seems to believe opinion pollsters and pundits who argue that people who say they will support increased spending secretly want tax cuts. Accordingly, Labour says that it will deliver public spending, and secretly sticks the money in voters' back pockets.
  The Government want to ensure that, come April, everyone feels a little better off. They want to salve their conscience on spending, yet to tackle the Tory party by outbidding it in tax cuts. We have two parties that want to deliver stealth cuts in services. They are not seeking to fulfil the electorate's demand for proper funding for the NHS, pensions, police and schools.
  At the next general election, only one party, the Liberal Democrats, will be going to the electorate offering genuine and substantial improvement and investment in
  854
  those public services—to guarantee lower class sizes, shorter waiting lists, more police on the beat, and, at last, a decent deal for pensioners who fought for this country and were told that they would have a state pension in old age on which they could rely, but which has been torn away from them by successive Conservative and Labour Governments.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Giles Radice: We have just heard a very eloquent speech from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor). However, there were two problems with his speech. First, although it is true that there were two tight spending years under this Government—I am on the Treasury Committee and we examine the spending issue every year—Liberal Democrat Members will have to say what they would have done in the same circumstances. They have never answered that question.
  Mr. Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Radice: No, I should like to finish my point.
  Secondly, public spending is now increasing faster than growth, as has been pointed out by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and by various other bodies. Specifically, considerable extra resources are being provided for education and health. As I understand it, that spending is having an impact even in Cornwall, where there are more nurses now than there were in 1997—
  Mr. Ben Bradshaw: There are 200 more nurses.
  Mr. Radice: Yes. I believe that police numbers in Cornwall also are higher now than they were in 1997.
  I did not hear any facts in the speech by the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell, but I heard many promises. Although I realise that we are in a pre-election phase, I should like to stand back a little and consider the issues if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. This is the Chancellor's fifth Budget, and it provides us with a good perspective from which to consider his policies and measures. If the general election is in May, as the hon. Gentleman seemed to be suggesting, this may be my last speech—certainly my last economic speech—in the House.
  I read history at Oxford, although later I learned some economics at the London school of economics. I think most of my economics has been picked up in my 40 years of Chancellor-watching-28 of them spent as an hon. Member, including 14 on the Treasury Committee, four of them as its Chairman.
  A long time ago, when I was young, I believed that the first objective of economic policy was to speed up the rate of economic growth, and that that could be achieved by promoting a higher level of demand. I was an enthusiastic supporter of the Wilson Government's national plan—which perhaps only a few of us remember. I used to think that the plan failed because of the decision not to devalue. Although I still think that that was a mistake, I am now highly sceptical about whether it is possible, other than in the very short term, for Governments to promote growth by boosting demand. The failure of the Maudling and Barber dash for growth was therefore inevitable.

  855
  The Lawson chancellorship had its moments. However, in 1987–88, when he allowed the economy to overheat, the consequences were almost inevitable: the brakes were slammed on and there was what the then Governor of the Bank of England described as a "domestically generated" recession.
  It was the Lawson experience, above all, that convinced me that the prime objective of policy should be monetary and fiscal stability. I believe that economic growth can be achieved and that businesses can prosper and grow only against such a background of stability. That is why, in the latter 1980s and in the 1990s, a little before it became fashionable in the Labour party, I supported the idea of disciplined fiscal policy, with monetary policy controlled by the Bank of England.
  In my typically non-partisan way, I am prepared to acknowledge that the former Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), made a contribution. He began the process of cutting the very large deficits bequeathed by the Chancellors who preceded him. He also published the minutes of the meetings he held with the Governor of the Bank of England to decide on interest rates. That was a movement forward, although the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoiled his record before the 1997 election with a bit of a pre-election spending spree. He also cut interest rates in the run-up to the election, as he should not have done.
  Mr. Bradshaw: He should have put them up.
  Mr. Radice: He should have done that, yes. In fact, that is exactly what happened immediately after the election.
  However, it is the present Chancellor who has had the boldness to carry through the revolution in monetary and fiscal policy needed to achieve stability. He gave operational independence in monetary policy to the Bank of England, and set up the Monetary Policy Committee.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has also introduced fiscal rules. The golden rule states that borrowing should not finance current expenditure but investment only, while the sustainable debt rule holds that public sector debt should be kept at a stable and prudent level. That level was originally thought to be 40 per cent. of gross domestic product, but it is now much lower.
  Earlier, I challenged the shadow Chancellor from a sedentary position about his fiscal rules, and he said that he would give them to me later. He has not done so because he does not have any. The shadow Chancellor criticises my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for his golden rule, but he has no rules at all of his own. That is a weakness in his argument.
  There is no doubt that the two innovations introduced at the beginning of this Parliament have produced impressive economic results, which my right hon. Friend was able to announce in his Budget—the lowest inflation for 30 years, the lowest long-term interest rates for 35 years, and the lowest unemployment since 1975.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: The right hon. Gentleman says that the Opposition have no rules, but has he not noticed that we have a spending rule? We will increase spending in line with what the economy can afford. That rule means
  856
  something, unlike the Chancellor's borrowing rules which, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor said, have no bite at all.
  Mr. Radice: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not mind my saying so. but that was a pretty feeble intervention. All Governments and Chancellors hope to increase spending in line with what the economy can afford. The question is whether the rules governing a Chancellor's actions are sharp enough to enable that to happen. I believe that this Government's rules are sharp enough for that.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: Surely there is all the difference in the world between saying that spending will be increased in line with growth in the economy, and increasing spending above the economy's sustainable growth rate. The latter is what the Chancellor proposes to do, and in the long run it will not be sustainable without massively higher taxes.
  Mr. Radice: The Government had a two-year period in which they stuck to the Conservative spending targets. Even the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe, said that those targets were merely illustrative and that he would not have implemented them. In that period, public spending was massively below growth in the economy. We are now moving into a period when it is above growth in the economy. The level evens out over a period. I am sure that the Government will want to have public spending in line with the growth in the economy over a period of, say, 10 years. That would be sensible. In any case, the Government's golden rule and sustainable debt rule will ensure that, even if spending does rise above economic growth, the necessary discipline will be in place.
  In addition, stability has produced steady economic growth—of 3.5 per cent. in 1997, 2.6 per cent. in 1998, 2.3 per cent. in 1999. and 3 per cent. in 2000. The forecast is for growth of 2.25 to 2.75 per cent. in 2001. In other words, throughout this period, the economy has been growing close to trend. I admit that it was growing under the previous Chancellor as well, so we have had a long period of economic growth which has been extremely good for this country. It has helped to create room for substantial increases in education and health spending—contrary to what the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell implied, without quoting any figures. I would like to have him before the Treasury Committee—we would soon take him apart. We have also made a sustained attack on child poverty. All that has been done without putting the public finances at risk.
  The announcements in the Budget and the measures previously announced by the Chancellor amount to a 1 per cent. stimulus. We have to ask: how risky is it and will it stoke up inflation? The Treasury Committee put those questions to expert witnesses this morning. It is true that some of them world have preferred less stimulus, but none thought that this was particularly imprudent. Indeed, there was a sub-text: they thought that it was quite surprising that the Budget was so restrained in the run-up to an election.
  The experts are right to say that such a stimulus is not imprudent because the background is one of very low inflation, below the target. We are still running substantial budget surpluses and we face the possibility of a United States downturn. It may be necessary to have some

  857
  stimulus to the economy. A 1 per cent. stimulus, which is not very substantial, could well provide that in the coming year.
  There is general agreement that there is little point in running budget surpluses indefinitely. It makes sense, therefore, to spend above trend for a period and then run small deficits by the end of the forecast period, provided that those deficits support public investment and not current spending, and that they are affordable in terms of public debt. I note that the public debt is now down to 30 per cent. of gross domestic product.
  The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell made the point that the Treasury has consistently underestimated its surpluses. That is partly because its assumptions, particularly of growth, are extremely cautious and conservative. That gives the Treasury a strong position because there is always a margin of error. That is why the Chancellor has been able to announce some of these increases.
  To sum up, in the Government's fourth year, the Chancellor is in an enviable position. If any Conservative Members doubt that, they should consider how much they would like to have a Chancellor who is about to face the voters with the lowest inflation for 30 years, steady economic growth—I quoted the figures—and the lowest unemployment figures since 1975, as well as rising investment in health and education. That is not a bad position to be in, and if Conservative Members were honest they would agree.
  Of course there are no miracles, and certainly no economic miracles. There is no doubt that despite what the Government are doing with regard to productivity, we have a long way to go before we catch up with the United States, Germany and even France. Under this Government, many extra people have been taken back into work. Such people are, by definition, likely to be less productive in the short term than other workers, so the slowing of productivity growth is not surprising. Most experts expect an increase in the years ahead, and so do I.
  There are no economic miracles, and although the Government have created the conditions for stability, I am able to announce this afternoon that the economic cycle has not been abolished: there are still risks on the inflationary side, and especially on the recessionary side.
  Critics say, of course, that the Chancellor has been lucky, in that on the whole—excepting the late part of 1998—economic conditions have been relatively benign. It may be true that he has been lucky, but he has also made his own luck. It was his decision to give the Bank of England independence and to stick by his predecessor's spending plans for the first two years. It was also his decision to keep to the fiscal rules that he had devised. His courage has yielded the results that I mentioned.
  The Chancellor's boldness of conception and his determination in implementation have put the United Kingdom economy in a strong position to continue on its path of stability and to take advantage of opportunities that may arise—including, if I may say so so late in my speech, entry into the euro. I salute him for his achievement and I wish him and the Government well in the coming months and years.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I follow the precedent of other hon. Members by reminding the House of my declaration of business interests in the Register of Members' Interests.
  858
  I am delighted to follow—not for the first time in a Budget debate—the right hon. Members for North Durham (Mr. Radice) and for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). I say with some sorrow that it is probably the last time that I shall follow either of them in such a debate as they both propose not to stand for the next Parliament. I propose to throw myself at the mercy of the electors of Rushcliffe once more. If they do me the honour of returning me to this House, I shall miss the contribution of the two right hon. Gentlemen and the chance to debate with them. Neither of them are Blair's babes and they do not use the sillier slogans to describe economic policy to which we have become accustomed in the House. Also, they do not use too many of the extremely dodgy figures that the Chancellor is inclined to produce for the House. Alas, we will no doubt have a touch more orthodoxy in the next Parliament from those who defend the Government's record.
  I cannot get very excited about the Chancellor's fifth Budget. In the overall context of macro-economic management, it is not very important. He did not do a great deal and it is not of huge significance for the coming election either. He took his last important decisions in the so-called pre-Budget judgments last autumn, when he set us on the course of a massive proposed increase in public spending in the next three or four years
  I suppose that I should be grateful that the Chancellor did not get carried away. I, too, faced the pressures—I had to deal with a pre-election Budget and some people felt that I ought to do something spectacular to win the election. Various previous Chancellors faced the same problem. This Chancellor would have made matters far worse for his successor had he given in to that sort of pressure and made the problem even worse by making serious tax cuts or spending increases on top of those he has already made.
  I wish that the Chancellor would not keep on saying that Tory predecessors did not show such restraint. It is 50 years since we had a pre-election Budget that showed the slightest irresponsibility, and I doubt whether we will see one again. Today's electorate are too sophisticated to be bribed with their own money a few weeks before a general election. This electorate know that the present Chancellor has been a tax-increasing Chancellor on a substantial scale. The fact that he will not admit that the burden of tax has risen under his chancellorship is a blemish on his presentation of policy, but he will have to go into the next election as someone who has raised taxes.
  On the details of the Budget and the micro-economics of the tax and other changes, the Chancellor has continued, in a not very spectacular way, his overriding policy of mild redistribution of income by stealth without being very clear about it. I am glad to say that he has continued the policy of welfare to work, which he inherited from the previous Government: it was not only a slogan but a policy direction, too. I welcome the family element of the policy, whose effects are beneficial.
  The Chancellor has persisted in his attempts to combine the tax and benefits systems, developing ever more tax credits. I admit that I was attracted by the idea of combining those systems. One has to go back to a Government of 30 years ago to discover Conservative Chancellors toying with the idea of a tax credit system.
  The difficulty is that the present Chancellor has embarked on that course without solving most of the big

  859
  problems that put us off it. In particular, he is introducing a system of bewildering complexity. That gives rise to two large problems.
  First, the system is so complex that the electors do not understand it—that is why the Budget has little electoral appeal. More important, many of the people who should be claiming the benefit of those tax credits will not actually do so.
  The second problem is the worst; it is one that most of us foresaw when the Chancellor embarked on the working families tax credit. The system is appallingly complex for the employer. It is one of the worst burdens imposed by the Government on those responsible for small business. That burden gets worse and worse as he further complicates the system. It is a pity that he proceeds with it.
  I continue to suspect that the Chancellor likes to plunge further into tax credits because they help him and his Chief Secretary to present the figures in the slightly bewildering way that they use in the Red Book. To keep down the tax burden as presented to the general public, tax credits are still treated as though they were tax reductions when they merely transfer payments that should emerge as benefits. They should be accounted for more clearly. The Chancellor has not solved the problem that, as soon as one uses the Inland Revenue to make such transfer payments, it produces complication, cost and a great propensity for evasion and misuse.
  I should have liked to see the proposals on taxation and savings made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) adopted in the Budget. I wondered whether the Chancellor would have had the wit to steal that extremely good pre-election idea from my right hon. Friend; it is a sensible way to encourage saving by people of modest means. We need to get the savings ratio up.
  I regret the fact that the Chancellor has not tackled the problem of annuities for those who have made provision for their own retirement. That must be tackled, but he has done nothing. He should also have had the political courage—there are no votes in the matter—to raise the starting threshold for the 40 per cent. higher rate of tax. During the Labour Government's period of office, 700,000 more people have become higher-rate taxpayers, by a process of pure drift. I agree that that was also happening under the Conservative Government, but it is now out of hand. There is nothing wrong with a 40 per cent. tax rate for people on high incomes, but people of above average yet perfectly ordinary incomes now have a 40 per cent. marginal tax rate. That should not be allowed to continue.
  I shall not go further into the detailed provisions, but I regret that the Chancellor felt forced to go back to widening the l0p income tax band—to trivial effect for most taxpayers. The 10p band was a mistake; we do not need three bands of income tax. The 10p band was a silly political promise made before the previous general election. It is a pity not only that the Chancellor stuck to it, but that he has started widening it.
  The Budget is not of great consequence. It is the least interesting of the five produced by the Chancellor. Perhaps he is running out of steam—who knows? He may he preparing to leave office—perhaps for the Opposition
  860
  Benches or perhaps for another Cabinet post. However, it looks as though his time at the Treasury may be coming to an end.
  I now turn to the consequences of the Budget for economic performance. The background is that the Government say that the country's economic performance has been good, as indeed it has. However, that has nothing to do with the Chancellor: I shall return to that point in a moment. The Chancellor's management of the balance between tax and spending has been positively eccentric. There is no consistency.
  The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) rightly pointed out that the first three years of the Parliament were years of rigour beyond anything we expected. At the previous general election, as a Conservative, I tried to alarm the public about the forthcoming risk of a Labour Government by talking about the black hole in their finances. That black hole vanished because they raised taxes at a rate about which they had warned no one. They squeezed spending to an extent that no Government—even those led by Mrs. Thatcher—had ever achieved. That is how they filled the black hole during the first two or three years.
  The Government began with a stringent iron Chancellor period; they go out with promises of fat years to come. Were they to win the general election, the next Parliament would, apparently, be handled quite differently, with a hugely expansive approach to public spending during the first two or three years. Perhaps, if the right hon. Member for North Durham is right and the Government find that they cannot afford that, they will have to make cuts before a general election. However, if they are returned and continue to follow this strange pattern and get into difficulty, it is mole likely that they will be taxing but trying to deny it.
  This rollercoaster is unwise and unnecessary. Too often in the past, the public services have had the painful experience of thin years followed by fat years, although never on the present scale. It is unnecessary, because the Government took over healthy public finances. At the opening of the debate, the Secretary of State for Health was talking nonsense when he referred to public finances and debt spiralling out of control. Debt was on a sharp downward path.
  My figures contained a mistake that benefited my successor: we underestimated the revenues that came in. We gave the present Chancellor economic growth, with buoyant revenues. We gave him the particular gift of self-assessment of income tax, which produced tax revenues on a scale that we had underestimated. The public finances were perfectly healthy.
  I do not know why the Chancellor felt it necessary to go in for the undesirable taxes that this Budget has not reversed—taxes on pension funds and on business. He continued to add to them, even though he was well on the way to the balanced Budget to which he had committed himself. Sometimes, I think that it was because he wanted to create a good reputation in the City; he thought that there might be alarm in the financial markets that a Labour Government would be soft, so he had to be a tough iron Chancellor.
  The Government were somewhat consumed by the record of previous Labour Governments, who had spent like mad during the first half of a Parliament and been in a mess during the second half. Perhaps the Prime Minister

  861
  and the Chancellor were over-impressed by the experience of Harold Wilson and Jim Callaghan. Perhaps the Liberals were right and the Government had a war-chest theory—"Let's screw things down now arid spend like mad in the run-up to the election."
  I suspect, however, that it was all a bit of an accident. The Government found that they had been tighter than they had intended. The Prime Minister panicked and after Lord Winston complained, we found that billions were on offer. There was a sudden splurge of public spending in the run-up to the general election, to avoid upsetting the Labour movement. But that is no way to run the country's finances.
  That is what happened; it is irrefutable. However, I object to the constant telling of the myth that the reason the Government were so tight at first was that they stuck to Tory figures. I know that Blair's; babes produce such slogans like mad, but they seem to overlook the Government's remarkable decision, which astonished me at the time, to cancel the annual public spending rounds, in which every previous Conservative Government had engaged. Green as the Labour Government were, I cannot understand how the then Secretary of State for Health and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment could have agreed to that. Their Departments must have been in despair. All over Whitehall, people preparing for the spending round were in grief when that decision was inflicted on them. Those were not Tory figures; to hold down spending was a mad gesture.
  The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell is right; the results were spectacular. I regret that during my last year in office total managed expenditure was 41.2 per cent. of gross domestic product; I was trying to get it down below 40 per cent. That was the rule that I was aiming for. By 1999–2000, we were down to 37.7 per cent. of GDP. Public spending as a proportion of GDP was taken by this Chancellor and this Government to its lowest level since the 1960s. As the Liberals acknowledge, the Conservative posters are right. That is the history of, "You paid the taxes and you didn't get the services".
  We are now faced with promises that goodies are to come. It is said that the good to come can be afforded because the economy is in such a sound state. It is indeed reasonably sound. Starting in 1992, we have experienced nine years of growth, with low inflation and rising employment. That has a cumulative effect—the country feels good and feels wealthier—so we have been able to survive some of the strange vagaries of Labour management during the past four years.
  The reason is that the right hon. Gentleman has been an extremely lucky Chancellor. First, he took over a very good inheritance. He has also had the particular luck to be Chancellor, so far, through four years of the most remarkable growth in the western economy since the war. I have been quoted various times about the things that I would give my eye-teeth for. All those who hoped to be Chancellor would have given their eye-teeth to be Chancellor of the Exchequer in the past four years. The right hon. Gentleman has not faced a problem. He took over a good inheritance and, thanks to Uncle Sam going through the boom period of a classic boom-and-bust phase, the world economy has grown and grown and grown.
  My right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor is right that the public are complacent about this. I was glad that he pointed out that our economic performance compared
  862
  with that of the developed world has been rather lacklustre—second rate, actually. The British are pleased with second best again. We have not been doing as well as our competitors.
  Of course our growth has been miles behind that of the United States, but everyone in the developed world has been enjoying growth with low inflation and rising employment. Our growth performance is below the eurozone average—below that of Ireland, the Netherlands, and France. They are already wealthier than Britain in GDP per head. The relationship of our productivity to theirs has been worsening over the past three or four years and we have not been performing well.
  Before the Labour party took over, we were the fastest-growing major economy in western Europe. Why have we not been performing as well as we were? One reason has been the mistakes made by the Bank of England.
  I applaud the giving of independence to the Bank of England, but I feel free to criticise the performance of the Monetary Policy Committee. I have been on the doveish side of that divided Committee throughout, and I believe that the doveish side was right. It is not the case that we have been facing higher inflationary pressures than the rest of Europe. It was a mistake when people judged that we were. No one has had inflationary pressure over the last three or four years, but our Bank gave us the highest short-term interest rates in the developed world for most of the period of the present Government. Obviously, that slowed down our growth.
  The other reason is that the Government have damaged our growth—I shall not repeat the arguments of my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor—by adding tax and red tape on business and adding labour market regulation of a kind from which we were previously free. While the western Europeans are lectured by the Chancellor about moving to more liberal labour markets and lower burdens on business, we are narrowing the benefit of our advantage over the rest of western Europe by going in the other direction.
  That luck may be coming to an end. It is no good just carrying on with the somewhat happy but chancy approach that the Chancellor has proposed. The global economy cannot carry on growing for ever. We have not solved economic cycles in free-market economics, and the United States economy is at last slowing down—and slowing down remarkably rapidly—as most European commentators have been forecasting for the past three years.
  Most people involved in Wall street say that the slowdown is temporary and will soon flatten out; they say that it will be V-shaped and that the trend will go up again. Most people involved in the real economy in America are very worried. They find that consumer demand is dropping like mad, and given that the bottom has dropped out of Wall street in the last two days, once consumer confidence goes in America, there could be a very sharp downturn indeed.
  I do not think that the downturn will be a disaster. A slowdown in the American economy was probably overdue. The Americans have in fact gone through boom and bust. Their economy was held up as a model by some people in this country over the last three years, as opposed to that of the lacklustre, over-interventionist socialist Europeans. But the United States has got it slightly wrong now.

  863
  The Chancellor, having entered his days of being more generous to the public services, is counting on continued growth in the British economy. He supposes that the economic cycle does not affect him here. He supposes that it will be rather as before. He forecasts 2¼ per cent. to 2¾ per cent. growth for this year. That may be right, but I would not bank on it. We will be affected by any global slowdown.
  Ms Claire Ward: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clarke: Just a second.
  Such growth as we get from now on will be driven by the public sector—by public consumption. It will be driven by the big increase in Government expenditure. If there is any slowdown, there must be some corresponding cuts in private consumption and private sector activity to make room for it, and that is not a healthy background against which to face the real issue, from which the Government keep running away. Given that their policy now is a massive increase in public spending, what will happen if the growth upon which it is wholly dependent does not materialise over the next three years?
  As they do when we discuss so many other things, the Government just dumb down the argument. We raise this fear, and we are told, "Oh, they are talking about cuts, cuts, cuts." Big scissors appear, with fictitious figures for what we are supposedly saying that we would cut, just because we are raising the question. What if the economy cannot afford it between now and 2004? We are told that it means going back to boom and bust. I cannot for the life of me see how our proposals have anything to do with boom and bust.
  I have already said that I do not believe that the Chancellor has given us any stability or predictability in his economic performance. A lot of things could go wrong, not only the slowdown in the economy. If the economy slows down at all, the Treasury's estimates of revenue are likely to prove overestimates. History shows that the Treasury tends always to underestimate its revenues when the economy is going up. That is why, every year, the Chancellor comes along with billions more than he expected to have. History also shows that when the economy suddenly goes down, the Treasury always overestimates the revenues that it has coming in.
  Labour Members would be wise to recall what happened under Nigel Lawson, in 1988—it is a great pity that they pretend that nothing happened after 1988, and that the only Conservative record that they contrast themselves with is that of 13 years ago. What they discovered then, as we discovered then, is that the big numbers change very rapidly indeed.
  On their own plans and estimates of growth, the Government already predict a deficit three years out. That deficit could be very large and unsupportable. I have no time to go into all the other things that are becoming unsupportable, such as the huge current account deficit that they are running as long as the pound remains overvalued.
  When we talk about restraining growth in spending, it is no good rejecting our criticisms by saying that it simply means that we intend to cut public spending. It is also no
  864
  good rejecting criticism from the International Monetary Fund. I introduced openness in respect of producing IMF reports. The IMF points out that the golden rule is a slightly dodgy approach, and the Government dismiss it.
  The fact that the European Commission's doubts about all this are rejected may be more popular among Conservative Members, but the Commissioner, Pedro Solbes, was an extremely good Minister of Finance in Spain and he had his head screwed on the right way. Despite that, he is wrong, apparently, when he raises queries about all this. He was a socialist; he was not when he was appointed, but he joined the PSOE just as it was defeated. The other Finance Ministers also have doubts.
  The golden rule is not a golden rule at all The golden rule allows borrowing for investment only, but, as has been pointed out, it all depends what is meant by investment—and as far as I can see, any form of public expenditure known to man can be described as investment by the present Government. Unfortunately, like all other public expenditure, it must be paid for eventually. The criticism is rejected as though that were not true.
  The previous Government did have rules. A balanced Budget over the cycle was our rule. We set an inflation target. My predecessor, Norman Lamont, set an inflation target of 2½ per cent. We were aiming to keep spending down below 40 per cent. of gross domestic product. We introduced rule-based economic management; this Chancellor replaced it with dodgy rules, such as the golden rule, which is infinitely flexible, and he altered the definition of half the public expenditure figures that we now have to try to stop people following what was happening. Therefore he should not reduce the queries about his spending to a silly level of argument to prepare for the election. The figures are there before us.
  According to the Government, we need not worry, whatever happens bell weep now and 2004, if departmental estimates go up by 8.4 per cent.—6 per cent. in real terms—each year, come what may, to April 2004. They get the total spending down by making some dubious assumptions about cutting social security expenditure, but even so, total spending is anticipated to be 3 per cent. per annum overall above the trend growth of the economy. If the world economy slows down, it will be well above the likely growth of our economy, and it is difficult to see how it can be afforded. That is our valid argument.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea addresses that valid argument, and it is foolish for Labour Members to reject it, not least because if they were to win the election their biggest nightmare would be how to get out of that obligation, having told everyone that anything else involves great cuts. Fortunately, the expenditure is not on health and education—we can match that spending—but the Government will not return to their current position in respect of GDP for some considerable time. The Home Office and transport are the big beneficiaries of this year's largesse. Lots of bus lanes, cycle paths and tramways in cities throughout the country are promised, but expenditure of every kind can be found across Whitehall.
  If the Government are re-elected, we warn that they will raise taxes or abandon their plans, which are not supportable if economic growth falls back to trend or below. Theirs is an extraordinary approach, and that is the note on which the Chancellor will go out. I hope that he

  865
  goes by handing over to a Conservative successor, but if the Prime Minister has his way, I suspect that he will hand over to a Labour successor—if the Prime Minister can win the election and get himself back in for a second term. The Chancellor had an excellent inheritance when he took office. It is my opinion that he will hand over a much dodgier and poorer inheritance to whoever has the opportunity to take over, which I trust will be my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea.
  6.11 pm
  Mr. John Home Robertson: It seems likely that this will be my last speech in the House of Commons, so I hope that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the House will be tolerant.
  It is a special pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), partly because many of us are looking forward to campaigning shoulder to shoulder with him for a yes vote for British participation in the single European currency in the not-so-distant future. I am afraid that his declaration of undying support for the shadow Chancellor was not altogether convincing. I suspect that, like the right hon. Members for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), he is deeply unhappy and worried about the direction that the Conservative party is taking.
  As I recall some of the awful Budgets that I have heard proposed by forgettable Chancellors like Nigel Lawson and Norman Lamont, I take great satisfaction in registering my support for a Budget that cuts the burden on taxpayers while increasing provision for families, education, the NHS and other services.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), is the ultimate canny Scot, and he has demonstrated conclusively that prudence pays. This is not a giveaway Budget for an election; it is a business-like Budget for businesses, a friendly Budget for families and a constructive Budget for communities.
  Last weekend, I spent a minute or two looking at my notes for my maiden speech, which I made on 9 November 1978 in the debate on the Queen's Speech. Much has changed in the past 22 years. When I was first elected, my constituency's economy depended largely on the National Coal Board and the farming industry, whereas now the biggest employers in East Lothian are based on science, services and nuclear power. In my maiden speech, I supported Denis Healey's valiant efforts to control inflation in very difficult times. I referred to the fact that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup was unhappy about what was happening to the Tory party—so some things do not change However, there is absolutely no risk of inflation with the present Chancellor.
  Communities in my constituency suffered cruelly during the Tory years from 1979 to 1997. That might account for the fact that the Labour majority in my constituency increased from 1,673 in 1979 to 14,221 in 1997. Indeed, I find myself worrying about what is happening to the Tory party in Scotland. I never thought that I would have such anxieties, but it is not that long ago since the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) represented my constituency as a Tory Member. At the Scottish Parliament election in 1999, the Tory candidate came third.
  866
  One of the reasons why the Tory party has been rejected is that local unemployment statistics ran into thousands during those years. With this Chancellor, unemployment in the county of East Lothian has fallen by 55 per cent. since 1997, to just 897 people, as more and more opportunities are created and as people build up their skills. Happily, we can take pride in the fact that everyone is protected by the new statutory minimum wage.
  We are getting a lot of public investment, too. Thanks to the success of the Chancellor's strategy, our neighbourhood has new hospitals—either under construction, or planned shortly—improvements to schools and, at last, the commitment of £32 million to dual the Al from Haddington to Dunbar. I sincerely hope that that road project will not have to be delayed by a public inquiry into a small number of outstanding objections.
  The Budget will increase the resources provided to the Scottish Executive by £200 million. I must advise the Opposition that there is no evidence of support for the shadow Chancellor's plan to cut public expenditure in each and every constituency by £24 million or so.
  I am grateful to my constituents for electing me to the House six times. I have done my best for them through some difficult times, but, happily, unlike some of the hon. Members who are leaving the House, I shall have the privilege of continuing to represent my constituents for some time yet as their Member of the new Scottish Parliament, which has responsibility for Scottish legislation and the functions of the Scottish Executive. After the long struggle to achieve devolution, I want to do my little bit to make it work. We all know that that will take time; we are going through some difficult times, but it is an experiment that can work, and we are determined to ensure that it does so.
  I shall miss a lot of good friends in the House, but, with respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not miss some of the Ways and Means and procedures of the Palace of Westminster. We saw some of them in action last night, with three votes after 2 am. There is a lot to be said for the timetabled debates and electronic voting—if it can be made to work reliably—that we have in the Scottish Parliament.
  I want to make two quick points about the Scottish Parliament, which is now responsible for Scotland's devolved share of the Budget. First, it is a completely new Parliament, with new procedures, elected by a new electoral system. We should not, therefore, be surprised by what occurs in those circumstances, such as last Thursday's vote on subsidies for the fishing industry. As someone who has been committed to the principle of a Scottish Parliament for a long time, I say with feeling that the Scottish Executive cannot be allowed to sidestep its accountability to the Parliament. However, the Parliament has an obligation to make coherent decisions. I trust that the Parliament will now have a proper opportunity to make a clear choice between a quick fix and long-term sustainability for fisheries with, I hope, all Labour Members of the Scottish Parliament present and with our Liberal Democrat partners focused on the responsibilities of government. That may be a forlorn hope, but we never know.
  Secondly, I must emphasise the crucial importance of mutual understanding and confidence between Westminster and Holyrood to the integrity of the United

  867
  Kingdom. The overwhelming majority of Scots and their MSPs—with the possible exception of the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney), who is in his place—are determined to remain part of the British family, because we understand the shared value of the United Kingdom and the strength that we all derive from the historic and successful partnership of the United Kingdom.
  For example, my Scottish constituents are proud of Britain's contributions towards overseas aid, debt relief and peacekeeping, and there is more of that in the Budget. We all understand the need to work together on shared problems, such as the current foot and mouth crisis. We will never regard the English as foreigners, with the possible exception of the Leader of the Opposition and one or two of his more alarming acolytes.
  Before I conclude, I wish to make two quick points as a rural Member of Parliament, with a farming background.
  Mr. Swinney: On the issue of the Scottish Parliament and its development, does the hon. Gentleman have a view on an issue that has reared its head in the opinion polls recently? The majority opinion in Scotland is that the Scottish Parliament should have more powers and, in particular, greater fiscal freedom. Does he support arguments in favour of fiscal autonomy and would he lend his voice to those arguments in the House tonight?
  Mr. Home Robertson: I know that the Scottish National party is interested in breaking up the United Kingdom and in establishing Scotland as an independent country, but I do not agree with that. There are immense benefits to be achieved by the partnership of the United Kingdom. Scots should be warned about the obvious costs of separatism, which include the costs of establishing a Scottish army, navy and air force. Moreover, where would our embassies be located if independence were to take place? That is absurd, so the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no. I believe that our purpose should be to make the devolution settlement work. I am determined to work with the majority of my colleagues in the Scottish Parliament to ensure that that happens while maintaining the integrity of the United Kingdom.
  I was about to make a couple of points about rural issues. First, I wholeheartedly endorse the policy of eradicating foot and mouth disease, which can be achieved only by the rigorous implementation of the slaughter policy. It is a grim process, and I hate to think what it will cost. No doubt Treasury Ministers are turning their minds to that at present, but the alternatives are unthinkable and will certainly be far more expensive. We must persevere with the policy.
  In passing, I must say that I am apprehensive about the prospect of a general election at a time when vast tracts of rural Britain are virtually under seige. For example, I do not know how postal votes can be processed when direct postal deliveries are seriously disrupted in many areas. It is a difficult issue, and it is one that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will have to take account of along with other considerations. However, I strongly support the action that has been taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the difficult task that he faces.
  868
  The second point on a rural issue is slightly more personal, but it is relevant to—although at the periphery of—this debate. I would like to comment on my exclusion from agricultural responsibilities when I was a Scottish Executive Minister in 1999. That happened apparently as the result of collusion between the civil servant then in charge of agriculture in Scotland, Mr. Tony Cameron, and the president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland. A new interpretation of the ministerial code was triggered to prevent me, as the Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs, from even seeing papers about agriculture on the ground that I might be perceived to have a personal—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I must remind him that this is a debate on the Budget resolutions. I am having difficulty in connecting what he is now saying to the main subject before us.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was hoping for a little leeway, given that this will be my last speech in the House. The point that I want to make is relevant to economic policy.
  We now have an interpretation of the ministerial code that prevents people who might be perceived to have interests or even experience in particular industries from holding ministerial office in certain Departments. That trap was sprung on me, and I want to draw it to the attention of the House. If it applied to me as a Minister in the Scottish Executive, it could apply to Ministers in other parts of the United Kingdom. Frankly, that is silly. Members should be aware of the issue, but I shall leave it at that.
  The time has clearly come for me to shut up after 22 years in the House. I would like to leave a final message and do so, quite happily, in the presence of the hon. Member for North Tayside. Scottish nationalism is a risk rather than a threat, and the only thing that could aggravate that risk would be to interfere with the formula for distributing the UK Budget between the devolved Administrations. Devolution is all about enabling different parts of the UK to address different priorities in different ways. The House should have the confidence to let that diversity develop, and this mother of Parliaments must always resist any temptation to abuse its power on the distribution of resources in ways that could undermine the vital partnership of the UK.
  This is an excellent Budget, which will increase resources for every part of the United Kingdom and for all our vital services, while reducing the burden on taxpayers and businesses. Our economy is going from strength to strength, and we shall be able to take advantage of even better trading opportunities when we are able to join the euro currency zone in the near future. These are historic achievements for a Labour Chancellor. It will be a pleasure to cast my last vote in the House in support of this Budget. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I wonder whether he may yet be destined for even higher office.
  6.25 pm
  Mr. David Ruffley: This was a Budget for complexity. We know that the Chancellor is addicted to complexity in the tax and benefits system and he got yet another fix last Wednesday. His new Labour

  869
  nanny statism and his interventionism are deeply damaging to the long-term economic performance of this country and the living standards that all of us—whether on high, low or middle incomes—want to see.
  The benign economic conditions, which were largely bequeathed to the Chancellor by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), have masked the serious harm that the Chancellor's last five Budgets have done to the country's competitiveness and productivity. All economists of all political persuasions understand that productivity is the key driver of strong economic growth, economic growth that will deliver sustainable rises in public spending and downward pressure on unemployment.
  We should all therefore be very concerned by the figures for worsening productivity tinder the new Labour Government. The documents published by the Treasury itself highlight the worrying state of the UK's productivity performance. I also came across a rather chilling statistic from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research last week, which said that, in 1999, the average working hour in the United States was 38 per cent. more productive than an average working hour in the UK. That figure had worsened from a mere 28 per cent. in 1996, so we have evidence of a widening gap with the United States. That story is reproduced in terms of the gap between ourselves and France and Germany.
  Why is that occurring? My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe and others have put their finger on the answer, which is the increasing complexity of the tax and benefits system and the sclerotic state of the British labour market that has resulted from rules and regulations and from the gold plating and the new impositions from Brussels that the Chancellor willingly embraces.
  The working families tax credit has been increased in the Budget, but it is turning businesses into outposts of the Department of Social Security. Employers, as well as employees, have to fill in forms. Employees wishing to claim the working families tax credit have to answer interesting questions, such as, "Are you the director of a limited company?". When employers fill in the form, they have to make calculations for each individual employee and pay the credit through the pay roll monthly. At the end of the month, they have to tot up everything that they have paid out and get a rebate from the Inland Revenue. That is all at a cost—we know the cost because the British Chambers of Commerce has told us—of about £300 per employee.
  We also know that the working families tax credit, in the labyrinthine form that the Chancellor has introduced it, deters the creation of employment at the margin. We know that because the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux said in a recent report that the credit had
  "backfired for those it was meant to help the most."
  The confusion endemic in the convoluted system means that, at the last count. more than 400.000 individuals have not claimed the benefit to which they are entitled.
  Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that the administrative burden of the working families tax credit is especially acute for the 99.6 per cent. of British companies
  870
  that employ fewer than 100 people? Those companies employ about 57 per cent. of the private sector work force and account for two fifths of our national output.
  Mr. Ruffley: My hon. Friend is a doughty and well known champion of the interests of small and medium-sized enterprises in his constituency and beyond, and his point is well made.
  Mrs. Mahon: I have many small businesses in my constituency. If the working families tax credit is such a terrible burden on employers, can the hon. Gentleman explain why I have not received a single complaint from them? I would have expected a postbag-full.
  Mr. Ruffley: I hesitate to venture that individual businesses in the hon. Lady's constituency might not feel that they would get a sympathetic hearing from a Labour Member of Parliament. I have had many complaints from companies in my constituency. The British Chambers of Commerce has received many complaints, and my remarks about that are on the record. Even the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has made the point that the working families tax credit is damaging the interests of the people whom it is most meant to help.
  The children's tax credit has risen to £520 a year in the Budget. Some 10 million couples in receipt of married couples allowance temporarily thought that the CTC would be a replacement, but only 5 million of those couples are eligible for it. We discover that only 3 million of them have bothered to claim. Why might that be? First, a family with two earners who each receive a salary just below the top-rate tax threshold—for example, £30,000 a year—will receive the full credit, but if one working partner earns over £41,375 a year, the family will not receive the credit at all. However, if one partner earns less than that, but more than the top-rate tax threshold, the family will, depending on the increase in their income, receive a tapered relief, giving them a fraction of the full amount. That is a complex issue, as well as being unfair.
  Secondly, the Inland Revenue will have to check whether couples who are claiming the CTC are cohabiting. Finally, the working families tax credit interacts with the children's tax credit. As a constituent pointed out in my surgery last week, that means that she will be no better off, even assuming that she is able to find her way through the thicket of rules and regulations.
  We must fear not, however, because the Chancellor of complexity is here to help. He will abolish child benefit, working families tax credit and children's tax credit and replace them, in 2003, with something called the integrated child credit. We must not forget that that will run in tandem with the new employment credit. That complexity is nothing short of a disgrace, and it is all down to the Chancellor of complexity.
  The Chancellor's magical mystery tour of the tax and benefits system has also given us the infamous minimum income guarantee for pensioners, which was increased in the Budget. A pensioner who wants to claim that benefit currently has to fill in an intrusive 43-page form. It contains such gems of questions as, "Are you pregnant?", "Are you on strike?", "Are you on parental leave?" and, intriguingly, "Are you in possession of a credit insurance policy covering your credit card?" It is little wonder that more than 500,000 pensioners who are eligible for the

  871
  benefit have not claimed it, either because they cannot understand it or because of the intrusiveness of the questions asked when they claim.
  Disgracefully, the minimum income guarantee has increased the percentage of old-age pensioners who are now subject to a means-tested benefit from 38 per cent. under the previous Government to almost 60 per cent. when the pensioner tax credit is taken into account. Those figures come from Age Concern, which helpfully reminds us in its briefing that the increase is in contravention of what the then shadow Chancellor said in 1993 about ending means-testing for old-age pensioners.
  We must also remember that the minimum income guarantee saps personal responsibility and an individual's dependency on their own savings. The savings industry tells us that the stakeholder pension is now a busted flush because it is simply not logical for individuals to save under the stakeholder pension with the MIG set at its existing level.
  The Chancellor of complexity's Kafkaesque odyssey extends even further, beyond the MIG, the CTC and the working families tax credit to the corporate sector. The Chancellor's earlier Finance Acts contained two major reorganisations of capital gains tax, and another has been announced in this Budget. It is getting to the point where chartered accountants cannot easily, on their first attempt, calculate accurately the CGT liability of a small business or even an individual. More than 3,000 major new regulations that affect business have been introduced since 1997, which is a post-war record. The Chancellor has done nothing about that and appears not to care or to see the significance of that increased red tape. "Tolley's", the tax bible, which I was privileged enough to use when I was a legal practitioner many years ago, has now almost doubled in size as a result of the last five Brown Budgets.
  It is small wonder that Standard Chartered bank said:
  "Tax systems in other countries are getting simpler but in Great Britain against the international trend it is becoming more complicated and getting in the way of decision making."
  Digby Jones of the CBI agrees with that analysis and has warned the Chancellor publicly to "get serious" about deregulation and tax simplification. Only last week, immediately after the Budget, an Ernst and Young survey of 650 businesses said that, on balance, it would discourage inward investors, who are usually the productivity leaders in the British economy.
  Economists understand that the tax and benefits complexities of which I and other hon. Members have spoken are not merely an irritation or an inconvenience; they damage the national economic performance of UK plc and, ultimately, the living standards of all. That catalogue of complexity is all down to one man—the Chancellor. The Labour-dominated Treasury Committee published a report in January on the Chancellor's stewardship of the economy which said that
  "it remains difficult to identify anyone in the structure who has the background and the capacity to think about the tax system as a whole"
  and that
  "policy is more likely to be successfully formulated and implemented if everyone is clear from the start what the objectives are and why"
  872
  What a damning condemnation that is. The Committee went on to say that the memorandums that members of the Committee receive from tax professionals and others
  "support the conclusions that the tax system is too complex and that serious attempts to reduce complexity have been avoided; that tax reforms are too often undertaken without adequate analysis of the likely effects; and that consultation on detailed tax reforms is not yet regarded as standard practice. despite the introduction of the annual Pre-Budget Report"
  We know what a farce that is. The Committee concludes:
  "We firmly believe that in the area of tax policy the Treasury could do better. We recommend that the Treasury give more attention to this area in order to ensure the tax system is 'fair and efficient'".
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend will not want to understate his case. Does he agree that the increased complexity of the tax system is not accidental? Rather, it is a calculated—and I hope unsuccessful—attempt by the Chancellor to hide the tact that people who are married, who pay mortgages, who own cars and have the temerity to put petrol in them, who acquire savings, who possess pensions and who run businesses all face a higher tax burden under this Chancellor.
  Mr. Ruffley: My hon. Friend anticipates me. Many of us are wise to that fact. I am sure that his comments are informed by what the good burghers of Buckingham tell him, because my constituents have been saying the same thing. They understand the situation.
  The report accuses the Chancellor of being, at worst, power mad and bonkers, as one of his new Labour colleagues described him. [interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) correctly observes, that description is on the tepid side. At best, the report shows him to be an obsessive interferer, fixated with the idea that other Departments do not understand anything and cannot be trusted. He appears to think that he can micromanage business and run everything, but he cannot.
  I fear that the Chancellor of complexity is not merely misguided: two much darker, more dishonest and sinister purposes lie behind this and his other four Budgets. First, he is deliberately bringing middle-income Britain into the state dependency net. The benefits and breaks of the children's tax credit, the working families tax credit and the baby bonus extend much higher up the income scale than any other comparable measure. He is trying to lure middle-income Britain into the net of dependency while disguising his truly cack-handed attempts to help people lower down the income scale by the ham-fisted redistributionism of old-style socialism. This Budget and previous Brownian Budgets are nothing less than socialism by other means.
  The second purpose is even worse. The Chancellor pretends that his complicated tax changes are tax cuts, but they are nothing of the sort. New Labour is deceiving us. It is using this complex system to hide the fact that tax is rising. The complications that he has introduced into the system are a naked political attempt to try to bamboozle the electorate in the hope that he will negate taxation as an electoral issue. In reality, all we are left with is a mess of fiddled figures, amounting to no more than a large dollop of brown fudge.
  The Red Book is nothing but a disgrace. The standards that would usually be expected from impartial officials are in danger of being jeopardised. The most impartial

  873
  observers in the City of London who have to analyse Budgets for their clients and banking institutions think that the Red Book is an unprecedented disgrace.
  Sir Michael Spicer: I am following my hon. Friend's brilliant speech with care, especially what he says about the Chancellor's tax rises. Why does he think that the right hon. Gentleman bothers to disguise those? Surely, if my hon. Friend were a socialist—like the Chancellor and his party—he would be proud of a tax-rising Budget and a tax-rising regime, because that produces tax expenditure.
  Mr. Ruffley: I have the honour of serving with my hon. Friend on the Treasury Committee and he poses a question that many other Committee members and journalists have asked. I believe that if the Chancellor told the truth to the British people, he would be out on his ear pretty smartly. He is fighting a tough rearguard action to conceal the truth from the British people, but I know that with my hon. Friend's help and that of my colleagues on the Conservative Front Bench, we will expose new Labour's fundamental deceit.
  On the meat—the detail—of the tax increases, we know from the Red Book that taxes are £28 billion higher after the Budget than they were at the last election. Of the 45 new stealth taxes, approximately half are levied on business and half on the personal sector. The Chancellor may be in denial about tax rises, but if he looks at tables C23 and C9 in the Red Book, he will discover that the tax burden in 1996–97 was 35.2 per cert. under the excellent stewardship of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, and that it is 37.7 per cent. in the current financial year. His own figures show an increase of 2.5 per cent. Of that there can be no doubt. It is only a pity that he does not cough to the truth, but I fear that he will not.
  Taxes are up on marriage, mortgages, personal pensions and petrol. Households are paying more indirect tax in the form of higher council tax. The Government have starved rural authorities such St. Edmundsbury council in Suffolk, which is in my constituency, of rate support grant. They have deliberately targeted them and forced them to increase council tax to make up the shortfall. The public are not stupid. They know what is going on.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ruffley: With a due sense of dread and regret.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have a simple question. Does the hon. Gentleman want to comment on whether it is helpful to pay off Government debt?
  Mr. Ruffley: It is helpful, but we need to strike a balance. Paying it off saves about £1.5 billion in debt interest, but there is a more imaginative proposal. The hon. Gentleman probably does not keep up with the literature, so I shall give him the details. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) has come up with a radical and innovative plan to use mobile phone receipts to establish a higher education endowment fund, which has been extremely successful at Princeton and Harvard. The balance sheet for higher education spending
  874
  would be relieved, over time, by that fund. However, on the hon. Gentleman's core point, of course it is intelligent to pay off debt if the money is available.
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is another strange feature of the scene? The Chancellor has diminished the prevalence of gifts in the long-dated market without relieving the annuity provisions for people over 75, causing widespread and unnecessary misery.
  Mr. Ruffley: My hon. Friend's intervention allows me to showcase some of the excellent policies that have been developed by the Conservative Treasury team. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) has addressed the matter of annuity provision. That and the excellent policy on endowing higher education institutions are testimony to the fact that the Conservative party has been doing some serious thinking in opposition. We are raring to implement the policies in office.
  We know that higher taxes on marriages, mortgages, petrol and personal pensions and even higher increases in council tax have had an effect on the incomes of real people in real households. As Credit Suisse First Boston has helpfully calculated in the past month, household disposable income, which is arrived at when all direct and indirect tax and inflation has been taken into account, has increased by only 1.6 per cent. under this Government. There was a 2.9 per cent increase under the regime of my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher and a 2.5 per cent. increase between 1990 and 1997. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe observed, the Government are laggardly on economic growth and in delivering increases to ordinary households. When those families look at increases in their disposable income, they see that they are worse off than they were under previous Administrations.
  The Conservative party will give people back their own money. After all, they earned it. They can spend money that they have earned and saved better than big government and certainly better than the new Labour Government. Overtaxing is not clever. My auntie could have overtaxed to the extent that the Chancellor has and delivered a huge surplus. There is nothing clever about that. We would give £8 billion back in tax cuts, funded by £8 billion of costed savings from the huge total of more than £400 billion a year that the Chancellor proposes to spend. If Labour Members are in any doubt about how deliverable that is, may I remind them that the state spends a total of £400 billion? Our proposal is practical, modest and will not frighten the horses; we propose that £8 billion, or 2 per cent. of that £400 billion, can be saved. In any business, that percentage would, dare I say it, be seen as a bog standard saving. The saving is not at all difficult to achieve.
  We have published details of our proposals and we can give the money back. I shall quickly examine who will be the targeted beneficiaries of Tory economic policy. The abolition of the savings tax for everyone on basic and lower-rate tax will reward those who do the right thing and take personal responsibility for themselves and their families. We will also increase the age-related allowance for pensioners, taking 1 million pensioners out of tax altogether. As my right hon. Friend the Member for

  875
  Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) said, those pensioners who remain taxpayers will be about £8.50 better off a week.
  We will introduce a transferable tax allowance, worth up to £1,000 a year, recognising married women who wish and choose to stay at home to look after children under 11 and women in a similar position who decide to look after an aged relative. Those are the common-sense principles in which our party believes. We are backing our beliefs with real money, because those women would be up to £1,000 better off. Finally, we will reduce tax on petrol which, as my constituents in Bury St. Edmunds never tire of reminding me, is still, even after the Budget, the highest in Europe.
  Those sensible Conservative reductions in wasteful expenditure and the tax burden will deliver incentives for work, saving and investment to stimulate the growth that will and must deliver higher living standards to all the British people. That is the Conservative way. The Labour way is the way of Complexity Brown, a man in the clutches of the delusion that interference and lever-pulling deliver the goods. That is a socialist fallacy in a modern setting. It has never worked and, as we shall soon learn, it will not work this time either.
  6.54 pm
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: I do not know whether to congratulate the generous Chancellor or the socialist Chancellor. Perhaps I should congratulate him on both counts.
  Congratulations on the Budget are in order. The Government and the Chancellor should be applauded for a very good Budget, which is based on the competent management of the economy. It is worth repeating just how good the economy is and how it has been turned round. We have the lowest inflation for 30 years, which is really good news for anyone on a fixed low income. We have the lowest long-term interest rates for 35 years; that is very good news for Halifax, which has a high owner-occupier population. On average, mortgages are now £1,200 a year less than they were under the previous Government. More people are in work than ever before and we have the lowest unemployment since 1975. All those things are worth repeating again and again.
  In Halifax, 3,463 people were unemployed in April 1997, but now the figure has fallen to just over 2,000—a drop of 36 per cent. Under the new deal, nearly 1,400 young people have found work or gone into training or higher education. The means-testing of pensioners has been criticised. I am not a big fan of means-testing; I support universal benefits, and always have done. However, at least 3,000 pensioners in Halifax—not a small number—have gained from the minimum income guarantee. From this April, a single pensioner will be on £92.15 and a pensioner couple on £140.55. That is not to be sneered at; it is to be welcomed.
  All the 18,253 pensioners in Halifax benefit from the winter fuel payment given to households with someone over 60. The benefit is immensely popular—indeed, it is one of the most popular benefits that we have introduced. It is so popular that the Conservatives have said that they will not abolish it. It is not means-tested and it is flexible; people can use it when they need to and spend it on the
  876
  energy that they want. In Halifax, a large number of pensioners over 75—at least 7,301—have benefited from a free television lice nee, saving them £104 a year. They have an extra £2 of income a week, which they can spend as they wish. As the Paymaster General is on the Front Bench, I shall repeat my bid for the free licence to be extended to everyone over 65.
  From April, all the 18,253 pensioners in Halifax will get a boost in the state retirement pension, which will rise by £5 for a single pensioner and £8 for a couple. We must remind those who have listened to the Tories' promise to match that increase chat the Tories had 18 years in which to do something about pensioner poverty. I have been in the House long enough to remember a 37p increase in pensions, so we should have no nonsense from the Tories about 75p—[Interruption.] Yes, there certainly was a 37p increase.
  The Chancellor has worked on the pension credit, which will be introduced in 2003. He should be commended for locking ahead and examining how we increase pensioner incomes. I should like the link between earnings and pensions to be restored, but I will take whatever is on offer. Over the years, I have had experience of dealing with pensioners on low incomes, so I know that any money is welcome. I can sell the package to my constituents and am proud to do so. This is a good Budget, built on good measures that have been introduced over the years.
  I turn to families, and could not disagree more with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), who criticised the working families tax credit. More than 4,500 working families with children in Halifax are benefiting from the working families tax credit. They are guaranteed an income of nearly £220 a week, which is an enormous boost for low-paid families struggling to bring up children.
  Mr. Ruffley: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I would not want her to go away with the impression that I was against more money for those families. She is well aware that the working families tax credit is no more than re-badged family credit, which was introduced by my noble Friend Lord Lawson. The issue is not that we do not want to benefit those families but the manner in which that help is delivered. The burden of my argument was that it is much too complex.
  Mrs. Mahon: The hon. Gentleman will agree that the present benefit is far more generous than family credit. My hon. Friend the Paymaster General should be congratulated on the hard work that she has done to introduce the working families tax credit, which is an excellent benefit.
  I congratulate the Government on child benefit, which is a very good payment. It goes to the mother, and into her purse. In 1997 child benefit was £11.05 for the first child. From April this year, it will be £15.50, which is a significant increase. The mother can rely on receiving the payment every week. I am pleased with the measures that are being introduced. The Budget contains many more measures for the family, on which the Government are to be congratulated.
  The shadow Chancellor sneered at the tax cut for the lower paid. I can tell him that 12,745 families in Halifax will receive the benefit of that, on top of all the other

  877
  measures. If the shadow Chancellor and some of his hon. Friends who sneer at the size of the tax cut had any experience of living on a low income and managing a budget, they would not have made that criticism. They do not understand poverty, and they do not care.
  On education, my constituency was at the heart of a scandal concerning The Ridings school, which was dubbed the worst school in Britain. It certainly was not the worst, but there were problems at the school and the media became interested. The Government have ensured that that school is properly resourced. I am sure that everyone read in the national press about the excellent Ofsted report and about how that school is coming up. The children are learning and want to learn, and congratulations are due to Anna White, the teachers, the governors and the children, and to the Government on putting money into the school.
  I was delighted when the Chancellor said that local schools will get more direct cash payments. That is a popular measure: heads and teachers like it. They know the weaknesses and the strengths of their schools, and they can spend the money accordingly. I repeat to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) what I said in my intervention. I invite him to come to Halifax and see the new buildings.
  The hon. Gentleman should come to Sowerby Bridge school, where I took a member of our Front Bench team when we were in opposition, to see a school that still had the same desks that my husband, who is over 60, had used when he was at the school. I invite the hon. Gentleman to come and see the refurbished school now, with its new computer centre and its wonderfully equipped new classrooms. On top of that, we have been promised £36 million for a brand new secondary school. I thank the Government for that very good news This is the first time in years that we have seen such spending on education.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health made some important announcements today, pursuing the national health service plan and putting in the resources necessary to implement it. The plan is excellent. It is what the NHS needs and it is long overdue. The Government have guaranteed that our health authority allocation will rise in real terms by at least 6 per cent., and by 6 per cent. for the following two years. That substantial increase in our allocation is welcome.
  We have been through a difficult time, but this afternoon's announcement and some of the measures in the Budget mean that we will be able to implement the plan. I congratulate the Government on our new hospital, which will open in June. There has been a merger between Calderdale and Kirklees, and we now have a merged trust. the Calderdale and Huddersfield trust. A new chief executive was appointed today. I am disappointed by the appointment, and I intend at a future date to ask for a debate on the subject. There is a flaw in the power of the regional directors and the way in which they appoint all administrators.
  The appointment will be bad news for those of us in Calderdale who have spent years trying to get a new hospital. We now have it, but we will have a hostile chief executive, who did not want the new hospital and does not want two accident and emergency services. We are getting the money in through the Budget, and we could have one such service in Huddersfield and one in Halifax. We desperately need two accident and emergency services
  878
  because of the geography of the area, but the new chief executive is not in favour of that. I believe that she will work hard to take women's and children's services away from Calderdale, which will be a tragedy. We have been commended by all the experts for our neonatal intensive care unit, and we are getting the money now to ensure that we have excellent services in that field.
  We have enough money from the Budget allocation to have the headquarters of the merged trust in Calderdale, which would be the only fair thing to do. The health authority headquarters are in Huddersfield, and in the interests of fairness, the trust headquarters should be in Calderdale. I know that that will lead to another fight locally, following the selection of Diane Whittingham.
  The extra money in the Budget is needed in Calderdale, and is extremely welcome. Our state-of-the-art hospital would never have been built without a Labour Government. The merger was managed extremely well by the departing chair, Pam Warhurst, and others, who should be congratulated on trying to keep the two communities together. Following the merger, we can attract the best doctors and nurses. It is a pity that that wonderful record has been spoiled by a civil servant, Peter Garland, who put his own empire-building before the best for my constituents, but I make a pledge: I shall fight for those constituents and for Halifax. My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Ms McCafferty), who cannot be present today, would say exactly the same.
  This afternoon we heard the Secretary of State tell us that we are aiming for 20.000 more nurses and 7,000 more consultants. We desperately need them. I was pleased to hear that there has been a 56 per cent. increase in the number of applicants for nursing and midwifery courses. I am ecstatic about the visionary extension of child care help in the NHS, which will attract people back and ensure that their skills will not be wasted and under-used at home. I congratulate the Government on the increase in the student bursary. It is not enough yet, but it is a good start.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health, who is on the Front Bench, will forgive my little moan. It has been a good news story for health today, but I urge him to look at the flaw in the selection of chief executives, which is not democratic or fair. If we are serious about being equal opportunity employers, we should examine the civil service guidance, which gives one civil servant far too much power over everything.
  7.9 pm
  Mr. John Swinney: The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) said that his speech today was likely to be his last to the House of Commons, after a career of 23 or 24 years here. This is probably my last speech in the House of Commons as well and, like the hon. Gentleman, I shall concentrate on my work in the Scottish Parliament. I leave the House with perhaps not quite as much nostalgia as him, but I, too, look forward to my continued service in the Scottish Parliament.
  The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) made an interesting and lengthy contribution, in which he said that the Labour Government were deceivers on tax and spending. I think that I can agree with him on that point. The Government have successfully created a new

  879
  art of spinning to their advantage an incredible quantity of financial information that amounts to little in terms of different news. I should like to concentrate on the Government's position on tax and spending, and on what they have said about the family.
  In the pre-Budget report and elsewhere, the Budget has been trumpeted as a great deal for families. However, let us consider what families are experiencing. First, as a result of the Budget, families in Britain are still paying the highest fuel taxes in Europe. The Chancellor has not changed that at all. Obviously, any fuel duty reductions are welcome, but surely the amount that is levied can move in only one direction after the trend that it has followed under this Government and the previous, Conservative Government.
  Secondly, some of the poorest families in North Tayside are paying the most extraordinary charge increases for certain local authority services. Under this Government, some of my constituents have seen their charges for water and sewerage services increase by 250 per cent. Indeed, they are rising almost as fast as the salaries of the chief executives of the water quangos over which the Government have presided, which rubs salt into people's wounds.
  Thirdly, families in my constituency are paying in back-door taxation the equivalent of an extra 9p in income tax because of the various tax changes made over time by the Chancellor. The Government have kept their commitment not to increase the basic rate of income tax, but have used just about every other possible dodge in the book to get more money out of the ordinary, hard-working families that they were supposed to be supporting and helping. Instead of assisting such families, they have spent most time penalising them.
  Fourthly, I suspect that many families voted for the Labour party on the basis that it would take action to relieve their poverty. When the Government took office in 1997, 30 per cent. of families in Scotland were living in poverty. After four years, we have arrived at a miraculous situation in which 30 per cent. of families are still living in poverty. In the light of that statistic, the Government have decided that it would be too embarrassing for words to calculate the level of poverty since 1997, so they are trying instead to deal with it from 1996. That shows a modest decline, but airbrushing 1997 out of the history books is not a short cut to achieving their objectives. A great number of people, whether they are in poverty or not, are left disheartened and dejected at the Government's lack of progress.
  Fifthly, families are undoubtedly wrestling with a world that is now much more complex. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds said a great deal about the complexity of the system. I do not dispute the fact that the Government are introducing beneficial measures regarding the working families tax credit and the children's tax credit, but I question the accessibility of the opportunities that they provide. I was struck by the Inland Revenue's confirmation that almost a million people who are eligible for the children's tax credit have not lodged an expression of interest in it. That comes on top of evidence that half a million pensioners have failed to apply for the minimum income guarantee and to work through the 40-page form that must be completed in order to make such an application.
  880
  All those indications show that the Government's approach to redistribution involves obstacles that the Chancellor must surmount to ensure that all families who are in need have a proper opportunity to access the information and credits to which they are entitled. The system's complexity has excluded a number of people who desperately need the support that is available from the Government, not least through the measures recently announced, and it shows no signs of getting any simpler.
  The Chancellor has made a great deal of honouring his manifesto commitment not to raise the basic rate of income tax. It would be churlish to dispute that commitment, but I calculate that 28 tax rises have been made under the current Chancellor—an analysis that is supported by the Library. I am sure that the Conservative party can justify its argument that there have been 45 rises, but the 28 rises of which I am aware are equivalent to the application to ordinary people in our society of a 9p increase in income tax. The total UK tax burden has increased from 36 per cent. of GDP in 1996–97 to an estimated 40 per cent. in 2000–01.
  Those increases nail the Chancellor's repeated claim that he is a tax-cutting Chancellor. There is no doubt that he is a tax-increasing Chancellor. Any redistribution measure or evidence of a tax-cutting agenda in the Budget is more than outweighed by the fact that he has raised more than £23 billion in additional taxation by imposing the changes to which I have referred. Ironically, there is a direct equivalence between the £23 billion in tax rises and the £23 billion surplus announced in the Budget statement. The Chancellor has imposed the 28 tax rises through the back door, but they have resulted in even more tax increases for ordinary families. As I said, they include greater water charges in Scotland.
  It comes as no surprise that a recent poll whose results were published in The Herald suggests that almost 60 per cent. of people in Scotland think that Labour has broken its tax promise. The public are now beginning to see through the propaganda, spin and representation of the same arguments. They can see that the tax burden has increased for ordinary people and that Labour cannot be trusted on tax.
  Just as Labour cannot be trusted on tax, so it cannot be trusted on spending. I would rather listen to what real doctors say about public expenditure than to what spin doctors say about it. A recent British Medical Association survey showed that 80 per cent. of Scottish GPs believed that there had been a decline in hospital care since Labour took office. I was intrigued by the bullish way in which the Secretary of State for Health presented the Government's health record, as they cut real-terms expenditure on the health service in Scotland during their first year in office. As much as I criticise the Conservative party for its ghastly expenditure and public service record in Scotland, I must accept that even it did not make such a cut in all its 18 years in power.
  To compound the matter, the Government starved public services during their first two years in office. Even at the end of the comprehensive spending review period, they will be spending less of the nation's wealth on public expenditure and services in Scotland than the Conservatives were at the end of their period in government. Public expenditure increased by 2.6 per cent. a year in real terms under the Conservatives. On average, it rose by 1.8 per cent. a year from 1979 until 1997. After the current Government came into office, however,

  881
  expenditure rose by 1.2 per cent. a year from 1997–98 until 2000–01. I suspect that the current Parliament is unlikely to last for five years, but, if it does, the next such figure will be 1.9 per cent. That puts into context the Government's change in public expenditure.
  I was struck by a written parliamentary answer given in the Scottish Parliament, which showed that when the Conservatives left office they were spending 1.8 per cent. of United Kingdom GDP on public expenditure in Scotland. In 2003–04, the figure will reach only 1.84 per cent. at the end of the comprehensive spending review period. That shows that the Government are not investing as much of the nation's wealth in public spending as has been invested in the past.
  The Government say that new expenditure will result from the Budget, and that is true. By my calculations, an extra £200 million, spread over three years, will come to the Scottish Parliament in the block formula. However, we must bear in mind the fact that, although that £200 million will be welcome, the Scottish Executive managed to underspend their budget last year by £435 million. We must put the scale of the latest increase into some sort of perspective, in terms of the increases in expenditure that the Chancellor has announced.
  The hon. Member for Halifax (MI s. Mahon) described real life in her constituency to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) in terms of investment in public services. I am sure that she knows her constituency extremely well, but we all have such a constituency record and we are all aware of the limitations of public expenditure. I am certainly very concerned by what I see and hear, for example when I speak to representatives of the health authority in my constituency.
  The health authority is wrestling with a £10 million deficit, which has to be eliminated before it can obtain any long-term investment for health services in the Tayside area. Countless schools in my constituency need refurbishment, and we are a long way down the priority list in terms of investment. We must keep our feet on the ground when we consider the Government's actions on public expenditure, because they are not making the quantum difference that they boasted would be the case.
  The condition of the economy has teen the subject of many bullish remarks by the Chancellor, and by the Secretary of State for Health when he opened this debate. Since the Government came into office, there have been four quarters of negative economic growth, in which the economy has not increased in size. The economy in Scotland is not doing as well as that of the rest of the United Kingdom, and the latest figures show that the rate of growth in the Scottish economy is 1.6 per cent., compared to 3.4 per cent. for the UK as a whole. For the sake of international comparison with some of our small, European counterparts, I can tell hon. Members that economic growth in Ireland is projected to be 8.7 per cent. in this financial year.
  Manufacturing losses in Scotland have been enormous, and the latest statistics show that manufacturing exports are down. In a number of manufacturing sectors—for example, the drinks industry, paper manufacture, food, tobacco, mechanical engineering and textiles—export figures are down. Let us also, therefore, keep our feet on the ground when considering the economic performance about which the Government are so keen to boast.
  882
  Obviously, almost everyone welcomes the decrease in unemployment. The International Labour Organisation employment trends, so frequently used by the Government as their favoured mechanism, suggest that 8.7 per cent. of the population of Scotland were unemployed in 1997, and that that figure is now 6.4 per cent. However, a much more dramatic decline has taken place in Ireland, where, according to the ILO, unemployment was 10.3 per cent. in 1997 and is now 4.3 per cent. We must, therefore, be aware of the scale of economic activity and economic progress that can be achieved in comparable circumstances.
  The Chancellor has tried to present an image of a low-tax, high-spending Budget. However, he has delivered a high-tax, low-spending record, and that has led to under-performance in our economic base. It is essential for the Chancellor to recognise and accept the public mood on this issue. There is a need for much greater honesty and transparency in the tax system. People are beginning to tumble to the fact that they are paying more tax than they used to, and it is high time that the Chancellor demonstrated some transparency in the way he explains those issues to the public. The public now clearly understand that, although the promise of low direct income tax has been kept, they are paying high indirect taxes. The fuel crisis of last summer represented an explosion of people's anger that should act as a warning to the Chancellor. There is also a necessity for claims about public expenditure to be founded on reality, rather than on the extravagant claims that the Chancellor has set out.
  The hon. Member for East Lothian advised the House earlier that, as part of maintaining the United Kingdom, it was essential that no one interfered with the funding formula that underpins the funding of the changes to public expenditure in the Scottish Parliament—the so-called Barnett formula—which the hon. Gentleman presented as a great formula.
  The Barnett formula is often misunderstood. It is a converging formula, designed to bring per capita public expenditure in Scotland into line with per capita public expenditure in England. In certain identifiable areas of public expenditure, there is a difference. We must be clear that the formula is designed to reduce public expenditure in Scotland, and it is doing so. The gap between per capita public expenditure in Scotland and England is declining year by year because of the vigorous application of the Barnett formula.
  Mr. Andrew Love: Will the hon. Gentleman give the House an idea of when that convergence will take place, and when expenditure in Scotland will be the same as that in England?
  Mr. Swinney: I think that the Chancellor would be able to give the hon. Gentleman a better projection on that issue than I could. However, the pattern is taking its course and is being vigorously implemented by this Chancellor. People should be aware that that is the pattern of our public expenditure.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: On that point, is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are discovering in Northern Ireland that health expenditure will be cut year by year in the near future because of the implementation of the Barnett formula?
  Mr. Swinney: Let us be clear on this point. In the present context, public expenditure on health will increase

  883
  at a slower rate in Scotland—and, I assume, in Northern Ireland and Wales—than it will in England. That is the real impact of the Barnett formula: it is designed to bring about convergence. That is a challenge for those of us representing Scottish constituencies. I hope that the very worthy Scottish National party candidate standing in the North Tayside constituency at the general election will be able to come to the House and inform it of his concerns about the Barnett formula for a limited period in the years to come, before he returns to an independent Scottish Parliament.
  Mr. Home Robertson rose—
  Mr. Swinney: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in just a moment.
  The purpose of the Barnett formula is to bring about the convergence of public expenditure in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England. The challenge for people interested in promoting and expanding public services in Scotland will be to secure access to the resources that will allow us to do so, and to maintain a high quality in those public services. I have a solution to that challenge, but I shall wait until I have heard the intervention from the hon. Member for East Lothian.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I want to pick up the hon. Gentleman on the point about the peregrinations of SNP politicians. Does he believe that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) is really a true Brit, and that he will stay here, or does he think that he will return to the Scottish Parliament again?
  Mr. Swinney: My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has a distinguished record in the House, and he is a formidable campaigner and champion of Scottish interests. He has fought a valiant campaign on behalf of Scotland's fishing industry over the past few weeks, which the Scottish Executive would do well to listen to. I think that they are probably listening to it in Edinburgh even as we speak.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan will serve in this House for just as long as it takes to secure Scottish independence, and then return to the Scottish Parliament. He might see the hon. Member for East Lothian there, if the hon. Gentleman manages to hold on to his seat long enough to continue to serve in that other place. However, I must return to the Budget debate before I am reprimanded, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  A vigorous debate is emerging about the long-term funding of the Scottish Parliament. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, recently made an interesting speech about fiscal autonomy—I intervened on the hon. Member for East Lothian on that point—whose purpose was to acknowledge that the Scottish Parliament needs the fiscal responsibility to take major decisions on public services, public expenditure, taxation and revenue raising on behalf of people in Scotland. Most important, certainly from my point of view, it should be able to manage and steward the natural resources of Scotland, take decisions about our revenues and our expenditure and pay to the United Kingdom Parliament a sum in respect of services provided to Scotland in the longer term.
  884
  That debate about fiscal autonomy is vigorous and within it lie the answers to the limits placed on our public expenditure because of convergence under the Barnett formula. I hope that ether political parties in Scotland will engage with the debate because it contains the germs of the next development of the constitutional argument, which will further strengthen the Scottish Parliament. That will be good for Scotland and good for the public services of Scotland.
  The Budget is heavily based on the spin that we have become accustomed to from the Chancellor. He suggests that he has cut taxes and increased spending, but he has of course done neither. At the forthcoming election, the public will show whether they have seen through him. As a result of the Budget, being seen through is what he deserves.
  7.31 pm
  Ms Claire Ward: It is always interesting to listen to Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), in response to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), suggested that paying off our debt is a good idea if we have the money. I take that as an official response from the Conservative party, which I understand has given a commitment to equal the public services spending announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. Yet the Tories also talk about making bigger tax cuts. Their sums do not add up: the funding is not there to achieve all that.
  The hon. Gentleman said that the Conservatives would find savings of £8 billion, but the information on the Opposition's alternative Budget, which I have read, suggests that it is based on a number of false premises. One is that £250 million could be saved from money being spent on regional government. Obviously it has escaped Opposition Members' attention that the Government are not spending that money, so it cannot be saved. That point highlights the problems of the Conservative Opposition and their inability to run the economy, which w a; apparent in the past.
  Mr. Letwin: Is the hon. Lady accusing her own Front Benchers of deceiving the nation in their latest annual report, which says that they are on course for regional government?
  Ms Ward: That is not the issue, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. He knows from his party's policies that the Conservatives claim that they would save money that is already being spent, but that money is not being spent. That is crucial.
  Mr. Letwin rose—
  Ms Ward: The hon. Gentleman is very keen, so I shall let him intervene again.
  Mr. Letwin: Would it help the hon. Lady to know that the planned savings that we have specified vis-a-vis the Chancellor's plans relate to 2003–04? As far as I am aware, that year has not yet occurred.
  Ms Ward: That is true, but the proposals relate to spending that has already been undertaken and cuts in

  885
  spending on regional government. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head but, according to the Conservative budget, that spending has already been allocated, even though the money is not being spent by the Government.
  That is just one issue on which we heard from Opposition Members. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) suggested that he is not terribly confident about the projected growth of the economy as forecast by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. Indeed, I think he said that he would not bank on it. If he is not prepared to bank on it, perhaps he is prepared to bet on it, because the Chancellor has made betting free. Such a bet would be a good investment. I am not a gambler, but I respect the right of others to gamble and the proposal will encourage companies that took betting offshore to return to this country, which will benefit not only those who bet, but Government revenue. Everybody is a winner on that one.
  The Budget is welcomed by my constituents, who will benefit from a range of policies. They will certainly benefit from the announcements on continued investment in the national health service made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health this afternoon. I welcome the opportunities to encourage the recruitment of more general practitioners and more nurses through additional payments. In the area that I represent, it is increasingly difficult to recruit and retain people in the public sector because even though there are so many jobs available in Watford and around London, the cost of living is incredibly high.
  When people have a choice about where to work, they do not automatically choose a hospital in the south-east, for example, if they can choose one in London. Costs in the south-east are the same as in London, so I welcome the proposals and hope that my right hon. Friend will recognise the needs not only of Watford, but of other areas close to London that need investment and encouragement for public sector workers to live in the area.
  On a point of information, this afternoon I attended the opening of two new key worker houses in my constituency, which were established for police officers. That is an example of how a partnership involving housing associations, local authorities and the public sector can provide the sort of accommodation that is vital to encourage and enable people to live in the constituency and serve in the police force. I hope that such arrangements will be extended to other public sectors, especially health.
  We already have a good record on the health service. In the Watford constituency, West Hertfordshire health authority has gained significantly from the Government. In 1996–97, it received a percentage increase of only 3.2 per cent., which was a real-terms increase of only 0.5 per cent. For 2001 and 2001– 02, there will be 8.6 per cent. increases—6 per cent. in real terms. That will make a massive difference to the service that the health authority and the hospitals are able to provide to my constituents.
  The number of patients being treated has increased and the number of nurses has risen significantly. In September 1997, qualified nurses in West Hertfordshire's area numbered 1,468. In September 2000, there were 1,983. That represents a significant improvement in the health service for my constituents. There is a lot more good
  886
  news, but I am not complacent and we still have a long way to go to improve our NHS. The steps taken today to encourage more people into public services such as the national health service will, in my view, reap real benefits in the future.
  Education has also benefited from significant improvements in the past thanks to the present Government and, thanks to the Budget, can enjoy great hopes for the future. Primary schools will receive between £13,000 and £63,000, and secondary schools will receive between £68,000 and £115,000. That money will go directly to schools, enabling head teachers to decide their priorities along with governors.
  That is not to say that I want education authorities to be removed or undermined. I believe, however, that the Government's attempt to convey additional money directly to schools is vital, enabling priorities that can be understood by schools and by head teachers working from day to day to be met.
  The flexibility involved in the use of the money is also important. As I said earlier, one of our problems in Watford, in Hertfordshire and in the south-east generally is the high cost of living, which makes it difficult to recruit and retain staff. The extra money will allow head teachers to increase new teachers' pay, over and above the national increases that the Government have announced. This is flexibility determined by local circumstances, and I expect schools in my constituency to welcome the new money.
  Overall, the Budget sets out a stable and strong economy for the future. It builds on the successes of the past—of the last four years—and it enables my constituents to plan investments in the knowledge that their mortgage rates will not soar out of control. Businesses will also be able to make important investments, knowing that they can begin to recruit people with the additional skills that are being made available while ensuring that they too will receive investment.
  I grew up under Conservative Governments during the 1980s and 1990s. For me, the lasting images of those years were provided by the news bulletins that I watched every night. A map would appear on the screen, with pinpoints denoting the thousands of jobs that were being lost.
  Another lasting memory of those times is that of the large increases in interest rates, causing more and more people to face repossession. Young couples or families just starting out invested their money, their hopes and their dreams in their first house, only to find not much later, in the years of Conservative government, that they could not afford to maintain those dreams and hopes—that they had been dashed by Conservative policies. The Chancellor's greatest achievement has been to get rid of the boom-and-bust policies of the last Government, which says a lot about his stability, strength and competence and that of the present Administration.
  One important factor is, of course, employment. My constituency has done incredibly well out of a Labour Government. Between 1997 and now, we have seen a 48 per cent. drop in unemployment. There has been a significant increase in the number of jobs: indeed, it is now difficult to fill many of the vacancies that exist in Watford. I am keen to encourage those who have retired early to consider returning to employment, as, given the number of jobs available, not enough younger people who

  887
  are currently working are able to take them up. Of course we want better opportunities for training and skills, which would enable us to meet the needs of employers in Watford and the surrounding areas.
  A major industry not just in Watford but in Hertfordshire is the film industry. Film-making now accounts for 8 per cent. of Hertfordshire's gross domestic product; millions of pounds are going into the area. My constituency contains Leavesden film studios, where the Harry Potter film is currently being made. It is a great British film based on a book by a good British author. I believe that other Hertfordshire constituencies will also benefit from investment in the film industry. Steven Spielberg has been making "Band of Brothers", and successful films have been made at Elstree and other studios and locations in the county.
  For the position to improve, however, we needed an assurance from the Chancellor that he would extend the tax breaks made available just three years ago. Working with the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, who has just entered the Chamber, I was keen to ensure that we campaigned and lobbied the Chancellor on that issue, given its importance not just to my area but to the whole British film industry.
  Those in the film industry, and those responsible for finding finance for British films, are—to say the least—ecstatic about the Government's policy. That is clear to me when I talk to them. This is the first Government to recognise the importance of British films, and the first Government to do something about it by making investment real. More films have come to the United Kingdom, and many more are likely to do so in the future as a result of the extension of tax breaks for the next three years. I congratulate the Chancellor and the Treasury on their introduction of a specific policy that will make a real difference not just to the British film industry, but to my constituency and the county of Hertfordshire.
  This is, overall, a very good Budget. It maintains the stability that we have seen over the past four years, while increasing opportunities for investment in the health service and education. I believe that our constituents will gain real benefits from it in the coming years, and will not be conned by a Conservative Opposition who think they can offer tax cuts, investment in the public sector, a reduction in debt and all the other things that they promise when that clearly does not add up. I am sure people in Britain will recognise that when the time comes for them to judge this Government, and their ability to deliver a good, strong and stable economy.
  7.49 pm
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Last Thursday, that famous Welsh organ of truth, the Western Mail, quoted the Chancellor as saying:
  "Because employment and the economy is growing and we are saving billions of pounds in debt repayments, we can target more help on Wales' priorities."
  Having read that, Plaid Cymru Members read through the Budget's detail expecting to see something about a regional economic policy. Unfortunately, we saw nothing about that. I have yet to see anything in the Budget that will cheer Wales's main industries—agriculture and manufacturing. I have no doubt that Britain's economy
  888
  is doing well, as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said earlier in a very interesting speech. However, that is all the more reason for formulating and implementing a targeted regional economic policy.
  The hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward) described the situation in Hertfordshire, where I am sure various economic levers will have to be operated. None the less, in relation to the United Kingdom economy overall, Wales's economy is undeniably slipping way behind. Since new Labour took office, Wales's gross domestic product has decreased by 3 per cent. relative to that of the UK generally. Although Wales's GDP has recently grown by 0.3 per cent., compared with the overall UK GDP it has been decreasing. As for the Chancellor's huge surplus of some £23 billion, surely some of it could be used to assist the less prosperous parts of the United Kingdom, including Wales.
  The Budget was a missed opportunity for Wales, which has yet to receive additional funding and full match funding for objective 1. However, before it sounds like I am whingeing too much, I should say that some of the Budget measures are most welcome, such as simplification of the VAT and tax regime for small businesses. Additionally, some red tape was cut. Although more could have been done, it will help.
  Nevertheless, in recent years manufacturing industry in Wales has been hit by a series of crises. Plaid Cymru Members believe that Wales is a strong and vibrant country with plenty of talent and some of the most hard-working communities in Europe. Our nation's strengths should be appreciated and used to their full potential. There is no reason why we in Wales should not share in the type of prosperity that is apparent in the south-east of England. Although I say good luck to that region, the fact is that, despite all the efforts that are being made, Wales is not as prosperous.
  I do not think that the tax incentives announced by the Chancellor to regenerate coal-mining and steel areas will help places such as Ebbw Vale and Llanwern. Although he said that he will abolish stamp duty, that will not help places such as Ebbw Vale as they do not have the capital to benefit from it.
  The Chancellor also announced tax relief for cleaning up contaminated land. Such measures make me think of Corus, which has been totally oblivious to Wales's cries to reconsider ending the steel industry in Wales. A package should have been offered to Corus early in the proceedings. It is still not clear whether such a package was offered. Nevertheless, the alarm bells should have gone off 18 months ago, when it was first learned that Corus was losing £1 billion annually.
  Plaid Cymru Members call on the Government to find a way of regenerating steel communities, not only in Wales but across the border. We estimate that the measures necessary to regenerate those communities would cost about £200 million. That sum is not wildly extravagant or imprudent when one considers the damage that would be done to those communities by the loss of their steel jobs. It also accords with the objective 1 benchmark of about £55,000 per new job in deprived areas.
  New Labour is always keen to cite figures showing how many new jobs have been created, and—new deal or not—there are some, good success stories. New jobs have

  889
  been created, and it would be boorish of me to say that that is not a good thing. Of course it is good. However, although job creation is essential, job retention needs to be emphasised equally. In the past three years, 20,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in Wales. Measures such as cutting employers' national insurance contributions in order to make more capital available to employers to secure jobs could act as an incentive for employers to recruit more employees.
  Plaid Cymru Members have also said that incentives such as corporation tax cuts should be considered as a means of increasing investment. Although we have long been making such proposals, hitherto, the Chancellor has not accepted them.
  Other hon. Members have mentioned the rural economy, which is struggling under new Labour. The agriculture sector is vital to Wales's economic development and to the sustainability of many of our rural communities. Agriculture is in the grip of the worst crisis for generations. It has been hit by disasters such as BSE—which clearly is nothing to do with the Government—and, more recently, by foot and mouth, which is also nothing to do with the Government. Nevertheless, agriculture is on its knees. It has had to battle against an unfavourable exchange rate, and it has been unable to export stock. It has also not been receiving the full value of its subsidies because of the pound-euro exchange rate.
  We should not lose sight of the fact that, even before the foot and mouth crisis, 73 Welsh farming jobs were being lost each week. That is the equivalent of a major factory closing each year. Average income from farming activity in the UK was recently assessed at £4,500. The average for upland farmers—80 per cent. of whom are in Wales—was even worse, at £3,800. I dread to see the figures once the full impact of the foot and mouth outbreak is felt.
  Let me make it clear that the Chancellor's announcement on agrimonetary compensation has nothing to do with the foot and mouth crisis, but is an attempt to bail out the industry after last year's losses. I call on Ministers to rethink compensation, as there must be a properly funded package. The other day, I read with some pleasure that the Agriculture Minister has said that there will be proper compensation and that the Government will consider consequential losses, outside the immediate boundaries of agriculture.
  We have to realise that agriculture is not an isolated industry but encompasses the whole rural economy. Its problems affect other rural businesses and can trigger a drastic downturn in the whole rural economy. I therefore hope that Ministers will consider proper and consequential compensation both for farmers and for others who operate rural businesses.
  The tourist industry, which is substantial across the United Kingdom, has probably become Wales's largest industry. It, too, has been hit by the crisis. I ask the Chancellor and his colleagues to consider and deal with that aspect of the crisis. Various hotels and villages in my constituency depend on tourism. A renowned Plas y Brenin Outward Bound centre at Capel Curig has just laid off 26 workers. That is a pretty bitter blow in a rural area. I am not blaming the Government for that; I am simply saying, "This is a crisis. Can you please act accordingly?" I hope that Ministers will consider the matter, and act urgently and in the short term to put it right.
  890
  The failure to guarantee the objective 1 match funding to which Wales is entitled is a glaring omission in the Budget. The Government say that obtaining objective 1 funding was their success, but the credit belongs to all parties. However, for the sake of argument, let us say that Labour obtained the funding. Why are the Government being so stubborn in agreeing to provide the additional funding and match funding?
  The Government's delay means that the £600 million needed for match funding must now be taken out of the block grant, which is the money already set aside for running ordinary public services in Wales. For example, robbing Peter to pay Paul means that health spending in Wales will have to be reduced. The health problem in Wales is already much more serious, across the board, than it is in England. I shall not bore the House with statistics, but it is an established fact that people in Wales, by and large, are less healthy than our friends in England. That is a matter of great concern, and it derives from bad housing, socio-economic problems, the types of industry that exist in Wales, and so on.
  Health spending in Wales recently received an 8.6 per cent. increase, but our colleagues in England are getting a rise of 9.3 per cent. The proportions should be the other way around, given the greater needs in Wales. Robbing the health budget to make up match funding for objective 1 funds will make the situation even worse. Had Wales received the same percentage health spending increase as England, the health service in Wales would have an additional £22.2 million.
  The shortfall in education is even worse. Spending per head in England in 2000–01 is 2.3 per cent. higher than in Wales, but the gap is set to widen rapidly and will be at 9.7 per cent. by 2003–04. Over the four years of this Parliament, total education spending in Wales is £600 million less than it would have been had the same amount of money been spent per head as in England.
  The hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) spoke of the Barnett formula, which has served Wales and Scotland for some time, although it was meant to be a temporary solution. Surely the time has come to be thinking carefully about rescheduling Barnett? We should start with a new, needs-based formula that acknowledges that there are different needs in different parts of the United Kingdom. That is long overdue. The disparities will continue unless the formula is reconsidered. There is no reason why less should be spent on education or health in Wales than in England.
  The Budget gives Wales £100 million extra for education and health over three years. That is a help, but we must get matters in perspective: the £33 million a year that is being given amounts to £10 per person. I do not know how that can be expected to make great inroads into the health problems in Wales.
  The Government have made the welcome promise to reduce hospital waiting lists. That was a Labour pledge in 1997, when 6 per cent. of patients in Wales had to wait longer than six months for their first outpatient appointment. The equivalent figure for this month is 714 per cent. higher. That is some increase. It will not wash for the Government to say that it has something to do with the Welsh Assembly. I have given the bare facts about a great problem which concerns us all.
  The Chancellor announced a package of £200 million to aid teacher recruitment. That is welcome, but a considerable amount of money was spent on paying off

  891
  early retirees. The Government are now talking about bringing the same people back into the profession. That does not make a great deal of sense.
  It would be wrong of me to deny that there were some good measures in the Budget. I differ from Conservative Members in regard to the working families tax credit, which I think has a lot going for it. The Government have given some firm indications about child care and other matters, and money has been targeted at those most in need. Only a fool would deny that, but the Budget lacks a proper, overall examination of the macro-economic problems facing Wales. Those problems are affecting agriculture, tourism and manufacturing, but the Budget contains nothing that will give any cheer to those sectors. That is a great disappointment.
  Another disappointment is the lack of movement on student tuition fees. In Scotland, applications for further and higher education have risen by about 14.5 per cent., but in Wales over the same period they have fallen by 4.5 per cent. One of the reasons for that 20 per cent. difference is the fact that students are burdened with debt as they try to secure their education.
  I read law as a student. I would not have qualified as a lawyer if my father had not been a retired police officer, which meant that I had a full grant and did not pay tuition fees. It is appalling that today's young people of student age must choose whether to pursue further and higher education based on whether they have the money to do so. That is a step back to Victorian days, and I am appalled that this of all Governments should be sitting on their hands and doing nothing about the problem. I believe that the Government will find that their inaction has made them grossly unpopular with people when they go to the polls in the next few months—and rightly so.
  I said earlier that the Government have been following previous spending plans. Public expenditure at 38 per cent. of GDP has led to lower health and education budgets. Some bribes are now in prospect, but I want to make one final plea, on behalf of the miners fighting for compensation following the High Court case brought by the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers.
  Even at this late stage, I hope that the Government will reconsider the immoral and unfair clawback of compensation that has already been paid to miners. The need for a rethink is underlined by the surplus of £23 billion—or whatever the true amount is—on which the Government are sitting.
  All in all, although the Budget contained some good measures, it offers no cheer at all for Wales. The main structural problems remain and objective 1 funding has not been matched. Moreover, the Government are not delivering what the people of Wales are looking for. They are turning their back on Wales. Their main objective is to look after the economy of the south-east and of middle England. For them, Wales does not really count.
  8.7 pm
  Mr. Bill Rammell: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I broadly welcome the Budget. Like its predecessor delivered under my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Budget demonstrates more clearly than ever that the Government have shot the Tory fox on the economy.
  892
  I apologise for the metaphor, but I use it deliberately. Since I first became politically conscious, I and everyone else in the country have been told—by the Conservative party and conservative newspapers—that Labour could not be trusted to run the economy. We were told repeatedly in the 18 years of Conservative rule that a Labour Government would lose control of the economy, that there would be a run on the pound, and that unfinanced public spending would cause interest rates to go out of control. In short, we were told that Britain would dissolve into economic chaos.
  Four years have passed since the last election, and things look a little different. We have the lowest inflation for 30 years, and the lowest unemployment rate for 26 years. Real incomes are rising and the public services are receiving more investment than has been the case in my adult lifetime. In short, the Government have achieved a degree of economic stability and success that has not been achieved before.
  We should not underestimate the political significance of that. It means that people who had previously shared the Labour party's values and beliefs, but who did not trust us on the economy, are now able to support us. Like many of my colleagues, I am canvassing regularly at the moment. I am finding that people who voted Conservative in 1997 because they could not trust Labour on the economy are now coming across and saying that they will vote Labour at the next general election. I believe that the Conservative party has yet to face up to the significance of that change. Perhaps it will in May or October, or whenever the election is held.
  The manner in which we have managed the economy has enabled us to invest much more money in key public services. In the face of that, the Conservative party must do much better in answering the difficult questions on public spending. Whether they are talking about cuts of £8 billion or £16 billion—and there are plausible reasons for saying that, in government, they would require cuts of £16 billion—the Tories must do better in telling us where the cuts would fall.
  The shadow Chancellor's earlier exchange on industrial injuries compensation was very instructive. I understood him to say that that would be an additional burden on business but that the Tories would compensate business elsewhere. The net effect of that would be zero. They could not then claim that the abolition of industrial injuries compensation would be part of their proposed £8 billion savings.
  Mr. Letwin: Has the hon. Gentleman ever heard about the distinction between public expenditure and taxation? If we reduce public expenditure in one dimension and reduce taxation on business to compensate, do we not achieve a diminution of both?
  Mr. Rammell: We still have to make the sums add up. Including that cut within the Conservatives' overall plans to reduce spending by £8 billion clearly demonstrates that it is not sustainable or justifiable. That would lead to having to cut the core public spending plans for schools, hospitals and the police service.
  Mr. Letwin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rammell: No, I will not.

  893
  There is another more fundamental objection to the Conservatives' claim that they will match our spending on schools and hospitals. Why should we believe them? Even if their tax and spending plans were to add up, which I do not believe is the case, they had 18 years in power—the longest period of uninterrupted rule enjoyed by one party in this country in the past century—yet they never once attempted to deliver the increases for our schools and hospitals that this Government are delivering. I think that the public judge politicians not by what they say but by what they do, and by its record, the Conservative party is condemned.
  Mr. Letwin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rammell: I will give way a little later.
  The Budget confirms that we are prudently and cautiously giving the greatest help through the tax and benefits system to those people who need it most. Some people might call that redistribution. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) was clearly harking in that direction in his impassioned speech. I prefer to call it fairness. I think that the British public waned in their support for the principle of fairness for a time during the 1980s, but that they now support it again. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has recently confirmed this by saying that the reforms since 1997 have been strongly progressive and that the proportional post-tax income gain is highest for the bottom decile households. That refutes the shadow Chancellor's claim that the poorest households are hit by tax increases under this Government. The evidence shows that those households are gaining most overall, which I welcome.
  I contend that because of our successful management of the economy and because we have delivered fair taxation, we are now able to deliver a significant increase in expenditure, particularly in the spending on our schools and hospitals. I was astonished to hear the shadow Chancellor talking about cuts in schools. He quoted from a letter written to him by someone who was clearly a member of the Conservative party, decrying what was happening in our schools. The Liberal Democrats expressed a similar view. My experience of talking to head teachers in primary schools in my constituency is completely the reverse. I was talking to a head teacher of a school in Harlow a couple of weeks ago, who told me that in 25 years of teaching, she had never known so much money to go to schools. That is the experience of teachers and head teachers across the primary and secondary sectors.
  Let us look at the figures for capital spending. Some £686 million was spent on capital repairs of schools in 1997. Today, the expenditure figure is £2 billion and is heading towards £3 billion. That is the most substantial boost to spending on capital infrastructure in schools for more than a generation.
  The same is happening in the national health service, with a third real-terms increase in spending in the coming five years. It is the biggest sustained increase in health service spending since 1948. I say that deliberately; I recently asked the House of Commons Library to produce a table on health service spending year on year since 1948 and to identify the percentage change over the previous years at 1999–2000 prices.
  The table clearly shows that the projected level of sustained increase between 1999 and 2004 has not been achieved in any five-year period since the establishment
  894
  of the national health service. That is a real contrast with what went before. Under the previous Government, there were years in which they delivered significant spending increases, but that normally happened in the run-up to an election. In 1987–88 there was an increase of 4.3 per cent; in 1991–92 there was an increase of 7 per cent. However, those increases were never sustained or carried through. Two years after those increases were delivered, the increases were only 0.6 per cent. and 0.8 per cent. respectively—effectively that spending was at a standstill. Under the previous Government, there were large increases in spending in the run-up to elections, but the tap was turned off as soon as they were safely back in power.
  That practice is a real contrast with what is happening under this Government. We are sustaining increased spending year on year in a way that no previous Government have done. That gives me grounds for optimism. We are beginning to get things right in the national health service unlike what happened in the past. I see that in the health service in my constituency, where there is a walk-in health centre, faster cardiac care and cancer care and shorter waiting lists. Real increases are benefiting real people.
  It is worth labouring the point that the improvements are genuine. I detect a developing political and press agenda in which it is claimed that those increases are not real. The Government are accused of over-spinning the increases. In fairness, I think that in the first comprehensive spending review, we over-egged the pudding slightly. We have learned from that experience and now our claims are genuine. The polar opposite is apparent from the comments of some newspapers and political parties, which argue that an increase in spending is not real even when it is manifestly genuine.
  At the weekend, The Sunday Times said that the national health service was a net loser in the Chancellor's Budget, contradicting my right hon. Friend's claims that he had given it more cash.
  Mr. Letwin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rammell: No, I will conclude this part of my argument before I do.
  When I read that article, I referred to the Budget Red Book for last year and this year. The Red Book shows that in 2000–01, £46.6 billion was spent on the national health service. For this year, the figure is £46.7 billion. The figure is £50.5 billion for 2002–03 and £54.5 billion for the following year. Given those figures, how any newspaper can claim that that is equivalent to a net loss for the national health service is beyond me. It does no credit to any newspaper or political party to make such a claim.
  Mr. Letwin: Has the hon. Gentleman had a chance to look at the parallel figures on education and measured the actual change since the last Budget Red Book to this Red Book for education spending, as opposed to the figures presented in the relevant table in this Red Book?
  Mr. Rammell: The spending figures on schools and the education budget show that over the five-year period from 1999 to 2004 we are sustaining one of the biggest increases for many years. My experience of talking to head teachers in my constituency bears that out.

  895
  A former Liberal leader, Sir David Steel, described Margaret Thatcher as knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. The Liberal Democrat party has effectively turned that phrase on its head. It is the party that knows the electoral value of every spending pledge, but has not got the first clue of the cost of any of those pledges and is certainly not straight with people about that cost and who would have to pay.
  The starting point for the Liberal Democrats is similar to that of The Sunday Times: it is to claim falsely that the increased funding for the national health service is not happening. In their alternative Budget for 2000, they claimed that NHS spending was increasing by only 3.7 per cent., which was only the average rise for the past 45 years and that there was not therefore a significant improvement. Again, the Library table that I mentioned shows that that is not the case. Over this Parliament, we are looking at a 5.4 per cent. real-terms increase, which compares very favourably with the average and is the biggest sustained increase in the 48-year history of the NHS.
  My greatest concern with the Liberal Democrats is the way in which they recycle a limited and insubstantial number of tax increases and then claim that they would fund an ever-burgeoning list of spending pledges. We have seen that today. A detailed reading of the Liberal Democrats' alternative Budget is instructive. Last year, they said that they would introduce a top rate of tax for those with incomes of more than £100,000 of 50p in the pound, which would pay for reducing the 10p rate to zero, which would be a significant boost to people on low incomes. In this year's alternative Budget, we find that the 50p tax rate is to fund extra improvements in the NHS. One would imagine that, given that change had taken place, the commitment on changing the 10p rate to zero would have been removed, but no, the only difference is that we are not told where the money will come from to fund that proposal.
  We see that sort of practice time and again. A limited tax increase to fund something in one year funds something else the following year, but the spending commitment of the previous year is still trumpeted as official Liberal Democrat policy. That is dishonest politics of the worst kind. It is not being straight with people about the cost of spending pledges.
  One sees it again if one looks at the detail of the Liberal Democrat alternative Budget on long-term care. We are explicitly told that, were the Liberal Democrats to come to power, they would pay for all long-term personal care costs. There are no qualifications and no time scale is given. The problem is that the cost of that commitment is £1 billion but the ready reckoner table at the back of the alternative Budget contains only a commitment to increase funding by £400 million in the first year, which is meant to pay not only for long-term care but for a host of other commitments on the NHS.
  There is a word to describe that sort of politics, but I know that I am not allowed to use it in this Chamber. However, if the Liberal Democrats' alternative Budget were a pension policy, they would be on the point of having to pay massive compensation to people because what one paid for is certainly not what one would get under a Liberal Democrat Government.
  896
  I have warmly welcomed the significant measures that will make a difference to my constituents and to people elsewhere, but I have one area of concern. I have made it clear that the increases in spending on hospitals are significant and of an order that we have not seen before. However, in Harlow and elsewhere in the south-east, the huge challenge that we face is that of recruitment to the key public services.
  My constituency is typical of the south-east. We have effective full employment—unemployment is only about 2 per cent.—and a typical two-up, two-down, house costs £80,000 or £90,000. Those two factors are causing us real problems in recruiting teachers, nurses and the police. I welcome the fact that the Government have given us significant help with recruitment to teaching and the police, but when they introduced the cost of living allowance for nurses of £1,000 a year, it was granted to London, Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire—it missed out Essex, which is a genuine concern.
  I recently heard a story about someone who met 10 general nurses in my constituency who were in their third year of training, only four of whom planned to work locally at the end of their studies. The others will either go north because of the lower housing costs or will move to London because of the enticement of inner London weighting and the additional £1,000 a year. I end with a plea to the Secretary of State for Health, who has said that he is reconsidering the allowance. A mistake was made by missing out Essex and I hope that that can be rectified.
  This is a significant Budget that will benefit my constituents as never before.
  8.26 pm
  Sir Peter Emery: First, I must explain that I had to leave the Chamber for a little more than an hour in the middle of the debate to attend the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and deal with a matter that produced a vote, which illustrates the pressure under which some of us are placed when we have to be in two places at once, as many Ministers will no doubt understand.
  The date of 8 October 1959 is not one that is in memory of most of my colleagues here, but it was the day that I fulfilled an ambition by becoming a Member of Parliament, after fighting a general election in Poplar in 1951 and fighting Geoffrey de Freitas in Lincoln in 1955. It seems unbelievable that my first general election fight was 50 years ago. It seems like only yesterday, but I do not think that many people will believe me.
  I will not try to produce a great analysis of the Budget—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) did so most excellently. I think that, in time, history will designate the Budget to a back burner, or even to the waste paper basket. It was marvellous spin but, on analysis, little has been given away to the benefit of my constituents. Therefore, I do not want to make a broad-brush speech—there are too many of those and they do not get far. In my last speech on the Budget, I pass on to the House the advice that I was always given: take three subjects, deal only with them and nothing more and they might be remembered. That is what I shall try to do.
  First, it amazes me that during the whole of the Chancellor's speech of just under an hour, with the countryside reeling and farming in a desperate plight

  897
  because of the foot and mouth epidemic, the only words that we heard from the right hon. Gentleman on that tragic situation were about agrimonetary compensation, which was in the pipeline long before the outbreak of the disease. Even in this Budget debate, I stress that the Government must take the situation much more seriously than they do at present. Since yesterday's report, a further 24 cases have been confirmed, bringing the total—at 3 o'clock this afternoon—to 180 cases. More than 985 movement restrictions have been imposed throughout the country, covering 25 counties in England and Wales.
  The Government must look at consequential compensation. It is imperative that they consider the consequential damage of the epidemic across the board. Farmers who have had to slaughter their cattle, sheep or pigs are rightly compensated—we all understand that—but other people in the countryside equally face financial ruin. A haulier in my constituency told me that during the past three weeks his takings were only 10 per cent. of what they had been during the same three-week period a year ago.
  Farmers who cannot move their beasts to market do not have to have them destroyed, but are unable to obtain the proper value for them. They face desperate financial problems—as do hoteliers and tourism. A person who runs a tourist park in my constituency told me that he dreads answering the telephone because it will be yet another cancellation. He said that the park was full about a month ago, but that almost no one will be going there at Easter.
  The Government must take that into account when they consider the overall effect of the epidemic. It affects not only those people whose animals have to be destroyed, but those for whom the consequential effect is disastrous.
  Can the financial action for which I ask be taken? Let us study the Red Book. Under income, the total figure is £399 billion: £61 billion from VAT; £38 billion from corporation tax; £37 billion from excise duty; £63 billion from national insurance; £104 billion from income tax; £15 billion from council tax; £94 billion from all other income; and £17 billion from the business rate. I have listed the figures so that hon. Members can see how the £399 billion is made up.
  On spending, the amounts are £109 billion on social services; £18 billion on housing and the environment; £23 billion on law and order; £16 billion on industry and agriculture; £23 billion on debt repayment interest; £24 billion on defence; £50 billion on education; £10 billion on transport; £59 billion on the national health service; and about £52 billion on other matters. The total is £394 billion.
  There is a difference of £5 billion between income and spending. I have the right to stand here tonight and demand that the Government use some of that money to help constituents—not only mine in Devon, but those in the north of the country where matters are just as bad. Throughout 25 counties, there are people who deserve some assistance from the Government.
  Such compensation may never have been paid before, but the Government can no longer use that defence. They claim to be a Government who rethink everything. The tragedy that we face in the countryside demands a rethink from the Government; they must take positive action to provide compensation for people who face the bitter prospect of bankruptcy.
  898
  Secondly, I want to consider the help that should be given to elderly people who go into homes or hospitals during the latter years of their life. In my constituency—in Budleigh Salterton, Sidmouth and Exmouth—a vast number of retired people who are coming to the end of their lives are entering care homes and being looked after well. The difficulty is that the costs of those homes are constantly rising, and many people who enter them, believing that they can meet the costs, find themselves only a short time later in the frightening position of being in real hardship and beset by great worry about the ever-growing cost of sustaining themselves.
  If those people were thrown out and had to be looked after by the state, the costs would be much greater than they would be if the Government gave them some help in meeting their costs. As a matter of humanity, any Government must take the matter seriously and adopt a modern approach. Unfortunately, such an approach is not being taken at present.
  Thirdly, I want to ask why there was no mention of the euro—one of the major sources of worry and contention—in the Budget. By this time next year, there will be no French francs, German deutschmarks or Italian lire. Thirteen European currencies will have disappeared and will have been replaced by a single currency: the euro. Tourists will increasingly want to bring that currency into this country and use it, and in this country there will be increasing demand for commercial and industrial aspects of trade to be settled in the euro.
  How do the Government envisage those changes affecting their budgetary position? What consideration are they giving to the matter? A number of us believe that it is essential that if, taking into account the economic position, it is seen to be to the great benefit of Britain to enter the euro, no political party should desist from taking that action. What is that great benefit? That factor must be analysed, and I believe that the Government have to start to bring that analysis before the country as a whole. I believe that it is necessary for us to have a clear understanding—which I do not believe exists now—of what the advantages can be and what some of the disadvantages might be of the euro in operation.
  People have been speaking about the euro theoretically until now, but by this time next year it will be not theory but a practicality, and it is a practicality that cannot be swept under the carpet. It is a practicality that the Government and the Opposition will have to face in different circumstances from those that exist now, in 12 and 15 months' time. The Government must start to explain exactly what their view will be when they begin to notice that effect, and what effect that will have on their budgetary position, because I would bet my bottom dollar that the euro will have a considerable effect on that position, which no one is considering now.
  I could continue for some time, but I believe that a number of hon. Members wish to speak and that if I sat down it would be welcomed more than if I continued. Thank you very much for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  8.39 pm
  Ms Margaret Moran: We have heard much from Conservative Members about the inadequacy of spending on the national health service, among other services, but the words that have stuck with me are those

  899
  on the no-nonsense NHS plans that we heard from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health this afternoon. They are no-nonsense plans because the Government recognise the need to recruit and retain nurses and essential health staff in areas such as mine in Luton.
  Last week, I visited Luton and Dunstable hospital in my constituency and saw for myself the effects of the Government's investment in the health service. During the next few years, more than £3 million will be invested in our hospital's infrastructure, providing a new accident and emergency department; and new wards and other facilities, including those for cancer care, are opening. We certainly did not see that under the previous Government. I commend the health staff, who work so hard and whom we need to retain in our hospitals so as to continue to improve on the achievements so far.
  On Thursday, I will be work shadowing a GP in my constituency. I shall do so because I am aware of the intense pressures that GPs are under in parts of our country. In my constituency, there are often far too few GPs in the areas of greatest deprivation, and they are under intense pressure. In an area that I shall visit on Thursday, the GPs tackle the ill health that is a consequence of the multiple deprivation in Bury Park, where housing is poor. There are overcrowding and health problems, such as diabetes, heart disease and cancer, and the unemployment rate for many Pakistani and Bangladeshi young people is four times the national average.
  All those problems are linked and must be tackled if we are truly to give opportunities to all. That is why I welcome not only today's announcements on recruiting and retaining health staff and providing bonuses to retain our GPs, but the other measures in the Budget that address the opportunities for employment, good housing and regeneration. They are part of the bigger picture that makes up the problem of poor health, which must be addressed if we are to tackle the health and other inequalities that we experience in our constituencies.
  I particularly welcome the health action zone, which the Government have given to my constituency. It will spend more than £3 million in the next few years to tackle those health inequalities. We are looking at the big picture—what we call the joined-up approach—and spending not only on health, but on regeneration and on opportunities and employment prospects for our communities. The Government are doing the right thing for constituencies such as mine.
  I am absolutely astonished about the shadow Chancellor's announcement that the Conservative party intend to match the Government's health spending, by means which simply do not add up, so where would the cuts fall? They would fall on those measures that contribute to creating better health and reducing health inequalities. The Conservative party would slash our regeneration and housing investment funds. In other words, that is another example of the short-termism that we experienced during the 18 years of the previous Tory Government.
  The previous Government slashed and burned their way through housing investment, which has been responsible for unprecedented housing need and homelessness. All the
  900
  research shows that their policies have been responsible for creating greater health inequalities because health, housing and job opportunities go together. That is why I find the shadow Chancellor's words incomprehensible.
  The Conservative party says that it intends to maintain health spending, while cutting the essential services that contribute to the maintenance of good health. That is why I particularly welcome the Chancellor's comments, which were less discussed, that he intends to ensure that, under the Budget, we regenerate areas of least opportunity and tackle the causes of unemployment and low economic activity.
  Those measures are particularly important in my constituency, which is still reeling from the announcement of the Vauxhall closure. I am pleased that there will not now be any compulsory redundancies and that there is a greater prospect that a replacement vehicle will ensure future employment in vehicle manufacturing in my constituency. Government support and their promise of cash has enabled us to make that move. That is in stark contrast to the approach of the member of the Conservative party who said that 3 million unemployed was a price worth paying.
  This Government put their money where their mouth is. They have already put money into ensuring that those who lose their jobs as a result of supply chain job losses receive the support, the job opportunities and the reskilling to which the Government believe they are entitled. I pay tribute to the shop stewards at Vauxhall who have worked so hard in partnership with Members of Parliament, Members of the European Parliament and the council to get the best deal for the workers at the plant.
  The shock announcement of the Vauxhall closure did not reflect what has been happening in Luton. In fact, Luton has been looking up, although it is difficult to see that through some of the recent announcements. More jobs are coming into the constituency through our business park at Capability Green where Astra Zeneca is about to move in. The airport is expanding, and 5,000 extra jobs could be created in a new business park if we obtain from the Treasury, as we hope we will, funding for the widening of the east Luton corridor. I hope that the Treasury recognises the employment and regeneration opportunities that that development might bring at a time when we need it in Luton.
  Let us examine how far Luton has come. In the late 1980s, we had the ignominious reputation of being the negative equity capital of the country. Boom and bust and the Tory years hit Luton hard. Millions of families across the country lost their homes, and repossessions were rife. Interest rates hit 15 per cent., causing havoc for hard-working Luton families. However, I am pleased that, as a result of this and previous Budgets, things are looking up for Luton. That is because the Government have taken tough decisions and not chosen the easy way out, such as the everlasting 1p of the Liberals or the boom-and-bust economics to which the Tories would return. Lutonians now benefit from the fact that they have low interest rates and a stable economy. Mortgage misery is, by and large, a thing of the past for Lutonians.
  Under the 18 years of the previous Government, my constituents were struggling against record unemployment, they were struggling to keep their homes and they were struggling against 22 Tory tax rises and worsening public services. They literally paid the price

  901
  of Tory failure. For every £1 that was spent under Tory economic mismanagement of the economy, 42p was spent on the cost of despair—the cost of dole, debt and borrowing. Now things have been turned around: the economy is stable, debt is being repaid at unprecedented levels, and youth unemployment is down in my constituency by an amazing 83 per cent. We now have the equivalent of 84p in the pound to invest in our schools and health service.
  I go around my constituency frequently and I have visited all its schools twice in the past year. Everywhere I go, I see new classrooms, new information technology suites and new libraries. My constituency is benefiting from reduced class sizes, and mums tell me that they make a real difference to standards.
  Mr. Hayes: When the hon. Lady visits schools, will she point out that spending on education as a percentage of gross domestic product has fallen under this Government, that secondary school class sizes are rising according to Government figures and that, according to House of Commons Library statistics, in early years education, more children are now being taught in classes of more than 30 pupils than was the case under the previous Conservative Government?
  Ms Moran: My mums tell me that there are more nursery and early years places in my constituency than there ever have been before. An extra £120 extra is now spent in the classroom per pupil in my constituency.
  More money is being made available than ever before for regeneration in deprived parts of my constituency, such as Ramridge and Ashcroft in the centre of Luton. We tried to calculate the amount, and worked out that we are spending at least £21 million on regeneration this year alone, through the single regeneration budget, sports action zones and health action zones. On top of that, the Government have successfully argued for objective 2 and assisted area status, so there are more job and training opportunities than ever before. As I said, the Government put their money where their mouth is.
  We recognise that there is much more to do, particularly if we are to create job opportunities for everyone who needs them. One of the problems in my constituency is that business start-up rates are among the lowest in the country, while business failure rates are among the highest. Despite the fact that Luton council's venture fund lends money to start-ups that have difficulty getting traditional funding, we still have a major problem in ensuring that small business start- ups are sustainable and can grow in the long term.
  Given the legacy of the 1980s—the Tory dark days—when people lost their homes and the future was uncertain, many traditional lenders are wary of lending money to some of my constituents. That is why I particularly welcome the Budget's proposed tax incentive for community investment. The Chancellor has rightly identified the fact that business creation is often lowest in our most disadvantaged communities, and Luton is a case in point. We need to tackle the causes of low economic activity and unemployment, so we need new financial incentives. Instead of community enterprises being totally reliant on filling in forms to apply for grants—in other words, handouts—we must ensure that we have hand-ups for start-ups and small and growing businesses. That is where the tax incentive comes in.
  902
  By opening up economic and business opportunities to our most disadvantaged communities, we can unlock their potential, as well as flows of private finance which would not ordinarily find their way into such areas. I think of Bury Park, one of the most deprived areas in Luton, as I said earlier, which suffers from low employment and poor housing and has an urgent need for regeneration. I hope that the tax incentive will encourage more social and ethical investment opportunities because some investors have been very slow indeed to recognise the potential of some of our deprived communities.
  Community organisations in my area, such as the Bangladeshi youth league, traditionally develop the next generation of community leaders. They could venture forth and develop the next generation of job and wealth creators in the community, ploughing the investment back into the community and helping to regenerate their own areas to a much larger extent than they have the opportunity to do now. Small local enterprises could establish themselves in areas where unemployment and dereliction would otherwise be the norm. The case for the tax credit is powerful—it could fill the gap in the market between finance for regeneration and community development through grants and private finance.
  The tax credit also has the potential to deal with the effects of the years of Tory disinvestment in housing. The same areas that need business start-ups need investment in housing. We inherited a £19 billion backlog of disrepair from the previous Government. There is also an acute housing crisis, which is reflected in the fact that 9.3 per cent. of my constituents are in housing need, yet for every homeless person there are seven empty private properties. Investment is needed to bring them back into use. If we extended the tax credit to property, ensuring that debt and equity are taken into account, it could usefully regenerate the physical infrastructure as well as providing job opportunities.
  In my former life, I was chief executive of a housing association. The tax credit would have been extraordinarily useful in producing the comprehensive regeneration that we wanted. We did not want to tackle just problems of bricks and mortar, but problems within the community and of employment as well. I commend the Budget and that initiative in particular to the House. They will bring real benefits, especially to mortgage holders in Luton, who will no longer have to wear the label of living in the mortgage misery capital of the country. To my right hon. Friend, whose policies have created mortgage stability, my constituents say, "Cheers."
  8.55 pm
  Mr. John Butterfill: As several other hon. Members want to speak, I shall confine my remarks to one subject and be brief.
  I am concerned about the impact that the Government's fiscal and monetary policies have had on pensions and their provision. However, I applaud the Chancellor for accepting most of the recommendations that Sir Paul Myners recently made in his excellent review of institutional investment, many of which relate to the provisions of the Pensions Act 1995. I was a critic of many aspects of that legislation, although it tried manfully to deal with the problems that arose out of the Maxwell pension scandal. It imposed a great deal of useful regulations on the pensions industry, but it also created

  903
  problems. Most notably, it did not deal with custody, which Myners specifically addresses. Will the recommendations on custody be fully implemented, because only independent custody can prevent another Maxwell scandal from taking place?
  The Budget does not deal with the costs that the 1995 Act imposed on providers of company pension schemes. The regulatory burden has driven many people away from the provision of defined benefit schemes and into defined contribution schemes, to the detriment of the public. It will be interesting to know whether the Treasury has proposals to deal with the problem of the regulatory burden, which acts against the national interest.
  I applaud the abolition of the minimum funding requirement. I always opposed it. I said in 1995 that it would distort investment decisions and diminish the value of funds because it would lead to more cautious investment. It also has the perverse effect of increasing the purchase of gilts, thereby depressing the yield on annuities. There was a double whammy for pensioners. First, the value of their funds was diminished and, secondly, the fund would buy less of an annuity on maturity than would otherwise have been the case. To the extent that the Chancellor has accepted that problem, I welcome what he has done to address it.
  However, other policies have made pension funds and people with private pensions considerably worse off. Despite the fact that the value of pension funds was diminishing, because of the factors that I have outlined, the Chancellor introduced in a previous Budget the £5 billion a year tax on pensions. In response to questions about this Budget, he said that the total value of pension funds has increased. It has, but their liabilities have increased even more, so that what will be bought in terms of pension has less value. There has been a significant net reduction in the value to pensioners as a result of that policy.
  The fact that the Chancellor, highly commendably, has made substantial repayments of the national debt has also affected pensions dramatically. Those repayments, amounting to £34 billion, do not all result from his prudence; they result largely from the sale of telecoms licences, which accounts for £23 billion alone, and other privatisation receipts. I applaud the repayment of debt, but we must look at its effect on pensions that will become in-payment. It will reduce dramatically the volume of gilts available on the market at a time when Government policies are encouraging their greater purchase. That will drive gilt deals down even further and annuities will yield less and less.
  We are creating a black hole for annuities; more of them have to be purchased to produce less and less income. Because they produce less income, even more of them have to purchased. Until the Government tackle the annuities problem, we will not get over the difficulties that will face all pensioners who save for their retirement.
  That is a very severe problem indeed. I have introduced a private Member's Bill, the Pension Annuities (Amendment) Bill, which we tried to debate last Friday. Sadly, it was blocked by the Government Whip, but I hope to have further discussion with the Economic Secretary on the subject. It is interesting that her officials are telling her that the cost of an annuity equal to the
  904
  minimum income guarantee, if one disregards the tax-free lump sum, is about £72,000. The Government do not realise that that £72,000 is related entirely to the yield on gilts. They are constantly increasing that cost through their action. If the policy on annuities were reversed and another form of investment, not based on gilts, were accepted, the cost of replacing the minimum income guarantee would be reduced dramatically.
  The Government have double standards on the minimum income guarantee. Although they say that it will cost £72,000 to replace it for someone with a private pension, a pensioner wanting to claim it is excluded from doing so if he has a mere £12,000 of savings. One cannot equate easily equate £12,000 and £72,000. We are faced with a Government who discourage people from becoming independent by saving for their retirement and ceasing to be a burden on the state. At the same time, they rely on means-tested benefits, which are ever more complex and difficult to claim and which create a dependency society. The minimum income guarantee encourages people not to save because, as the Government's own figures demonstrate, under the present rules, it is difficult for most pensioners to save enough money to avoid it. People who buy stakeholder pensions, as urged by the Government, will therefore be led into a colossal mis-selling of pensions, because nearly all of them would be better off not buying them and relying on the minimum income guarantee.
  The remedy is in the hands of the Treasury. If it gets rid of its obsession with annuities, which are an outdated investment—no one was advised to buy them—it could solve the problem. Annuities are such a bad investment that the actuarial profession is saying that most people would be better off buying the underlying gilts that are being bought by insurance companies. They would have a better income and their capital would not be lost on their death, as they would avoid the position of having nothing left to pass on to future generations. The Treasury and Inland Revenue would do better because they would pick up additional inheritance tax on the way.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Desmond Browne: I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), who speaks with clarity about a difficult subject. Every time I hear him, I learn a little more, and some day perhaps I will understand the complexity of pensions. I sense that some day those on the Treasury Bench will be receptive to the issue that he rightly persists in raising.
  I, too, shall be brief. Like the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), I tender my apologies to right hon. and hon. Members for my absence during the bulk of the debate. I was in Standing Committee B, where we were considering the International Development Bill under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West.
  Replying to the Budget statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, the Leader of the Opposition spoke for 34 minutes. During the whole of that time, he never mentioned the word "poverty" once, and he made no reference to the eradication of it. Perhaps that is hardly surprising, as the subject does not lend itself to stand-up comedy or pre-scripted jokes. However, the subject is important to many of my constituents.

  905
  On 12 July 1999 the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs published its report entitled "Poverty in Scotland". To measure the extent of poverty in Scotland, the Committee drew on a statistical base for the period to the end of 1996, and concluded in paragraph 22:
  "Broadly speaking 25 per cent. of Scottish households are in poverty—that is, living on incomes below half of the average, which is a slightly higher figure than the UK as a whole. This represents a significant increase since 1979."
  That was some understatement.
  The Committee went on to report:
  "One third of children are in or at risk of poverty. Whilst lone parents form a small percentage of the total numbers in poverty, both they and their children are highly likely to live in poverty. Two thirds of lone parents are in poverty. Twenty-nine per cent. of Scottish pensioners survive on incomes of half the UK average. Overall, women are the biggest group in poverty. Elderly women are particularly vulnerable."
  The seriousness of the problem of child poverty in the UK at that time was best illustrated by comparing its position to that of other countries in the European Union. Although by no means the poorest country, we had the highest level of child poverty in Europe.
  I understand that the factors that cause and sustain poverty are complex, but in my constituency, Kilmarnock and Loudoun, over the period from 1979 to 1997, we had them all. We witnessed a decline in our industrial and manufacturing base and a trend towards part-time, flexible and short-term working. Industrial and economic change brought high unemployment, low pay and poverty in work. Conservative Government priorities between 1979 and 1997 increased that poverty and inequality.
  It is with great relief that my constituents see that they now have a Government who not only talk about poverty, but set targets for tackling it. Not only are they committed to the eradication of poverty, but they have set indicators of progress towards that target and policies designed to improve the incomes of the poorest pensioners, the poorest families and the poorest children.
  I have the regard for the right hon. Member for East Devon that his seniority and position in the House demand, and I listened carefully to his remarks. Like him, because I represent a constituency that is substantially rural and has many farmers in it, too, hope that the Government will rethink the previous policy on consequential losses arising from foot and mouth disease. However, the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if it sticks in my throat a little to hear a call based on morality, allegedly, coming from those on the Conservative Benches, when throughout the period during which they were in charge of the country's economy, the Conservatives did nothing, while consequences much worse than those now faced by the farming community in my constituency were faced by the industrial and town communities of my constituency.
  I should like to speak briefly about some of the micro-economic announcements contained in the Budget statement. I believe that they will build on the steps that the Government have already taken to deal with the consequences of Tory policy. The omission of any measure from my comments should not be taken as a lack of support for it. Like my hon. Friends, I welcome the Budget, which will greatly improve the lot of almost 10,000 working families in my constituency. I represent a community that is among those with the highest unemployment in the UK. On any measure, whether
  906
  claimant count, the labour force survey or International Labour Organisation figures, the community in the East Ayrshire local authority area is one of the top 20 in the country in terms of unemployment.
  Opposition Members groan and jeer in unison when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor or other Labour Members describe the macro-economic objective of trying to avoid a return to boom and bust. Every time I hear them do so, I wonder whether they still fail to understand the need for a stable economic platform to establish policies that deal with the concerns and problems of communities such as that which I represent, or whether they still do not care. Whichever is the case, it is none the less an indictment of them.
  It is to the Government's credit that they established that platform of stability. Despite the difficult decisions that had to be made, unemployment in my constituency has dropped significantly—by about 26 per cent. overall—and long-term youth unemployment has fallen by more than 60 per cent. The most interesting thing is that it never dropped at all—never mind significantly—in any of the boom periods that occurred under the previous Government. Of course, there was no new deal when they were in power. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) guffaws, but those who have been among the long-term unemployed in my constituency, perhaps as youths, have lived through booms before. Governments of whom he was a member were responsible for managing those booms, but they never delivered jobs. In the current growth period, with the help of the new deal, 60 per cent. of unemployed youths in my constituency have found work. He can guffaw if he likes, but those who have benefited from the new deal will recognise his attitude.
  Despite the success of the new deal, there is still persistent unemployment in East Ayrshire. If that unemployment, including the continuing redundancies in manufacturing, are not dealt with, my community will be left behind while others move on towards the goal of full employment. I share that goal, which was last achieved in this country the 1950s. The news on the jobs front is not, however, entirely bleak. Since I was elected to Parliament, more than 1,200 new jobs have been attracted into my constituency. About 80 per cent. of those jobs are in call centres, while the rest has been produced by attracting further inward investment. All of them are a tribute to the partnership between local and national Government agencies. The new M77, which is due to be completed in 2005, will link Ayrshire with the national motorway network and enhance the work that has already begun. The Budget contains specific provisions that could have been framed for constituencies such as mine. Indeed, I hope that they were.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran), I welcome the provisions that are designed for regeneration. In particular, I welcome those that aim to cut the cost of small business borrowing. I welcome the new community investment tax credit, the community development venture capital fund and the accelerated tax credits that are designed to encourage brownfield development. Developers in my constituency have already contacted me about those credits, as they are interested in developing sites that were previously unattractive. I welcome also the abolition of stamp duties on all property transactions in the most deprived and disadvantaged urban areas. God knows, enough wards in my constituency

  907
  should qualify. Those measures, which all seek to regenerate our poorest communities, could all have been designed with towns such as those in my constituency in mind.
  In recognition that East Ayrshire is a localised pocket of high unemployment and deprivation, it was chosen as an area for the job action team pilot. I pay tribute to Jim Burns, the manager of the employment services pilot scheme, his staff and their partners for embracing so enthusiastically and imaginatively the opportunity provided by the pilot. In the first six months of their work, they have managed to identify job opportunities and to match them with long-term unemployed people so successfully that they have found work for 20 per cent. of those registered for jobseeker' s allowance in the pilot area. In addition, they have helped a number of other jobseekers into work. They have shown that targeting resources works, and they welcome the extension of the action team funding for the whole of the spending review period.
  A serious problem exists in my constituency in terms of opportunities for work. Throughout Scotland thousands of unemployed people are unable to cope with the demands of training or to hold down jobs because of drug problems. The announcement of a £40 million, three-year project to address that problem will bring welcome additional help. However, in our poorest communities a longer-standing, and just as devastating, problem has blighted the job prospects of countless thousands for generations. That is the problem associated with alcohol abuse. I make a simple appeal to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to consider the extension of the rightly lauded drugs initiative to those with alcohol misuse problems.
  I welcome the Budget. It contains welcome provisions to support families, women and children, and strikes a proper balance between economic stability and social justice. It has been warmly welcomed by the thousands of families in my constituency who will benefit from its provisions, and by many others. It also contains great promise that policies have at last been marshalled that will begin to address the persistent problems that have kept many of my constituents in poverty for far too long.
  9.16 pm
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Like the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), I represent many small businesses. Any help for small businesses is to be welcomed at the moment.
  In the midst of all the benefits that have been announced for pensioners, I must make a plea for a group that has consistently been overlooked. I received a telephone call recently from someone who is not a constituent of mine—his elected representative stood for Parliament but will not sit in Parliament on the same terms as the rest of us. His name is Jim Steele and he is 83. He phoned me to say that, when he became 80, he received an increase of 25p a week in his pension. Despite all the other increases that have been announced, nothing has happened to that 25p a week. It is an insult to continue to pay only 25p a week to a person over 80, so many years after that increase was made to help those in old age.
  I welcome the proposals concerning climate change that will allow the expansion of the gas industry in Northern Ireland. Ultimately, I believe that that will help the nation
  908
  as a whole to reach the Kyoto targets. I welcome, on behalf of my colleagues, the news on the additional spending on health, staffing, equipment and renovation. We also approve of the increased long-termism in many of the spending announcements. However, like others in the House and throughout the nation, we do not take it for granted that those announcements are intended only to help us now. The Government might also have another aim in view: that of winning an election in five years' time, as well as in the immediate future.
  When one reads the seemingly impressive figures published in the Budget—such as the total of £1 billion for the NHS over three years, including a cash handout of up to £1 million for each of the 200 or so acute care hospitals, and £135 million for the new recruiting drive—one must be cautious. We ask for consideration to be given to the impact of such increases. What impact will the additional funding, coupled with the other spending increases due to take place next month, have on the day-to-day problems experienced by the health service?
  There is a staff shortage in the health service. Last year, the Secretary of State announced plans to recruit 20,000 nurses and 2,000 general practitioners by 2005. Naturally, they were roundly welcomed. That is true of the Chancellor's plans for a new £135 million fund to recruit front-line staff, but it must be ensured that additional resources effectively target and eliminate the sources of staff shortage, which I touched on in Question Time.
  Retaining staff is just as important, if not more so, than attracting young people to the health service. The value of work experience must never be underestimated, nor must it be forgotten that we do not have enough training places for prospective nurses or GPs. There is a restriction in place and we must re-examine it.
  To retain nurses, fairer salaries must be paid. In Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom, people are asking why police officers start on £17,000 a year whereas nurses get much less. Many do not earn the overtime that some police officers receive, which is why they take on agency employment outside normal working hours. Nurses must be paid fair wages commensurate with those paid to workers of equivalent skill.
  I reserve judgment on the establishment of the capital renewal fund, which will be paid directly to GPs, although I welcome any plans to address the shortage of family doctors. Additional funding for acute care hospitals over the next three years must be welcome, although I have residual concerns about how effectively hospital trusts will transfer such funding to improved equipment and improved hospital buildings.
  Departing from the domestic health service for a moment, let me put on record my pleasure that the Government have introduced a new tax credit to encourage British companies to play a fuller role in global disease relief. The measure will promote the development of new drugs and facilitate their widespread distribution. We should enhance both in acknowledgement of the damaging effect of disease on the third world.
  I want to mention health funding in regions in which responsibility is devolved. I was not altogether amused to discover last week that the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales would be making announcements in the next few weeks. Northern Ireland seems to have been put into semi-orbit and, as the regionalisation of the nation increases, we must be careful not to allow any part

  909
  to become semi-detached. I hope that the Northern Ireland Assembly puts health at the top of its agenda by allocating a large proportion of the additional resources resulting from the Budget to hospitals to ensure that the standard of health care in Northern Ireland matches, if not betters, that in the rest of the United Kingdom.
  When funds were reallocated recently, £10 million that had not been used was discovered in the health pot, even though people throughout Northern Ireland were crying out for better surgery and better equipment and operations were not being carried out. What is going on with the management of our health resources? I believe that sometimes we waste them.
  We need not just greater funding, but more prudent funding and more prudent spending of financial resources. Health service morale is at an all-time low. The additional funding may halt the fall in morale, if it has not already hit rock bottom, but it will take further funding to rebuild both morale and public confidence in the health service.
  In that context, the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) kept referring to percentages, but they are not a good guide. If I understand my maths, 10 per cent. of 1 million is 100,000 and 50 per cent. of 100,000 is 50,000. We need hard figures so that we can make comparisons and draw valid conclusions.
  9.25 pm
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: Today's debate takes place against the sombre background of foot and mouth disease, as was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery). As he and others pointed out, however, there is nothing in the Budget about it. I am especially surprised—given that the Budget will have been prepared somewhat in advance—that we have heard nothing from Ministers about the reallocation of some of the £1 billion underspend that they pushed into the subsequent year to fund compensation payments.
  Mr. Gordon Brown: More public spending.
  Mr. Letwin: Not more public spending; reallocated public spending. The Chancellor could not spend that money last year: try as he might, he could not get Whitehall to spend it. Now he is pushing it into the next year, and not looking at the emergency that faces the country.
  Mr. Brown: More spending.
  Mr. Letwin: No, it does not mean more spending this year. It means the same amount of spending this year, reallocated. It would be good if the Chancellor were able to do what I believe he is fond of accusing us of not being able to do, and could do his sums.
  As usual, we are confronted by a Budget which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) pointed out, contains a good deal more spin than substance. The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell)—who, alas, has had to leave the Chamber, but was courteous enough to let us know in advance—made an interesting speech, but fell into a huge heffalump trap. I am in the fortunate position of being able to reveal the results of a little further investigation. After all, such discoveries are made 24 hours by 24 hours as we disinter the astonishing palimpsest of the Red Book.
  910
  We now find that the extra money for education, which we already knew had been reduced from £1 billion to £400 million, is a conjuring trick in itself, as it is based on a comparison with the pre-Budget report. If we refer to the Red Book relating to the last Budget, we find that the amount turns out to be £200 million. I agree that the Chancellor is a magician, but making £200 million into £1 billion is certainly a magic trick even by his standards.
  Then there are the dogs that did not bark. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) rightly made another impassioned plea for a change in the annuity rule. There was nothing about that in the Budget, although the Chancellor prided himself hugely on having vastly worsened the annuities situation by repaying a huge amount of the national debt.
  Although the Chancellor made no announcement of a rise in corporation tax, it will rise by £5.7 billion next year after four years of failure to index the various thresholds. I could go on, referring to the national insurance changes, the company car tax changes and all sorts of other things that we never heard about—as is, I think, widely acknowledged now.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea and, in a brilliant analysis, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) made clear just how much what is claimed in the Budget—and, indeed, in his previous Budgets, and in all his preenings about his great success—depends on the inheritance that he received. It goes back to 1992 and 1993; it was not suddenly invented in new Labour Downing street. That was the burden of another brilliant analysis yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). In fact, this Budget debate has been more distinguished by ex-Chancellors making clear what is going on in the present Chancellor's Budget than any other such debate in the current Parliament. I admit that that is only a minor compensation for the deficiencies of the Budget itself.
  Much more seriously, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea and, again, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe made clear just how far the Budget continues the process of undermining British competitiveness by increasing taxes and regulation. My right hon. and learned Friend described—accurately, I believe—the Chancellor's programme of deceleration and acceleration of public spending as an eccentricity. I shall explain in a moment why I think he slightly understated the case.
  Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend recall that in April 1997, in his foreword to Labour's business manifesto entitled "Equipping Britain for the Future", the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) specifically stated in terms—[Interruption.] The Chancellor can chunter from a sedentary position, but he cannot deny the facts. He stated in terms: "We will not impose burdensome regulations upon business, because we understand that successful businesses must keep costs down."
  Does that not contrast radically with the verdict of the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, Mr. Chris Humphries, who says, also in terms, "Whatever

  911
  its rhetoric, the reality is that the Government have dramatically increased the regulatory burdens that threaten small business competitiveness"?
  Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend is right to bring that up. There is only one difference on that issue between Mr. Chris Humphries and the Chancellor: the one is right, the other wrong.
  This Budget does much worse things than any of those, such as hugely increase the spread of means-testing. As my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) and for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) made clear, it is also a Budget for complexity, but complexity for a purpose. What is the purpose? The purpose is huge redistribution. What is the effect? The effect is huge disincentive—a disincentive to save and to be thrifty. In fact, it is a disincentive to do the very things that the Chancellor wants everyone to do.
  There is, however, a worse problem, and it is on that that I wish to dwell as we conclude this debate. The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice)—who, alas, is not in the Chamber—made an interesting speech in which he made an admission which I suspect will earn him discredit in the eyes the Chancellor. He made the astonishing admission that the Government had not wholly abolished the economic cycle.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe speculated that, at some time in the future, there might possibly be a somewhat slowing economy. We do not speculate or predict, but let us imagine that there is a faint possibility that even the magic of this Chancellor has failed to produce Elysium. It might just be that even this Chancellor has failed to produce a permanent solution to the economic cycle.
  If there were an economic slowdown, what would the Chancellor do? He has vastly accentuated the cyclicality of tax receipts and pushed the emphasis of tax ever further on to those components that are most affected by the cycle. He has vastly aggrandised his corporation tax receipts, to which I have already referred, precisely because he has taken steps to ensure that he can. His climate change levy is highly cyclical in its effect. IR35 is about the most cyclical tax that there has ever been. His aggregates levy is cyclical. Every time that he transfers the burden on to business, he makes his tax receipts more cyclical.
  Currently, of course, that has the most marvellous result for the Chancellor. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe pointed out, that has the effect that his taxes increase faster than he himself can predict, because the output gap is positive. What a wonderful scenario for a Chancellor—more tax revenue than even he could have dreamed of a year before.
  The flipside of that coin is that, as soon as there is a slight slowdown, those tax receipts will diminish, not just as they always do—my .right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe was absolutely right that every Treasury has been bad at predicting how fast they will decline—but faster, because the cyclicality has increased. However, that is not the half of it.
  This Chancellor, in his extension of means-tested benefits, has also made the social security system, which is the cyclical part of the expenditure side of the equation,
  912
  vastly more cyclical. The Chancellor shakes his head because he is proud that he has managed to cure the unemployment trap, as he sees it, by having extended the working families tax credit and other in-work benefits. He has done something to cure the unemployment trap but, in so doing, has also vastly accentuated the poverty trap.
  The consequence for spending in a slowdown is that it will increase much faster than it has hitherto. It is obviously true that if there is a vast extension of means-tested benefits—such as the working families tax credit, the pensioner credit, the minimum income guarantee, the children's tax credit and the new children's credit—and there is a slowdown, as incomes decline, public spending in the Department of Social Security will accelerate more quickly than it has previously.
  We have a Chancellor who has introduced arrangements that will increase the effect of a slowdown on decreasing taxes and increase the effect of a slowdown on increasing expenditure. That means that the deficit that he would be generating if there were a slowdown would be greater than it had previously been.
  All of that comes against a background of a huge, locked-in ramping of those parts of public expenditure that are less cyclical in character. If a slowdown gets under way, the Chancellor will find it extraordinarily difficult to constrain the growth that he has set for the other elements of expenditure. He knows that, and we know it. It has always been the fate of Chancellors in the past.
  The Chancellor has built the basis not for the Elysium of permanent stability, but for turning the economy into something that gives people the wrong incentives. It gives people a disincentive to save, to work more, or to behave responsibly towards their young and their old. Beyond that, the Chancellor has created circumstances that will mean that his much-trumpeted fiscal stability will give way more quickly than was the case in the past to the slightest downturn.
  That is not what a responsible Budget, or sequence of responsible Budgets, would produce. The set of Budgets announced by this Chancellor looks good today, but may not look so good tomorrow. It is important that the House recognises that, and puts it on the record. If there is a slowdown and if the Chancellor's policies are fulfilled because he is lucky enough to be re-elected—which we hope will not happen—there will come a time when he will claim that something very strange has happened. However, nothing very strange will have happened. The Chancellor himself will have brought about the circumstances that I have described.
  The answer to those problems is clear. It is to moderate the growth rate of public spending, so as to be able to reduce rather than increase the tax burden. It is to find means to do that so that people will not rely on means-tested benefits because they will have more of their own money. The answer to the problems that I have outlined also involves an honest taxation policy that does not shift the burden on to cyclical business taxes but acknowledges where tax lies.
  In short, the answer to our economic problems is a programme that tries to bring back to the nation's finances some long-term stability. The Chancellor believes that he has achieved that, but he has not done so at all. Such a programme would continue the process bequeathed to the nation in the final four or five years of the previous

  913
  Conservative Administration. They were the first four or five years of the very process on which the Chancellor now congratulates himself.
  If the nation does not follow that path, there will come a time when it will rue that decision. There will come a time when the Chancellor's wonderful smile will be wiped off his face. Our duty is to ensure that that smile is gone before the nation has to wipe it off at a time of economic slowdown. We can do that by making sure that we win the next general election and follow the right policies, rather than the wrong ones.
  9.38 pm
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): That was an extraordinary speech. Clearly, it meant nothing to half the people in the Public Gallery, who left after five minutes. It certainly will not mean anything to any member of the general public unfortunate enough to chance upon it. The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) went on about my right hon. Friend the Chancellor somehow creating disincentives to work. People will ask why there are a million more people in jobs under this Government.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has delivered a Budget that makes a clear choice about Britain's future. It sets out a platform on which to build opportunity and prosperity for all. It is a Budget that takes a balanced approach, and stability is the foundation. It proposes more investment in our public services, not less. It puts schools and hospitals first, and offers affordable tax cuts for hard-working families. It is a Budget that locks in stability and rejects the short-termism of the past. It rejects underinvestment and cuts in public services, and unaffordable tax cuts that would put investment at risk.
  In this debate, the House has heard possible valedictory speeches from distinguished hon. Members. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who has made a distinguished contribution to fiscal matters in this House, praised the Chancellor's long-term approach to stability, investment and welfare-to-work policies. He said that it was the best Budget that he had been privileged to take part in.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice), whose chairmanship of the Select Committee has drawn admiration from both sides of the House and respect from those of us who have appeared in front of him, praised the Chancellor for carrying through the radical reforms necessary for monetary and fiscal stability. As my right hon. Friends and others pointed out, that commitment to stability has meant that Britain has the lowest long-term interest rates for 35 years, the lowest inflation for 30 years and the lowest unemployment since 1975. It will remain the bedrock for all that we do.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) spoke as though my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was somehow the lucky Chancellor and had a golden inheritance from the previous Administration. Who took debt as a share of GDP up to 44 per cent.? Who borrowed an extra £28 billion before we came into office? In contrast, who, within days of coming into office, made the Bank of England operationally independent? Who put
  914
  the fiscal rules in place? Who sorted out the public finances so that we have a platform for stability and lower interest rates?
  Mr. Bercow: The Chief Secretary likes to pose as the high priest of prudence. Perhaps I can put to him the question that I put unavailingly to the Paymaster General the other day. What assessment has the right hon. Gentleman made of the impact 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. Smith: A prudent assessment. [Laughter.] It is because we have been prudent that the Chancellor was able to announce that he can pay off £34 billion of debt this year. That will cut the cost of debt interest which, when we came to power, cost more than the entire schools budget, and we are now putting more than £10 billion extra into the schools budget.
  We remain on track to meet our fiscal rules. The Chancellor announced that we will retain our 2.5 per cent. inflation target. He has rejected calls by Conservative Members to set a lower target, a policy that would lead to upward pressure on interest rates.
  With stability as the foundation, our ambitions for Britain can be met—more investment, not less, and targeted tax cuts on the nation's priorities. For example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran) said, the community investment tax credit can bring great benefit to disadvantaged communities.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman takes great credit for this extraordinary repayment of national debt, which was plainly unintended, and resulted from the Government failing to spend the money proposed in the Chancellor's previous spending plans. Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that over the past four years, the average European country has achieved faster growth than this country? Many have created employment at a faster rate than us, and all of them have enjoyed that with low inflation. Does he accept that his basking in the glory of the past four years is due to the lucky event of having had a good inheritance followed by four boom years for the world economy?
  Mr. Smith: I can understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman's regrets about the way in which things turned out, but it is not a question of luck. Who put the fiscal discipline in place? Who paid off the debt? It was not "plainly unintended". We set out the fiscal rules. Unlike the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), we set out the rules when we were in opposition—the golden rule that we will keep debt at prudent and sustainable levels and below 40 per cent. of GDP and keep the current account balanced over the economic cycle, borrowing only for investment. We are benefiting from prudence in cutting the national debt, saving £4.5 billion in interest payments a year. We are also benefiting from the cut in unemployment. That is not a matter of chance; it was a deliberate act of policy that was assisted by the new deal, which was greatly maligned and attacked by Conservative Members. They would abolish the new deal.
  Mr. Letwin: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how long the economy has been growing?
  Mr. Smith: It has been growing for more than a decade, but the last economic cycle ran from 1997 to 1999. The question is who is putting in place a foundation for sustainable and continuing growth in the economy, based on sound public finances, on more people in jobs and enabling us to act—
  Mr. Clarke rose—
  Mr. Smith: I cannot give way. I have to reply to other matters raised in the debate.
  As my hon. Friends the Members for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), for Watford (Ms Ward) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) said, this was a Budget for families and a Budget to tackle poverty.
  Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. He is vehement about the fact that the spectacular repayment of national debt was intended—it was a deliberate act of policy. It is extraordinary, a once-socialist Government are cheering that fantastic repayment of national debt. However, all the forecasts for taxation and expenditure were wrong. When did the Government predict that they would repay £35 billion of public debt as a policy target?
  Mr. Smith: I found it revealing when the right hon. and learned Gentleman said in his speech that he saw merit in the way in which we acted to make the Bank of England operationally independent. The question that he must answer is why he did not do that when he had the chance, if that is what he believed.
  This is a Budget for families and a Budget to tackle poverty. As a matter of choice, we increased child benefit to £15.50, which is a rise of 30 per cent. in real terms. We did it as a matter of choice, not chance or good fortune. We are introducing the children's tax credit at £10 a week—from next year it will be £20 a week for those with a child under the age of one. As a matter of choice, we are increasing maternity pay to £100 by 2003 and we will increase the payment period from 18 to 26 weeks, as well as introducing two weeks' paternity leave for new fathers.
  The Budget also takes further steps to make work pay for hard-working families—25 million families will gain from the widening of the lower 10p tax rate. Now, more of their income will be taxed at that lower rate rather than at 22p. We have increased the working families tax credit by £5 and increased the minimum wage. That means that full-time work brings with it a guaranteed income of £225 a week. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax pointed out, together with the minimum wage, that makes an enormous difference to families on modest incomes.
  Conservative Members, such as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), who attacked working families tax credit, would deny that money to hard-working families. They would deny it to those who need it most. Families are receiving on average £30 a week more than they were getting under the old family credit and many more of them are getting it.
  916
  Labour's Budgets mean that households will, on average, be £240 a year better off because of the measures we are introducing this year alone. Families with children will, on average, be £420 a year better off and 2 million of the poorest pensioners at least £800 a year better off. That is the measure of our commitment to building not only a strong economy but a strong society—one that is making everyone better off, with living standards having risen 10 per cent. since the general election, but giving particular help to the poorest and those who need it most. Of course, if we had not rejected unaffordable tax cuts, we should not have been able to offer a balanced approach in the Budget, nor could we have met the investment priorities of the people of Britain.
  The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) was good enough to acknowledge both that people had been helped into work through the new deal and the merits of the working families tax credit. However, on public expenditure, he should recall that the same balanced approach will enable Wales to gain £100 million from the Budget over three years. That is on top of the £2 billion uplift provided for Wales in the spending review, and the objective 1 funding of £270 million to help those areas about which he expressed concern and about which we, too, care deeply.
  It is nonsense to claim that our policies are geared only towards the south-east of England. The Budget and the Government act for all the people of this country—giving extra help to those communities which need it most. There will be a strong partnership for action in Wales between the National Assembly, local authorities and Departments to ensure that those communities facing difficult times of transition and job losses receive the help that they need.
  Mr. Letwin rose—
  Mr. Smith: I am sorry I cannot give way.
  That balanced approach, which puts stability first and makes targeted tax cuts that we can afford, is also one that allows us to invest for the long term in Britain's schools and hospitals. For decades, those services suffered from the wrong choices. We choose not to return to those days of short-termism; instead, we choose a path of sustainable growth, with investment in key front-line services and staff.
  As my hon. Friends the Members for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) and for Watford pointed out, we are seeing the benefits in our constituencies—in the classrooms and in the hospitals—as we improve services and are able to recruit more staff. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health spoke today of how he will spend the additional £1 billion over three years on the national health service. Money will go directly to primary care services. Between £500,000 and £1 million a year will go to each acute hospital trust in communities throughout our country.
  Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment set out his plans to spend £1 billion over the next three years on extra resources for our schools. He confirmed that direct payments will go to schools, with as much as £63,000 for the largest primary schools and as much as £115,000 for the largest secondary schools. Because we want more teachers and more nurses, we have set up special recruitment funds of £135 million for key health service staff and £200 million for education staff.

  917
  The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) made some extraordinary claims about how much less he thought was going into health and education under the Labour Government. I checked the figures for NHS spending as a proportion of gross domestic product. The amount was 5.7 per cent. in 1996–97; by the current year, it had risen to 6.2 per cent. of a larger GDP. It will, of course, rise further. The extra spending in the Budget will come on top of the additional funding we have made available in the spending review. Spending as a whole will grow not at 3.4 per cent. but at 3.7 per cent.
  Our choice is more investment—not less. Those who suggest a spending increase of 2.25 per cent. would see a shortfall over the next three years of more than £16 billion—resources taken away from schools and hospitals in every part of the country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South pointed out, Opposition Members must answer the question: on which schools and hospitals would their £16 billion axe fall?
  In the brief time left for my speech, I will consider the remarks of Opposition Members. I am pleased to see the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) in his place. He followed admirably his three-point rule, speaking with understandable feeling about the severity of the problems affecting agriculture, and the rural communities in particular, in his constituency as a consequence of foot and mouth disease. Of course that is a very sombre backdrop to our debate. It is a very serious situation indeed, and I believe that we are all agreed that every effort must be made, and no effort spared, to eradicate this terrible disease, which is inflicting such damage.
  The right hon. Gentleman made the case for compensation for consequential loss, while acknowledging that no Government had provided such compensation. I believe that he can appreciate the difficulties of deciding who would benefit and by what amount, and where to draw the line. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun reminded us of the communities that have been devastated by pit closures and other industrial restructuring. I can tell the right hon. Member for East Devon that the Government do act to help communities that are facing critical challenges such as this disease, which is why we will be acting not only to eradicate it but, as soon as we have been able to do so, to consider what measures can be taken to regenerate the rural economies, including the tourism sector, which in turn is being so badly affected. As we draw up those plans, we shall be pleased to listen to the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members whose constituents are affected.
  I shall comment all too briefly on the remarks of the Opposition Front-Bench team. This evening we received further confirmation in the debate that their sums do not add up, that they have no fiscal rules and that they have no basis for stability or sustainability in their approach. They say that public spending could only grow within their definition of trend growth of 2.25 per cent. If that is the claim that they make, even if we allow for what they say about honouring our spending commitments for their first year, it still leaves them with a spending gap not of the £8 billion that they claim, and which they cannot cover with spending savings because they have not been able to identify any that stand up, but of £11 billion. That gap shows that no one could believe what they say on tax, spending, the economy or anything else. That spending
  918
  gap wields an axe over the investment that the present Government are making in schools, in hospitals and in combating crime.
  The Budget debates in the past few days have made clear the choices that the Government have made. We have rejected short-termism and underinvestment. We have rejected unaffordable tax cuts that would put at risk investment in our public services, and we have decided to invest for the long term. Our choice is to seize the opportunity that Britain has, not through some golden inheritance, not through chance, but through the choices that we have made and through the action that we have carried forward, in partnership with the British people. The choice is to invest in our schools, hospitals and disadvantaged communities, and the choice is to build on the new deal, which has got over a quarter of a million young people into work and cut youth unemployment by over three quarters, instead of cutting the new deal as the official Opposition would.
  Our choice is to reward hard-working families with affordable tax cuts and measures to make work pay. Our choice is to make stability our foundation, rejecting the boom and bust of the past and the damage that that inflicted on our country in the past. A return to that policy is held as the threat from a Conservative party, a shadow Chancellor and a Leader of the Opposition who cannot be trusted by the people of this country, because their sums do not add up. We have made the right choices for the people of Britain: choices that will build a Britain of opportunity and prosperity for all.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  (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.

  919
  (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.
  MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then, pursuant to Standing Order No. 51(3) (Ways and Means Motions), put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the further motions.

  Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    2 HYDROCARBON OIL (RATES OF DUTY)
    Resolved,
    That—
    (1) In section 6(1A) of the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979—

    (a) in paragraph (a), for "£0.4782" there shall be substituted "£0.4582"; and

    (b) in paragraph (c), for "£0.4882" there shall be substituted "£0.4582".

    (2) That subsection shall have effect until midnight on 14th June 2001 as if for paragraph
    (b) there were substituted—

    "(ba) £0.5268 in the case of unleaded petrol other than ultra low sulphur petrol;

    (bb) £0.5468 in the case of light oil not within paragraph (a) or (ba) above;".

    After that, paragraph (b) shall have effect as it did before.
    (3) In section 8(3) of the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979 for "£0.1500" there shall be substituted "£0.0900".
    (4) This Resolution shall have effect as from 6 o'clock in the evening of 7th March 2001.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    3 HYDROCARBON OIL (REBATE ON UNLEADED PETROL)
    Resolved,
    That—
    (1) For section 13A of the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979 there shall be substituted—

    Rebate on unleaded petrol
    13A.—(1) On unleaded petrol, other than ultra low sulphur petrol, charged with the excise duty on hydrocarbon oil and delivered for home use there shall be allowed at the time of delivery a rebate of duty at the rate of £0.0586 a litre.
    (2) Rebate is not allowed under this section in a case
    where a rebate is allowed under section 14 below.".
    (2) In paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 2A to that Act—
    (a) for paragraphs (a) and (b) there shall be substituted—
    920
    "(ab) adding lead to unleaded petrol in respect of which a rebate has been allowed under section 13A;"; and
    (b) in paragraph (c)—

    (i) for "paragraph (a)" there shall be substituted "paragraph (aa)", and

    (ii) for "paragraph (b)" there shall be substituted "paragraph (ab)".

    (3) For paragraph 2A of that Schedule there shall be substituted—
    .—(1) A mixture which is unleaded petrol is produced in contravention of this paragraph if the mixture is produced by mixing—

    (a) petrol on which duty has been paid at the rate specified in section 6(1A)(a), and

    (b) petrol in respect of which a rebate has been allowed under section 13A,

    and the mixture produced is unleaded petrol that is not ultra low sulphur petrol.
    (2) This paragraph is subject to any direction given under paragraph 3.".
    (4) In paragraph 8 of that Schedule, for sub-paragraph (3A) there shall be substituted—
    "(3A) In the case of a mixture produced in contravention of paragraph 2A above, the rate is that produced by deducting from the rate in force under section 6(1A)(b) at the time the mixture is produced the rebate which at that time is in force under section 13A.' .
    (5) This Resolution shall have effect as from 6 o'clock in the evening of 7th March 2001.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    4 TOBACCO PRODUCTS (RATES OF DUTY)
    Resolved,
    That—
    (1) For the Table of rates of duty in Schedule 1 to the Tobacco Products Duty Act 1979 there shall be substituted—

    "TABLE

    1. Cigarettes

    An amount equal to 22 per cent. of the retail price plus £92.25 per thousand cigarettes.

    2. Cigars

    £134.69 per kilogram.

    3. Hand-rolling tobacco

    £96.81 per kilogram.

    4. Other smoking tobacco and chewing tobacco

    £59.21 per kilogram.".

    (2) This Resolution shall have effect as from 6 o'clock in the evening of 7th March 2001.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    5 DILUTION ETC. OF CIDER
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made authorising regulations under section 62(5) of the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 to make provision about adding substances to, mixing, or carrying out other operations on or in relation to, cider.

    6 GENERAL BETTING DUTY
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about general betting duty.

    7 VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY (GENERAL RATE)
    Resolved,
    That—
    (1) In paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, in sub-paragraphs (2) and (2A) for "1,200 cubic centimetres" there shall be substituted "1,549 cubic centimetres".
    This amendment shall apply to licences issued on or after 1st July 2001.
    (2) Refunds shall be made by the Secretary of State, in accordance with the following provisions of this Resolution, in respect of licences—

    (a) issued in the period beginning with 1st November 2000 and ending with 30th June 2001, and

    (b) not surrendered before the end of that period,

    where the amount of vehicle excise duty chargeable on the licence would have been less if the amendment in paragraph (1) of this Resolution had applied.
    (3) The amount of the refund shall be—

    (a) £55 for a 12 month licence, and

    (b) £27.50 for a 6 month licence.

    (4) The person entitled to the refund shall be—

    (a) in the case of a licence in force on 30th June 2001, the keeper of the vehicle on that date;

    (b) in the case of a licence that has ceased to be in force before that date, the keeper of the vehicle when the licence expired.

    (5) For the purposes of paragraph (4) of this Resolution the keeper of the vehicle shall be taken to be—

    (a) the person registered as keeper of the vehicle on the date in question, or

    (b) if the Secretary of State has received notification of a change of ownership of the vehicle as a result of which another person is on that date entitled to be registered as the new keeper of the vehicle, that person.

    (6) A refund shall only be made if an application is made for it in such form, and containing such particulars and supported by such documents, as the Secretary of State may require.
    (7) The Secretary of State shall give notice in writing to any person appearing to him to be entitled to a refund—

    (a) informing him that he appears to be entitled to a refund,

    (b) enclosing an application form, and

    (c) specifying the particulars and supporting documents to be provided.

    (8) An application for, or the making of, a refund under this Resolution in respect of a licence shall not affect the validity of the licence.
    (9) For the purposes of section 19 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 as it applies to the surrender on or after 1st July 2001 of a licence in respect of which a refund under this Resolution has been made, or applied for, the annual rate of duty chargeable on the licence shall be taken to be that which would have been chargeable if the amendment in paragraph (1) of this Resolution had applied.
    (10) Section 45 of that Act shall apply to a declaration in connection with an application for a refund under this Resolution as it applies to a declaration in connection with an application for a vehicle licence.
    (11) In the application of this Resolution to Northern Ireland, references to registration as the keeper of a vehicle shall be read as references to registration as the owner of the vehicle.
    (12) This Resolution comes into force on 1st July 2001.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    8 VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY (GOODS VEHICLES)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made increasing rates of duty set out in Part VIII of Schedule 1 to the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994.

    9 VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY (MOBILE PUMPING VEHICLES)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made for mobile pumping vehicles to be special vehicles to which Part IV of Schedule 1 to the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 applies and for old mobile pumping vehicles not to be exempt vehicles for the purposes of that Act.

    10 VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY (EXEMPTION OF AGRICULTURAL VEHICLES ETC.)
    Resolved,
    That—
    (1) The vehicles that are exempt vehicles for the purposes of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 ("the 1994 Act") shall include—

    (a) the vehicles that would, apart from this Resolution, be special concessionary vehicles for the purposes of Part IVA of Schedule 1 to the 1994 Act, and

    (b) motorcycles (within the meaning given by paragraph 2 of that Schedule) that are electrically propelled vehicles for the purposes of the 1994 Act.

    (2) Part IVA of that Schedule shall cease to have effect.
    (3) In Part II of that Schedule, paragraph 2 shall be amended as follows—

    (a) in sub-paragraph (1)(a), omit "or the motorcycle is an electrically propelled vehicle", and

    (b) in sub-paragraph (3), in the definition of "motorcycle", after "motortricycle" insert "but does not include an electrically propelled vehicle".

    (4) The provisions of paragraphs (1) to (3) above apply to licences issued on or after 1st April 2001.
    (5) Paragraph (6) below applies where a licence—

    (a) is issued before 1st April 2001 for a relevant vehicle, and

    (b) is in force on 1st April 2001 or comes into force after 1st April 2001.

    (6) The licence shall, during the period—

    (a) beginning with the later of 1st April 2001 and the day when it comes into force, and

    (b) ending with the expiry of the period for which it is issued,

    be deemed to be a nil licence for the purposes of the 1994 Act.
    (7) A refund shall be made by the Secretary of State, in accordance with the following provisions of this Resolution, in respect of a licence for a relevant vehicle that—

    (a) is issued before 1st March 2001, in force on 1st March 2001 and not surrendered before 1st April 2001,

    (b) is issued before 1st March 2001, comes into force after 1st March 2001 and is not surrendered before 1st April 2001, or

    (c) is issued in March 2001 and not surrendered before 1st April 2001.

    (8) The amount of the refund is one-twelfth of the annual rate of duty chargeable on the licence for—

    (a) in the case of a licence issued before 1st March 2001, each whole month after February 2001 that forms part of the period for which the licence was issued, and

    (b) in the case of a licence issued on or after 1st March 2001, each whole month of the period for which the licence is issued.

    (9) The person entitled to the refund is the person registered as the keeper of the relevant vehicle on 30th April 2001.

    923
    (10) The provisions of sections 10(2) and 19 of the 1994 Act do not apply to a licence in respect of which a person is entitled to a refund under this Resolution.
    (11) In the application of this Resolution to Northern Ireland, references to registration as the keeper of a vehicle shall be read as references to registration as the owner of the vehicle.
    (12) In paragraphs (5) to (9) above "relevant vehicle" means a vehicle of the description mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) or (b) of paragraph (1) above.
    (13) This Resolution comes into force on 1st April 2001.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    11 AGGREGATES LEVY
    Motion made, and Question put,
    That provision may be made for charging a levy, to be known as aggregates levy, on aggregate subjected to commercial exploitation in the United Kingdom.
    The House proceeded to a Division.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
    The House having divided: Ayes 353, Noes 160.

    Division No. 147]

    [10.1 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Ainger, Nick

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Burden, Richard

    Alexander, Douglas

    Burgon, Colin

    Allan, Richard

    Burstow, Paul

    Allen, Graham

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Ashton, Joe

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Austin, John

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Bailey, Adrian

    Cann, Jamie

    Baker, Norman

    Caplin, Ivor

    Ballard, Jackie

    Casale, Roger

    Banks, Tony

    Caton, Martin

    Barnes, Harry

    Cawsey, Ian

    Bayley, Hugh

    Chaytor, David

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Chidgey, David

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Clapham, Michael

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Benton, Joe

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Berry, Roger

    Clelland, David

    Best, Harold

    Clwyd, Ann

    Blackman, Liz

    Coaker, Vernon

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Coleman, Iain

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Colman, Tony

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Connarty, Michael

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

    Brake, Tom

    Cooper, Yvette

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Corbett, Robin

    Breed, Colin

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Corston, Jean

    Cotter, Brian

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Cousins, Jim

    Browne, Desmond

    Cranston, Ross

    924

    Crausby, David

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cummings, John

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Hurst, Alan

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Hutton, John

    Dalyell, Tam

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Illsley, Eric

    Darvill, Keith

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Davidson, Ian

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Denham, Rt Hon John

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Dobbin, Jim

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Doran, Frank

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Dowd, Jim

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Joyce, Eric

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Edwards, Huw

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Efford, Clive

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Etherington, Bill

    Keetch, Paul

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Kemp, Fraser

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Fisher, Mark

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Flint, Caroline

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Flynn, Paul

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Lammy, David

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Galloway, George

    Laxton, Bob

    Gardiner, Barry

    Lepper, David

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Leslie, Christopher

    Gerrard, Neil

    Levitt, Tom

    Gidley, Sandra

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Linton, Martin

    Godsiff, Roger

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Goggins, Paul

    Lock, David

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Love, Andrew

    Gorrie, Donald

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    McCabe, Steve

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Grocott, Bruce

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Hain, Peter

    Macdonald, Calum

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    McFall, John

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Hancock, Mike

    McIsaac, Shona

    Hanson, David

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    McNulty, Tony

    Harris, Dr Evan

    MacShane, Denis

    Healey, John

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    McWilliam, John

    Hendrick, Mark

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Heppell, John

    Mallaber, Judy

    Hesford, Stephen

    Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

    Hill, Keith

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Hoey, Kate

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Home Robertson, John

    Martlew, Eric

    Hood, Jimmy

    Maxton, John

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Hope, Phil

    Meale, Alan

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Merron, Gillian

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    925

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Miller, Andrew

    Short, Rt Hon Clare

    Mitchell, Austin

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Skinner, Dennis

    Moore, Michael

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Morley, Elliot

    Snape, Peter

    Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

    Spellar, John

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Mudie, George

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Mullin, Chris

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Stevenson, George

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Oaten, Mark

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Olner, Bill

    Stringer, Graham

    O'Neill, Martin

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Öpik, Lembit

    Stunell, Andrew

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Pearson, Ian

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Pendry, Rt Hon Tom

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Pike, Peter L

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Plaskitt, James

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Pond, Chris

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Pope, Greg

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Pound, Stephen

    Timms, Stephen

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Tipping, Paddy

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Todd, Mark

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Touhig, Don

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Truswell, Paul

    Purchase, Ken

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Radice, Rt Hon Giles

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Rapson, Syd

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Tyler, Paul

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Rendel, David

    Wareing, Robert N

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Watts, David

    White, Brian

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Rogers, Allan

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Rooney, Terry

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Willis, Phil

    Roy, Frank

    Wills, Michael

    Ruane, Chris

    Wilson, Brian

    Ruddock, Joan

    Winnick, David

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Worthington, Tony

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Wray, James

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Sanders, Adrian

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Mr. David Jamieson and

    Sheerman, Barry

    Mr. Clive Betts.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Amess, David

    Blunt, Crispin

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Body, Sir Richard

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Boswell, Tim

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Bottomley Peter (Worthing W)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Baldry, Tony

    Brady, Graham

    Beggs, Roy

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Bercow, John

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    926

    Burnett, John

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Burns, Simon

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Butterfill, John

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Cash, William

    Madel, Sir David

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Malins, Humfrey

    Maples, John

    Chope, Christopher

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Clappison, James

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Moss, Malcolm

    Collins, Tim

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Norman, Archie

    Cran, James

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Ottaway, Richard

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Paice, James

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Paterson, Owen

    Day, Stephen

    Pickles, Eric

    Donaldson, Jeffrey

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Prior, David

    Duncan, Alan

    Randall, John

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Robathan, Andrew

    Evans, Nigel

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Fallon, Michael

    Ruffley, David

    Flight, Howard

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Fraser, Christopher

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Gale, Roger

    Shepherd, Richard

    Garnier, Edward

    Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

    Gibb, Nick

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Gill, Christopher

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Spring, Richard

    Green, Damian

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Greenway, John

    Steen, Anthony

    Grieve, Dominic

    Swayne, Desmond

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Swinney, John

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Syms, Robert

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Hammond, Philip

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Hayes, John

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Heald, Oliver

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Thompson, William

    Townend, John

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Tredinnick, David

    Horam, John

    Trend, Michael

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Walter, Robert

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Webb, Steve

    Key, Robert

    Wells, Bowen

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Welsh, Andrew

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Whittingdale, John

    Lansley, Andrew

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Leigh, Edward

    Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

    Letwin, Oliver

    Wilkinson, John

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Willetts, David

    Livsey, Richard

    Wilshire, David

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Loughton, Tim

    Yeo, Tim

    Luff, Peter

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    McCrea, Dr William

    Tellers for the Noes:

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Mr. James Gray and

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Mr. Keith Simpson.

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    12 INCOME TAX (CHANGE AND RATES FOR 2001–02)
    Motion made, and Question put,
    That income tax shall be charged for the year 2001–02, and for that year—

    (a) the starting rate shall be 10 per cent.;

    (b) the basic rate shall be 22 per cent.; and

    (c) the higher rate shall be 40 per cent.

    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
    The House divided: Ayes 326, Noes 41.

    Division No. 148]

    [10.18 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Ainger, Nick

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Clelland, David

    Alexander, Douglas

    Clwyd, Ann

    Allen, Graham

    Coaker, Vernon

    Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Coleman, Iain

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Colman, Tony

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Connarty, Michael

    Ashton, Joe

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

    Austin, John

    Cooper, Yvette

    Bailey, Adrian

    Corbett, Robin

    Banks, Tony

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Barnes, Harry

    Corston, Jean

    Bayley, Hugh

    Cousins, Jim

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Cranston, Ross

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Crausby, David

    Beggs, Roy

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Benton, Joe

    Dalyell, Tam

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Berry, Roger

    Darvill, Keith

    Best, Harold

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Blackman, Liz

    Davidson, Ian

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Dawson, Hilton

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Denham, Rt Hon John

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Dobbin, Jim

    Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Donaldson, Jeffrey

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Browne, Desmond

    Doran, Frank

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Dowd, Jim

    Burden, Richard

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Burgon, Colin

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Edwards, Huw

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Efford, Clive

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Etherington, Bill

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Fisher, Mark

    Cann, Jamie

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Caplin, Ivor

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Casale, Roger

    Flint, Caroline

    Caton, Martin

    Flynn, Paul

    Cawsey, Ian

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Chaytor, David

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Clapham, Michael

    Foulkes, George

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Galloway, George

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Gardiner, Barry

    Gerrard, Neil

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    928

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    McCrea, Dr William

    Godsiff, Roger

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Goggins, Paul

    Macdonald, Calum

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    McFall, John

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Hain, Peter

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    McNulty, Tony

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    MacShane, Denis

    Hanson, David

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    McWilliam, John

    Healey, John

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Hendrick, Mark

    Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

    Heppell, John

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Hesford, Stephen

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Hill, Keith

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Martlew, Eric

    Hoey, Kate

    Maxton, John

    Home Robertson, John

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Hood, Jimmy

    Meale, Alan

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Merron, Gillian

    Hope, Phil

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Miller, Andrew

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Mitchell, Austin

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Hurst, Alan

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Hutton, John

    Morley, Elliot

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

    Illsley, Eric

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Mudie, George

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Mullin, Chris

    Jenkins, Brian

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Olner, Bill

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Pearson, Ian

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Pendry, Rt Hon Tom

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Pike, Peter L

    Joyce, Eric

    Plaskitt, James

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Pond, Chris

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Pope, Greg

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Pound, Stephen

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Kemp, Fraser

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Prosser, Gwyn

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Purchase, Ken

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Radice, Rt Hon Giles

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Rapson, Syd

    Lammy, David

    Raynsford, Nick

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Laxton, Bob

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Lepper, David

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Leslie, Christopher

    Levitt, Tom

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Linton, Martin

    Rogers, Allan

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Rooney, Terry

    Lock, David

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Love, Andrew

    Ross, William (E Lond'y)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Rowlands, Ted

    McCabe, Steve

    Roy, Frank

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Ruane, Chris

    929

    Ruddock, Joan

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Thompson, William

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Timms, Stephen

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Tipping, Paddy

    Sheerman, Barry

    Todd, Mark

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Touhig, Don

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Truswell, Paul

    Short, Rt Hon Clare

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Watts, David

    Snape, Peter

    White, Brian

    Spellar, John

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Stevenson, George

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Wills, Michael

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Wilson, Brian

    Stringer, Graham

    Winnick, David

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Worthington, Tony

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Wray, James

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

    Mr. David Jamieson and

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Mr. Clive Betts.

    NOES

    Allan, Richard

    Harvey, Nick

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Baker, Norman

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Ballard, Jackie

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Keetch, Paul

    Brake, Tom

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Livsey, Richard

    Breed, Colin

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Burnett, John

    Moore, Michael

    Burstow, Paul

    Oaten, Mark

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Öpik, Lembit

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Rendel, David

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Chidgey, David

    Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

    Cotter, Brian

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Tyler, Paul

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Webb, Steve

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Willis, Phil

    Gidley, Sandra

    Gornie, Donald

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Hancock, Mike

    Mr. Andrew Stunell and

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Mr. Adrian Sanders.

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    13 INCOME TAX (STARTING RATE LIMIT FOR 2001–02)
    Resolved,
    That—
    (1) For the year 2001–02 the amount specified in section 1(2)(aa) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall be £1,880.
    (2) Accordingly, section 1(4) of that Act, so far as it relates to the amount so specified, shall not apply for that year.
    (3) Nothing in this Resolution shall require any change to be made in the amounts deductible or repayable under section 203 of that Act before 18th May 2001.
    930
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    14 CHILDREN'S TAX CREDIT
    Resolved,
    That—
    (1) In section 257AA(2) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 for "£4,420" there shall be substituted "£5,200".
    (2) This Resolution has effect for the year 2001–02.
    (3) Nothing in this Resolution shall require any change to be made in the amounts deductible or repayable under section 203 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 before 18th May 2001.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    15 CORPORATION TAX (CHARGE AND RATE FOR 2002)
    Resolved,
    That, for the financial year 2002, corporation tax shall be charged at the rate of 30 per cent.

    16 CORPORATION TAX (SMALL COMPANIES' RATE FOR 2001)
    Resolved,
    That, for the financial year 2001—

    (a) the small companies' rate shall be 20 per cent., and

    (b) the fraction mentioned in section 13(2) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall be one fortieth.

    17 CORPORATION TAX (STARTING RATE FOR 2001)
    Resolved,
    That, for the financial year 2001—

    (a) the corporation tax starting rate shall be 10 per cent., and

    (b) the fraction mentioned in section 13AA(3) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall be one fortieth.

    18 EMPLOYEE SHARE OWNERSHIP PLANS
    Resolved,
    That provision (including retrospective provision) may be made about employee share ownership plans.

    19 ENTERPRISE INVESTMENT SCHEME
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made amending Chapter III of Part VII of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

    20 LOSS RELIEF ON SHARES IN TRADING COMPANIES
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about the circumstances in which companies that are wound up are to be treated as qualifying trading companies for the purposes of sections 573 to 576 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

    21 CORPORATE VENTURING SCHEME
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made amending Schedule 15 to the Finance Act 2000.

    22 CAPITAL ALLOWANCES
    Resolved,
    That provision (including retrospective provision) may be made about capital allowances.

    23 REPEAL OF CERTAIN RELIEFS
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made for the repeal of sections 534, 535, 537A and 538 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

    24 PAYMENTS TO EMPLOYERS OUT OF PENSION FUNDS
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made as to the amount recoverable under section 601(2) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

    25 DEDUCTIONS FOR DEEMED MANUFACTURED PAYMENTS
    Resolved,
    That—
    (1) Section 736B of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall be amended as follows.
    (2) In subsection (2), after "shall apply" there shall be inserted ", subject to subsection (2A) below,".
    (3) After that subsection there shall be inserted—
    "(2A) The borrower is not entitled, by virtue of anything in Schedule 23A or any provision of regulations under that Schedule, or otherwise—

    (a) to any deduction in computing profits or gains for the purposes of income tax or corporation tax, or

    (b) to any deduction against total income or, as the case may be, total profits,

    in respect of any such deemed requirement or payment as is provided for by subsection (2) above.
    Where the borrower is a company, an amount may not be surrendered by way of group relief if a deduction in respect of it is prohibited by this subsection.".
    (4) This Resolution shall apply to payments treated under section 736B as made on or after 3rd October 2000.

    26 DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made amending Part XVIII of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

    27 CONTROLLED FOREIGN COMPANIES
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made amending Part I of Schedule 25 to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

    28 LIFE POLICIES ETC.
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about gains arising in connection with policies of life assurance, contracts for life annuities and capital redemption policies.

    29 DEDUCTION OF TAX (PAYMENTS BETWEEN COMPANIES ETC.)
    Resolved,
    That—
    (1) After section 349 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 there shall be inserted—

    Exceptions to section 349 for payments between companies etc
    349A.—(1) The provisions specified in subsection (3) below (which require tax to be deducted on making certain payments) do not apply to a payment made by a company if, at the time the payment is made, the company reasonably believes that one of the conditions specified in section 349B is satisfied.
    (2) Subsection (1) above has effect subject to any directions under section 349C.
    (3) The provisions are—
    section 349(1) (certain annuities and other annual payments, and royalties and other sums paid for use of UK patents),
    section 349(2)(a) and (b) (UK interest),
    section 349(3A) (dividend or interest on securities issued by building societies), and
    section 524(3)(b) (which provides for section 349(1) to apply to proceeds of sale of UK patent rights).
    (4) References in subsection (3) above to any provision of section 349 do not include that provision as applied—

    (a) under section 777(9) (directions applying section 349(1) to certain payments to non-residents), or

    (b) by paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 23A (manufactured overseas dividends to be treated as annual payments within section 349).

    (5) References in this section to the company by which a payment is made do not include a company acting as trustee or agent for another person.
    (6) For the purposes of this section, a payment by a partnership is treated as made by a company if any member of the partnership is a company.
    The conditions mentioned in section 349A(1)
    349B.—(1) The first of the conditions mentioned in section 349A(1) is that the person beneficially entitled to the income in respect of which the payment is made is—

    (a) a company resident in the United Kingdom, or

    (b) a partnership each member of which is a company resident in the United Kingdom.

    (2) The second of those conditions is that—

    (a) the person beneficially entitled to the income in respect of which the payment is made is a company not resident in the United Kingdom ("the non-resident company"),

    (b) the non-resident company carries on a trade in the United Kingdom through a branch or agency, and

    (c) the payment falls to be brought into account in computing the chargeable profits (within the meaning given by section 11(2)) of the non-resident company.

    Directions disapplying section 349A(1)
    349C.—(1) The Board may give a direction to a company directing that section 349A(1) is not to apply in relation to any payment that—

    (a) is made by the company after the giving of the direction, and

    (b) is specified in the direction or is of a description so specified.

    (2) A direction under this section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent such direction.
    (3) In this section "company" includes a partnership of which any member is a company.

    Section 349A(1): consequences of reasonable but incorrect belief
    349D.—(1) Where—

    (a) a payment is made by a company without an amount representing the income tax on the payment being deducted from the payment,

    (b) at the time the payment is made, the company reasonably believes that one of the conditions specified in section 349B is satisfied,

    (c) if the company did not so believe, tax would be deductible from the payment under section 349, and

    (d) neither of the conditions specified in section 349B is satisfied at the time the payment is made,

    section 350 applies as if the payment were within section 349 (and Schedule 16 applies as if tax were deductible from the payment under section 349).
    (2) In this section "company" includes a partnership of which any member is a company.".
    (2) In section 98 of the Taxes Management Act 1970, after subsection (4) there shall be inserted—
    "(4A) If—

    (a) a failure to comply with section 350(1) of, or Schedule 16 to, the principal Act arises from a person's failure to deliver an account, or show the amount, of a payment, and

    (b) the payment is within subsection (4B) below,

    subsection (1) above shall have effect as if for "£300" there were substituted "£3,000" and as if for "£60" there were substituted "£600".
    (4B) A payment is within this subsection if—

    (a) the payment is made by a company without an amount representing the income tax on the payment being deducted from the payment,

    (b) at the time the payment is made, the company—

    (i) does not believe that either of the conditions specified in section 349B of the principal Act is satisfied, or

    (ii) where it believes that either of those conditions is satisfied, could not reasonably so believe,

    (c) the payment is one from which tax is deductible under section 349 of the principal Act unless the company reasonably believes that one of those conditions is satisfied, and

    (d) neither of those conditions is satisfied at the time the payment is made.

    (4C) In subsection (4B) above "company" includes a partnership of which any member is a company.".
    (3) In section 338(4) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted—
    "(aa) the person beneficially entitled to the income in respect of which the payment is made is a company not resident in the United Kingdom ("the non-resident company"), the non-resident company carries on a trade in the United Kingdom through a branch or agency and the payment falls to be brought into account in computing the chargeable profits (within the meaning given by section 11(2)) of the non-resident company, or".
    (4) This Resolution applies to payments made on or after 1st April 2001.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    30 DEDUCTION OF TAX (PAYMENTS BETWEEN GROUP MEMBERS)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made for repealing sections 247 and 248 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

    31 PROVISIONAL REPAYMENTS
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made for section 438A of, and Schedule 19AB to, the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 to cease to apply in relation to income tax borne by deduction.

    32 PAYMENTS WHERE RETURN AMENDED
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about payments due as a result of the amendment of a return.

    33 STAMP DUTY RESERVE TAX (UNIT TRUST SCHEMES)
    Resolved,
    That—

    (1) Schedule 19 to the Finance Act 1999 shall be amended as follows.

    (2) In paragraph 2(4), after "6" there shall be inserted ", 6A".

    (3) In paragraph 4, at the end there shall be inserted—

    "(6) If a certificate is given in accordance with paragraph 6A(1)(c) in respect of a period which includes the relevant two-week period in the case of the unit in question in sub-paragraph (1), there shall be left out of account in applying this paragraph in relation to that unit—

    (a) any issue of a unit which is to be held within an individual pension account, and

    (b) any surrender of a unit which, immediately before the surrender, was held within an individual pension account.

    (7) "Individual pension account" has the same meaning in sub-paragraph (6) as it has in paragraph 6A.".
    (4) After paragraph 6 there shall be inserted—

    Exclusion of charge in case of individual pension accounts
    6A.—(1) There is no charge to tax under this Part of this Schedule on the surrender of the unit if—

    (a) immediately before the surrender, the unit is held within an individual pension account,

    (b) not all the units under the unit trust scheme are so held at that time, and

    (c) a certificate pursuant to sub-paragraph (2) is contained in, or provided with, the relevant monthly tax return.

    (2) The certificate must be given by the persons making the relevant monthly tax return and must state—

    (a) that at all times in the period to which the return relates the trustees or managers were able to identify which of the units under the scheme were held within individual pension accounts, and

    (b) that at no time in that period have the trustees or managers imposed any charge on, or recovered any amount from, an IPA unit holder which included an amount directly or indirectly attributable to tax payable by the trustees under this Part of this Schedule.

    (3) In sub-paragraph (2), "IPA unit holder" means—

    (a) a person acquiring, or who has acquired, a unit under the unit trust scheme, where the unit is to be held within an individual pension account,

    (b) a person holding a unit under the scheme, where the unit is held within an individual pension account, or

    (c) a person surrendering, or who has surrendered, a unit under the scheme, where immediately before the surrender the unit is or was held within an individual pension account.

    (4) In this paragraph—
    "individual pension account" has the same meaning as in regulations under section 638A of the Taxes Act 1988 (as at 6th April 2001, see regulation 4 of the Personal Pension Schemes (Restriction on Discretion to Approve) (Permitted Investments) Regulations 2001);
    "the relevant monthly tax return", in the case of any surrender, means the notice required by regulations under section 98 of the Finance Act 1986 to be given by the managers (or, failing that, the trustees) under the unit trust scheme to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue containing among other things details of all surrenders in the relevant two-week period;
    "the relevant two-week period" has the meaning given by paragraph 4(2).".
    (5) The amendment made by paragraph (3) of this Resolution shall have effect where the relevant two-week period mentioned in paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 19 to the Finance Act 1999 ends after 6th April 2001.
    (6) The other amendments made by this Resolution shall have effect in relation to surrenders made or effected on or after 6th April 2001.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    34 STAMP DUTY RESERVE TAX (OPEN-ENDED INVESTMENT COMPANIES)
    Resolved,
    That—
    (1) Where there are two or more classes of shares in an open-ended investment company and the company's instrument of incorporation—

    (a) provides that shares of one or more of those classes ("the IPA classes") may only be held within an individual pension account, and

    (b) does not make such provision in relation to shares of at least one other class,

    there is no charge to stamp duty reserve tax under Part II of Schedule 19 to the Finance Act 1999 on the surrender of a share of any of the IPA classes.
    (2) References in this Resolution to provisions of Schedule 19 to the Finance Act 1999 are references to those provisions as they have effect in relation to open-ended investment companies by virtue of regulations from time to time in force under section 152 of the Finance Act 1995.
    (3) In this Resolution—
    "individual pension account" has the same meaning as it has in regulations from time to time in force under section 638A of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988;
    "open-ended investment company" has the meaning given by paragraph 14(2) of Schedule 19 to the Finance Act 1999;
    "surrender", in relation to a share in an open-ended investment company, has the same meaning as it has in Part II of Schedule 19 to the Finance Act 1999.
    (4) This Resolution shall have effect in relation to surrenders made or effected on or after 6th April 2001.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    35 PETROLEUM REVENUE TAX
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made for the purposes of petroleum revenue tax about—

    (a) the expenditure allowable under section 3 of the Oil Taxation Act 1975; and

    (b) the amounts allowable as unrelievable field losses.

    36 LANDFILL TAX (RATE)
    Motion made, and Question put,
    That—

    (1) In section 42(1)(a) and (2) of the Finance Act 1996, for "£l1" there shall be substituted "£12".

    (2) This Resolution has effect in relation to taxable disposals made, or treated as made, on or after 1st April 2001.

    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
    The House divided: Ayes 359, Noes 146.

    Division No 149]

    [10.30 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Ainger, Nick

    Coleman, Iain

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Colman, Tony

    Alexander, Douglas

    Connarty, Michael

    Allan, Richard

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Allen, Graham

    Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

    Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

    Corbett, Robin

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Corston, Jean

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Cotter, Brian

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Cousins, Jim

    Ashton, Joe

    Cranston, Ross

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Crausby, David

    Austin, John

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Bailey, Adrian

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Baker, Norman

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

    Ballard, Jackie

    Banks, Tony

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Barnes, Harry

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Bayley, Hugh

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Darvill, Keith

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Davidson, Ian

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Dawson, Hilton

    Benton, Joe

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Denham, Rt Hon John

    Berry, Roger

    Dismore, Andrew

    Best, Harold

    Dobbin, Jim

    Blackman, Liz

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Doran, Frank

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Dowd, Jim

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Edwards, Huw

    Brake, Tom

    Efford, Clive

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Breed, Colin

    Etherington, Bill

    Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Browne, Desmond

    Fisher, Mark

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Burden, Richard

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Burgon, Colin

    Flint, Caroline

    Burstow, Paul

    Flynn, Paul

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Foulkes, George

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Galloway, George

    Gardiner, Barry

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Gerrard, Neil

    Cann, Jamie

    Gidley, Sandra

    Caplin, Ivor

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Casate, Roger

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Caton, Martin

    Godsiff, Roger

    Cawsey, Ian

    Goggins, Paul

    Chaytor, David

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Chidgey, David

    Gorrie, Donald

    Clapham, Michael

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Hain, Peter

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Hancock, Mike

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Hanson, David

    Clelland, David

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Clwyd, Ann

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Coaker, Vernon

    Harvey, Nick

    937

    Healey, John

    McNulty, Tony

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    McWilliam, John

    Hendrick, Mark

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Heppell, John

    Mallaber, Judy

    Hesford, Stephen

    Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

    Hill, Keith

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Hoey, Kate

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Home Robertson, John

    Martlew, Eric

    Hood, Jimmy

    Maxton, John

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Hope, Phil

    Meale, Alan

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Merron, Gillian

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Miller, Andrew

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Mitchell, Austin

    Hutton, John

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Moore, Michael

    Illsley, Eric

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Morley, Elliot

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Mudie, George

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Mullin, Chris

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Oaten, Mark

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Olner, Bill

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    O'Neill, Martin

    Joyce, Eric

    Öpik, Lembit

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Pearson, Ian

    Keetch, Paul

    Pendry, Rt Hon Tom

    Kemp, Fraser

    Pike, Peter L

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Plaskitt, James

    Kitfoyle, Peter

    Pond, Chris

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Pope, Greg

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Pound, Stephen

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Lammy, David

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Purchase Ken

    Laxton, Bob

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Lepper, David

    Radice, Rt Hon Giles

    Leslie, Christopher

    Rapson, Syd

    Levitt, Tom

    Raynsford, Nick

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Linton, Martin

    Rendel, David

    Livsey, Richard

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Robinson Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    Lock, David

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Love, Andrew

    Rogers, Allan

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    McCabe, Steve

    Rooney, Terry

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Rowlands, Ted

    Macdonald, Calum

    Roy, Frank

    McFall, John

    Ruane, Chris

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Ruddock, Joan

    McIsaac, Shona

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    938

    Sanders, Adrian

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Timms, Stephen

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Tipping, Paddy

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Todd, Mark

    Sheerman, Barry

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Touhig, Don

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Truswell, Paul

    Short, Rt Hon Clare

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Tyler, Paul

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Snape, Peter

    Watts, David

    Spellar, John

    Webb, Steve

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Welsh, Andrew

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    White, Brian

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Stevenson, George

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Stringer, Graham

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Willis, Phil

    Stunell, Andrew

    Wills, Michael

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Wilson, Brian

    Swinney, John

    Winnick, David

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Worthington, Tony

    Wray, James

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Mr. David Jamieson and

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Mr. Clive Betts.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Amess, David

    Duncan, Alan

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Evans, Nigel

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Baldry, Tony

    Fallon, Michael

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Flight, Howard

    Bercow, John

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Blunt, Crispin

    Fraser, Christopher

    Boswell, Tim

    Gale, Roger

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Garnier, Edward

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Gibb, Nick

    Brady, Graham

    Gill, Christopher

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Green, Damian

    Burns, Simon

    Greenway, John

    Butterfill, John

    Grieve, Dominic

    Cash, William

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Chope, Christopher

    Hammond, Philip

    Clappison, James

    Hawkins, Nick

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    Hayes, John

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Heald, Oliver

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Collins, Tim

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Horam, John

    Cran, James

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Day, Stephen

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Donaldson, Jeffrey

    Key, Robert

    939

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Lansley, Andrew

    Shepherd, Richard

    Leigh, Edward

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Letwin, Oliver

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Loughton, Tim

    Spring, Richard

    Luff, Peter

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Steen, Anthony

    McCrea, Dr William

    Swayne, Desmond

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Syms, Robert

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Madel, Sir David

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Malins, Humfrey

    Thompson, William

    Maples, John

    Townend, John

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Tredinnick, David

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Trend, Michael

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Moss, Malcolm

    Walter, Robert

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Waterson, Nigel

    Norman, Archie

    Wells, Bowen

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Ottaway, Richard

    Whittingdale, John

    Paice, James

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Paterson, Owen

    Wilkinson, John

    Pickles, Eric

    Willetts, David

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Wilshire, David

    Prior, David

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Yeo, Tim

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Ross, William (E Lond'y)

    Mr. John Randall and

    Ruffley, David

    Mr. James Gray.

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    37 CLIMATE CHANGE LEVY
    Resolved,
    That—
    (1) In Schedule 6 to the Finance Act 2000, after paragraph 11 there shall be inserted—
    "Exemption: supplies by Northern Ireland gas utilities
    11A. A supply of any gas is exempt from the levy if—

    (a) the supply is made by a gas utility, and

    (b) the person to whom the supply is made intends to cause the gas to be burned in Northern Ireland.".

    (2) In paragraph 14(2) of that Schedule, at the end there shall be inserted ", and
    (c) uses the electricity produced otherwise than in exemption-retaining ways.".
    (3) For paragraph 14(3)(c) of that Schedule, there shall be substituted
    "(c) uses the electricity produced otherwise than in exemption-retaining ways.".
    (4) In paragraph 14 of that Schedule, after sub-paragraph (3) there shall be inserted—
    "(3A) For the purposes of this paragraph, electricity is used in an "exemption-retaining" way if it is used—

    (a) in making supplies that are excluded under paragraphs 8 to 10 or exempt under any of paragraphs 11, 12 and 18, or

    (b) in any of the ways mentioned in sub-paragraphs (i) to (iv) of paragraph 13(b).".

    940
    (5) In paragraph 15 of that Schedule—

    (a) in sub-paragraph (1)(a), for "the commodity is to be used by that person" there shall be substituted "that person intends to cause the commodity to be used"; and

    (b) in sub-paragraph (2)(b), the words "by that person" shall be omitted.

    (6) This Resolution shall have effect in relation to supplies made on or after 1st April 2001.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    38 RELIEF FROM TAX (INCIDENTAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL CHARGES)
    Resolved,
    That it is expedient to authorise any incidental or consequential charges to any duty or tax (including charges having retrospective effect) which may arise from provisions designed in general to afford relief from taxation.

    PROCEDURE (REMEDIATION OF CONTAMINATED LAND)
    Resolved,
    That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills, any Finance Bill of the present Session may contain provision for allowing the making of payments in respect of the surrender of losses the amounts of which are determined by reference to expenditure incurred in connection with the remediation of contaminated land.

    PROCEDURE (TRADING FUNDS: LIMITS ON BORROWING AND PUBLIC DIVIDEND CAPITAL)
    Resolved,
    That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills, any Finance Bill of the present Session may contain provision amending section 2C(3) and (4) of the Government Trading Funds Act 1973.

    PROCEDURE (FUTURE TAXATION)
    Resolved,
    That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills, any Finance Bill of the present Session may contain the following provisions taking effect in a future year—

    (a) provision about children's tax credit;

    (b) provision for corporation tax to be charged for the financial year 2002;

    (c) provision about mileage allowances;

    (d) provision withdrawing capital allowances in respect of vehicles provided by employees and office-holders;

    (e) provision about works bus services;

    (f) provision amending section 48(2)(a) of the Finance (No.2) Act 1997;

    (g) provision as to the obligations of insurers to provide information in connection with policies of life assurance, contracts for life annuities and capital redemption policies; and

    (h) provision relating to Schedule 19AB to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 as applied in relation to provisional repayments to insurance companies and friendly societies in respect of tax credits.

    FINANCE [Money]
    Queen's Resommendation having been signified—
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Finance Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

    (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of sums payable by the Secretary of State by virtue of provisions of that Act relating to vehicle excise and registration;

    (b) the deduction of sums from the gross revenues of the department of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for the purpose of making payments in respect of the surrender of losses the amounts of which are determined by reference to expenditure incurred in connection with the remediation of contaminated land; and

    (c) any increase in the sums—

    (i) payable out of the National Loans Fund or out of money provided by Parliament, or

    (ii) payable into the National Loans Fund or the Consolidated Fund,

    that is attributable to any provisions of that Act relating to limits on the borrowing and public dividend capital of trading funds.

    Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing resolutions: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Secretary Straw, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Mr. Secretary Darling, Mr. Secretary Byers, Mr. Secretary Milburn, Mr. Andrew Smith, Dawn Primarolo, Miss Melanie Johnson and Mr. Stephen Timms do prepare and bring it in.

    FINANCE BILL
    Mr. Stephen Timmsaccordingly presented a Bill to grant certain duties, to alter other duties, and to amend the law relating to the National Debt and the Public Revenue, and to make further provision in connection with Finance: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 63].

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
    That, at this day's sitting, the Business of the House Motion in the name of Margaret Beckett, and the Motions on Sittings in Westminster Hall and Delegated Legislation may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Clelland.]
    Question agreed to.
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I beg to move, That the House sit in private.
    Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 163 (House to sit in private):—
    The House divided: Ayes 0, Noes 364.

    Division No. 150]

    [10.46 pm

    AYES

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Mr. Andrew Dismore and

    Mr. Keith Darvill.

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Allan, Richard

    Anger, Nick

    Allen, Graham

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

    Alexander, Douglas

    942

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Corston, Jean

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Cotter, Brian

    Ashton, Joe

    Cousins, Jim

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Cranston, Ross

    Austin, John

    Crausby, David

    Bailey, Adrian

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Baker, Norman

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Ballard, Jackie

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

    Banks, Tony

    Barnes, Harry

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Dalyell, Tam

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Beggs, Roy

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Berth, Rt Hon A J

    Davidson, Ian

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Benton, Joe

    Denham, Rt Hon John

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Dobbin, Jim

    Berry, Roger

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Best, Harold

    Donaldson, Jeffrey

    Belts, Clive

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Blackman, Liz

    Doran, Frank

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Dowd, Jim

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Drew, David

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Efford, Clive

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Brake, Tom

    Etherington, Bill

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Breed, Colin

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Fisher, Mark

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Browne, Desmond

    Flint, Caroline

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Flynn, Paul

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Burden, Richard

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Burgon, Colin

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Burnett, John

    Galloway, George

    Burstow, Paul

    Gardiner, Barry

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Gerrard, Neil

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Gidley, Sandra

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Goggins, Paul

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Gorrie, Donald

    Cann, Jamie

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Caplin, Ivor

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Casale, Roger

    Hain, Peter

    Caton, Martin

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Cawsey, Ian

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Chaytor, David

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Chidgey, David

    Hancock, Mike

    Clapham, Michael

    Hanson, David

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Harvey, Nick

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Healey, John

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Clelland, David

    Hendrick, Mark

    Clwyd, Ann

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Coaker, Vernon

    Heppell, John

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hesford, Stephen

    Coleman, Iain

    Hill, Keith

    Colman, Tony

    Hinchliffe, David

    Connarty, Michael

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hoey, Kate

    Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

    Home Robertson, John

    Corbett, Robin

    Hood, Jimmy

    943

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Hope, Phil

    Macdonald, Calum

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    McFall, John

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Howells, Dr Kim

    McIsaac, Shona

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    McNulty, Tony

    Hurst Alan

    MacShane, Denis

    Hutton, John

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Illsley, Eric

    Mallaber, Judy

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Jamieson, David

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Martlew, Eric

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Maxton, John

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Meale, Alan

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Merron, Gillian

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Miller, Andrew

    Joyce, Eric

    Mitchell, Austin

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Moore, Michael

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

    Keetch, Paul

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Mortey, Elliot

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Mudie, George

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Mullin, Chris

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Lammy, David

    Oaten, Mark

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Laxton, Bob

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Lepper, David

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Leslie, Christopher

    Olner, Bill

    Levitt, Tom

    O'Neill, Martin

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Linton, Martin

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Livsey, Richard

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Pearson, Ian

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Pendry, Rt Hon Tom

    Lock, David

    Pike, Peter L

    Love, Andrew

    Plaskitt, James

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Pond, Chris

    McCabe, Steve

    Pope, Greg

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Pound, Stephen

    McCrea, Dr William

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    944

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Stringer, Graham

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Stunell, Andrew

    Purchase, Ken

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Rapson, Syd

    Swinney, John

    Raynsford, Nick

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Rendel, David

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Rogers Allan

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Thompson, William

    Rooney, Terry

    Timms, Stephen

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Ross, William (E Lond'y)

    Todd, Mark

    Rowlands, Ted

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Roy, Frank

    Touhig, Don

    Ruane, Chris

    Trickett, Jon

    Ruddock, Joan

    Truswell, Paul

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Twigg Derek (Halton)

    Sanders, Adrian

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Tyler, Paul

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Wareing, Robert N

    Sheerman, Barry

    Watts, David

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Webb, Steve

    Shepherd, Richard

    Welsh, Andrew

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    White, Brian

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Skinner, Dennis

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Willis, Phil

    Snape, Peter

    Wills, Michael

    Spellar, John

    Wilson, Brian

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Worthington, Tony

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Wray, James

    Stevenson, George

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Mr. Lawrie Quinn and

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Mr. John McWilliam.

    Question accordingly negatived.

  Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism
  10.59 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move,
  That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 28th February, be approved.
  The Terrorism Act 2000 was passed by this House and the other place with very wide support, and came into force on 19 February. It provides new permanent and United Kingdom-wide legislation that is proportionate to the threat that the UK faces, and may face, from all forms of terrorism.
  The Terrorism Act 2000 brings our provisions into line with the European convention on human rights and ensures that we are better able to deal with the serious threat that terrorism poses.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends will recall that during the many debates on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Acts in previous Parliaments, particular concern was expressed about the fact that the Executive had power to extend detentions and also about exclusion orders. Changes were made to both those provisions under the Terrorism Act 2000. Under the 2000 Act, extensions of detention are now handled and have to be decided by members of the judiciary, and the provisions for exclusion orders were not included in the new Act. As a result, the derogations that the Government had to extend to the European convention on human rights and the international covenant on civil and political rights because our provisions were not in line with our international obligations were lifted on 26 February 2001.
  At the same time, when the 2000 Act came into force, we were able to ratify the remaining two of the 12 extant United Nations conventions relating to terrorism—the convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings and the convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism. Our obligations, therefore are in respect of human rights and the liberty of the subject—even where those subjects have been involved in terrorism—which is entirely proper. They are also in respect of significant United Nations conventions obliging all signatories to take better steps against terrorism.
  An important part of the Act that came into force on 19 February makes available, for the first time, the power to enable the Secretary of State to proscribe terrorist organisations concerned in international or domestic terrorism, and not just those concerned only in terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. Organisations that had previously bean proscribed under the earlier legislation in respect of Northern Ireland were proscribed by schedule 2 to the Act, and they remain so proscribed. In passing the Terrorism Bill into law, Parliament gave its support to extending the proscription regime in this way.
  We discussed at some length why it was necessary to extend proscription. The view that this House and the other place accepted—it is the view of the Government—was that such powers were necessary to ensure that the United Kingdom did not become, or continue to be, a base for international terrorists or their supporters.
  The draft order that we are debating—the Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2001—was laid before Parliament on 28 February. It lists
  946
  21 international terrorist organisations which, in my considered judgment, should be subject to proscription in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman has made it plain that there are 21 organisations which he thinks should be proscribed. I thought that there were 23, but we will not argue about that. I have read, as no doubt have many other right hon. and hon. Members, the letter dated 28 February which explains the process. Will the right hon. Gentleman say, in relation to each organisation that is identified as "to be proscribed", whether he has satisfied himself that there is sufficient evidence from the intelligence agencies or elsewhere to justify the assertions of fact set out in the list with which we have been provided? Otherwise, we do not know the basis on which we are being asked to make a proscription.
  Mr. Straw: The answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question is yes. I went through the documentation and submissions at considerable length. I devoted a lot of time to them, as it was necessary and proper to do. We were under no obligation to provide any details about why I had reached that judgment, but the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) and I believed that it would be convenient for the House if we provided a synopsis of such information as we could make public concerning my reasons for coming to those conclusions.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell rose—
  Mr. Edward Davey rose—
  Mr. Jim Marshall rose—
  Mr. Straw: I should like to make some progress and then I will happily give way to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  I will explain the basis for coming to those decisions. Under section 3 of the 2000 Act, I—or in the case of organisations concerned only in terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—have the power to proscribe any organisation that I come to believe is concerned in terrorism. Under section 3,
  "an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it … commits or participates in acts of terrorism 7hellip; prepares for terrorism … promotes or encourages terrorism, or … is otherwise concerned in terrorism."
  Mr. David Wilshire: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Straw: I will make a little progress first.
  An organisation is defined in section 121 of the Act as including
  "any association or combination of persons.",
  Having satisfied the statutory criteria in any particular case, 1 then have discretion as to which organisations should be recommended to Parliament for proscription.
  In considering which such organisations should be so proscribed, I took into account a number of factors, including those indicated to Parliament by Ministers

  947
  during proceedings on the Terrorism Bill, which included the nature and scale of the organisation's activities; the specific threat that it poses to the United Kingdom; the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas; the extent of the organisation's presence in the UK; and the need to support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism.
  Mr. Wilshire: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: I will continue for a moment and then I will do so.
  Depending on the organisation concerned and its sphere of operation, certain factors will have carried more weight than others. As far as possible, however, I considered each organisation on a similar basis to ensure a consistency of approach.
  As I mentioned, to assist consideration by both Houses all hon. Members and noble Lords were sent a brief summary in respect of each organisation named in the draft order. As right hon. and hon. Members will appreciate, in reaching my decisions, in addition to that information which is in the public domain, I have had access to related intelligence-based material on the various organisations and taken account of police, security and legal advice. I am entirely satisfied that the organisations that I am recommending to Parliament for proscription are "concerned in terrorism" and thus fully meet the criteria laid down in the 2000 Act.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Straw: I will give way to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Secretary of State understand the discomfort that some of us feel at the notion that 21 organisations should appear in the motion that we are debating, and that there has not been an opportunity to deal with each on an individual and separate basis? In particular, does he understand the discomfort that I feel, as someone who consistently supported the terrorism legislation so far as it affected Northern Ireland that, on the subject of the 17 November Revolutionary Organisation—the last on the list—under the heading "Representation and activities in the United Kingdom", we read from the letter that
  "There is no indication that N17 has any representation in the UK."
  In those circumstances, can the Home Secretary explain why he considers it necessary that that organisation should be proscribed?
  Mr. Straw: On the first question, I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point, but I suggest that, had the House and the other place wished there to be separate orders for each organisation, they would have so agreed and so proposed. As it happens, the current procedure was agreed and I suggest that it is a practical way forward. I will also draw attention to the opportunities for organisations or their representatives to
  948
  make representations to me for de-proscription and, if I refuse to accept the case for that, to appeal to an independent judicial—
  Mr. Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: I will not. I am dealing with the second matter raised by the right hon. and learned Member for North?East Fife. He raised the fact that it states in the last sentence of the note on page 14:
  There is no indication that N17 has any representation in the UK."
  However, the list that I read out of the factors that I take into account, which build on the criteria in section 3 of the Act, included the specific threat that the organisation poses to British nationals overseas. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware, the previous paragraph on page 14 refers to the fact that in June 2000 N17 murdered Brigadier Stephen Saunders, the British defence attaché in Athens. The group has also carried out numerous small-scale attacks in Greece on the interests of EU and NATO members, including a rocket attack on HMS Ark Royal while it was docked at Piraeus in 1994.
  Mr. David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the possibility that mistakes could have occurred in the list? Only today, we were lobbied by one or two organisations. Does he agree that the list undoubtedly includes some of the most notorious terrorist groups? I see no reason at all why they should not be on the list. If we did not introduce such measures, it would be difficult for us to lecture other countries about terrorism—we would be allowing the United Kingdom to be a base for terrorist action.
  Mr. Straw: I ant grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. He has constantly supported the Act and has always understood that the defence of freedom requires us also to be vigilant against terrorism. I do not believe that mistakes have been made—in the end, that is, of course, a matter of judgment. Certainly, no organisation was included in the list by error or inadvertence, given the care taken by my officials and—may I say—by me. However, if an organisation feels that it has been unfairly included in the list, there is every opportunity to make representations about that—as I shall explain in more detail.
  Mr. Jim Marshall: I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell); it is unfortunate that we cannot debate each organisation on the list. By not doing so, we cannot differentiate between those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and other organisations. I remind my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that there is grave disquiet in the Sikh community about the inclusion of the International Sikh Youth Federation. That organisation is active in my constituency and I have been involved with it.
  I have two questions. First, if an organisation applies to my right hon. Friend to be de-proscribed, will all the information available to him also be available to the organisation, so that it can make a point-by-point refutation? Secondly, will my right hon. Friend tell the House how much pressure has been put on him and the Government by the Government of India to include organisations in the prevention of terrorism list?
  Mr. Straw: I shall deal with my hon. Friend's second point first. It is well known and a matter of public record

  949
  that, over the years, a large number of Governments—including the Government of India—have made representation to the British Government concerning the need for such powers. As to whether that resulted in pressure being brought to bear on me to exercise my discretion unfairly, the answer is no.
  I applied myself to the evidence before me. That leads to my hon. Friend's first question. He asks whether the information on which I based my judgments—which are before the House—could be made available to organisations that make representations. The answer is no—for a very good reason. A great deal of such information cannot be placed in the public domain because it is sensitive intelligence. It may be sensible for me to explain how the process will operate both for representations for de-proscription and for appeals to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission.
  Any organisation seeking de-proscription can, at any time while it is subject to inclusion on the list, make representation to me, as Secretary of State. The representations do not have to be made by individuals who have a direct association with the organisation, but can be made on behalf of the organisation. That is an important protection.
  Representations can be made to me We have provided a basic summary, as fairly as we can, of the facts taken into account in making the initial decision—I accept that the summary only goes into brief detail I shall consider such representations carefully. I shall of course take into account representations made in the House today, as well as any others that are made by right hon. and hon. Members. I shall then come to a decision on de-proscription. If I decide to de-proscribe, that is the end of the matter. The organisation is de-proscribed by order. The matter is not burdensome for any individual; it is subject only to the negative resolution procedure. That is straightforward. If, however, I decide to maintain the proscription, the organisation has a right of appeal to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission.
  Mr. Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me,I shall continue to explain how that organisation—
  Mr. Hogg: After that, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: It depends whether I have time to give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, given that I have already given way to him. I am normally very indulgent of his wishes, but others also want to get in.
  The Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission is a new independent judicial tribunal to consider these appeals. The commission will consider any refusals to de-proscribe in the light of judicial re view principles. The substantive basis for appeals is different from that in a parallel organisation called the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, but procedurally it has been modelled on that latter commission. That latter commission, which operates in a very similar way,
  950
  although the basis for appeal is different, has clearly demonstrated its independence from Government in the cases that it has had to consider.
  Mr. Wilshire: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: No. If I may, I shall explain this point to the House and then give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  The Special Immigration Appeals Commission exists to deal with decisions by the Home Secretary of the day to exclude individuals from this country on national security grounds, where those individuals have a right to remain in this country. After a decision is made to exclude, the individual makes an appeal. Because the decision has been made on the basis of intelligence that cannot be disclosed, the individual concerned cannot see that intelligence, but all the information must be disclosed to the independent appeal commission and a special advocate is appointed to the appeal commission, to scrutinise in very close detail—
  Mr. Hogg: Not on the merits.
  Mr. Straw: I am sorry, but as far as the Special Immigration Appeals Commission is concerned, it is on the merits. I have already drawn the distinction in terms
  Mr. Hogg: But not on this commission.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must not intervene from a sedentary position.
  Mr. Hogg rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Hogg: I am rising to—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Hogg: I am rising to apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but of course I would not have had to intervene from a sedentary position if the Home Secretary had given way.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The occupant of the Chair does not appreciate that kind of intervention, even when it is addressed as an apology.
  Mr. Straw: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) knows very well that I do my best to give way to as many hon. Members as possible, but I have to give way to other people before I give way to him two or three times. I have already dealt with his point.
  Mr. Wilshire rose—
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn rose—
  Mr. Straw: I want to finish the point, and then I shall give way to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn); I promise.

  951
  A special advocate appears on behalf of the individual before the SIAC or the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission to scrutinise all the evidence before those special commissions, and to cross-examine the witnesses who go before it. The SIAC has worked entirely independently of Government, and in at least three cases decisions that I have made to exclude people on national security grounds have been overturned, including two cases in respect of two individuals who, although they were accepted as Sikh terrorists, were not deported because the commission was not satisfied about their safety were they to be returned to India, and therefore decided not to accept my decision that they should be deported.
  Mr. Wilshire: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for keeping his promise; it is exactly what I would expect of him and I do not wish to quarrel with the list that he brings here. May I take him back to his list and to the Terrorism Act 2000, because that is when I started to try to let him give me a chance to ask him this question?
  I had expected to see the Real IRA on the list in the order because I knew that it was not in the Act, so I went back to the original list, where I saw the Irish Republican Army listed. I am confused and I should be most grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would help us with this matter, because I doubt whether there is anyone in the Chamber who would disagree with the assertion that the Real IRA should be a proscribed organisation. The Terrorism Act 2000 simply refers to the Irish Republican Army. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what that means? Does it mean the Official IRA, the Provisional IRA, the Real IRA or the Continuity IRA? Which of them is included, or are they all? The House needs to know whether any body that may have been invented this afternoon is included, because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, those organisations dress themselves up in any sort of name to try to show that they are not the same.
  Mr. Straw: I am advised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that the Real IRA is covered, as is the Provisional IRA, by the description, "the Irish Republican Army", which appears at the beginning of schedule 2 on page 64 of the Act.
  Mr. Corbyn: I thank the Home Secretary for giving way. As I understand the process, he proposes to ban 21 organisations on the basis of information that he has received from the security services and, possibly, other sources, and those decisions could go to the appeal organisations that he describes. In the event that any one of those organisations attempted to take his decision, or that of the appeal commission that he has set up, to judicial review, would the security information on which he has based his initial decision be available in open court so that it could be contested, or would it be privy to himself and the judge so that the appellant organisation would not even know what the case was against it?
  Mr. Straw: First, given that the criteria on which the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission considers whether to de-proscribe an organisation can themselves come under judicial review, it is not for me to decide—
  952
  I merely speculate—but it is unlikely that there would be grounds to seek a judicial review of the process before the administrative court. It would be hard to envisage circumstances in which the merits of a decision could be challenged, unless there were some major defect of process.
  In the event that such a circumstance occurred, it would not be the case that, simply by virtue of an application or permission—as it is now called—before the administrative court being granted for judicial review, that the intelligence on which I have to some extent, but not entirely, based my decisions could be disclosed. Where such matters have arisen in the past—they do so quite frequently—the appropriate Secretary of State signs a public interest immunity certificate.
  By that process, all the information that the applicant Secretary of State seeks to withhold from open court is put before the judge. The judge then decides whether to accept the PII. If the judge decides, as occasionally happens, to reject the PII application and to order that the information be disclosed, the Secretary of State must decide whether to proceed with the substance of the application. That is how the process works.
  Mr. Simon Thomas rose—
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: I shall finish this point before giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) will appreciate, as I am sure he does, that, by definition, intelligence information cannot be disclosed publicly, because doing so would render its collection impossible and put the sources of that intelligence at very serious risk. However, I understand the implication of what he says. One of the inherent problems in such a process, which we have tried to square with the SIAC and POAC processes, is that if the intelligence cannot he challenged, its veracity is more difficult to ascertain. That is why, although the information will be withheld from the applicant organisation, it will be challenged rigorously before the SIAC by the special advocate.
  Mr. Hughes: The Home Secretary has confirmed, first, that even if he forms a view that an organisation is a terrorist organisation, he has discretion about whether to proscribe it. Secondly, he could have, but has not, sought the formal view of the Security and Intelligence Committee or that of any independent judicial authority, so he comes here with the proposals with no authority, other than that of his office and his Ministers. Lastly, on the question of how many of the 21 organisations, have there been formal representations from foreign Governments? In how many cases have the organisations or their representatives been asked for information before the Secretary of State made his decision?
  Mr. Straw: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I have not consulted the Security and Intelligence Committee. It knows about the process and was informed in advance of the decisions, but it has not been involved in reaching judgments. That is not its role. It would be quite

  953
  inappropriate if it were to be embroiled in Executive decisions. The process that has been established by this House and the other place—with my full endorsement and recommendation—is that it should be an Executive decision subject to proper scrutiny and the kind of appeal on judicial review backgrounds that I have already described. I should have added in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North that there can be an appeal on a point of law to the appeal courts in any event against a ruling by the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey asked me if I could list all the Governments who have made representations seeking to proscribe the organisations. The answer is no. but it is in the public domain that a large number of Governments in the originating territories have made public statements seeking the proscription of the equivalent of these organisations by Governments across the world.
  On the hon. Gentleman's question about whether I will disclose the degree of liaison that exists with security and intelligence services overseas, for reasons that I think he will understand, the answer to that is no.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Straw: I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) and then I want to close my remarks, so that other hon. Members have the opportunity to speak.
  Mr. Alan Simpson: May I pursue my right hon. Friend about the point on the verification of intelligence specifically in relation to the example of the International Sikh Youth Federation that was cited? Sikhs in my constituency have made representations to me—I suspect that many other hon. Members have received similar representations—and have pointed out that Mukhtiar and Paramjit Singh, who were accused of acts of terrorism, are not members of the International Sikh Youth Federation. The organisation itself has made it clear that they are not, and have not been, members of the organisation.
  The other charges that have been cited against the organisation do not make sense if the connections do not exist. Sikhs raise money in the United Kingdom, but they do so for entirely social purposes. That is consistent with other observations that there is no evidence of a threat to the west from the organisation's activities. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how intelligence sources or representations from other Governments are checked against other sources that might provide a different picture about the credibility and integrity of that organisation?
  Mr. Dennis Turner rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not possible to intervene on an intervention. The Home Secretary must be allowed to reply to the first intervention.
  Mr. Straw: I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) if he first allows me to answer the other point.
  954
  The paragraphs in the document are based on the best information available. Is every effort made to check intelligence sources and the information derived from those sources? Yes, and to a degree that I did not anticipate before I took on this job. Very great care is taken on the assessment of intelligence. Intelligence that is wrong is worse than worthless; it can be extremely dangerous. In human organisations errors can sometimes be made, which is why we have the process that I have described beyond the decisions that I recommend to the House.
  Although the criteria for appeals to the POAC are different from and narrower than the criteria for appeals to the SIAC, the process is very similar indeed. The presiding retired judges and special advocates have already shown, through the SIAC process, that they are rigorous and entirely independent of Government, and I expect the same to be true in this process.
  Mr. Turner: I appreciate the opportunity to intervene. We all realise that these are weighty matters, and that my right hon. Friend finds himself in a difficult position in his very responsible job. I appreciate that the appeals mechanism will give organisations the right to make representations, but I would be failing in my duty as a constituency Member for Wolverhampton, which has a large Sikh population and an active membership of the International Sikh Youth Federation, if I did not ask my right hon. Friend to recognise that the people whom I represent—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I say to the hon. Gentleman and to those who intervened earlier that interventions are getting longer and longer. The hon. Gentleman has made his point. I remind all hon. Members that this is a debate and they will have the chance to make their contributions, if there is time.
  Mr. Turner rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman ought to stop there.
  Mr. Straw: Of course I understand my hon. Friend's concerns, and throughout this process I have sought to balance such concerns against the evidence before me.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: At least one of the 21 organisations on the list has been on a ceasefire for 18 months. Flow will the Secretary of State review the list? Will he seek to de-proscribe organisations if ceasefires hold? How can individuals who support those organisations take part in the appeals process? If the organisations are proscribed, they may be seen as supporting terrorism, so how can they raise funds for an appeal?
  Mr. Straw: The criteria for proscription are laid down in section 3 of the Act. I have also given information about the tests that I have adopted in addition to those criteria. The fact that a terrorist organisation is on a ceasefire for the time being does not, in itself, mean that it is no longer a terrorist organisation. Although the Irish Republican Army, including the Provisional IRA, has been on a ceasefire for some time, it is still on the list of proscribed organisations. If the organisation concerned

  955
  wishes to make representations to the effect that its ceasefire is so permanent and durable that it has ceased to be a terrorist organisation, that is another matter.
  I turn now to the hon. Gentleman's second point, about the humanitarian and fund-raising activities of some of the organisations or bodies associated with them, which has been implicit in many interventions. I cannot stress too strongly to the House that the provisions of the Act are not aimed at any specific community or at those protesting in a peaceful, non-violent way against alleged injustices or for political change. Nor are they aimed at those raising funds for legitimate social or humanitarian purposes. I recognise that some terrorists and their supporters might seek to operate under the cover of legitimate organisations that are, perhaps, promoting political change by non-violent means and that some well-meaning people associated with those organisations have nothing whatever to do with terrorism. Those people have nothing to fear from the new legislation.
  Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Straw: Yes, but I should be grateful if my hon. Friend's intervention were brief.
  Dr. Starkey: Will my right hon. Friend clarify the status of information on each organisation in his letter to Members of Parliament? He will know that I am concerned about the section on Hezbollah attacks, which includes an attack by Lebanese nationals against armed forces illegally in occupation of Lebanon. Is he suggesting that that should count as a terrorist activity? Does that imply that we support the illegal occupation of Lebanon?
  Mr. Straw: I have discussed this formally with my hon. Friend and yesterday she saw the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South, about it. The information on organisations is nothing more than that. It is a synopsis of what can be made public to explain why I reached the decisions that I did.
  We are not seeking to proscribe Hezbollah and Hamas generally. Both organisations are political movements and, just as Sinn Fein is not proscribed, neither are they. We have tried to proscribe—according to one's point of view—their military or terrorist wings, in this case, the Lebanese Hizballah External Security Organisation and the Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem Brigades.
  Fiona Mactaggart rose—
  Mr. Andrew Dismore rose—
  Mr. Straw: No, I will not give way.
  We have tried to be careful and to apply ourselves only to section 3.
  Fiona Mactaggart: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Straw: No, I am sorry, but I must finish.
  956
  I appreciate hon. Members' concerns. I hope that the House will accept that I have tried to deal with the issue with great care, as is appropriate. In our view, the draft order is compatible with the rights set out in the European convention on human rights. It represents a fair, just and proportionate response to the threats from international terrorism. I commend the order to the House, but I shall listen carefully to representations and try to respond.
  11.37 pm
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: The House only has one and a half hours for such an important debate and, as many hon. Members want to contribute, I intend to be brief. I am grateful to the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for making their Ministers available to the Opposition during discussions on what is a difficult subject. I associate the Opposition with the Home Secretary's remarks about terrorism. We do not intend to oppose the order.
  We fully support the Government's measures to deal with the destabilising menace of international terrorism. The increasing globalisation of recent years has made it much easier for international terrorist groups to move their operations from country to country. The revolution in communications technology and the internationalisation of financial markets have also made it much easier for such organisations to operate across the globe. We agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the United Kingdom should net offer sanctuary to those who use unacceptable violence to achieve their ends. We also agree that the measures are necessary and timely. We support his actions.
  I am also grateful to the Home Secretary for setting out the background. Will he expand on the opportunity that the organisations that are named in the order have had to object? Have any objected and, if so, in what terms?
  Mr. Hogg: Does my right hon. Friend understand the anxiety of some Conservative Members? The appeal process in section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is not based on merits. As the Home Secretary rightly said, there is only a power to have a judicial review, which can ask whether he has acted reasonably. That is different from a review on the merit; of whether an organisation should be proscribed.
  Miss Widdecombe: Yes, I accept that entirely, which is why I was starting to probe the Government on the opportunities that named organisations might have had to object and make representations, either directly or through others on their behalf. If so, have there been representations on the merits of the decisions taken?
  The Home Secretary gave a rather cursory answer—that is not meant critically, but relates to the time available—in response to one intervention. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) may wish to return to the subject in any remarks that he may make. I should be grateful if the Home Secretary would respond because it is clearly right in the interests of justice that that those who are named and proscribed should have the opportunity to make representations to the opposite effect.
  Mr. Winnick: Mention has been made of the International Sikh Youth Federation, which may well

  957
  have a case. Hence my intervention on the Home Secretary in which I said that mistakes could have been made. Nevertheless, does the right hon. Lady accept, as I pointed out earlier, that some of the organisations named in the order are notorious terrorist organisations? Surely, it would be farcical to ask organisations such as the 17 November Revolutionary Organisation and other terrorist organisations for their views, especially bearing in mind the latest murder carried out by N17.
  Miss Widdecombe: I was not trying to make that case at all. I was trying to probe the Secretary of State on the issue. Reasons for proscribing are properly set out in an annexe that describes the various organisations. However, bearing in mind the fact that one or two objections have been made and that there is slight concern about some organisations, I wanted to probe the Home Secretary on the opportunity for representations—even for hon. Members to make representations on behalf of groups or in response to representations that they had received.
  I was not seeking to take the matter much further than that, and I would be amazed if the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) objected to people having the right to make representations.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: We would all welcome the military wing of, respectively, Hezbollah, Hammas and the Abu Nidal Organisation being proscribed, but a few hon. Members would have doubts about Mujaheddin e Khalq, which is attempting to impose—if that is the word—a democratic regime in Iran. I would welcome responses from my right hon. Friend and the Home Secretary, in his winding-up speech, on whether the MEK has had discussions with the Home Office about whether or not it should be proscribed.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am sure that my hon. Friend understands that the Home Secretary must answer that question, not me. I cannot possibly know what representations the Home Office has received, although in a few weeks' time I expect to receive that information on a regular basis.
  Does the Home Secretary have any plans at present to include—[Interruption.] I am sorry, I am endeavouring to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question. Does he have any plans at present to include any further terrorist organisations, either international or domestic, in the list of proscribed organisations? I should also be grateful to know what action he envisages taking against the funding arrangements of proscribed organisations.
  In addition to the destabilising effect of the international terrorism groups mentioned in the order, recent events have highlighted the constant danger of terrorism in the United Kingdom. The Opposition feel as strongly as anyone else that tough measures are essential to deal with that danger. Will the Home Secretary therefore enlarge on his earlier answer about the Real IRA and Continuity IRA?
  The list of proscribed organisations in schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000 includes the Irish Republican Army, but does not make a distinction between the Provisional IRA and the so-called Real IRA. I think that the Home Secretary said that that did not matter, as both organisations were covered. However, I should like that to be spelled out.
  958
  The IRA is proscribed under the terms of the Act, as I said, but that Act incorporates pre-existing legislation which enables the Secretary of State to use emergency powers to enact special provisions, introduced after the Omagh bombing, against specified organisations. In order for special provisions to be enacted against specified terrorist organisations, the organisation has to be both proscribed by schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000 and specified in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998.
  Organisations such as the Real IRA or the Continuity IRA are listed under the terms of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act, but they are not specifically proscribed under schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act. In the debate on the Terrorism Bill in the other place on 6 June last year, the Minister of State, Cabinet Office assured the other place that the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA would be covered by the generic prohibition of the IRA in schedule 2 to the 2000 Act. I should be grateful not only if that assurance could be repeated—we have heard that tonight—but if some explanation could be given as to why there is no specific prohibition. There seems to be room for confusion in that arrangement.
  The Real IRA and Continuity IRA, along with the Red Hand Defenders and the Orange Volunteers, are specified under the terms of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act as organisations that are not observing a complete and unequivocal ceasefire, but those organisations are not specifically proscribed again under schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act.
  Given all that complication, would it not be more appropriate if there were one list of proscribed organisations? Should not all terrorist organisations be fully subject to all available anti-terrorist legislation? Is there not a lack of clarity in the present arrangements? Should not the force of law be applied to all proscribed organisations, whether they are currently on ceasefire or not?
  Having said that I think that there may be a case—I put it no more highly than that, pending the Secretary of State's reply—for one list, may I probe him on some rather odd omissions? There are hon. Members who have been threatened by the Animal Liberation Front. That group has been connected with activities that most of us would consider extreme and unlawful. I am sure that all hon. Members would condemn such actions in the strongest terms, yet the ALF is not proscribed. Nor is Combat 18 proscribed. That organisation also uses and espouses violence.
  I have discussed the matter with the Secretary of State, but 1 should be grateful if he would put on the record his reasons for not proscribing those two organisations. Aside from those remarks, I repeat the Opposition's willingness to give all possible support to the measure. I shall be interested to hear the contributions of other hon. Members.
  11.48 pm
  Mr. Robin Corbett: I should make it clear that I chair the British Committee on Iran Freedom, and share the dismay and disbelief of most of the UK's Iranian community at the mujaheddin being labelled a terrorist organisation. A range of Iranian organisations in this country have been in touch with me, but I shall not weary the House by listing them.
  The reason there are so many Iranians living in the UK and why the number of asylum applications from Iranian citizens has almost trebled in the past year or so is because

  959
  those are people who cannot live at home. They are in this country and elsewhere in Europe not as terrorists and not because they support terrorism. They are, in every sense of the word, the victims of terrorism. They are among the relatives of an estimated 30,000—yes, 30,000—political prisoners butchered by the regime in Iran in the single year of 1988, and of the estimated 700 people executed under the rule of the so-called reformist President Khatami, and of the 35 political opponents that the regime has murdered abroad. The Government acknowledge that the mujaheddin
  "has not attacked UK or western interests."
  They argue that the mujaheddin has no acknowledged presence in the UK, although it is supported here by the National Council of Resistance—the same body that was invited for many years to the annual Labour party conference.
  Mr. Steve McCabe: With regard to the number of Iranians living in this country because of the circumstances in Iran, does my hon. Friend agree that it astonishing that the Mujaheddin e Khalq should be placed on the list of proscribed organisations at a time when the Home Office accepts that membership of that organisation or association with it are proper grounds for asylum in Britain?
  Mr. Corbett: My hon. Friend is right; that may not be the best recent example of joined-up government.
  During the passage of the Bill that became the Terrorism Act 2000, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that the legislation was aimed at groups in Britain that supported efforts to overthrow democratic regimes abroad, but he made clear that dissent was a vital part of our democracy. Does he consider the present regime in Tehran to be democratic? Not even the mullahs would describe themselves in that way, and nor should they, as they have stolen democracy from the Iranian people. If he needs some help on that, he should know that as lately as yesterday, the UN special representative on human rights in Iran, Professor Maurice Copthorne, reported:
  "Breaches of human rights are in large part as common today as they were five years ago."
  He also stated:
  "The number of executions reported in the Iranian press from I January to 1 December 2000 are placed at about 2000."
  Jackie Ballard: When was the hon. Gentleman last in Iran, and when did he last speak to ordinary Iranian people, as I have done recently? If he speaks to them, he will find that most of them support progress and reform. He will also find little or no support for the mujaheddin or armed revolution.
  Mr. Corbett: The hon. Lady's comments are interesting. I happened to be chosen to be part of an Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to Iran. I think that it was three years ago. The then Iranian Parliament found the visit inconvenient, as myself and one of my hon. Friends were known critics of the mullahs' regime, which did not feel able to allow us to make the visit under the auspices of the IPU. The delegation never left the country
  960
  and I do not know whether the invitation has been renewed. Whatever impressions she gained on her visit to Iran, they cannot wipe out the brutal atrocities and murders that the mullahs' regime carries out against its own people and its political opponents around the world. Those are matters of fact; if she wants to borrow "Crime Against Humanity", a book which details the murders committed in the single year of 1988 and lists the victims' names, I shall gladly lend it to her.
  Professor Copthorne went on to say:
  "The jailing of journalists and political dissidents and the general denial of fair trial continues unabated."
  What puzzles me about that is that the Home Secretary told the British Committee on Iran Freedom in his letter that the mujaheddin is an "Iranian dissident organisation". He went on to say that
  "it claims to be seeking the establishment of a democratic, socialist Islamic Republic".
  He might more accurately have said that it leads a broad coalition that wants to establish a pluralist and secular regime that guarantees human rights and freedoms. What is it doing, therefore, on the list of proscribed organisations? It is the regime and not the resistance to it that belongs on the list.
  I must tell my Front-Bench colleagues that it is suspected that when the regime's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Kamal Kharazi, came here last year, he demanded the banning of the mujaheddin as the price of better relations between our two countries. It is further suspected that that call was repeated when my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office was in Tehran last month. The Home Secretary should know that last year, 335 Members of the House—a majority, as it is one more than a half—and 61 peers signed a statement on human rights and democracy in Iran. It called on our Government to support the Iranian people's struggle for freedom and democracy. That action was mirrored by a majority of members of the US Congress, 150 French Deputies, and Members of the Parliaments of Italy, Belgium and Luxembourg.
  This year, in a statement headed "Iran—the cry is freedom", hon. Members are again signing up to say that the United Kingdom should support the millions, not the mullahs, in the rising demands for democracy and human rights. While she was in Iran, the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) might not have noticed the evidence from pro-democracy demonstrations across that country that the mullahs' regime is on its last legs. The so-called reformers and reactionaries are two faces of a single, repressive regime.
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman makes a serious case, but would he accept that one of the vices involved in the process on which we are embarking is that no independent body exists to asses s the points that he is making in relation to the mujaheddin? Will he also accept that the review mechanism provided by section 5 of the 2000 Act is concerned not with the merits of the argument but with process and procedure, and with whether the Secretary of State has acted reasonably?
  Mr. Corbett: I understand exactly what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying. However, in this case, the question is much easier. Either our Government regard

  961
  the regime in Iran as democratic or undemocratic. That is very simple, and I hope that the Secretary of State will give a clear answer when he replies to the debate.
  The evidence that I have presented to the House shows that Iran has one of the most vile and corrupt regimes anywhere in the world. It is a regime that is afraid of its own people and one which will not tolerate dissent or enable any aspect of democracy. It closes newspapers, jails journalists, and brings out the army if there is any kind of demonstration for jobs and freedom. Those are not the hallmarks of a democratic country, and that is why I object to the mujaheddin being on the list.
  I say in all seriousness to my right hon. Friend that, in this respect, this order repeats the mistakes of 1978, when this country backed another dying regime in Iran. If this order is passed, we shall add insult to injury, and betray the hopes of the Iranian people again.
  11.57 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Let me start with a word or two of agreement with the Government. The Liberal Democrats argued, before the Terrorism Act 2000 was introduced, that we should have a UK-wide anti-terrorism Act, not an Act that treated part of the United Kingdom differently, as previously, when exclusion orders could be issued in relation to Northern Ireland. We also believed that the ability to review the legislation should exist, to reconsider the way in which terrorism was defined. We also argued that Parliament should be able to review the legislation regularly.
  The Home Secretary knows from debates on the Act—the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), other hon. Members and I served on the Committee that considered it—that the definition of terrorism was highly controversial, and that my hon. Friends and I proposed much more narrowly drawn alternatives. We also proposed that the Act should lapse after five years if it was not renewed. We lost those arguments and the Government got their way.
  Liberal Democrats have always accepted the need for the power to proscribe terrorist organisations. When the House debated the Bill, it specifically discussed the Irish organisations on the list, which had been the subject of detailed scrutiny in Conunittee. We foresaw from the beginning the problems that we are discussing tonight.
  We foresaw problems in allowing the Secretary of State to make a subjective judgment—this is not a slight on his integrity—on the basis of information not available to other Members of the House, that enables him to issue orders that, if approved, proscribe organisations from that moment.
  Organisations avoid proscription only if they can clear one of two hurdles. They must either persuade the Secretary of State to reverse his view or win a case before the appeal commission. As the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykenam (Mr. Hogg) and others have argued, that, too, is not an appeal in which both sides would appear with an equality of arms and a party could know the case against it and be able to rebut it.
  It is also clear that the Home Secretary could have asked the Intelligence and Security Committee to give him a view, but he chose not to—that is why I put the specific question to him—although he asked it to
  962
  comment on the Mitrokhin affair. The committee represents Parliament. It meets to deal with sensitive matters and to give an opinion that provides a broader base for Government decisions and for judgments to be made on them in the House. It was not asked to comment, however; nor was an independent judicial view taken, although we argued for that in Committee.
  Perhaps the most telling concern of all is that, although we have had only an hour and two minutes of debate and have only 28 minutes left, the House is meant not only to judge on 21 entirely different organisations, but to hold one vote and make one decision that will proscribe every one of them, regardless of whether, according to the Home Secretary's list, they have a headquarters here, have members here or have been active here.
  Mr. Hogg: I mean no slight on the Home Secretary, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that the real problem is that we do not have a clue about the strength of evidence on which the right hon. Gentleman relies? We have to accept his word. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is too fragile a basis on which to proscribe an organisation?
  Mr. Hughes: My colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches and I share that view. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) referred to N17, which of course is a terrorist organisation. It has committed terrorist acts abroad, but never here. The mujaheddin has a good case for saying that it is taking on an undemocratic regime. It may be a terrorist organisation, but that does not necessarily require the Home Secretary to proscribe it. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam is involved in a peace process with an intermediary—the Norwegian Government—and is seeking to resolve an intractable and awful civil war in Sri Lanka. The International Sikh Youth Federation also seeks to play its part.
  All those organisations have a case, just as 20 or 30 years ago the African National Congress would have had a case, or 10 or 20 years ago those opposing General Pinochet would have had a case. Many such organisations, by any definition, would be classed as terrorist for undertaking activity that may have been illegal in their own countries, but which would always have been legal in democratic countries. That is the difficulty of tonight's debate.
  There has been no judicial confirmation of the proposed organisation and no cross-party agreement. There would be no appeal based on the merits of a case. We must be careful that we do not put outside the law certain activities and certain people when their opportunity to put their case under the criminal law is not the same as that for others in different contexts.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): Will the hon. Gentleman elaborate on his case involving the example of N17 in Greece, which has a democratic Government? Why should it not be on the list?
  Mr. Hughes: I do not argue that none of the organisations listed is clearly terrorist under the definition in the Act. I am not arguing on the basis of facts—not only in the list given by Ministers, but known to the House—that certain organisations have not owned up to

  963
  committing terrorist activities. N17 is in that category. What appears to have happened, however, is that a list has been presented to the House on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, largely as a result of representations from foreign Governments about concerns abroad rather than as a result of concern about whether terrorist acts would be committed in this country—acts that this domestic legislation is intended to regulate.
  Mr. Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: No. The hon. Gentleman has already intervened several times.
  My colleagues and I are unhappy about the motion above all because we cannot possibly give fair treatment to each and every organisation when we cannot vote on separate proposals that they be regarded and proscribed as terrorist organisations. Let me give an example. My constituency contains the headquarters of a Tamil organisation, Eelam house. I have been there to see members of the organisation, who have links with, and associate with, those who have—in their words—taken on a freedom struggle for the Tamil homeland. Many people in the world have been through that process prior to self-determination, but the order could make any Member of Parliament who talked to any such organisation guilty under the 2000 Act from the day of the order's implementation, before we had been able to argue the case.
  It may be wrong for those organisations to be proscribed as terrorist organisations, or it may be not wrong but unhelpful. I merely say that we should be very careful about endorsing a proposal on a take-it-or-leave it basis. It would be better for the Home Secretary to withdraw the order, and allow the House to consider each organisation on its merits. That could have been done, it should have been done, and it is a great pity that it has not been done.
  We are not giving proper consideration to what is a properly weighty proposal, intended to ensure that we deal with terrorism firmly and fairly. We are certainly not dealing with it fairly tonight.
  12.7 am
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I shall be brief, because we have to be brief. This is a travesty of the way in which such an important and serious issue should be discussed. Debate is being limited to an hour and half, late at night, with a catch-all of 21 different organisations that the order proposes to ban. We have been given no opportunity to discuss those organisations in any detail, or to engage in any other form of parliamentary scrutiny of the legislation.
  The history of anti-terrorist legislation is not good. The original Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 was rushed through the House, and resulted in serious miscarriages of justice. The first person to be arrested in this country under the Act was Paul Hill, a constituent of mine, who was subsequently imprisoned as one of the Guildford Four. He was finally released 17 years later, with an apology of a sort from the High Court and the Home Secretary of the day. I think that we should think very carefully about the effect of the overall ban that the Home Secretary is proposing.
  964
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is absolutely right: if this legislation had been in place 10 or 15 years ago the ANC would certainly have been on the list, as would Umkhonto we Sizwe—which was undertaking some forms of military activity in South Africa—and many other organisations from different parts of the world.
  Ms Diane Abbott: While no one denies the atrocities perpetrated by some groups on the list, what we are attempting to scrutinise tonight is the process, the thinking and the procedure behind this type of proscription. The history of Britain's withdrawal from empire is littered with groups that were described as terrorists, but survived to take tea with the Queen.
  Mr. Corbyn: Indeed. I am sure that had such legislation been in operation in 1945, when the pan-African unity conference was held at Chorlton cum Hardy town hall, every one of the people there would have been arrested for being a terrorist, because they were seeking freedom from the British empire. Later, however, every one of those people became either a Prime Minister, President or Cabinet Minister of one African country or another. Later, without exception, every one of them took tea with the Queen.
  The Home Secretary should also tell us—if he has a few minutes at the end of the debate perhaps he will do so—where the list came from. I am very well aware that the Indian Government, the Turkish Government, the Sri Lankan Government, the Iranian Government and undoubtedly many other Governments have been constantly pressing the British Government to close down political activity in this country by their opponents. I also believe that all those organisations—surely it is purely coincidence—are also on the State Department list in Washington. I am sure that that is just a coincidence of history and that there is no complicity whatsoever.
  I also ask the Home Secretary to think through the implications of what hon. Members are saying. None of us likes bombing. None of us supports terrorism. None of us wants violence. The end game to violence and to achieving peace is a political process, giving people and their organisations the political space to argue and debate.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey mentioned the situation in Sri Lanka. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam are on the list of organisations to be banned. It is currently observing a ceasefire, although it has been violated by the forces of the Sri Lankan state What message are we sending to the Tamil people living in this country, perhaps because they have gained asylum here? We are saying that an organisation that many of them support is to be banned. A similar point can be made in relation to the peace process in Turkey—which we hope will end successfully—where the Kurdistan Workers party is also observing a ceasefire.
  Surely it would be far more useful to work with international organisations that are attempting to achieve ceasefires and peace than to ban them from operating in this country.
  Mr. Winnick: I think that my hon. Friend has conceded that some of the organisations listed are

  965
  engaged in terror. In what type of continuing peace process is N17, for example, engaged? Greece is an entirely democratic country—the junta has, fortunately, been overthrown—and has been so for the past quarter of a century. N17, however, wants to destroy that democratic structure. As my hon. Friend knows in June 2000 it murdered Brigadier Stephen Saunders.
  Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend has jumped slightly ahead of my comments, but I shall help him with that. If an organisation is engaged in criminal activity, the criminal law is available to deal with it.
  I believe that the proposed process is wrong because it would entail the Home Secretary making a decision on the basis of intelligence information. Subsequently, he would receive representations from hon. Members, from representatives of the organisation concerned and from anyone else who cared to make a representation that he cared to receive. Hon. Members and the organisations would not know what had been said to him. Subsequently, he may impose a ban, which may then be the subject of an appeal to the independent appeal committee that he has appointed. The chairman of that tribunal will also receive the security information, whereas the other parties will not. If the matter becomes the subject of a judicial review, a public interest immunity certificate may be granted by the Home Secretary.
  Whoever is Home Secretary, under the order he or she is judge, jury and proponent of the initial decision. I believe that the process should be far more open and that if something is wrong, the criminal law is available to deal with it.
  Despite the Home Secretary's earlier comments, I believe that there are serious problems with the legislation's compliance with the European convention on human rights and with our own Human Rights Act 1998. There are serious problems also with the possible criminalisation of people during the appeals process. If the House passes the order and all the organisations are banned, the order would, as I understand it, take effect immediately. Consequently, anyone involved in those organisations will automatically become a criminal. However, the organisation may appeal against the ban and it may be lifted. Nevertheless, there is the possibility of a miscarriage of justice if people are convicted of criminal activity by belonging to an organisation, despite the fact that the organisation can appeal and, subsequently, the ban might be lifted.
  Fiona Mactaggart: I believe that my hon. Friend has met a constituent of mine who is an active member of the International Sikh Youth Federation, and who has certainly persuaded me that his activities have nothing to do with terrorism. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the order covers some organisations whose members are social and political activists, and that it could criminalise them in a way that would be inappropriate, given the work in which they are involved?
  Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend is right. I met a delegation of people from the Sikh community this afternoon, as did many other hon. Members. One could not meet more active, upright or socially aware people. Are we to make them criminals for their membership of those organisations? That will be the effect of the order. The message being given to members of Muslim, Sikh,
  966
  Tamil, Turkish and Kurdish communities around the country is that we are interested in banning their organisations because they are calling for fundamental political changes in their home countries.
  We are in danger of making a very bad decision that will set a bad example of the true work of a democratic Parliament. We will be in danger of criminalising—or of driving into the hands of criminals—a lot of people who have no wish to take part in criminal activities. That danger will arise because we are not prepared to take part in what ought to be the political process to bring peace to places around the world where at present there are only difficult and almost intractable problems.
  How many more organisations will be put on the list because Governments around the world find it inconvenient that international organisations use London as a base from which to spread political propaganda aimed at securing change in their home countries? Britain has given refuge to many people from different parts of the world for a long time. Enormous political changes have resulted, such as those resulting from the struggle to bring about independence from empire, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) referred.
  The House should not pass this order tonight. I very much hope that the Home Secretary will reconsider seriously the great mistake that I believe he is making.
  12.17 am
  Mr. William Thompson: I, too, have a number of reservations about adding 21 new organisations to the proscribed list. It is true that many of those organisations are involved in violence in other parts of the world, but the judgment that we have to make is whether they have been involved in violence in the United Kingdom. An order proscribing every organisation involved in violence around the world would be very wide and difficult to police.
  We in Northern Ireland have had plenty of terrorists from various organisations. On numerous occasions we have asked that they be proscribed. We have always been told that that was a difficult matter, that a careful balance must be struck, and that proscribing the organisations might give them more publicity than they would otherwise achieve. As far as we can see, the order strikes no balance and makes no judgment as to what activity a proscribed organisation might be carrying out in Northern Ireland. The fact that such an organisation is carrying out terrorism in other parts of the world is considered to be sufficient for it to be proscribed here. That is an undesirable feature.
  I wish to emphasise a difficulty raised by other hon. Members—the use of the term "Irish Republican Army". I know that it has been said that the term is used in a generic way, to cover both the Provisional IRA and the Real IRA. That may be difficult to argue in legal terms. The order should be made explicit in its references to the Real IRA: in that way, there will be no doubt or controversy in any future legal discussion.
  The Real IRA is a terrorist organisation which killed 29 people in my constituency. Its members are carrying out terrorist activities on the mainland. It is a very dangerous organisation. It is therefore right that it should be explicitly named so that there can be no doubt.

  967
  We must, however, ask ourselves what the point of proscription is. The IRA is a proscribed organisation, yet the Government are prepared to negotiate with its members. Various other terrorist organisations are proscribed—what difference has it made? The Government have still negotiated with them and made concessions to them—indeed, whether those organisations were proscribed or not does not seem to have made much difference. What is the point of proscription and what benefits will accrue from it?
  In conclusion, we have reservations about the order and although we do not wish to support terrorism in the United Kingdom in any way, we believe that this is the wrong way to go about it at this time.
  12.20 am
  Mr. John Bercow: This has been a good, albeit all too short and perhaps truncated, debate. Let me make it clear at the outset, echoing what my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said at the beginning of the debate, that we endorse the Government's central intention and do not intend to frustrate it tonight. Accordingly, I cannot encourage my right hon. and hon. Friends to do any differently. Nevertheless, I hope that the Home Secretary has listened carefully to the views expressed.
  Terrorism is the most appalling scourge; the overwhelming majority of Members are united in denunciation of it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald rightly pointed out that the extent of globalisation, the increase in the facility of technology and the nature of international financial markets all conspire to assist the terrorist and make our task that much more difficult.
  I readily acknowledge that in a procedure of this kind, intelligence reports naturally cannot be freely tossed around, or their contents exchanged, in the open political marketplace. I recognise the constraints within which the Home Secretary is operating. Nevertheless, at the risk of inflicting grave injury upon myself, I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), to the cogent and considered speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) and to the speech of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who has been consistent on this subject. Their speeches raised legitimate concerns, which I suspect have permeated the Chamber.
  Particular grievances have been raised about individual organisations such as the International Sikh Youth Federation, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and the mujaheddin. Those concerns must be addressed. It is obviously a weakness of the arrangement that the Government have adopted that there is no opportunity to cherry pick and consider the merits of each organisation. We are invited en bloc to give our approval or en bloc to withhold it.
  Tonight we will give the Government the benefit of the doubt in the name of presenting a united front in opposition to terrorism. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) makes it clear that he does not intend to follow suit, and his intentions are respected. However, I am setting out the position of the Opposition Front Bench.
  968
  I hope that the Home Secretary will respond seriously to the points that have been made. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham made the point that the test in an appeal seems purely to be the legal test of reasonableness rather than one requiring the merits of the case to be considered. Need that be the case? Is it unavoidable? Could the Home Secretary reconsider that test for the future?
  My second observation is again intended to amplify the concern that my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary expressed at the outset—why have the exclusions? There is no reference to the Animal Liberation Front, despite the fact that two years ago about 800 recorded incidents of serious violence were perpetrated in this country by animal rights terrorists. Those are all on the record. There is a grievance. Elsewhere in Government policy, it is a public grievance that they are rightly addressing, which does not seem to be consistent with what is being said in this measure, so I hope that the Home Secretary will look into that.
  Finally, my right hon. Friend made a valid point about Combat 18—a truly despicable organisation, which has deployed enormous violence in pursuit of its sinister goals on many occasions. The Government's intention is sound. The Secretary of State's motivation is, as far as all decent people are concerned, not remotely in dispute, but this is a democratic Chamber, democratic concerns have been expressed by democrats and I invite him to respond to those concerns.
  12.25 am
  Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) for the way in which he spoke from the Conservative Front Bench and to my hon. Friends and Opposition Members for the manner in which they made what are in some cases very strong opinions felt about organisations that have been included in the order.
  To all right hon. and hon. Members who spoke about individual organisations I would say that we will take full account of what has been said here and, obviously, of further representations made if, as I suspect, a number of those organisations that have been mentioned apply, initially to me, for de-proscription.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) made a powerful speech about Iran—a subject on which he speaks with considerable knowledge. He asked some questions about how I judge the current political position in Iran. For me, the criteria in determining whether an organisation should be included—I think that he will understand this—in the list are those laid down in section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000. I have had to apply myself to the law, which has only recently been the subject of considerable discussion and agreement by the House.
  I was asked about other organisations, including some involved in domestic extremism. The list is the list for the time being. It is open to addition or subtraction at any future stage.
  Mr. Barry Gardiner rose—
  Mr. Straw: I am sorry, but I do not have time to give way.

  969
  We keep those matters under review. I made the decisions in the light of the best evidence, my judgments and the advice available to me.
  There are two final matters. One is the scope of the appeal before the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, which will be on judicial review grounds as that is laid down in section 5 of the 2000 Act. Since the coming into force of the Human Rights Act 1998, however, the grounds are wider and POAC will have to address whether refusal to de-proscribe amounts to interference with convention rights, which will in turn lead to questions about the proportionality of my decisions.
  Finally, on the process, I appreciate; that this has been a short debate but a good one. As fat as I can recall, no amendments were tabled during the proceedings of the Terrorism Bill to call for a different process other than the affirmative procedure with one order. We will take full account of all representations nude and I commend the order to the House.
  Question put:—
  Mr. Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Division deferred till Wednesday 14 March, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].

  Science and Technology Committee
  12.29 am
  Mr. John McWilliam: I beg to move,
  That Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas be discharged from the Science and Technology Committee and Mr. Tony McWalter be added to the Committee.
  I shall not detain the House, except to say that the change between the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) and the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) has been agreed by both hon. Members and by all members of the Committee of Selection. I commend the motion to the House.
  12.29 am
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: This matter should not pass without tribute being paid to the hon. Member for Corby. I have the honour of serving on the senate of the Engineering Council with the hon. Member for Corby—[HON. MEMBERS: "Crosby"]—with the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis?Thomas). I am grateful for that correction. The reason that I made a mistake about the hon. Lady's constituency is that I know her as "Our Claire". She serves with me on the senate of the Engineering Council and plays an active role in promoting engineering, both in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall.
  I have not had a chance to speak to the hon. Lady this evening, to determine why she is leaving the Committee, although I am delighted that the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) will join it. He, too, has an engineering background. He took a BSc in pure mathematics as well as one in philosophy—an interesting combination.
  I have some concerns that no explanation of the change has been given, other than the fact that both hon. Members have agreed to it.
  Mr. John Bercow: I certainly do not want to cavil about the thrust of my hon. Friend's argument, but can he explain why he chose to describe a study of mathematics and philosophy as interesting for the purposes of the debate?
  Mr. Fabricant: A friend of mine—with whom my hon. Friend is familiar—is a director of the John Lewis Partnership—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the motion is extremely narrow.
  Mr. Fabricant: I shall not pursue philosophy, politics and economics, but will simply point out that the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead, who is to join the Committee—the purpose of the motion—holds undergraduate and postgraduate degrees in mathematics, which—
  Mr. Bercow: Like Descartes.
  Mr. Fabricant: Indeed. The holding of such degrees may or may not make an individual suitable for the Committee.

  971
  Why have the two hon. Members agreed to make that swap? The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam), who proposed the motion, said that the two hon. Members had agreed to the swap. However, before my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) intervened, I was about to ask why the swap is being made at such a late stage of the Parliament.
  Mr. McWilliam: We do not seek to ask why Members want to change; if they want to do so, that is fine. The matter has been agreed by all parties. If the hon. Gentleman has a problem with that, he must have a problem with his Whips—he should ask them about it.
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman sounds Alfred, Lord Tennyson—
  "Their's not to reason why,
  Their's but to do"—
  but not, in this case, die—I hope.
  My point is important and sound. At this late stage of a Parliament, why have two people decided to change membership on the Committee?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman repeats the argument that he made earlier. I remind him once again of the narrowness of the motion and of the debate.
  Mr. Fabricant: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your guidance. I simply want to make the point that the hon. Member for Crosby has served well on the Committee—especially by promoting engineering both in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall. She has raised questions about the status of chartered engineers and members of the Engineering Council. It is most unfortunate that she is not in the House tonight to say why she is standing down. She has provided an excellent service.
  Mr. Bercow: I echo what my hon. Friend says about the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), but does not he agree that perhaps an even more salient question is why the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter), who is indeed a distinguished academic, is not present to participate in, or at least observe, the proceedings of the debate about the proposal that he be added to the Committee? Why is he not here?
  Mr. Fabricant rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The House is perfectly entitled to debate the change of membership of a Committee whether or not the Members concerned are present.
  Mr. Fabricant: Of course you are absolutely right. Madam Deputy Speaker, but I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham is saying that perhaps there is a little arrogance in the motion, in that the two people concerned are not here tonight. But I do perfectly understand—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I could put it to the hon. Gentleman that that really is irrelevant to the motion that we are discussing.
  Mr. Fabricant: I think the point is that the motion concerns the behaviour of two individual Members or, if one likes, the service that they will perform on this Committee, which is a Committee of the House, and it would have been interesting, had they been present, to determine what motivation there was for one to leave and for the other to replace them, particularly at this late stage in the Parliament. [Interruption.] It is also a late stage in the evening, and I can see that Ministers on the Treasury Bench are particularly concerned that—
  Mr. Keith Bradley (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Fabricant: They are not concerned that this motion is passed quickly. There is some confusion because of these sedentary interventions from those on the Treasury Bench. Some are saying that they want this motion passed, some are not, and I am a little confused on that point.
  The hon. Member for Crosby has provided good service. I hope that she will continue to provide service on the Engineering Council. Just as a very brief aside
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, I must remind the hon. Member just how narrow is this particular debate. Will he please confine his remarks to it?
  Mr. Fabricant: The motion reads:
  "That Mrs Claire Curtis-Thomas be discharged from the Science and Technology Committee and Mr Tony McWalter be added to the Committee",
  but as the House authorities are allowing an hour for debate, presumably with the agreement of the Speaker, presumably there is some scope to discuss the merits of the two individuals concerned; otherwise, I cannot see how an hour, or even a minute, can be allowed for any particular area of debate.
  Mr. Keith Bradley indicated assent.
  Mr. Fabricant: I see that the Deputy Chief Whip fervently agrees with me on this issue.
  In conclusion, unless anyone cares to intervene on me on this point, I will not disagree with the motion, as the hon. Member for Blaydon has said that both individuals have agreed to the change. However, it would have been nice if either of them had been present. It would have been interesting to know why this is happening at such a late stage in the Parliament, unless we are going to find out that it is not a late stage in the Parliament, and that the Prime Minister is announcing that there will be a general election in May—M my 2002.
  Question put and greed to.
  Resolved,
  That Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas be discharged from the Science and Technology Committee and Mr. Tony McWalter be added to the Committee.

  Business of the House
  12.40 am
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I beg to move,
  That—
  (1) at the sitting on 22nd March the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on any Motion in the name of Margaret Beckett relating to Election of a Speaker not later than Four o'clock, and such Questions shall include the Questions on any amendment selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; and
  (2) if proceedings on any such Motion have not been completed before Four o'clock, the Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means for consideration at that hour may be proceeded with, though opposed, for throe hours after it has been entered upon.
  The motion simply ensures that next Thursday—22 March—the House can reach a decision on a procedure for electing a Speaker. The Government intend very shortly to put down Standing Orders that would implement the Procedure Committee's recommendations.
  I am grateful to the Committee for its report and recommendations. A good deal of thought and work has gone into the report. Next week, colleagues will have a discussion on that report; tonight's motion just sets out the framework for that discussion.
  Members will note that the business motion will also allow the questions to be put on any amendment selected by the Speaker. The motion will give the House an opportunity to deal with any such Amendments. It may assist the House this evening if I say that an amendment will be tabled to give Members a choice between an open and a secret ballot for Speaker, as recommended by the Procedure Committee.
  It may also interest Members to learn that, back in 1972, when the House agreed the current Standing Orders on the election of a Speaker, the debate lasted for an hour and five minutes. Even though, as we age, we are doubtless more garrulous, I do not think that the time suggested tonight for the debate is unreasonable. I am pleased that the House is to have an early opportunity to discuss the Procedure Committee's report.
  12.40 am
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: Although I welcome the opportunity that the House will be given to discuss the election of a Speaker, I have to tell the Minister that I have serious reservations about the amount of time allocated to the debate, and I hope that I may now have the opportunity to develop them a little.
  The Minister said that one hour and five minutes was spent discussing the matter in 1972, but one need only look at the Procedure Committee's report to understand what a revolution in our affairs has occurred since then. The Procedure Committee makes it clear that the changes made in 1972 were simply intended to bring some order to a system that had previously been governed by no regulatory mechanism whatever. Indeed, the Clerk, rather than the Father of the House, took the Chair before that date, and there was a free for all, without Standing Orders of any kind. I am sure that the Minister will find it easy to agree that what actually happened in 1972 was that a decision was taken simply to determine, by Standing Order, what should happen in future
  974
  As we know, at the most recent election of the Speaker, it became fairly apparent that the system that had been set up in 1972, which had previously led to only one contested election before last year's, took a very great deal of time to go through. Not only did it take a long time to go through, but a large number of hon. Members expressed widespread dissatisfaction with the entire system. That is why the Procedure Committee decided to report on the matter. Indeed, it produced an extremely useful and interesting report, which repays careful study.
  About 130 Members replied when the Procedure Committee sought our views, but the diversity of opinion expressed in the replies to the questionnaires that were sent out is simply colossal. It covers the full spectrum of choices that individual Members might wish to have. Given that this is completely non-party political matter, I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is apparent that no consensus on how best to proceed exists in those submissions.
  I do not intend to consider the report this evening; that is not the purpose of this debate or of the motion. However, one has only to consider the diversity of views to understand that there must be enough time for those diverse views to be expressed. 1 am sure that the Minister will also agree that there is always a danger that when a Government, however well-intentioned, table a motion that ultimately expresses their view, a large number of hon. Members will be dissatisfied not only with that motion but with any amendment to it that the Minister says we shall have an opportunity to discuss. Apart from anything else, we do not even know exactly what is proposed for the implementation of the Procedure Committee's suggestions.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is one thing that makes Members of Parliament particularly vocal, and that is matters that affect them personally? Does he not agree that the election of a Speaker affects all 659 hon. Members? It therefore follows that, particularly given the diverse nature of the responses which my hon. Friend has already described, many of those 659 Members will want to make long and detailed contributions to the debate.
  Mr. Grieve: I have no difficulty agreeing with my hon. Friend's comments. I am sure that he will agree that we must be careful to ensure that the House is not seen indulging in too much navel gazing. There are affairs of the nation to consider as well as those of regulating the House. I dare say that the public would think it rather odd if we were to devote days and days to discussing how we should elect a Speaker.
  However, the issue certainly goes beyond simply the interest of Members. The Speaker has a very special status within our constitution. He is there as the defender of our rights.
  Mr. Jim Dowd (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): Or she.
  Mr. Grieve: He or she is there as the defender of our rights, so it is important that we get right any changes that we decide to implement. It is important that the public should have the impression that there has been reasoned

  975
  and, if necessary, leisurely discussion of the options, and it is important that the decision that we finally take commands consensus.
  A point that has often been touched upon is that debate in the Chamber should not involve a short discussion and then a vote to decide who is in the majority. By the process of debate, we should at least reconcile those who may lose in the vote to the decision that the House has taken. That is what parliamentary democracy is all about.
  I have outlined the basic principles, so I shall now consider the precise motion that has been placed before us. It is apparent that the matter will come before the House on Thursday 22 March. On an ordinary Thursday, we start early with Question Time. Business questions follow, and there is always the possibility of a statement. The motion proposes that we should conclude the discussion at 4 o'clock. The Minister knows that, because of business questions, it is improbable that we shall start any debate before 1.25 or 1.30 pm. I say this neutrally, but sometimes the allegation is made that the Government make statements either for their own convenience, because they want to indulge in a bit of spin, or because they wish to wreck the business of the House for that day by depriving hon. Members of the opportunity for debate. I am not seeking to suggest that they will do that on this occasion—not at the moment anyway. I merely wish to point out that we are facing a national crisis in agriculture because of foot and mouth disease, so it is perfectly on the cards that, for wholly legitimate reasons, a Minister may wish to come to the House on 22 March to make a statement. That usually leads to a further hour of the House's time being taken up, so the debate on the election of the Speaker may last for no more than an hour and a half. I have to say to the Minister that, on the basis of what I said a few moments ago about the controversial nature of the proposals, an hour and a half is wholly insufficient. I hope that he will take that point in the spirit in which it is intended.
  Mr. John Bercow: My hon. Friend is setting out a persuasive critique. Does he agree that the supreme irony of the situation that he has just described is that if what he described happened, we would have less time for a debate on the substantive motion concerning how we should operate in future than is potentially available to us this morning for this preliminary procedural discussion?
  Mr. Grieve: My hon. Friend is right, although I thought I heard an hon. Member say from a sedentary position that it is not yet morning in parliamentary terms. That is correct. It is still yesterday or, perhaps, today, and we can continue with its being today for a very long time if necessary—sometimes for so long that tomorrow disappears. I do not want to inflict that on the House, but my hon. Friend makes an important point.
  If we are to have a debate such as that referred to in the motion, it would be sensible to set the rest of that day aside for that purpose. If there is a possibility that the debate might go short—in 1972, as the Minister pointed out, an hour and five minutes proved sufficient—I am sure that the Government can table a host of matters to be
  976
  debated thereafter, as is their custom, which will not interfere with or curtail discussion of the election of the Speaker.
  Mr. Bercow: I am exceptionally grateful to my hon. Friend for his generosity in giving way. In view of the importance of the election of a Speaker and the respect that all right hon. and hon. Members feel for that high office, does my hon. Friend agree that, even if it were difficult—and it should not be—to accommodate a proper, lengthy and perhaps leisurely debate on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, no right hon. or hon. Member should object to the notion that we might debate the matter on a sitting Friday? It would, after all, be a one-off.
  Mr. Grieve: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Sitting Fridays are not, on the whole, supposed to interfere with the Government's carriage of their business, so if we were to debate the matter on such a Friday, it could not be suggested that we were putting our priority of navel gazing above the interests of the country at large.
  I turn now to another aspect of the problem. I have touched on this, but it bears consideration. At the moment, we do not have the motion that the Government intend to table. We have got the order wrong. We can usually pick up in the Tea Room, the Corridors or elsewhere whether a motion tabled by the Government will command consensus and rapidly identify the issues that are likely to excite hon. Members and make them want to participate in the debate.
  Without wishing to stray into the substance of the Procedure Committee's report, and just by way of illustration, I point out that the report contains several proposals. Those on which most hon. Members will focus relate to the system of voting, ballots and their secrecy and whether, at the end, the last two candidates should be presented in the traditional way. However, there are many other little points in the report, and experience suggests that those are points that can sometimes cause as many problems—if not more—as some of the basic issues. I am not clear whether a Government motion would seek to change or regulate the way in which the Speaker is affirmed by royal approval not in the other place, but by Parliament sitting in a single Chamber up the Corridor.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. Perhaps I could remind the hon. Gentleman that he said that he did not wish to stray too far.
  Mr. Grieve: It is a timely reminder, Madam Deputy Speaker. If I am getting carried away, it serves as a warning and illustration to the Minister that some recondite issues may excite hon. Members. Our constitution reflects an important historical perspective and, bearing in mind the nature of society and the role of the House and of Parliament in general, they would want those issues addressed. However, I do not know what the Government are going to table.
  Mr. John Hayes: The issue has a direct bearing on the debate. It is impossible to make a judgment about the suitability of the length of time that we will have to debate the issue unless we have a clearer idea about what the Government intend

  977
  the motion to contain. If they do not intend to debate all the issues that my hon. Friend raises, there may well be sufficient time. However, I fail to understand how we could have enough time for a more general debate on the detail that is necessary to satisfy the House.
  Mr. Grieve: My hon. Friend is correct. He touches on the central issue.
  It is unfortunate that the matter is being discussed at such a late hour, when many right hon. and hon. Members, especially after last night's late sitting, have no doubt decided that the call of their beds takes priority over our business. When the Minister has heard the arguments—I shall listen with care to his response—he may wish to consider withdrawing the motion and presenting it again when the Government's proposals have been tabled. That would allow them to gauge our response. Once they have an impression of our reaction, they will be better placed to decide the time that should be devoted to the motion.
  I am sure that the Government take the matter seriously. If they decide that many right hon. and hon. Members want to participate in the debate to express their views and influence others, they may want co consider allowing more time. They may also want to allow amendments to be considered so that there are other options. I know not. I am not trying to complicate the issue; I am simply trying to explain that it could become complicated. If the Government do what I suggest, they may discover that the matter can be dealt with reasonably expeditiously while allowing time for their business to be transacted on the same day and enabling people to go away with the impression that they have had their say and are broadly satisfied with the result.
  Mr. Bercow: I detect that my hon. Friend comes at the matter, and the motion specifically, completely—or largely—unsighted. Does he agree chat although in no sense under a formal obligation to discuss the matter in advance, it might have been a parliamentary courtesy or propriety for the Parliamentary Secretary to discuss it through the usual channels, thus reflecting the spirit of the issue, which is pre-eminently a matter for the House rather than the Executive to determine?
  Mr. Grieve: May I remind my hon. Friend that the Minister is always a model of courtesy? We know that that is true both inside and outside the Chamber. I would certainly not wish to criticise the Minister. Of course, the first date on which the Speaker's election is likely to be relevant to the House will fall after the general election. Obviously, I can speculate only remotely on whether there is any link between the imminence of the election and the decision to lay the motion before the House and allow it to discuss the report of the Select Committee on Procedure. Who knows? The Minister may care to enlighten us on that when he comes to reply to the debate. That would certainly make it far more informative.
  That said, we are clearly unsighted, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said, because we do not know what the motion will be. We are simply being asked to agree the procedure beforehand. I do not intend to labour the matter further.
  Mr. Hayes: I can see that my hon. Friend is trying to deal with the matter as concisely as possible. However, he omitted to raise an important issue relevant to our debate—the public's expectation of how we should go about the business. There was a good deal of public debate after the election of the current Speaker, which centerd on the conduct of affairs of the House. The wider public, not just hon. Members, expect us to debate the matter thoroughly and fully when it comes before the House. They will gain a poor impression of the House if we deal with it in a cursory fashion. I invite my hon. Friend to make that point before the Minister replies, as that view is shared by many people outside the House.
  Mr. Grieve: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, who makes an exceptionally good point. He is quite right; enormous interest was generated by the election of the Speaker. Subsequently, there was enormous press coverage and a great deal of criticism of our procedure. When we discuss whatever motion the Government introduce and whatever amendments are tabled and accepted, we must expect a great deal of public interest and attention.
  Mr. Bercow: I do not wish to labour the point. However, to amplify the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), will my hon. Friend confirm that our concern is not merely with the debate that ensues in the immediate aftermath of the election of the Speaker, important though that is, but with the wider medium and long-term issue—namely, the fact that the Speaker effectively performs a critical ambassadorial role for the House?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is wandering far and wide of the remit of the motion.
  Mr. Grieve: I shall resist the temptation offered by my hon. Friend to go too far down the road of exploring the Speaker's ambassadorial role, save to agree wholeheartedly that there are a multiplicity of issues relating to the Speaker's election and role which hon. Members have close to their hearts and which they wish to be considered.
  Mr. Hayes: I have no desire to wander anywhere—neither far nor wide. I want to be specific about the nature of the debate. My point was not a wide point. It was a narrow point. The wider public will look at this debate and the judgment that we make now about the amount of time that we allocate—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is repeating points already made during the debate. The motion is clearly about timetabling.
  Mr. Grieve: As I said before I gave way, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not intend to labour the matter further. After 25 minutes of debate, we have covered, albeit at a slow pace, a number of pertinent issues relating to the wording of the motion. How on earth can the House do justice to the matter when the substantive motion will have to be dealt with in two and a half hours at best? The time allocated is not enough. We therefore cannot support the motion.
  1.5 am
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: Here we are again, with a motion on the Order Paper inviting us to limit the time for debate, possibly to as little as an hour and a half, if a substantive statement is made on Thursday 22 March. We do not have the terms of the motion that we will be invited to discuss on that day, relating to the election of a Speaker. The Minister said that the motion would endorse the second report of the Select Committee on Procedure, but that report is not a single, take-it-or-leave-it set of recommendations. There are choices to be made, such as the question whether there should be a secret ballot or an open ballot for the election of the Speaker.
  Those are fundamental choices. I expect that hon. Members will come to the House without having made up their minds before they listen to the debate. The subject is one that the House should properly consider. On the single question whether the ballot should be secret or open, a variety of views was received by the Select Committee from members of all parties, each of them offering a different prescription. This is not a party issue.
  The matter cannot be decided on the basis of a simple motion tabled by the Government. There must be consideration of the motion, which lends itself to substantial debate. Unusually in the House, that debate would have the capacity to change people's minds or to allow them to make their minds up according to the discussion that they hear.
  Without knowing what motion the Government will table for Thursday, we cannot agree to tonight's motion, which would end discussion at 4 o'clock on Thursday. The Minister referred to the precedent of 1972, when the House took only an hour and five minutes to discuss the procedure for the election of Speaker. I draw attention to the conclusion that the Committee reached in paragraph 44(iii). It stated:
  "The 1972 system is based on the assumption that the Government of the day and the 'usual channels' will operate behind the scenes in order to present the House with a single candidate, or at most a choice between two or three. Since at least 1983 it has become clear that this assumption is no longer correct. It is clear that the House is no longer willing to entrust the choice of candidates to the party machines. This means that (except in the special circumstances of the start of a Parliament when the sitting Speaker has been returned to the House) multi-candidate elections are likely to become the norm."
  That demonstrates how the debate has changed. There was no controversy about the system in 1972. Indeed, it appears from the Committee's conclusions that there was a degree of trust that the usual channels would produce the correct candidates, probably because there would be only one, two or perhaps three options. In the election of our current Speaker, however, there has been a wholesale change. I think that that is a good thing, as it might suggest that the House is beginning to get up off its knees in its relationship with the Executive. It is good also in respect of the interaction of the two Front Benches.
  Mr. Bercow: You have just reminded us, Madam Deputy Speaker, of the narrow terms of the motion, on which everybody accepts your guidance. With that in mind, does my hon. Friend agree that the central point of issue, which we invite the Parliamentary Secretary to take
  980
  on board, is that the nature and extent of the debate for which the motion provides will be crucial not only to the credibility of its outcome, but to its perceived legitimacy?
  Mr. Blunt: I agree thoroughly with my hon. Friend. It is easy for hon. Members to think of halcyon days when the House was independent of the Executive—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, I remind hon. Members of the narrowness of the debate and the motion.
  Mr. Blunt: I am very aware of the terms of the motion, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is important for arguments to be advanced on the time scale that it proposes. The Parliamentary Secretary told us that an hour and five minutes was sufficient in 1972. He was asking us to accept that as much as an hour and half—or two and half hours, if there is no substantive statement—is unheard-of generosity on the part of the Executive.
  Mr. Tipping: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying so, I did not use any of those words.
  Mr. Blunt: But the implication—
  Mr. Tipping: There was no implication either.
  Mr. Blunt: I am happy to accept that the Parliamentary Secretary was not implying the suggestions to which I referred. However, his body language during the debate has given me some hope—it did so especially as he listened to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve)—that our arguments are persuading him to accept that the time scale to which the motion refers, which extends until 4 o'clock on Friday 22 March, might not be sufficient in the light of the complexity of the issues. If that is the case, I do not know what he will do in the time that is available. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield said, Opposition Members will oppose the motion. I do not know what the Government can do if they accept that it allows insufficient time.
  Mr. Hayes: Will my hon. Friend confirm that our point about credibility relates specifically to the timetable issue? If we do not allow sufficient time for the election of the person who personifies its credibility and legitimacy, hon. Members and the wider community will not regard the House and the lonely office of Speaker with the reverence that they deserve. Is not that a critical aspect of the timetable motion, as people will expect the House to give proper time and attention to its own affairs?
  Mr. Blunt: If only people did regard the House with some reverence. I fear that it is not held in the highest regard outside. The reaction to the current proceedings for the election of a Speaker rather confirm that that is the case, certainly in respect of the response of the media and commentators.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It is a great pity that we are discussing this important matter at this time of night. Does my hon. Friend agree that we are discussing whether sufficient time is being given for debating the method of electing a future Speaker, when

  981
  the issue should be whether we should have a timetable motion at all? This is an important matter on which the House should be able freely to express its views, to the extent that it wishes. This is not an appropriate matter for a timetable.
  Mr. Blunt: My hon. Friend has made an essential point. This is, by definition, completely a House of Commons matter. It is outrageous that the Executive should table this motion to limit the amount of time, in principle, and also that they should seek to limit it to such an extraordinary extent.
  We have just been through the process of an enormously controversial election of a new Speaker, which has generated this report. Given the report's recommendations and the fact that no, sitting Speaker has been challenged since 1835, there should be no great rush to put the provisions in place before a general election on 3 May, if that is what is determining the Government's motion to constrain discussion of the matter.
  This is an immensely important issue, and the views of Members of the House on the matter should not be constrained by an absurdly limited amount of time for debate. We should have the opportunity for our opinions exhaustively to be canvassed. The Procedure Committee has done that, to a degree, in the questionnaire that it sent out. However, that questionnaire, and the responses to it, raised as many questions as it provided answers. The Committee has made the best possible stab at a solution. It has not produced a completely prescriptive solution that would lend itself to a yes or no decision on the basis of the recommendations that it received. Some form of multi-option motion will be put before us.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I shall put this question in as unpejorative a way as I can. Does my hon. Friend agree that if this overbearing Executive carry on constantly producing these timetables, particularly on matters such as these, which are House of Commons matters on which Members may vote freely according to their diktats, they will ultimately bring the House into disrepute? Does he also agree that the public will, ultimately, not have the regard that they should have for their Parliament?
  Mr. Blunt: My hon. Friend brings me to the context in which this debate is taking place. I hope that we have made the case on its merits as to why one and a half or two and a half hours are insufficient time for debate on this matter. That is because it is a House of Commons matter, because of the complexity of the debate, and because of the inability properly to canvass opinions of hon. Members in that abbreviated time.
  Mr. Hayes: The motion is about the length of time that we shall have to debate the matter, and also about the time when it will be debated. We have not yet focused on that second point. It might be more appropriate to debate the matter in a new Parliament. Given that we face a likely general election—I put it no more strongly than that—it is possible that the new Parliament with many new Members, very many of them Conservatives, rather than the old one, should decide about the election of its Speaker. It seems odd to be debating this matter at the
  982
  end of an old Parliament rather than at the beginning of a new one, given that we are talking about a significant change of procedure.
  Mr. Blunt: That is the point that I was trying to make. We could face a general election on 3 May, so perhaps the motion is being rushed through so that the House can agree to the new recommendations before prorogation. I understand that the House may prorogue on 5 April to meet the deadline for a 3 May election, with the Prime Minister seeking a dissolution from Her Majesty on 28 March.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing a particular timetable for a particular motion.
  Mr. Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) has raised an interesting point in debate and has expressed his opinion about what would be the appropriate procedure in a new Parliament. May I seek your guidance on the constitutional position? Let us assume that the Government do not accept his suggestion, but take the view, entirely reasonably and properly perhaps, that the procedure should be determined in this Parliament. Would you be good enough to confirm whether a subsequent Parliament could revoke that judgment?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Each Parliament is sovereign.
  Mr. Blunt: The date in the motion—22 March—is important to our discussion. There has been wide speculation as to the date of the general election, when the Prime Minister will seek a dissolution from Her Majesty and when the House will prorogue to meet the deadline for a 3 May—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that there is no mention in the motion of a date for any general election. Once again, will he please confine his remarks to the motion?
  Mr. Blunt: I accept your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, although I am slightly puzzled as to why it is not possible to discuss the context in which the motion has been tabled.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The motion refers to a specific date—22 March. I seek your guidance. Surely it is in order to consider that date in the context of a forthcoming election.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: A passing reference is acceptable, but the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) was beginning to debate the issue.
  Mr. Blunt: You are correct, Madam Deputy Speaker, although I was trying to debate the context of the motion, which must be considered in respect of the wider

  983
  reputation of the House. We are being invited to accept the motion without knowing the content of the substantive motion to which it refers. That is unacceptable.
  Mr. Hayes: Does my hon. Friend agree that it has emerged that—in your words, Madam Deputy Speaker—each Parliament is sovereign? We know that a Parliament can last a maximum of five years, so if we debate the matter according to the Government's suggested timetable, this Parliament's judgment on the election of a Speaker will last a maximum of about a year. Given that it is highly unlikely that we shall elect a new Speaker, the next Parliament will be saddled with rules agreed by this Parliament under which it will have to elect its Speaker. Indeed, it may want to change those rules, so debating the matter today according to such a timetable is nonsense. Let us wait until we have undertaken full consideration and discuss it in the next Parliament, which can take a view as to whether it wants a new Speaker.
  Mr. Blunt: I profoundly disagree with my hon. Friend. The procedures and precedents established in previous Parliaments govern how we operate. It is perfectly proper to discuss the matter thoroughly in this Parliament and to set out the procedures for which future elections of Speakers. We must do that at some stage and there is no reason why it should not happen on 22 March. However, there is every reason why the debate should not be limited to perhaps an hour and a half.
  Mr. Bercow: Rarely do I dissent from what my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings has to say, but does my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) agree that, at least on this occasion, there is a lacuna in his argument? There is an important distinction between constitutional impropriety—the existence of which my hon. Friend is, I think, wrongly suggesting—and the anti-social character of a debate held at this late hour. The latter may be undesirable, but in fairness to the Government—it irks me to be fair to Ministers—there is nothing constitutionally improper about it.
  Mr. Blunt: I agree with my hon. Friend.
  The point I want to make relates to the context in which the motion appears, in relation to similar motions tabled by the Government. It raises an important issue concerning the reputation of the House and its ability to do its job properly.
  I am a member of Standing Committee F, which has been considering the Criminal Justice and Police Bill. Motion 67 relates to action that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and three other Conservative Members felt it necessary to take because of the curtailing of discussion of that important measure, which contains 130 clauses.
  When the Government presented timetable motions relating to Committee stages, Third Readings and so forth, we had at least seen the Bill, because it had been published and had received a First Reading; but when the motion relating to this Bill appeared on the Order Paper, the Second Reading debate had not taken place and the Government were not in a position to change the
  984
  motion—to be taken immediately after Second Reading—to make some sort of allowance for the interest expressed on Second Reading and the controversy generated about the importance of the issues involved.
  I think that the Government are making a profound mistake. I say that in all seriousness to Ministers, and to the deputy Chief Whip. This is not some silly point to be made at 1.30 am. I sincerely believe that to restrict debate on the process by which we are to elect a Speaker to, possibly, an hour and a half, in the context of the curtailing of debate on the Criminal Justice and Police Bill—that is one example, but it is now happening to every piece of legislation—is extremely deleterious to the reputation of this place. We are not doing our job as legislators or as scrutineers either of legislation or of the Executive, because the Executive are using their majority to prevent the rest of the House from doing that. The motion is another example—a most unfortunate example—of the Government's tendency to want simply to drive legislation through.
  This is a House of Commons matter. The Executive should not be trying to limit time in such a way. I hope—although I am not sure that it is possible—that at some time and in some way the Government, if they have listened to the debate, will conclude that it is over-egging the pudding to expect the whole House to debate the election of a Speaker during a period of between one and a half and two and a half hours.
  We have been much criticised in respect of our conduct of Opposition day debates. The Opposition Front Bench has sometimes decided to split Opposition days into two three-hour debates, to highlight two separate issues. In the case of home affairs debates, for instance, the result has been that the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary have managed to take half the debate between them. Once the two Front-Bench spokesmen have summed up, precious little time has been left for Back Benchers on either side to participate. That is what happens when debate on an individual issue is limited to three hours. I believe that it has been a mistake to use Opposition time in that manner. It has prevented us from addressing, at length and with full Back-Bench participation, the issues that we wish to raise. Similarly, in this motion, the Government are saying that we shall have at most two and a half hours for debate.
  Mr. Hayes: I appreciate that my hon. Friends the Members for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) do not share my desire to have such a broad debate, over quite such an extended time, on the matter. However, I think that we agree that the matter goes beyond the usual conduct of Government business and the usual guillotining of Government legislation. The motion and this debate have hit a much deeper and richer vein—the very business of Parliament. That is a matter of legitimate public concern and requires a full and thorough debate. I believe that, perhaps typically, my hon. Friend is understating the case.
  Mr. Blunt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
  I note that the motion has been tabled only by the Leader of the House. I am sure that that was a deliberate decision, as the motion deals with a House of Commons matter. I ask the Minister to convey to her our belief that it is not sufficient for her, as Leader of the House,

  985
  to propose such a short time to consider such an important matter. I therefore hope that, before we divide on the motion, the Government can find a way of reversing their position on the matter. I profoundly believe that the Leader of the House should find a way of doing so, and I hope that the Minister will tell her that.
  1.32 am
  Mr. John Hayes: I do not wish to detain the House unduly on this matter. In fact, I had not intended to speak in the debate.
  Mr. Bercow: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hayes: I must make a little progress, if my hon. Friend will bear with me.
  I have become animated, not to say angry, as I have listened to the debate. I do not want to use hyperbole, but I believe that the motion is more than simply another example of the Government abusing their position so as to curtail proper debate on their business. I believe that the motion is about curtailing the rights of hon. Members on both sides of the House who want to express a wide range of opinions on the matter. We know from the election of the current Speaker—who is a very good Speaker—that hon. Members on both sides of the House hold a variety of views on the subject. We also know that the election of the Speaker is important both to the House and to the public. As I said in a brief earlier intervention, the public would judge us harshly if we were to deal with the matter in a cursory fashion.
  Mr. Bercow: Entirely inadvertently, I am sure, my hon. Friend has traduced me. Does he accept that full debate on these important matters and debate in the next Parliament should not be regarded as mutually exclusive? It is even entirely possible to envisage a comprehensive and perhaps even leisurely debate on the matters being conducted before this Parliament concludes.
  Mr. Hayes: That may indeed happen. My point is that a general election may be imminent—I do not want to get into a debate on the date of the general election—and it would be bizarre for this Parliament to agree a procedure for the election of the Speaker that would then be foisted on a new Parliament, which may be very different in its composition from this one. It might contain a different range and set of views.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. We are simply debating whether the amount of time indicated in the motion is appropriate.
  Mr. Hayes: I accept your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but are we not also debating the date on which the motion should be discussed? My point is that the time allocated is inadequate, and that the motion may be set for debate on the wrong date. It may not be appropriate to debate it next week, as the speculation is that we may be coming to the end of this Parliament. My point is that it might be appropriate to have a wider, public discussion of the implications of the Procedure Committee's report, as happened after the election of our current Speaker. That should be followed by a thorough and full debate in the House.
  986
  Neither the time allowed on the day by the Government, nor the timetable that they have set, allow for full public debate or proper exploration of the matter before a possibly imminent general election. A curtailed debate, a limited timetable in the House and inadequate wider discussion among the general public, who will have views on the report, would be followed by a general election. An earlier occupant of the Chair suggested that the new Parliament would be sovereign and entitled to debate the whole matter again. There is therefore a legitimate point to be made about the date set for debate of this matter, as well as the time allocated for its discussion.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hayes: Yes, but I am due to be evangelising my party's cause at 8 o'clock in the morning. I do not want to be much later going to bed.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am sorry to keep my hon. Friend up for another 30 seconds, but I wonder whether he has considered an important point. The motion is in two parts, and they are different in their application. The first part does not protect debate, and so the Government can put as many statements on before it as they choose. I hope that the Minister will indicate whether any statements will be scheduled for that day. The second part of the motion protects the debate to be held on the private business regarding the Kent County Council Bill and Medway Council Bill. Would not it be reasonable for the Government to allocate greater time for the first section of the motion?
  Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend's intervention was so convoluted—untypically, as he always speaks with great acumen and lucidity—and my own desire for bed and cocoa is so great that I cannot deal with it—
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hayes: Yes, but my hon. Friend must do better this time.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am conscious of being censored by my hon. Friend, but there has been so much hilarity and barracking in the Chamber that I have not been able to address the point seriously. However, I do not understand why my hon. Friend fails to grasp the point that the first part of the motion is very different from the second part.
  Mr. Hayes: I think that it was G.K. Chesterton who said that people who have the impatience to interrupt the words of others seldom have the patience to choose good words of their own. I do not want to ascribe that fault to my hon. Friend, but he is right to suggest that we might end up with only an hour and a half in which to debate the motion. The matter is profoundly important, and it stimulates a variety of views across the Chamber. To have so short a time for its discussion is inadequate and scandalous. The seriousness and breadth of the Committee report is such that I suggest that many right hon. and hon. Members will want to contribute to the debate. We will be faced with a situation that I have seen before in my short time in the House in which right hon. and

  987
  hon. Members will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and will be disappointed. Not only will they be disappointed but their constituents and others will feel that they have not had an opportunity to make their views known properly.
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is making a cogent point. Did he notice a moment ago that when he suggested that many right hon. and hon. Members might wish to contribute to this important debate in future, hand gestures from the Deputy Chief Whip appeared to cavil at that suggestion? Will my hon. Friend accept from me that there is a great difference between a debate at 1.40 am, resulting necessarily in a relatively modest attendance, and debate at a proper hour on a normal working day of the House, which would probably attract a great deal of interest from right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber?
  Mr. Hayes: I suspect that such a debate would attract not only full attendance in the Chamber but a good deal of public and press attention. Indeed, I am convinced of it. I suggest that it would also be one of the more interesting debates in the Chamber from the perspective of the wider public. Unusual views would be expressed, and I suspect that those views would cross the party divide. We have had a taste of that in the debate that followed the election of the Speaker.
  It seems unwise of the Government to curtail debate with this timetable motion. I have known the Minister for many years; we have known each other man and boy—well, almost. I know him to be a reasonable and decent man. I suspect that he wants the matter to be explored in the most extensive manner. I do not know whether he has been pushed into this, but it is unwise of the Government to curtail debate in this way because I think that the public will judge them harshly for so doing.
  The debate is proposed to take place on the wrong date and at the wrong stage in the Parliament. There is certainly not enough time in which to debate the issues. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) said with regard to the detail of the motion, the nature of the private business to be debated that day and the pressure that it puts on other business on the Order Paper renders the time allocated for debate on the election of a Speaker even less suitable. It is a bit of a pig's breakfast—a dog's dinner. [Interruption.] The Deputy Chief Whip laughs. It is a testament to the House that we can deal with this matter with a degree of good humour, but there is a serious point at stake.
  The Speaker is in many ways the personification of the House's legitimacy.
  Mr. Bercow: The embodiment.
  Mr. Hayes: The embodiment and the personification. I do not think that the two are mutually exclusive. The way in which we elect the Speaker is therefore critical to that legitimacy. The way in which we debate that election is itself of great importance. That is why it is not simply the debate that will take place in a week's time which will attract public scrutiny but tonight's debate on timetabling that important business.
  988
  If the House ceases to take itself and the election of its Speaker seriously, I suspect that it will cease to be taken seriously. It is not too late to think again about this. We know that the motion as such has not been laid before the House so there is a certain amount of flexibility. It is not too late to think about the wider consultation and discussion that might take place on the Procedure Committee report before the House considers it.
  I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary, given our long and friendly relationship, to consider the matter again, take on board the comments made from what are, as I think that he will agree, some of the rising stars on the Opposition Benches, and do what I am confident that he will feel to be right: allow the fullest and fairest discussion of the matter when it comes before the House by relaxing the restriction that he is seeking to impose on us this evening.
  1.45 am
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I wish to argue one clear, simple case, which I was unable to get across to my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), and to secure a concession from the Parliamentary Secretary on the timetable motion.
  As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend, the timetable has two parts. The first relates to the debate on the mechanism by which we are to elect a new Speaker. The second protects debate on private business—not private Member's business—and relates to the Kent County Council and Medway Council Bills.
  The two parts of the motion are worded differently. The first does not name the length of the debate, but merely states that proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion by 4 pm. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said, if we have a business statement, a private notice question and another ministerial statement, we might have only one or one and a half hours in which to debate a matter that is critically important for the House—how it is to elect its next Speaker.
  We do not know when those proceedings may be brought into effect—it might be in the next Parliament or the following Parliament. Nevertheless, these are critical and important matters for the House. To have them timetabled for only one and a half hours seems highly unsatisfactory. I wonder whether I can wring this concession from the Parliamentary Secretary: that we will not have any ministerial statements on that day. If he cannot give us an answer now, perhaps the business managers will consider it before 22 March. It is not within the Parliamentary Secretary's gift to control private notice questions, because those are in the gift of the Speaker, who will perhaps have heard what I have said.
  It is wholly unsatisfactory that we should have such a short time in which to debate the first matter when the second part of the motion protects three extra hours of debate, over and above the time that is taken on any preceding votes. Often, timetable motions provide that time for debate should include the votes.
  On the one hand, the Government and the business managers are being very generous to the private Bills, but on the other they are being very parsimonious about the amount of time that they are allowing for debate on this other important matter. The Parliamentary Secretary has

  989
  been nodding. I hope that my proposals will be seriously considered and, on that basis, I need not detain the House any longer.
  1.48 am
  Mr. Tipping: We have had an interesting debate that has focused on time and the timetable, which have been high on the minds of Opposition Members. They are concerned about when the general election will be held. I do not blame them. When one looks at the opinion polls, the phrase, "Lord, make us chaste, but not yet", comes to mind. I hear the Opposition saying. "Lord, give us a general election, but not yet, because we face real difficulties."
  I will not be drawn on those matters.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Tipping: No. I will deal with the hon. Gentleman's question in a minute.
  The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) was described, uncharitably, as being unsighted. Let me make it clear to hon. Members—I am unsighted as to the date of the general election.
  The hon. Member for Beaconsfield was not unsighted about the report of the Procedure Committee. He has clearly read it and knows that the election of a Speaker is an evolutionary matter. I noted his comment that the 1972 election was radically different from the current state of affairs. Hon. Members who have considered the report will realise that things have changed dramatically at various points over time.
  The issue before us is clearly one of time and timetabling. Three substantive points were made. There has been some fair criticism that the motions were not laid before the House. I remind hon. Members of what I said in my opening remarks; the motions will be laid shortly. The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) takes a close interest in when motions are laid, so I shall not make him a commitment that the motions will be laid today, tomorrow or the next day. They will, however, be laid shortly—certainly in good time for Members to consider them and to table amendments.
  Mr. Blunt: The misfortune is that the motions were not available before this debate, because we are trying to make a judgment about the time for their debate. The substantive point is not about the motions, because I am sure that the Minister will put them before the House as soon as he can.
  Mr. Tipping: I shall do so. There are motions in existence, but they need a little more polishing and refining. As the hon. Gentleman said, this is not a take-it-or-leave-it matter—there will le choices. As I said earlier, the only issue that divided the Committee was open and closed voting. An amendment will be tabled to enable the House to make a choice on that matter.
  990
  That brings me to the central point. Hon. Members have noted the great variation of view on this matter. Certainly, there is some variation, but what struck me when I read the Committee's report was the degree of consensus that had emerged—it voted on only one matter. One of the Committee's members is in the Chamber—my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill).
  The Committee has provided a firm framework within which the House can discuss the matter. The motions that we table will mirror as closely as possible the recommendations of the Procedure Committee. I make that point directly to address those hon. Members who challenged me on the matter.
  In fairness to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, he is right to note that the time for debate will be limited. We heeded the advice of the Committee on that matter—especially the fact that its Chairman had asked for an early debate to be held on the election of a Speaker. Hon. Members referred to the various demands on the time of the House, so I am pleased that we have had the opportunity to arrange an early debate on the matter.
  It is conceivable that the time for the debate could be restricted—hon. Members have said that it could be only an hour and a half. I got the point made by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), although I did not understand some of his points—I think that some of his colleagues had difficulty in understanding them. He asked me to try to ensure that the time was not eroded by statements and private notice questions. Of course, private notice questions are a matter not for me but for the Chair. However, I heard what the hon. Gentleman said and we will do our best to protect the time available. That is not an absolute guarantee: we will do our best.
  That desire to protect the time—
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is as mellifluous as ever.
  Mr. Tipping: Emollient, I think—[Interruption.] Give me some more—I am on a roll. However, with a Whip and a former Whip sitting on the Treasury Bench beside me, I had better make some progress.
  The Procedure Committee has given us a good basis to work from. It has provided a consensus. Every effort will be made to lay the motions as quickly as possible. They will mirror as closely as possible the Committee's report.
  I have heard the plea of the hon. Members for Cotswold and for Beaconsfield that we try not further to erode the time available. I simply remind the House that, back in 1972, this debate was concluded in an hour and five minutes. Although we have not had the opportunity to discuss the substance of the report tonight, we have already spent a longer time examining these issues.
  Question put:—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Division deferred till Wednesday 14 March, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].

  High Hedges Bill [Money]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  1.55 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Robert Ainsworth): I beg to move,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the High Hedges Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the Act; and

  (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided by virtue of any other Act.

  The Government support the private Member's Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor). It brings relief to thousands of people in England and Wales who feel that their quality of life is blighted simply because they cannot persuade their neighbours to cut their hedges to a reasonable height.
  The Bill gives people the opportunity to refer disputes to their local authority, which will consider whether the hedge is causing a serious problem. Local authorities are given powers in appropriate cases to require the owners of hedges to cut them to a reasonable height and to ensure that they do so. It also provides rights of appeal to the Secretary of State against the decisions of local authorities.
  The main costs of the Bill will fall on local authorities. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions estimates that it will cost it some £2 million to deal with the backlog of about 10,000 existing cases spread over a period of three years. Thereafter, we expect the case load to drop considerably. Those costs will be met, in part at least, by fees paid by the complainants. Transfer of resources to the revenue support grant settlement will cover any shortfall.
  The Secretary of State intends to delegate his appeal functions entirely to the planning inspectorate, assuming that 20 per cent. of cases go to appeal—in other words, 2,000 cases over the initial three years. That could amount to a cost of £2.1 million. Demand is then expected to fall when the backlog has been cleared.
  I hope that the House will support the motion.
  1.57 am
  Mr. Christopher Chope: The Government seem to have money to throw around on this matter, so why did the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions today tell one of my constituents, a business man who has appealed against his business rates levy, that his appeal could not be heard until February 2003? I imagine that the reason is that the Government are saying that they have not the resources to allocate to business rates appeals. I am talking about people
  992
  who are engaged in business, trying to make money despite all the difficulties and regulation that are imposed on them by the Government.
  The Minister comes to the House tonight and says that the Government have £4 million available. Why are they choosing to spend it on high hedges rather than on enabling business men to get a timely resolution of their rating appeals? The Minister knows that, pending an appeal, the full rates demanded must be paid, despite the fact that the gentleman in question might win his appeal in two years' time. The Government say that they have this spare money to spend on high hedges. Why cannot they spend more money on speeding up the rating appeal process?
  The Minister underestimates the number of cases that will arise under the Bill, if it ever reaches the statute book. An enormous number of people have complained about their neighbours' high hedges. Under the wide definition used in the Bill, any two conifers, not deciduous trees, planted close together amount to high hedge and could result in a complaint being made and the local authority being involved, and so on. I should be interested to know why the Minister thinks that that will result in only about 10,000 cases, given that our constituency postbags suggest that a very much larger number might be involved.
  2 am
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that there is no a real problem, but that flies in the face of half the comments that he has made and the fact that Conservative Front Benchers support the measure. A very real problem exists for many people, but there is no proper way forward for them. The courts are not adequate to deal with the size of the issue that they face, and the measure could provide a solution to that problem. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman can say, on the one hand, that we are throwing money around—effectively wasting it—and, on the other, that we have massively underestimated the problem, which could be much bigger than he thinks.
  There was a consultation process, to which not only members of the public, but a large proportion of local authorities responded. A national organisation has been working on the problem for some time, so some reasonably serious estimates of the size of the problem exist, and our estimates were changed as a result of the consultation.
  The hon. Gentleman raises an issue affecting an individual constituent. He cannot expect to deal with it at this time of night, his having given me no warning of it, so I do not intend to do so.
  Question put and agreed to.

  SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [31 January.]
  That, following the Order [20th November 2000], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session—[Mrs. McGuire.]
  Question put and agreed to.

  Delegated Legislation
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [28 February.]
  2.2 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I beg to move,
  That the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Straw relating to the Electoral Commission shall be treated as if they related to instruments subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) in respect of which notice has been given that the instruments be approved.
  Under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, we are required to set the remuneration of the electoral commissioners. The motion will do that.
  Question put and agreed to.

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

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
    That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 75) (HC 228), which was laid before this House on 8th February, be approved.
    That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 76) (HC 233), which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees and Delegated Legislation),

    TRANSPORT
    That the draft British Waterways Board (Limit for Borrowing) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees and Delegated Legislation),

    EDUCATION
    That the draft School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (Amendment of Schedule 18) (England) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 26th February, be approved.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standings Committees),
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

    ANIMAL BY-PRODUCTS
    That this House takes note of European Union Documents Nos. 12648/00, a draft Council Regulation laying down the health
    994
    rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption, and 12646/00, a draft Council Directive amending Council Directives 90/425/EEC and 92/118/EEC as regards health requirements for animal by-products; and supports the Government's objective of achieving a revised Regulation to protect animal and public health whilst ensuring that controls are proportionate to the risk they are designed to address.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I think the Ayes have it.
    Hon. Members: No.
    Division deferred till Wednesday 14 March, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].

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

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

  Miners' Compensation (South Wales)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
  2.4 am
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister for calling him to the House at this very late hour, but the circumstances were well beyond my control and that of other Labour Members.
  I am grateful to Mr. Speaker and the authorities here for allowing me the opportunity of an Adjournment debate on the levy imposed on miners' compensation settlements by the south Wales area of the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers—NACODS. When the High Court found in favour of the miners in its historic decision of January 1998, I was delighted for the hundreds of thousands of former miners across Britain. I represent a coal mining area, so I am fully aware of the lung disease and ill health of former miners and I was delighted by the immediate acceptance of Government responsibility by our then Minister for Energy and Industry, who is now the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle).
  The legal action had been brought by the south Wales area of NACODs and, over the succeeding weeks and months, I had every regard for Bleddyn Hancock, its general secretary, for his work and achievements despite his active support for Plaid Cymru, the Welsh nationalist party.
  On 24 September 1999, a constituent, Mr. Tommy Williams of Glanamman, came to see my in my surgery. Now aged 70, he is a former miner and has been an active member of NACODs since 1958. He told me that, along with about 200 other members of the south Wales area, in the early 1990s, he had volunteered £800 to finance the legal action and to be screened to be one of the eventual test cases. Now that the legal action is over and costs have been reimbursed, he wants his £800 refunded as was originally promised.
  Mr. Williams had attended a recent branch meeting about his own compensation claim and was asked to sign a form to pay a levy for his eventual settlement. The declaration concerned NACODS acting on his behalf in all matters involving the claim and the agreement concluded:
  "I further agree to contribute 5 per cent. as a paid up member and 10 per cent. as a non-paid up member of any settlement figure that I may receive to NACODS to assist with the costs of settling my claim."
  Mr. Williams refused to sign and felt that the union was wrong in imposing the levy. The legal action was over, and there was no new major cost in processing his claim.
  Mr. Williams was also bitterly critical of Mr. Bleddyn Hancock. I had not met Mr. Williams previously, but he is a member of the Labour party and deeply resented Mr. Hancock's incessant attacks on the Labour Government, accusing them at every juncture of bad faith in processing the miners' claims. I raised these matters with NACODS nationally in a letter to Peter McNestry and I was very surprised to learn that the south Wales area had ceded from the national union in June 1998.
  996
  NACODS nationally had no levy, but charged £50 administrative costs for successful claims in industrial injury actions.
  I then took up Mr. Williams's case with Mr. Bleddyn Hancock. After three or four robust exchanges of correspondence, there was no progress. Mr. Hancock vigorously defended his union's right to impose a levy on every individual that it helped, despite the fact that it was a class action involving thousands of claimants.
  In a conversation on 13 January 2000, Mr. Williams quoted a settlement just agreed for a fellow NACODS member. The award was for £150,000 less a clawback of £5,000, giving £145,000. The levy of 5 per cent. would then give the union £7,250.
  On 29 March 2000, I wrote to the certification office for trade unions and employer associations, asking it to investigate the above matters and for copies of recent annual reports for the NACODS south Wales area. In those reports, the membership from 1994 to the present is listed as 45, 45, 45, 854, 45, 40 in 1999 and about 30 today. I was staggered to find that the south Wales area of NACODS is such a tiny trade union. Mr. Bleddyn Hancock is regularly described as a south Wales miners' leader, as if he were the equivalent of Dai Francis or Will Paynter. The army that he represents is a mere shell of a trade union, with just 30 working members. The anomalous figure of 854 members for 1997 may represent retired miners.
  Over the next six months, the certification office conducted a detailed informal investigation under the powers of section 37A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, as amended. As a result of its investigation, the £800 initially paid by Mr. Williams was reimbursed last May. On the more general question of the NACODS levy, the certification officer, Mr. Whybrew, took a fairly dispassionate view and decided not to appoint inspectors for a formal investigation. In his last letter to me, dated 19 October 2000, he said:
  "In passing I note the Association accepts that members seeking compensation need not make use of the union services to claim that compensation. I understand that where members, including lapsed members, are unwilling to give an undertaking to pay the levy, they are free to seek such support from elsewhere or to process the claim themselves."
  Sadly, that is the position of my constituent, Mr. Williams. On 16 May 2000, Mr. Hancock wrote to him, restating the arguments for the levy and inviting him to leave the association. After 40 years as a loyal and active member of NACODS, that is Mr. Williams's decision.
  I turn now to a 25-minute television programme, "Dragon's Eye", shown on BBC 2 Wales on Thursday 8 February this year. I had discussions with one of the presenters, Mr. Guto Thomas, during preparation of the programme. It contained considerable new material on NACODS south Wales area and the role of Mr. Bleddyn Hancock. I have the programme on video and I have carefully studied a transcript. Most of the time is taken up with a searching interview with Mr. Hancock by the presenter, Mr. David Williams.
  As regards the levy, the point is put repeatedly that all the legal costs are being reimbursed by the Government, so why should members have to pay a 5 or 10 per cent. levy from their settlements? Mr. Hancock concedes that

  997
  the union could raise millions of pounds from the levy, argues that it has always been union policy and says that the money will be used to finance future legal actions.
  The programme contained material, which was new to me, on the South Wales Occupational Health Project, a limited company set up by Mr. Hancock and others which involved the recruitment of thousands of miners from Yorkshire, Lancashire and south Wales for legal claims against the Government. A voluntary contribution of 7 per cent. of compensation settlements was involved, although Mr. Hancock says that the contributions were never collected, as the case was won before they were required.
  The programme concluded with a lengthy cross-examination of Mr. Hancock's personal terms of employment and how decisions on his salary were reached. A study of the annual reports for 1998 and 1999 show that the general secretary's salary in 1997 was £12,158; in 1998, it was £26,950; and in 1999, it was £47,612. It doubled in 1998, increased by 80 per cent. in 1999 and increased fourfold over two years. That is for a part-time job, three days a week. I should add that Mr. Hancock receives £8,500 a year for one day a week as trustee of the miners' pension funds. In addition, form AR 21 on page 17 of the 1999 annual report gives a car allowance of £18,000. The programme also revealed an exceptional figure of a £70,000 salary for the general secretary in 1995. Those are highly eccentric salary changes, and the exchanges on those matters raised more questions than they answered.
  Following transmission of the programme, the South Wales Argus, a vocal supporter of Mr. Hancock throughout the years, published an editorial on 9 February headed "End the levy, Mr. Hancock". It said:
  "Unfortunately, we have to disagree with Mr. Hancock about the levy. We feel it is now unreasonable.
  Its original purpose was to finance the court battle—a cause bravely fought and rightly won.
  But since the government has picked up the legal bill for NACODS' High Court victory we feel it is no longer justified for the union to be taking a slice of the compensation cake."
  It concluded:
  "his union is still doing something that even his national president Sean O'Neill has described as an irregular practice adding that their function was to win compensation, not make money out of it."
  I want the Department of Trade and Industry to consider the matters carefully and the Minister to ask the certification officer to appoint inspectors to conduct an investigation under powers in section 37(1)(b) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
  Let me summarise my concerns. First, is it right that NACODS south Wales area charges a 5 or 10 per cent. levy on compensation settlements when NACODS nationally and the National Union of Mineworkers have no such levy? I understand that a levy may be reasonable at an individual level if there is an accident or injury at work, but this is a class action involving 100,000 claimants. The union is not involved in further litigation; it is merely helping solicitors to process individual claims, the costs of which are fully reimbursed. The levy is simply being used for a windfall gain. It is immoral to take money from miners' pockets.
  Secondly, how were decisions reached on the 5 and 10 per cent. levy? Mr. Hancock claims that the levy has always been union policy, but south Wales area NACODS
  998
  only ceded from the national union in June 1998. Why did the south Wales area split from the national union? The 5 or 10 per cent. formula was introduced for individual personal injury claims. There should have been fresh discussions on its application to something as uniquely large as the chest disease settlement.
  I understand that only working members have a vote; retired members have no vote. Is it right that a small handful of people—just 30 working members—impose the 5 per cent. levy on 1,000 to 2,000 retired members who have no vote? Lapsed members also have no vote, but are asked to contribute 10 per cent. of their settlements. Should not the old maxim "no taxation without representation" apply?
  Thirdly, what is the role of solicitors in the administration of the levy? At my surgery on 24 September 1999, my constituent, Mr. Williams, told me that he had received an interim payment of £2,000 from his solicitors, Hugh James and Co of Merthyr Tydfil. Before they made payment, he was required to send a cheque for £100—the 5 per cent. levy—to NACODS. It appears that Hugh James was acting in such a way as to enforce the levy. Is that the company's general practice? If so, it is effectively aiding and abetting the enforcement of the levy. Is that ethical? I thought that a solicitor was meant to act directly on someone's behalf, but it appears that there is an odd arrangement between that firm of solicitors and south Wales area NACODS in the collection of the levy. Is that legal and proper?
  Fourthly, what is the money for? South Wales area NACODS has only 30 working members, but has about 2,000 retired and lapsed members. It is expected that compensation settlements may average £20,000 each. If there is a 5 or 10 per cent. levy, the total income will be a windfall of more than £1 million. Indeed, Mr. Hancock concedes that order of magnitude in the television programme. What is the money for when there are only 30 working members and two members of staff?
  Fifthly, the salary arrangements for the general secretary have given eccentric results. Are there proper accountable procedures? If there is a windfall of revenue due to that tiny trade union, the certification officer must be satisfied that there is proper decision-making apparatus.
  Finally, south Wales area NACODS and Mr. Bleddyn Hancock, its general secretary, have rendered a terrific service to all miners through their High Court action. That action is now behind us. The Government are delivering due and proper compensation to miners and their widows, and reimbursing solicitors and trade unions for all their legal costs. The levy is therefore improper and cannot be justified. As the South Wales Argus said on 9 February, "End the levy, Mr. Hancock".
  2.22 am
  The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mr. Peter Hain): May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams) on securing this debate? He is an excellent Member of Parliament and I hope that he will be rewarded at the next election with re-election with a good vote from his constituents. He has carried the torch of justice for miners and is now shining a bright light on what we both believe is an indefensible irregularity.

  999
  I agree that we should all acknowledge the part that south Wales area National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers played in achieving justice for miners in winning compensation for respiratory disease through the courts. It was a long battle against the previous Conservative Government and British Coal, and south Wales area NACODS deserves credit for spearheading it. The association certainly incurred legal costs in that fight, but they have been and are being met in full by the Government.
  I want to see all the compensation due to miners going to them. The elderly, the seriously ill and the widows should get their money in full. That is their right; justice for all of their suffering demands nothing less. I must make it clear to the House that the Department of Trade and Industry, since we assumed the liabilities of British Coal, has been responsible for meeting all the trial costs not only for respiratory disease litigation, but for vibration white finger as well. The House may not be aware that, to date, the Department has paid out over £14 million in trial costs alone to the six firms of solicitors that brought proceedings against British Coal, one of which was funded by NACODS. That firm alone received a significant proportion of the £14 million paid out in costs. Discussions are continuing with the solicitors and we anticipate making further post-trial costs payments shortly. There should be no significant on-going risk to NACODS of having to meet costs in individual claims. The Department has agreed with the miners' solicitors fixed rates of payments for all successful claims, which are intended to cover all solicitors costs.
  The agreed costs for most successful vibration white finger claims will be in the region of £600 plus VAT and reasonable disbursements, although in some cases the costs are dealt with on the merits of each case. For respiratory disease, the agreed costs per successful claim range from £500 for chronic bronchitis-only claims to more than £2,000 for chronic bronchitis and emphysema claims that have gone through the full medical assessment procedure.
  The level of costs will also depend on the complexity of the case. For example, where the disputes procedures have been invoked or where complex special damages are being claimed, extra solicitors fees have been agreed. A full breakdown of the costs paid to solicitors is available in the handling agreements for both diseases, copies of which are in the Library.
  So far, £31.8 million has been paid to solicitors handling these claims. The total bill could be in excess of £250 million. Nobody has suggested that solicitors are short-changed. No one has complained to me about the level of the fees. We have also agreed to pay costs towards the care and maintenance of all claims that were registered before June 1999, regardless of whether they are ultimately successful. In addition, the Department is meeting all the costs of the medical assessment process, including spirometry testing, records collection and the respiratory specialists' time.
  We have made it clear that we do not intend to recover any of these costs where the claimant is unsuccessful. Recovery of such costs by defendants is usual in personal injury litigation. The risks to the costs of solicitors and other legal representatives in handling claims under the
  1000
  claims handling agreements is therefore low, and covers only the administrative work that they need to complete for claims that are ultimately unsuccessful.
  I know that claims handlers will charge a success fee—a fixed percentage of the total compensation—much as NACODS does, for handling claims. The Department has been keen to ensure that claimants know that they can pursue their case through a solicitor without such a success fee being taken from them. Solicitors are not able to do that, as the cases are still proceedings before the court. Claimants should not have to pay success fees to anybody.
  I firmly believe that the compensation paid by the Department should go to the claimants, without any third party taking a slice of the compensation. Of course, if claimants want to give some of their compensation as a donation to their union in recognition of the support that they have received in pursuing their claim, that is up to them.
  The south Wales region of NACODS needs to examine its conscience if it is taking what could be substantial sums intended as compensation for the suffering miners. I understand that no other British region of NACODS takes such a slice of the compensation. The south Wales National Union of Mineworkers certainly does not, and I pay tribute to its general secretary, Wayne Thomas, for the work that he has done in securing justice for retired miners and their widows.
  As my hon. Friend mentioned, the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 provides powers for the certification officer to investigate the financial affairs of unions. However, the certification officer is an independent statutory authority and it would be wrong for the Government to interfere in his handling of individual cases. I cannot therefore write to the certification officer on this matter.
  However, if any claimant wishes to make a complaint about a union financial matter, the certification officer is required to consider whether to appoint an inspector. I would therefore encourage any claimants who are experiencing difficulties to contact their solicitor or, if they do not wish to do so, their local citizens advice bureau in the first instance.
  I have spent the past six weeks questioning and re-examining previous decisions and proposals, and I was delighted on 2 March when the Prime Minister announced in Swansea that we were extending fast-track and interim offers to more than 6,000 claimants. That will mean that £30 million of compensation for widows and asthma victims will be brought forward and offered quickly. That is, of course, on top of the 33,000 payments already made, totalling more than £125 million. In fact, we have now paid out more than £360 million in vibration white finger compensation throughout Britain. In Wales, £60 million has been paid. Those figures are significantly greater than the recent coal subsidy and the regeneration money paid by the previous Conservative Government at the time of the 1992 pit closures. Some £1 million is already being paid out each day on those two major schemes, but it does not stop there. I am continuing to explore ways in which we can extend interim payments even further.
  Progress is being made, but it is not good enough and not quick enough for those who have suffered the tragic loss of loved ones. In the past two weeks, we have agreed with miners' solicitors on the handling of compensation

  1001
  for pension loss. That was one of the first matters that Bleddyn Hancock of south Wales NACODS raised with me, and £400 million in funding is available for that purpose. That is the last piece in the jigsaw, which means that full and final offers of compensation will be made in the next few months.
  Of course, compensation can never be released quickly enough when people are suffering as many miners are. We need to bear in mind the fact that, with fresh claims coming all the time, there could be significantly more than 150,000 claims to settle. About l,000 claims a week are still being received. We will continue to seek every means we can of reducing further delays, but that will require the co-operation of all parties. For my part, I shall ensure that the elderly and most injured are seen first. We are also prioritising widows who are claiming on behalf of their late husbands.
  On vibration white finger, progress continues to be good. To date, we have settled nearly 21,500 claims and made a further 25,350 interim payments. In total, we have paid more than £235 million in compensation on vibration white finger. In Carmarthenshire, almost £2 million has been paid to 500 people. That is increasing week by week. I am delighted that claimants will see further progress in the next few months. They have a right to expect it.
  As my hon. Friend rightly said, it is the Labour Government who are delivering, while others—I refer especially to Plaid Cymru—try to exploit the suffering of miners' families, widows and communities. We are delivering the programme and we expect all parties, including Plaid Cymru, to co-operate, to provide constructive criticism where it is appropriate and to make positive suggestions, which will be taken on board, as they have been previously. What matters is justice to miners and their families, widows and communities,
  1002
  which is why the Government have made available more than £2 billion to fund justice for miners who have suffered long years of ill health.
  I have seen the need for such help. My constituent, Mr. Ken Herdman of Seven Sisters in the Dulais valley, Neath, is trapped at home. He is stuck in his front room, his bathroom, his living room and where he sleeps. He cannot go outside for walks like the rest of us. When he walks the few yards from his front room to his bathroom—something that we would do without even thinking about it—he has to stop to catch his breath. After he has returned from the bathroom, he takes up to half an hour to recover. All the time, his wife cares for him and is hovering in the background. It is to such long-suffering miners that the Government owe a debt. We are repaying that debt and will continue to do so.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: My hon. Friend vividly described a miner in Seven Sisters in his constituency. In the light of that description, does he agree that it is unjust that the miners' own trade union is clawing back 5 per cent. of the compensation settlement as a levy? We have heard Mr. Hancock say a lot about clawback and how wrong it is that it applies to some individuals. However, with regard to the union, all individuals are required to pay 5 per cent. of their settlement as a sort of compulsory clawback.
  Mr. Hain: I regard that as unjust. The justice and full compensation should go to the people concerned, such as those whom my hon. Friend represents so ably in his constituency.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Three o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Coram Foundation
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
9.30 am
Mr. Howard Flight: I thank the Speaker for granting this Adjournment debate. The intervention of the Attorney-General in Coram's affairs has presented major problems for Coram and the many other charities that have been endowed with works of art. The issues are cross-party, and I will be as brief as I can, as I understand that the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) also wish to speak in support of Coram.
I am a great admirer of the excellent child care work that Coram undertakes and a common-sense supporter of the Charity Commission and the solution that it worked out with Coram for the proper care and maintenance of Coram's unique collection of 18th-century pictures, which have been given to the foundation by trustees and supporters. If I may, I will first address the historic background and then the legal issues and arguments that the matter has raised.
Coram was established in the early 18th century as the Foundling hospital. It has discharged its charitable objects, which are directed towards children, with great success, particularly in recent years. That was illustrated by the Prime Minister's launch of the national surestart initiative at Coram in 1998 and the launch of the adoption White Paper there last December. Coram has also had substantial collaboration with the Departments of Health and Education and Employment and the Home Office in recent years.
The child care work, which covers 15 London boroughs in total, is still conducted from the original Holborn site. Every day, Coram works with more than 1,000 children and young people in the care system and some 600 families with young children. It runs 29 projects in six main areas: adoption of children with complex needs; specialist fostering contact services for children who have been separated from their parents; services for young people leaving care; family support; parenting education; and multi-agency services providing a one-stop shop for local families. In short, Coram is widely acknowledged as one of the most successful and effective child care charities.
In the 18th century, when both Hogarth and Handel were trustees, they and other beneficiaries gave the foundation paintings and other works of art for the benefit and education of the children and to attract interest in the charity and donations from people who visited those art treasures. The most important pictures are by Hogarth, but the collection includes works by Hayman, Copley, Gainsborough, Ramsay, Reynolds, Wilson and many others, and sculptures by Rysbrack
172WH
and Roubiliac. The value of that unique collection of 150 pictures held at Coram's premises in Brunswick square is at least £17 million. However, Coram is unable to preserve the collection adequately and cannot open it to the public for security reasons.
Eight years ago, the governors of Coram began considering the feasible options open to them with regard to the disposition of the collection, in compliance with the foundation's charitable objects, the wishes of the original donors to the collection and common sense. The options included selling the collection intact to a major museum or gallery, selling it intact in situ—the collection is housed in the original 18th-century courtroom, which was reconstructed within the 1930s building in Brunswick square—selling the collection piecemeal, maintaining the status quo or following the scheme advised by the Charity Commission.
In August 1998, on legal advice and after much work by Coram and the Charity Commission, the commission issued an order under section 26 of the Charities Act 1993, under which Coram established a separate new charity, the Foundling museum, with the dual objects of supporting Coram's work and looking after the collection. The central aspect of the section 26 order and the scheme is that the collection should be managed by the Foundling museum trust for a period of 25 years, which is long enough for national heritage memorial funding and short enough for the Charity Commission to accept the arrangements as lawful.
The agreement was conditional on the new Foundling museum obtaining a grant of £2 million from the heritage lottery fund and the museum raising another £3 million. The offer of a grant from the heritage lottery fund was received, but the funding has been superseded by a heritage memorial fund grant of £3 million. The new charity has already raised £2 million, and a further £1 million is close to being raised. A fundamental condition of the scheme is that the Foundling museum is there to procure donors to Coram who will purchase pictures in the collection. Coram will therefore receive substantial on-going funding from realising the collection, which should be easier to do as it will be open to the public. It will also achieve the object of keeping the collection together and in situ. The Charity Commission has not asked Coram for any further information to satisfy it that the scheme is appropriate and lawful.
On 7 March this year, Coram received a further opinion from the Attorney-General, rejecting Coram's response to the particulars of claim and putting pressure on it to sell the unique collection of pictures. Clearly, that has considerable implications not only for Coram, but for many other charities in analogous situations. Given the self-evident larger picture, the recent opinion that was sent by Treasury solicitors, which focused, surprisingly, on minutiae, was not up to the main issue. The Coram scheme has the support not only of the Charity Commission, but of the national heritage memorial fund and many leading individuals in the heritage sector. The essence of the Attorney-General's legal objection appears to be the requirement of national heritage memorial funding that the pictures be lent to the Foundling museum for 25 years and the assumption that Coram could not therefore realise those assets for 25 years if it needed the funds for its child care objects.

173WH
First, I think that there has been a misunderstanding of the scheme, whereby Coram would expect to realise most of the collection at best prices in a far shorter period and will in the meantime obtain an annual rent at the equivalent of market value on its building. Secondly, the Charity Commission was satisfied on the issue and that the scheme was lawful. A charity may invest its assets in any authorised investment and may also take action that incidentally confers benefit on another purpose that falls outside its strict objects. Surely the Attorney-General is out of order in, effectively, directing the governors to sell the collection now. The trustees have the factors before them. The Attorney-General's recent opinion appears not to realise that £2.25 million worth of the collection is fixtures in the building at Brunswick square that cannot be sold apart from the building. Coram's enforced retention of that part of the collection if it sold the rest as directed by the Attorney-General would mean the expense and administration costs of maintaining those assets.
The suggestion of a hasty sale seems to indicate that the Attorney-General has not considered the matter in the context of a charity that has existed for 300 years and will continue to last for ever. The opinion pays no regard to the fact that the collection was originally given specifically for the decoration of the Foundling hospital premises and to help to raise funds for the charity as well as for the children's benefit. I ask whether the Attorney-General would therefore take the view that other charities with objects such as education that have been endowed with valuable works of art over the years that are not applied directly in achieving their objectives should likewise sell their collections.
The issue arose when one of the 25 governors disagreed with the scheme and raised it with someone known to him in the Attorney-General's office. Is that individual—the acting master of Jesus college, Cambridge—now proposing that. given the recent funding cuts to Oxbridge colleges, that college should sell its art treasures forthwith to apply the proceeds to funding higher education?
The common ground for all parties is that the valuable collection of paintings should be realised, in whole or in part, for the benefit of children, which is the charity's objective. It is not legally, morally or practically right for the Attorney-General in an authoritarian fashion to substitute for the trustees' views his view of the best way to achieve that. They formed their views following deliberations over many years and using leading legal advice and a scheme worked out for them by the Charity Commission. What is the point of having the Charity Commission, which is supposed to work out such schemes, if Attorney-Generals can reinvent law on a whim and overturn its initiatives?
The trustees have concluded that the scheme continues to offer the best solution to all the various concerns. It will get the best possible prices for the collection and the individual pieces in it, and enable Coram to continue to use the collection to attract support and to raise money as the original donors intended. Even if the collection were sold, it would obtain for the charity a return that could be calculated
174WH
in financial terms while the arrangements were being set up. There is no established legal reason why Coram should not be allowed to do that.
The latest counsel's opinion received from the Attorney-General focuses on legal niceties and detail, but in some matters it gets that detail wrong. For example, the grant made by the national heritage memorial fund was from the heritage memorial, not the heritage lottery, fund and takes the form of an endowment. Only income from the endowment can be used to make up the shortfall of running costs, and the endowment would he returned if, at any time, the collection were withdrawn from the museum.
The counsel's opinion has lost the perspective of the big picture and failed to address the real issues. The Attorney-General seems to have chosen to make a case study from Coram for the overturning of established precedents, in this case of a scheme drawn up and approved by the Charity Commission. The particular wickedness is that Coram has already incurred substantial expenditure—some £100,000 of legal expenses that should have gone to child care—and that the Attorney-General has consistently declined even to meet Coram to work out a sensible solution. It is surprising that he has disregarded his Prime Minister's public support of the charity and the consistent support of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport for the scheme.
The Attorney-General has a moral duty to co-operate with Coram to find a positive solution. He should be a solver, not a cause, of a major and unjustified problem for Coram and, potentially, for other similar charities. If the Attorney-General's authoritarian direction stands, it will, among other things, seriously threaten the gifting of works of art to charities with the intent of their retention. By the stroke of a pen, Government could instruct a charity to dispose of such assets to use their cash value for other objectives. Many charities are in analogous situations. I ask the Attorney-General and his officers to reconsider their stand and to sit down with Coram to work out a positive solution to what is a complex problem, but one for which the Charity Commission has proposed a solution, as was its brief.
9.44 am
Mr. Frank Dobson: I will attempt not to repeat too many of the excellent points that were made by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight).
Coram Family, formerly the Thomas Coram Foundation, is possibly the oldest children's charity in Britain that does not run a school. However, I emphasise that it does not live in the past. It has always tried not just to keep up with the times, but to lead the way in developing new methods of helping impoverished children and young people, particularly those growing up without the help of one or both parents. Today, the charity has around 130 professional staff and more than 100 foster carers and volunteers. It works with more than 1,000 children and young people in our care system and with around 600 deprived families in the locality. It runs 29 special projects, including one that deals with the adoption of children with complex needs, specialist fostering services and contact services for children separated from their

175WH
parents. One scheme especially dear to my heart is that for children leaving care, who have been neglected for far too long. Generally, the charity provides family support and education.
For decades, the foundation pioneered improved ways of helping children, which have been adopted nationwide. It has been a continuing source of innovation. Never in its history has that been more true than in the past few years: with the assistance of Government grants from the Department of Health, the Home Office and the Lord. Chancellor's Department, it has funded new developments, including the adoption concurrent planning project, which has the support of the judiciary and the legal professions, the early excellence centre, a special project for black young men in care and a pilot project for helping teenage parents cope.
Coram Family is not an old-fashioned, establishment charity that is more concerned with paintings than children, resting on its laurels and musing on its past days of glory. It is up to date and leads the way in its field, which is no doubt why, as the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs said, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment chose it as the location for the national launch of the surestart initiative, why the Prime Minister recently launched the adoption White Paper there and why, even more recently, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment launched the national children's fund there. It has perhaps partly been chosen as a venue because the shadow Cabinet held several successful meetings in the courtroom at 40 Brunswick square in the months running up to the previous general election. It is a way of putting funds into the pockets of Corams Fields while providing excellent premises.
The headquarters of Coram Family are located in King's Cross in my constituency. Like the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), I am proud to be a patron of Coram Family, although, like him, I am not one of its governors. I chair the separate charity, the Corams Fields and Harmsworth Memorial Playground, which is responsible for providing play facilities for local children on an adjacent seven-acre site. Both organisations take the name "Coram" from Captain Thomas Coram, the pioneer of child welfare who in 1739 established the Foundling hospital, the buildings and grounds of which covered the sites today occupied by Coram Family and Corams Fields.
It is partly because of that long-standing history that the debate is taking place today. From the outset, the Foundling hospital attracted the support of artists and musicians, none more famous than Hogarth and Handel. The collection of British art that grew up as a result included Hogarth's portrait of Thomas Coram, two of his other paintings and works by Gainsborough, Ramsay and Reynolds. The collection also comprised memorabilia relating to the generations of children who, for more than 200 years, had found shelter under the roof of the Foundling hospital. An organ and musical score were given to the hospital by Handel, who is said to have conducted the first London performance of "The Messiah" in its chapel.
After the Foundling hospital was demolished in the 1920s, the collection was moved to 40 Brunswick square, a building specially built to house the collection
176WH
and to provide headquarters offices for the charity, which then became the Thomas Coram Foundation. The courtroom from the 18th-century Foundling hospital building was transferred to 40 Brunswick square piece by piece, including the plasterwork, murals, fireplace and doorways. The future of the collection and buildings with its intimate links with Coram Family—I cannot overemphasise the intimacy of those links—is now at stake. The governors of the foundation have found it increasingly difficult in recent years to ensure that the collection is looked after properly without imposing too much expense, in terms of both money and management time, on the funds of the charity, which must rightly and by law be devoted to the care of children.
Recently, the headquarters offices were moved out of 40 Brunswick square to a more suitable building nearby. The governors intended to take that opportunity to improve the care, display and security of the collection at 40 Brunswick square and to use the lower ground floor as an education centre for children, with particular emphasis on art and music. The governors considered a number of alternative ways of discharging their duty to devote the assets of the charity to the needs of child care, while at the same time keeping together the valuable collection with its close relationship with Coram Family. In 1998, they formulated a proposal for a separate trust, to be called the Foundling museum, to which Coram Family would lend the collection for 25 years. The proposal was to house it in Brunswick square, but better and more securely than in recent years. That would keep the collection together on its present site in King's Cross, where some of the items have now been located for more than 250 years.
During the 25 years, the Foundling museum and its premises would be used to help to raise funds for the children's charity. The governors hoped to realise the value of the collection, estimated at around £7 million, by selling individual items, subject to the condition that they remained at 40 Brunswick square. The capital thus released would be devoted to the child care objectives of the foundation. Acting in good faith, and, rightly, wishing to comply with both the letter and spirit of charity law, the governors sought the agreement of the Charity Commissioners to the proposal for a separate subsidiary Foundling museum trust. That they obtained, subject to a deadline of March 2000 for completing the necessary fundraising. They set about raising from outside sources the £6 million needed for the project.
To date, the governors have been pledged £5 million, including a £3 million grant from the national heritage memorial fund. In early 2000, they sought the Charity Commissioners' agreement to extend the fundraising deadline from March 2000 to April 2001. That appeal commanded the support of every governor except one—Peter Glazebrook, a law professor. He objected to the Attorney-General. Then, as I understand it, without seeking any information from Coram Family on behalf of the rest of the governors, the Law Officers wrote to tell Coram Family that the museum project fell outside its charitable objects and was therefore unlawful.
I do not know whether it is customary for the Law Officers to give an opinion in that way without first hearing both sides of the story. Such a procedure might be not only acceptable, but necessary in cases involving

177WH
serious criminality such as fraud or misappropriation of funds, but it seems unfair, unreasonable and completely over the top in relation to the public actions of a long-established and reputable charity, acting in good faith and with the prior knowledge and consent of the Charity Commissioners. Such practice by the Law Officers may be hallowed by time, but that does not make it right. Sadly, subsequent dealings between Coram Family's lawyers and the Law Officers' lawyers have been adversarial—a development to the advantage of none, other than those receiving legal fees.
When I was told of that unexpected, unwelcome and expensive development, I wrote to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and made no pretence of possessing any knowledge of charity law: I have none. I am prepared to concede that the governors' proposal may be wrong in law: I simply do not know. The procedures may be wrong in law, but again I do not know. What I do know is that it must be possible for sensible people of good will on both sides of the argument to resolve a shared problem by working together. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will accept that that is the basic point that I have made to him repeatedly—by letter, telephone and face to face.
I was surprised and disappointed when my hon. and learned Friend indicated earlier this month that, should the foundation apply to the Charity Commissioners for an order to proceed further with the proposal, he would—I use the technical expression—"invite" the Charity Commissioners not to decide themselves, but to tell the governors to go to court. I shall spell out the possible evil consequences of such a court action in a moment. However, if instead of taking the current proposal back to the Charity Commissioners, Coram Family were to approach my hon. and learned Friend, spelling out the dilemma that it was trying to resolve and seeking his collaboration, would he be willing to help? Would he authorise his lawyers to get together with Coram Family's lawyers to work out a solution that met both the needs of their practical problems and his legitimate need to be satisfied with the lawfulness of what is proposed?
Throughout my dealings with him, my hon. and learned Friend has emphasised that it is not a political matter, but a matter of law, and that it is his duty as a Law Officer to ensure that the legal requirements are met. He is right to take that duty seriously, but an open-minded effort to establish common ground with the foundation could meet all his requirements. Surely a conciliatory rather than an adversarial approach is more likely to clear up the problem more quickly and less expensively.
I can do no better than pray in aid the support of the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine. He made his views clear in his keynote address to the millennium conference of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. He reiterated the point already made in the White Paper "Modernising Justice" that effective solutions proportionate to the issues at stake were required. He added:
"While these proportionate solutions may include going to court, for most people most of the time litigation should be the method of dispute resolution of last resort."
I share that view.
178WH
If the Lord Chancellor's wise words are not taken seriously, I shall fear for the child care work of Coram Family and for the historic collection. Adversarial attitudes and court actions cannot benefit the children who are supposed to benefit from the charity; they will benefit only those receiving the legal fees. It will be a bonanza for lawyers and a bonanza for art dealers may follow. I freely admit that neither of those comes high on my list of deserving causes.
I fear a bonanza for art dealers because the starting point for Professor Glazebrook and for the Law Officers appears to be that the best and only possible lawful solution would be for Coram Family to sell the collection now on the open market. That cannot be right, even from the standpoint of the fiduciary duty of the governors. It would not automatically raise more money than the disposal procedure contemplated by the governors. Lawful disposal of the listed courtroom would be difficult in practice and separate disposal of all the courtroom paintings would be impossible, as the paintings of other hospitals Oil the roundels on the wall are an integral part of the plasterwork. An enforced sale could result in reduced prices being secured by the charity; to sell the collection now could lose money.
That is not my main reason for objecting to the sale. I believe that it is right and proper to keep this unique and valuable collection of British art together and on display at 40 Brunswick square. if the advisers to the Law Officers say that that is unlawful, they must answer the fundamental question, "Since when has it become unlawful?" Was it unlawful for the Foundling hospital to keep Hogarth's paintings when they could have been auctioned when the paint was scarcely dry? Was it unlawful in the 1930s to build, at the charity's expense, 40 Brunswick square to house the collection? If it was not unlawful then, since when did it become unlawful and why?
Surely, it cannot have become unlawful just because Professor Glazebrook took it into his head to write to the Law Officers. Such a doctrine would surely have wider application. Are all charities, other than art charities, which hold valuable paintings and spend money on their preservation and security, held to be acting unlawfully? Does that doctrine apply to schools, colleges, universities and—perish the thought—even the Inns of Court? Surely the Law Officers do not mean to apply the doctrine to every charity, and if it does not apply to every charity, why does it apply to Coram Family? It would be a scandal if Coram Family were forced to spend precious funds on legal advice, jousts with the Law Officers and court actions. It would be an even bigger scandal if Coram Family's valuable and irreplaceable collection of British art were broken up and disposed of. How could this generation of decision makers justify such a thing in this time of unparalleled prosperity? No previous generation, even in times of war and upheaval, recession or slump contemplated forcing the Thomas Coram Foundation to sell its portrait of Captain Coram, which was painted by Hogarth, who presented it to the foundation. We should not consider it now.
I understand and accept that we are discussing a matter of law, not of politics. To break up and to sell the Coram collection would be an act not of political but of legalistic vandalism, and I cannot believe that the Law Officers would seriously contemplate such a thing. At

179WH
present, the governors are maintaining the collection inadequately and at the expense of the charity, which benefits neither the collection nor the children whom the charity exists to serve. The governors are seeking a way of benefiting the children, while ensuring that the collection is displayed to best advantage and made more accessible to the public. If the Solicitor-General believes that what is proposed will not achieve those ends within the law, I urge him, having listened to the debate, to meet representatives of Coram Family for the first time, so that all concerned can work together to come up with a scheme that will. It cannot be beyond the wit of the finest lawyers in the land to devise a lawful scheme that benefits the children and retains the family collection. Nothing less will do.
10.3 am
Sir Nicholas Lyell: I, too, am glad to take part in the debate. That it is not a party political matter was admirably shown by the excellent speeches, which I endorse, of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight). They put the finger firmly on the problem that we must try to solve today.
It is plain that a crisis has developed in the affairs of this ancient and marvellous charity, and it is important that it be thoroughly considered and resolved in public. It is not a party political matter, but in the wider sense it affects the governing of this country. It involves the Charity Commissioners, about whom I have no criticism, and the Law Officers in their role as protectors of charity advising the sovereign as parens patriae—the parent of the country, one of Her Majesty's roles.
I am glad that the Solicitor-General is to respond to the debate. Having heard such strong feelings expressed about the foundation and having been properly appraised of the breadth of the matter, I hope that he will, in collaboration with the Attorney-General and the Charity Commissioners, steer it towards a satisfactory outcome, which meets the needs of Coram Family, Britain's most ancient and one of the most deeply respected child care charities. The charity has possessed from its earliest days—271) years ago—some of the most important heritage assets of English art and music. I support the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. I am confident that there is a way ahead that can square the circle, if only the good will and close attention of all those involved can be brought to bear on the matter.
I do not apologise for going over the history of the charity because it sets the scene. The Foundling hospital was set up by royal charter in 1739 after 17 years of tireless and selfless work by Captain Thomas Coram, a retired sea captain and shipbuilder. He must have been one of the most remarkable personalities to arise from humble origins in the 18th century. He almost ranks alongside Wesley. It was the age of Hogarth and Daniel Defoe. Given the poverty of a rapidly growing London in those days, prospects for thousands of illegitimate children were terrible and usually ended in an early death.
For years, the taint of illegitimacy and the alleged fear of encouraging prostitution frustrated Thomas Coram's efforts. Eventually, following the French example of
180WH
Les Dames de la Charite, Thomas Coram, having failed with the husbands, turned to their wives. They joined him to give the lead and the impetus. By 1739, the original royal charter contained on its lengthy roll at 40 Brunswick square the names of hundreds of supporters from the great and the good of the day. At the end of that list were the names of Thomas Coram himself, and the painter William Hogarth, who was to become one of the most significant painters in British art and the architect of the original Foundling hospital.
Moved by compassion and what Edmund Burke described as enlightened self-interest, Hogarth had the brilliant idea that, when the new Foundling hospital opened on 1 October 1745, British artists should give paintings to decorate the hospital and make it Britain's first public art gallery. Among those who contributed, apart from Hogarth, were the famous sculptor, John Michael Rysbrack, Thomas Gainsborough, Joshua Reynolds, Benjamin West and Richard Wilson. Many of those artists were governors of the hospital. They dined together in the courtroom once a year on St. Luke's day. It was at those dinners that the discussions took place that led to the eventual formation of the Royal Academy of Arts.
Hogarth was childless. He took an active part in the running of the Foundling hospital. Handel, who was also childless, provided the organ for the chapel. He gave an annual fundraising concert that regularly raised £1,000 for the charity. He wrote the Foundling hospital anthem, which was performed every Sunday. The great chapel of the Foundling hospital became one of the most fashionable places to worship on a Sunday. After the service, members of the congregation would visit the hospital, see the pictures and the foundlings, and donate money to the charity. The future of what Thomas Coram called his "darling project" was thereby assured.
I pay tribute to Sarah Richards for providing me with much of the historical background that I have outlined. She is the secretary to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) who, with the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, is a patron of the charity.
Over the next two and a half centuries, the charity changed and adapted. Originally, it cared for 600 foundlings from infancy until their teens, when they left for the world of work, often in the armed forces or in service. By the beginning of this century, the need for such residential care had diminished and the charity's objectives were altered to provide advice, guidance and help in the care and upbringing of children in their early years. As the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said, the charity has always moved with the times and is frequently ahead of the times.
In the 1920s, the great old Foundling hospital was pulled down. In its place were built the charity's current premises at 40 Brunswick square and, later, the adjoining premises at 49 Mecklenburgh square, where its principal child care work is today carried out. The Foundling hospital was magnificent but otherwise austere and impractical. When it was pulled down, everything in its central governing rooms, including the courtroom, was carefully removed. The articles that were removed, which included original fixtures, were transferred and built into the new premises at 40

181WH
Brunswick square, where they remain today. The right hon. Gentleman rightly asked whether that was illegal. I do not believe that it was.
The charity continued to develop. It does magnificent work. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that, in the past few years, the charity and its director, Gillian Pugh, have been one of the main sources of inspiration and guidance in the development of the Government's child care policies, including their surestart programme. That is absolutely as it should be. Those of us in opposition should do as we did when we were in opposition before and get alongside charities in the voluntary sector. We should think ahead as we prepare for our return to government in order to get the right policies for the future, just as Labour Members did when they were in opposition. That is how our country is governed. I pay tribute to any charity that plays such a role, whichever party it is helping. The charity has been visited by a succession of senior and middle-ranking Ministers, from the Prime Minister downwards.
It is one of life's sad ironies that the wonderful collection of paintings, sculptures and other works of art, including Handel's original organ and other such Handeliana left to the charity by the composer, should have now become an object of dispute and disagreement. The dispute needs a fresh eye and good will, energy and imagination must be brought to bear. A lawful and constructive solution must be found. Above all, the problem, the charity and the future of this great collection must not be allowed to sink in a morass of pettifogging legalism that wastes charity funds on legal costs, which is what threatens to happen. It is to that noble end that the charity's 25 governors have been bending their minds and efforts for 10 years. Tragically, they have become bogged down in a legal dispute that I am convinced is capable of sensible solution, but which, without help, threatens to engulf the charity.
I was personally alerted to the problem less than four months ago and I have been doing my best behind the scenes, as has the right hon. Gentleman, to encourage a sensible solution. I salute him and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who made his views extremely plain to the Law Officers as long ago as 10 December 2000.
The charity's assets consist of its buildings, works of art and some £14 million-worth of financial investments. The works of art are insured for £29 million and are considered to have a value in the open market of between approximately £14 million—roughly the same amount as the financial investments—and £20 million. However, they are in serious need of preservation and conservation. The charity has always, rightly, concentrated its funds on child care work rather than heritage matters and it wishes to continue to do so. The expenditure on conservation over the past 100 years has been kept to a minimum of approximately £45,000 per year, which includes the funding of much of the operation of 40 Brunswick square itself. That building is now in deep need of refurbishment and the pictures need significant attention.
The charity's governors include the wife of a senior chancery division judge, as well as a Lord Justice of Appeal, Sir Mathew Thorpe. Having originally taken legal advice from Mr. Edward Nugee QC, a most
182WH
distinguished charity silk, the charity recognised that it could not expend significant moneys on its heritage as the matter was outside its objects and changing those objects would be inappropriate. The governors therefore devised a thoroughly sensible plan to set up a separate charity that would be known as the Foundling museum. That charity would raise money from the public and from public bodies, including money from the heritage lottery fund and the heritage memorial fund. The works of art would be not alienated but transferred on temporary loan to that charity, which would take responsibility for housing and conserving them.
The key point, which those advising the Law Officers have not adequately taken on board, is that, with the governors, the charity would try to find a benevolent purchaser or purchasers, who would buy the works of art at their full monetary value—thus releasing that monetary value for child care uses—but, as an act of heritage charity, redonate them to the Foundling museum, where they would remain close to the charity to which the artists gave them and, unlike now, would be available for the public to see daily. They would also be available for one of the uses for which the artists originally intended them—as a continuing aid for fundraising for the charity and, if appropriate, for the education of, among others, the children for whom it cares.
I am glad to say that that objective had the constructive support of the Charity Commissioners in exercising their new and enhanced function under the Charities Act 1993, which I piloted through the House when I was Attorney-General. I believe that the Charity Commissioners were right then and continue to be right to try to achieve that end. To cite a passage from section 26 of that Act that is much quoted by counsel advising the Law Officers, it is
"expedient in the interests of charity"
to take that approach.
Unfortunately, as we know, the matter has given rise to controversy, which no doubt started in the utmost good faith but is now getting out of hand. A technical question has arisen because of a dispute over the length of time for which the works of art should be loaned to the new charity—the 25-year loan—and the precise terms involved. It is also the result of the mistaken scepticism of one governor, Dr. Peter Glazebrook, acting master of Jesus college, Cambridge, and was encouraged, in good faith but mistakenly, by an over-narrow approach, which may have been based on inadequate instructions, by those including counsel entrusted by the Law Officers with handling the matter.
I do not want to demonise Dr. Glazebrook. All the governors are trying to do their best according to what they consider right, but he is only one of 25 distinguished people. The charity has taken careful legal advice and I am worried by the excessive weight placed on Dr. Glazebrook's views.
Mr. Anthony Steen: Is it right that Dr. Glazebrook used to run a children's charity, an adoption service at Cambridge, which experienced

183WH
financial difficulties when he was chairman? Exactly the same thing is now happening to the Coram charity, of which he is a governor.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has a deep knowledge of the matter and will, I hope, catch your eye, Dr. Clark. I do not want to speak for too long, but I understand that that is true. It would be a great pity if Coram Family, having picked up what I believe is called Anglia Adoption and helped it out of financial difficulties, should thereby be mistakenly steered into financial difficulties of its own.
Dr. Glazebrook referred the matter to the Attorney-General and the Charity Commissioners have been frightened off. Having been told by the Attorney-General's legal advisers that what they were planning to support was unlawful, they felt unable to remake the order under section 26 of the 1993 Act, which they had previously made, but which had expired with the passing of time, as it was intended to apply only for a limited period. The efforts of the charity to get alongside the Attorney-General and his officials and counsel in meetings formal and informal have so far been frustrated. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras rightly emphasised that point. However, I am not sure how far either the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General has been personally involved in detailed meetings on the matter. I hope that the Solicitor-General will be able to tell us about that. I want to encourage, not to criticise him. I look to him to solve the problem.
In November 2000, the charity and Farrer and Company, its new solicitors, received a 37-page document, described as the third draft of particulars of claim in the name of the Attorney-General as claimant, purporting to claim that the governors' entire plan was unlawful. It is a long, highly tendentious and one-sided document, clearly based on detailed notes and instructions from Dr. Glazebrook—I can think of no other possible source. The delivery of it in draft was no doubt made with good intentions to follow the guidance of Lord Woolf, who is now the Lord Chief Justice, in the reforms of civil proceedings that bear his name. However, I doubt whether that is what Lord Woolf had in mind.
The charity, through its solicitors, has had to prepare a detailed point-by-point response that rightly puts the picture in a different light. It has thereby incurred to date some £100,000 worth of legal costs, with the prospect of far more. Those of us who have expressed our concerns and felt it right to raise the matter in the House are disappointed that the meeting between the Solicitor-General and the Charity Commissioners to discuss the subject constructively has been postponed. We understood that it was to take place soon.
The charity has now received a further opinion from counsel, of which I have been sent a copy. I am sorry to say that those advising the Law Officers still fail to see the matter properly in the round. In a number of key places, the document either mis-states or shows that they fail to understand the governors' true intentions. They do not appreciate the governors' genuine intention to facilitate the sale of those objects in the circumstances that I have described.
The document seems to set out to rubbish the governors' methodology, suggesting erroneously that they might have had it in mind to go ahead without a
184WH
section 26 order. They certainly did not intend to do that. It ends by suggesting—it does not specifically state this—that the only available course, if maximum return is to be obtained for the charity, is to sell the pictures on the open market, even though the collection will thereby be dispersed. Thus the opportunity will be lost for ever to continue to benefit the charity by encouraging fundraising in the way in which Hogarth and others intended.
What should the charity do? Should it spend more money on legal costs? Unsurprisingly, the governors are frightened of that, faced with the unlimited financial might of Government, by whom key points are simply overlooked.
The key points that I ask the Attorney-General to take into account are as follows. For many years, the governors have sought a solution that would raise the full value of the collection for the child care charity, while keeping it together. They have sought, too, to maintain the close links between Coram Family and the museum, albeit through the Foundling museum, the new charity. The Charity Commissioners—provided that they are not frightened off by the AttorneyGeneral—have assisted the governors in finding a lessee for 40 Brunswick square, which is in desperate need of refurbishment. The lessee is prepared to refurbish that building at a cost of £2.5 million and a saving of £60,000 per annum on the maintenance of the collection. In addition, the national heritage memorial fund has offered an endowment of £3 million to run the museum. The pictures are to be loaned or leased to the museum for 25 years, but there is no intention for them to remain there. The clear intention—it has been expressed time and again to those acting for the Law Officers but it does not appear to have been accepted—is to find a charitable buyer of the pictures at a much earlier date, so that the full value of the collection can be released for child care purposes. Those suggestions, put together, must constitute the ideal solution.
Clearly, there is a risk that a charitable 'purchaser will not come forward and that the lease might therefore last the full 25 years. However, counsel seems to be simply writing off the attempt as speculative. That is too narrow a view. It is founded on the notion that a charity that owns substantial artistic assets that could be sold to provide funds for its charitable work and the preservation of which is not a direct part of its objectives, is under a direct obligation to sell them. That is a false notion. If it were correct, it would rightly cause an outcry.
Nor would outright sale be free from difficulty. As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs said, 40 Brunswick square is a listed building. Its fixtures are worth £2.5 million of the charity's heritage assets. They cannot be removed. As a result, the purposes for which the building can be used are severely restricted; for example, to strip it out and convert it to office use is not an option.
The pictures were donated by great artists to benefit the charity and the children in its care by enabling it to raise money. The charity has held the assets for 270 years. Its governors have proposed an imaginative scheme that attempts to implement that noble aim in 21st-century terms. It should be given a chance to work.

185WH
The Solicitor-General's suggestion that the charity should not be allowed to proceed without an application to the court freezes the blood, particularly if the attitude towards its sensible scheme continues to be as destructive as is suggested, sadly, by the legal documents to which I have referred. The cost of such protracted legal process could be horrifying. It has been hinted that the Attorney-General might be prepared to enter into an alternative dispute resolution. Even if that were pursued along strictly legal avenues, the costs would be likely to be little less alarming.
The right action would be to put the litigious approach on hold. Even if the full 25 years passed without a sale, little would be lost in terms of the charity's 270-year history. It is worth remembering that the last time that the charity was reconstructed, 56 acres of north London were sold, which, with hindsight, was a mistake. Judgment must be exercised in such matters, and the right people to exercise it are not the Law Officers but the governors, provided they are properly advised and act in accordance with law.
The Solicitor-General seems to be proposing to force the matter into court. That would be wrong. The scheme could, no doubt, be improved. It might be possible to shorten the overall time limit without some of the benefactors falling out. There is always room for compromise on details in such matters, but when an ultimate objective is noble, it is the duty of the protector of charity to facilitate rather than to impede. I look to the Law Officers to bend their energies to do so.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr. Michael Clark (in the Chair): Order. The two hon. Members who are winding up the debate must be given the maximum time as the matter is complex. Only 12 minutes remain and three hon. Members wish to speak. I hope that they will bear it in mind that all hon. Members want to have enough time to get their points across.
Mr. Edward Garter: I trust that I shall not speak for long, although, when lawyers or politicians say that, they should usually be disbelieved. I shall fit my remarks into the time available.
Dr. Michael Clark (in the Chair): I shall try to call the hon. Gentleman to speak at 10.40 am. If he is brief, the Solicitor-General will have longer to wind up the debate on this complex matter.
10.28 am
Mr. Tim Boswell: I wish simply to associate myself with the arguments that have been advanced. That will allow my colleagues more time to participate.
I knew nothing about the matter until, by chance, my wife and I had an opportunity to view the collection last Thursday, as a result of a private invitation. I have not been nobbled by the trustees. I told their chairman that the cause was so good that I wanted to help and that I would attend this debate.
186WH
The situation cannot continue as it is. That, at least, is agreed by the Attorney-General and the Law Officers. The matter must be resolved. The dangers of the present situation are that, if prolonged litigation occurs, we will reach the 21st-century version of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce and dissipate the assets.
At the same time, there is potential for the collection to be damaged while everything is being sorted out, without means, opportunity or funds that can be drawn down for conservation. None of that would benefit Coram Family, the children's charity that is the trust's main objective. I emphasise that both conservative and heritage activities and child-based activities have legitimate charitable purposes.
I tell the Attorney-General that we must find a solution, either by agreement or adjudication. I could suggest a third route of, if necessary, introducing legislation to facilitate the matter, although that would not be without cost and difficulty. The Attorney-General and Solicitor-General may know that the last time that affairs of the Foundling hospital attracted legislation was 1953. when the matter of birth certificates of foundlings was resolved. If we had to introduce such legislation, we would. Of course, we cannot ask Law Officers to whitewash the law or to remove its interpretation. We do not seek special favours from them.
My hon. Friends have made clear points about the law and, as a non-lawyer, I defer to them. However, I have experience of charity law and we all know that there are difficult cases. Once, as a trustee, I owned an alabaster altar, of which I had to dispose. At the time, I thanked God that I had neither the context nor setting to justify keeping it. It was duly disposed of, although it probably did not meet a good fate.
Such issues are difficult and we beg only for a constructive attitude that seeks to find a solution rather than to frustrate. As the newest boy on the block, that is all that I wish to say, albeit strongly, as the collection deserves a positive solution rather than an eon of legal wrangling.
10.32 am
Mr. Peter Brooke: I shall not rehearse all the arguments that have been admirably and magisterially deployed by my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), who was formerly Attorney-General, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). I genuinely call him my right hon. Friend. I amicably share a constituency boundary with him and a patronage of the charity. The latter link derives not only from the changes and chances of personal and parliamentary friendship, but from my recent trusteeship of the Handel House Trust, which is in my constituency. We Handelians stand together.
I declare my interest as a patron of the charity that we are discussing. I also declare an interest as president of the British Antique Dealers Association and the British Art Market Federation. Although that is not necessarily relevant, one must be careful in such politically correct times.
I request that the Solicitor-General address the wider and consequential implications of this matter for museums, educational charities and other trusts, either

187WH
in today's response or publicly following the debate. We all know about the controversial issues of inalienability of assets that are bequeathed to the National Trust, which is sometimes placed in the crunch of a separate public affairs crux. Dramas surround museums that choose to rid their cellars of works that are seldom shown, although they cannot be certain whether such works will reacquire relevance.
I am an old boy, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), of a school that heaped coals upon itself by selling Gainsborough's largest portrait, which was bequeathed to it while I was at the school. By chance, the school's old boys included directors of two national portrait galleries. In Coram's case, artists and musicians gave their genius and the products of that genius to the foundation but what of an Oxbridge college, or similar institution, which has always commissioned outstanding portrait painters to paint its masters or most famous alumni?
I still bear the scars of the row that arose when I was Secretary of State for National Heritage, as the post was called then, and Royal Holloway college sold abroad three great pictures derived from the larger collection of its founder, which still hung in the college, ironically just for the purpose of supporting the college's educational aims. Would that today's case were but a cloud no bigger than a man's hand. We are dealing instead with a potential typhoon, whose happy definition in the Royal Navy's handbook begins with the words:
"The first evidence of an approaching typhoon is a general sense on the part of the captain that all is not well."
The spirit of Captain Thomas Coram would concur with that definition.
10.35 am
Mr. Edward Garnier: I will endeavour to be as brief as I can because I feel sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) and the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) want to hear from the organ, rather than the organ grinder.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on initiating the debate. It has been an interesting and somewhat esoteric debate on charity law and, in particular, on how it affects the future of the old, but still active and valuable charity, the Coram Foundation. As a result of the Attorney-General's intervention, the charity has had to spend around £100,000 in legal costs. That is doubtless good for the lawyers, but whether it is good for the future of the charity is a matter of some dispute. Among the many interesting points made by my hon. Friend, I was struck by the fact, which was emphasised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), that at no stage has the Attorney-General or any of his representatives met directly with the charity. My hon. Friend was entirely right when he said that they must meet to work out a solution.
The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras candidly said that he had no knowledge of charity law, but asked that the Attorney-General invest a little common sense into the dispute. I have a confession to make to the right hon. Gentleman. have no knowledge of charity law either, but I recognise common sense, especially when it wears a beard and grabs me warmly
188WH
around the throat. The Solicitor-General should pay particular attention to what has been said by the two patrons of the charity present in the Chamber this morning. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, as the constituency MP, knows the work of the charity not only in his constituency, but outside it at first hand, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) speaks as a former Secretary of State for National Heritage. There is a huge reservoir of knowledge here, both legal and personal, which the Solicitor-General would benefit from listening to. I have no doubt that he will do so.
I also am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire, the former Attorney-General and the longest serving Law Officer, for his speech. He gave us a brief history of the charity. The more one learns of the past and current work of the charity, the more one wonders whether the Attorney-General's intervention will prove useful. He described a situation that ran the risk of sinking into a morass of pettifogging legalism and a massive waste of charity funds on legal costs. Those were all strong and well made points, reinforced by the brief speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). It was only due to his self-restraint that we did not hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) who has a personal interest in the matter.
I have been shown a letter from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to the Solicitor-General dated 12 December 2000 in which he complains of the emotive language used by the Law Officers' advisers in their approach to the matter. Apparently, he says that selling the collection is not a satisfactory answer to the problem and a practical way forward must be found.
Has the Solicitor-General or the Attorney-General met the Secretary of State to discuss the matter? Have they or their senior representatives met either of the two patrons who are in the Room or any of the governors or their legal advisers—in person; I do not mean exchanging pleadings—to talk through the problem? It cannot be beyond the wit of the Attorney-General and Coram to reach agreement on the facts, the foundation's intentions and how best to exploit—I use that word in the neutral sense—the art collection for the benefit of the foundation's aims. It is time that the Law Officers came out of their entrenched position and condescended to discuss, at first hand and at close quarters, the issues that our interesting debate has revealed.
The implications of the Attorney-General's attitude are that the collection should be sold and dispersed. They go beyond that, however, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster made clear. As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs said, the problem has wider consequences for the charitable world as a whole, especially those charities that own valuable art collections or other chattels.
Traditionally, the Attorney-General does all he can to save and to preserve great collections. I fear that in this instance—I do not want to descend into discussing the merits of the case—unwittingly or not, he is losing sight of the real purpose of the charity and the best aims and interests of its beneficiaries.

189WH
The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras mentioned the remarks of the Lord Chancellor about the need for proportionality in legal disputes. That chimes well with the aims of the Woolf reforms of civil procedure. As I have said, until I am bored of saying it, although some cases will need a sharp injection of adversarial justice, that is not always the case. I am new to the issue, but it is an example of a case in which an adversarial approach is not best calculated to assist the progress of the foundation and its aims.
As a general rule, Law Officers do not publish advice to the Government or to others, but, in this case, at the very least, the Solicitor-General should tell us why he and the Attorney-General hold their present legal opinion. The Law Officers should use the opportunity provided by the debate to act as facilitators of a mutually satisfactory and economically sensible solution, not promoters of another Jarndyce case.
I know from family experience what happens when cases get stuck in chancery; my family had a case that began shortly after the second world war and was completed only when I was called to the Bar in 1976. It killed off two chancery judges and went to the House of Lords twice. As far as I can tell, no one much benefited from it—certainly not I.
Let us move out of the chancery fog described in the opening paragraphs of "Bleak House" to somewhere more beneficial, where the atmosphere of discussion is more conducive to the provision of a sensible solution, and hear from a Law Officer whose legal expertise is greatly respected in academia and in Government. Let us see whether he can persuade us that the attitude of the Law Officers is now more constructive than it has been.
10.44 am
The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): There is no question but that the charity does valuable work. It is known in this country and abroad for its innovative work. It might help hon. Members to understand the concerns that I have and that other hon. Members and hon. Friends have properly raised if I begin with two preliminary points.
The first relates to the role of the Attorney-General in charity matters. As the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) said. that role, which is carried out on behalf of the Crown, is as a protector of charities—I undertake it on the Attorney-General's behalf. He represents the public interest in ensuring that charities are properly administered. A charitable trust has no beneficiaries in the sense that a private trust does, and the Attorney-General therefore represents the beneficial interest.
It is important to note that that role as protector of charities is carried out independently of the Attorney-General's role as a Minister. It is one of the many cases in which Law Officers do not act as members of the Government, but represent the public interest. The Lord Chief Justice recently emphasised what he regarded as the important constitutional position of the Law Officers. Our position in relation to charity matters, individual criminal cases and other matters falls within that category. It is fundamental to the integrity of that
190WH
position that we discharge those public interest functions in accordance with the law, irrespective of political advantage. expediency or personal popularity.
The second preliminary point is on the role of the Charity Commission, a role which, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire said, is set out in the Charities Act 1993. I do not answer for the actions of the Charity Commissioners and I do not superintend them in the performance of their functions. Indeed, part of the Attorney-General's role can be to review decisions taken by the Charity Commissioners.
Having made those background points, I turn to the history of the Attorney-General's involvement in the matter. In April 2000, Dr. Peter Glazebrook—whom, I should point out to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), I do not know personally—a member of the court of governors and of the general committee of the Thomas Coram Foundation, wrote to the Attorney-General. Dr. Glazebrook expressed concern about the legality of the proposal that the Coram Foundation should loan to the new charity of the Foundling museum, gratuitously and for a period of 25 years, its picture collection and premises in Brunswick square.
In response to the intervention of the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), I say that I believe that Dr. Glazebrook acted with absolute propriety in carrying out his function of trustee of the charity. Dr. Glazebrook was concerned that the proposed transaction fell outside the objects of the charity, a defect that he considered could not be remedied by an order under section 26 of the Charities Act 1993.
As the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire said, that section gives the Charity Commissioners the power to authorise dealing with charity property where it is in the interests of the charity to do so, whether or not that would otherwise be within the powers exercisable by the charity trustees. However, section 26(5) of the Act provides that the Charity Commissioners can make no order under that section that would extend or alter the purposes of the charity. As has been said, the Charity Commissioners reached the view that an order under section 26 would be appropriate. The charity entered into heads of agreement that were purportedly approved by the Charity Commissioners in August 1998.
On receipt of Dr. Glazebrook's letter, I considered the matter with standing counsel to the Attorney-General on charity matters and with legal advisers in the Government Legal Service. I reached the conclusion that, on the basis of the material available at that time, the proposal fell out side the objects of Coram and that the Charity Commissioners did not have the power under section 26 to authorise the proposal. On my instructions, the Treasury solicitors department raised my concerns with the solicitors acting for Coram in July 2000.
In my view, the objection to the proposed scheme can be simply put: if the scheme goes ahead, for 25 years, the Coram Foundation will be diverting some £13 million to £18 million of assets—I do not know the exact value—from child care to arts and heritages purposes. I emphasise that those latter purposes are worthwhile. Right hon. and hon. Members have set out the charity's history and drawn attention to the importance of those

191WH
works of art. However, arts and heritage are not the purposes for which those assets should be applied. The objects of Coram are, broadly, the support and maintenance of poor children—objects that stem from the royal charter in 1739, as amended by subsequent legislation, most recently the Foundling Hospital Act 1936.
Acting on behalf of the Attorney-General as protector of charity, it is my duty to ensure that charities act in accordance with their objects. The position in respect of the collection would be different if there were evidence that the individual paintings were held on special trusts, or subject to a requirement that they be retained unsold. I have seen no such evidence. Indeed, Edward Nugee, QC advised the Coram Foundation in 1997 that the pictures were not held on special trusts.
In those circumstances, Coram holds the collection in the same way as any other charity holds any asset. That is what distinguishes the collection from pictures which may be held on special trusts by, for example, colleges and Inns of Court. I therefore see no read-across from Coram to other charities that hold art collections on special trusts. In those cases, the works of art hold a clear functional value for the charity—evident in the educational value for colleges and Inns of Court. It is also possible for charities to keep works of art as an investment. As I said, there is no necessary read-across from other cases to this one, an issue that was raised by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke).
I should add that the governors of Coram were not unaware of the legal problems when they were developing the proposals. Indeed, in 1997, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, a charity law expert, made it clear that the proposed scheme was outside the charity's purposes. In 1997, a small panel of representatives of the governors interviewed several solicitors with a view to their possible retainer. At interview, Lord Phillips informed the panel that it simply could not do what it proposed by way of setting up the museum and laming the collection to it. He later reiterated that point forcefully in writing. Let me quote a passage from his letter:
"The fundamental issue is whether or not the way in which the pictures have been dealt with is within the purposes of the Foundation, and whether or not the way in which you intend to deal with them is within the purposes. I have seen and heard nothing to believe that this is the case."
He went on to emphasise that point. I should mention that his firm was not retained to do the work.
I am aware that some of the governors of the foundation regard the art collection as fundamental to its aims. I have seen comments from governors to the effect that, without the collection, Coram would be just another child care charity and would never move out of the second division. Such views tend to suggest that the proposed scheme was not aimed primarily at advancing the objects of Coram, but was calculated to further the ulterior purpose—I use "ulterior purpose" in the legal sense—of advancing heritage or museum objects.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: Before the h on. and learned Gentleman concludes, will he address the fact that the governors made it perfectly clear that their aim in lending the pictures and undertaking proper conservation work was to facilitate a sale, so that money
192WH
could be raised and used for child care purposes, none the less retaining the link? Why is that not expedient for the interests of the charity?
Mr. Cranston: It might be. I will discuss the way forward at the end of my remarks.
Hon. Members raised the point—it relates in part to the intervention—that we are putting pressure on the charity to sell the collection. That is not the case. In fact, Coram has accepted that it will sell the collection to the museum. It is not as though we are pushing Coram in a direction in which it has not already decided to go. I believe that I, and those acting on my behalf, have acted constructively throughout the discussions. We drew up the draft particulars of claim, setting out our concerns in considerable detail. Those particulars were sent to the Charity Commission and to the solicitors then acting for Coram. I hoped that, by setting out our stall and asking Coram to come back with proposals, we would be able to move the matter forward.
It was our understanding that Farrer and Company. who has now been instructed on behalf of Coram, was to come forward with new proposals after reconsidering the matter from first principles. Indeed, Coram has come forward with further material since the start of the year. In the light of the seriousness of the matter and in view of the strong representations made by right hon. and hon. Members, I decided to seek further advice. I received a joint opinion from Peter Crampin, QC and William Henderson last week. In the spirit of cooperation, I have made that opinion available to Farrer and Company, and I am arranging to place a copy in the Library, in response to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier).
Mr. Dobson: Will my hon. and learned Friend seek an opinion from learned counsel about a lawful way forward that would meet the requirements of the charity?
Mr. Cranston: There are three possible ways to move forward. The first, that the objects of the charity might be changed, was raised by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). That would be a long-term project, but it is a possibility.
The second way forward is for the matter to be considered by a court. That is undesirable but, given the stand-off, it might be the only way forward. I have set out my reasoning, but I might be wrong. If I am wrong, costs will be ordered against the Attorney-General. I would not wish to appeal if the court held against me.
The third way forward is for Coram to do more fundamental thinking about what it should do. One possibility—it is only a possibility; it has been raised this morning—is a sale on a deferred payment basis. The original 1997 scheme proposed a sale to the museum over three years. We have said that we could live with a three or perhaps five-year period, so a deferred payment scheme to the museum over that length of time might be acceptable.
I have every sympathy with the concerns that have been expressed during the debate. I do not want to be inflexible or awkward, but I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that I have specific obligations to the

193WH
charity that I cannot ignore. To do so would mean compromising the integrity of the role of the Law Officers. If—
Dr. Michael Clark (in the Chair): Order. I am sorry, Minister, but we have come to the end of the debate. If you have been unable to say all that you wanted, perhaps you would like to write to the hon. Members present. We now move to the next debate.

Community Radio
11 am
Mr. Ian Stewart: I am pleased to be able to raise this important issue in this Chamber today. The Government should be congratulated on the recent White Paper, which allows the profile and importance of community media in general and community radio specifically to be raised in the House. Community media include community radio, television and internet networks.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) and for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins) played a central role in establishing the new all-party community media group. I was honoured to be elected its founding chairman. The group was established to support community radio and other forms of community media. It is working closely with the Community Media Association, which set out many relevant issues in its recently published commedia manifesto and groups together community-based radio, television and internet projects from throughout the United Kingdom.
I shall talk mainly about community radio, its relevance nationally and its importance for my constituency of Eccles in the city of Salford. Unfortunately, we hear all too often in this House about elderly citizens and other members of communities who are afraid to go out of their homes after dark and rarely have an opportunity to talk to one another. I want to highlight the fact that that is especially true in areas of high social deprivation. I shall talk about what community radio is; its relevance to people who live in alienating circumstances; the role that it can play in, for example, area regeneration strategies and the development of local democracy; and, most important, how real people in local communities and interest groups can use it as .t tool for social dialogue and much needed fun.
What is community radio? It is community-owned, grass-roots broadcasting. It is not for profit and is derived from the community's needs. It is also about real people from real communities making radio, communicating with one another and gaining all the benefits and skills involved in that interaction. It is clear that existing public service and commercial radio have a community element. I welcome that and believe that it should be maintained. Why, then, do we need community radio?
When I explained the idea behind it to residents of Eccles last weekend, I started by asking them, "What, if anything, does radio say about your place?" The response was gloomy to say the least. They told me that they never heard anything about their constituency, which includes the towns of Eccles, Swinton, Pendlebury, Cadishe ad and Irlam. On the rare occasion that they hear anything about their city, the news is generally about drup, crime and stolen cars, which are problems across the UK.
How can community radio help a place to address its self-image and recreate the social glue that was lost in the destruction of some of the most important informal

195WH
social networks—the workplace and family? Those are big issues but, in my experience, it i:. rare that we get an in-depth dialogue in the mainstream media to enable local people to address those and other important issues in a balanced way. Nor has adequate time been given to develop continuing community involvement in the resolution of such serious issues. In addition, there has clearly not been enough emphasis in the media on the positive developments in our communities. Community radio could help put that social glue back in place and facilitate a dialogue on issues Mat affect people's everyday lives by putting local people on air and addressing local issues, while giving them the opportunity to entertain themselves.
The big commercial radio stations in the large conurbations do not and, in my opinion, cannot adequately address local issues. They might have a news service, but it is mainly sensation-driven and certainly does not cover enough good news. We must applaud the success and quality of our mair stream public and commercial radio stations, but we must also recognise their inherent limitations. We need to give local people the tools to rebalance the local agenda and enable communities to rebuild some self-esteem. Community radio has an important role to play in that process by developing local solidarity and enabling people to realise that their concerns are shared.
Radio Regen is a unique community development charity that uses radio to boost the capacity of disadvantaged communities to help themselves. It works with residents from client areas to give them the skills that they need to establish and run community radio stations. Radio Regen is supported and funded by Manchester city council. The funds come mainly from the European social fund, with additional money from the single regeneration budget and the further education sector. It employs 12 people and has become in its own right a significant small to medium-sized enterprise in the cultural sector. To date, it has helped to develop four fledgling community radio stations in the Manchester area and to train young and not-so-young people to gain a level of confidence in communicating with others that was previously believed to be impossible.
Phil Korbel, a former BBC producer, runs Radio Regen and he says that it is now in the business of helping people to transform themselves. Phil believes that there is no better affordable or accessible interactive medium that enables and encourages personal development. It is clear that community radio has the capacity to be an important medium for such transformation and development To put it another way, involvement in community radio helps to transform people. If people are transformed, communities are transformed, too. That is why community radio needs a higher profile and level of support.
My city, Salford, has a well-established community strategy, which has anticipated the Local Government Act 2000 requirement for decision making to be carried out at the most local level possible. The city has established nine community committees that administer small, devolved budgets. An integral part of the Salford community strategy is the establishment of an exciting scheme for public access to informing, communicating and enabling technologies, through the city's on-line
196WH
portal. Salford aims to deliver the Government's targets for electronic government two years earlier than the national timetable.
The community-enabling philosophy has a clear synergy with the work of Radio Regen. As part of Salford city's community strategy, Radio Regen is about to launch a three-year city-wide project funded under Salford's single regeneration budget 5 programme to engage the city's nine community service areas in community radio. A sensitising approach will be adopted; there will be weekend broadcasting in each area to get the ball rolling. Salford will be ready with a pool of skilled people, which will enable a bid for long community radio licences when they become available.
The programme will involve three or four months of workshop activity on the ground in each area. It will not be institutionalised or institution-based. Regen trainers will work with groups who wish to make programmes on the streets, in the back rooms of pubs and even in the front rooms of people's houses. People who with just a laptop computer and a minidisc recorder will be able to make any programme live and on the spot. The choice of subject for any programme—whether it is tiddlywinks, how to combat heroin addiction on an estate or the celebration of the oldest resident's life story—will be a decision for local people.
The city of Salford's youth consultative committee has recognised that the Radio Regen model lends itself to joined-up work between complementary projects. In Salford, the health action zone, led by Edna Robinson, has established an innovative project to train young people to become mentors for their peers. Those in the Salford health action zone are convinced of the contribution that community radio makes to the wellbeing of a place. That is a health issue; if people feel better about the place in which they live, they will feel better about themselves. That will reflect on their health and impact on their confidence in applying for jobs or accessing services.
Salford health action zone is putting its money into the solution. It has funded some of the development work carried out by Radio Regen, including an enormously successful awareness-raising reception at the House of Commons that was attended by many hon. Members, peers and my hon. Friend the Minister. That reception generated my interest in the establishment of the parliamentary group of which I am the chairman.
In terms of resources, it is vital that the access radio fund in the White Paper does not merely provide seedcorn funding for buying a mixing desk for a station. It must provide sustained funding for the running of a station and its broad activities. The running costs of a station are not great, but there must be sustained resources. Community radio and television should be supported by a substantial community media fund. The fund should draw on new money, and not just money already accessed by community media from current funding sources.
Will the Minister consider allocating the revenue that has accrued to the Treasury from the cash bids and qualifying revenue paid by radio and television licensees? Alternatively, a small proportion of the money that has come to the Treasury from the sale of mobile phone licences could be allocated. Whichever mechanism of funding is used, however, editorial independence must be ensured.

197WH
The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East is normally portrayed in the media as having the largest council estate in Europe, the No. 1 ward in the UK deprivation list and, of course, all the resultant social problems. My hon. Friend was keen to participate in this debate, but, unfortunately, he has urgent business elsewhere in the House. I also know that he wanted to stress his strongly held belief that Wythenshawe FM community radio is helping people to change the place in which they live. In turn, that changes the public's perception of Wythenshawe. I am also aware that my hon. Friend has written to the Minister declaring his support for Wythenshawe FM to be considered as one of the pilot stations for long licence.
Wythenshawe FM is supported by local businesses such as Manchester international airport, Willow Park housing trust and the local Co-op. In its proposals for access radio, the Radio Authority has said that it would endorse support from business in the form of sponsorship. However, the authority suggests that community radio should not be allowed to carry advertisements. That is unduly restrictive. Some people in the world of commercial radio are worried about unfair competition, but I can find no evidence that there would be any adverse impact. In fact, in the past 10 years, more than 2,500 short-term restricted service licences have been issued that allow advertising, while commercial radio revenues have been the fastest-growing advertising medium in the United Kingdom. The all-party group will no doubt wish to consider that issue in the future.
What is the demand for community radio on the ground? We know that, when they get the bug, there is demand from the public. A straw poll found 65 per cent. brand recognition for Radio Moston FM, the first commercial radio station established by Radio Regen. Also, regeneration agencies are crying out for effective communication of their initiatives because they find that they are unable successively to communicate what they are doing to the public. "No one tells us," say the residents. The agencies would welcome the opportunity to explain their work on air.
I would like the Minister to name the first pilots and to make available funding from central Government. She must be politically brave and choose a programme that has a diverse mix of target communities, so that we can examine models for a multi-ethnic community, a large council estate, a hill farming community, a former coalfield community and even one for Northern Ireland, should the communities there so wish.
In determining the pilots, transparent benchmarks should be established that might include track record, both in production and project management. The pilots should also be able to demonstrate an active relationship with a broad range of partners and meet all the criteria in the community media charter drawn up by the Community Media Association.
I hope that, in the not too distant future, we will see the establishment of Eccles Energi FM as part of the city of Salford's project. However, my main interest is in how community radio can help to further individuals' confidence and self-esteem and transform local people into local heroes who change their communities for
198WH
good. My good friend the hon. Member for Manchester, Central has been deeply involved in the work of Radio Regen. I am sure that he will tell us the story of the real local heroes who are a testament to Radio Regen's work and the benefits of community radio.
11.19 am
Sandra Gidley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) and securing the debate. I am a last-minute substitute, because my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), who was supposed to be speaking today, is unable to attend.
I wish to put the issue into context. We must examine digital broadcasting in its broadest sense. The majority of people are still using four to five terrestrial television channels and, to many of them, nothing much seems to have changed. However, it has, because one in five households now have access to digital television. In recent years, the number of channels has multiplied massively and while many households still have the option of only four or five channels, a significant number can choose from hundreds of television channels that fit into many different genres, such as films, documentaries, news, music and children's television, to name but a handful. There are also local television channels on many cable networks.
We are facing an enormous challenge. There is also a big opportunity for the BBC and long-standing commercial broadcasters. They will be in on the game and we must find ways in which to protect the little guys, so that they have a chance to become involved. Digital technology will bring three key benefits. First, the spectrum will be freed up, thus making space for extra channels and services. Secondly, digital signals carry a higher quality of picture and sound than analogue signals, which have been around since the 1930s. Thirdly, as digital signal uses the spectrum more efficiently, it enables the number and range of services to be increased significantly. That holds out the possibility of allowing individuals to receive regional programmes that are specific to their region where that is currently not the case. That is a step in the right direction.
The Government are ambitious for digital television. Between 2006 and 2010, they want to switch off the analogue transmitters, which send signals to non-digital television. However. before that can be done, some goals must be met; 99.4 per cent. of households must be able to receive the digital signal and 95 per cent. of households must haN e signed up to digital, which must be affordable to all. I have been approached by pensioners who are worried about the matter. We broadly support the Government's approach, but we want to ensure that people are not disadvantaged.
Radio is sharing in the revolution. Digital technology offers radio listeners the prospect of the same interference-free reception that digital television viewers are experiencing. The pace of technological change is fast and accelerating. Viewers can now buy machines that suggest programmes to watch based on their favourite television programmes. It would be interesting if that could happen with radio programmes. Research shows that viewers are happy to have programmes suggested to them, although I think that that is a terrible idea.
Television and radio are essential components of modern democracy and a modern civilised society. They are key methods by which we can all be educated,

199WH
entertained and informed. The big plus of community-based radio is that the elderly, the housebound, the unemployed and the sick have a vital link to the outside world. It is also said that the best pictures are available on radio. The broadcasting of quality material adds colour to life.
Mr. Ian Stewart: Does the hon. Lady agree that it is important that the all-party group discusses the area to which she refers—particularly from the point of view of whether analogue should be completely removed—in relation to the potential for pay-per-listen on digital radio?
Sandra Gidley: Yes. We need a framework by which we can encourage television and radio to flourish. We want to facilitate new entrants into the marketplace, cultivate independent production and encourage diversity.
I turn now to how the Liberal Democrat party sees the way forward for community radio. The radio regulator must issue local radio licences according to particular criteria. The first of those is the resources available to the broadcaster to invest in programming, and the second is the extent of demand in the local area for the proposed services. A fine balancing act must be achieved. Demand may be small for output that is highly important to a small, isolated group of people, and the criteria used to decide whether to issue a community-based licence must take into account factors such as social deprivation. Small, isolated groups have the greatest need and will benefit the most from community radio.
Given the continuing scarcity of spectrum, criteria must be applied to judge aspiring radio stations against existing radio stations that want to reapply for a licence. Although we must encourage diversity, we need to protect the airwaves from organisations of questionable public benefit.
To take a slightly different tack, I should like to discuss religious broadcasting. Many church groups would like to listen to output that supports and encourages their faith. As someone who does not belong to a church group, I find it shameful that they are discriminated against, especially as those with a porn empire can happily access any licences that they choose. The position of religious broadcasting should be considered, especially in a local context. Churches often work with people who are disadvantaged or who cannot always get out and about, and such people would benefit greatly from access to such organisations.
A case can be made for a small amount to be set aside from a variety of non-tax sources such as the national lottery to establish a fund for radio which could be used to cover the start-up costs of radio stations or some non-recurrent costs. It was suggested earlier that continuing costs should be included. Setting people on the road is fine, but we must consider the cost of advertising, and advertising funding may not be available. If broadcasting stations were allowed to advertise, they would not need to apply to the public purse to cover continuing costs.
In some cases, a small group of people may be serviced by community-based radio, and the benefits to that small group, which may include handicapped people or members of an ethnic minority, may be far
200WH
outweighed by the ability to attract advertising. Such groups should be encouraged and considered sympathetically.
In some cases, spectrum is available to small geographical areas. The fund for radio would help to establish a service for such an area. In time, it might also be used to start up internet or cable-based services for more geographically dispersed communities. Liberal Democrats want broadcasting in all forms to flourish and to encourage diversity, while retaining the ethos and practice of public service broadcasting that served us so well in the 20th century.
11.28 am
Mr. Tony Lloyd: Although the comments of the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) about community television are important, I shall discuss community radio, simply because we as a society and the Government are considering the issue of such licences on a pilot basis.
I spent a couple of hours at the weekend at a community radio station in my constituency. That gave me the opportunity to communicate with my constituents—not many weeks, perhaps, before a general election. It was tremendously exciting for me as a politician to see the dynamism that my constituents brought to their community, and the way in which their work was received. Nobody knows the listening figures, but the response from phone-ins was encouraging. There is something there, and the service has come into its own.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister, who recently announced on Wythenshawe community radio in Manchester that the Government will go ahead with pilot schemes throughout the country. Part of the debate's purpose is to examine exactly what that means, so that the Minister can place Government thinking on record and show how it will help local communities.
The starting point was some 30 years ago. Sadly, I am old enough to remember pirate stations such as Radio Caroline. Ageing may be unfortunate but it brings experience with it. A driving force behind those pirate radio stations was the utter incompetence of the BBC at that time, and its failure to enthuse the younger generation. The pirate stations represented a serious challenge to the status quo. A consequence was the independent radio revolution. There were lots of arguments at that time, as my colleagues in the Labour party will remember, about whether it was legitimate for independent radio to carry advertising. However, we achieved a fundamental shift in radio broadcasting.
Most of us would have said that those early years were tremendously exciting, as a huge number of radio stations appeared as part of the BBC at local level and in the private independent sector. A sad reality is that, a generation or more on from the days of Radio Caroline, my younger constituents often complain about the irrelevance of radio networks to their needs. They are highly critical of local commercial radio, because it dumbs matters down to a level of blandness and fails to include a lot of potential listeners.
I am not sure that I should tell the following story publicly. However, three or four years ago, I visited a pirate station in Moss Side in my constituency. It was run by a group of young black people who were driven

201WH
by the need to broadcast the type of music to which people wanted to listen. They displayed enormous enthusiasm and achieved high listening figures in that immediate region. The problem was that, by using a pirate station, those people blocked out the signals from elsewhere, which used to be given as a reason why we could not create more stations. That is a legitimate and understandable objection. However, even in that unofficial, illegal community experiment, young people were able to show that mainstream stations had failed to include an existing audience.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) told me yesterday that, having secured this debate, he was inundated with letters from independent radio stations. As parliamentarians, we are used to that. When the time came for renewal of licences, broadcasters would suddenly begin to take Members of Parliament seriously, told us how much they valued our contribution and how much they wanted to involve themselves in the community. That lasted until the new licences were issued, when, once again, we heard little from them, and they returned to their straight-laced ways that result in dumbing down.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles mentioned that radio stations in Greater Manchester have many achievements to their credit. My criticisms will be slightly fairer than others that have been made; the stations attract large audiences and provide a product. However, they are incapable of addressing issues of highly localised communities. An area such as Greater Manchester, which has a population of 2 million to 3 million people, inevitably has a small level of interest in local events. That forces regional and sub-regional broadcasters to import national news from organisations such as Independent Radio News, rather than covering local news. Such regional broadcasters make a small contribution to local debate. They fulfil a role, but cannot claim that they intend to reflect or have reflected the local communities in the area over which they broadcast. We must examine the basis on which we allow broadcasting to occur.
I was introduced to the present demand for community radio by one of my constituents, an inestimable woman named Marie Chapman, who participated in the Radio Moston experiment. My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles referred to local heroes; she may prefer to be called a local heroine. Marie Chapman would say that having access to training on local radio transformed the way in which she viewed herself. She left school with relatively few qualifications, brought up a family and lived in Miles Platting, which is one of the most difficult areas of Manchester. She did not feel that she had a great deal to offer outside the confines of her family. She was wrong about that, as she has started to discover. Community radio has transformed the way in which she relates to the local community and she has accessed skills that allow her to take a larger role. She is now engaged in a number of other activities as a result of her growing confidence.
If community radio were about an educational programme for only one or two individuals, it would not matter. However, when community radio is done well—as it has in Manchester over recent years—it is at the
202WH
forefront of giving individuals the opportunity to up-skill, allowing them to encapsulate the mood and attitudes of our local communities.
I shall be slightly parochial and discuss my constituency. It is one of the poorest areas in the country but, because it is an inner-city area, it does not have the community focus that other communities in other parts of the country, such as those in rural areas, can maintain. There is a lack of differentiation in the city. However, while one area easily transforms into another, the problems that one area may experience are vastly different from those of its close and neighbouring districts.
A couple of miles from Manchester city centre, where properties worth £2 million are being sold, is east Manchester, one of the poorest and hardest-hit parts of the city. It was abandoned following the collapse of manufacturing industry in the 1980s and community structures have, to an extent, broken down. Crime, social dislocation, drugs, young people who are not enthused by events in the immediate area and the failure of social structures have hit home with a vengeance. Until recently, that led to the depopulation of the area. The concept of community in that area is being rebuilt because of the money that the Government are spending on the new deal for communities project.
Despite the massive problems in the area, there is still a strong sense of community, especially among the older people. They still remember a time when there were secure jobs and front doors could be left open; such times are unlikely to return in the near future. However, they also want to maintain the east Manchester identity, which is different from the ethos associated with £2 million flat developments in the city centre and from that of adjoining areas such as Newton Heath, a distinctive community isolated by the Clayton Vale river valley.
When community radio started operating in the area, people were able for the first time to talk to each other on a mass basis about their community, which they understand and to which they relate. No local newspapers are circulated in the area, except the Manchester Evening News and the East Manchester Reporter, neither of which is a large-circulation operation in that part of the city. I have a complaint to make about those newspapers; my fellow Manchester Members of Parliament are often featured in them, but I do not receive equal coverage. I am motivated to mention that not by personal regret, but by resentment, because it suggests that my constituents are by-passed. It is important that the area has a community radio station to reflect what it believes about the issues that affect it.
As I mentioned, at the weekend I spent a couple of hours with the people who run East Manchester FM. They have made an enormous contribution to their community. My good friend Mark is now known as the Beswick assassin bemuse of his appearances on the station, and I advise the Minister not to go near East Manchester FM when Mark is present. Also involved are Dave and Sam and a young man named Ryan. He was recruited from a local youth club to do a short session and became so enthused that he ended up staying for three or four days. His contribution was

203WH
enormous because he was also a part of the process of enthusing other young people in the area about what the local community can do for them.
Young musicians turned up to play for the station. Their talent was extraordinary, especially as they came from a community that is usually by-passed; perhaps it is not so surprising that there should be such talent in east Manchester, as the city has been the source of most of the recent innovations in pop music. However, their talent would not usually be recognised or given a platform. The musicians who performed on the radio were the kind of young people who would often be dismissed as ruffians who frequent the street or described in a similarly pejorative way.
Ryan told me that, for him, the alternative to participating in community radio was to hang around on street corners. Community radio has much to offer in terms of binding the wounds and bringing people together, particularly for a generation that has seen little investment in its community in recent years.
I am already enthusiastic about the achievements of community radio in that area. The station is an experiment that has lasted only a week. It cannot claim to have transformed the community, but it is popular, and in areas where the Government are investing in the new deal process, community radio helps to re-solder the spirit of the community and to bolster its reinvention of itself. That could be crucial in certain areas.
I apologise for being parochial, but I believe that what I have been saying so passionately about east Manchester could be said about the communities that are represented by my hon. Friends the Members for Eccles and for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), and about other communities throughout the country. I know urban communities best, but what I have said applies to rural communities, to hill farmers and to Northern Ireland, which my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles mentioned. We must consider how we, as a society, build our structures and maintain our local communities. Community radio is an important part of such considerations.
As I said, I strongly welcome the Minister's statement in Wythenshawe two weeks ago, which gave a signal of her intentions on the matter. It is a different attitude from that of previous Governments, and, until now, of this Government. However, difficult issues are involved. I hope that the Minister will say how the various pilot schemes will be rolled out.
In my city, the four separate community radio experiments have worked well, but we do not know what would happen if the project lasted for more than one week. It is legitimate to want to see what happens when the pilots run for a longer period, and whether local broadcasters can maintain the same enthusiasm. It must not be only a narrow clique of locals who have access to the airwaves and keep everyone else out. What we want, and have had, is a group of people who enthuse their neighbours to join in. Pilot schemes will consider such matters, and I welcome that.
All the areas where there was a community radio experiment will want to be part of the pilot schemes, and I expect the Minister to be inundated with applications. I shall certainly stake a claim for areas in my constituency to take part. Phil Korbel, a professional broadcaster of many years standing, is the guru of
204WH
Radio Regen in Manchester, the training scheme that resulted in many of the community radio projects coming into operation. Phil Korbel worked in the BBC at different levels and enthused those who worked with him. I agree with his view that pilot schemes, which have mostly been geographical, should have different themes—social themes, for example. My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles referred to several different themes, and I hope that the Minister will give us her view on the subject.
In Manchester, ethnic community themes have been very successful. For many years, Irish community radio has broadcast around the time of St. Patrick's day, and there has been Asian community radio, both of which are important locally. The demand for community radio will be extraordinary and we must consider funding. I am less sanguine than some; in a perfect world, I would prefer community radio to broadcast without advertising, as small companies with marginal economic resources could face editorial pressure and control and all the related problems. We must consider whether Government funding, or funding by regional or local government, should be sought, or whether to look to the private sector for such funding.
My hon. Friend used the term "unfair competition". I do not regard bringing more competition into broadcasting as unfair. The licence to print money that the current broadcasters take for granted is outrageous.
Mr. Ian Stewart: I remind my hon. Friend that my comments were made as a result of the lobbying I received from the commercial radio organisations over the past week or so.
Mr. Lloyd: Thereby hangs a tale. The existing commercial operators have their position to maintain. Why should they have an automatic right to cream off the best of the advertising? If the public want to listen to other stations, the rules of normal competition should apply in broadcasting as elsewhere. My appearances on Key 103 and Galaxy will diminish further until we get community radio, when my stock will rise once again. That is the nature of these matters. I hope that broadcasters will work properly and constructively in the spirit of the development of community radio to ensure that communities are served as they have not been in the past.
My hon. Friend referred to the Salford health action zone. Those of us in Manchester and Trafford regard it as our health action zone, too. For the sake of correctness, even though my father was a Salfordian, we have moved on from very narrow parochialism, except in this matter. My hon. Friend is right about that. People in Greater Manchester do not think of their community as Greater Manchester, or even Salford. They relate to Eccles, Moss Side, Openshaw and Wythenshawe: names that are strange to many hon. Members. I know that you could reel off lists of communities in your constituency, Dr. Clark, where the need to maintain and protect or to rebuild communities is fundamental. Community radio will give us something, the like of which we have not had in recent times. It will be part of the social cement that will rebind our society.
11.52 am
Mr. John Greenway: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) on securing this debate, and on enabling us to discuss an important part of the future of radio in this country. We tend to ignore radio when we have more widely focused debates on broadcasting and media issues. I am a strong supporter of radio, and I get the impression that most Members of Parliament more often listen to the radio than watch television. I spent about eight hours in my car yesterday touring parts of Lancashire and I listened to radio the whole time. Although I try to listen to good music, there was so much going on that it was important to be kept up to date with the news. Also, traffic information cut into broadcasts helps one to avoid traffic jams.
The time that we spend listening to the radio is on the increase, as the Radio Authority constantly reminds us. The Broadcasting Act 1990 opened up a number of opportunities for radio, such as the three new national stations, but especially the many local commercial radio stations which provide a good local service. The BBC also has a huge radio audience across its five main national channels, but it is equally important to remember the local radio stations that it operates. Those give us an insight into the opportunities that exist for community radio.
Local listeners value the community announcements and community news that the BBC carries on local radio stations. I am thinking in particular of the two floods that we have had in my constituency in the past couple of years. Last weekend was the second anniversary of the first lot. Radio York's audience virtually doubled because everyone tuned in to find out which roads were closed, what areas were being flooded, where sandbags could be obtained and so forth. It provided a tremendously valuable service to local communities that cannot be catered for on a national or even regional basis. That shows how expanded use of the radio spectrum for community purposes would greatly benefit local people. Public announcements on incidents that have occurred in a locality and news on whether sports fixtures and events are taking place in various village halls, for example, are valuable to local communities. I support the view that there is considerable scope to do more.
Mr. Ian Stewart: I agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but his examples are of a one-way flow of news and information. Does he accept that community radio has the potential to be an interactive medium, through which people can talk to each other across the airwaves?
Mr. Greenway: Yes, I do. Many people phone in to local radio stations to express their views, so there is an undoubted opportunity for interaction. With an election in the air, there is no better way for a Member of Parliament to find out what local people think than to listen to a two-hour morning phone-in on Radio York. It is easy to discover that although people are sometimes worried about the price of petrol or problems stemming from foot and mouth disease, their worries often have nothing to do with politics.
It is now much clearer than it was 10 years ago that local spectrum is available, particularly on FM wavelengths. Provided that there are adequate
206WH
safeguards on interference with other services, there is great potential to allocate spectrum to local purposes. In the longer term—it will be perhaps 10 years down the line before use is universal—many further opportunities may arise through the digital spectrum.
Important questions remain to be addressed before we can proceed with publicly encouraged—and partly publicly funded—expansion of community radio in accordance with the White Paper. The key question is what type of licence is envisaged. There are about 400 restricted service licences in operation for a year and about 90 long-term licences. Based on a suggestion initially made by the Radio Authority, the White Paper suggests that future growth is likely to be in the new category of access radio. However, Parliament will have to ask questions about the most appropriate legislative framework for setting up these new radio stations.
The most crucial question is who will award the licences. The White Paper deals with the format of the new super-regulator, Ofcom, which must include a specialist radio division. The Radio Authority has awarded licences with great competence over the past 10 years. I was a great advocate at the time and it has allowed radio to flourish. I stress to the Minister that Ofcom must have a specialist operator to deal with licences.
How will access radio stations be funded? It has become clear from our debate that several options are being canvassed, but they all appear to draw the conclusion that some form of public funding through an access fund may berequired, perhaps with the counterbalancing proviso that not-for-profit organisations should receive the funds. That does not seem to be a particular problem. We may also wish to encourage donations from some stations.
Some hon. Members raised the question of competition with local commercial radio and the extent to which local radio stations might be permitted to take advertising. I listened with care to what the hon. Members for Eccles and for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) said. We have to be careful about the issue of unfair competition. Some commercial radio stations do not make huge amounts of money and are very dependent on local advertising revenue. Many of them have bid and paid for spectrum. There is an argument for some of the funding from that to be used to encourage access radio.
Sponsoring some community radio stations may be a preferable way of encouraging the funding of inter-community radio from the private sector. However, local commercial radio has given local businesses an opportunity for advertising that they would not otherwise have had, even on stations with a regional licence. Some advertising streams may have a much lower cost than that of even the local commercial radio stations; even down to letting people know where they can get a plumber or an electrician. An example of that is our local village magazine. When I was church treasurer, I introduced the practice of inserting into the magazine every month blocks of adverts from local tradesmen and organisations that could not advertise in any other way. They pay for the magazine. Something along those lines might be possible.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: There was a huge explosion of

207WH
independent radio companies in the early days, but we have subsequently seen massive concentration. Some small, marginal operators are still faithful to the original charters but many stations are run by national groups that take on a local identity. They cannot complain about unfair competition. Advertising is advertising. The hon. Gentleman is on to something interesting when he talks about local and sub-local advertising, although that creates competition with local newspapers.
Mr. Greenway: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. We are exploring an issue to which we have not previously given much thought. I used the comparator of other means of distributing information to local people paid for through an advertising stream. Given that we are talking about relatively small areas—the radio stations in my part of north Yorkshire cover a large area—we are looking at much smaller and more concentrated connections in terms of community or access radio. We are talking about truly sub-local radio stations. Those matters should be addressed in detail. I simply make the point that we need to be imaginative and have vision in our support and encouragement of community radio. That is presumably why the hon. Member for Eccles introduced the debate.
We come to the question of who will run the stations. The hon. Members for Eccles and for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) were careful to point out that largely local people run them. A framework is necessary to ensure caution and impartiality. It will also ensure that the people involved are fit and proper, that proper standards of content apply, that there is no party-political involvement—I have another bee in my bonnet about that—and that the information given is accurate. If we use community radio as a genuine means of giving people information, it must be accurate and up to date. Some monitoring will be required, but I hope that it can be undertaken with a relatively light touch. As a party, we strongly believe in active citizenship and the voluntary sector. Community radio could prove extremely important to groups in those fields.
All those issues are being considered by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport in its review of the White Paper. We welcome the Radio Authority's submission to the Committee, whit h has helped us all to prepare our thoughts for this debate. We await the Committee's report with interest.
The hon. Member for Romsey mentioned another aspect of community radio: community religious broadcasting. I well remember the debates that we had on the issue in the Standing Committee that considered the Broadcasting Act 1990. It disqualified groups whose objectives were wholly or mainly of a religious nature from holding a terrestrial national radio licence issued by the Radio Authority. The thinking behind that was not to be discriminatory against religious groups, but much more to focus on the requitement that the three new national licences should offer real diversity and not subscribe to a single format. As a result, contrary to popular belief, the disqualification does not extend to local radio satellite or cable licences in respect of religious bodies.
The debate has, of course, moved on. We certainly believe that freedom of expression without discrimination, regardless of race. sex or faith, should
208WH
inform our thinking in this area and that it is now probably time to end the legal discrimination against religious broadcasters and allow more equal access to future competitions for various service licences. There is no doubt in my mind that community radio offers opportunities for religious broadcasts, which almost certainly need not be exclusively Christian. Of course, there will have to be safeguards to ensure that fit and proper people are involved and that there is responsible, non-exploitative content. I am sure that Parliament is capable of providing a proper framework, particularly if we approach it with the open-mindedness and cooperative spirit that contributors to this debate have displayed. The conditions to ensure that fit and proper people are involved and to ensure content will need to apply to the development of community radio generally.
There are real opportunities with the White Paper and the legislation that will follow, whoever wins the election. I think that both we and the Government are committed to an early Bill to deregulate the communications industry. The priority of the legislation will be to free up media ownership and ensure that we have a dynamic communications industry. The community radio issue is an important counter-balance. It will encourage local people to become involved with community radio stations and add a different dimension to their quality of life. It will extend choice and diversity in broadcasting, which we have not experienced before, and allow listeners and those who make the programmes to benefit greatly from the opportunities available.
12.8 pm
The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) and contratulating him on securing this timely debate and on the establishment of the all-party community media group. As he said, it was established by him, as chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) and for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins) and has provided a timely addition to this important debate. Community radio is an idea whose time has come, and the hon. Members who have spoken have shown what an important issue it is.
The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) talked about the opportunities presented by digital television and, in the longer term, by radio. The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) referred to religious broadcasting, which was mentioned in the White Paper on communications. We are at present considering responses to the consultation.
At the moment, religious organisations are precluded from national analogue licences but not from local ones. The White Paper makes it clear that the proposed legislation will also remove the anomaly that prevents them owning local digital stations, but the question is whether we will allow them to apply for a national analogue licence. It is a matter that we are considering in the light of responses to the consultation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central, like my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles, described graphically how local community radio can

209WH
help to regenerate communities and to provide training opportunities. He referred to East Manchester FM and the contribution of Mark, Dave, Sam, Ryan and other young people who gained so much from being involved with the station. The concept has a great deal of support.
I shall try to answer the many important questions that have been asked. The White Paper on communications published in December responds to the communications revolution, which gathers pace daily. There is digital media, multi-channel television and internet access; the potential of technology to transform our everyday lives by extending choice, enriching entertainment and enabling learning is a well rehearsed theme. However, as technology develops, we must ensure not only that we use it to promote and to extend understanding on a global scale, but that we harness its potential to strengthen local ties.
The White Paper sets its sights on the local and the virtual communities, and makes it clear that the objectives to strengthen both are complementary. It proposes access radio as a potential component of the broadcasting landscape in the 21st century. As the hon. Member for Ryedale said, that was originally the Radio Authority's proposal. We use the term access radio instead of community radio because radio services that meet the needs of the community are already provided by good independent commercial stations and by BBC local radio. Access radio suggests the broadening of such broadcasting to give local communities the chance to establish their own stations, as contributions to the debate reflect, and they would complement the existing services.
We invited comments on the merits of the proposal to support the development of such stations, and I am pleased to report a positive response. Following an initial analysis, I was delighted to announce on 2 March the Government's agreement to the Radio Authority's proposal to launch pilot schemes to explore how access radio might be established and funded.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central said, I recently visited Wythenshawe FM, at the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East, where I saw at first hand the benefits of providing a community with a popular, accessible forum in which views, experiences and advice can be exchanged. Wythenshawe FM operated for eight days at the end of last month through a restricted service licence provided by the Radio Authority. The station is one of a number broadcasting under the banner of Radio Regen, which is run with enormous enthusiasm and great success by Phil Korbel and his team.
Radio Regen's aims are simple: to use radio as a tool to empower and excite local communities by involving local people in the setting up and running of their own community radio stations. Local groups are invited to get involved in producing material for broadcast, and there is a series of major community arts projects in which professional artists work with local people to produce new pieces of creative work. The radio stations are then used as a platform for such work, which could be anything from a group inventing its own slang for the area to a mass radio-controlled percussion event. The opportunities are limitless.
210WH
Each community involved in Radio Regen decides exactly which issues are aired, but programmes generally include news of local events and sporting activities, a profile of a particular local personality or group, a look at the history of the area, coverage of a local pub quiz league or a spotlight on the activities of a local school. Them are phone-ins and debates—as the hon. Member for Ryedale said, phone-ins are a good way for Members of Parliament to gauge the views and opinions of their constituents—as well as reports and music, all with a local flavour and presented by both professional DJs and local people.
I was impressed by the level of community involvement that I saw at Wythenshawe, which I am sure is replicated wherever such community radio projects take place. People passing by the box office at the Forum leisure centre could see exactly what was going on and join in. Local schoolchildren arrived during the lunch hour to take the many phone calls from listeners, generally just down the road, who wanted to make a request or say their piece. The team was quite clear that the benefits of the project long outlasted the temporary licence, particularly in terms of self-esteem and skills learned. Such local broadcasting can clearly have a great impact on social inclusion, particularly in speaking to and engaging young people.
As well as promoting social inclusion, access radio stations can demystify the process of broadcasting and promote wider participation in the business of making and producing radio programmes. Marshall McLuhan, that herald of the multimedia age, said that
"Gutenberg made everyone a reader. Xerox makes everybody a publisher."
We want to encourage the same transformation in radio and help more listeners become broadcasters. The opportunity to become a radio presenter might hold particular attractions for young people; the next Zoe Ball or Jamie Theakston might earn their spurs through involvement in an access radio station.
Wythenshawe FM demonstrates that there is a place for access radio stations, and the many benefits of such stations. We are now considering how the concept might best be developed. As I have mentioned, we have already given the green light to the Radio Authority to go ahead with pilots. Those experimental stations will help to inform our thinking but, at the same time, we are carefully considering three difficult issues: the funding mechanisms for access radio; the platforms on which it will operate; and the administration arrangements. Those areas were explored at the Radio Authority's seminar on access radio last month, which provided useful food for thought. I wish to sketch out briefly other issues that need to be addressed.
Funding for the stations could come from public or commercial sources, or a mixture of both. We have heard a number of differing views on that this morning. The Radio Authority suggested in its recent submission to my Department that a radio fund might be established to channel public sources of funding, such as central or local government funds or European funds. Alternatively, access radio stations might be given the ability to compete in the commercial market and carry advertising, or be sponsored, as the hon. Member for Ryedale suggested. Clearly, any demands for increased public expenditure must be scrutinised carefully, and no

211WH
commitments can be given at this stage. We must also ensure that the commercial radio sector is not unfairly put at a disadvantage. We will certainly bear the interests of independent stations in mind.
There seems to be a consensus that there should be scope to establish some FM access radio stations in urban areas and perhaps more in peripheral parts of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles made several suggestions and while I cannot today announce where the pilots will be—that is principally a matter for the Radio Authority—I am sure that his point, that they should reflect a wide range of different communities and be spread throughout the country, will be taken into account. Together with the available AM resources, we can make a promising start. In time, I hope that the internet will also offer a suitable platform for access radio.
We need to consider carefully how the current licensing regime may need revisiting, as well as the criteria for the awarding of licences and the distribution of funding. We have begun to explore such matters. There are some thorny points, however, and we must ensure that, if access radio can be built into the new framework, it is introduced sensitively alongside the existing tiers of radio services.
I want hon. Members to be in no doubt about the Government's commitment to press ahead with the matter. I wish to place on the record that my officials in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are meeting officials from the Treasury and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions this week to discuss the Radio Authority's paper on access radio and to consider licensing, funding and administration. The Radio Authority is sending a team to oversee the pilot process at which my Department will be represented. It will meet for the first time later this month. The debate has certainly helped our thinking on the way ahead. I am sure that the Radio Authority will take note of such deliberations. I thank hon. Members for their contributions.
Mr. Mike Hancock (in the Chair): Order. As the Minister has not arrived for the next debate, the sitting will be suspended until 12.30 pm.
12.23 pm
Sitting suspended.

Acute Hospital Services (Rural Areas)
12.30 pm
Mr. Andrew George: I am delighted to have secured this debate, as I know that it is pertinent to many hon. Members throughout the country, especially those whose constituencies contain acute hospitals in remote areas and peninsulas. Given the welcome and continual improvements in clinical standards, specialist medicine and surgery, the purpose of the debate is to examine how small acute hospitals in areas with specific geographic, demographic and resource challenges can maintain and develop services. In view of the fact that this is a half-hour debate, I shall concentrate on West Cornwall hospital in Penzance.
I should declare an interest because my wife is a staff nurse at that hospital. My oldest brother, Mark, aged 45, who has been living with us for a short time, has had a lifetime of illness with Fallot's tetralogy, and has related medical and surgical problems. He was taken into the hospital as an emergency admission on Sunday, and is currently under observation and treatment. When he was admitted, only two medical beds were available at West Cornwall hospital, and none at Treliske, which is the main site for the Royal Cornwall hospitals NHS trust. That is a story in itself.
West Cornwall is one of three acute hospitals in the Royal Cornwall hospitals NHS trust. It has 81 beds, 56 of which are for medicine, for a population of about 150,000 people, depending on where the eastern boundary between the hospital and Treliske is drawn. Of course, that figure is doubled during the summer months. The main site for the trust is at Treliske, just outside Truro, which has 847 acute beds serving a population of more than 300,000 people. The Royal College of Physicians recommends that 400,000 is an ideal population for a fully staffed and equipped district general hospital. Almost all specialties are covered at Treliske, with the exception of certain conditions—for cardiothoracic surgery and neurosurgery, patients are usually referred to regional centres such as Derriford hospital in Plymouth. The third hospital is St. Michael's at Hayle in my constituency, which is largely for planned, elective surgery. There are also 12 cottage hospitals in the trust.
A small acute hospital such as West Cornwall, which has four consultant physicians, three consultant surgeons and limited facilities, faces several challenges. First, the Royal College of Physicians advises that there should be at least two consultants from each of the four main specialties—cardiology, gastroenterology, diabetes and respiratory medicine—and two geriatricians, so as to achieve 24-hour emergency cover. Secondly, there should be adequate anaesthetic cover, which West Cornwall does not have. In those circumstances, senior medical staff should expect to be on call one night in five. Related services such as radiotherapy and accident and emergency should also be in place, which West Cornwall has but only at night time on a nurse-led basis, with specialist anaesthetists, surgical sub-specialists and so on. Some, but not all, of those services are in place.

213WH
The third area of concern is the continual pressure since 1997 of what are undoubtedly welcome improvements in clinical governance. The chief executive of the hospital trust is accountable for risk assessment, and pressure is put on hospitals, especially small hospitals such as West Cornwall, on which the continual risk assessment is focused.
Fourthly, financial considerations must be taken into account. Centralising forces require the use of high-cost investigative equipment and treatment to be maximised to give resident on-duty medical staff the facilities that they require. From my conversations with the Royal College of Physicians and others, I am aware of the nationwide concern that the drive towards increasing centralisation of services as clinical standards change and improve will inevitably result in fewer and fewer acute general hospitals, and that those that remain will be highly centralised.
Fifthly, the training requirements of the hospital are provided by senior house officers. Their training posts are maintained, and the deanery has no objection to them. In fact, the hospital would fold without them. However, doctors' hours will come under much closer scrutiny as a result of the new deal and, possibly, the working time directive. Those measures will put some pressure on the system, as will the fact that only a small range of experience is available at a small acute hospital. In a short period, however, doctors see a greater range than they would if they specialised in a larger hospital. There is also a limitation on the training that West Cornwall hospital can provide for cardio-pulmonary resuscitation.
Further challenges affect the review to which I shall refer in a moment. Treliske was on red alert when my brother went in, as it often is. West Cornwall often receives emergency admissions diverted from Treliske, so it is questionable whether Treliske would be able to cope if emergency admissions were suddenly not dealt with by West Cornwall. In the cold light of day, most people recognise that it could not cope, even though West Cornwall is only a small hospital.
Two weeks ago the Cornwall NHS executive forum, which is the purchaser and provider of services in Cornwall, launched a review of west Cornwall hospital services, which it intends to complete by January 2002. The primary aim is to secure the best possible emergency services for the population of the West of Cornwall primary care group within accepted national standards and costs, and to provide additional services at West Cornwall hospital so as better to serve the needs of the local population.
The key objectives are to carry out a clinical risk assessment, which is happening at the moment, and devise and complete a full option appraisal to identify the full costs and consequences of three options. The first option is to develop and invest in West Cornwall hospital to meet national standards for an unspecified emergency take. The second is to have a selected emergency take, and the third to transfer all emergency admissions to Royal Cornwall hospital at Treliske.
It is timely that I raise this debate now, in view of that review, which has political and resource dimensions. Its considerations have implications, on which I look forward to the Minister's comments.
214WH
West Cornwall Healthwatch produced a document that I sent to the Minister's Department entitled "The People's Option on the Future of West Cornwall Hospital". I hope that she has received it by now. The document shows that the issue was keenly contested and debated in west Cornwall, and describes a different approach in north Devon. Barnstaple hospital, which serves a population only slightly larger than that of west Cornwall, has 423 beds rather than the 81 in West Cornwall hospital. Past investment in services at Barnstaple hospital must have been significantly different from that in Treliske.
In the wider community, much concern has been expressed about what has been going on and the likely outcome of the review. Paediatric and obstetric cover at West Cornwall hospital has been removed, and accident and emergency services are nurse-led at night. Although the hospital has a good record, I accept that there is no room for sentimentality when assessing such services—otherwise the grim reaper would have a field day.
Formula funding does not take account of the geographical challenges of areas such as Cornwall. We would hit water if w e went to Land's End, the Lizard and the Isles of Scilly—the north, the west and the south of my constituency Appeals for emergency services cannot be made from any of those places. That is not taken into account in the funding formula: nor is the fact that we have a significantly older population than elsewhere, and our population doubles in the summer because of tourism. Such factors need to be taken into account if we are to have the resources to fund the hospital properly.
As for bed blocking, a consultant told me that an emergency admission to the hospital does not require a financial decision, but such a decision is often needed and difficult to obtain when a patient wants to leave hospital and go into a nursing home bed. Many nursing home proprietors have drawn to my attention significant problems in that regard.
The relationship between West Cornwall hospital and Treliske hospital is not as co-operative or mutually supportive as it could be. Sometimes, medical staff at Treliske are professionally dismissive of the work undertaken at West Cornwall hospital in difficult circumstances. The implication is that some consultants do not want to come to West Cornwall hospital from Treliske because it will take them too far away from their private patients at a neighbouring hospital. Relations are not good. In 1998, the Royal College of Physicians, the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Surgeons in their report entitled "Provision of Acute General Hospital Services" said:
"District General Hospitals situated in areas of the country where it is not practical to amalgamate with others, will need to continue for the foreseeable future. The smaller the acute unit, the greater should be the co-operation with adjacent acute hospital units, both professionally and contractually, in order to provide sustainable high quality specialist care for patients."
In a press release in 1999, the Association of Community Health Councils stated:
"Patients in rural areas may die because hospitals are too far to reach in an emergency… Many small acute general hospitals are currently under threat because of the strict interpretation of Royal College guidelines which specify the number of acute hospital services required to meet the needs of a certain number of people."

215WH
The Government said in the rural White Paper:
"We are committed to the provision of comprehensive, high quality health care for all those who need it, regardless of ability to pay or where they live, and to ensuring greater consistency of access across the country."
In reply to my written question about the assessment of ability of health services to meet national clinical standards in remote areas, the Minister said:
"Advances in healthcare and changes to the practice of medicine, particularly the increasing sub specialisation of doctors, results in changes to the way healthcare is delivered to patients. The Government are keen to see that patients have access to services at as local a level as possible but against this desire must be balanced the need to ensure that patients receive the highest levels of clinical care, wherever that care is provided." —[Official Report, 21 November 2000: Vol. 357, c. 160W.]
The Minister said that it is up to local providers to make that balanced choice. That choice will depend on funding. Resources will have an effect on the current review of hospital services in west Cornwall. My questions for the Minister concern her Department's review of the current funding formula for local health authorities. I believe that the formula does not adequately represent areas such as mine, as I said as long ago as November 1997, when I introduced a private Member's Bill. At that stage, I heard no contrary arguments, and I understood that the Department would examine the issue. Bed blocking will have implications for the future configur ation of services.
In areas with demographic and geographic challenges, such as west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, what is the minimum level of acute emergency support that a local population should expect? Given the welcome improvements in national clinical standards, what assistance or advice would the Minister offer if the range and level of consultant cover did not match the advice and guidance of the royal colleges? In hospitals such as West Cornwall, where senior house officers cannot do their jobs and meet the requirement of the new deal on working time by August, can training posts be protected?
What discussions has the Minister had with the royal colleges about the challenges faced by isolated hospitals? Does the Minister accept that cardiologists may have to act as general physicians in order to provide full cardiology cover in remote peninsular settings? What should the commissioning bodies do when purchasing acute services if the main acute hospital at Treliske is unable to cope with changes to emergency admissions?
The choice for West Cornwall hospital is clear—either it receives significant investment to improve clinical standards or it withers on the vine. The local community wants the investment model, but we require the advice of the Minister to take the issue forward.
12.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I should like to thank the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) for raising this issue and creating an opportunity for this important debate. On a more specific note, I was sorry to hear about his brother's experience. I hope that he is well on the road to recovery.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that people living in remote rural areas are entitled to the same standard of high-quality care, focused on their needs, as national
216WH
health service patients anywhere else in the country. For starters, that means more beds, not fewer, and providing treatment as close to where people live as is practical in hospitals that serve local communities and are focused on their needs.
We must also ensure that people in rural areas, as elsewhere, get care that is safe, appropriate and of the highest standard. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, there must be a balance between the convenience of local services and the requirement to concentrate expertise for reasons of safety and quality. That can be achieved by delivering care through networks of skilled providers who work together, not in isolation. The strategy must be based on local solutions within the national framework. Different patient needs call for different responses.
To illustrate the difficulty of the balancing act, I offer an example of a patient with heart disease, because the hon. Gentleman mentioned cardiologists. The NHS must be flexible to service the needs of such patients. Specialist services require a critical mass so that staff can gain experience of a variety of related problems. For example, the Royal College of Surgeons recommends that surgeons should perform 50 bypass operations a year, and cardiac surgical units should perform at least 400 bypasses a year. Having many similar patients means that error rates are reduced and junior staff get the guidance that they need. Specialised equipment such as cardiac ultrasound machines are found only in larger centres, because extra training is required to ensure their safe use and to achieve the best results.
There are two extremes: highly specialised diagnosis and treatment, and close-to-home convenience in the primary care setting. Many other interventions fall between the two. The person who suffers cardiac arrest and collapses in the street obviously needs an immediate response. In such a case, effective arrangements for speedy transfer and the availability of trained ambulance staff are what counts. Clinical evidence proves conclusively that early defibrillation and resuscitation save lives, so we have put defibrillators in public places. We must strike a balance between specialist care and immediate response.
That is one reason why the Government give the highest priority to the public receiving a 999 emergency response as quickly as possible. NHS ambulance services are at the forefront of the Government's modernisation programme. In March 2000, the Government invested an extra £21 million in the ambulance services to support delivery of the 75 per cent. category-A eight-minute target.
Mr. George: On thrombolysing myocardial infarctions, does the Minister accept that in stabilising such patients it helps to have at least a basic acute general hospital with emergency admission provision? Even if on-call cardiologists are not available there, at least the hospital can stabilise the patient and transfer him to an acute general hospital elsewhere.
Ms Stuart: At first sight, that might seem logical, but digging a bit deeper, what matters is the drugs that paramedics in ambulances are allowed to administer. Stabilisation can safely occur further away. Although I am not happy that the west country ambulance service

217WH
has not yet reached the 75 per cent. target that the Government have set, I am delighted that it has made considerable improvements in its response times. Its starting figure was just under 40 per cent., and I understand that, as of February, it achieved more than 50 per cent. That is an increase, although we recognise that the service still has some way to go. I am not suggesting that the circumstances are perfect, but we must strike a balance that is right and can be sustained.
The hon. Gentleman expressed anxiety about the future of the West Cornwall hospital, whose services the local primary care group is reviewing. I am aware of the royal college's discussions and report. I understand that the royal college involved the hon. Gentleman and made the report available to him.
The aim of that review is to achieve the best clinical care for patients. Even if difficulties are experienced in trusts working together, we expect local difficulties to be resolved locally, and we have made it clear that it is for local health economies to make the right decisions. I am assured, however, that the group does not intend to close West Cornwall hospital or its casualty service.
The review is examining the provision of more, albeit different, services locally. I understand that the review is being carried out as openly and transparently as possible, with full public involvement.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the minimum level of acute emergency support that a local population can expect. Everyone should expect to receive the best possible treatment in the most appropriate clinical setting. Local health authorities, working in partnership with primary care groups and trusts and other local stakeholders, are responsible for determining how best to use their funds to achieve that.
The hon. Gentleman asked about health authority allocation. Allocation is based on relative needs, and the matter is currently under review. However, an interim measure has been introduced. As a first step, for 200102, we have introduced an interim health inequalities adjustment of £130 million. Some rural health authorities qualified for that, including Cornwall, which received £3.585 million.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned bed blocking. His area has not experienced the severe problems experienced in some other areas. The money allocated this winter to deal with the problem in his area was about £125,000. We made it clear that health and social services must pool their funding so that patients are discharged.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that consultant cover in his area was insufficient. That is one reason why the NHS plan set a target for major expansion in the number of consultants. We are investing more in specialist registrars, which is the main feeder grade for consultants. The intention is to invest in new trainees and to target the specialties that are key to delivering the NHS plan and the national service framework targets, which include cardiology and cardiothoracic surgery. We will closely monitor the application of the plan and the placing of new consultants.
The hon. Gentleman was right to be concerned about the implications of certain measures for a reduction in the working hours of junior doctors and the effect on
218WH
training posts in west Cornwall hospitals. Currently, junior doctors are excluded from the Working Time Regulations 1998, although such regulations apply to all career-grade doctors However, by August 2003, junior doctors should not contractually be working more than 56 hours a week. We were involved in negotiations about how much time the European Union would give us to implement that directive. It is right to reduce junior doctors' working hours because it is not safe for a person to be on duty for 80-odd hours. The phasing process will create a safe working environment for doctors and patients. The working time directive is due to come into effect in 2004, and discussions will be held with the British Medical Association, the royal colleges and other NHS employees to make the transition possible.
Local health sere ices face many challenges to provide acute medical and surgical cover in isolated hospitals. The NHS plan mentions the possibility of ending single-handed working by consultants by raising staff numbers over the next three ) ears. I emphasise that working in isolation is not good for consultants' professional development, and is often not good for patients. We should not underestimate the opportunities afforded by information technology, which enables the exchange of patient records. Telemedicine allows highly specialised consultation to take place over large areas. That is not a cheap option. Often there may only be a few consultants who can deal with specialist conditions. We are pursuing such technology with great urgency.
We are committed to what used to be called community hospitals or cottage hospitals. They have a right and proper role, and the previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), stopped the closure of many such hospitals. They are vital service providers, and allow local health care to be delivered, extend intermediate care, and give patients a choice between home and hospital. Such services are more important in rural areas and require careful thought. However, they are also important in urban areas, although I accept that solutions reached by local health authorities will be different in each case.
Mr. George: Does the Minister think that it is acceptable for areas with a low population, such as west Cornwall and other peninsulas around the UK, to have a relatively high pro-rata number of consultants available to provide such a level of service?
Ms Stuart: The royal colleges and others suggest that smaller hospitals should reconfigure to provide a selection of services for the community, such as elective surgery, maternity provisions, paediatric cover and major out-patient services. Proper consultant staffing should be decided when the services have been decided. The number of consultants should not determine local service provision. Which services should be provided should be decided first, and then a determination should be made of what constitutes safe cover.
The review indicates that there is local good will and a consensus to find a solution. The royal colleges want to be as supportive as possible in finding a solution. We should not underestimate the importance of networks, such as cancer networks. I know that benefits are being gained in some areas near the hon. Gentleman's

219WH
constituency. For example, the Devon and Cornwall cancer network has decided to install at least one linear accelerator in Truro, which will reduce by 100 miles the distance that a patient from Penzance must travel for radiotherapy. Elsewhere, the Royal Devon and Exeter trust and Barnstaple district general hospital have joint appointments for oncologists.
It is important to recognise that there is no single model of service. I take the hon. Gentleman's point about there being isolated areas with limited support, but I hope that I have reassured him that we are doing everything possible to provide a framework for good local health service delivery that will serve his constituents as effectively as it serves people living in more urban areas.
Mr. Mike Hancock (in the Chair): I join the Minister in wishing the brother of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) a speedy recovery, and hope that he is home with him soon.

Retired Miners' Compensation (Scotland)
1 pm
Mr. Tom Clarke: I am pleased to have the chance to debate what is an important subject in my constituency and elsewhere in Scotland. My constituency has a great mining tradition and was well known for its pits, including Cardowan. Bedley and Auchengeich. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister is visiting Scotland on Friday to meet retired miners, their families and friends, particularly at the Auchengeich miners club.
It is poignant that the Minister will visit Auchengeich, where, in 1959, there was a tragic accident in which 47 men died. My father had worked there and, having died at the comparatively early age of 53 from pneumoconiosis, he was buried two days before the disaster. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be touched by the memorial in front of the miners club.
I know that my constituents are looking forward to the Minister's visit. Like me, they will want to congratulate him on his new job and on the proactive way in which he has conducted himself since the appointment was made. We welcome the energy that he is investing in the serious matter of compensation for retired miners.
We realise that there are two important distinctions to make in the debate. Payments are generally made to those suffering from respiratory problems such as emphysema and bronchitis. However, we must also remember those suffering with vibration white finger, although if my constituency is a reflection of the wider picture. that is less of a problem than the other illnesses. Many of the problems in Scotland are common to the rest of the United Kingdom, and I understand that the Minister will reply to another debate concerning Wales either today or tomorrow, depending on parliamentary progress.
On 23 January 1998, Mr. Justice Turner decided at the High Court that British Coal, formerly the National Coal Board, was negligent and that miners were eligible to claim compensation for industrial injuries. To their great credit, the Labour Government fully accepted the judge's decision without contest, and declared that between £2 billion and £3 billion would be immediately available to compensate miners as early as possible.
That declaration represented a complete change of approach. By contrast with 18 years of non-action, the principle of fair compensation was accepted quickly and honourably. Ministers made it known that the money was available. The only issue was the implementation and administration of that decision to ensure that compensation reaches those who deserve it. That remains a priority, and our urgent task is to ensure that formers miners, who have given their lives to the industry and deserve that compensation, have their entitlement recognised as quickly as possible.
In Scotland, a total of 9,665 people with respiratory diseases have made claims: 5,963 are still alive, and 3,972 are deceased. In fairness, it must be said that some of those claims go back as far as the 1940s. It is worrying that of the 9,665 claimants, only 649 have received full and final payments, which is only a 6 per cent. success rate. More sadly, 656 people have died since making

221WH
claims. I know that the Minister is impatient about that. Like me, he knows that we are not simply talking about statistics, but about people. I sense his feeling of urgency about getting these matters right, and I welcome that. He is aware from his own constituency of the continuing concerns that people have expressed.
Many very ill people have sought to persuade me, without much difficulty, of their right to obtain that compensation to ameliorate their life style, which obviously left a great deal to be desired. The representations that they have made at my surgeries over the years have been compelling. I have been at meetings of my local branch of retired miners. The Minister's predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell), met my local branch in the Auchengeich club early last year. Officials from the Department were also present and were able to make their own assessment of the problems that are still unresolved. I share people's frustration, because the Government's policy on these important matters has not yet been implemented.
I called another meeting in Auchengeich on 9 February. One of the most telling contributions was made by a woman from the nearby village of Auchenloch. Her father, William Robertson, had worked in Lamloch pit for 27 years, all of the time underground. He died the week before the meeting at the age of 73. This was to be her parents' golden wedding year. Three years ago he was considered 100 per cent. disabled as a result of industrial disease, and after that he underwent several medical assessments. Obviously, he did not get any better and Mrs. Robertson and others, myself included, asked whether those additional assessments were necessary. We want to avoid that in future. Mr. Roberston was on oxygen for the last seven or eight years of his life—both day and night for the last three years. The meeting was told that the offer that had been made to Mr. Robertson just before he died had been withdrawn. His daughter explained her mother's fears that she will have to start from scratch and perhaps wait for another three or four years.
I sponsored that meeting jointly with the National Union of Mineworkers Scotland. We heard from the secretary Nicky Wilson. I should like to put on record my thanks for the work of the NUM Scotland, and Mr. Wilson in particular, in bringing these issues to the public's attention, and for their remarkable efforts to ensure that every case is given the attention that it deserves.
I was also grateful to hear the representatives from Healthcall, Richard Castle, Alastair Sutherland and Dick Palmer. I thank them not just for their contribution to the meeting, but for their patience in dealing with individual cases. They stayed long after the meeting had finished to interview different people, and to make it clear to my constituents that they were committed to making progress. I thank them for taking the trouble to come and explain the urgency of what they are trying to do.
Mr. Lawrence Lumsden is a solicitor from Thompsons, which advises the NUM and individual miners in Scotland. The Scottish system of using the services of only one firm of solicitors is different from the procedure used in England and Wales, and I find it
222WH
helpful. Lawrence Lumsden made a valuable contribution to the meeting. He stressed that DSS benefit recovery was
"a problem which should be addressed as quickly as possible."
He was concerned that even when people had been through the assessments, had had medical examinations and had had their cases confirmed, they lost out on benefits. That has been a traumatic experience for some people, and I hope that due time and reasonable discussion will resolve the problem.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's suggestions on how best to make progress. I offer a few thoughts and ideas, and invite his response. Does he intend to promote wider opportunities and special incentives? Recent initiatives have been taken as part of an urgent recruitment drive for teachers. It is clear from the evidence of Healthcall and others that there are not enough specialists to address these problems.
Would the Minister consider making payments to men whose conditions have been confirmed as the result of working in the pits and who are already receiving industrial injuries benefit? Would that not remove the need for further medical examinations? Would he consider prioritising payments to the oldest claimants, those who are most ill and widows? That would ease the considerable backlog which we all want to attack.
I recognise that this could be a legal minefield, but perhaps the problem should not be resolved solely through recourse to the law: it should also be based on assessment of human needs and requirements. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister would share that view.
I was encouraged to raise this matter today by my constituents who are genuinely concerned about getting these problems sorted out as soon as possible. There are so many people suffering, and we are genuinely seeking practical solutions to clearly identified problems. People should not be playing politics with these issues. My hon. Friend has experience of Plaid Cymru in Wales, but I would not say the same of Scottish Nationalist party activities. However, we also have the Scottish Socialist party. During the long period in which we were putting forward case after case and fighting for the principle to be accepted—as it eventually was by this Government—I do not recall any pal ticipation by the Scottish Socialist party. Because we live in a pluralist society, I welcome its support, but suspect that the Minister and I and others will still be fighting for the cause long after that particular fringe political interest has disappeared.
Labour in government has established the principle of compensation, and I welcome that ungrudgingly. I do not wish to dilute what is an extremely important and welcome decision. I believe that the Government will continue to get it right. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will give us further examples of the Government's practical achievements, such as the new medical centre at Stirling, which I also welcome. I thank the Minister in advance of his speech and his visit. I know of his concern and compassion. He believes, as I do, that in this case, as in so many others, justice delayed is justice denied.
1.15 pm
The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mr. Peter Hain): I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr.

223WH
Clarke) for securing the debate and for his kind remarks. It gives me the opportunity to acknowledge his diligence and energy in securing justice for many of the former miners in his constituency. We are all sorry and disturbed about the tragic case of Mr. Robinson. It is part of my job to ensure that such a case does not happen again. If my right hon. Friend wishes to draw to my attention specific aspects of the case, I will happily take them up.
We will look into the other positive and constructive suggestions that my right hon. Friend made, based on his experience. We are trying to recruit, partly by advertising more widely, a large number of additional respiratory consultants because there is a national shortage. I undertake to look at his other proposals, although I am bound by a court judgment, which has been both an opportunity and a frustration. We would not have started from this position. When the Labour Government of the 1970s granted compensation for pneumoconiosis, they were not constrained and straitjacketed, as they are now.
I am also grateful to my right hon. Friend for his invitation to visit his constituency later this week. I look forward to learning at first hand the views of his constituents on this important issue in Auchengeich on Friday, not least because of the close ties of solidarity between former mining communities such as mine in Neath in south Wales and his in Scotland.
I have been in post for some six weeks. I acknowledge fully the work of our Scottish colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell), my predecessor. When I took over from her this mammoth task—we must not forget that it is the biggest personal injury claim ever made in the UK and possibly the world—I committed myself to ensuring that every claimant received his full entitlement as quickly and fairly as possible. Miners are a special case and that is why the issue is a top priority foi my Department and for me. I welcome the opportunity to tackle it. Bringing justice to miners and to their widows is my mission and I shall do everything I can in that aim, working with all those who, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts, share it. I have met the solicitors representing the claimants, the mining union representatives and the Department's own contractors but, most importantly, I have also travelled throughout the country meeting the claimants themselves. They gave me the message that things have started to improve, but that much more needs to be done. I agree.
I stress again that we would not have started from this position, but we are committed to the legal process that we inherited from the previous Government and to a scheme bound by complex legal proceedings. I have spent the past six weeks questioning and re-examining previous decisions and proposals and I was delighted when on 2 March my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that we were extending fast-track and interim offers to more than 6,000 claimants. That means that £30 million of compensation will be offered quickly to widows and to claimants likely to develop asthma; indeed, more than £2.5 million was offered to the asthma group yesterday. That is in addition to the 33,000 payments that have already been made, the cost of which has been more than £125 million. More than £360 million has been paid in compensation for vibration white finger, which is significantly more than
224WH
the recent coal subsidy and the regeneration money provided by the previous Conservative Government in response to the 1992 pit closures.
The two major schemes are already receiving £1 million a day, but that is not all. I am continuing to explore how to extend interim payments still further.
Ms Rachel Squire: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) on securing this excellent debate and on ably expressing the views of people in his constituency, in my constituency and throughout the country.
I welcome the Minister's recent announcement and the news that he will visit Fife on Friday. Will he be able to assure his and my constituents, and those of my right hon. Friend, that the majority of cases will have been fully and finally settled in a year's time?
Mr. Mike Hancock (in the Chair): That was verging on a speech, but I will allow it on this occasion.
Mr. Hain: The Government and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) are pursuing the same course of justice. I acknowledge her close pursuit of it. We are making massive progress and we will be accelerating rapidly over the coming months, so that tens of thousands of cases will have been settled by this time next year and the claimants will have received the justice that they deserve.
In the past two weeks, the Government and the miners' solicitors have agreed how compensation for loss of pension will be handled. We have made £400 million available for compensation for loss of pensions. That is the last piece of the jigsaw. Over the next few months, full and final offers of compensation will be made in tens of thousands of cases. That will answer, at least in part, the significant concern expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston about the importance of final settlements and claimants who are still in the system.
On 24 September 1999, the Government and the solicitors acting for miners in England and Wales finalised and signed the handling agreement, which set out the procedures for settling respiratory disease claims. Prior to the signing, the Government commenced discussions with Scottish solicitors representing the 9,700 Scottish claimants to adapt the agreement to take into consideration the differences between English and Welsh law and Scottish law.
The Scottish agreement was signed in June last year. There are about 5,700 live claimants in Scotland. Healthcall, which is carrying out the spirometry programme for my Department, has contacted almost all of them and more than 4,500 of them have already undergone tests.
In October 1999, Healthcall was awarded the contract to deliver the full medical assessment process, which is, for many claimants, the next stage after the screening spirometry. Since full medical assessments commenced in Scotland in February last year, more than 1,500 claimants have been assessed at centres in Ayr, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Lochore and Stirling, and a further 150 appointments have been booked. In addition, 1,470 Scottish estate claims have been

225WH
assessed, or referred to respiratory consultants. So far, 30 per cent. of Scottish claimants have been assessed. They will soon be returned to the claims handlers for compensation to be calculated and settled, so that the cheques can be rolled out.
It is vital to get the compensation offers right, so that a thorough quality check is built into the system. However, as the process has speeded up and more medicals have been completed, that check has started to slow the system down. That bottleneck was identified as a priority by a regular review of progress and the contractor has now engaged extra resources. That will result in twice as many claims being processed to clear up the backlog, which amounts to 1,000 a week for the next 12 weeks. It means that more victims and their families will receive their money sooner.
Once the backlog has been dealt with, the Government should be in a position to process an average of about 600 medical assessment procedures per week, but I want to aim higher. Subject to the availability of lung specialists, with all the other resources that we have put in place, we will be able to handle up to 1,000 cases each week. As previously promised, wherever I find problems in the process, I will work with all those involved to implement speedy solutions.
I give just one example. Because of the special nature of claims in Scotland, IRISC, the Department's claims handling agents, opened an Edinburgh-based office, which has allowed Scottish solicitors to have more direct contact with the settlement process. In addition, the Scottish sub-group of the monitoring group, established by my predecessor to assess progress on the claims, meets monthly. Miners' interests are represented by the Scottish National Union of Mineworkers, solicitors and my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), to whom I pay tribute for his work.
From the spirometry results, we have so far identified more than 1,200 potential offers of full and final payments in Scotland. Of those, 650 have been accepted and paid, totalling more than £2.8 million. We have continued to make interim payments to ex-Scottish miners and their families wherever possible, which in Scotland have totalled more than £6.8 million. A total of £9.6 million has so far been paid in Scotland for lung disease alone. Compensation can, of course, never be released quickly enough when people are suffering, as so many miners are. We also need to bear in mind the fact that, with fresh claims coming in all the time, there could be well over 150,000 claims to settle. About 1,000 a week are still being received. We shall continue to seek every means that we can of reducing further delays. That will
226WH
require the co-operation of all parties. For my part, I shall ensure that the elderly and most injured are seen first, which had not been happening. We are also prioritising widows who are claiming on behalf of their late husbands.
Progress on vibration white finger continues to be good. To date, we have settled almost 21,500 claims, 2,000 of which were in Scotland, and made a further 25,350 interim payments, 1,680 of which were in Scotland. In total, we have paid more than £235 million in compensation for vibration white finger, of which £15 million has been paid in Scotland. I am delighted that claimants will see further progress in the next few months, which they have a right to expect.
It has been a long and difficult road to get this far after years of obstruction and an abject failure to honour the justice of the miners' case for compensation by the previous Conservative Government. We can now see the light of justice burning at the end of the tunnel. Claimants have so far shown exceptional patience, far beyond what could reasonably have been expected of them. I pledge the Government's commitment to deliver for them. We have the machinery in place to do the work that would have taken the courts more than 15 years to clear, and significant sums of money are starting to flow.
As I said, a particular anxiety of mine is that younger, fitter men have been seen ahead of older, sicker men, because both the solicitors and the contractors, Healthcall, were simply booking people in on a first come, first served basis. Frankly, that is unacceptable. I have now insisted that Healthcall and the solicitors reprioritise those still in the system with appointments over the coming months. Even if that means younger, fitter miners having their appointments put back a little—which is less of a problem in Scotland than in areas such as south Wales and the north-east—I am sure that they will understand that the cases of older, sicker miners need to be dealt with first. Tragically, some have died, because of their illness in part, before they received justice and compensation will now go to their widows.
I, too, have visited many retired miners in their homes and seen the tragic circumstances in which they live. They are frequently trapped on the ground floor, unable to climb the stairs arid almost unable to make the short journey from living room to bathroom without having to pause to catch their breath and to recover from a walk that the rest of us would not even notice. For them, it is a journey of miles. I pay tribute to those miners. We shall deliver justice. I also pay tribute to their wives, who care for them in the most difficult circumstances. This is about justice and dignity. It is about redeeming the debt that we owe to miners—and to their families—who sacrificed their most precious asset, their health, to work underground, so that we can live in comfort.

Respite Care
1.30 pm
Mr. Tony Baldry: A little while ago, a constituent of mine, Mrs. Muriel Briggs, came to see me at a constituency surgery. Prior to that meeting, she had written to me to set out her specific concern. She wrote:
"My youngest daughter, Rachel, 31 years, has learning disabilities through Down's syndrome and has respite care…I am extremely grateful for this break of a total of five nights spread over four- weekly periods, and for which we pay the required sum.
It was not until 17 May 2000 that I received the enclosed notice showing that after a total of 28 days' respite had been reached there must be a break of 29 days without any respite care. I did not know about this and have had many, many months' concern and correspondence about Rachel's DLA benefits."
A recurring point in the various representations that I have had is that the 28-day limit ca uses much concern to many carers and results in a great deal of correspondence about disability living allowance benefits. Mrs. Briggs went on to ask:
"How can a disabled person who needs respite care in their own right as well as for their carer suddenly not need it for 29 days? To me it is a wrong rule of law by the DSS and I would hope you could possibly bring this to the notice of those in responsible positions to change the system. It would also appear to me that if an assessment has been made and agreement reached that such a person needs care, then that should be available without discrimination at any time, without losing benefits."
The notice that Mrs. Briggs drew to my attention was from Oxfordshire county council social services, headed:
"Disability living allowance care component (DLA)/attendance allowance (AA)".
The notice states:
"Respite care stays affect the entitlement of DLA/AA. Claimants are responsible for informing, the Benefits Agency of any changes in their circumstances and can be subject to large overpayment bills if the Benefits Agency have not been informed.
After 28 days in respite care, the claimants' entitlement to DLA/ AA ceases while in care.
A note should be kept of all days spent in respite care, the day of admission does not count and is treated as a day at home. The day of discharge, however, does count is a respite day. Once a total of 28 days has been reached then there must be a break of 29 days without any care admissions before DLA/AA can be reinstated for the next 28 day period."
I genuinely did not understand that. It seemed extraordinary that Rachel should receive respite care on average once a week for 28 weeks and then suddenly not be entitled to any respite care at all for an arbitrary period of 29 days. I wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley):
"My constituent's daughter has a total of five nights respite care spread over a four weekly period, for which they pay a sum required by Oxfordshire County Council. It works out at approximately a day a week—invaluable for aged parents looking after a young woman with learning difficulties.
I enclose a copy of a notice sent to my constituents by Oxfordshire County Council which says that once a person has received 28 days of respite care (and as Car as I can see that is 28 spread out over whatever period) there then has to be a period of 29 days without any respite care whatsoever, i.e. every so often my constituent, somewhat arbitrarily, has to go for a whole month without the benefit of any respite care al all. What is the point of this?
228WH
If a person is assessed as being in need of respite care, surely it is in their and their carers' interest that that respite care is provided instantly. What is the possible point, other than simple cost saving, of arbitrarily withdrawing respite care from time to time?"
On 26 February, the Minister replied:
"It may help to explain that DLA continues for 28 days after a person has been admitted to residential care, whether permanently or temporarily. For the purpose of calculating that period of 28 days, separate periods in care are linked and treated as a continuous spell if a person is readmitted within 28 days of discharge. This means that people who spend longer than 28 days away from the care home will be able to receive benefit for 28 days the next time they are admitted. However, people who spend fewer than 28 days away from the care home will either receive no benefit on re-admission or only the difference between 28 days and the time they previously spent in residential care. So people can only receive benefit for 28 days in total unless the relevant periods of residential care are separated by longer than 28 days."
Having studied that paragraph several times, I think that I understand what the Minister is trying to say, but I have the benefit of a lifetime as a barrister spent trying to construe documents and regulations. I suspect that the Minister's explanation is rather difficult for claimants to understand.
For those of us who do not involve ourselves daily in the minutiae of social security regulations, they can seem like a secret garden. In order better to understand the matter, I approached Oxfordshire Welfare Rights, an extremely good organisation which is based in Oxford and is partially funded by, among others, the county council. It sent me its benefit bulletin, which states:
"Going into Respite Care (RC) can seriously effect the benefits of both the carer and person needing care. People needing regular periods of RC need to plan carefully to avoid the loss of Disability Living Allowance—care component (DLA[cc]) or Attendance Allowance (AA), Invalid Care Allowance (ICA) and the disability premium payable with means tested benefits.
AA or DLA [cc] cease to be paid once a person has been continuously in 'special accommodation' for 28 days."
I shall say something about the definition of "special accommodation" in a moment. The bulletin continues:
"Special Accommodation includes NHS Hospitals, Private and Local Authority Residential Care and Nursing Homes etc. Two periods in special accommodation separated by less than 28 days are linked together and count towards the 28 day 'cut-off- period."
Oxfordshire Welfare Rights also sent me a briefing, which states:
"Different spells in hospital or 'similar institution' will be linked together and treated as one continuous period if the person has been re-admitted after less than 28 days…Without a 28 day break the person is treated as if they are spending a continuous period in hospital, even if they spent the majority of the period at home. The need to have 28 days at home can have particular consequences where the person is required to enter hospital at regular intervals for treatment or requires regular respite care…
An illustration of the practical effect of the linking rule is on the organisation of respite care packages by Social Services. A typical package might involve the disabled person being in hospital or residential care for 1 week in every 4. Under the linking rule, after 4 periods of respite care, the person will be treated as having been in hospital for 28 days as the periods at home are less than 28 days…
The need to organise a change in an established pattern of respite care is difficult for the disabled person, their carer and the care provider to arrange. It is difficult for the disabled person and their carers to understand these rules and to make careful record of the dates involved. It is also difficult for care providers to arrange such breaks when they are catering for the needs of a large number of regular users.

229WH
Oxfordshire Welfare Rights are regularly consulted by social services, Oxon Carer's Centre and other agencies about the effect of the 28 day linking rule. We have represented claimants at appeal hearings in cases where they have been overpaid benefit. The cause of the overpayment can be because: they have not understood the effect of the linking rule and have not informed the Benefits Agency of all periods in hospital; the Benefits Agency have given wrong advice on the effect on all benefits they are receiving; or the agency providing care has provided inaccurate information in reply to a Benefits Agency inquiry. The underlying cause has been the complexity of the rules."
Oxfordshire Welfare Rights recommends that the 28-day linking rule should be abolished for all benefits.
I have begun to understand that regulations have not kept up with changes in practice. In some cases the regulations go back to 1975, which was before the introduction of care in the community. Furthermore, the regulations tend to repeat themselves. For example, the Social Security (Hospital In-Patients) Regulations 1975 were drafted before care in the community, when people went either to hospital or—to use the phrase in the legislation—"a similar institution" for long periods. If someone goes into hospital for a long period, it is fair and proper that after 28 days they cannot continue to draw benefits that they may previously have received. However, the legislation was drafted before it was anticipated that people would increasingly live in the community and enter respite care for short periods of time.
I pray in aid the discussion in the 1975 regulations of "prescribed accommodation" where people reside as patients or inmates. Clearly, the legislation was drafted when people spent a long time in hospitals, sanatoriums or other institutions. It was not drafted for a time when care packages increasingly meet the needs of both carers and those for whom they care in a commendably flexible and appropriate way.
I ask the Minister not to explain again how the rules work because I now understand that. Having heard representations not only from Oxfordshire Welfare Rights, but the Disability Alliance and the Carers National Association, which I shall mention in a moment, I hope that he will feel it is worth examining the 1975 regulations to see whether they can be brought up to date to take account of modern practice, which includes care in the community.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's constituent. He acknowledged that someone who spends a long period in hospital at public expense should not simultaneously receive a welfare benefit that provides him or her with money that can be used to purchase care. I agree with him that in the case of a short stay in hospital of perhaps a week it would be unrealistic to cut off a benefit. Surely he agrees that there must be a dividing line between long stay arrangements—
Mr. Mike Hancock (in the Chair): Order. You are stretching into your contribution, Minister. If you are making an intervention you must draw it to a close.
Mr. Bayley: I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Hancock. I am trying to debate the issue and search for a solution with the hon. Gentleman. Where would he draw the line if not at the present point?
Mr. Baldry: The line is not currently drawn between long and short periods of time. My constituent
230WH
sometimes goes into respite care for a single night to give her mother some respite—it is respite care for both of them. However, after respite care for 28 nights—the number is arbitrary—over 28 weeks, my constituent is not entitled to any more.
Mr. Bayley: I want to correct one point which the hon. Gentleman has made several times. The regulations do not, in any way, prevent respite care after 28 days. They withdraw, the benefit that is provided to a person to purchase care for those days on which respite care is taken. The issue is whether benefit should be withdrawn, not whether someone should receive respite care.
Mr. Baldry: Whether the issue is the denial of respite care or the benefit with h which to purchase respite care is a quibble. The effect on most people will be the same.
The Disability Alliance recommends that the simplest solution is not to count days in hospital or respite care cumulatively, but to count only lengthy periods taken at one time. Regulations could be drafted to make that distinction, so that someone who goes into hospital for a month or more would lose benefit after the first 28 days, but someone who regularly goes into hospital for respite care for a few days at a time would not lose benefit. I hope that the Minister will explain the logic of denying my constituent disability living allowance benefit with which to purchase respite care. She is not a young woman who spends long periods in hospital or any other institution.
I am not being quirky about the matter, as there is broad consensus that something must be done about the regulations. The Disability Alliance stated that
"the greatest hardship is caused where the disabled person's pattern of hospital admission"—
I believe that the alliance also means respite care admission—
"consists of a few days every month. This is enough for them to start to lose benefit but rarely does it result in reduced costs. Many of the additional disability related costs remain. For example. someone still has to be paid to wash the windows, clean the house and cut the grass. Special equipment cannot be sent back for a few days every month, nor can specially made clothing or shoes, extra insurance on equipment still has to be paid, the cost of home adaptations is no less.
For the carer little changes, other than a drop in household income. They still have to clean and do laundry for the disabled person, and time spent casing becomes time spent hospital visiting.
The administrative cost of stopping and starting two benefits is high. Even more so for a disabled person who is also on income support and/or housing benefit and/or council tax benefit since all of these are affected by receipt of DLA and are also reduced after a period in hospital.
The definition of 'special accommodation' is extremely complex as it is dependent on how the accommodation is funded rather than what is provided. This means that mistakes are made by the Benefits Agency and benefit is stopped when it should not be. It also makes it very difficult for disabled people and their carers to work out what the effect on their benefit entitlement is likely to be."
Finally, the Carers National Association made an almost identical point and stated:
"The 28 day linking rule can leave carers in poverty and extremely confused about the benefits system. Carers and professionals find the different rules very hard to understand. It is not uncommon for carers to be pursued for overpayment of

231WH
Invalid Care Allowance… because they have failed to notify the ICA Unit of changes to their situation. Many carers are unaware that the few regular days spent by the person they look after in respite care, could mean the person's disability benefits and the carer's ICA could be affected."
The association concluded:
"The possible solution would be to make the qualification for ICA reliant on providing 35 hours care to someone entitled to DLA or AA rather than someone actually paid one of these two disability benefits."
It continued:
"Consideration could also be given to removing the disparity between the treatment of breaks due to hospitalisation and breaks caused by admission into temporary residential care/nursing care. CA would like to see the extra 8 week break afforded carers where there is a hospitalisation extended to situations where the break is due to a temporary admission to care."
It is clear from everything that has been said that the existing regulations do not meet existing needs under care in the community. They cause much distress, and throw up anomalies and difficulties. Lines have to be drawn, but surely it is possible to consult on improving the regulations. Will the Minister consider consulting organisations such as the Disability Alliance and the Carers National Association about whether it is possible to bring the regulations up to date to meet the needs of carers and others, but in a way that does not fall foul of the needs of the Treasury to ensure that benefits are not abused or that people are not receiving double benefit? I do not believe that those who go into respite care receive double benefit. Such an anomaly needs to be examined.
1.51 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): I congratulate the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) on securing a debate on this important issue. He has put his case clearly, and the Government will examine it. I hope that he and those to whom he has been speaking will also consider why such arrangements are in place. The hon. Gentleman said that the simple solution would be to pay disability living allowance to people who have periods of respite care of less than 28 days. That would be the simplest solution, but it would also be costly, which is why it did not commend itself to his party when it was in power and why it does not commend itself to the Labour party.
As a Government, we are keen to improve support both through the amount of respite care that is provided and through financial support to carers. We want to enable those who care for someone with a serious disability to receive the respite care that they and that person need. We must make choices about what that money can best be spent on to give the greatest possible support to the disabled person and to the carer. Respite care, as the hon. Gentleman said, is essential for many carers and disabled people. It provides a much needed break for carers who are often elderly and unwell themselves. It can be a lifeline in an emergency when a carer suddenly needs to be away from home and from the person for whom they care. It also provides a valuable change of scenery for disabled people.
Carers as a group tend to experience higher levels of stress than others. Short-term breaks can have a significant impact by reducing stress and helping carers to continue to care. In that way, respite care can help
232WH
disabled people to stay in their own homes or, in the case of disabled younger people, to remain in their parents' home for longer. People generally want to live in their own homes if they can. For some, going into long-term residential care can significantly impair their quality of life, and can lower their self-confidence. It can lead to a decline in activity and to a loss of independence. The Government are keen to promote independence by encouraging the provision of high-quality domiciliary and other community-based services, including respite care services and support for carers.
Disabled people and carers are all different, so their needs for respite care will be different. When we draw up regulations governing social security benefits, we have to do so on the same basis for everyone. We therefore face a conflict, which we have tried to resolve by a mix of regulations. As the hon. Gentleman knows, when a disabled person goes into a care home for a short period of respite care, which has been arranged by a local authority, we continue to pay the care component of the disability living allowance for 28 days. For that period, we disregard the fact that the cost of care is being subsidised by the local authority, even though the person or his or her family may pay a fee for the respite care break. We disregard the local authority contribution because people have on-going care costs at home, which need to be met. It can also be disrupting for benefit to cease for what may be a short period.
However, resources for benefits are not unlimited. It has long been a principle that when someone receives care in accommodation that is supported wholly or partly from public funds, he should not generally receive benefits in respect of care needs at the same time. That is the reason for the rules that have applied since the introduction of the national insurance scheme more than 50 years ago.
The great majority of people who go into respite care have that care arranged for them by their local authority, as in the case that provoked the hon. Gentleman's interest in the issue. It is therefore right that people going into settings other than hospitals—such as residential care homes—should have the same rule applied to them. We are aware, of course, that when people are being cared for in a family setting, as in the case that the hon. Member drew to my attention, the operation of the linking rule is difficult. As a result, we modified the rule last year to reduce the period for which people are disqualified from receiving benefit. Since last year, neither the day of admission to care nor the day of discharge from care—or hospital—counts as days in care in relation to loss of benefit. That assists 50,000 people a year.
The Government's commitment to improve services for carers was set out in our national carers strategy, which was launched by the Prime Minister in February 1999. Breaks for carers were seen as a key part of that strategy. We provided an additional £140 million for respite care breaks over a three-year period starting in 1999. Since then additional funding has been provided to cover the years up to 2004. The carers special grant will fund three times as many breaks for carers in 2001 as it did in 1999–2000. The money available will rise to £100 million a year by 2003–04. That initiative will enable up to 75,000 more carers to receive a break.

233WH
As part of the national carers strategy, we agreed to review the financial support provided to carers through the benefits system, which is the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman. Towards the end of last year, we announced a package of improvements to disability and carer benefits worth £750 million over the next three years. In addition to the package for carers, we will extend the higher rate mobility component of DLA to severely disabled children aged three and four from April. That will provide extra help of £38.65 a week. This year, we will also increase the disabled child premium in income-related benefits to £30 a week, which is £7.40 a week more than normal uprating. The disability income guarantee will be introduced in April, which will help 130,000 of the poorest and most severely disabled people aged under 60, and ensure an income of at least
234WH
£142 a week for a sing le person and £186.80 for a couple. The measure will also benefit 30,000 families with severely disabled children.
For carers, the carer premium in income-related benefits will be increased by £10 a week more than the normal uprating front April. We are targeting resources on low-income households in which long-term care is being provided. At the same time, we will raise the earnings limit in invalid care allowance from £50 a week to the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions of £72 a week. Those benefits have been widely welcomed by many organisations. Diane Whitworth, the chief executive of the Carers National Association, said:
"I am writing with great pleasure, to welcome the announcement last week which will boost carers' benefits…this is the first major series of changes to the benefit for 15 years. The measures provide a sensible balance"—
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed without Question put.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Departmental Policies (South Shields)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the South Shields constituency, the effects on South Shields of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [153082]

  The Solicitor-General
  In 1999, in line with national policy, the Wearside branch of the Crown Prosecution Service, in liaison with the police, South Tyneside magistrates court and the defence, introduced the Narey proposals. All defendants charged with a criminal offence where a guilty plea is anticipated now make their first appearance before South Shield magistrates court within five working days. All other cases appear in court within 48 hours. Present figures suggest that 50 per cent. of all defendants have their cases finalised far more quickly than previously was the case.

  In April 2001, Crown Prosecution Service Northumbria will be altering its structure in line with the proposals of the Glidewell review. This will enable the Crown Prosecution Service to place greater emphasis on the more serious crime cases in Newcastle Crown court. The Crown Prosecution Service, together with other agencies, also helped to draw up a protocol with social services relating to unused material which assists in expediting cases involving child witnesses. The Crown Prosecution Service also has a "fast track" procedure for persistent young offenders cases with the Crown court and youth courts. All these changes illustrate the Government's successful policy of speeding up the work of the criminal justice system.

  Since May 1997, the Crown Prosecution Service has successfully prosecuted a number of cases arising in the South Shields area. Of particular note is a "sting operation", set up by undercover police officers in South Shields, in the spring of 1998. This resulted in the recovery of thousands of pounds worth of stolen property and the convictions of 35 defendants who were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment, two of them for 11 years and 12 years respectively. In January 2000, the Crown Prosecution Service also successfully prosecuted two juveniles for the murder of a 46-year-old man in the South Shields area. Following a trial at Newcastle Crown court, they were both convicted of murder and detained during Her Majesty's pleasure.

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

  Departmental Policies (Houghton and Washington, East)
  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effects on Houghton and Washington, East of the Attorney-General's Department's actions since 2 May 1997. [152989]

  The Solicitor-General
  In October 1999, in line with national policy, the Wearside branch of the Crown Prosecution Service, in liaison with the police, Houghton-le-Spring magistrates court and the defence, introduced the Narey proposals. All defendants charged with a criminal offence where a guilty plea is anticipated now make their first appearance before Houghton-le-Spring magistrates court within five working days. Present figures suggest that 40 per cent. of all defendants have their cases finalised far more quickly than previously was the case.

  In April 2001, Crown Prosecution Service Northumbria will be altering its structure in line with the proposals of the Glidewell review. This will enable the Crown Prosecution Service to place greater emphasis on the more serious crime cases in Newcastle and Durham Crown courts. The Crown Prosecution Service, together with other agencies, also help to draw up a protocol with social services relating to unused material which assists in expediting cases involving child witnesses. The Crown Prosecution Service also has a procedure for "fast tracking" persistent youth offenders cases with the Crown court and youth courts. All these changes illustrate the Government's successful policy of speeding up the work of the criminal justice system.

  Since May 1997, the Crown Prosecution Service has successfully prosecuted a number of significant cases arising in the Houghton-le-Spring area. In December 1998, the Crown Prosecution Service successfully prosecuted Stephen. Urwin for the murder of an elderly occupant in his home. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. In August 1999, Colin Bainbridge abducted Laura Kane, aged 9, whom he knew, and subsequently raped and murdered her. He was found guilty at a trial at Newcastle Crown court and was sentenced to life imprisonment.

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

DEFENCE

  Defence Analytical Services Agency
  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what performance targets have been set for the Defence Analytical Services Agency for 2001–02. [153897]

  Mr. Spellar
  Key Targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the Defence Analytical Services Agency for Financial Year 2001–02. The targets build on the progress already made by the Agency since it formed in 1992 and are as follows:

  Delivery of customer service and quality

  The majority of the Agency's business is covered by Service Level Agreements with customers, which set out the targets for timeliness and quality of work. For parts

  505W
  of the business where Service Level Agreements are inappropriate, project agreements are in place. The Agency is committed to continuous improvement in the range and quality of the services it provides to customers. Key Targets are:

  (a) To meet at least 95 per cent. of the timeliness and quality targets set in Service Level Agreements and project agreements.

  (b) To have at least 90 per cent. of customers saying they are at least satisfied with the timeliness, quality of work and helpfulness of staff in the annual Customer Satisfaction Survey.

  (c) In the annual Customer Satisfaction Survey, to have at least 25 per cent. of customers who received DASA services in 2000–01 and 2001–02 report an improvement in the services provided and no more than 10 per cent. report a deterioration.

  (d) To conduct a National Statistics quality review of the content and dissemination of "UK Defence Statistics" by consulting existing and potential customers inside and outside the Department, and to produce an action plan for implementing improvements in time for UKDS 2002.

  (e) To review the production and publication of armed forces medical Statistics against National Statistics quality standards, and make recommendations on how to improve their quality and scope.

  (f) To implement the approved recommendations from the review of armed forces and civilian personnel statistics conducted in 2000–01.

  Efficiency

  The Agency plans to make efficiency savings in 2001–02 as well as meeting the additional demands placed on it by new Departmental studies and initiatives.

  The Key Target is to deliver output-based efficiency gains with a value of 3 per cent. of the initial running cost allocation.

  Armed Forces Pay Review Body
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about reappointments to the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. [153898]

  Mr. Hoon
  I am pleased to announce that I have re-appointed Lord Gladwin of Clee and Professor David Greenaway each to a second three-year term. These appointments have been conducted in accordance with the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments' guidance on appointments to public bodies.

  Aircrew Retention
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to review aircrew retention, following the publication of the 2001 report of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body and the chairman's supplementary letter. [153899]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence is conducting a Comprehensive Review of Aircrew Retention to examine the reasons why aircrew leave the Services. A study team including representatives from the three Services, HM Treasury and external consultancy will be reviewing our overall need for aircrew against today's employment patterns, their career structures, the flying training system, the current structure of additional flying pay and the commercial airlines recruitment policies and financial packages. This work has now started and I expect to be able to report the outcome to the Armed Forces Pay Review Body in autumn this year.

  Shoeburyness
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates depleted uranium shells have been(a) tested and (b) demolished at (i) the Shoeburyness Range and (ii) adjacent mud flats/sandbanks. [149517]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 8 February 2001]: No reference can be found in Shoeburyness range records to open air firings of depleted uranium projectiles and none is believed to have taken place.

  DERA Shoeburyness took over the adjacent Foulness site from the Atomic Weapons Establishment in 1999. This site had an indoor facility, in which some small experimental DU projectiles were fired during the 1980s. The building in which the firings took place was designed to prevent any escape of particulate DU into the atmosphere. It is no longer in use and was decontaminated in 1997.

  No DU munitions have been destroyed at Shoeburyness or indeed any other DERA site.

  Between September 1999 and June 2000, small quantities of DU long rod penetrators were held temporarily in transit at Shoeburyness, having been delivered to DERA for trials to be conducted by the Eskmeals team at Kirkcudbright.

  Depleted Uranium (Dundrennan Range)
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many DU penetrators have landed on the land area of the base since test firing of DU shells at Dundrennan range began; and, of these, how many have not been located. [151846]

  Mr. Spellar
  Since test firing of depleted uranium (DU) penetrator rounds first began at Kirkcudbright in 1982, there have been 14 strikes within the range area, including 10 projectiles that struck the ground itself and four that struck the target gantry. The four striking the gantry are believed to have proceeded directly out to sea. Three of those striking the ground have been recovered intact, two are believed to have proceeded out to sea and the other five remain buried in known locations.

  The path a penetrator would take when entering the soil at high velocity is not easy to predict so, while their entry point is known with reasonable accuracy, the ultimate position of the buried penetrators is not. Recovery attempts would involve a prohibitively large area and depth to be excavated for each round, incurring exceptional cost and with little chance of success.

  As I mentioned in the Adjournment debate on 7 February 2001, we are now planning to undertake a survey using a device called an Exploranium of the areas where fragmentation of projectiles may have occurred—ie firing points, landing areas, target areas—in order to locate remaining and hitherto undetected small pieces of DU. This survey is unlikely to be able to detect the buried rounds because of their depth. The contamination caused by fragments remaining on or just below the surface is regarded by the experts as minimal. However, should any areas be found to be contaminated they will be fenced off.
  507W
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if test firing of DU shells at the Dundrennan range is exempt from regulation under the Ionising Radiations Regulations. [151847]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave, in relation to the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999, to the Member for Ceridigion (Mr. Thomas) on 22 January 2001,Official Report, column 419W. The Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999 contain some specific exemptions relating to the Ministry of Defence and military activities, but these have not been invoked in the case of DU firing. It is, moreover, our policy that, where UK statutory regulations are not applicable, we undertake by agreement with the Government Departments concerned that the principles and spirit of the regulations are to be followed, and arrangements introduced will be, so far as is reasonably practicable, at least as good as those required by legislation.

  Operational Tour Intervals
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the average(a) length of operational tour and (b) interval between tours was for Defence Medical Services personnel in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement; [151803]

  (2) what length of tour and interval between deployments his Department assesses to be optimal for Defence Medical Services personnel; and if he will make a statement. [151800]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 7 March 2001]: Operational tour lengths for Defence Medical Service personnel can vary from one month to two years, depending on their Service and their particular speciality. For example, on average consultants deploy for one month, nurses deploy for three months while others deploy for six months. Additionally, Royal Navy personnel are considered operational when serving at sea which can last up to two years although they may not be away from the UK for the whole of this period. On average, consultants deploy up to three times a year while others will deploy about once a year. Tour intervals are not always as long as we would wish due to a shortage of manpower in some specialities. It is not possible to provide averages for each calendar year separately, without disproportionate effort, bearing in mind that many deployments span more than one calendar year.

  For all personnel, the Royal Navy aims that deployments, as opposed to normal operational tours, should be no longer than nine months and that total deployment time in any three-year period should not exceed 18 months. The Army's preferred tour interval is 24 months. The RAF seeks to maintain periods of at least 18 months between tours and to ensure that no individual is away for more than 140 days per annum or 280 days aggregated over a two-year period.

  Plastic Baton Rounds
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidance is issued to soldiers carrying plastic baton round weapons concerning children's health and safety; how many PBRs have been fired in each of the last 10 years; and how many(a) deaths and (b) injuries have resulted. [152872]
  508W
  Mr. Spellar
  Soldiers are trained in the use of baton guns and when deployed are issued with guidelines about their use. Plastic baton rounds may be fired, if authorised by the commander at the scene, when absolutely necessary to protect against physical violence. In all circumstances, soldiers are trained to use no more force than is absolutely necessary.

  The number of PBRs that have been fired over the last 10 years and the deaths and injuries that have resulted are set out in the table:

  Year

  PBRs fired

  Deaths

  Injuries 1

  1991

  88

  —

  10

  1992

  49

  —

  8

  1993

  26

  —

  14

  1994

  36

  —

  13

  1995

  —

  —

  7

  1996

  1,387

  —

  73

  1997

  440

  —

  25

  1998

  63

  —

  5

  1999

  1

  —

  1

  2000

  4

  —

  3

  20012

  2

  —

  0

  1 Information on injuries has been provided by the RUC.

  2 As at 28 February 2001.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many plastic baton rounds were discharged on the evening of 16 February 2001, in Lurgan, Co. Armagh; for what reason they were discharged and by members of which regiment; and what the age was of individuals targeted. [152871]

  Mr. Spellar
  On 16 February 2001 a group of around 30 stone-throwing youths attacked a patrol from the 3rd Battalion the Royal Irish Regiment as they passed the Kilwilkie Estate, Lurgan, Co. Armagh. Two plastic baton rounds were released in order that the patrol could defend themselves and effect a withdrawal from the area.

  The patrol was at the request of the RUC, following a number of telephone warnings about a device on the adjacent railway line.

  Timber
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department's annual report on timber procurement to the Committee of Green Ministers will be published. [152045]

  Dr. Moonie
  Information on the Ministry of Defence's procurement of timber will be included in the annual report from the Green Ministers Committee.

  Mines
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received concerning anti-handling devices on anti-vehicle mines; and if he will make a statement. [152601]

  Mr. Spellar
  We have received a copy of the Landmine Action report, "Alternative anti-personnel mines—The next generations". As far as we can establish we have received no other representations in the past year.
  509W
  Anti-tank mines in service with the UK armed forces are fully compliant with our obligations under international law, including the Ottawa Convention.

  Devonport Dockyard
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to transfer work carried out at Aldermaston to Devonport dockyard. [152857]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are no plans to transfer work from Aldermaston to Devonport dockyard.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are for Trident submarines to go to Devonport dockyard for routine maintenance work. [152858]

  Mr. Spellar
  It is planned that all Vanguard Class submarine refitting and refuelling work will be undertaken at Devonport dockyard. Smaller packages of routine maintenance work will normally be carried out at the submarines' home port at the Clyde Naval Base.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to store redundant nuclear submarines in the River Tamar prior to disposal. [152860]

  Mr. Spellar
  We have no plans to store decommissioned nuclear submarines in the River Tamar prior to disposal. Such submarines have been stored safely afloat in the Dockyard at Devonport since 1991. It is the Ministry of Defence's aim to have a land storage facility in place before 2012, although it is likely that the move from afloat to land storage will need to be staged over a period of several years. Meanwhile, the current arrangement for storage afloat at Devonport will continue.

  Muslims (Services)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Muslims serve in HM forces; and what proportion of service personnel this represents. [153062]

  Mr. Spellar
  The number of Muslims serving in the armed forces is set out in the table:

  Number

  Percentage

  Naval Service1

  15

  0.04

  Army2

  130

  0.12

  RAF2

  66

  0.12

  All Services

  211

  0.10

  1 Figures are taken from "live" naval personnel data system, i.e. at the day before the date of the data request (7 March 2001).

  2 Figures are the latest available statistics as at 1 February 2001.

  Procurement Projects
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total overspend on defence procurement projects since 1971. [153449]

  Dr. Moonie
  I will answer shortly.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Electoral Fraud
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he proposes to introduce to combat electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. [153798]

  Dr. Reid
  Today I have laid before the House a White Paper outlining the Government's proposals to combat electoral abuse in Northern Ireland. This Government are determined to minimise opportunities for abuse, while avoiding putting obstacles in the way of people's legitimate exercise of the franchise. The White Paper sets out a comprehensive strategy to address the weaknesses in the electoral procedures that have allowed electoral fraud to take place. It is important to note that these measures will apply only to Northern Ireland, where electoral abuse is believed to be a more serious problem than elsewhere in the UK.

  The extensive consultation and investigations that we have undertaken have ensured that our proposals are practical and realistic, and will make a real difference. Several of the proposals contained within that paper will require changes to the law, and we intend to bring forward legislation at the earliest possible opportunity.

  In addition, I welcome the measures which the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland has put in place to combat fraud in future elections. The provision of enhanced training and guidance for electoral staff is under way. The Electoral Office already co-operates closely with the police in investigating suspected cases of electoral fraud, and this liaison has intensified recently in the run-up to the local elections. The processing of absent vote applications has been returned to the local electoral offices in order to allow local knowledge to inform the scrutiny of these applications.

  I am happy also to be able to announce the initiation of a research project designed to measure the true extent of electoral fraud. This research will inform our continuing efforts to stamp out electoral fraud.

  Convention on the Rights of the Child
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures have been taken since the UK ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to ensure that practices of the police and criminal justice agencies offer the full range of protection under international law. [150596]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since the UK ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1991 legislation has been introduced and recommendations have been made further to ensure the protection of the rights of the child in the justice system. Particular highlights include: the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which removed the power of the juvenile court to give a custodial sentence for the care and protection of non-attendance at school; the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which reserved custodial sentences for only the most serious and/or persistent offenders; and the Criminal Justice (Children)(Northern Ireland) Order 1998, which introduced short determinate sentences, half of which is served in custody and the other half under supervision in the community. On 1 March 1999, as a result of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Northern Ireland Human
  511W
  Rights Commission (NIHRC) came into existence. It has taken a keen interest in the welfare of children in the justice system, taking as one of its first investigations the impact of custody on the rights of children. The Human Rights Act 1998, which came into force on 2 October 2000, formally incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into domestic law. On a Quinquennial basis the Government are required to submit a report to the UN's Committee on the Rights of the Child. Such reports include details of measures that exist within domestic law, practices and procedures, to ensure the rights of children who come into contact with the police and other criminal justice agencies.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken to familiarise officers of the RUC with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; and what mechanisms are in place to monitor effective compliance. [150600]

  Mr. Ingram
  A recent Force Order on the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 highlighted other relevant International Standards, including the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. In drafting the Force Order the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission was consulted. No separate monitoring mechanisms are currently in place. However, consideration is being given to their introduction in line with Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, when the Royal Ulster Constabulary becomes a 'delegated authority' for the purpose of that Act.

  Police Powers
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will(a) list those sections of emergency legislation where the exercise of police powers involves officers making contact with members of the public and (b) specify those areas of their powers where police have a responsibility to ascertain whether the member of the public is an adult. [150598]

  Mr. Ingram
  Such powers are currently governed by the provisions of Parts IV, V and VII of the Terrorism Act 2000, its related Schedules 5, 7, 8, 10 and 14; as well as the relevant Codes of Practice issued under the Act which stipulate an express requirement on the police to ascertain if an individual is a juvenile. For example in the Detention Code (in Northern Ireland issued under Section 99 of the Act) Section 1.7 states:"If anyone appears to be under the age of 17 then he or she shall be treated as a juvenile for the purposes of this Code in the absence of clear evidence to show that he or she is older".

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland further to his answer of 30 January 2001,Official Report, columns 135–36W, if he will list and place in the Library the guidance that has been issued to police officers governing the treatment of minors under emergency legislation, under (a) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 rules and (b) other rules. [150595]

  Mr. Ingrain
  'Minors', i.e. children under 10 years of age, have no criminal liability in law in Northern Ireland and are therefore not subject to PACE etc. Any intervention by the police, therefore, is from a 'care and welfare' perspective as provided for by the Common Law and the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. "Juveniles', i.e. under 17 years of age, have the same rights as adults, with such additional safeguards as are 512W
  stipulated in the various Codes of Practice issued under PACE, the Terrorism Act 2000, the Royal Ulster Constabulary manual and Force Order.

  In common with the exercise of police powers in all other areas of the United Kingdom, Royal Ulster Constabulary officers have been receiving training and guidance on the principles arising from the Human Rights Act 1998.

  The relevant legislation and Codes of Practice, except police operational documents, are available in the Library.

  Police Guidance (Young Persons)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what(a) guidance, (b) instructions, (c) training and (d) rules have been issued to the police governing treatment of traveller children and children of other ethnic minorities. [150597]

  Mr. Ingram
  There is no specific guidance issued to police officers about the treatment of traveller children and children from other minority groups. Treatment of these groups is governed by the safeguards which are in place in respect of all children in the form of the statutory Codes of Practice issued under PACE (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 and the Terrorism Act 2000, with their additional safeguards in respect of juveniles. Language difficulties are overcome with the involvement of trained interpreters. Additional training and guidance is provided on Human Rights and Equality issues.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the other written notices that have been circulated in the past five years(a) for the attention of and (b) to be communicated to officers having dealings with members of the public the responsibilities they have towards the exercise of their powers in respect of children. [150599]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Royal Ulster Constabulary operates under the Codes of Practice issued under the provisions of PACE (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996, the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. Other than addendum's to the Royal Ulster Constabulary manual held by each officer explaining aspects of the law, no other notices have been issued or communicated to the police in this respect.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  TB
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the Government's policy is on the proposal for a new global TB drug facility to help eradicate TB in developing countries. [153031]

  Clare Short
  The global TB drug facility will be launched on World TB day (24 March 2001), and is intended to increase the availability, affordability and quality of TB drugs. The UK Government support the aim
  513W
  of the "STOP TB" initiative, which includes the global TB drug facility, to expand and improve strategies to control TB. The initiative promotes the wider use of existing strategies to interrupt TB transmission and improve clinical care by increasing access to effective treatment, including strengthening health systems.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will estimate the amount spent on aid in Kosovo. [152821]

  Clare Short
  Up to the end of 2000, £760 million was pledged in humanitarian and development assistance. In addition to this donors contributed £70 million to the 2000 Kosovo consolidated budget.

  UK commitments up to the end of 2000 totalled £116.25 million. In addition the UK share of the EC programme was £108 million over the same period. We have committed £15 million over the next three years for technical assistance and have contributed £6.9 million to the 2001 consolidated budget.

  Debt Relief
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which countries have agreed to adopt(a) poverty relief and (b) education programmes in order to qualify for debt relief and further aid. [152823]

  Clare Short
  All countries that access the concessional resources of the World bank and the IMF, including those that are eligible for debt relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative, need to produce a national poverty reduction strategy. These strategies, developed by Governments in consultation with civil society, set out policies and programmes to tackle poverty, and provide a budgetary framework for the allocation of all development resources, including the savings arising from debt relief. Improving the quality of education, and particularly action to attain the international development target of universal primary education, will be an important component of all countries' strategies.

  By the end of 2000, the following 22 countries had qualified for debt relief under the HIPC Initiative: Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, the Gambia, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia.

  In addition, by the end of January 2001, the following countries had had their national poverty reduction strategies accepted by the boards of the World bank and IMF as an appropriate basis for these agencies to deliver their assistance to these countries: Albania, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Georgia, Ghana, Kenya, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Moldova, and Tajikistan.

  A number of donors, including the UK, have agreed to provide development assistance to a country in support of its national poverty reduction strategy.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Active Community
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken in response to the recommendations of the report of the working group on the active community, "Giving Time, Getting Involved". [153894]

  Mr. Boateng
  A table summarising what action the Government are taking to address the recommendations arising from "Giving Time, Getting Involved" has been placed in the Library.

  Refugee Integration Challenge Fund
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Home Office refugee integration challenge fund. [153895]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Home Office has allocated £500,000 for each of the next three years to a Challenge Fund which has been set up to complement the Refugee Integration Strategy launched on 2 November 2000. It seeks to promote innovative projects that address specific social needs among refugee communities, and funding is available from 2 April 2001.

  Asylum Seekers
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers were supported by local authorities under the previous support and dispersal system in the last 12 months of the system; and if he will make a statement. [153606]

  Mrs. Roche
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  The numbers of asylum seekers being supported by local authorities in London when the previous support arrangements began to be phased out (end of March 2000) is available from the Association of London Government (ALG). Information for the week ending 31 March 2000 shows that 20,5501 single adult asylum seekers, 11,7451 asylum seeker families and 3,5201 unaccompanied asylum seeking children were being supported by local authorities in London.

  Information on asylum seekers supported by local authorities outside London is not available.
  1 Rounded to the nearest five

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have been housed in each local authority area under the new support and dispersal arrangements; and if he will make a statement. [153607]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information requested is not currently available.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for asylum from claimants originating from Afghanistan have been determined in each of the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [152881]
  515W
  Mrs. Roche
  The available information on the number of asylum applications from nationals of Afghanistan that have had an initial decision is provided in the table.

  Month

  Number of initial decisions1,2,3

  February 2000

  n/a

  March 2000

  n/a

  April 2000

  135

  May 2000

  135

  June 2000

  130

  July 2000

  135

  August 2000

  220

  September 2000

  220

  October 20004,5

  365

  November 20055

  510

  December 20055

  545

  January 20015

  1,020

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest five

  2 Information is for initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decision

  3 Provisional figures

  4 From October 2000, the source data on decision changed. The nationality breakdown is therefore not directly comparable with previous months

  5 Decisions may include some cases decided under the backlog criteria

  This information is published monthly on the Department's website at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds.index.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his Department's long-term plans are for the detention of asylum seekers in England and Wales. [152819]

  Mrs. Roche
  The 1998 White Paper "Fairer, Faster, Firmer—A Modern Approach to Immigration and Asylum" identified the need to increase the immigration detention estate in order to meet the challenge of increased removal targets of both immigration offenders and failed asylum applicants.

  In order to meet these commitments, a new, 900-bed, dedicated immigration detention centre is under construction at Yarl's Wood in Bedfordshire with a 550-bed centre at Harmondsworth near Heathrow similarly well advanced. Both should become available by the end of this year. A further facility in Kent is currently at the planning stage.

  The Government remain committed to decreasing the use of Prison Service accommodation for immigration detainees while recognising that there will always be a need to utilise such facilities in the minority of cases where a higher level of security is required.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many contracts have been entered into by NASS to provide housing for asylum seekers; how many bed spaces have been provided; and in which areas of the country. [152880]

  Mrs. Roche
  The number of contracts entered into by the National Asylum Support Service is 17 of which seven (including Northern Ireland) are with local authorities and 10 in the private sector.
  516W
  The numbers of bedspaces provided by region are:

  Region

  Number of bedspaces provided

  East Midlands

  1,631

  East of England

  280

  Greater London

  586

  Kent and Sussex

  305

  North East

  6,118

  North West

  6,551

  Northern Ireland

  113

  Scotland

  6,103

  South Central

  67

  South West

  604

  Wales

  290

  West Midlands

  4,026

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  7,616

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are held in prisons; and if he will make a statement. [152877]

  Mrs. Roche
  The most recent information relates to persons detained under Immigration Act 1988 powers as at 31 January 2001. At this date 920 persons were recorded as being detained in Prison Service establishments.

  Currently, it is not possible to identify those persons detained in prison who have claimed asylum at some point.

  Prisoners (Employment)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were(a) employed in prison workshops and (b) in other employment, expressed as a percentage of the prison population, in each year from 1995 to present; and if he will make a statement. [153608]

  Mr. Boateng
  The table sets out the number of prisoners employed in prison workshops, expressed as a percentage of the average prison population for the year from 1995 to the most recently available data.

  Statistics on the numbers of prisoners in other employment for the period requested are not readily available in the Prison Service. However, information produced in May 2000 on the number of prisoners employed outside workshops in adult male training prisons, showed a total of 8,205 prisoners were employed on work activities such as kitchens, gardens, agricultural business, prison maintenance and cleaning.

  Year

  Number of Prisoners Employed in Workshops

  As a percentage of Average Annual Prison Population

  1995–96

  8,844

  17.14

  1996–97

  7,601

  13.41

  1997–98

  7,615

  12.16

  1998–99

  9,699

  14.94

  1999– 2000

  9,527

  14.70

  Prisoner Treatment Programmes
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners completed
  517W
  (a) an offending behaviour programme and (b) a sex offenders treatment programme in each year since 1996 to present; and if he will make a statement. [153605]

  Mr. Boateng
  The number of prisoners completing an offender behaviour programme can be found in the table.

  Year

  Number of accredited offending bahaviour programme completions in the Prison Service

  1996–97

  1,373

  1997–98

  2,240

  1998–99

  3,132

  1999–2000

  4,669

  1 April 2000 to 31 January 20011

  4,034

  1 The most recent date for which statistics are available

  The number of prisoners completing a Sex Offender Treatment Programme (SOTP) can be found in the table.

  Year

  Number of accredited SOTP completions in the Prison Service

  1996–97

  663

  1997–98

  671

  1998–99

  456

  1999–2000

  588

  1 April 2000 to 31 January 20011

  332

  1 The most recent date for which statistics are available

  The figures for 1996 to 2000 do not represent the gross number of offending behaviour completions by the Prison Service during those years. Each establishment is audited annually on the quality of programme delivery and their number of completions adjusted in line with the score that they are awarded. However, the figures for completions during the present financial year have not yet been adjusted in this way.

  Prison Televisions
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy on the availability of televisions in prisoners' cells. [152878]

  Mr. Boateng
  Access to in-cell television is an earnable and forfeitable privilege within the Incentives and Earned Privileges Scheme, which is intended to motivate prisoners to good behaviour, and to participate in work and constructive activity. Where the technology is available, in-cell television is being used increasingly to provide information to prisoners on developments within the prison, including education courses, visits times, work availability and canteen facilities.

  Prisoners with in-cell television pay a weekly charge of £1 per set, and the scheme is broadly self-financing, with the costs of televisions and their replacements, warranties and wall brackets being met from the charge on prisoners.

  Prisoner Restraint
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in 2001 prison inmates, taken to hospital for medical treatment, have been shackled while in hospital; and if he will make a statement. [152817]
  518W
  Mr. Boateng
  No central records are maintained of the number of prisoners taken to hospital for medical treatment or the number of those who are held under restraint, and the information requested can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The application of restraints to prisoners at hospital is determined by a risk assessment but restraints are not applied to women attending for antenatal treatment or to give birth. Once applied, restraints may be removed subject to a risk assessment, and will be removed where a healthcare professional seeks their removal because of an immediate risk to the health of the prisoner, or because the prisoner is in pain or discomfort, or because the restraints are impeding essential treatment.

  Prisoners (Ethnic Breakdown)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the ethnic breakdown is of inmates in(a) Strangeways Prison and (b) UK prisons. [153228]

  Mr. Boateng
  The figures for all prisons in England and Wales and for Manchester prison (Strangeways) as at 31 January 2001, are provisionally recorded as follows:

  Ethnicity

  All prisons

  Manchester prison

  Asian

  Bangladeshi

  196

  0

  Indian

  641

  4

  Other

  1,099

  17

  Pakistani

  1,038

  15

  Black

  African

  1,393

  19

  Caribbean

  4,989

  24

  Other

  2,165

  72

  Chinese

  115

  0

  Not known

  46

  0

  Other

  1,447

  4

  White

  50,845

  908

  Total

  63,974

  1,063

  Prison Service Programmes
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Prison Service programmes RESPOND and RESPECT, and on plans for similar programmes in the Police Service. [153463]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Prison Service RESPOND (Race Equality for Staff and Prisoners) programme unveiled in February 1999, consists of five main strategies:Confronting racial harassment and discrimination.
  Ensuring fairness in recruitment, promotion, appraisal and selection.
  Developing and supporting minority ethnic staff.
  Ensuring equal opportunities for minority ethnic prisoners.
  Recruiting minority ethnic staff.

  The RESPOND programme enjoys the support of the Prison Service trade unions and staff associations, and £3 million was earmarked to take it forward over the first three years.
  519W
  A key element of the RESPOND programme is the development of RESPECT (Racial Equality for Staff), a national minority ethnic staff support network aiming to eliminate racism in the workplace. Around 1,500 delegates attended the launch of RESPECT in January 2001 at the International Convention Centre (ICC) in Birmingham.

  RESPECT is able to provide support to minority ethnic staff who claim to suffer from racial harassment or discrimination. A free-phone support-line will be operational from Monday, 2 April 2001. Specially trained volunteers will offer the alleged victim a sympathetic ear and help them to identify courses of action available to them. RESPECT complements the help and support that is available through existing channels such as Prison Service Staff Care and Welfare Services, and trade unions and staff associations. RESPECT has around 900 members.

  The Home Secretary's Action Plan, published in response to the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report, sets out a comprehensive programme to improve community and race relations. The 70 recommendations are wide-ranging, and those which apply to the police are concerned with tackling discrimination both internally within the service and as a service provider. On 22 February the Home Secretary published the Second Annual Report on Progress against the Action Plan. The Action Plan contains elements common to the RESPECT and RESPOND programmes in the Prison Service, such as targets on the recruitment, retention and progression of minority ethnic police officers and a programme of racism awareness training within police services to be delivered to all front-line staff by the end of 2002.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant report (No. 73) has been withdrawn. [152959]

  Mrs. Roche
  Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 73) contained a technical error and has therefore been withdrawn.

  The report has been corrected and is being reprinted. It will be resubmitted as Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 77), for consideration by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on 13 March 2001.

  Cyclists
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cyclists were fined for riding a bicycle without lights in the UK in 2000. [152814]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Statistics for 2000 are not yet available, but the available information from the Home Office Court Proceedings database shows that there were 332 persons fined in England and Wales in 1999 for lighting and reflector offences connected with pedal cycles (Road Traffic Act 1988, section 81(2) and RVL Regs 1989).

  Information relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for Ministers in the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

  Police Numbers
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police officers and (b) civilian staff are employed in each constabulary. [152998]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on police and civilian numbers for 30 September 2000 can be found in Table 3 and Table 6 of the Home Office Statistical Bulletin No. 2–01, "Police Service Strength", which was published on 16 January. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Burglary
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences of burglary were admitted to by those serving sentences in Prison Service establishments during(a) 1999 and (b) 2000. [152885]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The number of previous offences of burglary admitted by prisoners has not been collected centrally since 1 April 1999, when the counting rules for detections changed. The new counting rules provide more precise and rigorous criteria for securing a detection, with the underlying emphasis on the successful result of a police investigation. Detections secured through 'prison visits' were omitted under the new counting rules. The total number of burglaries in England and Wales which were cleared up by the police from 'prison visits' in the year ending March 1999 was 58,898, 32 per cent. of all detections of burglaries in that year.

  Street Robberies
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many street robberies occurred in London during the six months ending 28 February. [152822]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The most recently available figures, provided by the Metropolitan police, show that there were 18,094 street robberies involving personal property in their area in the six months ending January 2001.

  Departmental Policies (South Shields)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the South Shields constituency, the effects on South Shields of his Department's polices and actions since 2 May 1997. [153084]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office is working to build a safe, just and tolerant society in which the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and communities are properly balanced, and the protection and security of the public are maintained. Detailed information on the impact of Home Office policies across the full range of responsibilities is set out in Home Office annual reports. A copy of the most recent report, Home Office Annual Report 1999–2000, is available in the Library. The next report will be published shortly. Information on recorded crime and policing is also published. 'Recorded Crime England and Wales, 12 months to September 2000' and Police Service Strength England and Wales, 30 September 2000' can be found in
  521W
  the Library. The recorded crime statistics include information on recorded crime by Basic Command Unit and Crime and Disorder Partnerships.

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

  Reduced Burglary Initiative

  South Tyneside All Saints, South Shields were awarded £60,000 under Round One of the Reducing Burglary Initiative. Interventions include: Offender based strategies, use of mobile video recording system and electronic intruder detection measures; crime prevention measures, target hardening. Community based strategies.

  Targeted Policing

  Northumbria police in partnership with Tynesdale district council, local parish councils and the Northumberland Social Services and probation service were awarded £40,000 under the Targeted Policing Initiative for a project to develop an integrated strategy to tackle crime and disorder in rural towns and remote villages. The project will tackle both localised offending and crime resulting from travelling criminals. A local multi-agency safety group will develop intelligence about offenders and identify 'hot spots'. The project will employ a range of interventions including a mobile police station and the use of Closed Circuit Television.

  CCTV

  Under Round One of the Crime Reduction Programme's CCTV Initiative, South Tyneside Community Safety Board were awarded around £121,000 for the South Tyneside District Hospital CCTV Project. The project updated and extended the CCTV coverage of South Tyneside District Hospital including the car parks and the staff residential blocks, with the aim of reducing fear of crime, car crime, criminal damage and burglary.

  Neighbourhood Warden Schemes

  South Tyneside Metropolitan borough council have been awarded £228,000 until 2002–03 for a scheme covering central and eastern Jarrow and western South Shields. The project started on 4 December 2000.

  Youth Offending Teams (YOT's)

  The local YOT is involved in a number of schemes including establishing restorative approaches and working with victims of crime and has held successful restorative conferences. 35 per cent. of reparation orders/requirements have included an element of direct reparation to victims. There is a very successful project in Biddick Hall where 22 young people involved in serious youth disorder did reparation in the same area repairing damage to a primary school, cleaning off graffiti etc. It has been very well received by local community/residents (and by parents of young people). It is too early to say definitively what the effects of these actions are on re-offending and reducing levels of youth crime. Recent police figures have however led to some concern about youth disorder. In relation to this, there has recently been a seminar funded and facilitated by Government Office for the North East, and in response to the concern the YOT will be taking appropriate action within the context of a proposed youth disorder strategy.
  522W
  More generally, all of the policies of the Home Office will impact on the residents of South Shields to a greater or lesser extent. For example:
  376 Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships have been established;
  racial harassment and racially motivated crimes have been made criminal offences by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998; the asylum backlog has been cut from 103,495 at the end of January 2000 to 66,195 by the end of December 2000:
  good progress is being made in reducing the incidence of fire deaths in England and Wales. They have dropped from 605 in 1997 to 534 in 1999.

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

  Departmental Policies (Houghton and Washington, East)
  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effects on Houghton and Washington, East of his Department's actions since 2 May 1997. [152993]

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

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

  Targeted Policing Initiative

  Northumbria police in partnership with Tynedale district council, local parish councils and the Northumberland Social Services and probation service were awarded £40,000 under the Targeted Policing Initiative, to develop an integrated strategy to tackle crime and disorder in rural towns and remote villages. The project will tackle both localised offending and crime resulting from travelling criminals. A local multi-agency safety group will develop intelligence about offenders and identify "hot spots". The project will employ a range of interventions including a mobile police station and the use of Closed Circuit Television.

  Youth Offending Teams (YOT's)

  Houghton and Washington is covered by the Sunderland YOT. The YOT has worked closely and collaboratively with Sheffield University and KPMG as part of the evaluation of YOT pilots. This involved interviews with parents, evaluation of case files and qualitative interviews with a range of staff. The Social

  523W
  Software (YOIS) system was installed in March 2000, has been "bedded in" and is being fully utilised. The Service was involved at the national level in the Youth Justice Board commissioned work with the Trust for the Study of Adolescence to develop a parenting video to use with parents of adolescents. This built upon some of the successful work that had been undertaken in Sunderland as a pilot area for Parenting Orders

  The Service was subject to inspection through the Joint Review of Social Services, which was undertaken in 2000. The following is a direct quotation from the report:
  "The Service has been established with extensive multi-agency co-operation and involvement. This extends beyond the expected contributing agencies to include others, such as the Fire Service and the HAZ (Health Action Zone), which have also been involved in securing resources to achieve the objectives of the Service with regard to specific themes. The local authority and partner agencies have invested significantly in the successful establishment of the Service."

  Voice verification is currently being piloted and is being used with bail and remand cases and those subject to community cases. All Pathway projects have been fully developed and have begun to demonstrate their effectiveness. Projects have offered workshops at various conferences and have opened their doors to sharing practice. A partnership has been developed with Gateshead YOT and the Kolvin Regional Forensic Unit to pilot and to evaluate a 10-session cognitive-behavioural programme for young people who offend.

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

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

  Departmental Policies (Hemsworth and Wakefield)
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly to the locations as possible, the effects of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997 on(a) Hemsworth constituency and (b) Wakefield district. [153003]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office is working to build a safe, just and tolerant society in which the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and communities are properly balanced, and the protection and security of the public are maintained. Detailed information on the impact of Home Office policies across the full range of responsibilities is set out in Home Office Annual Reports. A copy of the most recent report, Home Office Annual Report 1999–2000, is available in the Library. The next report will be published shortly. Information on recorded crime and policing is also published. "Recorded Crime England and Wales, 12 months to September 2000" and "Police Service Strength England and Wales, 30 September 2000" can be found in 524W
  the Library. The recorded crime statistics include information on recorded crime by Basic Command Unit and Crime and Disorder Partnerships.

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

  Reducing Burglary Initiative:

  West Yorkshire police in partnership with Wakefield Metropolitan district council, were awarded around £12,000 under Round Two of the Reducing Burglary Initiative for a scheme covering City Estate, Wakefield.

  Targeted Policing Initiative:

  West Yorkshire police were awarded £488,000 under the Targeted Policing Initiative to roll-out across the force the lessons they have learned from a project run in Killingbeck (Leeds) on tackling domestic violence, and to apply those lessons to other forms of hate crime including racist and homophobic incidents. The project involves a graded response that includes working with both victims and offenders.

  Closed Circuit Television (CCTV):

  Wakefield District Community Safety Partnership were awarded £274,000 for the Castleford CCTV Initiative under Round One of the Crime Reduction Programme's CCTV Initiative. The project covers Castleford town centre, and aims to combat vehicle crime, shoplifting and criminal damage.

  Wakefield District Community Safety Partnership have submitted two bids, to a total capital of £542,000 under the second round of the CCTV Initiative. Both bids are currently under consideration.

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

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

  Citizenship
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will assess the desirability of amending the British Nationality Act 1981 to ensure that those born outside the United Kingdom to contract supplemented officers working overseas are eligible for full British citizenship. [153386]

  Mrs. Roche
  I have no reason to question the present arrangements.

  Police (North-west)
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he has introduced to increase the recruitment of police officers in Greater Manchester; what the cost of these measures was; and what evaluation has been made of their success. [152809]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 9 March 20011: The Crime Fighting Fund (CFF) will enable police forces to recruit 9,000 additional officers over and above the number previously planned in the three years to 2002–03. Under the CFF, Greater Manchester police have been allocated a total of 588 extra recruits.

  According to the latest information provided by Greater Manchester police, the force now expects to recruit 147 CFF recruits this financial year. CFF grant payments made to Greater Manchester police so far this financial year total £1,388,171. CFF grant payments to forces are paid on the basis of anticipated recruitment of CFF officers. Variations in actual recruitment may affect total amounts due to individual forces, any overpayment may be reclaimed or offset against future payments.

  The CFF is successfully helping Greater Manchester police to recruit officers over and above the force's previous plans.

  To help forces meet their recruitment targets, the first ever National Recruitment Campaign was launched on 30 August. To 4 March 2001 over 121,000 responses had been received to the campaign advertisements. These had generated over 25,500 Expressions of Interest (EOIs) to forces, 1,598 of which had been passed to Greater Manchester police. The total expected campaign spend in 2000–01 is £6.98 million excluding value added tax. The costs of the campaign cannot be broken down by individual police force as media for the campaign have been bought nationally.

  The campaign has been very successful in generating inquiries and Expressions of Interest. Responsibility for processing EOIs rests with forces. Forces are being asked to report on the outcome of the EOIs with a view to assessing the effectiveness of the campaign.

  For an indication of the expected impact of these measures and of the force's local recruitment activity on force strength, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to her on 9 March 2001, Official Report, column 387W.

  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members of the Metropolitan police had previously served as police officers in the north-west region in each year since 1990. [152812]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 9 March 2001]:I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that it is not possible to provide the information for each year since 1990. I am told, however, that a survey of serving officers indicates that there are currently 100 officers in the Metropolitan police who previously served as officers in a force in the north-west region of England.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on what grounds exemptions are granted for the use of dogs from non-designated breeders to be used in licensed procedures; [153272]

  (2) what steps are taken to ensure that animal experiments by commercial pet food companies comply with section 5(4) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; [153275]

  (3) how many exemptions were granted in (a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000 under section 10(3)(a)of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; [153270]

  (4) if he will make a statement on how his Department monitors the conditions in which dogs are bred and reared in non-designated breeding establishments. [153273]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]: Dogs are primarily used in pharmaceutical research and development, or in pharmaceutical safety and efficacy evaluations. They are also used, when no other species is suitable, in the evaluation of cardiovascular and cardiorespiratory problems in humans. Such work contributes to advances in human healthcare. Dogs are also used in the development of veterinary medicines and techniques.

  The work undertaken by commercial pet food companies is for the purpose of ensuring that food products for pets are safe, effective and nutritionally complete. Most of the procedures conducted are so mild as to not require licensed authority. The procedures which come under licence are very mild. There are pet re-homing schemes in place for animals once tests have been completed.

  Under the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 dogs and cats can be used only where animals of no other species are suitable. Together with primates and horses, the overall use of these species represented less than 1 per cent, of the total animals used in scientific procedures in 1999,

  The numbers of exemptions under section 10(3)(a), allowing the use of dogs and cats bred or obtained from non-designated breeding establishments in the last three years are:

  1998: 7

  1999: 7

  2000: 40

  Under section 10(3) of the Act, the non-availability of suitable animals from designated breeders is the only justification for such exemptions.

  To comply with section 5(4) of the Act, any application to use protected animals in research must be subjected to a detailed cost/benefit assessment by Home Office inspectors. The likely adverse effects on the animals concerned must be weighed against the benefit likely to accrue as a result of the proposed programme of work. Such an assessment is applied to applications made by commercial pet food companies, as to any other. Information about the cost benefit assessment is set out in the paper by the chief inspector published as part of the Animal Procedures Committee annual report for 1997.

  There is no authority under the 1986 Act to monitor conditions in non-designated breeding establishments.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the manufacture, assembly, testing and storage of depleted uranium ammunition is covered by(a) international environmental treaties, (b) verification and reporting under the Chemical Weapons Convention and (c) European Union and national environmental regulations; and if potentially hazardous releases or emissions have been reported to the relevant environmental and safety regulators. [150995]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: I am not aware of any international environmental treaties which cover depleted uranium ammunition. The Chemical Weapons Convention does not cover depleted uranium ammunition.

  Within the European Union civil uses of nuclear materials are regulated under the Euratom Treaty and subsidiary legislation. The Government's position is that the Euratom Treaty does not apply to military activities. The Radioactive Substances Act 1993 makes provision for the regulation of radioactive substances. The licensing provisions of the Act are applied to companies involved in the manufacture and assembly of depleted uranium ammunition and permits have been issued covering a number of such premises. Premises occupied on behalf of the Crown for the purposes of the armed forces or the Ministry of Defence are exempt from the provisions of the Act. However, the Environment, Agency does regulate these premises by administrative rather than statutory means.

  Apart from the small amount of contained firing at Foulness and Aldermaston, test firing of depleted uranium has been concentrated on two sites. One site at Eskmeals in Cumbria has not been used since 1995. The Environment Agency believes from environmental monitoring reports it has seen that there have not been any potentially hazardous releases or emissions of depleted uranium to the environment from this site. The other site is at Dundrennan in Kirkudbright, Scotland from which shells are fired into the Solway Firth. A long-term environmental monitoring programme on the effects of depleted uranium test firing has been in place in Kirkudbright since 1983. In 1993, W. S. Atkins Ltd. was commissioned to produce an independent environmental impact assessment for Kirkudbright. The report concluded that the firing programme produced a negligible effect on the local environment.

  Buses
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress towards upgrading buses. [152949]

  Mr. Hill
  Our Ten Year Transport Plan sets out the broad agenda for improving the quality of bus services and securing passenger growth. We are underpinning this with new powers under the Transport Act 2000, now largely in force, and with additional funding through local transport plans, increased support for rural buses, a new 528W
  urban bus challenge scheme to improve services in deprived areas and, most recently, enhanced fuel duty rebate following the Budget. In addition, regulations under the Disability Discrimination Act now require new buses and coaches used on local and scheduled services to be accessible to disabled people, including wheelchair users. We will be monitoring these initiatives to ensure that they deliver the necessary quantity and quality improvements for bus users.

  EU Environment Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the outcome was of the Environment Council held in Brussels on 8 March; what the Government's voting record was at the Council; and if he will make a statement. [153134]

  Mr. Meacher
  I represented the UK at the Environment Council in Brussels on 8 March, accompanied by Sam Galbraith, Scottish Executive Minister for the Environment, Sport and Culture. The UK, along with other member states, except Germany who abstained, voted in favour of the common position on the proposed Directive on motorcycle emissions. The Council adopted three sets of conclusions.

  The Presidency proposed a compromise text on a Directive to limit emissions from motorcycles in two stages, 2003 and 2006. In supporting the proposed text on tighter limits from 2003, providing between 60 and 70 per cent. reduction in hydrocarbons and 30 to 60 per cent. reduction in carbon monoxide, member states accepted my amendment to extend the deadline for "enduro" bikes to assist the small UK manufacturers in adapting to the new limits. Germany proposed binding limits for 2006 to be agreed now, in advance of the Commission's proposed limits due by the end of 2002, which will be based on a new test cycle currently under development. The UK, along with the majority of member states, agreed to accept Germany's proposed limit values for 2006 as indicative non-binding limits only and the Council achieved a Common Position, with German abstention, that meets both our environmental and our manufacturers' needs.

  Short Council conclusions on climate change were agreed reaffirming the EU's commitment to reaching agreement on the Kyoto Protocol at the resumed COP6. Following a presentation by the Commission of a Communication preparing for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Rio+10) in 2002, Council conclusions were agreed listing strategic objectives for the Summit. Council conclusions were also reached on a Communication reviewing future Bathing Water policy. These will guide the Commission in preparing its proposal for a revised Directive.

  A public policy debate was held on the Sixth Environment Action Programme, which will set out the EU's environmental priorities for the next 20 years, primarily climate change, nature and biodiversity, environment and health and sustainable management of natural resources and waste. It was clear from the debate that there was a general wish to make the Programme more specific by adding some key objectives and

  529W
  deadlines, although, since the proposal has only recently been published, there were not many concrete suggestions. Delegations also generally wish to see a short, clear programme. The negotiations on this dossier will proceed throughout the remainder of the Swedish Presidency with the aim to reach Common Position at the June Council.

  A policy debate was also held on a White Paper on a future EU Chemicals Strategy. This proposes a new framework for risk assessment and management of both existing and new chemicals. It follows an initiative launched by the UK under its Presidency in 1998. Member states expressed broad support of the Commission objectives. The next stage will be detailed consideration of the practicalities of how these objectives can be met. The Presidency aim to complete Council Conclusions in June to direct the Commission in developing proposals for an effective and workable system.

  The Commission and Presidency updated the Council on progress on an EU Sustainable Development Strategy. The Commission presented their Green Paper on Integrated Product Policy, which seeks to address the environmental impact of products at all stages of their life-cycle. The Presidency gave progress reports on a number of current legislative proposals expected to reach common position at the June or October 2001 Environment Councils. The Commission reported on progress in drafting a new proposal on the traceability and labelling of GMOs. The Council also had an informal discussion on climate change at the end of the day's business.

  Lewes-Polegate Railway Line
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much departmental money was spent(a) from 1 January 1989 to 30 April 1997 and (b) from 1 May 1997 to 31 December 2000 in connection with the Lewes-Polegate railway line. [153434]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]: This information is not available in the form requested.

  Between 1 January 1989 and 25 May 1996, passenger rail services on the Lewes-Polegate railway line were operated by the British Railways Board, to which the following amounts of central Government grant were paid in 1988–89 to 1996–97.

  Number of households that require new heating systems including boiler

  Number of households that required repairs to existing heating systems

  Scheme manager

  Fitted and invoiced

  Order with installer

  Repairs completed and invoiced (of which require replacement boiler)

  Those awaiting repair1

  Those awaiting replacement boiler1

  Eaga (Lot1)

  736

  891

  1,439 (469)

  739

  458

  Eaga(Lot 3)

  2,161

  3,639

  2,912(1,117)

  1,845

  1,102

  Eaga (Lot 4)

  1,092

  3,216

  2,265 (811)

  1,107

  808

  Eastern (Lot 2)

  1,956

  3,952

  1,358 (459)

  1,986

  4,879

  1 Due to the one to six week delay between the comoletion of the work and the issue of invoices by contractors it is likely that work has already been completed in some of these house holds.

  530W

  Central Government grants

  Cash prices £ million

  1988–89

  551

  1989–90

  479

  1990–91

  637

  1991–92

  902

  1992–93

  1,194

  1993–94

  926

  1994–95

  1,783

  1995–96

  1,650

  1996–97

  1,257

  Between 26 May 1996 and 31 December 2000, passenger rail services on the Lewes-Polegate railway line were operated by Connex South Central, to which the following amounts of franchise support were paid by the Franchising Director in 1996–97 to 1999–2000.

  Franchise support

  Cash prices £ million

  1996–97

  76

  1997–98

  76

  1998–99

  58

  1999–2000

  50

  Franchise support for Connex South Central is the Franchising Director's contribution to the company's total expenditure on the provision of all its passenger services. The company is responsible for the detailed allocation of that expenditure between services on particular railway lines.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people in each of the four areas of England established for the purpose of administering the home energy efficiency scheme(a) have had new boilers fitted and (b) have had boilers repaired since June 2000; and how many are currently waiting for (i) boiler repairs and (ii) new boilers. [153472]

  Mr. Meacher
  (holding answer 12 March 2001]: The table sets out the number of households that have had work completed and those where orders have been placed:
  531W
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how the Government ensures that the cost of work carried out by contractors under the home energy efficiency scheme does not exceed the price which would be charged by local contractors registered with CORGI; [153532]

  (2) how the Government are ensuring that grants paid to contractors for work under the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme does not exceed the value of the work done. [153533]

  Mr. Meacher
  Scheme managers are contractually required to appoint insulation and heating sub-contractors following the requirements set out under the UK's Public Procurement Regulations. In the case of heating contractors, I understand that both scheme managers advertised widely in the trade press and wrote to all CORGI registered gas heating engineers inviting them to tender. The scheme managers were required to accept those tenders that were the lowest in price and technically compliant.

  The scheme is designed so that independent surveyors visit householders and advise the measures to be installed. Orders are then placed with the sub-contractors for the package of measures to be installed in each home. The scheme managers operate monitoring systems to ensure work orders are correctly carried out to the relevant specifications.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what date and by what means tenders were invited for the management of grant payments under the home energy efficiency scheme towards the cost of heating systems; how many tenders were received; and on what criteria contracts were awarded. [153530]

  Mr. Meacher
  The scheme manager contracts were awarded in accordance with UK Public Procurement Regulations. An advertisement was placed in the Official Journal of the European Community and written tenders were invited on 29 October 1999.

  Six compliant bids were received. These were assessed by a tender panel, which included external representatives. The panel unanimously recommended the award of contracts to the Eaga Partnership Ltd, and Eastern HEES Ltd. on the basis of providing the lowest priced, technically compliant bids.

  The contract with Eaga Partnership includes a stepped clawback provision, whereby up to 75 per cent. of any profit in a given financial year is returned to the Department. Eastern HEES Ltd. is a not-for-profit company who are committed to refunding to the Department all surpluses that occur.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those contractors authorised to carry out installations of new boilers under the home energy efficiency scheme in each of the four areas of England established for the purpose of administering the scheme. [153445]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]: The following is a list of heating contractors authorised to carry out installations of new boilers under the home
  532W
  energy efficiency scheme in England. There are variations in the coverage of each installer, some are national, while others provide a regional service.

  Heating contractors—Eaga Partnership Ltd. (North East, North West, London, West Midlands, South East, South West regions)

  Amadeus Insulation Ltd.

  Ashley and McDonough (Huyton) Ltd.

  Concept Heating Systems

  Dawsetway Ltd.

  Domestic and General Insulation Ltd.

  Domestic Gas Services

  Downs (Insulation and Electrical) Ltd.

  Everwarm Services Ltd.

  Excelsior Insulation Services Ltd.

  Fenhams Contracts

  F. J. Jones Heating Engineers Ltd.

  Gas Services

  Gascare Central Heating Ltd.

  Gascare 1A Autoheat Ltd.

  Gilwood Engineering Services Ltd.

  Home Energy Efficiency Ltd.

  Huyton Plumbing and Heating Ltd.

  Interglow

  J. and L. National Energy Saver Ltd.

  Kershaw Contracting Services Ltd.

  Kingsleigh Holdings Ltd.

  Lionheart Heating Services

  N. W. Heating Maintenance

  P. H. Jones Plumbing and Heating Ltd.

  P J. Shankster

  Plumbing and Gas Services Ltd.

  Premier Services

  PTC Construction Group Ltd.

  Quake Energy

  Quality Heating Services Ltd.

  Simpson and Gregg Ltd.

  S. J. White (Engineers) Ltd.

  Taverner (UK) Ltd.

  Vale Heating and Plumbing

  Viscount Insulations and Security

  W. H. Joce and Sons

  WTS (Holdings) Ltd.Heating contractors—Eastern HEES Ltd. (Eastern region)

  British Gas Services

  Dewsbury Civil Engineering Ltd.

  East Coast Gas Services

  Eastern Contracting Ltd.

  Energy Efficiency Centre Ltd.

  Jeakins Weir Ltd.

  Kershaws Contracting Services

  L. and W. Insulation Ltd.

  Maclean and Nutall

  N. W. Heating Maintenance

  Perry Electrical Ltd.

  P. H. Jones Ltd.

  Paul Brant Plumbing and Heating

  Rhiengold

  Rule and Parker

  Shore Energy Ltd.

  Sun Realm Heating Company Ltd.

  Thorpete Associates

  Swift Services

  Trolhurst

  Viscount Home Insulation

  Yorkshire Plumbing and Heating Services Ltd.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what tendering processes were undertaken prior to the appointment of the
  533W
  Eaga Partnership to administer the scheme for grant payments towards the cost of new central heating boilers for vulnerable people. [153529]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Eaga Partnership Ltd. was awarded the contract to manage the home energy efficiency scheme in the Northern, West and South of England from the start of the new scheme on 1 June 2000. Prior to this date no grants for heating measures were available under the scheme that had run since 1991. Instead only a single main insulation measure was available.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the estimated cost to public funds in 2000–01 is of the Government's advertising of the UK home energy efficiency scheme. [153471]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]: The responsibility for marketing the home energy efficiency scheme in England rests with the scheme managers, Eaga Partnership Ltd. and Eastern HEES Ltd. The costs for this activity are included within their overall contract price. The scheme managers report that a total of £3.05 million will be spent on advertising the scheme in this financial year, including the cost of the Warm Front Team campaign.

  Energy efficiency is a devolved area. It is therefore the responsibility for the respective Parliament and Assemblies to comment on the situation in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  East

  North-east and north-west

  London and south-east

  South-west and west-midlands

  Total value of heating and insulation work (£)

  6,088,350

  10,474,401

  3,940,122

  5,543,556

  Total value of security work (£)

  117,919

  387,084

  91,431

  173,717

  Total value of HEES work (£)

  6,206,269

  10,861,485

  4,031,553

  5,717,273

  Number of households treated

  16,945

  29,594

  12,426

  17,346

  Number of households waiting for work to be carried out

  118,386

  117,946

  19,250

  112,662

  Total value of work waiting to be carried out (£)

  18,500,000

  116,820,086

  16,687,893

  111,905,199

  1Due to the one to six week delay between the completion of the work and the issue of invoices by contractors it is likely that work has already been completed in some of these households

  Departmental Policies (South Shields)
  Dr. David Clark
  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 South Shields constituency, the effects on South Shields of his Department's polices and actions since 2 May 1997. [153090]

  £ million

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Revenue Support Grant

  67.806

  71.803

  77.809

  76.875

  81.201

  Income from National Non-Domestic Rates

  34.132

  35.529

  38.344

  43.029

  41.716

  Housing Investment Programme

  3.203

  3.652

  3.693

  10.809

  23.284

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy

  17.224

  15.952

  15.527

  15.741

  3—

  Capital Receipts Initiative

  0.896

  3.128

  3.065

  n/a

  3—

  Loan Charges Defective Housing

  0.062

  0.062

  0.062

  0.062

  0.062

  SRB funding

  41.857

  46.382

  48.448

  47.941

  46.983

  Neighbourhood Renewal Funding

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  2.692

  ERDF funding

  0.386

  0.522

  0.828

  0.671

  3—

  534W
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the television advertising campaign for Warm Front commenced in the Meridian television area; how many advertising slots are involved; and what the cost is to(a) public funds and (b) agents acting on the Government's behalf. [153446]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]: The television advertising campaign for the Warm Front Team is being piloted in the Meridian area for four weeks from 23 February to 23 March. The campaign is intended to stimulate interest in an area where there is a low take-up of home energy efficiency scheme (HEES) grants. 85 advertising spots are planned for off peak times, when the target audience is most likely to be watching television. The cost of the television slots is around £80,000, with the advertisements themselves costing some £95,000 to produce. The HEES Scheme Managers are responsible for the quantity and type of advertising used, with the cost included within the overall contract price paid by the Department.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the total value of work carried out in 2000–01 by contractors in each of the four areas of England established for the purpose of administering the home energy efficiency scheme. [153444]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]: The total value of work carried out since June 2000 by contractors in each of the four areas of England established for the purposes of administering the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme is set out in the table:

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The principal kinds of funding that this Department has provided to South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council in 1997 to 2002 are shown in the table. These include grants and borrowing approvals for revenue and capital expenditure.

  It is not possible to determine how much of this money has been spent on South Shields. It is for the local authority to decide where within its boundary these resources are applied.
  535W

  £ million

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Transport Supplementary Grant

  0.409

  0.254

  0.536

  0

  0

  Transport Annual Capital Guideline

  0.409

  0.254

  0

  0

  0

  Transport Block Supplementary Credit Approval

  0.880

  0.880

  1.400

  1.876

  3.171

  Rural Bus Challenge Grant

  0

  51.255

  50.361

  50.560

  3—

  Rural Bus Subsidy Grant

  0

  50.054

  50.059

  50.082

  3—

  Capital Challenge

  0.788

  1.222

  0.990

  0

  0

  (Supplementary Credit and Basic Credit Approvals)

  60.399

  61.118

  60.0001

  0

  0

  1 £ million (where known)

  2 This figure does not include the Major Repairs Allowance allocated to the authority which amounts to £11.071 million

  3 Not known

  4 1997–98 SRB figure includes Round 3 funding for "South Shields Challenge"

  1998–99 SRB figure includes Round 4 funding for "People, Employment and Pride"

  1999–2000 SRB figure includes Round 5 funding for "Extending the South Shields Challenge"

  2000–01 SRB figure includes Round 6 funding for "Jobs and Community"

  5 Figures quoted are the full amounts given to the Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive of whom the authority is a partner

  6 Tyne and Wear Fire Brigade also received Capital Challenge funding. This was spent on the training centre at Barmston Mere, Washington, although the whole of Tyne and Wear benefited from the investment

  East Coast Main Line
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to announce a decision on the franchise for the east coast main line; when the pause in the franchise process announced on 14 February by the Strategic Rail Authority will be ended; and if the guidance given to the SRA includes a new alignment for the east coast main line. [153196]

  Mr. Hill
  The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) announced on 2 March that they were lifting the pause they imposed on the replacement process for the East Coast Main Line (ECML) franchise. A decision will be announced in due course. No guidance has been given to the SRA on a new alignment for the ECML.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what the estimated costs of track renewal on the east coast main line are under the franchise bids by(a) GNER and (b) Virgin; [R] [153625]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the employment implications of the GNER bid for renewal of the east coast main line franchise. [R] [153624]

  Mr. Hill
  Details of the bids put forward by GNER and Virgin for the replacement of the East Coast Main Line franchise are commercially confidential.

  Main Sewers
  Mr. Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many parliamentary constituencies in England and Wales have constituents who have unadopted main sewers; [R] [153708]

  (2) how many households in England and Wales have unadopted main sewers. [R] [153709]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  There is currently no reliable information on the extent of private (unadopted) sewers. My Department, as part of a review of private sewers and drains, is preparing a research contract to assess the likely numbers and condition of these sewers.

  Environmental Impact Assessments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the reasons for which an environment statement is required for the Slapton to Streetgate road. [153192]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  An environmental statement is required for any development listed in Schedule 1 or in the case of developments listed in Schedule 2 where it is likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of facts such as size, nature and location, of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. In this case it is for Devon county council to determine whether the work they propose to undertake requires an Environmental Statement. The Secretary of State can be called upon to give a Direction on the need for and/or scope of any EIA and it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on this case.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will make a statement about the criteria used in deciding whether to apply environment impact regulations; and how many times they have been invoked in the last year in the consideration of planning applications; [153190]

  (2) under what circumstances an environment statement is required prior to approval of planning applications. [153191]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 give effect to the requirements of Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. The Regulations apply to categories of projects specified in Schedules 1 and 2 of the Regulations. For development listed in Schedule 1 of the Regulations environmental impact assessment is always required before planning permission may be granted. For development listed in Schedule 2, an assessment is required if the development is likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of factors such as its nature, size or location.

  Local planning authorities are required to screen all planning applications for projects that fall within a class

  537W
  of development listed in Schedule 2 of the Regulations to identify development requiring EIA. In doing so they have to take account of prescribed selection criteria relating to the characteristics, location and potential impact of the development.

  An environmental statement is required in support of every planning application which is subject to EIA. It is estimated that approximately 300 applications have been subject to EIA in the last year.

  Grant Distribution
  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how his plans for a revised grant distribution system will meet the needs of authorities which have urban and rural characteristics. [153078]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Last September's local government finance Green Paper consulted on options for making the current grant distribution system for local authorities fairer. A White Paper will be published later this year setting out our decisions on the way forward.

  Any reforms to the revised grant distribution system will first be discussed with local government. Like the present grant distribution system, it would be expected to take account of a wide range of factors, including the needs of authorities with different characteristics.

  Concessionary Bus Fares
  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take steps to reduce the financial pressure on local authorities resulting from the implementation of the Government's policy on concessionary bus fares. [153053]

  Mr. Hill
  Our estimate of the overall extra annual cost to local authorities in England of the statutory minimum requirement for local authority concessionary fares introduced in the Transport Act 2000 is £54 million. The Local Government Finance Settlement 2001–02 takes account of this additional cost.

  Grant System
  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how the reform of the local government grant system will take account of the services provided by district authorities which have urban and rural characteristics. [153079]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Last September's local government finance Green Paper consulted on options for making the current grant distribution system for local authorities fairer. A White Paper will be published later this year setting out our decisions on the way forward.

  Any reforms to the revised grant distribution system will first be discussed with local government. Like the present grant distribution system, it would be expected to take account of a range of factors, including services provided by authorities in urban and rural areas.

  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he 538W
  has to introduce a local government grant system based predominantly on populations. [153051]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Last September's local government finance Green Paper consulted on options for making the current grant distribution system for all local authorities fairer. A White Paper will be published later this year setting out our decisions on the way forward.

  The existing formulae for distributing revenue grant are based predominantly on local authority population figures including relevant client groups (such as schoolchildren or elderly people). Were we to decide to continue to distribute grant by formula, this would continue to be the case.

  As with the present system, such a formula could be modified to take other factors into account. However, the overall aim of any change would be to have a system that is more transparent and comprehensible as well as fairer, than that at present.

  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he is taking to ensure an equitable distribution of Government grant to district councils. [153052]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Last September's local government finance Green Paper consulted on options for making the current grant distribution system for all local authorities fairer. A White Paper will be published later this year setting out our decisions on the way forward.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reason district councils have been excluded from the local public service agreements pilot scheme; and what plans he has to include such councils in public service agreement schemes. [153050]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The local PSA pilot was taken forward with top-tier authorities rather than district councils because the majority of the national PSA targets that relate to local authority services relate to the services of top-tier authorities. But we will consider how we might involve district councils in the future. The Local Government Association are working with a group of district councils on how the PSA approach might be applied to districts, and we will consider any proposals they make.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the Strategic Rail Authority to publish its strategic agenda. [153749]

  Mr. Hill
  The Strategic Rail Authority has published its strategic agenda today. Copies have been placed in the House Libraries.

  Demolition Control (Conservation Areas)
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what
  539W
  progress he has made reviewing the control of demolition in conservation areas following the House of Lords judgment in the Shimizu case. [153750]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Shimizu judgment had the effect of weakening controls over partial demolition of unlisted buildings in conservation areas. We share the concern that the character of conservation areas could be adversely affected as a result. Following a consultation exercise last year we therefore propose to require submission of a planning application where in a conservation area it is proposed to demolish any boundary wall, gate, fence and other means of enclosure, and a chimney or porch on a dwellinghouse. This will give local planning authorities the opportunity to consider the impact that such works are likely to have on a conservation area. We shall bring forward the necessary amendments to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 in due course.

  This measure is designed to address the direct effects of the Shimizu judgment. We are currently considering the recommendation in English Heritage's report 'Power of Place' for removal of a wide range of permitted development rights in conservation areas.

  Referendums
  Mr. Paul Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to lay before Parliament draft regulations governing the conduct of referendums to be held under part II of the Local Government Act 2000. [153751]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I have today laid before Parliament a draft of the Local Authorities (Conduct of Referendums) (England) Regulations 2001.

  It is now for the House to consider this draft. To assist the House, I have placed in the Library and the Vote Office copies of draft proposed guidance to English local authorities on the holding of referendums in accordance with these Regulations.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the comments his Department made to the Department of Health on that Department's leaflet `Mobile Phones and Health' before publication. [153257]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]: The Department made a number of comments on various versions of the leaflet while they were in the drafting stage. Our view was that the leaflet should explain in clear language the health advice and precautionary approach recommended by the Export Group chaired by Sir William Stewart. The text of the leaflets was discussed widely with a number of Government Departments which had an interest. The final version was agreed by all and signed off by the Chief Medical Officers.

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many jobs he estimates have been created by the fuel poverty initiatives introduced by the energy companies. [153454]
  540W
  Mr. Hain
  The Government welcome the involvement of energy companies in tackling fuel poverty. Company schemes cover a variety of initiatives—special tariffs for low-income customers, advice on debt management, benefit checks and measures to improve the energy efficiency of people's homes. These schemes will improve referral networks and support the Government's programme for improving the energy efficiency of the housing stock, especially for the fuel poor. Some of this activity will result in the creation of new jobs, however, most of these initiatives are in the early stages of their operation and it is therefore not possible to separately identify, and quantify, the number of new jobs created as a direct result of these schemes.

  Collieries (Operating Aid)
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria the independent panel uses to decide which collieries will receive operating aid. [153457]

  Mr. Hain
  Under the UK Coal Operating Aid Scheme, as approved by the European Commission on 15 November 2000, applications for aid are considered under eight criteria. The full text of the Scheme is available on the DTI website at www.dti.gov.uk/support/coal.htm, but the criteria include: degression of costs must be demonstrated by the production unit; the level of subsidy must not cause the delivered price to undercut third country coal of an equivalent quality sold on equivalent terms; the coal covered by the application must be used for electricity generation or industrial purposes; no single undertaking will be eligible for more than £75 million.

  Applications which satisfy these criteria will be submitted to the European Commission for approval. It is not for the Import Parity Price (IPP) Panel to decide which collieries will receive operating aid. However, the panel will advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the IPP in respect of contracts related to an application for subsidy. This advice will help my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to ensure that the level of subsidy paid does not cause the delivered price of coal to undercut third country coal of an equivalent quality sold on equivalent terms. The panel's response to consultation on its methodology for advising on the IPP is also available on the internet at www dti.gov.uk/support/coal.htm.

  Electricity and Gas (Competition)
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if electricity and gas customers have accurate information on which to make decisions which allow them to benefit from competition in the market. [153455]

  Mr. Hain
  Accurate information on the competitive domestic energy market is widely available. The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem) publishes fact-sheets on gas, electricity and dual-fuel prices, which consumers can obtain from a freephone number—0800 88 77 77. Ofgem also produces more detailed price information and information on customer complaints, which is available from its website.
  541W
  In January, Ofgem introduced website links to internet price comparison companies, which enable consumers more easily to decide which supplier is offering the tariff best suited to their needs. Ofgem has a voluntary code that includes stipulations on accuracy of data and independence to which companies must sign up before being linked to its website. Two companies, which customers can also contact by telephone, have so far met these criteria.

  Energywatch, the Gas and Electricity Consumer Council, is developing a matrix of information on suppliers' standards of service, which will complement the price information. It will also raise awareness of customers' options and rights in the competitive market as part of its programme of fostering confident, assertive consumers.

  Consumers without internet access are able to access websites via libraries and advice centres.

  Gas Network
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many households in the UK do not have access to the gas network; and what initiatives he plans to encourage companies to extend it. [153456]

  Mr. Hain
  Approximately 5 million households in GB do not have access to the gas network.

  The legislative position is that under the Gas Act 1986 (as amended) a Gas Transporter only has a duty to connect premises 23 meters from the gas mains. The same Act gives Ofgem a duty to ensure that all reasonable requests for gas through pipes are met, providing this can be done economically.

  The Gas Act 1995 provided three ways a household can be connected to the mains. First, a consumer can go to one of the many competing Gas Transporters. Secondly, the Gas Transporter can apply to Ofgem to use a system of supplemental charges where the cost of making the gas connection is recovered over a period of typically 20 years by means of an additional charge on each unit of gas. Thirdly, the consumer can purchase the pipes and hire a specialist company to lay them for him—the so called "self-lay" system.

  The Government are aware that many households which are not currently connected to the mains would like to be and, in the coming months, they will be working with Ofgem and the industry to ensure that the gas network provides the widest viable coverage.

  Departmental Policies (South Shields)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the South Shields constituency, the effects on South Shields of his Department's polices and actions since 2 May 1997. [153083]

  Mr. Caborn
  It is not possible to quantify the direct effect of all the Department's policies and actions. However, we do hold statistical information on the programmes administered by the Department and the expected effects of that funding in the South Shields constituency are set out.542W

  Nature of funding

  Number of companies

  Amount offered

  Jobs created

  Jobs safeguarded

  1997–98

  Regional Selective Assistance

  5

  485,000

  68

  82

  Enterprise Grants

  0

  0

  0

  0

  SMART

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1998–99

  Regional Selective Assistance

  2

  42,000

  10

  0

  Enterprise Grants

  0

  0

  0

  0

  SMART

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1999–2000

  Regional Selective Assistance

  3

  131,000

  54

  2

  Enterprise Grants

  0

  0

  0

  0

  SMART

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2000–01

  Regional Selective Assistance

  2

  610,000

  169

  80

  Enterprise Grants

  1

  19,500

  0

  17

  SMART

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Colombia
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the export credit guaranties given to UK firms trading with Colombia for each of the last five years. [153118]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 9 March 2001]: The information is as follows:

  year

  company

  Details

  Value of ECGD cover £ million

  1996

  International Gas Apparatus Ltd.

  Gas pressure reducing and metering stations

  5.5

  1997

  British Aerospace

  Two Airbus A3202

  22.5

  1998

  None

  None

  0

  1999

  None

  None

  0

  2000

  None

  None

  0

  Industrial Gas Prices
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will made a statement on the change in industrial gas prices over the past six months; and what steps he is taking to help the UK's heavy industry deal with this change. [148302]

  Mr. Hain
  I apologise for the delay in replying but I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to his question, number 148300, on 6 February 2001,Official Report, columns 464–65W. The delay was caused by an administrative error.

  Footwear Industry
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the future of the footwear industry in(a) the UK and (b) Norwich. [152824]

  Ms Hewitt
  Although UK footwear manufacturers supply only 10 per cent. of the UK market, the industry features some world-renowned brands and overall remains
  543W
  buoyant. Despite the weak euro, exports continue to rise and currently account for 54 per cent. of UK production. I hope that these positive trends in exporting can continue.

  In Norwich, two leading footwear manufacturers have taken part in a DTI-supported project which included supply chain management. A manufacturer has also made a substantial investment in new machinery. Another company is the world's leading manufacturer of ballet and dancing shoes. I remain confident that through strategic planning such companies have the best chance of remaining internationally competitive and leading in the market sectors or niches in which they operate.

  Departmental Policies (Houghton and Washington, East)
  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effects on Houghton and Washington, East of his Department's actions since 2 May 1997. [152990]

  Mr. Caborn
  It is not possible to quantify the direct effect of all the Department's policies and actions. However, we do hold statistical information on the programmes administered by the Department and the expected effects of that funding in the Houghton and Washington, East constituency are set out in the table.

  Nature of funding

  Number of companies

  Amount offered (£)

  Jobs created

  Jobs safeguarded

  1997–98

  Regional Selective Assistance

  15

  1,080,000

  373

  1

  Enterprise Grants

  0

  0

  0

  0

  SMART

  1

  45,000

  1—

  1—

  1998–99

  Regional Selective Assistance

  25

  2,984,000

  683

  70

  Enterprise Grants

  0

  0

  0

  0

  SMART

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1999–2000

  Regional Selective Assistance

  21

  2,238,000

  480

  15

  Enterprise Grants

  0

  0

  0

  0

  SMART

  0

  178,400

  5

  33

  2000–01

  Regional Selective Assistance

  4

  4,606,000

  242

  3,500

  Enterprise Grants

  6

  185,250

  30

  0

  SMART

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1 Not known

  Departmental Policies (Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency of his Department's policies and action since 2 May 1997. [153285]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]: It is not possible to quantify the direct effect of all the Department's policies and actions. However, we do hold statistical information on the programmes administered by
  544W
  the Department and the expected effects of that funding in the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency are set out.

  Nature of funding

  Number of companies

  Amount offered (£)

  Jobs created

  Jobs safeguarded

  1997–98

  Regional Selective Assistance

  13

  1,308,000

  340

  0

  Enterprise Grants

  0

  0

  0

  0

  SMART

  1

  176,721

  1—

  1—

  1998–99

  Regional Selective Assistance

  9

  1,378,000

  476

  0

  Enterprise Grants

  0

  0

  0

  0

  SMART

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1999–2000

  Regional Selective Assistance

  8

  665,000

  163

  26

  Enterprise Grants

  0

  0

  0

  0

  SMART

  2

  90,000

  4

  0

  2000–01

  Regional Selective Assistance

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Enterprise Grants

  4

  43,435

  15

  0

  SMART

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1Not known

  Promotional Campaigns
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the television, newspaper and radio advertising and other promotional campaigns conducted by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its departmental public bodies, in each of the past five years, showing for each the expenditure incurred by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [153413]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]: (a) Departmental television, radio and newspaper advertising through COI was as follows:

  £ ex VAT

  Period/Job title

  TV

  Radio

  Press

  1996–97

  Queens Awards

  —

  17,457.00

  75,407.00

  Export Licence

  Announcements

  —

  —

  4,214.00

  Import Licence

  Announcements

  —

  —

  57,603.00

  Biotechnology Means

  Business

  —

  —

  110,543.00

  Business Links

  —

  460,240.00

  868,119.00

  Miscellaneous

  —

  —

  74,446.00

  Total

  —

  477,697.00

  1,190,332.00

  1997–98

  Languages for Export

  —

  —

  21,175.00

  Import Licence

  Announcements

  —

  —

  57,057.00

  Export Licence

  Announcements

  —

  —

  6,113.00

  Business Links

  —

  —

  1,258,319.00

  It for All

  —

  320,319.00

  420,541.00

  Queens Awards

  —

  —

  66,258.00

  Miscellaneous

  —

  —

  157,770.00

  Total

  —

  320,319.00

  1,987,233.00

  545W

  £ ex. VAT

  Period/Job title

  TV

  Radio

  Press

  1998–99

  Queens Awards

  —

  —

  110,765.00

  Firework Safety

  —

  —

  49,800.00

  Import Licence

  Announcements

  —

  —

  47,889.00

  Export Licence

  Announcements

  —

  —

  7,208.00

  Working Time

  Regulations

  —

  —

  599,995.00

  Business Links

  —

  —

  432,585.00

  Carbon Monoxide

  —

  37,702.00

  —

  Trade UK

  —

  —

  7,068.00

  IT For All

  —

  98,911.00

  —

  National Minimum

  Wage

  —

  —

  752,765.00

  Total

  —

  136,613.00

  2,008,075.00

  1999–2000

  Export Awareness

  —

  —

  19,049.00

  National Minimum

  Wage

  15,250.00

  177,940.00

  15,476.00

  Import Licence

  Announcements

  —

  —

  57,356.00

  Export Licence

  Announcements

  —

  —

  14,080.00

  Information Society

  Initiative

  —

  —

  439,757.00

  Miners Compensation

  Ad

  —

  —

  149,939.00

  Queens Awards

  —

  —

  47,884.00

  Metrication

  —

  —

  19,311.00

  Carbon Monoxide

  —

  64,226.00

  —

  Export USA

  —

  —

  2,436.00

  Foresight

  —

  —

  61,900.00

  Miscellaneous

  —

  —

  14,839.00

  Total

  15,250.00

  242,166.00

  842,027.00

  2000–01

  National Minimum

  Wage (Youth)

  —

  260,024.00

  284,165.00

  Import Licence

  announcements

  —

  —

  15,364.00

  Export Licence

  announcements

  —

  —

  10,418.00

  Small Business

  Services

  —

  —

  100,552.00

  Distance Selling

  —

  —

  16,366.00

  Minimum Wage (Autumn)

  1,919,559.00

  306,790.00

  679,388.00

  Miners Compensation

  Ad

  —

  —

  134,674.00

  Smart Awards

  —

  —

  138,128.00

  UK Online for Business

  —

  225,230.00

  763,436.00

  Miscellaneous

  —

  —

  4,606.00

  Total1

  1,919,559.00

  792,044.00

  2,147,097.00

  1 To 31 January 2001

  Information on other Departmental promotional campaigns is not held centrally and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Since its establishment in May 1999, British Trade International, which brings together international trade and investment support previously led by the DTI and FCO, has made the following expenditure on Trade Partners UK advertising:

  Year

  Amount £

  1999–2000

  0

  2000–01

  1,586,000

  546W
  (b) Agency expenditure

  Newspaper advertising/promotions for Companies House for the last five years

  Year

  Amount £

  1996–97

  255,246

  1997–98

  245,316

  1998–99

  282,500

  1999–2000

  391,012

  2000–011

  381,584

  1 To date

  Newspaper advertising and promotions for the Patent Office for the past five years

  Year

  Amount £

  1995–96

  1,963

  1996–97

  1,719

  1997–98

  8,908

  1998–99

  12,364

  1999–2000

  2,951

  Total

  28,175

  Note:

  Expenditure to date for current financial year is £5,116

  The Small Business Service has spent £111,899 on directory advertising since its inception on 1 April 2000.

  The Employment Tribunal Service, the Insolvency Service, and the National Weights and Measures Laboratory have not incurred any expenditure on television, newspaper or radio advertising or on any other promotional campaigns during the last five years.

  (c) Information on advertising and other promotional campaigns by NDPBs is not held centrally and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Paid Holiday (Wansbeck)
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many workers in Wansbeck have gained an entitlement to four weeks paid holiday. [153139]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  There are no data currently available at constituency level concerning the number of workers who have gained an entitlement to four weeks paid holiday. However, 3.1 million workers have benefited nationally from the introduction of the entitlement to paid leave.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has made to Post Office Counters Ltd. about the impact of the network re-invention programme on the number and location of post offices. [152834]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 9 March 2001]: The size of the post office network and precise location of post offices is an operational matter for the Post Office, taking account of the formal requirement to maintain the rural network and to prevent any avoidable closures of rural offices and of the Postal Services Commission's advice on accessibility of public post offices.

  Universal Banking Services
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what calculation has been made of the cost of the introduction of a magnetic card for the payment of benefits and pensions from sub-post offices. [R] [153604]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  It is too early to say what the setting up and running costs of the Post Office Card Account element of Universal Banking Services will be.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what payment per transaction will be made to sub-post offices for payments of benefit and pensions by a magnetic card. [R] [153599]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The development of Universal Banking Services are at an early stage (they are not due to come on stream until 2003). Payment arrangements will be subject detailed to contractual negotiations between the Government and the Post Office.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what his estimate is of the reduction of fraud through the introduction of a magnetic card for the payment of benefits and pensions. [R] [153602]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  By making payments directly into bank accounts, the Government expect to achieve savings of around £100 million in current Instrument of Payment fraud.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what incentives the Government will give to individuals to encourage the utilisation of Universal Banking Services by benefit and pension recipients; and what is their cost. [R] [153600]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  It is the Government's intention to identify and deploy effective incentives to encourage the utilisation of Universal Banking Services by benefit and pension recipients. The concept of Universal Banking Services are at an early stage (they are not due to come on stream until 2003) and a lot of detailed work will be necessary before decisions can be taken on what form that incentives structure might take.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress in the discussions with the banking sector on the creation of the Universal Banking Services. [R] [153601]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Discussions with the banks are at an advanced stage. I hope that they will be resolved shortly.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what his Department's estimate is of the annual running cost of the Universal Banking Services and the percentage division of this cost between Government and the banking sector. [R] [153603]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  It is too early to say what the setting up and running costs of the Post Office Card Account element of Universal Banking Services will be; or what might be the percentage division of costs between the Government and the banking sector. The banks have agreed in principle to make a contribution but the precise figures are subject to commercial negotiations which we expect to be resolved shortly.

  Bank Notes
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he took to ensure that all post offices were informed of the date when old £20 notes ceased to be legal tender; and what publicity material was supplied to them. [152863]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  This is an operational matter for the Post Office. I understand that the Post Office informed post office outlets of the date when old £20 notes ceased to be legal tender principally by issuing articles in a monthly internal publication sent to all front-line staff. The first of these articles appeared at the end of August 2000. In addition, a national helpline is available to front-line staff should they require further assistance.

  Youth Parliament
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will meet members of the UK Youth Parliament to discuss their manifesto proposals in relation to the minimum wage and other issues. [152964]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I will be pleased to meet members of the UK Youth Parliament provided, of course, that a mutually convenient date can be found.

  Miners
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what decision he has made in respect of the pension entitlement of ex-miners dismissed during the 1984–85 miners' strike; and if he will make a statement. [153236]

  Mr. Hain
  My Department issued a consultative document in May last year which elicited some starkly conflicting views, and highlighted a range of difficult moral, legal and equity questions. As a result of the complexity of the issues raised it is taking time to reach a decision on the way forward. None the less, the Government wish to see a just outcome to resolve this long standing matter. Having spoken to those involved, I do recognise the strong feelings there are about an early resolution.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many medical assessment procedures were conducted on average each week in respect of the miners' compensation claims for chest diseases for(a) January to March 2000, (b) April to June 2000, (c) July to September 2000 and (d) October to December 2000 and the individual weekly totals from 1 January to date. [153379]

  Mr. Hain
  A breakdown of the number of medical assessments is available only from June 2000 onwards.

  Between January and June 2000, Healthcall, the company contracted to undertake the Medical Assessment Process, completed a total of 1,163 MAP assessments.

  The average weekly number of MAPs between July and September 2000 is 276. Between October and December 2000 (excluding the two-week Christmas holiday period), an average of 371 MAPs were undertaken.
  549W
  The individual weekly totals from 1 January 2001 to date are as follows:

  Week ending

  Number of MAPs

  7 January

  340

  14 January

  497

  21 January

  455

  28 January

  570

  4 February

  417

  11 February

  655

  18 February

  559

  25 February

  515

  4 March

  645

  The total number of MAPs undertaken to date is 13,218.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Arms Sales (Morocco)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department followed the European Code of Conduct on arms sales, Criterion 4, when granting the export licence for artillery spare parts to Morocco. [149615]

  Mr. Wilson
  The export licence application for artillery spare parts to Morocco and the subsequent appeal were judged against the EU Code of Conduct, as are all export licence applications considered by this Department. It is of course the Department of Trade and Industry which co-ordinates the export licence application process and actually grants licences.

  "Your Britain, Your Europe"
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 5 March 2001,Official Report, column 96W, what date has been set for a roadshow visit; what political parties he will meet; what advice he has sought and received on marketing the roadshow among (a) young people and (b) people whose nationality is not British; in what publications he will advertise; what the budget breakdown is for this initiative; and if he will ensure the use of flags and emblems that underline the inclusive nature of the European message. [153241]

  Mr. Vaz
  Due to diary pressures we have now had to cancel this visit.

  Kashmir
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last held discussions with the US Government on Kashmir. [153159]

  Mr. Wilson
  Ministers and officials regularly discuss Kashmir and other regional issues with their US counterparts.

  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last held discussions with the(a) Pakistan and (b) Indian Governments regarding (i) human rights violations in and (ii) self-determination for the people of Kashmir; and what plans he has for further discussions. [153158]
  550W
  Mr. Wilson
  The Foreign Secretary most recently met his Indian counterpart, Jaswant Singh, in London in November. They discussed a range of issues, including Kashmir and human rights. Officials in our High Commission in lslarrnbad also regularly discuss Kashmir with the Pakistani Government. We will continue to urge both Governments to build on the recent positive developments in Kashmir and return to dialogue to find a solution to this issue. We also believe any solution must involve, and reflect the view of, the people of Kashmir.

  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further action he intends to take regarding the provision of independent human rights observers in Kashmir. [153161]

  Mr. Wilson
  FCO Ministers have consistently urged the Indian Government to allow access to Kashmir for human rights organisations, including Amnesty International, and for UN human rights Rapporteurs. We will continue to impress upon them the benefits of transparency and importance of investigating abuses.

  Foot and Mouth (KwaZulu-Natal)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the British Government have received from the(a) South African Government and (b) British High Commission South Africa regarding the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in KwaZulu-Natal last year. [153357]

  Mr. Wilson
  The British High Commission in Pretoria and the Consulate-General in Durban were informed of the outbreak of FMD in KwaZulu-Natal last year, and received briefing from the South African Ministry of Agriculture and Land Affairs.

  The South African Government made no formal representations to us, either here or in Pretoria.

  Saudi Arabia
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent meetings have been held with human rights groups in Saudi Arabia by British representatives in Jeddah; and if he will make a statement. [153505]

  Mr. Wilson
  There are currently no non-governmental human rights groups in Saudi Arabia. At UNHCR 56 a Saudi representative announced Saudi Arabia's intention to establish governmental and non-governmental human rights committees. From discussions between the British Embassy in Riyadh and the Saudi Minister of Foreign Affairs, we understand that details of the governmental committee are being finalised. Progress to establish a non-governmental committee has been slower.

  We will continue to raise this issue with the Saudi authorities as part of our dialogue with them on human rights.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions with(a) the LTTE and (b) other Tamil groups in Sri Lanka have been undertaken by British representatives during the last year. [153595]
  551W
  Mr. Wilson
  Staff in our High Commission in Colombo regularly meet representatives from all communities in Sri Lanka, including the Tamil community. Foreign Office representatives have met the LTTE's Political Adviser in London to get across important messages about the need for the LTTE to stay engaged in the peace process. We have made clear to all concerned that we fully support Norway's efforts to facilitate peace talks, and that Britain stands ready to help, if asked.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent contact he has had with the Norwegian Government concerning the peace process in Sri Lanka; and what contribution the United Kingdom Government have made to this. [153596]

  Mr. Wilson
  We remain in regular contact with the Norwegian Government. I met Norwegian State Secretary Raymond Johansen on 13 February 2001, and we continue contacts at official level. We fully support Norway's efforts to facilitate peace talks between the Sri Lankan Government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). This offers the best chance of peace. We remain in contact with the parties to the conflict and have made it clear to them that Britain stands ready to help, if asked.

  Proscribed Organisations
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations were held between his Department and the Home Department in drawing up proposals for including organisations in the Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2001. [153504]

  Mr. Battle
  Close consultations were held at official and ministerial level.

  Pelindaba Treaty
  Ms Ryan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the United Kingdom intends to ratify its signature of protocols I and II of the African nuclear weapons' free zone treaty, the treaty of Pelindaba. [153913]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Foreign Secretary signed the UK's Instrument of Ratification of protocols I and II to the treaty of Pelindaba on 27 February 2001. The Instrument has been sent to our Embassy in Addis Ababa for deposit with the Organisation of African Unity. I will arrange for a copy of the Instrument, together with the Declaration made on deposit of the Instrument, to be placed in the Library of the House.

TREASURY

  Minimum Wage (Amber Valley)
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many(a) male and (b) female workers in Amber Valley are receiving the national minimum wage; [153496]

  (2) what is his estimate of how many workers in Amber Valley will benefit from the forthcoming uprating of the national minimum wage. [153497]
  552W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Pullinger to Judy Mallaber, dated 13 March 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent questions about the number of people in Amber Valley who are receiving the national minimum wage (NMW) and the number who will benefit from the uprating of the NMW (153496, 153497). I am replying in his absence.
  The Office for National Statistics has published estimates of the number of jobs paid at less than specific hourly pay thresholds for all workers in the United Kingdom for Spring 2000, disaggregated by gender. These estimates are based on an improved methodology using data from the New Earnings Survey (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: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/nsbase/themes/labour—lowpay—table s.asp
  The new methodology has been developed to overcome the deficiencies inherent in the two surveys, the NES and LFS, in measuring low pay. Estimates based on this methodology are not available for the area requested.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many claimants of Family Credit there were in(a) Newcastle City and (b) Newcastle upon Tyne, Central in 1997; what the average benefit for a (i) full-time and (ii) part-time worker was; how many claimants of Working Families Tax Credit there are; and what the average benefit was for a (1) full-time and (2) part-time worker. [153036]

  Dawn Primarolo
  At May 1997 there were an estimated 4.2 thousand families receiving Family Credit (FC) in the Newcastle upon Tyne local authority and 1.2 thousand in the Newcastle upon Tyne, Central constituency.

  For estimates of the number of families receiving the Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) at August 2000, I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) on 22 January 2001, Official Report, column 425W.

  There is no single definition of what comprises full-time work. The table shows the estimated average value of FC awards in May 1997, and of WFTC awards at August 2000, to families in the north-east region in each band of hours worked. There are too few cases in the 5 per cent. sample used for these analyses to yield reliable separate estimates for Newcastle City and Newcastle upon Tyne, Central.

  Families in the north-east region receiving Family Credit at May 1997, and Working Families Tax Credit at August 2000, by band of hours normally worked by the main earner: number and average weekly values of the awards

  Hours normally worked per week by main earner

  Families receiving Family Credit at May 1997 (thousand)

  Average weekly value of award (£)

  Families receiving Working Families Tax Credit at August 2000 (thousand)

  Average weekly value of award (£)

  16 less than 20

  13.5

  69

  16.0

  92

  20 less than 24

  5.8

  65

  8.3

  87

  24 less than 30

  3.9

  58

  4.6

  80

  30 less than 36

  5.7

  64

  9.3

  78

  553W

  Families in the north-east region receiving Family Credit at May 1997, and Working Families Tax Credit at August 2000, by band of hours normally worked by the main earner: number and average weekly values of the awards

  Hours normally worked per week by main earner

  Families receiving Family Credit at May 1997 (thousand)

  Average weekly value of award (£)

  Families receiving Working Families Tax Credit at August 2000 (thousand)

  Average weekly value of award (£)

  36 less than 40

  8.4

  40

  15.3

  57

  40 and over

  8.7

  52

  12.3

  64

  All cases

  45.9

  58

  65.8

  75

  Note:

  Estimates based on 5 per cent. sample of awards, and therefore subject to sampling error.

  Departmental Policies (South Shields)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the South Shields constituency, the effects on South Shields of his Department's polices and actions since 2 May 1997. [153088]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  South Shields, along with the rest of the United Kingdom, is benefiting from the long-term action we have taken to build economic stability and secure high and stable levels of growth and employment. Since the General Election, claimant unemployment in the constituency has fallen by 825, or 19 per cent. youth unemployment is down by 73 per cent. and long-term unemployment has fallen by 50 per cent.

  Macro-economic stability is being complemented at the micro-economic level by the Government's policies to ease the transition from welfare into work and to make work pay. To the end of December 2000, the New Deal for 18 to 24 year olds had helped 2020 young people in South Shields constituency gain valuable skills and experience—900 (45 per cent.) of whom had moved into employment. The Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC), introduced in October 1999, is helping to make work pay for low and middle income families. In August 2000, 2,200 families in South Shields constituency were benefiting from WFTC.

  The Government are also committed to policies which enable pensioners to share in the country's rising prosperity. All pensioners, including 16,400 in South Shields, will receive an above-inflation increase in the basic state pension from April 2001. Single pensioners will receive an extra £5 a week, and couples will receive an extra £8 a week. All pensioners aged 75 or over have also been entitled to a free TV licence since November 2000—including around 10,600 in South Shields.

  Net Cash Requirement
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the difference between the central Government net cash requirement forecast for 2000–01 in the pre-Budget report and the equivalent figure in the Financial Statement and Budget report (HC 279). [153389]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Table C20 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report (FSBR) for March 2001 shows that the central Government net cash requirement 554W
  (CGNCR) is forecast to be a repayment of £34.3 billion in 2000–01. This compares with the pre-Budget report forecast of the CGNCR of a repayment of £28.1 billion in 2000–01. The difference in these forecasts largely reflect differences in the forecasts of net borrowing, which are fully explained in Tables C6, C8 and C12 and paragraphs C26 to C57 of the FSBR.

  Departmental Policies (Jarrow)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out, with statistical information, relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effects on Jarrow of his Department's actions since 2 May 1997. [153544]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Jarrow, along with the rest of the United Kingdom, is benefiting from the long-term action we have taken to build economic stability and secure high and stable levels of growth and employment. Since the General Election, claimant unemployment in the constituency has fallen by 736, or 22 per cent., youth unemployment is down by 75 per cent., and long-term unemployment has fallen by 63 per cent.

  Macro-economic stability is being complemented at the micro-economic level by the Government's policies to ease the transition from welfare into work and to make work pay. To the end of December 2000, the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds had helped 1,544 young people in Jarrow constituency gain valuable skills and experience—728 (47 per cent.) of whom had moved into employment. The Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC), introduced in October 1999, is helping to make work pay for low and middle income families. In August 2000, 1,900 families in Jarrow constituency were benefiting from WFTC.

  The Government are also committed to policies which enable pensioners to share in the country's rising prosperity. All pensioners, including 15,600 in Jarrow, will receive an above-inflation increase in the basic state pension from April 2001. Single pensioners will receive an extra £5 a week, and couples will receive an extra £8 a week. All pensioners aged 75 or over have also been entitled to free TV licence since November 2000—including around 9,900 in Jarrow.

  Departmental Policies (Don Valley)
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to Don Valley constituency, the effects on Doncaster of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [153527]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Don Valley, along with the rest of the United Kingdom, is benefiting from the long-term action we have taken to build economic stability and secure high and stable levels of growth and employment. Since the General Election, claimant unemployment in the constituency has fallen by 1,427, or 48 per cent., youth unemployment is down by 86 per cent., and long-term unemployment has fallen by 80 per cent.

  Macro-economic stability is being complemented at the micro-economic level by the Government's policies to ease the transition from welfare into work and to make work pay. To the end of December 2000, the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds had helped 1,164 young people in

  555W
  Don Valley constituency gain valuable skills and experience—577 (50 per cent.) of whom had moved into employment. The Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC), introduced in October 1999, is helping to make work pay for low and middle income families. In August 2000, 2,200 families in Don Valley constituency were benefiting from WFTC.

  The Government are also committed to policies which enable pensioners to share in the country's rising prosperity. All pensioners, including 16,000 in Don Valley, will receive an above-inflation increase in the basic state pension from April 2001. Single pensioners will receive an extra £5 a week, and couples will receive an extra £8 a week. All pensioners aged 75 or over have also been entitled to free TV licence since November 2000—including around 9,700 in Don Valley.

  Bank Notes
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of the number of old £20 notes which were not returned to banks before they ceased to be legal tender; [152864]

  (2) on what basis £20 notes which are no longer legal tender can be exchanged for new ones; and if he will make a statement. [152879]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Legal tender status was withdrawn from the old style £20 notes on 28 February 2001. After this date, most banks will continue to accept these notes and, as with all genuine Bank of England notes which are no longer legal tender, they will remain payable at the Bank of England for all time, at face value.

  Imports (Israel)
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 6 March 2001,Official Report, column 156W, if (a) Ahava cosmetics since 11 August 2000, (b) dates since 31 October 2000, (c) carpets from Barkan since 17 August 2000, (d) wines since 13 November 2000 and (e) other items, as listed, since 20 November 2000 have been imported from Israel. [153097]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The following number of Customs declarations have been made since the dates in question:

  (a) Cosmetics: 5

  (b) Dates: 71

  (c) Carpets from Barkan: 9

  (d) Wines: none

  (e) Other items: None for brandy and liqueurs; three for pencils; 35 for plastic household items; 77 for key blanks and locks; none for electric products; and 13 for other bath and skincare products.

  Some of these products may be exported prior to Customs clearance. Further verification inquiries will be initiated as appropriate.

  Budget
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on(a) the expected impact of the 2001 Budget and (b) the combined impact of the 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 Budget measures on (i) women and (ii) men. [152856]
  556W
  Dawn Primarolo
  By October 2001, as a result of personal tax and benefit measures:on average women will be £85 a year better off and men will be £80 a year better off from Budget 2001, compared with an indexed Budget 2000 base;
  on average women will be £440 a year better off and men will be £225 a year better off from measures introduced over the Parliament as a whole, compared with an indexed 1997 base. For households, the average gain will be £590 a year.

  In addition, families with children will gain from the maternity package announced in Budget 2001, including raising maternity pay to £100 a week and extending it from 18 weeks to 26 weeks by April 2003. As a result of these reforms:
  All 360,000 mothers getting maternity pay a year will gain up to £1,200 extra;
  maternity pay, together with the extra £10 in the Children's Tax Credit for families with children under one, will mean up to £2,200 extra in the first year for families with a new baby;
  most women who worked beforehand will be guaranteed a minimum income of £200 a week for up to six months after the birth;
  over 350,000 working fathers could be entitled to two weeks paid paternity leave after a birth, at the same flat rate as maternity pay; adoptive parents will be able to take paid leave at the same flat rate and for the same period as maternity pay, when adopting a child.

WALES

  Forestry
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for additional transfer of responsibilities for forestry to the National Assembly of Wales. [150648]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Government and the National Assembly for Wales are currently considering the transfer of financial responsibility for the Forestry Commission in Wales to the National Assembly.

  Policy and Strategy Units
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when his policy unit was established; which of its reports are placed in the public domain; how many departmental or non-departmental special advisers participate in its work; how many regular(a) non-departmental and (b) departmental staff participate in its work; and how many of these work for the unit on a full-time basis. [150374]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Wales Office does not have a separate policy unit. Three policy branches advise respectively on: Social Affairs Policy (five policy staff); Economic Affairs Policy (four policy staff); and Finance, Administration, Reserved and Constitutional Policy (three policy staff).

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Job Vacancies
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received on the accuracy of the figures relating to the official total of vacancies held by Jobcentres. [151841]
  557W
  Ms Jowell
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Clare Dodgson to Mr. Frank Field, dated 13 March 2001:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked Leigh Lewis to reply to your question, concerning representations he has received on the accuracy of the figures relating to the official total of vacancies held by Jobcentres. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to Mr Lewis as Chief Executive of the Agency. I am replying on Mr Lewis' behalf.
  In answer to your question, I am not aware of any representations to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment regarding the accuracy of the figures relating to the official total of vacancies held by Jobcentres. That said, I am willing to discuss any issues you may have on vacancies held by Jobcentres.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Regeneration Initiatives
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment 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 the variation in(a) the availability of previously developed land and buildings and (b) other considerations of environmental capacity. [152341]

  Mr. Wills
  The Department for Education and Employment does not fund economic and physical regeneration initiatives.

  School Closures (Foot and Mouth)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will list the schools in(a) Cumbria, (b) Devon and (c) Northumberland which have been closed on account of the foot and mouth outbreak; [152761]

  (2) what advice he gives local education authorities on school closures on account of the foot and mouth outbreak; [152749]

  (3) what advice is being given to parents on whether children should be withheld from school on account of the foot and mouth outbreak. [152762]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 9 March 2001]: As at Thursday 8 March, only five schools in Cumbria, three in Devon, and none in Northumberland were still closed because of a local outbreak of foot and mouth disease. The following schools in these areas had earlier been closed at some point during the last two weeks, but most have since reopened:

  Cumbria

  Blackford Church of England Primary School; Hayton Church of England Primary School; Kirkoswald Church of England Primary School; Lochinvar Secondary School, Longtown; Longtown Infant School; Longtown Junior School; and Yanwath Primary School.

  Devon

  Black Torrington Church of England Primary School; Boasley Cross Primary School; Bradford Primary School; Highampton Primary School; Shebbear Primary School; and Widecombe-in-the-Moor Primary School.
  558W
  Northumberland

  Belsay First School; Greenhead Church of England First School; Hugh Joicey Church of England First School, Ford; and Stamfordham First School.

  My Department has advised local education authorities that, provided sensible precautions are observed and hygiene measures taken, adults and young people living in areas where restrictions are in place following confirmation of foot and mouth disease locally should normally be able to continue to travel to school, and that schools should endeavour to open and provide a full curriculum—or failing that at least to provide care for children to enable parents to go to work. The full advice on these and other aspects is available to all schools, parents and others on the Department's website, and has been sent to all Chief Education Officers in England, and to other education-interest groups.

  Employment and Social Policy Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the outcome was of the Employment and Social Policy Council held in Brussels on 6 March; if he will set out the Government's voting records at the Council; and if he will make a statement. [152826]

  Ms Jowell
  Along with the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), I represented the UK at the Employment and Social Policy Council held in Brussels on 6 March.

  This was a busy Council with the Standing Committee on Employment also meeting in the margins. Council and Committee business focused on preparations for the forthcoming European Council in Stockholm on 23–24 March. The Commission presented its synthesis report, which will inform the social/employment dimension of Stockholm, together with their Scoreboard on the implementation of the Social Agenda and their Communication on New Labour Markets. Ministers also noted the inputs from the Employment Committee and the Social Protection Committee in the discussion on the preparations for Stockholm. The UK emphasised the importance of remaining focused on the priorities agreed at Lisbon, working towards creating choice and mobility in a dynamic and flexible labour market and, with Commission support, pressed for concrete outcomes at Stockholm: particularly in terms of basic skills, the skills and mobility taskforce, action on the gender pay gap, women entrepreneurs and a European employment target for older workers.

  The Council held an open debate on the sustainability of pensions systems and agreed that the Social Protection Committee would prepare a report for the European Council in Göteberg on 15–16 June. The Presidency reported on the agreement with the European Parliament for a series of amendments to regulation 1408/71 which co-ordinates social security for migrant workers moving within the EU.

  The Presidency formally reported on the recent series of informal Ministerial meetings held in Sweden, at Luleå, Norrköping and Malmö.
  559W
  Under any other business, the Commission raised the recent ILO measures against Burma concerning forced labour and the ratification of ILO Convention no 182 on the worst forms of Child Labour. No substantive discussion was necessary on these items. There was a brief discussion of the Commission's proposals for evaluating the European Employment Strategy, with the Presidency agreeing to remit the issue to the Employment Committee.

  No votes were taken.

  Children's Fund
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if school-based counselling services for children will be established as part of the Children's Fund. [152948]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Children's Fund will enable local partnerships to implement strategies for preventive services to ensure that children and young people at risk of social exclusion get the best start in life.

  Children's Fund proposals will be built from the bottom up, responding to local needs. Our guidance makes it clear that mentoring and counselling services may be part of these strategies both within and outside the school environment.

  New Deal
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the New Deal, specifying the number of businesses that have participated to date. [153126]

  Ms Jowell
  Over 83,000 employers have so far signed New Deal Employer Agreements. Together with many others across the country, these employers have helped 274,000 young people, 62,000 people aged over 25 and 75,000 lone parents find work through the New Deals.

  Computers in Reach
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for what reason the LS1 postcode was not included in the Computers Within Reach pilot scheme. [153222]

  Mr. Wills
  The Computers in Reach scheme is a cash-limited pilot scheme that is currently in its first phase. In order to ensure that there was not undue demand in the chosen localities it was agreed that the pilots needed both clear boundaries and be limited to certain areas in light of the number of potential customers and the supply available in that area.

  In the case of Leeds the reasons for omitting the LS1 postcode included:
  That it is the Central Business District of Leeds with fewer residential areas within it;
  The area contains a number of town houses and flats and would have a very low percentage of the target group we were aiming at; and
  If it were included it might have caused another postcode area with more of our target customers to be omitted.

  Sibsey School
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he received the request for approval of the transfer of land adjoining Sibsey School from Lincolnshire county council to the school's foundation trustees; and if he will agree to the transfer. [153359]

  Jacqui Smith
  There has been no application from Lincolnshire county council to the Secretary of State regarding the transfer of land to the Foundation Trustees of Sibsey Free Primary School. Section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 requires local authorities to obtain the Secretary of State's consent before they can sell any playing field used by a school in the last 10 years. I understand that the land in question was previously agricultural land and has not yet been used as school playing field. Therefore, Lincolnshire county council does not need the Secretary of State's consent to transfer it to the School's Foundation Trustees.

  Ferndown Leisure Centre
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make it his policy for the grant approved by his Department for 2000–01 towards the proposed public-private partnership at Ferndown leisure centre to be carried forward to 2001–02. [153507]

  Jacqui Smith
  Officers of Dorset county council have been in contact with my Department concerning the delays to the public-private partnership to improve the sports facilities at Ferndown leisure centre for the benefit of Ferndown Upper School. A re-phasing of the project has been agreed.

  Departmental Policies (Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [153287]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]: The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  Departmental Policies (Constituency Information)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out with statistical information relating as directly as possible to each of the local authorities in the former county of Berkshire, the effects on each authority of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997, with particular reference to schools. [152854]

  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effects on Houghton and Washington, East of his Department's actions since 2 May 1997. [152987]

  Mr. Wills
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  School Clubs and Holiday Schemes
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) after school club places and (b) holiday playscheme places there were (i) in 1996 and (ii) at the latest date for which figures are available in (A) London and (B) each London borough. [152200]

  All pupils under five in nursery and primary schools

  January 2000 Percentage of population

  January 1996 Percentage of population

  Number of pupils

  Nursery schools and nursery classes

  Nursery and primary schools

  Number of pupils

  Nursery schools and nursery classes

  Nursery and primary schools

  London

  122,800

  37

  62

  115,484

  35

  58

  Inner London1

  50,900

  40

  65

  —

  —

  —

  Camden

  2,270

  28

  49

  2,033

  25

  48

  Hackney

  3,860

  35

  59

  3,839

  33

  57

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2,330

  42

  55

  2,290

  44

  58

  Haringey

  4,800

  44

  73

  4,674

  44

  75

  Islington

  3,180

  38

  67

  3,383

  37

  65

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,480

  25

  42

  1,219

  27

  39

  Lambeth

  4,360

  34

  55

  3,489

  31

  45

  Lewisham

  4,610

  40

  67

  3,876

  37

  52

  Newham

  7,520

  57

  88

  5,854

  52

  67

  Southwark

  5,290

  44

  74

  5,125

  41

  68

  Tower Hamlets

  5,250

  50

  82

  5,092

  61

  87

  Wandsworth

  3,920

  32

  54

  4,055

  33

  56

  Westminster

  2,020

  32

  48

  1,790

  32

  45

  Outer London

  71,800

  35

  61

  —

  —

  —

  Barking and Dagenham

  3,610

  45

  78

  3,644

  46

  80

  Barnet

  4,960

  31

  58

  4,697

  31

  57

  Bexley

  3,980

  38

  72

  3,555

  25

  58

  Brent

  4,480

  34

  61

  4,666

  36

  65

  Bromley

  2,720

  5

  36

  2,578

  3

  36

  Croydon

  5,570

  30

  61

  5,036

  23

  54

  Ealing

  6,080

  45

  73

  6,279

  46

  76

  Enfield

  4,310

  25

  56

  4,099

  22

  53

  Greenwich

  4,370

  56

  72

  4,447

  50

  67

  Harrow

  2,680

  20

  48

  2,634

  19

  47

  Havering

  2,650

  16

  51

  2,495

  10

  47

  Hillingdon

  4,320

  50

  64

  3,534

  50

  52

  Hounslow

  3,960

  40

  70

  4,089

  40

  67

  Kingston upon Thames

  2,290

  38

  66

  2,408

  39

  70

  Merton

  3,530

  55

  71

  3,718

  54

  74

  Redbridge

  4,430

  40

  73

  2,937

  22

  45

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,970

  18

  42

  2,023

  21

  50

  Sutton

  1,940

  41

  43

  2,023

  40

  42

  Waltham Forest

  4,010

  46

  60

  3,868

  39

  54

  1 Includes City of London

  Brain Injury (Vocational Services)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the(a) total Employment Service funding and (b) average funding per client was for brain injury vocational services for each region in the last 12 months. [153690]

  Ms Jowell
  The Employment Service provides a wide range of employment programmes and services for disabled people, including those with brain injuries. It is not possible to identify separately the total spent specifically on behalf of people with brain injury.
  562W
  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 8 March 2001]: The available information is shown in the table. This includes information on out of school clubs and holiday schemes for March 1996 and March 2000.

  The responsibility for day care provision transferred from the Department of Health to the Department for Education and Employment in March 1998.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Chardon LL
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Government were first informed of the length of official testing of Chardon LL in France. [144374]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: Concerns about the procedures for the DUS testing of maize in France were first aroused by the content of agenda papers for a Community Plant Variety Office Administrative Council meeting. The papers were first

  563W
  received in MAFF on 6 October. Subsequent exchanges between MAFF and French officials were initially inconclusive but in view of the potential implications the concerns were drawn to the attention of Ministers on 30 October. The issue was then immediately placed in the public domain via a PQ and press release on 31 October.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many of the samples taken from seed offered for sale and tested for purity between 1 May and 31 October were tested for the presence of GM varieties. [144344]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: The EU seeds directives do not at present lay down any standards for levels of GM seeds in conventional seed varieties. The legal powers to undertake GM monitoring and enforcement activities on seed imports rests with the DETR.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what provisions are made in relation to GMOs in the UKROFS organic standard; and what plans he has to review these provisions. [153235]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The Standards for Organic Food Production set by the UK Register of Organic Food Standards prohibit the use of genetically modified organisms, or their derivatives, in all production stages.

  There are no current plans for the review of these provisions, which reflect the requirements of Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 (as amended).

  BSE Inquiry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the cost was of the preparation and production of the Government's interim response to the report of the BSE inquiry, Cm 5049; and to whom it was distributed. [151596]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The Government's interim response to the report of the BSE inquiry was prepared with contributions from Ministers and officials in many Government Departments in Whitehall and the devolved Administrations. Providing a figure for the costs of this work would be possible only at disproportionate cost. The production and distribution costs of the response are estimate at about £11,000.

  The response was distributed to a very wide range of organisations. More than 500 copies were sent to organisations representing consumers, health and welfare organisations, food producers and manufacturers, pharmaceutical manufacturers, agricultural interests, environmental interests, scientific and research bodies and Government advisory committees.

  The full list of those consulted was distributed with the response under cover of an official letter dated 9 February 2001, a copy of which is available in the Libraries of the House.

  Animal Health (Intensive Farming)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the impact on animal health of intensive farming. [151827]
  564W
  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 1 March 2001]: All sectors of the livestock industry can experience animal health problems and whatever systems of production are employed, livestock are susceptible to notifiable diseases.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister has indicated that once the present outbreak of foot and mouth disease has been eradicated, this and other issues will be reviewed.

  Foot and Mouth
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what sources of information he used to reach an understanding of the natural history of the foot and mouth disease virus. [152414]

  Ms Quin
  The Ministry has access to the world reference laboratory and world experts at the Institute for Animal Health at Pirbright, Surrey. There is also a significant body of knowledge available in published scientific papers.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to pay higher compensation rates for pedigree livestock destroyed under foot and mouth control orders. [152417]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 6 March 2001]: Compensation for animals destroyed to control foot and mouth disease is paid at the full market value of the animal immediately before it became affected with disease, or immediately before slaughter in all other cases. Animals are subject to an independent valuation prior to slaughter. This will take into account whether an animal's pedigree status or any other factor has a bearing on its value.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice his Department has given to zoos about the foot and mouth disease outbreak and the future of rare and endangered species. [152522]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 6 March 2001]: The Ministry has prepared advice with the Zoological Federation and its veterinary advisers for zoos, wildlife parks, city farms and similar establishments.

  This advice has been posted on MAFF's website www.maff.gov.uk. It provides basic information on how the disease is spread and explains what can be done to reduce the risk of disease spreading to animals contained on these sites. For example, zoos should prevent contact between the public and animals and ensure that no waste food is fed to the animals. Disinfection procedures should be introduced or improved for staff, visitors and for any vehicles that enter compounds containing susceptible animals.

  We have not provided specific advice on rare or endangered species.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when compensation payments to farmers for the slaughter of animals will start to be made. [152610]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 6 March 2001]: Arrangements are in place to ensure that compensation claims will be processed and paid immediately.
  565W
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the risk assessment for the spread of foot and mouth disease on herds of wild deer will be published. [152686]

  Ms Quin
  Farmed deer are covered under the Animal Health Act 1981 and the Foot and Mouth Disease Order 1983 as ruminating animals, and are susceptible to foot and mouth disease.

  An initial veterinary assessment indicates the risk of wild deer spreading the disease is low. As more information becomes available about the epidemiology of disease in the areas where there are wild deer, the risk assessment will be updated. The final risk assessment will be published soon.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what plans he has to help farmers who will lose income as a consequence of not being able to move cattle before the 30 month period; [153189]

  (2) if he will make compensation payments to farmers who have incurred financial loss because of the outbreak of foot and mouth on neighbouring land. [152611]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answers 6 and 12 March 2001]: Compensation is payable for the market value of animals slaughtered to control foot and mouth disease. It is not payable for the consequential losses caused by foot and mouth controls, for example when movement restrictions cause animals to become ineligible for the human consumption market. There are no plans to make such payments in response to the current outbreak, but the situation will be kept under review.

  Irish Veterinary Regime
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will discuss with his counterparts in the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and the Minister of Agriculture of the Irish Republic about creating a single veterinary regime for the whole island of Ireland. [151879]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: Officials in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in Northern Ireland already enjoy close links with their counterparts in the Republic of Ireland. In addition, the Good Friday Agreement commits both jurisdictions to formalising those links. There have been preliminary discussions at ministerial level. Officials in Belfast and Dublin are working to develop a common approach to animal health issues on the island of Ireland and to even closer co-operation in dealing with matters of common concern.

  Compulsory Slaughter
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list(a) farmed animals, (b) other organisms and (c) commodities in respect of which compensation is not payable to growers or owners in the case of compulsory slaughter; and if he will make a statement. [152326]

  Ms Quin
  Compensation is paid for any animal slaughtered or any thing seized (whether animate or inanimate) under the Animal Health Act 1981 in respect 566W
  of the control of animal disease. Compensation is not payable for the consequential losses, for example caused by movement restrictions.

  Compensation is not paid when the destruction of stock is imposed as part of an official exercise to eradicate a fish disease.

  Compensation is not normally paid to growers or owners in the case of compulsory destruction under the Plant Health Act 1967 of plant or plant products which are, or are suspected of being, infected with a quarantine plant pest.

  Swine Fever
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the causes of the recent classical swine fever outbreak. [152770]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 8 March 2001]: Extensive tracings were made of personnel, pigs, livestock, feed and other agricultural vehicles onto and off all 16 infected premises. Investigations to date support the initial findings that the second infected premises was the index case and that pigs there were exposed to CSF virus in early June 2000.

  The most likely source is thought to be an infected pork product, since back-tracing failed to reveal any evidence of infection and no other local source was detected. Subsequent spread was caused by commercial pig movements or by lateral spread.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what systems are in place for the monitoring and evaluation of the schemes for converting to organic farming funded by the Government, with particular regard to the effect on yields. [153164]

  Mr. Morley
  An evaluation of the Organic Farming Scheme, which will contribute to the interim evaluation of the English Rural Development Programme, will begin in the summer of 2001. The study will aim to provide a comprehensive evaluation of MAFF's policies relating to conversion to organic production, including the rationale for such intervention and the effectiveness and efficiency achieved in meeting policy objectives. However, achieving particular yields either by farm or in total is not one of the objectives of the scheme.

  Farm Product Prices
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make statement on trends in(a) farm gate and (b) retail prices of farm products over the last five years. [152298]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: Farm gate prices as measured by the index of producer prices for agricultural products declined 26.3 per cent. over the five years to December 2000. Retail food prices increased 3.9 per cent. over the five years to January 2001 compared with an increase of 13.9 per cent. for all items RPI. Agricultural commodities account for a relatively small proportion of the retail price of food, with most of the costs accounted for by processing and distribution.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total operations and running costs were of the millennium dome for 2000.
  [147728]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 30 January 2001]: The figure provided by the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is subject to the Company's necessary external audit scrutiny. That work will begin shortly and will inform the content of the Company's Annual Report and Financial Statements for the period 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2000. The report and statements will be published in due course. NMEC has advised that total operating or running costs for the millennium dome in the calendar year 2000 was £145.5 million.

  Athletics Championships (Funding)
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the difference between cost and funds secured to date for staging Manchester 2002. [152516]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 6 March 2001]: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office is responsible for co-ordinating Government involvement with the Commonwealth Games. Manchester 2002 Ltd. is raising income from a combination of sponsorship, television rights, merchandising and ticket sales to meet the estimated operating costs of £62 million of the Games. To date, they have attracted £18 million.

  When bidding to stage the Games, Manchester city council undertook to underwrite the Games and that commitment remains.

  Sports Clubs (Taxation)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture. Media and Sport what discussions he has had (1) with sports clubs concerning a more favourable regime with regard to(a) business rates and (b) VAT; [151832]

  (2) with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on business rates and their impact on sports clubs; [151834]

  (3) with the Treasury on VAT and its impact on sports clubs. [151833]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 1 March 2001]: In the course of this year and last, I have held a number of meetings with ministerial colleagues and representatives from across the sports sector including the Central Council of Physical Recreation to discuss the general issue of the taxation burden facing community amateur sports clubs. I have also received a number of representations directly from voluntary sports clubs. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced, the Government will consult in the coming months on the best way for tax relief to help community amateur sports clubs.

  Apsley House
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent representations 568W
  he has received in concerning proposals to change the ownership of Apsley House; and if he will make a statement. [153431]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]: I have not received any recent representations about changing the ownership of Apsley House, which is Crown property and will remain so. As I announced last year, I am reviewing the management arrangements for Apsley House and the Wellington Museum, but have yet to reach a final decision on those.

  Seaside Resorts
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he has taken to help rejuvenate English seaside tourist resorts in the last three years. [152883]

  Janet Anderson
  The regeneration of traditional resorts was identified as one of the key action points in "Tomorrow's Tourism", the Government's tourism strategy—published in 1999. The strategy set out a model regeneration plan and the Government, together with the English Tourism Council (ETC), have been working with regional and local authorities and the British Resorts Association to encourage the adoption of the model plan and the sharing of best practice. Resort regeneration has been extensively discussed at Ministerial Tourism Summits and the ETC have set up a Resorts Task Force, which has recently published its report "Sea Changes" which sets out a blueprint for seaside resort regeneration.

  New assistance has been provided for many resorts through the new Structural Funds (Objective 2) and Assisted Areas maps. The Single Regeneration Budget has recently made £172 million available to coastal areas and £30 million has been provided from the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund to benefit a number of major resorts, including Southport. National Lottery funding continues to assist numerous seaside resorts.

  English seaside resorts have also benefited from actions to improve bathing water quality, with 95 per cent. now meeting EU directives and a number of coastal/resort transport schemes are progressing in line with the Government's transport strategy.

  Cultural Property
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the 1970 UNESCO convention on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property. [153912]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Following the recommendation in the report of the Ministerial Advisory Panel on the Illicit Trade chaired by Professor Norman Palmer, published in December, and after further consultations within Government, I am pleased to announce that the Government have taken the decision to accede to this convention once the normal Parliamentary and other formalities have been completed. We do so on the basis that no fresh legislative commitment is required and we intend to enter reservations on the basis of those outlined in Professor Palmer's Report.

  Televised Sporting Events
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what his policy is on keeping important national sporting events free to TV viewers. [153032]

  Janet Anderson
  The Government believe that all television licence holders should have free access (on the BBC, the ITV Network or Channel 4) to those sporting occasions which have true national resonance. These events are listed under Part IV of the Broadcasting Act 1996.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Queen's Counsel
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he accepts the findings of the Office of Fair Trading concerning the Queen's Counsel system; and if he will make a statement. [153598]

  Mr. Lock
  The report by the Director General of the Office of Fair Trading, on competition in the market for professional services, raises a number of complex issues which need to be considered. The Government will issue a consultation paper inviting comments.

  Restrictive Practices
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the recommendations of the Office of Fair Trading report on restrictive practices in the legal profession; and if he will make a statement. [153597]

  Mr. Lock
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry stated to the House on 8 March 2001,Official Report, columns 458–59, the Government recognise the complexity of the issues raised by the Director of the Office of Fair Trading and will therefore issue a formal consultation paper addressing those issues and inviting comments.

  Departmental Policies (Houghton and Washington, East)
  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effects on Houghton and Washington, East of the Lord Chancellor's Department's actions since 2 May 1997. [152988]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Lord Chancellor's Department is responsible for the administration of the courts and for legal services. We have taken steps to improve the management and effectiveness of the services we provide and to meet customer needs, including working closely with other agencies to provide a fair, swift and effective system of justice, improve the availability of affordable and good quality legal services and to improve the lives of children and help build and sustain strong families.

  In particular, the Sunderland Community Legal Service Partnership (CLSP), which covers Houghton and Washington, East constituency, is one of 165 CLS Partnerships throughout England and Wales.
  570W
  A wide range of organisations have come together to form the CLSP including Sunderland city council, the Legal Services Commission, local solicitors, Wearside Money Advice Unit, the University of Sunderland, the Family Mediation Service, the Benefits Agency, Shirley Row Advice and Resource Project and Washington CAB.

  Within Houghton and Washington the Legal Services Commission has awarded contracts to solicitors with a total value in excess of £327,000. The contracts cover a range of categories, including family, debt and employment.

  In addition, Wearside Money Advice Unit has a contract form the Commission to provide debt advice. Although based in Sunderland, they offer a service across the whole of Wearside. The contract is worth £41,514.

  All of these organisations hold the Quality Mark at Specialist level. In addition a further eight organisations have expressed an interest in obtaining the Quality Mark.

  The Magistrates' Courts Committees (MCCs) of Northumberland, Newcastle, Gateshead, South Tyneside, North Tyneside and Sunderland amalgamated to form the Northumbria MCC on 1 April 2000.

  Departmental Policies (South Shields)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the South Shields constituency, the effects on South Shields of her Department's polices and actions since 2 May 1997. [153089]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Lord Chancellor's Department is responsible for the administration of the courts and for legal services. We have taken steps to improve the management and effectiveness of the services we provide and to meet customer needs, including working closely with other agencies to provide a fair, swift and effective system of justice, improve the availability of affordable and good quality legal services and to improve the lives of children and help build and sustain strong families.

  In particular over £750,000 in capital expenditure was allocated for the construction of the magistrates court in South Shields which opened in 1997.

  South Shields constituency will be covered by the South Tyneside Community Legal Service Partnership. Discussions are taking place between the Legal Services Commission and South Tyneside MBC with a view to staging a launch seminar at the end of March or beginning of April 2001. There are already 165 Community Legal Service Partnerships throughout England and Wales.

  Within South Shields solicitors firms have been awarded contracts whose total value amounts to over £770,000. The contracts cover a range of categories, including family, debt and employment. In addition South Tyneside CAB has also been awarded a contract worth £64,905 to provide debt and welfare benefits advice. Their main office is within South Shields.

  All of the above organisations hold the Quality Mark at the specialist level. A further 11 organisations based in South Shields have expressed an interest in obtaining the Quality Mark.
  571W
  The Magistrates Courts Committees (MCCs) of: Northumberland, Newcastle, Gateshead, South Tyneside, North Tyneside and Sunderland, amalgamated to form the Northumbria MCC on 1 April 2000.

  Land Registry
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the key performance targets for HM Land Registry Executive Agency are for 2001–02. [153931]

  Jane Kennedy
  The table contains the key performance targets the Lord Chancellor has set for HM Land Registry for 2001–02.

  Key performance indicator and targets 2001–02

  Indicator

  Target 2000–01

  Target 2001–02

  "Service First" Standards Speed

  Percentage of office copies and official search applications to be processed within two working days

  98

  98

  Percentage of office copies and official search applications to be processed within three working days

  100

  100

  Percentage of customers who are very satisfied/satisfied with the speed of service of office copies and official search applications

  —

  192

  Percentage of registrations to be processed within 25 working days

  80

  80

  Percentage of customers who are very satisfied/satisfied with the speed of service of registrations

  —

  1 90

  Accuracy

  Percentage of registrations processed free of any error

  98.5

  98.5

  Percentage of customers very satisfied/satisfied with the accuracy of registrations

  190

  190

  Overall Satisfaction

  Percentage of customers who, overall, very satisfied/satisfied with the full range of services provided by the Land Registry

  —

  192

  Financial

  Percentage return on average capital employed

  6

  6

  Efficiency2

  Cost per unit in real terms

  £25.09

  £23.95

  Cost per unit in cash terms

  £30.87

  £29.97

  Delivery of Electronic Services

  Percentage electronic delivery of all of the Land Registry's services

  —

  40

  Percentage of titles in the land register capable of electronic delivery

  96

  97

  Number of scanned pages of filed documents (millions)

  11

  28

  Number of scanned Land Charges registrations, Writs and Orders in Bankruptcy (millions)

  —

  7

  1 Better than

  2 Based on GDP deflator issued by HM Treasury on 8 November 2000 (baseline: 1992–93). These are milestones towards the HM Treasury-agreed cost per unit target for 2004–05 of £21.43 (real terms) and £29.11 (cash terms).

  Note:

  Further details of HMLR's targets are published in its Business Plan

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Timber
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his Department's annual report on timber procurement to the Committee of Green Ministers will be published. [152109]

  Mr. Bayley
  The Department will be publishing its first annual report on sustainable development and the environment later this year and it will contain information on timber procurement. The Green Ministers' annual report will also report on this subject.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much certified timber has been purchased by his Department over the past six months; and what proportion of total timber purchases this represents. [152116]

  Mr. Bayley
  The Department does not yet have a system in place to provide data on the proportion of certified timber purchased over the past six months.

  The Department occupies serviced accommodation provided by Trillium. It is the policy of the Department and Trillium to increase the proportion of timber used from certified sustainable sources. The company that supplies timber for maintenance on the estate only accepts claims of environmental sustainability if they are backed by independent inspection.

  Trillium is developing an Environmental Management System. In future this will provide the Department with data on timber procurement.

  Departmental Policies (Hemsworth and Wakefield)
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly to the locations as possible, the effects of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997 on(a) Hemsworth constituency and (b) Wakefield district. [153002]

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

  These goals are being pursued nationwide and our achievements are set out in our annual "Opportunity for all" reports. Our second report, "Opportunity for all—One year on: making a difference" (CM4865, September 2000), sets out what progress has been made in the past year, as well as highlighting what more needs to be done. Nationwide statistical information is necessarily more complete than constituency level data, but the following provides a comparative guide to the effect of the Department's policies and actions in Hemsworth constituency and the Wakefield Metropolitan Authority area since May 1997.
  573W
  Measures in our five Budgets so far will lift over 1.2 million children out of poverty. These include record increases to Child Benefit, the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit, increases in income-related benefits, the minimum wage and tax changes.

  Child Benefit will be worth £15.50 a week for the eldest child and £10.35 a week for other children from April 2001: nationally about 7 million families receive Child Benefit, in Hemsworth 11,382 families benefit and in the Wakefield Metropolitan Authority area 40,427 families benefit.

  We now have the lowest unemployment rate in 25 years. The New Deals have helped lone parents, the young unemployed, the long-term unemployed, the over-50s and partners of the unemployed to move from benefit into work. In the period since May 1997 the number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance nationally has reduced from 1,562,400 to 1,044,900; in Hemsworth the number has reduced from 2,700, to 1,700, and in the Wakefield Metropolitan Authority area from 9,400 to 5,800. Since May 1997 the number of lone parents who claim Income Support has decreased from 1,013,500 to 894,100 nationally; in Hemsworth the number has decreased from 1,800 to 1,500 and in the Wakefield Metropolitan Authority area from 5,900 to 5,200.

  Older people are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty. So we have introduced Winter Fuel Payments to help with their heaviest fuel bill. This winter, the payment is £200 for households who qualify. Over 17,000 older people in Hemsworth have received a Winter Fuel Payment for this winter. Information on the number of Winter Fuel Payments received is not available by local authority area.

  To demonstrate our commitment to combating pensioner poverty, this year we will spend £4.5 billion extra in real terms on pensioners. Some 15,600 pensioners in Hemsworth and 54,400 in the Wakefield Metropolitan Authority area will benefit from the substantial increases in the basic State Pension this April and next; this year's increase is £5 a week for single pensioners and £8 for couples. In addition we have introduced free TV licences for the over-75s of whom we estimate there are about 5,900 in Hemsworth and 19,200 in the Wakefield Metropolitan Authority area. 2,500 pensioner families in Hemsworth and 10,400 in the Wakefield Metropolitan Authority area are receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee, which we introduced in April 1999 to help our poorest pensioners. From April they will be at least £15 a week, or £800 a year, better off in real terms as a result of Government measures since 1997.

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

  Departmental Policies (Houghton and Washington, East)
  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out, with statistical information 574W
  relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effects on Houghton and Washington, East of his Department's actions since 2 May 1997. [152994]

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

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

  Measures in our five Budgets so far will lift over 1.2 million children out of poverty. These include record increases to Child Benefit, the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit, increases in income-related benefits, the minimum wage and tax changes.

  Child benefit will be worth £15.50 a week for the eldest child and £10.35 a week for other children from April 2001; nationally about 7 million families receive child benefit, and in Houghton and Washington, East 11,480 families benefit.

  We now have the lowest unemployment rate in 25 years. The New Deals have helped lone parents, the young unemployed, the long-term unemployed, the over-50s and partners of the unemployed to move from benefit into work. In the period since May 1997 the number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance nationally has reduced from 1,562,400 to 1,044,900; in Houghton and Washington, East the number has reduced from 2,600 to 2,100. Since May 1997 the number of lone parents who claim Income Support has decreased from 1,013,500 to 894,100 nationally and in Houghton and Washington, East from 2,100 to 1,800.

  Older people are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty, so we have introduced Winter Fuel Payments to help with their heaviest fuel bill. This winter, the payment is £200 for households who qualify. Over 16,000 older people in Houghton and Washington, East have received a Winter Fuel Payment for this winter.

  To demonstrate our commitment to combating pensioner poverty, this year we will spend £4.5 billion extra in real terms on pensioners. Some 14,800 pensioners in Houghton and Washington, East will benefit from the substantial increases in the basic State pension this April and next; this year's increase is £5 a week for single pensioners and £8 for couples. In addition we have introduced free TV licences for the over-75s of whom we estimate there are about 5,400 in Houghton and Washington, East. 3,500 pensioner families in Houghton and Washington, East are receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee, which we introduced in April 1999 to help our

  575W
  poorest pensioners. From April they will be at least £15 a week, or £800 a year, better off in real terms as a result of Government measures since 1997.

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

  Departmental Policies (South Shields)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the South Shields constituency, the effects on South Shields of his Department's polices and actions since 2 May 1997. [153087]

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

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

  Measures in our five Budgets so far will lift over 1.2 million children out of poverty. These include record increases to Child Benefit, the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit, increases in income-related benefits, the minimum wage and tax changes.

  Child Benefit will be worth £15.50 a week for the eldest child and £10.35 a week for other children from April 2001: nationally about seven million families receive child benefit, and in South Shields 10,358 families benefit.

  We now have the lowest unemployment rate in 25 years. The New Deals have helped lone parents, the young unemployed, the long-term unemployed, the over-50s and partners of the unemployed to move from benefit into work. In the period since May 1997 the number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance nationally has reduced from 1,562,400 to 1,044,900; in South Shields the number has reduced from 4,700, to 3,600. Since May 1997 the number of lone parents who claim Income Support has decreased from 1,013,500 to 894,100 nationally; in South Shields the number has increased from 2,000 to 2,100.

  Older people are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty. So we have introduced Winter Fuel Payments to help with their heaviest fuel bill. This winter, the payment
  576W
  is £200 for households who qualify. Over 17,000 older people in South Shields have received a Winter Fuel Payment for this winter.

  To demonstrate our commitment to combating pensioner poverty, this year we will spend £4.5 billion extra in real terms on pensioners. Some 16,400 pensioners in South Shields will benefit from the substantial increases in the basic State pension this April and next; this year's increase is £5 a week for single pensioners and £8 for couples. In addition we have introduced free TV licences for the over-75s of whom we estimate there are about 6,300 in South Shields. 3,700 pensioner families in South Shields are receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee, which we introduced in April 1999 to help our poorest pensioners. From April they will be at least £15 a week, or £800 a year, better off in real terms as a result of Government measures since 1997.

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

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people receive(a) higher and (b) lower rate Attendance Allowance. [152903]

  Mr. Bayley
  The latest available information, which relates to 31 August 2000, is that about 577,300 people were receiving the higher rate of Attendance Allowance, and about 693,200 were receiving the lower rate.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients of Disability Living Allowance higher mobility component qualify because they are both blind and deaf. [152902]

  Mr. Bayley
  The latest information, which relates to 31 August 2000, is that 382 people with both at least 80 per cent. disablement from loss of hearing and 100 per cent. disablement from loss of sight were receiving the higher rate mobility component of Disability Living Allowance.

  Discrete figures for deaf-blind recipients with lower levels of disability are not available. However, their entitlement is dependent not on their impairments themselves but on their resulting care and mobility needs, so full account is taken of combined disabilities. In total, almost 79,000 people with either blindness or deafness as their principal disabling condition were receiving Disability Living Allowance on the above date, including over 7,000 on the higher rate mobility component.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many Disability Living Allowance awards there are to(a) disabled people in general and (b) deaf people in particular; and how many of these were granted at (i) initial application and (ii) review or appeal, in (1) England, (2) Wales, (3) Scotland and (4) Northern Ireland. [152901]
  577W
  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Current awards of Disability Living Allowance broken down by country

  Disability

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  All disabilities

  1,742,600

  177,200

  240,500

  Deafness1

  20,700

  1,400

  2,100

  1 Main disabling condition

  Notes:

  1. Information on how many current awards of Disability Living Allowance were originally made on initial claim and how many review or appeal is not available

  2. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is responsible for social security in Northern Ireland

  Source:

  DSS Information Centre: 5 per cent. data

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a breakdown of current Disability Living Allowance awards for which deafness is the main disabling condition by(a) the rate of each component and (b) age. [152900]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  Current Disability Living Allowance awards for which deafness is the main disabling condition, broken down by age and rate of each component

  Type of award

  All ages

  0–15

  16–39

  40–59

  Age 60 and over

  All rates of care

  21,900

  8,700

  7,100

  4,700

  1,500

  Higher rate care

  900

  600

  1200

  1100

  1100

  Middle rate care

  15,100

  7,600

  4,500

  2,400

  700

  Lower rate care

  5,900

  500

  2,500

  2,200

  700

  All rates of mobility

  12,900

  5,200

  3,900

  2,400

  1,300

  Higher rate mobility

  1,500

  1200

  1300

  1300

  600

  Lower rate mobility

  11,400

  5,100

  3,600

  2,000

  700

  1 Number too small to be statistically reliable

  Notes:

  1. Figures relate to 31 August 2000

  2. Figures do not sum due to rounding

  Source:

  DSS Information Centre: 5 per cent. data

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a breakdown of Disability Living Allowance awards for which deafness is the main disabling condition by(a) age and (b) type of award, including (i) care only component, (ii) mobility only component and (iii) combined care and mobility components. [152899]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  Current Disability Living Allowance awards where deafness is the main disabling condition, broken down by age and type of award

  Age

  Type of award

  All ages

  0–15

  16–39

  40–59

  60 and over

  All awards

  24,100

  9,000

  7,900

  5,200

  2,000

  Care only

  11,300

  3,800

  4,000

  2,800

  700

  Mobility only

  2,200

  4001

  900

  500

  500

  Care and mobility

  10,600

  4,900

  3,100

  1,900

  800

  1 Number too small to be statistically reliable

  Notes:

  1. Figures relate to 31 August 2000

  2. Figures do not sum due to rounding

  Source:

  DSS Information Centre: 5 per cent. data.
  578W
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many Disability Living Allowance recipients there are and how many there were in each of the last seven years, whose main disabling condition is deafness. [152898]

  Mr. Bayley
  The latest available information, which relates to 31 August 2000, is that about 2,160,300 people were receiving Disability Living Allowance. Figures for recipients whose main disabling condition is deafness are in the table.

  Disability Living Allowance recipients w hose main disabling condition is deafness

  Year

  Recipients

  1994

  10,100

  1995

  11,800

  1996

  13,900

  1997

  16,700

  1998

  20,400

  1999

  22,900

  2000

  24,100

  Note:

  Figures relate to 31 August each year.

  Source:

  DSS Information Centre, 5 per cent. data.

  Mrs. B. E. Jones
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the appeal by Mrs. B. E. Jones of Verwood, Dorset against refusal of Disability Living Allowance will be heard; and if he will make a statement. [153040]

  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of appeals is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Appeals Service, Mr. Neil Ward. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Neil Ward to Mr. Christopher Chope, dated 12 March 2001:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked, me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question. You asked when the appeal of Mrs B. E. Jones of Verwood, Dorset against refusal of disability living allowance would be heard.
  I can tell you that Mrs Jones' appeal against refusal of disability living allowance has been listed for hearing at 10.00am, Tuesday 20th March 2001, at Bournemouth.
  The Appeals Service received the appeal for submission for Mrs Jones on 27 September 2000. On 19 October Mrs Jones sent the Benefits Agency (BA) some further evidence. The evidence was considered by a decision maker in the BA but the decision was not changed.
  On 5 March, Mrs Jones was informed that her appeal hearing was scheduled for hearing at 10.00am on 20 March at the Bournemouth venue.
  On 6 March, the representative phoned saying that Mrs Jones knew the doctor. Rather than postponing her case we have changed the doctor assigned to the session so that Mrs Jones' hearing could proceed.
  There was some delay in arranging the hearing for Mrs Jones and I would be grateful if you would pass on my apologies to Mrs Jones for this. We have been working hard in the Appeals Service to reduce the time it takes to bring appellants' cases to hearing. For the most part we have been successful and we are on track to meet the target set by the Secretary of State to arrange hearings within 14 weeks of the date the appeal is received in the Appeals Service.
  That said, the time taken to arrange an appeal is dependent on a number of factors. This includes the number of appeals waiting for a hearing, the number of members required to sit at the hearing,

  579W
  whether further evidence is required that would assist the tribunal in reaching its decision, the availability of the venue and the suitability of the type of hearing.

  I hope this information is helpful.

  Statistics (Newcastle)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many Jobseeker's Allowance claimants there are in (i) Newcastle and (ii) Newcastle upon Tyne, Central; how many there were in May 1997; and how many such claimants were continuous claimants of more than two years. [153034]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Jobseeker's Allowance recipients in Newcastle upon Tyne, Central constituency and Newcastle upon Tyne metropolitan authority area by duration—May 1997 and August 2000

  Thousand

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  Central PC

  LA district

  May 1997

  All cases

  3.6

  12.3

  Duration two years or more

  0.9

  3.4

  August 2000

  All cases

  3.0

  8.5

  Duration two years or more

  0.7

  2.2

  Notes:

  1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred and quoted in thousands.

  2. Based on 5 per cent. sample therefore subject to sampling error.

  3. Figures include cases receiving Income-based or Contribution-based JSA and those receiving no benefit and signing for National Insurance Credits only.

  4. As JSA was only introduced in October 1996 the duration figures for May 1997 include those on Unemployment Benefit or Income Support for the unemployed prior to October 1996.

  Source:

  Jobseeker's Allowance Quarterly Statistical Enquiries, May 1997 and August 2000

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners receiving the State Pension there are in(a) Newcastle and (b) Newcastle upon Tyne, Central; how many there were in May 1997; and how many of these were aged over 75 years. [153035]

  Mr. Rooker
  We will increase basic State Pension from April 2001 by £5 for a single person and £8 per couple. This is at an overall cost of £1.3 billion and will benefit over 10 million British pensioners. Among them 14,700 reside in the constituency of Newcastle upon Tyne, Central.

  Estimate of retirement pensioners in receipt of State Pension resident in Great Britain, Newcastle and Newcastle upon Tyne, Central constituency as at 31 March 2000

  Number of all pensioners in receipt of State Retirement Pension

  75 and under

  Over 75

  Great Britain

  10,150,400

  6,351,600

  3,798,800

  Newcastle upon Tyne, Central

  14,700

  8,200

  6,400

  580W

  Estimate of retirement pensioners in receipt of State Pension resident in Great Britain, Newcastle and Newcastle upon Tyne, Central constituency as at 31 March 2000

  Number of all pensioners in receipt of State Retirement Pension

  75 and under

  Over 75

  Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend

  14,100

  8,700

  5,400

  Newcastle upon Tyne, North

  17,700

  11,800

  6,000

  Notes:

  1. The figures quoted are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2. Cases are allocated to each parliamentary constituency by matching the postcode against the 2000 version 1 of the Postcode Directory supplied by ONS.

  3. Great Britain data exclude overseas and Channel Islands pensioners.

  Source:

  Based on a 5 per cent. sample taken from the Pension Strategy Computer system at 31 March 2000

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone parents on Income Support there are in(a) Newcastle and (b) Newcastle upon Tyne, Central; and how many there were in May 1997. [153055]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  Number of lone parents on Income Support

  Thousand

  Area

  May 1997

  November 2000

  Newcastle upon Tyne City Council

  6.8

  5.9

  Newcastle upon Tyne, Central constituency

  1.6

  1.5

  Notes:

  1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred and quoted in thousands.

  2. Based on 5 per cent. sample therefore subject to sampling error.

  3. Lone Parents are single parents aged under 60 and not receiving the disability premium.

  4. Cases are allocated to each parliamentary constituency/local authority by matching the postcode against the relevant (i.e. 1997 and 2000 versions 1 or 2) of the ONS Postcode Directory. Parliamentary constituency boundaries are represented as at May 1997.

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiries, May 1997 and November 2000.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in(a) Newcastle and (b) Newcastle upon Tyne, Central were receiving Income Support in 1996–97; what their average benefit and average income was; how many pensioners were receiving the minimum income guarantee in 2000–01; and what their average benefit and average income was.[153037]
  581W
  Compared with when this Government came to office in 1997, the average incomes of pensioners in these constituencies have risen by around £16 weekly. Around a half of this increase can be attributed directly to help through the Minimum Income Guarantee. From this April, with the alignment of weekly Minimum Income Guarantee rates at the highest rate, no pensioner need live on less than £92.15 a week.

  Income Support pensioners average weekly income and average weekly amount of Income Support as at November 1997

  Number of claimants

  Average weekly amount of income (£)

  Average weekly amount of Income Support (£)

  Newcastle upon Tyne local authority

  11,900

  77.35

  33.44

  Newcastle upon Tyne, Central parliamentary constituency

  3,800

  74.56

  34.34

  Minimum Income Guarantee pensions average weekly income and average weekly amount of Income Support as at November 2000

  Number of claimants

  Average weekly amount of income (£)

  Average weekly amount of Income Support (£)

  Newcastle upon Tyne local authority

  11,800

  93.10

  40.29

  Newcastle upon Tyne, Central parliamentary constituency

  3,500

  88.90

  41.89

  Notes:

  1. The average weekly amounts of income quoted in the tables exclude help provided through Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

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

  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred and are expressed in thousands.

  4. Parliamentary constituencies and local authorities have been allocated by matching postcodes against the relevant ONS postcode directory for each quarter, and represent constituency boundaries as at May 1997.

  5. Pensioners are defined as benefit units where the claimant and/or partner are aged 60 and over.

  6. Income is defined as all income and benefits (excluding IS), including income from partners and dependants, taken into account and disregarded for Income Support purposes.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries, November 1997 and 2000

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of children in(a) Newcastle and (b) Newcastle upon Tyne, Central who were receiving Child Benefit in (i) 1997 and (ii) 2001; what the rates of benefit were; and what the average annual income from Child Benefit was in (a) 1997 and (b) 2001 for those areas. [153033]
  582W
  Angela Eagle
  The latest available information as requested is in the table.

  Number of children

  Average weekly amount per family (£)

  August 1999

  Newcastle

  52,594

  21.46

  Newcastle, Central

  16,524

  21.84

  Newcastle, East and Wallsend

  17,955

  21.40

  Newcastle, North

  18,115

  21.19

  November 2000

  Newcastle

  52,602

  22.93

  Newcastle, Central

  16,659

  23.49

  Newcastle, East and Wallsend

  17,943

  22.70

  Newcastle, North

  18,000

  22.68

  Notes:

  1. Figures are from a 100 per cent. extract of the Child Benefit Centre Computer System.

  2. Information from before 1999 is not available on this basis.

  3. The average annual income from Child Benefit is not available.

  4. Average weekly amounts are based on Child Benefit, Guardians Allowance and Child Benefit (Lone Parent). We are not able to split them into the individual components.

  5. Cases are allocated to each parliamentary constituency by matching the postcode against the relevant (ie 1999 or 2000 versions 1 or 2) of the ONS Postcode Directory. Constituency boundaries are represented as at May 1997.

  The rates of Child Benefit are as follows:
  April 1999—£14.40 eldest child and £9.60 subsequent children
  April 2000—£15.00 eldest child and £10.00 subsequent children.

HEALTH

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his plans are for reducing maximum waiting times(a) between GP referral and hospital consultant appointment and (b) between hospital consultant appointment and operation or treatment. [151959]

  Mr. Denham
  In our NHS Plan, published last year, we promised that by the end of 2005 the maximum wait for a routine out-patient appointment will be three months, compared with over six months today, and that the maximum wait for in-patient treatment will be six months, compared with 18 months today.

  NHS Beds
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his plans for increasing the number of beds in the NHS. [151960]

  Ms Stuart
  Planning guidance, issued on 15 February, requires health authorities, in partnership with councils, to consider the action required to achieve the NHS Plan objectives that there should be an extra 2,100 general and acute beds and 5,000 extra intermediate care beds by 2004. Copies of the guidance are available in the Library.

  No NHS region is to plan for a reduction in bed numbers.

  Hospital Facilities (Warrington)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to improve hospital facilities in Warrington. [151962]

  Yvette Cooper
  A number of schemes are currently under way to help improve hospital facilities at the Warrington General Hospital. These include the purchase of the Daresbury Wing which can now provide orthopaedic surgery as well as improved ophthalmology facilities. Approval has also been given to the outline business case for a substantial redevelopment of the hospital's accident and emergency department.

  Mary O'Donnell
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will examine the handling by the NHS of the medical needs of Mrs. Mary O'Donnell, a constituent of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West. [151963]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are aware of the circumstances surrounding Mrs. Mary O'Donnell's treatment by the National Health Service and have every sympathy with people who suffer adversely as a consequence of medical treatment. The responsibility for the handling of Mrs. O'Donnell's medical needs rests with her local clinicians and we understand that she has annual hospital appointments to monitor her progress.

  Surgical Treatments
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to enable(a) IVF treatment and (b) breast reduction operations to be made available throughout the country. [151964]

  Yvette Cooper
  We are asking the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) to produce guidance on the management of infertility to improve services and reduce the postcode lottery in this area of health care.

  Decisions whether to offer breast reduction surgery are made locally following clinical recommendations. This procedure has been proposed as a possible topic for consideration by NICE.

  Nurses
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on recent changes in the number of nurses in the NHS. [151965]

  Mr. Denham
  Latest figures (Hospital and Community Health Services Workforce Census 2000) show that the number of nurses working in the NHS has increased significantly by 6,310 (1.9 per cent. between 1999 and 2000). This represents progress towards the NHS Plan work force target of 20,000 (headcount) extra nurses and midwives by 2004 and means there are now over 17,100 more nurses since 1997.

  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made with increasing the number of nurses working in the NHS. [151981]

  Mr. Denham
  The NHS Plan set out to increase the number of nurses and midwives by 20,000 (headcount) from 1999 to 2004. We have already made substantial progress towards this target. From 1999 to 2000, the number of nurses has increased by 6,310.

  Hospital Development (Greenwich)
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the recent hospital development in Greenwich. [151966]

  Mr. Denham
  The new £93 million Private Finance Initiative-funded hospital at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Greenwich will be fully operational from 1 April 2001. The new hospital will provide improved quality of services and environment, and will speed the progress of modernisation for the residents of Greenwich.

  PALS
  Mr. Patrick Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when patient advocacy liaison services will be available to patients in the primary care sector. [151967]

  Ms Stuart
  Chapter 10 of the NHS Plan states that Patient Advocacy and Liaison Services (PALS) will be established in every Trust, beginning with every major hospital, by 2002. It is anticipated that Primary Care Trusts will also have PALS services available by that date. Health authorities will be working with Primary Care Groups to ensure that they make PALS services available in the run up to them reaching PCT status.

  Neurology Services
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the availability of neurology services in Barnsley and south Yorkshire. [151968]

  Yvette Cooper
  The health authorities responsible for commissioning neurology services in south Yorkshire are working collaboratively to achieve a common approach to the procurement and development of the service provided in Sheffield. The recently announced National Service Framework for long-term health conditions will focus on the needs of people with neurological conditions.

  Bedford Hospital
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received since 16 January concerning Bedford hospital. [151969]

  Mr. Denham
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a number of representations from Members of Parliament since 16 January 2001 concerning Bedford hospital.

  Consultants (Recruitment and Retention)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the recruitment and retention of consultants. [151970]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of consultants in the NHS has increased by 2,940 since 1997. We are committed to further increases as part of the NHS Plan—by 2004 there will be 7,500 more consultants working in the NHS. This will be helped by encouraging flexible careers and, in the short term, increasing international recruitment.

  NHS (Redbridge and Waltham Forest)
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to visit King George Hospital, Ilford, to discuss the future of the National Health Service in Redbridge and Waltham Forest. [151971]

  Mr. Denham
  Ministers have no immediate plans to visit King George Hospital, part of Redbridge Health Care NHS Trust.

  NHS Doctors
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made in increasing the number of doctors in the NHS. [151974]

  Mr. Denham
  Since 1997, the number of doctors in the National Health Service has increased by around 6,700. and there are now 97,400 doctors working in the NHS. We are committed to further significant increases as part of the NHS Plan—by 2004 we expect there to be 7,500 more consultants and a minimum of 2,000 more general practitioners.

  Hospices (Lancashire)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to end differences in funding for children's hospices and adult hospices in Lancashire. [151975]

  Yvette Cooper
  We are extending the Carer's Special Grant and the Quality Protects Programme from three years to five and have increased funding to improve palliative care services for children—including respite breaks. We are also going to provide, through the Lottery New Opportunities Fund, access to funding for palliative care for children and adults.

  New Hospitals
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the number of new hospitals and hospital units opened since 1 January. [151976]

  Mr. Denham
  Eight new hospital units have opened since 1 January 2001. This number will rise considerably over the coming months as the many schemes currently under way become operational.

  Modernisation Fund
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the allocations from the modernisation fund to each health authority. [151977]

  Mr. Denham
  Almost £2.3 billion has been allocated to health authorities from the Modernisation Fund. These funds have laid the foundation for the Government's modernisation agenda for the National Health Service. The Modernisation Fund will cease to exist in 2001–02. It has been superseded by the funding secured as part of SR2000 and the publication of the NHS Plan.

  Health Care (Purchase)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the volume of health care 586W
  being purchased by the NHS from private hospitals and the criteria employed in making a decision to outsource health care. [151978]

  Mr. Denham
  The most recent figures for 1999–2000 indicate that £1.41 billion or 5.0 per cent. of total NHS expenditure on hospital and community services was spent with the private sector. It is for local commissioners and providers to confirn for themselves that the services provided by the pm ate sector are of sufficiently high quality and cost-effective.

  NHS Plan (Birmingham)
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the implementation of the NHS plan in Birmingham. [151979]

  Yvette Cooper
  Birmingham health authority, working with National Health Service trusts, primary care groups. primary care trusts and the local authority, is on course to implement and resource the radical programme of change over the next 10 years as set out in the NHS Plan.

  As a result we expect to see improvements in tackling heart disease, in the delivery of cancer services and further improvements in mental health services in line with the NHS frameworks. In addition, there will be further modernisation of hospital facilities in Birmingham following my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's recent approval for a major new hospital development in South Birmingham and the development of an ambulatory care and diagnostic centre on the City Hospital site.

  Rural Hospitals
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the future of small acute general hospitals in remote rural areas. [151980]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Beds Inquiry (NBI) was set up to review long-term assumptions about the volume of general and acute health services and their implications for the whole system of care. It focused on the needs of older people and considered the scope for alternative models of care. The consultation on the NBI report demonstrated overwhelming support for "care closer to home" and the development of intermediate care services. The NHS Plan set a target of 5,000 extra intermediate care beds by 2004, some of which will be in community hospitals. In the light of the NBI report and consultation and the NHS Plan, clear policy guidance was published on 15 February. This provides tools to help health authorities to benchmark their performance against comparable authorities and to assess future requirements for beds and services to meet the needs of local people in all areas, and requires them to develop action plans as part of a wider review of services to be undertaken in the summer. The guidance (HSC 2001/03:LAC (2001)4 "Implementing the NHS Plan: Developing services following the National Beds Inquiry") is in the Library.

  Diabetes
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the treatment of diabetes. [151982]
  587W
  Mr. Denham
  The Government are developing a National Service Framework for diabetes, for publication later this year. The Framework will set clear standards for diabetes services, to improve health outcomes for people with diabetes.

  Waiting Lists (Essex)
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the present level of waiting lists in Essex. [151983]

  Mr. Denham
  Both North Essex health authority and South Essex health authority have been making steady progress in relation to reducing waiting lists. Through the winter period, they have experienced more emergency admissions than expected but continue to reduce waiting lists.

  Waiting Times (South Swindon)
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps have been taken to reduce waiting times for patients in South Swindon. [151984]

  Mr. Denham
  Since 1998 we have given substantial additional funding to Wiltshire health authority to reduce waiting lists as detailed in the table:

  Waiting list and times related funding allocated to Wiltshire

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Waiting lists included in general cash uplift

  —

  2,837

  2,837

  4,643

  Waiting list performance fund

  346

  327

  327

  2—

  Waiting list beacon

  —

  30

  —

  2—

  Waiting list addition

  3,164

  —

  —

  2—

  Waiting list booked admission programme

  —

  182

  302

  2—

  Waiting list cancer out-patient waits

  —

  25

  131

  2—

  3,510

  3,401

  3,597

  4,643

  Total

  15,151

  1Estimated pro rata share of £423 million hypothecated fund

  2Not yet known

  At the Swindon and Marlborough NHS Trust this has been used to fund a variety of schemes which by the end of January this year had led to a fall of 1,334 (20.2 per cent.) in the number of patients waiting for in-patient and daycare treatment since 1 April 1996.

  Testicular Cancer
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received on the provision of health care relating to testicular cancer. [151985]

  Yvette Cooper
  Most recently, I and members of the Health Select Committee were involved with the Imperial Cancer Research Funds campaign to raise awareness of men's cancers—particularly testicular and prostate cancers.

  Patients Complaints
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he takes to ensure that patients complaints can be dealt with immediately and remedied without delay. [151986]

  Ms Stuart
  The current National Health Service complaints procedure places the emphasis on resolving complaints as quickly as possible, and at a local level. However, the procedure has been subject to a two-year evaluation which is now complete. We have made it clear in the NHS Plan that we would act on the evaluation and reform the NHS complaints procedure to make it more independent and responsive to the needs of patients. This will include setting up patient Advocacy Liaison Services and Independent Advisory Services as part of a new system for better patient and public involvement.

  Bed Blocking
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he proposes to end bed blocking in acute hospitals. [151972]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are providing new intermediate care services, which will enable patients who are ready to be discharged to move on from hospital. Additionally, further resources of £103 million have been made available this winter to enable the National Health Service and social services to expand capacity and reduce delayed discharges. This will enable the current downward trend in delayed discharges to continue.

  Private Sector Health Care
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what meetings he has held since June 2000 with private sector health care providers; and which other Government Ministers attended. [145304]

  Ms Stuart
  I hold regular meetings and visits with a variety of health care providers, including occasionally with private sector or independent health care providers.

  The table shows ministerial meetings with the private and voluntary health care sector between June 2000 and 19 February 2001.

  Minister

  Date

  Event

  Secretary of State

  31 October 2000

  Launch of the Concordat between the NHS and the private and voluntary health care sector with the Independent Healthcare Association

  Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham)

  13 September 2000

  Meeting with Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Dr. Korlipara, Chairman of Bollon District Medical Services, to discuss smart card technology

  589W

  Minister

  Date

  Event

  16 November 2000

  Attended a presentation by Shaw Homes Ltd. about public and private partnerships in Ledbury

  Minister of State, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Mutton)

  25 October 2000

  Meeting with BUPA Westminster Healthcare Ltd., Idun Healthcare Ltd., Southern Cross Healthcare Ltd. And 4 Seasons Healthcare Ltd.

  26 October 2000

  Meeting with British Foundation of Care Home Proprietors, The Care Forum, Federation of Small Businesses, National Care Homes Association and Registered Nursing Home Association

  30 January 2001

  Meeting with Rescare

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health

  20 June 2000

  Meeting with Norwich Union

  13 July 2000

  Meeting with the Consumers Association

  Meeting with General Healthcare Group/BMI Healthcare

  5 September 2000

  Meeting with Macmillan Cancer Relief

  4 October 2000

  Meeting with Russell, Jones and Walker to discuss clinical negligence

  9 November2000

  Meeting with British Pregnancy Advisory Service

  24 January 2001

  Meeting with BUPA

  Child Protection
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps were taken to act upon and disseminate recommendations from case reviews under the Children Act 1989 carried out between 1990 and 1999; [147137]

  (2) how many case reviews under Part 8 of the Children Act 1989 following the death of a child from abuse or neglect were held between 1990 and 1999. [147136]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information is not collected on the numbers of case reviews that have been carried out in accordance with Chapter 8 of "Working Together to Safeguard Children" (1999). However, the lessons learned from reviews carried out under the terms of the predecessor guidance "Working Together Under the Children Act 1989", served to inform the contents of the revised guidance.

  We currently collect the numbers of case reviews notified to us from the social care Regions. From this collection, we estimate that the total number of case reviews each year is in the range of 150–180 and has remained at this level for some time.
  590W
  Figures describing Part 8 notifications to the Department of Health in the period 1990 to 1995 were published in "Lost Innocents: a follow-up study of fatal child abuse". The study quoted non-accident child death over that period as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1990–91

  55

  1991–92

  45

  1992–93

  59

  1993–94

  54

  1994–95

  54

  In addition, we are now acting to deliver on the commitment, that was specified in the new guidance, to commission and publish national overview reports, at least every two years, which will draw out key findings from case reviews and their implications for policy and practice.

  Staff Training
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what training is given to NHS staff in(a) the cleanliness of hospitals and (b) preventing infections; and if he will make a statement. [149764]

  Mr. Denham
  [licking answer 9 February 2001]: Last year, to help ensure that all National Health Service domestic and service staff receive appropriate training, we issued "Standards for environmental cleanliness in hospitals" jointly with the Infection Control Nurses' Association and the Association of Domestic Management. This is an effective audit tool that sets out how environmental cleanliness standards are maintained. It contains detailed criteria relating to the education and training of staff involved in the cleaning process, which ensure that they possess the competencies to meet agreed hygiene standards.

  All staff, including those employed by support services will receive training in prevention and control of infection. There is also a programme of on-going education for existing staff, which includes updating on policies, feedback of audit results, and identification of action needed to correct any deficiencies.

  MMR Vaccine
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Government advertising campaign to promote MMR take up will begin; and what form it will take. [151148]

  Yvette Cooper
  The. Department has drawn up a plan in consultation with Health Promotion England (HPE), who manage the immunisation campaign on the Department's behalf, to provide information to the public about Measles Mumps Rubella vaccine. The aim will be to ensure that parents and health professionals have access to scientifically accurate information about the vaccine.

  The information campaign will include leaflets and factsheets, training materials for health professionals, an information video, a TV advert, health professional seminars, an information pack and materials for the web,

  591W
  through NHSDirect.nhs.uk and immunisation.org.uk. The materials will be made available over the next few months.

  Match Funding
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which departmental programmes allow for the use of section 106 contributions from planning agreements as match funding; and if he will make a statement. [152495]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), on 9 March 2001,Official Report, columns 361–62W.

  Hearing Aids
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) digital and (b) analogue hearing aids have been fitted under the NHS in the pilot areas for the modernisation of hearing services project since its inception. [152419]

  Mr. Hutton
  The modernising hearing aid services project has been fitting hearing aids since the first sites came on stream in September 2000. So far, the following number of hearing aids have been fitted:Digital: 1,191 digital aids fitted up to Thursday 1 March 2001
  Analogue: 2,452 analogue hearing aids supplied through the NHS Logistics Authority up to Thursday 1 March 2001.

  This number does not take account of purchases made outside of the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency contracts.

  The numbers fitted will increase a; the number of sites increase and as sites become mote experienced. The intention is to fit between 24,000 and 29,000 digital aids during the lifetime of the project, which is due to finish at the end of March 2002.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health from what date Coventry NHS trust will be included in the modernising NHS hearing aid services project. [153296]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department will study the results of the modernising National Health Service hearing aid services pilot project when it reports. The project is planned to continue until 2002.

  In line with the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) technology appraisal guidelines, health officials in Coventry are awaiting completion of the research projects. In the meantime, hospitals which fall outside the project, with the appropriate staff, training, equipment and experience, are already able to access the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency contract for digital hearing aids.

  Various manufacturers have been invited to give talks on hearing aid digital technology in Coventry and, in addition, a practical training day for staff has been arranged for May 2001.

  Defibrillators
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations he has received from the 592W
  Resuscitation Council UK on the decision to adopt a four-hour course for the Defibrillators in Public Places programme; [153058]

  (2) if he will list the members of the Defibrillator Advisory Committee; [153054]

  (3) what consultation took place between his Department and the European Resuscitation Council before the decision to adopt a four-hour course for the Defibrillators in Public Places programme; and what representations his Department received from the Council. [153057]

  Yvette Cooper
  The issue of training for people designated to use defibrillators installed under the Defibrillators in Public Places initiative has been given thorough and careful consideration by the Defibrillator Advisory Committee, which has supported the adoption of a four-hour training course covering basic life support and the use of automated external defibrillator devices.

  The Defibrillator Advisory Committee is an expert external reference group which includes cardiology and resuscitation experts (including from the Resuscitation Council United Kingdom), representatives from voluntary aid societies, ambulance services, the police, and patients' interest groups.

  The Resuscitation Council UK endorses guidelines for the practice of resuscitation recommended by the European Resuscitation Council (ERC). It has not, however, adopted the ERC's suggestion of a course based on a total of eight hours' tuition, which does not form part of the ERC's formal guidelines. The ERC's guidelines themselves are published in the full understanding that they may require modification to reflect circumstances that exist in individual countries.

  The full membership of the Defibrillator Advisory Committee is as follows:
  Mr. John Nelson (Chair)—Tees, East and North Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust
  Mrs. Eve Knight—British Cardiac Patients Association
  Mr. Chris Hulley—Assistant Chief Constable, British Transport Police
  Professor Douglas Chamberlain—Chairman, Joint Royal Colleges and Ambulance Liaison Committee
  Mr. Martin Shalley—Consultant in Accident and Emergency Medicine, Birmingham Heartlands Hospital
  Dr. Mick Colquhoun—Secretary, Resuscitation Council(UK)
  Professor Sir Charles George"Medical Director, British Heart Foundation
  Baroness Audrey Emerton—Chief Commander, St. John Ambulance
  Dr. Michael Webb—St. John Ambulance
  Dr. Gordon Paterson—Chief Medical Adviser, British Red Cross Society
  Mrs. Lesley Whitesmith—Resuscitation Training Officer
  Dr. Tom Evans—Consultant Cardiologist, Royal Free Hospital
  Mr. Gron Roberts—Essex Ambulance Service NHS Trust
  Mr. Richard Mawson—Chief Executive, Hampshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust
  Dr. Roger Boyle—National Heart Director, Department of Health
  Mr. Tom Quinn—Health Services Directorate, Department of Health
  Ms Sian Davies—National Defibrillator Project Manager, British Heart Foundation (for Department of Health)

  Blood Collection
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much each hospital in(a) London, (b) Surrey, (c) Kent and (d) Sussex paid in 1999–2000 to private taxi firms to collect blood from blood banks; what estimate has been made of the savings to these hospitals from using the free service provided; and what guidelines he plans to issue to hospitals within the emergency rider volunteers' catchment area to encourage them to take advantage of their services. (152850]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested around the cost incurred to hospitals by taxi firms to collect blood from blood banks in London, Surrey, Kent and Sussex is not held centrally. The Department does not collect information of the savings to hospitals from using free services to collect blood from blood banks.

  From 1 April 1999 the supply of blood and blood components has been covered by a National Service Agreement between National Health Service trusts and the National Blood Service (NBS). This agreement stipulates the cost of routine scheduled deliveries to trusts absorbed into the prices charged for the provision of blood and blood components. The trusts and the local blood centres agree the routine delivery schedules to a trust. The NBS uses its own vehicles, couriers or taxis to provide the ad hoc deliveries. The decision is based on cost and availability of mode of transport as the supply may be urgent. Regardless of the actual transport cost the trust is only charged £11.50.

  We have no plans to issue guidelines to hospitals within the emergency volunteers' catchment area to encourage hospitals to take advantage of their services. The NBS has a responsibility to ensure that the safety of the blood supply is not compromised. Therefore the transportation of blood, blood products and tissues is carefully controlled using the NBS transport fleet together with the specifically arranged contracts with third party suppliers. This ensures that the appropriate standard of vehicles and equipment is used, together with the appropriate training of staff, environmental controls and employment of route scheduling. The safety and security of the blood supply is paramount; therefore the use of volunteers to undertake this activity has not been actively pursued by the NBS.

  Bognor Regis Health Centre
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who is the legal and beneficial owner of the Bognor Regis health centre. [152958]

  Ms Stuart
  The ownership of the Bognor Regis health centre rests with Sussex Weald and Downs National Health Service Trust.

  Health Benefits Administration
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the annual cost is of(a) administering the collection of health charges, including anti-fraud measures and (b) administering the health benefit scheme. [153065]

  Ms Stuart
  The cost of administering the collection of health charges in England, including anti-fraud measures, forms part of the running costs of the National Health Service and is not identified separately.
  594W
  The direct cost of administering the NHS low income scheme in England is expected to be around £3.97 million for 2000–01.

  NHS Computer Systems
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS hospital trusts have achieved level 3 EPR. [153049]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 9 March 2001]: The position at the end of December 2000 was that four acute trusts had EPR level 3 systems in place, with the figure forecast to rise to 11 by the end of the current financial year.

  Recombinant Factor 8
  Mr. Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Government intend to make Recombinant Factor 8 available to all haemophiliacs in England. [153182]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]: We are continuing to give careful consideration to this issue.

  Cancer Treatment (Newcastle)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the decision was taken to replace the existing Northern Centre for Cancer Treatment at Newcastle general hospital; what recent changes in numbers of linear accelerators have been made; and how many successive business cases for replacements have been submitted since 1997. [153195]

  Mr. Denham
  The 1993 Newcastle Strategic Review strategy document did not include provision for the relocation of the Northern Centre for Cancer Treatment (NCCT) from the Newcastle general hospital site. Arising from public consultation it became apparent that, as acute services were relocated off the Newcastle general hospital site, the NCCT would become increasingly isolated from access to surgery, medicine, anaesthetics, critical care and other clinical services, Plans were therefore drawn up as part of the Freeman hospital site development control plan. Consequently, the subsequent strategic outline case (SOC) (approved in April 1998) included the reprovision of the NCCT on the Freeman hospital site.

  The SOC recognised the constraints on radiotherapy capacity in the existing NCCT (six linear accelerators in 1998) and proposed that the new NCCT should open with seven linear accelerators, moving swiftly to eight and with bunker capacity for nine.

  Since the publication of the Royal College of Radiologists' Report on Radiotherapy and of the National Health Service Cancer Plan in autumn 2000, the outline business case (OBC) has been amended to note the potential requirement to construct up to 12 linear accelerator bunkers should further capacity be required in the future. If required, this extension would have funding implications over and above that detailed in the existing OBC.

  In 2000 funding was agreed via the New Opportunities Fund (NOF) to replace two linear accelerators at NCCT. The trust also funded the upgrading of a third linear accelerator. In addition, a seventh bunker has been constructed, giving some additional capacity and

  595W
  flexibility to maintain six operational linear accelerators during installation and upgrading works. The first NOF funded machine was commissioned in December 2000 and the second machine will be operational in December 2001.

  Freeman and RVI Hospitals
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the major investment in new hospital facilities at the Freeman and RVI hospitals Newcastle was first accepted in his Department's programme; when it was decided to use PFI finance; how many business cases have subsequently been submitted; and how many health authorities had to be signed up to the business case on each occasion. [153194]

  Mr. Denham
  The Newcastle Strategic Review (NSR), as a strategy, was approved by Ministers in December 1993. In the mid-1990s the centralisation of obstetrics and gynaecology services (which had previously been fragmented) onto the Royal Victoria Infirmary (RVI) site took place. In addition there was a £11 million public sector investment to centralise ophthalmology services also onto the RVI site. In 1995 the first of the "fast track" public capital allocations were made (which finally totalled £8.4 million) to facilitate further movement of acute services off the Newcastle general hospital site. Confirmation of the support to larger scale capital investment at RVI and Freeman to complete the implementation of the NSR was provided by the approval of the second wave strategic outline case (SOC) in April 1998, revisions to which were approved in September 1999.

  The second wave SOC envisaged most of the capital investment being provided under the Private Finance Initiative (PFI). A similar position applied in the subsequent revised SOC proposals. This was in line with practice for almost all major hospital schemes referred to the Capital Prioritisation Advisory Group.

  Complete consultation drafts (dated February 2000) of the Outline Business Cases (OBC) for the PFI construction of new facilities on the Freeman and RVI hospital sites were submitted to the Northern and Yorkshire Regional Office in spring 2000. Following the final confirmation of purchaser support these were subsequently revised and the final version of the OBC were submitted to the regional office in February 2001 and are now under assessment.

  Complete consultation drafts of the business case for the £15.3 million publicly funded enabling schemes for the NSR were submitted to the Regional Office in March 2000 and June 2000. The definitive version was submitted in October 2000 following support and approved in November 2000.

  A full business case for the PFI replacement of the existing Energy Centre at the RVI was approved in December 2000. This scheme had not been a part of the NSR SOC.
  596W
  For both the main NSR scheme and its enabling works scheme five health authorities were signed up (Newcastle and North Tyneside, Northumberland, Gateshead and South Tyneside, Sunderland and County Durham) and a further two (Tees and North Cumbria) were consulted.

  Radio/Microwave Masts and Waves
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent research he has commissioned into the health effects of radio masts and waves and microwave masts and waves. [153193]

  Yvette Cooper
  A study on the incidence of leukaemia near all 20 high power TV/FM radio transmitters in Great Britain was published in 1996 by the Small Area Health Statistics Unit (SAHSU). This study found that there was no observed excess risk of leukaemia within 2 kilometres of all the transmitter sites looked at as a group. The Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) evaluated the results of the SAHSU study. In their statement COMARE reiterated their previous advice that there is no firm evidence of a carcinogenic hazard from exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) from TV and radio masts emissions.

  Last year a report on mobile phones and health was published by the Independent Group on Mobile Phones, chaired by Sir William Stewart. The Stewart report provided a rigorous and comprehensive assessment of existing research considered the possible effects on health of mobile phones and base stations (masts). The report concluded that the balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk to health of people living near base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of guidelines. Among its conclusions the Stewart group commented that the upsurge of mobile phone technology should be matched by good quality research. We have responded by setting up a new programme jointly funded by industry. The first call for proposals was issued on 9 February.

  The Department is also continuing to provide financial support for the World Health Organisation International Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) Project which is comprehensively reviewing EMF effects, including those of radio waves.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 8 March 2001,Official Report, column 323W, on correspondence, what the reasons were for the delay in replying to the letter from the hon. Member for Northavon. [153723]

  Mr. Denham
  The delay in replying to the hon. Member's letter resulted from the original correspondence being lost within the Department. A further copy was provided by fax on 20 November, to which a reply was sent. I know that the Permanent Secretary/Chief Executive of the National Health Service has written to the hon. Member to apologise for the unacceptable delay involved in this case. New operational procedures have also been introduced in the Department to ensure that this sort of delay should not happen again.

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

National Assembly for Wales: Legislation
Lord Roberts of Conwyasked Her Majesty's Government:
When the draft protocol between them and the National Assembly for Wales relating to legislation and published in February 2000 is to be finalised.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the protocol was drafted before we had the experience of the legislative process in the previous Session. It needs some amendment in the light of that experience, and discussions are taking place between the Secretary of State for Wales and the First Minister. Although the protocol has not been finalised, there has been excellent co-operation between the Assembly and the UK Government on primary legislation relating to Wales.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. There has been considerable delay, the draft protocol having been published more than a year ago. Can the Minister assure the House that that has nothing to do with the fact that certain Members of the Assembly want to see more primary legislative powers transferred to them, particularly in relation to devolved issues? Can she further assure the House that the delay has nothing to do with any failure by the Westminster Parliament to meet the Assembly's legislative needs?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, as the noble Lord is aware, the Westminster Parliament has not failed to meet the needs of the Assembly, as is shown by the valuable contributions which he made to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill and the positive attitude of Members of your Lordships' House towards the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill.
The question of whether individual Members of the Assembly would like powers over primary legislation is not in any way intervening. There are no major problems. As noble Lords will be aware, it often takes longer to deal with the details of drafting than to negotiate around major differences of opinion and view.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, in the light of the happy relationship between the Liberal Democrats and Labour in Wales, does the Minister agree that the primary legislation passed in this Parliament relating to Wales should, as a matter of constitutional
682
convention, reflect the agreed policy of the National Assembly for Wales? Does she appreciate the problems which will otherwise arise should the Welsh executive be of a different political colour from the government here?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I should dread to think that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, did not believe that all groups within your Lordships' House have a positive relationship in approaching legislation and policy. The Assembly will consider which legislation it feels to be appropriate. There will be no question of there being a difference of opinion between the Westminster Government and the Welsh Assembly in legislation put forward in Westminster.

Excise Fraud:: Scotch Whisky
2.40 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether large amounts of Scotch whisky have been taken from bond, without payment of tax, and fraudulently delivered to the home market instead of being exported.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, losses of excise duty on spirits during the period 1994–98 were reported by the National Audit Office on 9th February. It is not possible to say how much whisky was involved without research involving disproportionate cost.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. When the subject was previously raised at Question Time, the Government indicated that additional special investigators had been assigned to the case. Can the Minister confirm that the report of the National Audit Office indicated that the criminal practice continues, involving much falsification of documents?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the report of the National Audit Office to Parliament on 9th February did indeed identify large-scale fraud and a weakness in control within Customs and Excise, which made the fraud possible. The weakness involved Customs and Excise officials allowing spirits to continue leaving the bonded warehouses in the hope of following them up to find the ultimate destination. That did not work as well as it ought to have done. As a result, there were substantial losses.
However, that practice was stopped in 1998 and physical controls were reintroduced at bonded warehouses. When the matter was reported to Ministers in the middle of last year, the Paymaster

683
General took immediate action, reporting to the National Audit Office and commissioning an independent report on the matter.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if the Government do not know how much whisky has gone astray, how can they say that the cost of discovering how much was involved is disproportionate?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not make myself clear. The Government know how much spirit has gone astray. The only way of identifying what proportion of that is whisky as opposed to gin and vodka would be if the individual administrative documents were analysed separately. That is the exercise which would be too costly to undertake.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, is there not a liability on the freight forwarder in relation to the documentation? Is not the freight forwarder required to have insurance against the likelihood of this type of fraud? What steps have been taken against the freight forwarders involved in unloading these spirits on to the home market in order to recover the duty that has been lost to Her Majesty's Treasury?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is not an issue of freight forwarders. The owners of the spirits place their product in the bonded warehouses owned by warehouse-keepers. The owners are entitled to take the spirits out of the bonded warehouse. It is the responsibility of Customs and Excise to ensure either that they are exported so that no duty is paid, or, if they are to be used in the home market, that duty is paid. That is the process over which Customs and Excise have failed to exercise adequate control.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the distilling industry is not at fault in this criminal practice? It is likely to be gangs of criminals formed especially for the purpose who are carrying it out.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is certainly the case. It is not the distilling industry which is responsible. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, rightly says, these are gangs of criminals. I am not minimising the extent to which matters have gone wrong, but there have been 97 convictions and 300 years of prison sentences.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, can the Minister give the value of the spirits that have gone missing? How much is actually involved in the overall racket?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the National Audit Office's report of 9th February gives a figure of £668 million. That is a very large figure. I should add that even that large figure represents only one per cent of alcohol tax in this country.
Lord Newby: My Lords, one of the consequences of the large loss of revenue is that a decision has been
684
taken to transfer responsibility for the Customs and Excise prosecution service to the Attorney-General. Can the Minister give us the rationale for that decision?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, the Attorney-General has published on this matter within the past 24 hours. Although there will still be a prosecution service within Customs and Excise, it will be subject to independent scrutiny. The Attorney-General would confirm that that decision was not taken simply on the basis of the fraud—the subject of this Question—but on wider considerations.

Zimbabwe
2.46 p.m.
Lord Blakerasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their current policy towards Zimbabwe.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, we deplore the breakdown of law and order in Zimbabwe and state harassment of the media, the judiciary and members of the Opposition. We are working with the international community to maintain pressure on the Zimbabwe Government to restore the rule of law and implement macro-economic reform.
In view of the deteriorating situation, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary announced on 1st March the withdrawal of the British Military Advisory and Training Team from Harare by the end of March. Your Lordships will recall that a national arms embargo has been in place since last May.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. In addition to the problems which the Minister mentioned, is not the economy in a terrible state and do not breaches of human rights occur every day? Does not the situation in Zimbabwe endanger the stability of the whole of Southern Africa? Furthermore, does not the matter call for international remedy? What are the United Nations, the Commonwealth, the European Union, the Group of Eight and the Southern Africa Development Community doing about the matter? We should bear in mind that the United Kingdom is a member of four of those five organisations.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, is absolutely right. All those organisations are very concerned about the state of matters in Zimbabwe. As the noble Lord points out, the human rights violations are very disturbing. These are well documented in the press. As he also rightly points out, the economy is extremely worrying—unemployment is 50 per cent and rising; inflation is 70 per cent and expected to rise; and there is a negative growth of 6 per cent to 10 per cent this year. One does not need to be an economist to know what that must mean for a country.

685
The noble Lord mentioned some organisations. Together with our European Union partners, we are engaged in critical dialogue with the Zimbabwe Government in a very tight timeframe. The UN special rapporteur on the judiciary has issued several concerned statements in relation to what is happening in Zimbabwe about the independence of the judiciary. That is a violation of the Harare principles which Zimbabwe is supposed to be observing. I shall not go into details of the other organisations, but noble Lords can rest assured that we are extremely active in every possible organisation in trying to improve the situation in Zimbabwe.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, can the Minister say why the speeches of Herr Haider managed to provoke such an immediate and effective reaction? Yet after months of rape, pillage and murder authorised by a president who could not be worse, we have nothing. Why does it take so long for action to be taken? What are we actually waiting for?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, Austria is a member of the European Union. The other members of the European Union took the action that they thought lit. I am very pleased to hear the noble Lord describe that action as effective. Zimbabwe is a member of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is looking at the situation. However, noble Lords will know that the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group can consider suspension only in the case of an unconstitutional overthrow of the government. It is no secret that the British Government think that that mandate should be broadened and should include the ability to start to say and do things about what is happening inside Commonwealth countries before it reaches the apocalyptic stage of an unconstitutional overthrow of the government. If that could be done, one could have more preventive action instead of just punitive action, which, unfortunately, is all that is available to the Commonwealth at the moment other than trying to influence informally.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, can my noble friend say—
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, we have plenty of time. If my noble friend Lord Hughes asks his question, we can then perhaps hear from the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, can my noble friend say what recent discussions the Government have had with the Movement for Democratic Change, which certainly appeared to be ambivalent about Britain's role in the Zimbabwe situation? There is no doubt that the situation is serious and has to be condemned, but is it not the case that the MDC, while
686
condemning the receiving of President Mugabe by President Chirac, has also asked the British Government to keep their military mission in Zimbabwe and to continue the dialogue with President Mugabe? Perhaps that is why it has taken so long to get a decision.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, we do have contacts with the MDC. My noble friend Lord Hughes is absolutely right. For example, Morgan Tsvangirai has made it clear that he does not want the UK to try to impose any sanctions, which he fears will unite people behind President Mugabe, and he wants there to be a dialogue with President Mugabe. That is why both we and our other European Union partners are in favour, for the time being, of having a critical dialogue with President Mugabe.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm that the Government have no intention of reducing the amount of aid being sent to Zimbabwe at the present time? That aid is focused on humanitarian needs, especially in the area of reducing the effects of AIDS, and any reduction would have a disastrous effect on the people of Zimbabwe.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct. We continue to maintain a bilateral development programme in Zimbabwe for which the 2000–01 allocation is around £14 million. That programme is focused on health issues such as AI DS and HIV prevention programmes, rural water and sanitation measures, along with the reform of local governance and human rights. Sixty-three per cent of Zimbabweans live below the poverty line. We have a responsibility to try to help those people, what ever the Government of Zimbabwe are doing.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, can the noble Baroness shed some light on what the French Government are up to in Zimbabwe? Is it just possible that President Chirac has discovered that he has rather a lot in common with Mr Mugabe?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the recent meetings in Europe with President Mugabe were an opportunity for members of the European Union to bring home to President Mugabe the seriousness of the situation in which Zimbabwe finds itself today. It is now a matter of real urgency that President Mugabe and the Government of Zimbabwe turn back 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. Our European Union partners are well aware of our concern at the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe. In all these regards, they share our concern.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, what is the Government's position on land reform in Zimbabwe?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, we have consistently said that we would support a land reform

687
programme which was transparent, fair and cost effective and which formed part of a wider Zimbabwe government programme to reduce poverty, as was agreed by the Government of Zimbabwe themselves in the 1998 land conference. As my noble friend Lady Amos told the House last Wednesday, we are working with civil society and private sector representatives to support independent land reform initiatives that meet those principles. But the point is that the fast-track programme does not meet those conditions. We would urge the Government of Zimbabwe to take immediate steps to end the illegal occupation of farms and restore the rule of law.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, if I may return to the Question asked by my noble friend Lord Blaker, will the policy of critical dialogue work? Will it lead to President Mugabe withdrawing gracefully? Is not the opposite more likely to happen? Is not the relative silence which this critical dialogue policy involves actually encouraging President Mugabe to dig in and to prolong his barbarity and his undermining of the rule of law in Zimbabwe? Should we not now heed the loud plea of the very brave leader of the opposition, Mr Tsvangirai, who is calling for stronger international action? Is it not time that the Government responded to that plea?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the point is that Mr Tsvangirai is very measured in what he thinks ought to be done. As I said, we are in contact with him and his party. On the question of the success or otherwise of a policy of critical dialogue, it takes time. It is not silent just because it is not megaphone diplomacy and is not on the front page of all the newspapers. Critical dialogue goes on quite loudly behind closed doors. That is the European Union's policy.
As far as concerns the Commonwealth, the British Government think—they have made no secret of their position—that the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group should have a wider mandate and should be able to intervene in pressure terms in countries where there is not a constitutional overthrow of the government. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has had discussions with the Commonwealth Secretary-General. A team is going out to Zimbabwe to look at land reform. We would like it to look at everything in context, so that it is not just a straight technical viewing of land reform, and report back to the Commonwealth. There are many different pressure points. I can only repeat my assurance to the House that the Government are pressing all of those pressure points as hard as they can at all times.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, will the noble Baroness kindly confirm that there is a land reform plan on the table at this moment? It has been put
688
forward by the United Nations Development Programme. What is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to that?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the noble Earl is right. That is the case. We are waiting for a response from the Government of Zimbabwe to that plan. We will look at any plan that fulfils the basic conditions of decent, honest and transparent land reform.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, has not the noble Baroness put her finger on the issue with her reference to the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group? Does not this now lie with the leaders of other Commonwealth countries in southern Africa, the effect on whose investments and prospects for their economies is deeply prejudiced by what is happening in Zimbabwe? They need to take a stronger lead in trying to persuade President Mugabe to accept rational and sensible outcomes to some of the issues such as land reform over which he has been so obstreperous in the recent past.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right.

Government Special Advisers: Cost
3 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harryasked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the total cost to public funds in the last financial year of the Government's special advisers, compared with the cost in 1991–92.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, the cost of special advisers in 1999–2000 was £4 million. The cost at September 1991 was £1.1 million.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, while I thank the noble and learned Lord for that Answer, as a Minister in the Labour Government, does he not feel a little ashamed of it? It is a fact that the number of special advisers has more than doubled over the past four years, while the cost has gone up threefold. Is that not an example of taxpayers' money essentially being used by spin doctors to put over the Government's message? Given that, does he agree with the first recommendation made in the report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Public Administration published today; namely, that in future, special advisers should be limited not by number but by a specific sum of money, voted by the Commons for that purpose, and including No. 10?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, my Lords, I do not think that this matter is shameful in any shape or form. Special advisers include people such as Keith Hellawell, who has made a real contribution to the fight against drugs misuse. When giving evidence to

689
the Public Affairs Select Committee in another place, the Cabinet. Secretary indicated that special advisers do a good job. They provide an interface between the Minister arid civil servants. The Cabinet Secretary went on to make it absolutely clear that he thought that 75 special advisers would not overwhelm 3,000 senior civil servants. The Neill committee recommended that an upper limit should be put on the numbers; the Government have indicated that they accept that proposition. However, the report published today by the PAC states that a total amount of funding should be set, rather than a number. Obviously, we shall have to consider that proposal, but it looks inconsistent with the proposal put by the Neill committee.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may declare an interest as a former special adviser to Ministers in an earlier government. Is my noble and learned friend aware that I thought that the sum was going to be very large? Four million pounds seems to be far too little. Is my noble and learned friend further aware that, certainly those of us in the past and, in my view, those serving in the present, work for Ministers at a rate well below our market value? We did and still do subsidise the taxpayer rather than the other way around.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is impossible to imagine what was the market value of my noble friend Lord Peston, but whatever it was, I am sure that he worked well below that figure. Furthermore, I am sure that many special advisers today work at considerably lower rates than those which they could expect in the marketplace. They do that because they are committed to the goals of this Government. The Cabinet Secretary has indicated that they make a worthwhile contribution to good government and I, too, am sure that that is the case.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, has the number of special advisers increased since my debate on the ministerial code, which was held in 1997? The number then given by the Government was 78.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not think that the number has increased, but if it has, it would be by only a small figure. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord with a precise figure.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, would it not be a good id ea for special advisers to be paid out of party funds, if they are not Members of Parliament? Instead, like civil servants, they are funded by the taxpayer. If my proposal were adopted, might that not lead to a healthy reduction in their number?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, special advisers provide a service to government. They undertake tasks like that being done by the drugs czar, Keith Hellawell. It would be wholly inappropriate for him to be paid out of party funds. Those advisers who are more political provide a means whereby civil servants can find out the views of the Minister. As I
690
have said, the Cabinet Secretary and the Select Committee on Public Administration have stated that the advisers provide a good service.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I declare not an interest but the experience of having been a special adviser. Does the Minister agree that what is undesirable is to have special advisers who seek to duplicate and then to take over the jobs undertaken by career civil servants? That causes alienation. What is totally legitimate and necessary is to have in place a sufficient number of high calibre special advisers so that they can form a network to add to the political thrust of any government in power.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I entirely agree with the comments made by the noble Lord. Special advisers should not seek to take over the roles of senior civil servants. In this Government, they do not do so. They add value rather than seek to duplicate roles.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend help the House by saying whether he has to hand any figures on the exact amount of money which has gone to opposition parties in the form of Short money? Is he able to give noble Lords some idea of by how much that sum has increased over the same period? Furthermore, is he totally satisfied with the propriety with which that money has been spent?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am very glad that that issue has been raised. Somewhat spookily, the report published today and referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, examines this serious issue. Short money—payments to opposition parties—has risen threefold. That money is for parliamentary matters. The report states that:
"We suggested to the political parties that it might be appropriate to publish the accounts of how they spent Short money. All agreed in principle. We note that the Official Opposition and its auditors were unable to give a categorical assurance that its Short Money funding was used exclusively for parliamentary business".
That means that Short money has been provided to the Conservative Party, but the party itself and its auditors are unable to give an assurance that they have spent the money on what it was given for. I hope that the Conservative Party will look into this as a matter of urgency.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, following the publication today of this report, which noble Lords will know is entitled Special Advisers: Boon or Bane?, does the Minister accept that special advisers are now actively undermining the integrity of the advice given to Ministers and politicising the communications of government to an unacceptable degree?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, not a word of that nature appears in the report, as the noble Baroness knows. As I have said repeatedly in my

691
responses to these questions, special advisers make a significant contribution to good government. That view is shared by the Cabinet Secretary.

Hunting Bill
3.7 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion on the Order Paper standing in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton. The Motion has been tabled in the name of my noble and learned friend because he is one of the Ministers concerned with the Bill. However, as it is entirely concerned with procedure, for which I am responsible, I hope that it is convenient to the House if I deal with it.
It may be helpful if I say a few words to explain the Motion. As it stands, the Hunting Bill contains only a ban on hunting. If this House is to have an opportunity cleanly to vote on one of the three options, it will be necessary to put in a place a procedure to enable that to happen. That is the purpose of the Motion before us.
I have read reports in this morning's newspapers suggesting that the Government are proposing this because of the timing of the general election. I have to say that I do not know when the general election will take place. Furthermore, it is obvious that we have to devise a procedure to allow for a vote on the three options, irrespective of whether an election is held. If no election was in the offing, a similar Motion would still need to be tabled.
If the House agrees to this Motion, as I hope it will, then immediately the Government will table amendments specifically designed to ensure that three clear votes will be held. No single vote will be able to pre-empt any other vote. Three clear votes will take place on a ban, on self-regulation and on hunting under licence. If we use this procedure, which has been devised with the help of the Clerks of the House—I am extremely grateful to them for their assistance—three votes will definitely take place. I have been asked to achieve that aim. At the end of the process, only one option will be left in the Bill.
The Bill will then be reprinted containing the option which has been chosen by noble Lords and will be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House. After a short interval to enable the tabling of amendments, the House will then go into Committee on the Bill in the usual manner. The Bill will contain whichever option has been chosen by the House and, as I have said, amendments to that option can then be tabled.
This procedure mirrors closely the procedure used in 1994 on the Sunday Trading Bill. A very similar situation had arisen. A Bill arrived in this House containing only one option. A procedure had to be devised to find a way to hold a free vote on all three options. I am delighted to see the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in his place. I am sure he will remember that on that occasion, as Minister of State at the Home Office, he tabled an instruction similar to the present
692
one after Second Reading which was designed to ensure that the first votes taken in Committee would be votes on the three options. After those votes the whole Bill was recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House so that the full Committee stage could take place on the option which was chosen by this House rather than another place. That is exactly what we seek to achieve by the Motion that is now before the House.
In passing, the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Henley, were both members of the government when this procedure was last used. With that precedent from the previous government's time in office, I hope that there will now be general agreement among the usual channels that this is the most appropriate way to proceed.
However, there is one area in which agreement among the usual channels has not been forthcoming. The disagreement relates to the timing of today's Motion. I believed that it would be in the best interests of the House to have a decision on the procedure to be used as soon as possible after Second Reading. Many noble Lords have stopped me to ask what is to be done with the Bill to obtain a clean vote on the three options. If we delay the decision we only postpone the achievement of clarity and extend the uncertainty and confusion that we now face. In addition, your Lordships and the staff of the House will waste time and resources on the tabling, handling and drafting of amendments to options which may never appear in the Bill.
I am aware that the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Henley, believe that the Motion was tabled with insufficient consultation and would have preferred the House to consider this Motion next week. If I failed to consult sufficiently I apologise unreservedly. The noble Lords know that it is not my style to act without consultation, and I did not intend to upset relations in the usual channels.
I have now discussed the question of timing with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. He has not yet managed to explain to me what is to be gained by delaying the matter until next week. In an effort to meet him halfway I offered to postpone the Motion until tomorrow, but of those two dates the noble Lord preferred today. I have agreed to that timing. I understand his reason: there is an important Opposition debate tomorrow. I do not see any virtue in postponing this decision further, certainly not until next week. To approve the Motion today will give the House the information that it needs in order to know how to plan for the rest of the Bill.
I have heard this Motion described by certain members of the Opposition as a guillotine. Your Lordships know that we do not have guillotines in this House. Apart from anything else, the whole concept of a guillotine rests on the premise of a government majority to enforce it. If the Opposition believe that I am able to impose a guillotine with only 29 per cent of

693
the votes in this House, they give me credit for powers which even I do not possess. Even if the Government had the power to carry this Motion unaided, it would still bear no relation to a guillotine. It contains no provisions relating to the timing of the Bill but promises a recommitment, so we would have two, rather than one, Committee stages. If anything, this Motion increases the amount of scrutiny that the Bill will receive. This is simply an arrangement to allow us to have a clean vote on the three options so that the Committee stage can take place on the option that we have chosen rather than on one chosen by another place.
I turn finally to the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Denham. I understand the noble Lord's concern about the way in which the main Motion was tabled. I have already apologised for the unintended discourtesy to the usual channels. My only concern was to serve the best interests of the House by ensuring that the procedural Motion was on the Order Paper yesterday when the House debated the Bill at Second Reading because my noble friend Lord Bassam was to refer to it in his opening speech—which he did—and deal with it today, as the first available opportunity after Second Reading, so that the House could have a clear line on the procedure which was understood and many noble Lords could support. To be absolutely frank, we should really have dealt with the instruction at the end of Second Reading at two o'clock this morning. I thought that it was only fair to the House to deal with it as first business after Questions today.
The noble Lord, Lord Denham, is also concerned about precedents and procedure. The procedure is exactly as stated in the Companion:
"6.39 Instructions to any committee on a bill may be moved after the second reading.
6.40 Instructions may be either mandatory or permissive. The most common mandatory instruction directs the committee to consider the clauses and Schedules in an order other than that of the bill".
I have already pointed out the procedure which was followed in 1994 in relation to the Sunday Trading Bill. That Bill required the selection of an option, which is exactly the position that we face with the Hunting Bill. This is an unusual situation which requires a special but not unprecedented procedure. If the noble Lord decides to press his Motion to a vote and wins, the House will have decided nothing regarding the procedure necessary to obtain the clean vote on a single option and all those concerned with the Bill will be left in a state of limbo.
I hope that, having heard the explanation that I have given and the apologies that I have made, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Motion so that the House can take a clear decision on the procedure to be followed on this important Bill.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Hunting Bill has been committed that, notwithstanding the normal
694
practice of the House in Committee, no amendments be considered except any amendments to

leave out Clause 1 (Hunting with dogs: prohibition)

leave out Clause 1 and insert a new clause (Hunting with dogs: supervision) as set out in House of Commons Bill 2, or

leave out Clause 1 and insert a new clause (Hunting with dogs: regulation) as set out in House of Commons Bill 2,

and consequential amendments to leave out the schedule and to insert new schedules; and that, thereafter, the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.—(Lord Carter.)
Lord Denham: My Lords, first I thank the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms for his very fair exposition of the events which led up to the Motion today.
Perhaps I should start by giving a brief explanation of the "next business" Motion itself. When I first came to your Lordships' House there was a delightful and highly valuable procedure known as "the previous Question". The definitive Question of course is the one before the House, and "the previous Question" was whether or not that Question should be put to the House, which would take the form, if carried, that the Question be not now put. It was used on very rare occasions when the matter under discussion was of such a delicate nature that it was thought to be inappropriate for the House to express an opinion on it by voice or in the Division Lobby. Its appearance on the Order Paper, and even on the Floor of the House, was rarer still, because the very threat to use it was often enough.
Some 30 years ago the Procedure Committee went through one of its phases of doing away with old and valued traditions, simply on the grounds that they had been around for some time. It decided that this procedure was difficult to understand and should, therefore, be changed. It was changed in name only to the "next business" Motion. As one of the self-appointed guardians of your Lordships' procedure, I must have been nodding at the time. The main difference between the old procedure and the new was that, while only dedicated aficionados of your Lordships' House understood "the previous Question", nobody at all understood the "next business" Motion. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time that it has been used. I remember one occasion when it might have been, but the matter concerned was not only of very great delicacy but also of supreme importance. It was felt that while the old name would work all right, the "next business" Motion would give the impression to the outside world that your Lordships just could not be bothered to discuss it.
With regard to the Motion in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, it is generally accepted that this House works by consent. This is tempered by the equally important principle that it is the duty of an Opposition to enable the Government to get their business through—not through

695
unamended, but through. It is a matter of supreme importance that these two principles should not be lost.
The Motion in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, was tabled by the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms without having obtained that consent from the usual channels. Furthermore, it was tabled last Friday, the day after the weekly party Whips had gone out. Of course, I wholly acquit the noble Lord, Lord Carter, of any discourtesy, let alone malice. Time was short and Chief Whips are busy people—even sometimes former Chief Whips—but I felt that it was of the utmost importance to signal it up in some way so that this could never be regarded as a precedent. In my view, simply to have voted against the Motion would have been inappropriate; first, because in itself it was not objectionable. Incidentally, I notice that since last night the all-important words,
"and that, thereafter, the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House",
have been inserted at the end. Secondly, such an action might have prejudiced one of the possible ways to allow your Lordships the opportunity equal to that of another place which has been guaranteed by Her Majesty's Government to consider each of the options on the Hunting Bill and make their own choice. Last night, therefore, I tabled this "next business" Motion to have the required effect. I beg to move.
Moved, on the Motion of the Lord Falconer of Thoroton, That the House do proceed to the next business.—(Lord Denham.)
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that the House will agree that there is no need for a long debate on this matter. I, like many noble Lords, am keen to move on to our critical debate on the plight of the countryside. This is not a debate about hunting or the Hunting Bill. There will be ample time within the next 10 days to determine how to proceed on the Hunting Bill.
I invite the House to support my noble friend's Motion and to dispense with the Motion of the Government for two reasons. The first reason, as my noble friend explained, is that the government Motion was set down without the agreement of the usual channels and at the shortest possible notice—on a Friday after the Whip had been sent out. It is a Motion accompanied by a statement that discussion of the options will be limited to one day only. That was made plain by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, yesterday at col. 519 of Hansard. It may not exactly be a guillotine, but it certainly sounds like one to me.
I join with my noble friend in accepting that Ministers say that they want to be helpful to the House. In particular, I accept the Government Chief Whip's motives; I know that he sought to come to this conclusion in the best interests of the House. But I wonder how helpful it was to do so without first agreeing it through the usual channels.
696
My second reason for urging the House to support my noble friend is the unprecedented nature of the Government's Motion; that is, that a normal Committee should not proceed except under the terms laid down by the Government, with only those amendments selected by the Government. That is not a course of action a House concerned to guard its freedom should take. The decision is therefore not about the merits of the Bill but about how we do business. It is about whether we keep the free and open procedures that are the unique strength of the House and the right of every Back-Bencher to put down an amendment and to be heard.
If we agree to the Motion, it will not mean that we cannot go into Committee on the Bill on 26th March; or to vote on amendments to the Bill; or, indeed, to vote on the options. If we agree to my noble friend's Motion, we will be able to see what amendments are tabled. I pledge to the House that, over the next week, we will come forward, together with other parties, to determine the best way forward, as we always have, by agreement.
The Government Chief Whip prayed in aid the example set by my noble friend Lord Ferrers in 1994. He quite rightly read out the Motion moved by my noble friend. However, the Government Chief Whip failed to examine the words of the debate itself, where my noble friend Lord Ferrers said:
"It is, of course, open to noble Lords to bring forward any other amendments that they may wish, and they could include any other options for reform towards which your Lordships may feel disposed. I would only add, with a certain degree of humility"—
Remember, this is my noble friend speaking—
"that there is considerable advantage in making sure that any option is simple and understandable and that the fewer amendments on the Marshalled List, the greater is the concentration of the mind". —[Official Report, 8/3/94: col. 1343.]
That is the example that we should have followed in this sorry matter.
Furthermore, it is quite wrong and unnecessary that we should need to take this decision now. The House has not had time to digest the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, last Friday, and how his ideas relate to the Bill before us. It has not had time to reflect on the Second Reading debate yesterday. Indeed, the response to the debate of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, has not yet been printed in Hansard, and we have not had the opportunity to see the amendments to the Bill and to gauge the concerns and doubts that there may be about the various options.
When we have had time to reflect on these issues, and to discuss and seek agreement in the time-honoured way of the House, then we should decide how to go forward. But it would be quite premature to accept now, without reflection, a model laid down by the Government without notice and in a form devised, I fear, as some have suggested, for their private political purposes. I urge noble Lords to deal swiftly and firmly with this Motion. We can then proceed with

697
the real business of today, which is to debate the appalling problems of the countryside. I support my noble friend.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words as part of the usual channels. So far as we on these Benches are concerned, if there is a vote today, there will be a free vote. My noble friend Lord Rodgers and I will be voting in one Lobby, of course, but we do not ask our colleagues necessarily to support us. They must listen to what is said and come to their own conclusions.
This has not been an easy matter to deal with. I believe that the Government made an error at the end of last week by tabling this business Motion. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, has apologised for any unintended discourtesy. I do not think any discourtesy was involved last week; if I may say so, it was an error of judgment rather than a deliberate attempt to be difficult and unreasonable.
One of the reasons why we believed an error had been committed was that we had pressed for a tripartite meeting of the usual channels. We secured that last evening. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, said that the Government were prepared to have the debate that we are having now tomorrow. For understandable reasons, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, came to the conclusion that that was not what he wanted; he preferred today if the choice was between Tuesday and Wednesday.
I believe that the House now wants the right to make a decision on the three choices set out in the Motion. It would be wrong to underestimate the strength of feeling of many noble Lords on all sides of the House that they want a brisk decision on which of the choices to adopt, and then, if need be, to consider any amendments which may be put down after that choice has been made. That would be a businesslike way of proceeding and is one of the reasons why my noble friend Lord Rodgers and I will be voting for the Motion.
We have one particular point to answer—that made by the noble Lord, Lord Denham, when he said that the Government must get their business through by consent of the usual channels. Let me make it quite clear that I believe that the Government have an obligation to attempt to secure the agreement of the usual channels—indeed, if they do not try to get such agreement they will find themselves constantly in the minority in the Division Lobbies of the House—but no one party can impose a veto on government business. The implication of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, is a great mistake. It seemed to me—although I may be doing him an injustice—that he was implying that if there was not agreement in the usual channels, that if one party in the usual channels dissented strongly, that would be the end of the matter. I do not think that any government would accept a formula along those lines; it is, in fact, entirely unacceptable.
698
However, I am aware that the House now wishes to engage in the very important debate on the crisis facing British agriculture. I very much hope that we shall be in a position to make a decision in this matter as briskly as possible.
3.30 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, perhaps I may make just one point to the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I am certain that the cock-up theory applies here rather than the plot theory, because the world is much more frequented by the former theory. I have not discussed the matter with my noble friend; however, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Carter, could offer to withdraw the Motion until Thursday this week and then do all he can to obtain agreement through the usual channels along the line that any Motion will be nearer to what was said originally by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. Surely the difference is not that great. There are dangers in what my noble friend on the Front Bench said and I accept the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Carter. Surely it is possible to move together on this matter without breaking with precedent or establishing a new precedent. I put that suggestion to the House in the hope that it will be viewed with a certain amount of sympathy.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene as counsel for the defence for the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and as someone who has a close interest in the Bill that is the subject of the Motion. I oppose the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, for these reasons. The Government gave a promise that this House would have the three options that the Commons faced on the Hunting Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, spent a considerable time—on one occasion over an hour and a half—together with me and with Clerks of the House, trying to find a procedure that would enable that to happen. The Clerks have now come up with such a procedure. The noble Lord has apologised for the way in which the Motion was tabled.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, I take the view from all that I have heard that Members of this House want to vote on those options. Noble Lords of all parties—I hope that this crosses party boundaries—who care about the countryside want an opportunity to vote on the Hunting Bill before an election. If, for party-political purposes, anyone tries to frustrate such a vote taking place, I suspect that the countryside will not forgive them. I also say t o my own Front Bench that if, at a later stage, any attempt is made to suggest that this House has deliberately frustrated the Bill, when in reality it has been given insufficient time for proper scrutiny before a general election is called, I anticipate that people in the countryside will not forget that either. Therefore, I shall oppose the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Denham.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I want an opportunity to discuss the Bill as it has been sent to us by the Commons. We owe that to another place out of proper

699
respect. It would also be extremely foolish not to discuss the Bill as we have it before us, because if another place decides to insist on its option, we shall have expressed no opinion on the many detailed points that require improvement in the Bill as it stands. To accept the Chief Whip's Motion would be to deny us any opportunity to discuss the Bill in the form that the Commons wishes.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms was kind enough to refer to me and to the passage of the Sunday Trading Act, saying that the two situations are not dissimilar. My noble friend the Leader of the Opposition referred to me and that same Bill and did me the flattery of quoting my words. I am bound to say that one's own words regurgitated always make one cringe with embarrassment. I say to the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms that the only difference so far as I can see is that when I had the privilege of moving that amendment, it went through swimmingly; when the noble Lord moves it, there is a row.
Lord Elton: My Lords, one important point has not been fully drawn out. Will the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms tell the House this: was the decision regarding discussion in Committee in the first instance being limited to one day taken by the usual channels, or was it announced at Second Reading on behalf of the Government? Without question, the most valuable commodity that Members of this House have at our disposal is time. The word "guillotine" should send a shiver through our ranks, not because we are Peers and not because of references to tumbrels, but because we cannot discuss matters properly if we do not have sufficient time to do so.
The Motion in the name of the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms—may I call him the Government Chief Whip; it is so much quicker?— suggests to me that a very important decision on the whole course of the Bill will possibly be taken in the early hours of the morning. That is not a proper thing to do on such an important issue. I hope that the usual channels will consider the question of the timing, whatever the result of our debate on this Motion, and ensure that it is such that we can do our job properly.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I confess to being somewhat confused by some of the remarks that I have heard. I do not pretend to be as humble as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in these matters. At the end of the Motion moved by my noble friend are the words,
"the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House".
I simply do not understand how that in any way prevents Members of this House moving amendments and doing what they like, in whatever time they like.
700
We all want to discuss the three options. It is no use the noble Lord, Lord Elton, pointing at me; I have just read the words on the Order Paper.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Barnett: My Lords, certainly I shall. I am not supposed to give way, but I shall do so.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the Motion also contains the words,
"no amendments be considered except any amendments to".
Lord Barnett: My Lords, the noble Lord should read on. The Motion goes on to say that, after that has been done, the Bill is to be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House. So we can discuss the matter again, and again, and again, as often happens.
As I understand my noble friend, his main point is that we all wanted to have the right to vote on the three options. That is what we shall have. We do not need to discuss thousands of amendments. I cannot understand why anyone finds that so misleading.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, the original Motion tabled by the Government on Monday allowed for no amendments except those tabled by the Government. I believe that that is unprecedented. The amended Motion tabled today does provide for recommital, but it does not remove the objections that apply to this procedure. I suggest that it is for your Lordships to decide what amendments to table to a Bill rather than for the Government. This House prides itself on its revising role. That means that all amendments tabled by your Lordships can be considered. All noble Lords can take part in the debates.
I suggest that this Motion rides roughshod over that essential element in our procedure. It deprives the House of its right to decide how best to hold the Government to account. I hope that the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip will recognise the very strong feeling that exists on this matter and that he will be prepared to withdraw his Motion. I believe that it is dangerous and sinister, and I hope that the House will have none of it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it seems to me that, given the opportunity, this House makes heavy weather of many simple matters. Without claiming to be experts on the issue, many of us who have followed the manner in which it has been dealt with in another place have either deluded ourselves or have been convinced that the procedure that was adopted in the Commons—which is substantially the procedure that we are invited to adopt here—was simple and clear. It provided the vast majority of Members of this House with an opportunity regarding what they wanted to do. Noble Lords were denied that opportunity yesterday because it was Second Reading. But the stalls were laid out, the arguments have been going on for a long time, and now we are debating how we in this House shall dispose of a very important

701
matter. Noble Lords may argue—I think that they argue too much—that they want to retain the right to examine every line and every dot and comma of every clause, of every option, before coming to a conclusion.
It is possible that my noble friend the Government Chief Whip was derelict in the manner in which he set about to secure the maximum collaboration. But anyone who has listened to someone apologising publicly and humbly—and, indeed, without reservation—will know that that was what my noble friend did 10 or 15 minutes ago.
Unless there are hidden agendas, this House wishes to proceed to let the world know that it favours option one, option two or option three. I do not believe that we are riding roughshod over our procedures. Similarly, I do not believe that this process ought to take a very long time. Of course, yesterday's debate served the House well. When, as I see it, someone will need to approve and submit what is in the Bill—namely, what was option three in the other place for the ban on hunting with dogs—it will take a full debate. But that will substantially deal with some of the other arguments. As I envisage it, the House will be packed. It will already have formed a view, but it will listen to the arguments. It will then wish to let the world know whether noble Lords are in favour of option one, two or three.
I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Denham has done. In his view, there has been a dereliction of duty by the Government Chief Whip. But he has apologised: he did so not in private; he did so in public. We all know that our Chief Whip is a man of the utmost integrity. He has made a mistake, and has apologised for it. I am not prepared to say whether or not the apology was justified. However, he made it. I believe that: we should serve the House well if we listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Denham, has to say in response. In the light of this discussion, I very much hope that he will save the House further delay by withdrawing his Motion, thereby allowing us to get on to the important business of the day. If the noble Lord seeks to press his Motion, I believe that Members on this side of the Chamber, and indeed throughout the House, will have no option but to reject his advice and to support the Government Chief Whip.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I intervene partly because of the remarks made a short while ago by the noble Lord. Lord Barnett. One of the problems with the proposal in the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is that if, during the first Committee day—if I may put it that way—your Lordships decide on one of the three options, as I understand it, we shall not be able to move amendments on recommittal to the other two options that are on offer. Therefore, if your Lordships were to choose either supervision or regulation, as my noble friend Lord Lucas said just now, we should not be able
702
to consider the Bill on recommittal in its present form, which includes the option of prohibition. Indeed, that is the only option currently in the Bill. In other words, we should not be able to look at the remaining details of the Bill.
However, during the course of yesterday's debate it emerged that there are some practical, committed difficulties with that option, as well as those that apply to the other two options. That is the difficulty with the proposal as outlined; namely, that the recommittal would be limited in practice to the single option that your Lordships had chosen on the first day.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I believe it would be appropriate for me to reply to the debate now. The noble Lord, Lord Denham, can then decide what to do with his Motion. The noble Lord referred to the use of the "next business" Question. I believe that this is the first time that it has ever been used, although the procedure was agreed either 30 or 50 years ago. Therefore, this Bill is not only unusual in its options; it is also unusual in terms of the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Denham.
I turn to the point about the consent of the usual channels. I have apologised. I had a problem last Friday because I thought that the House should see the Motion during the course of the Second Reading debate. It was as simple as that. My noble friend Lord Bassam was to refer to it. There had been a great deal of discussion around the House in this respect. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, knows that there has been much informal discussion. However, it is only today, for the first time, that I have heard his criticism that one day will not be enough. Noble Lords on all sides of the House, including many of the noble Lord's colleagues sitting behind him who are supporters of fox hunting, have been referring casually to "Options Day".
The Motion does not refer to time; indeed, it cannot do so. It refers only to the procedure on the day. As always, it is up to the House to decide. As Government Chief Whip, I hope that the House will be able to complete the process in one day. However, the Motion does not limit the time, nor should it. I have to say that the stance of the Opposition has changed recently. With all the discussions that have been taking place, both informally and quasi-formally, I thought that this was the agreed procedure—or, that it was likely to be, if we could find a way of doing it. As my noble friend Lady Mallalieu said, I have held other meetings and tried very hard to see whether we could devise a procedure to meet the Government's commitment. I shall return later to that commitment.
Ever since the other place chose its option of a ban on hunting, each discussion that I have had informally—indeed, I have spent more time discussing this Bill outside the Chamber than has been the case with any other Bill—has always been based on the

703
understanding that it would be a "clean options choice", which is the phrase that we have all been using. As I said, this is the first time that I have heard the argument that one day will not be sufficient for these purposes. I believe that I am correct in saying that that is a recent change of attitude on the part of the Opposition. It would be unworthy of me to suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is marching to a different drum.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, was quite clear in his contribution. We always attempt to find consent within the usual channels. However, I must remind the House that the Government in this Chamber has 200 out of 700 votes. The Opposition cannot have a veto on the business of the House. I shall always attempt to get agreement, but if, at the end of the day, the usual channels are not able to agree on a matter of procedure, it has to be put to the House. It is the only way in which the business can be conducted, unless we agree that the Opposition should have a veto.
My noble friend Lady Mallalieu said that she would come to my defence. I hope that it is free! I repeat: the Government made a commitment when the Bill was in the other place that, as soon as it left there, we would attempt to facilitate this House and allow it to have the same choice as applied in the other place as regards the three options. As noble Lords are aware, Members of another place took one day on the Floor of the House during which they chose the option of a ban. The Bill was then committed to a Standing Committee, and thereafter all the amendments on that option were discussed. All we are trying to do is to meet the commitment that has been made throughout; namely, that this House would have the same choice as applied in the other place, and that it should then proceed to deal with the amendments. I am sure that amendments will be required, whichever of the options is chosen. They can be dealt with on recommitment.
When referring to the difficulty that I am experiencing, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, referred to the ease with which he received his instruction after Second Reading on a certain occasion. Perhaps I may remind him of the relevant numbers in the House when the noble Earl was Minister of State, and the relative strength of the opposition versus the government of the day.
I have already mentioned the fact that all I have heard until today is reference to "Options Day". I repeat: the Motion before the House obviously does not commit the House to one day. Indeed, it cannot do so. The Motion mentions only the procedure involved. As I say, I have tried to meet the commitment that the Government gave. There was no criticism of this at all, until the past few days. I understand that the Countryside Alliance would welcome this House having the chance to come to a conclusion on the three options.
I have tried to meet the Government's commitment. As I said in my opening remarks, if the noble Lord,
704
Lord Denham, decides to press his Motion to a vote and wins, we shall be left in limbo again. We shall not know what the procedure should be. Indeed, as we leave the Chamber today, there will be nothing to stop noble Lords beginning to table amendments for a normal Committee stage. I do not believe that that is the best use of the time of the House. I believe that it would be best if we came to a decision, decided on a simple procedure and then allowed the House to proceed to a vote. I have suggested that we should start on the first available day, with the usual interval, which would be Monday 26th March. After that, I suggest that we recommit the Bill and deal with all the amendments on the chosen option. I do not think that I can be any clearer in my response. I shall, therefore, leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Denham, to decide what to do with his Motion.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I would like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, that the very last reason behind my Motion was party political. What I intended to do was to make a point for the preservation of the traditions of this House and the conventions between the usual channels. The procedure this afternoon, time wasting though it may have been, has done something to ensure that what happened is not to be taken as a precedent for the future. This was my main purpose. I am now satisfied in that respect and I shall be asking your Lordships' leave to withdraw my Motion. I realise, however, that it is an issue for the House. I cannot act unilaterally. If there is any further business, I shall abstain. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter: My Lords, there is no need for me to continue the debate. We have covered it well. I commend the Motion on the Order Paper in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton.
3.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 183; Not-Contents, 129.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Berkeley, L.

Acton, L.

Billingham, B.

Addington, L.

Birt, L.

Ahmed, L.

Blackstone, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Blease, L.

Alii, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Amos, B.

Borrie, L.

Andrews, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Bragg, L.

Avebury, L.

Bramall, L.

Bach, L.

Brennan, L.

Barnett, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Brookman, L.

705

Burlison, L.

McCarthy, L.

Burns, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Carnarvon, E.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

[Teller]

Chalfont, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Chandos, V.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

McNally, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Maddock, B.

Cobbold, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Manchester, Bp.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Mar, C.

Craig of Radley, L.

Marsh, L.

Crawley, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Methuen, L.

Desai, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Dholakia, L.

Mishcon, L.

Dixon, L.

Mitchell, L.

Dubs, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Elder, L.

Monson, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Newby, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Nicol, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Ezra, L.

Parekh, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Paul, L.

Falkland, V.

Peston, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Filkin, L.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gale, B.

Puttnam, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Rea, L.

Good hart, L.

Redesdale, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Richard, L.

Goudie, B.

Rix, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rogan, L.

Greengross, B.

Roper, L.

Gregson, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Grenfell, L.

Salisbury, Bp.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sandwich, E.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Sawyer, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Harrison, L.

Serota, B.

Haskel, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hayman, B.

Shepherd, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Simon, V.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Stallard, L.

Hooson, L.

Stern, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Hoyle, L.

Taverne, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Tenby, V.

Hylton, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Chancellor)

Tomlinson, L.

Islwyn, L.

Tope, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord

Turnberg, L.

Privy Seat)

Turner of Camden, B.

Jeger, B.

Varley, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Laird, L.

Walpole, L.

Lane, L.

Warnock, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Lipsey, L.

Weatherill, L.

Listowel, E.

Whitaker, B.

Lockwood, B.

Wigoder, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Wilkins, B.

706

Williams of Crosby, B.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Winston, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Wright of Richmond, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Arran, E.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Astor, V.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Barber, L.

Lindsay, E.

Blackwell, L.

Lucas, L.

Blaker, L.

Luke, L.

Blatch, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Blyth of Rowington, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Boardman, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Montrose, D.

Buscombe, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Byford, B.

Moynihan, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Naseby, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Northbrook, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Northesk, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Chadlington, L.

Palumbo, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Patten, L.

Colwyn, L.

Plumb, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Courtown, E.

Quinton, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Rees, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Renton, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L

Dixon-Smith, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Saatchi, L.

Elton, L.

Sainsbury of Preston Candover,

Feldman, L.

L.

Ferrers, E.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Flather, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Flowers, L.

Scott of Foscote, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Selborne, E.

Garel-Jones, L.

Selsdon, L.

Geddes, L.

Sharples, B.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Glentoran, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hambro, L.

Sterling of Plaistow, L.

Hanham, B.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Stewartby, L.

Higgins, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hogg, B.

Strange, B.

Holderness, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hooper, B.

Tebbit, L.

Howe, E.

Thatcher, B.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Trumpington, B.

Inglewood, L.

Tugendhat, L.

James of Holland Park, B.

Vivian, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Waddington, L.

Jopling, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Kelvedon, L.

Wakeham, L.

Kimball, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Kingsland, L.

Wilcox, B.

Kirkham, L.

Windlesham, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Young, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

Animals in Scientific Procedures: Select Committee
4.3 p.m.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report on issues respecting animals in scientific procedures in the United Kingdom, including—

(1) the working of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986;

(2) the effectiveness of and justification for animal experiments, particularly in:

(i) medicine

(ii) education

(iii) defence

(iv) product testing; and

(3) the development and use of alternatives to animal procedures;

and in all the foregoing considerations to pay regard to:

—public attitudes, availability of information, labelling and consumer issues;

—developments in biotechnology, and the likely future demand for animal procedures;

—the effect of any changes on the economy and the science base;

—EU and international law and practice;

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:

L. Brennan,

L. Hunt of Chesterton,

L. Lucas,

B. Nicol,

E. Onslow,

B. Richardson of Calow,

L. Smith of Clifton (Chairman),

L. Taverne,

B. Warnock,

B. Wilcox.

That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place. —(The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Winston: My Lords, if noble Lords will forgive my delaying the House, I shall do so briefly. I have some concerns about the committee. I should like briefly to express them.
I am chairman of the Science and Technology Select Committee. In the past I have also held an animal procedures licence. For those reasons, being parti pris, I felt that it would be inappropriate under my chairmanship of the committee for this matter to be discussed.
This House has unique expertise in medicine, biological science and veterinary science. Excellent though the proposed membership of the committee is,
708
it troubles me that no biologists, medical people or veterinarians are on the committee. I realise that it is now too late to change the structure of the committee, but I should be grateful for reassurance that it may be possible—it happens with other Select Committees of this House—to co-opt one or two people with the scientific background which would add weight and experience to the committee. It would seem inappropriate to ignore that vast experience.
I do not suggest that we have an animal procedures licence holder, like myself. However, there are others who are not disqualified and would not be regarded as parti pris. I urge noble Lords to consider that.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I have some sympathy with what the noble Lord says. However, there is some difficulty. First, it is not possible for this committee to co-opt members because that is not within its terms of reference. There is expertise in your Lordships' House. However, the danger is—I think that this is why the composition has been chosen as it has—that people outside might view it as parti pris if certain people were involved, however great their knowledge of the biological sciences.
It is entirely within the power of the committee to appoint specialist advisers. It is also the right of the committee to call people from this House to give evidence to it. In that way a balanced committee which is not parti pris is able to produce a report with evidence from all sides, including from expert Members of your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Foot and Mouth Disease
4.6 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman)The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman) rose to move, That this House takes note of the current situation in the countryside, in particular in relation to the outbreak of foot and mouth disease.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in introducing a debate on a Motion which could cover an enormously wide range of issues, I hope that the House will understand if I confine my opening remarks to the specific details relating to the current outbreak of foot and mouth disease in this country and try to pick up wider points raised on countryside issues when closing the debate in a few hours' time. The effects of primarily an animal disease are wide ranging and have impacts far beyond farming and its ancillary activities.
It feels a great deal longer than three weeks since the first case of foot and mouth disease in this country since 1981 was confirmed. It was in your Lordships' House on 21st February that the Government first reported the outbreak to Parliament. As the House is aware, in response to Questions, I have had the opportunity to update the House since then. But it may be helpful to have a stock take now.
The presence of the disease was first confirmed in pigs at an abattoir in Essex and subsequently traced back to a pig unit at Heddon-on-the-Wall,

709
Northumberland. This is still the earliest known case in the present outbreak. It is now clear that the disease, prior to its discovery in Essex, had been distributed around the country by movements of animals, particularly sheep, through markets in northern England to holdings in many parts of the United Kingdom.
As at 2.15 today there were 199 confirmed cases in the United Kingdom with 143 farms still under investigation. Over 178,000 animals have been condemned to slaughter of which 131,000 have already been killed. This is a measure of the virulence of the disease and the magnitude of the problem with which we are faced. In addition, the French Ministry of Agriculture has today announced a confirmed case in a herd of cattle in north-west France.
The Government responded quickly and firmly to tackle this devastating outbreak. Our primary objective throughout has been first to contain and then to eradicate the disease. To that end, movement restrictions are put in place on individual farms and surrounding areas as soon as foot and mouth disease is suspected and removed only if we are sure that it is not present. All infected animals and dangerous contacts are slaughtered.
On the day that the first case was discovered we took action to protect other countries. On 21st February we put a stop to UK exports of animals and products, in conjunction with the European Commission, to ensure that we did not export the disease. On 23rd February, when it became clear that we had cases in Northumberland as well as Essex, the Government banned all movements of livestock throughout Great Britain so that the State Veterinary Service could trace all potentially suspect movements, particularly of sheep from markets in the north of England. That ban remains in force, with some minor modifications that I shall mention later.
On 27th February the Government empowered local authorities across Great Britain to restrict public access to farmland and to rights of way in order to help prevent the spread of the disease by people or vehicles. Those powers were further clarified on 2nd March and are still in force.
As to resources, the number of vets working for the State Veterinary Service has effectively been doubled, drawing in members of the profession in private practice in this country as well as official veterinarians from overseas. We are drawing on some assistance from the limited number of Army vets and are making contingency plans to call on additional logistical support if it is necessary for tasks such as killing farm animals and disposing of carcasses.
Our priority is to kill infected animals—most urgently pigs, because of the amount of virus that they exhale and their potential for disease spread, but also sheep and cattle—and dangerous contacts as soon as possible. Of course, we are equally anxious to dispose of carcasses as soon as we can. I understand the enormous distress that is caused to people who see their herds or flocks awaiting disposal on the farm after having been slaughtered—animals that they have
710
spent a lifetime, or often generations, nurturing and bringing together. That is a devastating experience. However, we have to devote resources to the most urgent issues and the veterinary advice is that killing animals quickly is the most important thing to do. Once they are dead, the risk of spreading the virus is diminished to almost zero. We understand the problem and we are doing all we can to speed up the disposal of carcasses. But it is an enormous task. We are dealing with very large numbers of animals and the priority has to be the containment of disease.
The Government recognise that the necessarily tough and decisive action that we have taken against the disease has had an impact not only on the farming industry and ancillary industries in the food chain. but also in the wider countryside. Where we can safely do so without risk of spreading disease, we have introduced measures to alleviate some of the practical difficulties posed by the ban on animal movements. On 2nd March we introduced limited licensed movements of animals direct from farm to slaughter under strict conditions. In the main, those arrangements have worked well, so that supplies of British pork are now at 75 per cent of their normal level, with beef at 60 per cent and lamb at 35 per cent.
On 9th March we announced arrangements to enable limited local movements of livestock over short distances between parcels of land in the same occupation in order to help to alleviate animal welfare problems. Help has been given in some of the most urgent cases, such as when people have had difficulties in getting cattle from one side of a small country lane to another when they needed to be milked, or when sheep, pigs or cattle have needed to give birth. However, those are limited circumstances involving short distance movements.
On CAP schemes, the Government sought and obtained the European Commission's agreement that the outbreak could be treated as a force majeure event—in other words, confirming that our farmers would not be penalised if livestock numbers declared for subsidy were affected. In addition, we now have the Commission's agreement that livestock can graze set-aside land if controls make that necessary. I hope that that will be of limited assistance in particular cases.
The Government recognise the financial hardship that the present controls none the less bring. For those farmers whose animals have to be slaughtered, compensation at 100 per cent of market value is paid. In addition, my right honourable friend the Minister announced on 6th March that the Government would be drawing down £156 million in agrimonetary compensation for the beef, sheep and dairy sectors. We now have the agreement of the Commission to pay that money in March and April—some months earlier than it would otherwise be paid. For pig farmers, who do not have the advantage of being in a heavy regime, we have reopened the outgoers element of the pig industry restructuring scheme for six weeks.
There have been many calls for compensation to go further and wider to other affected industries. As I have said in the House before, no previous government

711
have compensated for the so-called "consequential losses" caused by animal disease outbreaks. That would be a very significant step, and could involve the taxpayer in an almost unquantifiable commitment, both now and in any future outbreak. However, we are listening carefully to arguments about the implications of the disease and the restrictions and about the effects that are being felt.
The Prime Minister is fully seized of the gravity of the situation. This morning he chaired meetings with farmers' leaders, Ministers from the key departments and a number of organisations representing rural interests to listen to their concerns. All those present agreed that the Government's strategy for containing and eradicating the disease was the right one and supported it, even though it was proving painful for everyone in the countryside and would inevitably take time to succeed.
The Prime Minister has asked the Minister for the Environment urgently to assemble a task force to look at the impact of foot and mouth on the wider rural economy and countryside, and how that impact might be alleviated. The task force will look at whether tighter guidance can be produced to ensure that rural businesses such hotels, pubs and historic houses could reopen properly in areas where the risk posed by the movements of people rather than of susceptible animals was minimal. It will also consider whether the implementation of any rural initiatives, such as those from the rural White Paper, can be accelerated and will examine ideas for kick-starting the rural economy, particularly by encouraging tourism once foot and mouth disease has been eradicated.
The outbreak of foot and mouth disease has taken hold quickly and has caused incalculable distress to families. I am only too aware of the anxiety and isolation of those waiting and worrying or facing the consequences of a diagnosis of the disease.
We have worked very hard to communicate clearly and promptly as the outbreak has developed. The Ministry's website devoted to foot and mouth disease is updated daily, and often several times a day. It contains a wide range of information. However, we recognise that not everyone affected can access the MAFF website. Therefore, we have attempted to communicate in other ways.
A telephone helpline was established early during the outbreak and is available from eight o'clock in the morning until eleven o'clock at night seven days a week. The telephone number has been widely disseminated. Farmers can contact their local animal health offices for more detailed information regarding the situation in their own localities. My right honourable friend the Minister wrote to every farmer in the country, enclosing information about the disease and setting out what can be done to protect farms from it. If necessary, of course, we shall write again to every farmer with an update on the situation. The Chief Veterinary Officer has written similarly to all private veterinary practices.
We have held weekly or biweekly meetings with representatives of the main farming, veterinary, processing, distributing and retail organisations. I and the Chief Veterinary Officer have listened to the points put to us. We value enormously the work that the organisations represented at those regular meetings do in communicating with their members. In addition, information is provided via Ceefax, Teletext and NFU regional offices. Daily reports are provided to Members of Parliament and placed in the Libraries.
Our policy is to be as open as possible in describing the situation and in communicating what we are doing in response to it. However, sometimes exposing contingency plans at early stages to a wide audience means that one spends a great deal of time chasing several hares that are set running but those plans may never come to fruition. I believe that one of the main lessons to have been learned from the Phillips report is that we must constantly assess and reassess policy as the disease develops and test it against the realities of the situation at the time. I do not consider that that is a matter for criticism.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Can she tell us what are the current arrangements for moving pregnant ewes that are likely to lamb in a few weeks' time in non-infected areas? This morning, one of our local sheep farmers told me that he did not know. He said that changes were taking place so fast that it was hard to keep up to date. I promised to try to obtain elucidation for him as to the distance that ewes which are about to lamb can be moved in non-infected areas.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the issues relating to pregnant ewes are most serious. At present, in the region of half-a-million animals are away from their home farms. I believe that a variety of measures must be made available to people in those circumstances. If the holdings are very local—that is, within a distance of five kilometers—they can access the licensing arrangements for short movements in non-infected areas. I believe that many of the applications made over the weekend—this scheme was put in place only at the weekend—will relate to those cases.
Advice has been circulated by the farming organisations, ourselves and the RSPCA about how people can deal with lambing in non-ideal circumstances when movement is not possible and where, for example, no lambing sheds and no personnel are available. Advice is given as to how those services can be brought to the animals. We are considering a further distance movement scheme. However, under that scheme the undoubted welfare benefits to animals of being taken home to lamb must be weighed against the potential disease risks of mixing live animals during movement. The assessment of those risks is a veterinary one.
There is a also a risk management issue. As soon as many long-distance movements of live animals are licensed, the potential exists for other movements to take place. Although certain schemes would not cover people travelling from infected to clean areas—for

713
obvious reasons, there would still be a residual problem—we are working out a scheme that could help in some of those circumstances. However, in the introduction of such a scheme a balance must be maintained between the risk of disease spread and the need to alleviate welfare considerations compounded by the difficulty of transporting ewes very late in pregnancy. That is itself a welfare issue.
The noble Lord rightly interrupted me when I was talking about communications. It is not easy to communicate some of the details relating to this problem to everyone who is potentially affected. However, we believe that good communications are vital in gaining the support of farmers and the public in tackling the outbreak. It is clear that the disease has already had a devastating impact and that there is some way to go before we can say safely that it is on course for eradication.
We must keep our disease control policy under constant review, taking account of the advice of the Chief Veterinary Officer as the situation develops. I should warn the House that every day the CVO is asked for a prediction about the number of cases and when that number will peak. Each day at the press conference he refuses to give a prediction, and I shall not second-guess him at the Dispatch Box today.
However, I can assure the House that the Government will remain flexible in their response and will not hesitate to take whatever further measures may be needed. The range of potential options would include slaughtering more animals in particular areas if that would speed up eradication of the disease. Those options are being considered carefully. They will be assessed and introduced if we believe that it is necessary to do so.
Finally, the Government have made clear that they intend to carry out a thorough review of the measures in place in order to reduce future disease risk once this outbreak has been dealt with. In particular, we shall need to consider how the current outbreak began and what can be learned from it; the current enforcement and control measures in place; and the implications for disease control of increased world travel and globalisation of trade.
My right honourable friend the Minister has promised that those reviews will be thorough and that they will be published. I am sure that the House will agree that we must all do everything we can to minimise the risk of a recurrence of this or any other exotic disease so that we can benefit farming in particular and the wider countryside in general.
I believe that it would be most helpful if I were now to stop talking and allow the many Members of the House who, know, have long memories going back to 1967—some, sadly, also have experience of the current outbreak—to contribute to the debate and to raise the issues that they wish to put forward. I shall try to deal with them when I reply to the debate this evening.
As I said, am only too aware that other parts of the rural economy, such as the haulage industry, the abattoir industry and tourism, are deeply affected, as
714
are many farmers who have diversified into areas such as equestrian activities, bed and breakfast, farm shops or whatever.
Earlier this year, we set out in a White Paper a broad range of commitments and initiatives in relation to rural areas. Those included health and social services, access to education, rural crime, social exclusion and affordable housing, protecting landscapes and biodiversity, public transport, and rural policy-making at national and local level. We said in that document and I repeat today that the landscape that we all love and the countryside that we value is largely the product of centuries of farming. We need to do everything we can to ensure that once the crisis is over we shall again be able to enjoy the countryside. We must ensure that it will again be able to live and thrive and be a place of hope, not of despair. For the moment, the best way in which to do that is to continue to take the most effective steps we can to eradicate the current outbreak of the disease.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Baroness concludes, may I make an apology to her? In yesterday's debate on hunting I suggested that a Minister from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should be on the Government Front Bench. I should have realised that she would have been very busy preparing for today's debate.
Moved, That this House takes note of the current situation in the countryside, in particular in relation to the outbreak of foot and mouth disease.—(Baroness Hayman.)
4.31 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing us up to date on the dire situation of foot and mouth disease. She rightly discussed the distress, isolation and anxiety felt by many farmers all over the country. Some of them found it difficult in the early days to get the right information to help them to take the right decisions at the right time. The ministry has made great efforts. I thank the Minister for bringing us up to date—199 cases is a terrible number.
I want to pick up on various items raised by the Minister before turning to my prepared speech in which I shall deal with the situation in the countryside and end up discussing foot and mouth disease. If my approach seems to be back to front, I hope that the Minister will bear with me.
Last Thursday, when I raised the Private Notice Question in the House, I asked whether the Government were satisfied that they had enough support, especially with regard to vets and the Army. The numbers then were different: 104 compared with 199 today. I am extremely glad to hear that the Government are calling in some extra resources. There is a need for speed when coping with the logistics of the outbreak.
Secondly, we are obviously grateful for the agrimoney that has been "pulled down"; there is an attempt to try to pull it down early so that some farmers will get it early. I should add that that money

715
was due to farmers. Even in this dire situation, we should point out that farmers should have had that money in view of the lower rate of the euro against the pound. Even so, we are grateful.
Thirdly, we totally agree with the Government that we must contain and eradicate the disease; that is our number one aim.
Fourthly, I am very glad to hear about the establishment of the rural task force. I shall discuss that later. It will examine the wider application and interests of the rural countryside and the possibility of giving help to hotels and pubs. It may also open up certain areas of the countryside that are not affected.
I am also grateful that the Government will assess and continue to assess the situation on a daily basis. I am sure that all noble Lords follow the information that is available on an hourly basis—it is obviously very close to our hearts. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry for raising the question of in-lamb ewes, which we raised last week. A dreadful decision may be taken—some of them may be destroyed on site because it may be considered safer to do that than to bring them back to lamb. Those are hard decisions to take and we acknowledge the Government's difficulty.
I want to move on to my main speech, in which, as I said, I shall deal with the wider countryside before returning to the crucial issue of foot and mouth disease. I hope that the Minister will forgive me for approaching the matter in reverse. When my noble friend winds up, his approach will, in the first instance, be that adopted by the Minister.
During the past two-and-a-half years, apart from the work establishing the Food Standards Agency and the introduction of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, we have had frequent debates and questions on agriculture, horticulture, rural affairs and the environment. It is some two years since the Prime Minister said that there was no crisis in the countryside. Your Lordships know better. We have emphasised the fundamental problems involving employment, costs, the provision of rural services and the inequalities of global competition.
Warnings about the consequences of the downward pressure on farm incomes, the continuing closures of small and medium-sized abattoirs, the gold-plating of EU directives and the costs of regulation have come home to roost. Today, since the Prime Minister denied the problems, more than 42,000 people—I stress that number—have left the industry, 614 sub-post offices have closed and rural charities are inundated with calls for help. Moreover, the delayed rural White Paper made only token reference to agriculture.
The swine fever outbreak last year was a blow to our pig farmers. At the start of my speech I should have declared an interest—we have a family farm. I apologise for not doing so earlier. Many pig farmers are already struggling to compete against cheaper foreign imports. Then, on top of everything else, came the devastating blow of foot and mouth disease. The source of the swine fever infection has not been
716
established and it is too early to identify the cause of the foot and mouth outbreak. However, in both cases the source must be found. I hope the Minister will ensure that the inquiry that she mentioned will have that as its number one aim. In addition to the internal review to which she referred, I hope that those matters will also be examined by a totally independent body.
The FSA under the Department of Health has the job of protecting our food supply. Equally, the European agency and the Commission should be policing our food production to ensure that regulations are adhered to. Two German abattoirs have had their export licences revoked but suspicion is rife about the inspection regimes in other countries. We must not accept lower standards in our imported foods and we should instigate more routine and regular checks on all food that comes into this country, including personal food imported by the travelling public. Existing regulations must be enforced.
The picture in rural areas is that agriculture, which at prevailing prices accounts for a mere 2 per cent of GDP, is responsible for the upkeep of 80 per cent of our non-built landscape. It suffered the loss of 20,000 full-time jobs in 1999 and more than 22,000 last year.
In 2001, the fall in numbers is likely to be even higher. The swine fever outbreak, government measures to slim down the pig industry and the foot and mouth outbreak combine to bankrupt many farmers or to persuade them to retire and their children to look elsewhere for work.
Prices are falling and more people are leaving the industry than are joining it. These are worrying times. The steady drop in total earnings from agriculture affects all rural areas. As the average disposable income of those who live and work out of town falls, pubs, village shops and sub-post offices close and the provision of policing, medical and social services becomes more centred in our towns and cities.
The effect on the landscape is mainly confined to the increasingly unkempt woodlands and coppices. However, the next batch of EU regulations and interference is almost with us. Among the proposals on the table is one to restrict tractor drivers to sitting on tractors or combine harvesters for as little as two hours a day. It is to be known as the physical agents directive and relates to the health risk of the whole body vibration. It really is a nightmare. It will affect farmers, foresters, hedgers, agricultural contractors, local council workmen, highway authorities, building and construction workers and quarrymen. It will have an impact on our towns and cities, but by far the greatest damage will be done in our countryside.
Our rural industries are also threatened from within. The Government have delayed the introduction of a pesticide tax but have not yet abandoned the idea. The climate change levy, the IPPC charges and the water-compensating benefits will affect all those who have to suffer them. They are all additional costs.
To make matters worse, many of our charities that exist to protect the environment face the challenge of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act. The provisions of that Act are being interpreted to

717
mean that donor companies will have to obtain shareholder approval for all donations of over £5,000 to any charity that carries on activities which could possibly be regarded as intended to influence voters. I suspect that that could affect the RSPB, the National Wildfowl Trust, the Game Conservancy Trust, the National Trust, and many other organisations that also have a political campaigning side.
Rural communities are also likely to suffer from the ending of the landfill tax credit scheme which since 1996 has enabled the spending of a total of £356 million on repairing church roofs and village halls, buying wildlife sites and establishing or restoring parks. The most recent Budget Statement signals its cessation.
The British landscape owes much of its charm to constant grazing by cattle and sheep. However, it is also home to pigs, poultry, horses and a wide variety of wildlife. Animal welfare is an important issue. Unfortunately, it is a much disputed issue. The UK Government want to introduce measures such as battery cage regulation amendments in advance of the European deadline. Some European countries have indicated that they will not meet that deadline and will therefore gain a competitive advantage.
The UK farmer wants his animals to be well fed, healthy and content. However, if his holding is small, or if he is a tenant, his earnings will be insufficient to pay for major improvements. There is enormous pressure on those people. Average farm incomes have fallen by 75 per cent to just over £4,500 per annum.
The Rural Stress Network, which was founded in 1996 and now supports more than 30 regional and local initiatives, works closely with the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution, the farm crisis network and the Samaritans. It administers the rural stress action plan, which is funded and chaired by MAFF and has a grant of £500,000. It has recently reported a dramatic increase in the number of calls from distressed people. The RABI wrote to me about the matter. I quote from its response, particularly with regard to the foot and mouth outbreak:
"Since the end of February, RABI has received a tenfold increase in calls to its helpline as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak. A second telephone line for the helpline has had to be put in, and urgent calls are now being taken outside office hours, in the evenings and at weekends.
The main problem facing many livestock farmers is the restriction on movement and sale of livestock."
The Minister has referred to that point.
"This has delayed planned income for farmers who were already hard-pressed financially following three bad years. They are having difficulty meeting household expenses, as well as other unexpected costs such as feed bills for animals that they cannot take to market.
Normally, RABI only assists with household expenditure but, in these exceptional circumstances, the Trustees have extended RABI's financial support to cover other essential expenditure incurred as a result of the outbreak".
Perhaps I may quote some figures to illustrate the extent to which a call has been made on its money. In 1996 it paid out £5,000; in 1997, £7,000; in 1998, £118,000; in 1999, £190,000; in 2000, £207,000; and in the first two months of this year it has already made
718
grants amounting to £57,000. I should stress that those payments were made not to retired farming families, in line with previous practice, but to working families.
As the Minister will be aware, farmers' costs are also rising. Fertiliser costs have risen by 50 per cent; the cost of animal medicines has risen by more than the rate of inflation; charges associated with BSE. controls are still rising; and farmers have to face higher transport costs to market or abattoir as their numbers fall. In my opinion, government policy is to blame for many of those rising costs. In that regard, we are grateful that our debate the other night with regard to Meat Hygiene Service charges may have been taken on board.
Some abattoirs have survived and are now dealing with special permissions relative to foot and mouth disease restrictions. However, I have to tell the Minister that I am aware of several that are accepting animals for slaughter but quoting ridiculous prices on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. I am sure that the Minister has probably received similar representations. Perhaps the Minister will inform us what steps are being taken to prevent profiteering by some perhaps less scrupulous operators. That said, I should like to ask the Minister whether the Government will consider absorbing the extra inspection charges necessitated by this abnormal working pattern at this particular time.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, perhaps I can assist the noble Baroness. We undertake to take on board the additional costs associated with the extra veterinary supervision necessary for abattoirs involved in the licence to slaughter scheme. I should not deceive anyone into thinking that that will mean that abattoirs will function at normal speed because there are additional difficulties. But the additional veterinary costs incurred as a result of the greater involvement of the Meat Hygiene Service will be met by the Government.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for her intervention. It will help at a time when many abattoirs will have to work slower than they normally would and additional charges kick into force.
Government policy has also left some of our farmers largely unprotected from the market place. They broke up the milk marque and presided over a fall of one third of the prices paid to farmers for liquid milk. They agreed the milk quotas at the last CAP reform, which took place last year, that have given Ireland a surplus to sell to us while our farmers have rights to supply only 85 per cent of our market. They have refused to ensure that labelling restricts the "British" marking to fresh and processed food grown and packed in this country.
We have supported government policy on the foot and mouth outbreak. We agree that the virus must be eliminated. We agree that the only way to achieve that is to slaughter and then burn or render all affected herds or flocks. However, we do not agree with the ever growing delays in the disposal of carcasses. In that respect, I am grateful to the Minister for her indication

719
that extra resources are being requested to help with the problem. Those involved, particularly vets and other MAFF staff, are clearly working their socks off. However, we feel that they should be getting more help and support, and we are glad to hear that it is forthcoming. Help is needed to prevent a build up of carcasses being fed upon by flocks of birds, as some are, perhaps resulting in further spread of the virus. It is also needed to prevent local wildlife—foxes, rabbits and rats—spreading the disease to neighbouring farms. I noted the Minister's comment that there is a much lesser risk of that happening once the animal is dead. However, I think the present advice is that the possibility cannot be ruled out.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, perhaps I can interrupt my noble friend. As the 1967 outbreak came in on Argentinean boned meat, and it is thought that this outbreak arose from a sandwich or something in swill, how is the risk less in dead cattle? I ask that purely in a spirit of true inquiry; I am not trying to catch anybody out. If the risk is so much reduced, as the Minister says, how did it arrive in the bone of an Argentine leg of lamb in 1967 and, as we believe, in swill in this case?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the answer to the noble Earl is the difference between "low" risk and "no" risk. I caution him about talking about ham sandwiches. There was a great deal of talk about ham sandwiches in relation to the outbreak of classical swine fever.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said we must get to the bottom of this. I have to tell her that I cannot guarantee that we will. Noble Lords who have experience in veterinary and medical matters will know that sometimes the source cannot be isolated, particularly if it has been eaten and the animal that ate it has been disposed of.
We are talking of comparative risk. Live animals exhale the virus. Once they are dead, they no longer breathe out the virus. In addition, the pH levels change during decomposition, and during decomposition therefore the risk of disease is limited and reduces very quickly. The dead animals will not go into the food chain; they should not go into the animal food chain legally anyway. To spread the disease an infected dose has to be ingested and those animals will not be going into the food chain. I have learnt a lot about this matter in the past few days though my explanation may not be that which the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, would make. But all that comes together to mean that, unpleasant though corpses of animals may be—these are not necessarily animals with disease; they are dangerous contacts—the risk of the disease spreading thereby is minimal compared with that present with live animals.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that point.
I shall move on to two further points I particularly wish to raise. I should like to reflect on the need for the general public to be vigilant about where they walk.
720
Notices have been erected pointing out where footpaths and common land are closed. But I have been told of several cases in Norfolk and Leicestershire where people still walk their dogs. I hope that the message will go out from this debate today that that is something they really should not be doing.
Not only do we need to enforce the regulations as quickly as possible, but we also need to demonstrate to our farmers nation-wide that we are doing so. They and their families are retreating into isolation, threatened by a vision—for some, sadly a reality—of silent fields with nothing in them except grass growing with nothing to graze on it.
Since last Thursday when I raised the PNQ, the number of outbreaks has sadly risen to 199. That inevitably means a vast increase in the number of beasts which will be killed and therefore need to be disposed of. At this time farmers are having to make workers redundant. Will the Government consider meeting some of the costs of paying the redundancy charges made necessary by the slaughter policy? It would only be a short-term intervention.
Also, will the Government guarantee to consider the effect of consequential loss—a point on which the Minister touched earlier—particularly to those whose animals have had to be kept past their prime value date? Eventually, when those animals go to market, they will be worth less than they would have been worth had they been marketed at the correct time. Will the Government consider what can be done in relation to the extra costs involved in providing that extra feed?
Finally, will the Government consider introducing a scheme for the longer term when this outbreak is over? When farmers restock, which cannot be for six months after the disease has been totally cleared, the new stock will be all of one age. Normally on a farm, stock is coming through at different stages. For many farmers, the restocking may mean that they will receive no income for up to a year. Have the Government considered that?
Last Sunday church bells throughout England tolled at midday for five minutes, their peals bearing a message of solidarity and comfort to many who are struggling at this time. Also, were it not for the foot and mouth problems, I—and I suspect many other noble Lords—would have been participating in the countryside march this coming Sunday. The fact that it has been postponed does not mean that it is not relevant or necessary. I can only hope that your Lordships' contributions today will persuade the Government that the current situation in the countryside, even without this dreadful disease, is dire.
I hope that our discussions today will reflect on both. The Government are dealing well with the outbreak and they have our support. But action must be taken. Legislation already passed is weakening our structure. Legislation and directives to come from Europe will only add to the burdens. The facts are there to be examined. The statistics are available for all to see. The situation the farming community and the countryside have been experiencing over the past two to three years cannot continue; it is dire.
4.57 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for granting this debate in response to the Motion tabled last week by the Liberal Democrat Benches. I am glad that the Government have given the Minister time to update your Lordships' House on the progress that has been made so far.
I agree that in the short term this is a countryside issue. But medium and long term it should be thought of as a national issue. Now, with the sad news today that there is an outbreak in France, it has become an international issue.
No one who compares the maps of the 1967 outbreak with the maps of the present one can fail to be struck by how then one area was affected and now it is dozens of areas, connected by a web of animal transportation. Farmers have to make money where they can in an unforgiving system that has as much to do with shipping animals around as it does with raising them. The system is about subsidies and chasing a pound of profit here and there at the cost of animal welfare and animal health.
Over the years we have strongly argued that successive governments need to address the infrastructure that supports livestock production, small abattoirs and retail marketing structures. I refer noble Lords to the publication of my honourable friend, Cohn Breed, called Checking out the Supermarkets. It contained a number of points which I am sure will be repeated today.
This devastating blow follows BSE, the drop in world food prices and the effect of currency fluctuations on an industry that has no slack to bear them. The Government of course must deal with this crisis., but they need to take a longer view. It is always difficult at a time of crisis to do that, but it is essential if we are not to lurch from one rural crisis to another. I shall start first with the long view and then come back to the immediate action.
A fundamental difficulty is that neither the current international trade rules nor the CAP reflect the close relationship between agriculture and the environment, and the social context of the countries in which that agriculture operates. That negative effect is magnified in smaller countries like ours, where agriculture does not just have an effect on landscape, biodiversity and social structure; it is the very landscape and a major part of the social structure.
In today's increasingly mobile population, the farming families give rural areas their continuity. Sometimes people criticise the fact that parish councils in rural areas are dominated by farmers but without farming's contribution to those councils they would struggle to exist at all. Farmers provide the stability.
Unlike the Conservative Front Bench, I do not believe that blaming the EU is the solution to many of the problems. Globalisation is here to stay and the Conservatives made little or no effort to reform EU rules and the CAP. World Trade Organisation rules recognise nothing beyond the market price of a commodity. 'Those rules were written for the prairies
722
of the United States. I wonder whether the Prime Minister, when he met the new President, George "Dubya" Bush, explained to him why and how the US stance on the World Trade Organisation and the Codex Alimentaris, a body which specialises in the food area of world trade, damages our country.
Furthermore, I wonder whether he explained that the body which sets global food standards should take a view of world well-being and set its standards in accordance. For as long as it sets its standards to benefit corporate interests representing their own products, it will never address the real issues which beset us, our farmers, our European neighbours' farmers and, crucially, those of the developing world.
Would it alter the world's economy if small-scale farmers were encouraged and if rural economies which depend on those small farmers were strengthened? The World Bank spends millions of dollars coping with the poverty of shanty-town life caused by mass migration from rural areas to cities in the developing world. Millions of small farmers go out of business and millions of dollars of profits go to the world's biggest commodity dealers.
I shall return to Britain. Unless the Government take a firm and decisive lead in developing a long-term strategy to cope with foot and mouth disease, the crisis could lead to a mass migration, too. But I believe that in the case of Britain it will be from the cities to the countryside. As rural areas cease to use land for food production—and no one could blame farmers for getting out now and no one should expect the younger generation to see farming as a bright future—so landscapes risk becoming undermanaged scrub. And then the house-building lobby really will have a field day. Those in rural areas will be desperate for cash and they will begin to agree to the kind of massive greenfield development dear to the hearts of those in the construction industry. The regeneration of cities, on which, like us, this Government lay much store, will become an impossibility as private property money migrates wholesale to the shires.
I believe that in the short-term the Government are committed to saving what there is, but I want to offer a different view on how to go about it. Some regions of England and Wales are much more badly affected by the crisis than others—notably the western half of the country, with the exception of Northumberland. Those areas depend on a combination of livestock farming and tourism and are clearly much worse off than arable areas or areas where farming forms a much smaller part of the regional economy.
The Government should take a region-by-region approach. In regions where foot and mouth is a devastating crisis, they should treat it accordingly. There is actually a state of emergency in my area. However, there is little debate around whether the situation is an emergency. The fact is that in some regions it is, but in regions such as the south east it is not. Some of the discrepancies in the media about whether there is a crisis reflects that division. The Government need to recognise that and to begin a

723
dialogue with the rural development agencies and Government Offices about how to deal with the situation.
We were pleased when the Government recently regionalised MAFF by appointing directors in the regional government offices. That could be a good foundation for urgently revising, in the light of the crisis, the way in which MAFF, Government Offices and the RDA put together a crisis containment plan and then a crisis recovery plan. It is likely that that will involve the Government in using contingency money. However, where rural businesses such as tourism are supporting an industry of £16 billion a year nationally, should not the £3.8 billion contingency fund be spent on markets, specialist food producers and all the dependent organisations referred to by the Minister? Is that not a reasonable use of such a fund and is that not what it is for?
On 1st March, the Countryside Agency estimated a £2 billion loss to the rural economy. Will the Minister say what the Government's present estimate is? Perhaps that is not a fair question to ask at this time, but this is the kind of event which should make a government consider using a contingency fund.
The issue of consequential payment is most important. If we are to be left with a livestock farming industry on which we can build, farmers must know the basis on which they can make decisions after the crisis is over. Farmers are facing vastly increased costs of feed and they are facing lambing losses already. They are also facing extra costs due to the logistical problems referred to by the Conservative Front Bench. Even those who receive compensation for slaughtered animals face the question of whether they can survive the next few months. Those who followed advice and diversified, borrowing money to convert their premises to provide bed and breakfast accommodation and farm attractions, are now doubly hit by increased borrowings and no visitors. Regionally, local authorities want to act, too. Could they be empowered to look at business rate relief for a start?
Today nationally, too, there are questions which need urgent answers. Other noble Lords addressed the issue of dead animals left in piles and the related health risks, so I shall not deal with that. Advice from the Farm Business Advisory Service is also likely to be crucial. But MAFF's policy of first-come-first-served even before the crisis was not best serving those farmers who were most struggling. The experience in my region shows that often the farmers most in need of advice were not seeking it while the larger farmers with more time to spare and experience of obtaining additional grants were often at the front of the queue. Will the Minister consider revising that first-come-first-served policy?
Having allowed for regional differences and allowed the regions to get on with their recovery plans, the Government need greatly to accelerate the ideas in the Rural White Paper implementation plan. Under further reform of the CAP, the lead is to be taken by MAFF, but I believe that it should be taken by the
724
Prime Minister. The debate is now about far more than farming. Strengthening farmers' co-operatives and their buying and selling power is equally crucial. It would give them the ability to wield a decent amount of strength in the marketplace.
The end of this month saw the target in the implementation plan for the Government to set up an industry/government task force to investigate inputs in farming and efficiencies in sectors of the food chain, starting with the milk and dairy sector. Is that likely to be delayed as a result of the foot and mouth epidemic? Is it still on target? If not, what is the revised target? Crucially, will the Minister introduce a code of practice to put relations between supermarkets and suppliers on a clearer basis? That was to be established by 31st March.
The Minister might agree with me that the equation between cheap food and the foot and mouth epidemic has been greatly over-simplified. The fact is that prices for meat and dairy products were held down and the nation saved money. Consumers saved money—they even bought less lamb and fewer fresh vegetables—but it was at the expense of our farmers. And how did consumers spend their savings? We spent much more on soft drinks, alcohol and confectionery—a real growth area in consumption according to the National Food Survey of 5th March this year. It showed alcohol enjoying a growth of 13 per cent, soft drinks a growth of 12 per cent and confectionery a growth of 20 per cent.
This crisis is about consumers wanting cheap food, but ignoring the cost of that cheapness. I refer to the environmental costs of transporting apples from the other side of the world while our own growers go out of business, or shipping in fertiliser, applying it heavily and then finding that the damage it does to our fresh water eco-system must be paid for. For years governments have ignored the other invisible costs which have been encouraged by supermarket price wars.
Even now, I believe that there is a mistaken impression that the choice is either cheap, low grade food or expensive produce. It ignores the players in the food chain that make food unreasonably expensive: the storage and distribution network, packaging companies and so on. I believe that the medium-term message for the Government is to ensure that our agricultural industry has access to the kind of processing which enables it to have a more direct input into the marketing of its own fresh produce.
The landscape to which the Minister referred is precious, and it created the rich biodiversity which was so diminished as small farmers and extensive farming methods were sacrificed, first with mass production in the 1950s and 1960s and then by the CAP. We have debated this issue a number of times, and I shall not rehearse the arguments. The maze of grants that a farmer must negotiate to protect the landscape is now extreme. I believe that the time has come to simplify this so that we have a unified system of the kind that our colleagues in Wales now enjoy.

725
I believe that in the long term we must put quality and healthy food at the heart of our community planning and regeneration. Thousands of children start the day with a fizzy drink and chocolate bar and learn less well. Teenagers have a diet of lager and McDonalds, and the office worker grabs a bowl of chips at lunch time, a couple of beers after work and a frozen microwave pasta meal at night. They are likely to become an NHS expense in a matter of years. Unless we value our food we will not care how it is produced. The promotion of British produce and a quality diet is the job of government. It can be done within an EU framework, and other EU countries are ahead of us in this regard. It is done by culture and example—by the Prime Minister celebrating top food producers, chefs and farmers, in the same way as he celebrates pop stars and footballers.
This debate is really about the state of Britain and its real attitude to sustainability, and it is a debate about the fabric of the nation. Of course, this is a matter of great concern to MAFF and to farmers, but the debate is about whether the use of some of the best growing conditions in the world is important, whether a country like the UK with wonderful natural resources should use them to produce for its own needs food. timber and energy crops, or whether it is content to be a nation of global parasites that squanders its resources while talking about sustainability.
5.13 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for sparing the time to come and tell us so fully what is happening at the moment. I know that other noble Lords will deal with the wider aspects of the topic which is the subject of this Motion. I shall confine myself to the foot and mouth disease and what I believe to be the important aspects at the moment.
I declare an interest, in that my husband and I farm sheep, goats and cattle in Worcestershire. We are currently in an infected area. As a result, our goats cheese-making business is at a standstill. All the farmers' markets upon which we depend are closed.
Hundreds of questions require answers. The Minister will be relieved to hear that I believe that most of them can wait until the reviews are conducted, as they must be. Now is not the time to demand bans on certain practices or to ask for more legislation, unless of course the current situation will be improved by them. Now we must be constructive if we are to prevent the further spread of foot and mouth disease.
For laws to work the reasons for enacting them must be well understood by those who are their main targets as well as by the general population. Certain newspapers—the Guardian, Observer and Independent come immediately to mind—seem to trivialise the awful effects of foot and mouth disease upon the animals and heap scorn upon all farmers, regardless of their stockmanship. They are not helping those who so far may not be directly affected to recognise the reasons for the movement restrictions, animal and human.
726
During the worst of the BSE epidemic the public was bombarded with pictures of Daisy the cow staggering about in a farmyard. I know that television crews would not be allowed anywhere near a farm where there was an outbreak of foot and mouth, but I ask the noble Baroness whether it is possible for a MAFF vet to film some of the sick animals, particularly cattle, which appear to suffer most. The other day I heard of one vet who opened the mouth of a beast and its tongue fell out. The film could then be released to the media for publication.
Humans understand the pain inflicted by a tiny mouth ulcer. Would they not understand the suffering endured by a steer with a mouth full of sloughing lesions? Humans understand the pain inflicted by a blister on the foot. Equally, would they not understand the pain endured by a cow, sheep or pig with blisters all over its feet? It will not be until the public realise just how dreadfully this disease affects our farm animals that they will obey the law. It will also encourage people who know of unscrupulous individuals who flout the law to report miscreants to the authorities.
Misinformation does not rest solely at the door of some parts of the media. A vet with a small practice in the heart of an infected area in Devon telephoned me last night. She shared my rage at the statement made by the noble Baroness's right honourable friend the Minister on Sunday when he was questioned about the delays in removing slaughtered animals to the rendering plant and the methods used for the removal. If the vet and I understood it correctly—the noble Baroness has tried to explain it but I remain unclear—he said that the virus ceased to be infectious once an animal had died because the acidity associated with decay in the meat would kill it. If that is the case, how did the original infection of the pigs occur? What about birds feeding on the dead animals that have been lying in fields for several days and passing the virus on to other farms? Why are we being asked to drive vehicles through disinfectant and told that we must change our clothes and wash ourselves before handling our stock if the virus is not infectious?
Richard Haddock has also spoken to me. He farms in the South West and represents many farmers in the region. He has told me exactly what has been happening on some farms in Devon. Despite the assurances given by the Minister tonight, what is happening on the farms is not consistent with those assurances.
I have enormous sympathy for the Minister and all the staff who have been working on this awful task. We know that the State Veterinary Service is overstretched, even with the assistance of overseas vets who have volunteered their services. I recognise that many of them must be tired of being told that the delays involved in slaughtering the animals infected and the removal of the carcasses are unacceptable. I have had described to me the suffering of infected cattle and am left in no doubt that all animals found with lesions should be dispatched immediately to relieve them of their suffering. There are plenty of slaughtermen who are unable to work at present. Could they not be contracted to relieve the present

727
teams? I understand that one team in Devon was dispatched to slaughter pigs with captive bolts. Slaughtermen would know at once that these are not suitable for pigs.
Last week in this House we heard requests for military assistance. I was pleased to hear on the news this morning that the Ministry of Defence has been asked to provide marksmen and sharpshooters to dispatch animals in difficult terrain. As the noble Baroness is aware, I have frequently asked that military sharpshooters be used humanely to destroy feral sheep that become a reservoir for sheep scab. Hitherto that has always been refused, but this situation is different. Military assistance is urgently required now. What progress is being made on that matter?
After an extremely wet winter the ground upon which the carcasses are lying will not bear the weight of heavy vehicles. Lorries become stuck, plough up fields and are unable to get out with the carcasses once they are loaded. This is an appalling situation for the people who have to suffer it. The Army has metal rolling roads for use in just these conditions. It seems that we can send our troops to the four corners of the world but cannot use them at home. What is the problem? Why were they not called out to help at a much earlier stage?
I understand that the Prosper de Mulder Group has a rendering plant in Exeter and that it has vehicles and lifting tackle designed specifically to deal with animal carcasses that may be infected. Why cannot this plant be pressed into service? It would mean that carcasses no longer have to be carried from the South West to Widnes and would allay the fears of the farmers in areas as yet unaffected.
It has been pointed out to me that the result of the difference between the circumstances experienced by affected farmers and the spin put out by MAFF has been the farming community's loss of confidence in officials and Ministers, particularly in the South West. I have been asked whether someone who has the respect and trust of the farming community—I am pleased to see that the noble Lord is back in his place—such as the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, could be appointed to talk with the farmers and tell them the truth about the position. Perhaps the Minister will consider that request?
Last Thursday, I asked the Minister about the position regarding cheese-makers. The position is still far from clear. LACOTS advised environmental health officers that no cheese made from unpasteurised milk can be sold from an infected area, despite the reassurance given by the Minister. If the Dairy Products Hygiene Regulations 1995 were fully implemented, my local environmental health officer believes that he would have the power to prevent shopkeepers in infected areas selling cheese made from unpasteurised milk if they cut up the cheese on their premises.
I am puzzled. If the acidity that builds up in the rotting flesh of a dead animal is enough to kill the virus, why does the acidity built up by the normal
728
process of cheese-making fail to kill the virus? If the high acid levels achieved in the process of making fresh cheeses, or the length of time that the virus might be exposed to an acid environment during the maturing period of at least 60 days, kills the virus and the concern is about post-manufacture contamination, why do not the rules apply equally to cheeses made from pasteurised milk? As this is a question of protecting animal rather than human health, and it is apparent that the regulations do not appear to have caught up with the science, perhaps I may ask the Minister exactly what is the current position.
I am grateful to the Minister for the message from her office to the effect that MAFF vets will be contacting Dr Fred Brown today. He is a brilliant Lancashireman who has spent a lifetime studying foot and mouth disease. He was in the UK during the 1967 and 1981 outbreaks. In fact, he predicted that one day foot and mouth disease would arrive on the Isle of Wight from a factory that was making vaccine in France. That is exactly what happened. I am sure that he will be able to assist.
I am realistic. I accept that the animals that I have reared and which have served me well may have to die. I find it very hard to accept that the man who is at the bottom of all the outbreaks in our area—a dealer who owns land in a large number of different locations, and who cares little for the long-term health and viability of the animals he buys and sells—is reported to be rubbing his hands with glee at the prospect of the compensation he will receive. No amount of money would ever compensate my husband and me, or the many good stockmen and women, for the loss of the animals in which we have invested our lives.
My husband and I do other things. We shall survive. My concern is for those for whom farming has been their only means of earning a living. Unlike many of those affected by the 1967 outbreak, these people no longer have a nice bank balance to cushion them for the six months or so before they are allowed to restock. I ask the Minister whether they will be expected to support their families from the compensation for their slaughtered stock, or, if they need to claim social security benefits, that capital sum will be disregarded for benefits purposes so that they can start again at the appropriate time. Tourism is not the answer; these people have to have stock on their farms.
These are very anxious times, particularly for the stock farming community. We could do without the cryptic comments of ignorant journalists from the Observer, the Guardian and the Independent. While there are, and always have been, some individuals who ruthlessly exploit and neglect their animals, most stockmen and women are being torn apart by the disaster, whether or not they have actually had to deal with an outbreak.
This is a virulent and horrible disease. I know from personal experience just how troubling it is to be constantly wondering whether the animals—the breeding of which one has put so much of one's life into and which are a major part of one's daily routine—will have to die an unpleasant and

729
undignified death. The farming community desperately needs it to be understood that, if it takes heaven and earth to move, despatch and destroy the sick and suffering animals and their contacts, then heaven and earth must be moved. It is not acceptable that those who have cared all their lives for cows, sheep, pigs or goats that have had to be slaughtered must endure the sight of those animals' bodies abandoned, sometimes for several days, in the fields that they used to graze. There is a limit to what the human soul can bear.
5.25 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, perhaps I may also say how grateful we are for the debate. I pay tribute to the Minister for the tone and content of her opening speech. Noble Lords will be very grateful for the sensitive way in which our debate was opened today. This will be a refrain echoed by practically every speaker in the debate, but, from these Benches, we want to express our very deep sympathy with all those who are caught up in this dreadful outbreak of foot and mouth disease—the vast numbers of people, not simply farmers and their families, but all those in associated industries and activities and those who are suffering because of the closure of the countryside.
We particularly think of those whose animals have been destroyed; who have had to watch that happening; and who now have to live with silent empty farmyards and the prospect of many months before they can begin to rebuild their lives, if they ever can. Those who wait and wonder in isolation, uncertainty and fear are experiencing levels of anxiety and despair which it is hard to imagine for anyone not caught up in it.
Noble Lords have already spoken about the half a million pregnant ewes and the desperate problems of their lambing, many in places far from where they should be. I understand that the Government have recognised that problem and, as far as is possible, the movement restrictions will be relaxed.
I want to say a little about the churches' response to this dreadful crisis. I shall then ask one or two questions. Perhaps I may read your Lordships a letter which appeared last week in the Church Times. It said:
"'Just wanted you to know that we are thinking of you. Love and prayers from …' Those wonderful words have poured into our farmhouse by e-mail, post and phone in these awful days while we try to cope with the foot-and-mouth crisis. They have been an amazing source of comfort and strength.
As I write, our own cows and calves are safe and well, but we are also tired arid frightened … We are immensely grateful to our friends, to the Arthur Rank Centre, the agricultural chaplains, and the churches throughout the land who are holding us up in their prayers. They show us that we are still loved".
That was a letter from a dairy farmer in Somerset who is vice-chair of the Rural Affairs Committee of the Church of England. That letter reflects a grateful response from one farmer to the network of prayer and support which has been set up. It is, and has to be, much of the time a telephone ministry. That sounds desperately inadequate, but, as people must not go to farms in sensitive areas, that is the best we can do. It is greatly appreciated and very important.
730
The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury has issued a call to prayer. That is being answered in all our churches. One or two people have said that there should be a national day of prayer. If, during the debate, any noble Lords want to echo that request, I shall of course pass it on to the most reverend Primate.
Many churches are issuing documents or suggestions. I have in my hand a pamphlet prepared by one of our rural clergy. It simply says:
"'What can I do to help during the Foot and Mouth Crisis?' In response to this I have collected the prayers, which I hope you will find useful. I suggest that everyone says these prayers at 12.00 noon and 6 p.m. each day. The church bells will be pealed at 12.00 noon on Sunday as a sign of mutual care and support".
That was from a relatively small parish. Within a matter of days, 1,500 of those leaflets were gratefully taken and distributed by the postmen who could get nearest to the farms in the parishes. That is one initiative. I am sure that it has been replicated in many places in the country.
We are extremely grateful to the Rural Stress Network. By a strange coincidence I was present at the launch in Herefordshire of that network two days after the first foot and mouth case was discovered. There has been a tremendous increase in the number of people asking for help. Its help is much valued and appreciated.
There is a fund which has been set up by the churches called the Addington ARC Fund. ARC stands for the Arthur Rank Centre, the churches' ecumenical centre at Stoneleigh Park, the home of the Royal Show. That fund is intended to help families in distress, more widely even than the relaxed rules of the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution. The RABI is mainly for household expenses for farmers, but its rules have been relaxed to pay for certain other farm expenses. However, the ARC Fund can be used to help those in desperate straits who are not, strictly speaking, farmers; and there are many of them. I commend that fund. I want the House to know that it exists and that money is pouring into it.
I welcome in principle the way in which the Government have responded to the crisis. Their initial quick and decisive response was widely welcomed. But I fear that there has been less satisfaction and support latterly. There have been many horror stories of serious delays in the identification, slaughter and disposal of infected animals. I echo the plea that has been made for the quick dispatch of animals on the authority of experienced vets by appropriately qualified slaughtermen. I do not see why that cannot happen much more quickly than is the case at the moment.
There are stories about unsafe lorries—unsealed or inadequately sealed lorries—taking animals very long distances to the rendering plant at Widnes; and there were delays in bringing that plant on stream. Other incineration facilities are not being used. I urge the Government to be much more flexible in the way in which they dispose of dead animals. I am quite sure that slaughter is the right policy. Some people have argued that we should go to vaccination. I am

731
absolutely certain that that is not a viable course of action at the moment, although there are reports in the press today that research in America may make it in due course a possibility.
I want to touch for a moment on what has been said in some of the newspapers—I echo what has been said about the unhelpful attitude of some of the newspapers—about the present policy being driven by economic considerations. Quite clearly, the word "economic" in this context has a pejorative connotation. In other words, because we are doing it for economic reasons, that must be wrong and must be part of the great farm network of greed, as some people would like to postulate.
What do people think farming is for? Do they think that it is an animal welfare activity carried out by dewy-eyed sentimentalists? Most farmers care very much about animal welfare and are very good at delivering it. But farming is a business and its economic health is essential for its survival. The export of the products of our livestock industry has been and will remain vital to the flourishing of farming, especially in the hills, in the North and in the West. To say that this policy is driven by economic considerations is simply to say that this is a wise and necessary policy.
There have been accusations of profiteering. Some noble Lords may have seen the leading article last week in the Farmers Weekly, which latched on to the fact that farmers are being charged unreasonable prices for slaughtering where they are able to move their animals and that the prices being offered for the meat are very low whereas the prices in retail outlets are very high. The article asks whether there are not unscrupulous individuals in the abattoir and retailing trades. It continues:
"How else are we to explain the fall in prime beef deadweight prices from I 75p/kg before the crisis to 60p/kg this week? How else should we interpret reports of increases in the supermarket price of red meat, much of it imported? … Prime Minister Tony Blair got it half right when he talked of supermarkets restraining farmers in an armlock. But he forgot to mention the half-nelson hold some abattoirs and buyers currently have over farmers lucky enough to be able to send their stock for processing. Meanwhile, these same abattoirs and supermarkets seem content to scour the dustbins of the world for meat of dubious quality that can be palmed off on the public, to take a healthy profit for themselves. For proof look no further than the German abattoirs which repeatedly export beef, contaminated with specific BSE risk material. Illegal exports which are punished with no more than a nasty letter from some Brussels' bureaucrat. How that gets up the nose of every British farmer".
How indeed, my Lords? I hope that the Government will look into these allegations of profiteering.
Much has already been said in the debate about compensation. I should like to echo that. Even if farmers whose animals are destroyed receive 100 per cent, what do they live on before they can spend that money to begin to restock? What about those people who have no compensation at all, whose cash-flow has dried up after three or four terrible years? The figures given by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, about the payments out of the RABI fund show how they leapt in 1998 and have continued to increase ever since then.
732
I have been told by local farmers that they are having considerable difficulties in getting the information they need. We come back to the question of communication. They say that the website is not updated often enough and that it is not carrying the local information that they need. They are finding it difficult to know where to turn for licences to move stock over short distances. That may or may not be the case, but the feeling and experience is that this is not being well handled at the moment. I hope that the Government will take that point on board.
In what new directions do we want to see farming going? I echo much of what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. Last night, there was a presentation in the Jubilee Room by the LEAF organisation—Linking Environment And Farming. The presentation extolled the virtues of integrated farm management. The Minister in the other place, Mr Elliot Morley, was present. He said that MAFF fully supported the initiative. It seems to be something which needs the strong support and encouragement of the Government—more profitable, more environmentally sensitive, but not necessarily organic farming, that delivers a better product with greater skill, greater discrimination and greater intelligence on the part of the farmers.
There are still many young people who would like to go into farming if only they could. They are the people with the discrimination and the intelligence. They are the people who understand the environment and the market. Many of their elders do not. Those are the people we want to see coming into farming. The Government should do all they possibly can to encourage them and change their policy of not offering any grants to young people coming into farming.
I turn to local abattoirs. Someone in the diocese told me the other day that I had acquired the status of the patron saint of small abattoirs. I can assure your Lordships that that is a degree of sanctity to which I do not begin to aspire. But I nevertheless plead the cause of small abattoirs and perhaps of the re-opening of those which closed when they could not sustain the Meat Hygiene Service charges which were in force but could perhaps if those charges were properly reduced. Many farmers are amazed about what is going on in livestock trading. They say, "We had no idea. Thousands of animals were travelling hundreds of miles backwards and forwards across the country. What is this about?" People who have lived all their lives in farming simply did not know that it was happening.
How can we restrain this ludicrous trade? How can we create sustainable local farming networks? How can we do more to make sure that we reduce food miles and educate people to buy the food which is produced on their doorstep? I hope and pray that we can do more in that direction. Are these livestock networks necessary? I think not. Quite clearly, it is not possible to say that intensive farming and the closure of abattoirs are responsible for the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, but those are both aspects of farming

733
that we need to resist and reverse. Above all, our thoughts and prayers are with those who are suffering at this time.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, as always, it is a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, who is in some respects a neighbour of mine. I now declare my interest. I have a home in Radnorshire, which is an infected area; I own 33 acres of upland grassland, which I let out to a neighbouring farmer; I am a vice-president of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales; and I am president of the Radnor branch of CPRW. I am glad to follow the right reverend Prelate as he is the president of the CPRE in Herefordshire.
There are two different agendas to this debate. The first is the general one about the countryside. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, was very eloquent when, as she said, she moved on to her speech about the countryside. That is also true of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. There is another much more pressing agenda, which was dealt with in most moving terms by the noble Countess, Lady Mar. It is the present problem of foot and mouth disease. I propose to concentrate on that.
Radnor is a small county in mid-Wales. It is part of the enlarged county of Powys. It consists for the most part of upland grassland. It is sheep farming and walking country and thrives on a successful farming industry and successful tourism. Perhaps I may describe to noble Lords what is happening at the moment, because it is dire.
The current situation is as follows. Farmers are confined to their own premises. The postman does not come into the farm. He must stop at the hay or straw piled on the path and he cannot get through. Rubbish is not collected because it needs to be set out close to a main road. The towns of Llandrindod Wells, Builth Wells and Prestatyn are almost dead. Once-a-week shopping takes place in the local supermarkets. The small shops on Middleton Street in Llandrindod Wells and on High Street in Builth Wells have no clientele. The newsagents, small butchers and so forth are all suffering. Tourism has fallen to zero. Mid-Wales is a great centre for tourism, in particular around Easter. However, now people are having to close down bedand-breakfast houses and lay off staff working in hotels. Restaurants—those that we have—and pubs are starting to feel the effects of this crisis.
The local communities are being extremely cooperative, apart from one or two people who walk their dogs. They are told by the farmers to get off the land. That is quite right and, on the whole, things are working well. However, what does not work well is, first, the information—here I echo the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford—coming through to farmers about the current conditions. Most people in mid-Wales do not own computers; small farmers do not have access to the MAFF website. I have such access, but to be honest, I do not find it satisfactory.
734
I spoke to my neighbour this morning. She told me that, since the beginning of this crisis, she—the wife of a farmer—had not received one communication from MAFF. That is my first complaint, if I may so put it to my noble friend. That strikes me as being extremely odd. Some kind of network should be put in place to offer a reasonable degree of information to those who are in dire distress.
The second problem is the banks. Everyone knows that if you are holding stock which you cannot sell, which must be fed because it is still too cold for the grass to grow in Radnor, then your cashflow will be seriously unbalanced. On the whole, the banks are being supportive, but my latest information is that Barclays Bank in Builth Wells has said to my neighbours and to others: "We shall give you a three-month moratorium on interest or repayments on overdrafts". I do not need to tell noble Lords that a period of three months is absolutely nothing when compared with the increase in debt that farmers will incur through higher feeding costs. They need to feed their sheep and they cannot sell them. Furthermore, that does not take into account the six months' period after a farm has been declared clear of disease. The banks have a responsibility, to which I shall return later in my remarks.
I shall now turn to tourism. The concern is not only that staff in hotels are being laid off and that the pubs are empty, but rather that the whole infrastructure of the rural economy is being damaged. Garages, newsagents and small shops are all suffering. The roads are empty. That problem has to he reversed and, again, the banks have a role to play here.
Although I have thought about this problem, I do not know how compensation can be paid for loss of income which is not immediately related to the loss of stock. When she comes to wind up the debate, I shall be grateful if my noble friend could offer some help on this matter. Although one can say that a person may have lost income because his hotel was not fully occupied, can the same be said of a newsagent which has gone out of business because the visitors who were supposed to be in the hotel would have bought their newspapers at that newsagent? I do not know how these matters will be calculated, but I hope that my noble friend will be able to indicate the Government thinking.
Long-term problems will have to be faced. If small shops go bankrupt in the streets of the three towns that I have mentioned—Llandrindod Wells, Builth Wells and Prestatyn—they will never come back. The supermarkets have a grip on food supplies in those three towns. We run the risk that the high street atmosphere of these small mid-Wales towns will be lost. Even though we may sort out the immediate problem, that kind of problem will also have to be addressed.
As I have said, I have three matters which I hope that my noble friend will be able to address. The first is the question of information. I believe that the MAFF website could be much better. My neighbours in Radnor should be properly informed about the

735
incidents taking place in their local area, without having to watch the news on the BBC. They risk hearing reports along the lines of, "Oh dear, we have an outbreak in Painscastle which will come to us". They need to know the truth of the matter.
Secondly, I should like to ask about the role of the banks. This matter will be tremendously important in Radnor. Perhaps the area will serve as a paradigm for the rest of the country, but I cannot talk about the rest of the country. It will be essential for local banks to be supportive of farmers and the small industries and services related to farming which depend on the facilities provided by their local banks. After all, the banks are making enormous profits. I hope very much that the Government will bring pressure to bear on the banks to ensure that they are supportive.
My third point partly concerns information, but primarily it concerns wind. When I consulted the MAFF website the day before yesterday, an item appeared which declared that an outbreak in the Isle of Wight in 1981 was probably due to wind carrying the virus from Brittany to the Isle of Wight. As soon as an item of that kind is put onto the website and the information gets around a local farming community, people will worry that the wind can carry the virus from anywhere to anywhere. Until we are given a clear statement by the Chief Veterinary Officer about what the wind can do and how it can carry the virus, I do not believe that the Government can declare that the virus is under control.
"The wind bloweth where it listeth".
We need to be told where, how and under what meteorological and topographical circumstances that will work.
I shall return to the example of Radnor. People living there are terrified that an outbreak in Caernarfon, which was mooted today, or an outbreak in Devon may be carried on the wind and brought to their farms.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, perhaps the most effective way for my noble friend to get that information to his friends in Radnor would be for me to tell him now. So far as concerns wind-spread, it is correct that it is believed that the cause of the outbreak on the Isle of Wight was a plume of virus which came over from France. It is also believed that that plume dropped on Jersey on the way and caused the outbreak on Jersey.
I can reassure my noble friend that there is a complicated computer programme which maps out the plume that is likely to be infective and the days on which it has been infective. It is not easy to give a simple answer. It depends on climate, on moisture content, on weather conditions, on prevailing winds, and on the topography of an area, whether it is in a valley or not.
I can reassure my noble friend that there have been very few wind-borne cases in this outbreak. The reason for that is that for anything other than distances normally under 0.7 of a kilometre, wind-borne spread
736
is only an issue when pigs are involved. In this outbreak we have not had, thank goodness, large numbers of pig herds involved. That has been a saving grace in terms of wind-borne disease, which was the main factor in the spread of the disease in 1967.
On the downside, we have had a great deal of disease in sheep. It is a less virulent disease and not wind-borne in the same way, but it is subject to the enormous movements that other noble Lords have spoken of today.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I hope that she realises that she has put that firmly on the record. I have promised my neighbours in Radnor that I would produce from this House today a firm statement on what the effect of wind was or might be. If, as my noble friend said, it is this, that and the other, I shall simply say, "Well, that is the way it goes". But, if my noble friend would be kind enough, I should like her in her reply to put something a bit firmer on the record so that I can—
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I do not want to deceive my noble friend. I cannot tell him that it will be 10 kilometres within Radnorshire tomorrow. I do not know what the weather will be like; I do not know whether pigs will be infected; I do not know the topography. I can tell my noble friend that there is a great deal of academic research into this; that the chief vet is on top of that academic research; that we have two epidemiologists from New Zealand who have worked out programmes on this and are working out the plumes in every infected area; and that the veterinary authorities, in identifying dangerous contacts surrounding any outbreak, take into account that work. But I cannot give my noble friend a figure for individual outbreaks. I believe that other noble Lords appreciate that.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I fully understand that. As my noble friend goes on, she is giving me more comfort that I can explain to people.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, may be giving the noble Lord more and more comfort as she goes on, but this is a take-note debate and not a Committee stage.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am not sure what is the noble Earl's point. I was making a speech and my noble friend intervened in order to reply. What is the problem?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I quite agree; the noble Baroness did intervene to reply. But then the noble Lord made a bit more of a speech and invited her to reply again. So, in the end, the poor noble Baroness will have to rise two or three times. I am suggesting that that is more akin to a Committee stage than to a take-note debate.
Lord Williams of Elvel: On the contrary, my Lords. The noble Earl did not hear me. I asked whether my

737
noble friend could firm up her intervention when she responds to the debate. We are getting into ridiculous arguments at this point.
I am grateful to my noble friend. We are now firmer on the wind problem. I shall pass this on to those whom I know in Radnor. Like the right reverend Prelate, I support the Government basically in the policy they are pursuing. However, I believe that there are still problems with lambing, ewes, culling and so on. No doubt my noble friend will respond to those issues when she comes to reply to the debate.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, the House should be grateful for the opportunity to debate this issue today. The livestock industry in this country will also be grateful to hear some of its concerns and fears expressed and dealt with.
The United Kingdom periodically is visited by devastating animal plagues such as the one that is upon us at this time; that is, foot and mouth disease. In the 19th century, this country was subject to another awful disease known as cattle-plague or rinderpest, when thousands of small dairies in London and elsewhere were affected over a long period of time. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford may wish to note that it was so serious that the then Archbishop of Canterbury offered a national prayer to,
"save the country from this awful pestilence".
The right reverend Prelate's offer to contact the present Archbishop of Canterbury for a national prayer may, if t may say so, be very appropriate.
The outbreak in the mid-19th century was controlled by a slaughter policy, which took a number of months, even years, to complete. More recently, in 1967, we had foot and mouth disease in sheep carcasses from Argentina. Now, some 30 years later, we start off in Northumbria with foot and mouth disease at a swill-feeding farm. The origin of the virus in that initial farm is not known. although the type of virus is known and has been typed as type 0 of the pan-Asian strain. It has been associated with recent outbreaks in Japan, Korea, Russia and Mongolia.
The foot arid mouth virus is one of the smallest that we know of. It is highly infectious and readily spread by contact, by contamination, by wind-borne spread, which has just been discussed, and by droplet infections. Although infected animals usually recover from foot and mouth disease, the disease is far from trivial. It has severe effects on productivity—especially on milk production, which is severely depressed throughout subsequent lactations. Meat-producing animals lose flesh rapidly and only come back to full productivity many weeks, if not months, later. Abortion of pregnant animals is quite common. Very young animals may die from the infection. With highly virulent forms of the virus, mortality may be high. In 1997, an outbreak in Taiwan, which was due to this strain of the virus, produced very high mortality in piglets. Breeding programmes are disrupted. Animals which recover are carriers of the virus and shed the virus for infection of other animals.
738
In addition to causing economic loss—some people have said that this is an economic disease and that we need not worry about it, but that is not so—it is also a welfare disease. Animals with blisters on their tongues, their mouths and their feet suffer seriously. That is why they are lame and why they cannot eat the normal food; and that is why they salivate extensively, which is one of the cardinal signs of foot and mouth disease.
The slaughter policy that we adopt in this country has been questioned by many, including the newspapers—especially when it is on an appalling scale and we see tens of thousands of animals slaughtered to control the disease. Many people rightly ask: is this the only policy we have? The sight of piles of dead animals awaiting incineration merely emphasises the queries that they have.
But as crude and as apparently outmoded as this method of control is, it is the most appropriate way to deal with outbreaks of foot and mouth disease. Western Europe has been free of the disease for many years. That freedom was achieved by following the British example of eradicating foot and mouth disease by means of the slaughter policy. Prior to that, western European controlled the disease by means of vaccination.
One of the problems with vaccinations is that they provide only short-term cover of six to eight months. Vaccinations protect from the clinical disease, but vaccinated animals may also be shedders of the virus for other animals. Further, there are many strains of the virus: there are seven major strains but several sub-strains. Each one must be protected against by means of a specific vaccine. So, not only should we need to vaccinate against the present type O pan-Asian strain; we should need to have in reserve a large number of other vaccines in order to cover against any other virus that entered the country.
Were we to vaccinate, we should be unable to export our livestock, meat or meat products until the last case of vaccination had "died off' before we could renew our export trade. Indeed, the cost of a vaccine, the cost of administering it and the loss of trade greatly outweigh our slaughter policy. No country that is free of foot and mouth disease would even contemplate vaccination at this time. All countries that are free of the disease have adopted the slaughter policy.
The right reverend Prelate mentioned work that is going on in the laboratory at Plum Island in the United States, which is similar to our virus research laboratory at Pirbright. Scientists there are working on a generic vaccine. The research might provide a more effective vaccine. But in the meantime, we have to rely on the slaughter policy.
The public are concerned. We have all been talking to farmers up and down the country about the piles of carcasses awaiting incineration. Questions have been raised in this debate about their safety as regards the possible transmission of infection. I give the Minister full marks for her explanation as to why the piles of carcasses do not present as great a risk as do the living animals, which are the real source of concern. The answer to such worries and conundrums is that the

739
virus lurks in the bone marrow. That is where it is often found in an imported carcass. Indeed, in times gone by, the existence of the virus in bone marrow in beef and mutton from Argentina led to the transmission of infection.
A further point has been raised in regard to the slaughter policy; namely, if the virus gets into rare breeds of animals, slaughter may result in the disappearance of those breeds. I ask the Minister whether her department has thought about what might be done to safeguard rare breeds. Techniques such as the freezing of embryos and spermatozoa and embryo transfer could be useful in that regard.
Support for our programme of slaughter for the control of foot and mouth disease has come from many countries around the world. They have commented on and praised the rapidity with which we have attended to this major problem. Particular praise has come from Dr Yves Cheneau, chief of the animal health service, and Dr Yves Leforban, secretary of the European Commission for the Control of Foot-and-Mouth Disease of the Food and Agriculture Organisation. In a letter to the Veterinary Record last week, they praised the British stand and the action that we have taken.
Another aspect to the outbreak, which has spread so far, is the question of the feeding of swill to pig herds. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, referred to the brief outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the 1990s in the Isle of Wight. In that outbreak the virus was indeed wind-borne; but as the Minister said, special conditions are applicable to the transport of the virus in droplet form by wind. Indeed, the Isle of Wight outbreak was projected to happen. Workers at Pirbright projected some time beforehand that it would come from the vaccine plant in Brittany, as indeed it did. But the situation is not simple. Many factors are involved. Other than that outbreak, all our recent outbreaks of the disease—and probably of swine fever—have been due to the feeding of swill. There is now a question as to whether swill feeding should be allowed to carry on in this country because of the dangers that it poses.
The 1980 European Community directive contributes to the issue somewhat. The directive related to the control of swine fever but is applicable to the control of foot and mouth disease. Under the directive, all swill at international airports must be destroyed. It is not allowed to be used for animal feed. It must be collected and destroyed under official supervision. Swill for the feeding of pigs must be heat-treated and then the pigs must go directly to slaughter and must be transported in leak-proof vehicles. Only Sweden has an outright ban on swill feeding.
Swill feeding has declined considerably over the past 30 years. In 1967 several thousand pig herds were fed pig swill. But now the number is down to approximately 100. The practice is clearly on its way out. It should be remembered that it is one of the more profitable sides of pig farming because the swill is free; in fact, pig farmers are often paid to take it away.
740
I have been able to assess the situation in the United States, where people are very concerned about the importation of foot and mouth disease. I have just received information from the USDA. There, the feeding of swill is allowed, but it must be thoroughly boiled at a temperature of 212 degrees Fahrenheit or 100 degrees Centigrade for at least 30 minutes under supervision. I am afraid that our regulations do not carry such specific directions. Our animal by-products order of 1999 does not specify time and temperature; it merely says that an appropriate treatment should be adopted. That is one area where I believe that the regulations must be tightened up.
I turn briefly to the role of the farming economy, which I believe is associated with our present problems. As my noble friend Lady Byford pointed out, it is universally accepted that farming is in an economic crisis. So it is. This means that farmers cut back on many of the essential parts of their farming enterprise, including that of visits by their veterinary surgeon. A survey carried out by the Society of Practising Veterinary Surgeons indicates that the number of visits has gone down by at least a third, if not more. Therefore, the diseases that are common in pigs—and for that matter in sheep—are not seen on a regular basis, or the ill-health is not examined on a regular basis. Farmers tend to reduce the number of visits to fit in with the quality assessment schemes that must be undertaken to satisfy the supermarkets.
Therefore, along with fewer visits and the marked contraction of the Veterinary Investigation Service, or the Veterinary Laboratory Agency, it is possible that these diseases have been missed. Indeed, that could well be an explanation for the particular case in Northumbria. This is a compromise of disease surveillance. On a previous occasion in this House, I mentioned the importance of surveillance and the need to be vigilant. We should be very proud of our veterinary services in this country. They have responded to the present crisis in a magnificent way—from the Chief Veterinary Officer, James Scudamore, down to the general practitioners who have given up their time to help with the outbreak.
The outbreak raises many questions. I am pleased that the Minister has said that a full inquiry will follow when the disease is eradicated from the United Kingdom. I shall conclude by saying that the price of freedom from disease in this country is eternal vigilance. We must ensure that we maintain that vigilance to retain our freedom from such plagues as we have at present.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, perhaps I may remind noble Lords that the Companion to the Standing Orders suggests that speeches should be kept within 15 minutes' duration.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it is customary to declare one's interests at the start of any speech. However, I have so many interests, and am wearing so many hats in this debate, that I shall merely say that I speak as a Cumbrian, a Member of the European

741
Parliament for the north-west of England, and a onetime Member of the European Parliament for Cumbria and Lancashire North, as a farmer, a landowner with some let farms—one of which was confirmed as having foot and mouth as I drafted this speech—and as someone with interests in the tourist industry in that region.
Some of what I shall say will be personal, but, while it may be my voice, I am not trying to speak for myself as an individual: I speak for others who cannot speak in your Lordships' House. I seek no special sympathy for myself. I am fortunate. Many others who are affected are much less so. All of us experience misfortunes in life. What one has to do is pick oneself up from the floor when things go wrong. If I sound upset, it is because I am upset. I do not apologise for that; but perhaps noble Lords will please forgive me.
Foot and mouth, as the statistics have shown, has taken a very strong grip on north-east Cumbria where I live, and also in adjoining south-west Scotland. This is not the only area where it is strongly established—indeed, Devon springs to mind—but it is the area that I know best, and so it is the one that I can speak about. The farming community has retreated into itself behind walls of disinfected straw. Rumours abound, and gossip has it that most livestock between Penrith and Langholm might be wiped out. It is not a question of if one gets the disease; it is a matter of when.
It exploded in my dairy herd on Sunday morning. This was hardly a surprise as it was all around us. We could not get a ministry vet until yesterday, Monday, and that was a bit of a struggle. The outbreak was confirmed in the middle of the day. The valuers have been in prior to slaughter and 200-plus pedigree dairy cows will be destroyed and buried in quick lime on the farm. We may have been lucky as our young stock and sheep are separately housed and are kept on separate holdings, so we are temporarily reprieved. But, in reality, I confidently expect that they will end up with the disease and follow the fate of the dairy cows. It is one of the worst episodes of my life, but how much more so for my staff, my manager and, indeed, for my head cowman who has milked these cows most days for more than 12 years.
I was talking last night on the telephone to a member of the family who farms near Longtown, quite close to the notorious mart where it all began. His animals are being destroyed today. As I spoke, he said that if he looked out of the north-facing window he could see four pyres burning, and that if he looked out the east window he could see five. There is an extraordinary kind of medieval savagery about this plague, but it must not be allowed to get in the way of rational debate about what is happening.
It seems to me that there are three aspects that need to be discussed. First, how did the outbreak occur, and where did it come from? Secondly, what is being done now, and what happens in the immediate future? Thirdly, we need to consider what this may or may not mean for CAP reform. In my view, the first and the last aspects are matters for another day. It is the second
742
aspect that matters now. However, we need to be clear: this problem is not one that has anything per se to do with intensive farming.
What happened to my farm business, and is happening to that of many other people, is akin to a direct hit on the magazine of a battleship: it explodes instantly and disappears in seconds. The past two years have seen one of the worst agricultural recessions this century. The principal reason for that has been the Government's agri- monetary policy, which has meant that some sectors have only been able to provide a farmer with a standard of living less than that of the minimum wage. In Article 39 of the Treaty of Rome, the Community, and with it the member states, is committed to ensuring,
"a fair standard of living for the agricultural community".
I do not see how one can argue that that has happened, given some of the returns at the levels that I have just described. In short, as I said in public weeks before: this crisis and, I believe, in your Lordships' House, the United Kingdom's agricultural policy, which is part of the CAP, is in breach of the Treaty of Rome.
Quite rightly, we in this country are very anxious that other member states should honour their treaty commitments and obligations. United Kingdom agriculture is equally entitled to be sure that its government are honouring their obligations under the treaty. Indeed, had they actually done so, UK agriculture would have been infinitely better placed to deal with the current crisis than is the case. I was certainly brought up to be always on my guard, as cheap is so often synonymous with shoddy.
Nevertheless, we, and all the other farmers who are affected, are like Talleyrand—we survived, just. For us, it was beginning to look a bit better until Sunday. The cows were milking well and the ewes were thriving. In Cumbria, those on the ground who are dealing with the crisis have worked like Trojans and no praise individually can be too high. Equally, in my view, the basic approach adopted by the Government must be right. That view was endorsed by Commissioner Byrne in the European Parliament in Brussels 10 days ago What I believe has gone wrong is what lies between them.
As has already been mentioned, once animals show symptoms of the disease they are hugely infectious. Right from the start there has been delay in getting vets to certify the outbreaks and then more days' delay until animals are slaughtered, leaving infected animals to exhale the infection into the atmosphere hour after hour, indeed, day after day. As we have already heard, it is transmitted easily by wind and by birds. Dead carcasses, which are less infectious, have been left lying around for days and have been eaten by crows and vermin, even though I am absolutely sure that some of the more extravagant stories are exaggerated. Indeed, the vet's report on the outbreak in my herd suggests that one of those sources may be the cause of my herd's infection. There is, I believe, a real and direct relationship between a number of instances of foot and mouth and the failure by the Government as a whole to move with sufficient speed which all the evidence justifies and has shown to be essential.

743
Once my cows are infected they should be slaughtered as soon as possible. We did not need a vet to tell a skilled stockman the problem. First of all, I do not wish the disease on my neighbours. Secondly, contrary to some press reports, this is not a benign condition, as a number of speakers have already said. The poor animals should be swiftly killed in as dignified a way as possible, both for their own sake and for the sake of those who looked after and, in many cases, loved them.
The Government have created a bureaucratic machine to push the paper. Why do the beasts need to be individually examined and valued when alive? With the benefit of milk records and experience a decent valuer can do it. It is the classic case of the public purse knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. Bureaucratic procedures precisely followed are costing animals' lives and families' livelihoods, and, what matters to "bean counters", the loss and expenditure of public money.
I was pleased to hear from the noble Baroness who has been so helpful throughout this crisis that more personnel have been drafted in. I join in the question posed by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, about the role of the Army. While that measure has certainly in my view been taken too late, I hope that it is not a case of too few personnel being involved. All strength and good fortune to them, but it is more important to move with speed than it is to avoid over-deploying people. It will also be cheaper in the long run.
The effect of an outbreak on a farm is twofold. First, as has already been explained, the Government provide compensation for the stock. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to confirm that there will be prompt payment, or at least some payment on account quite quickly. After all, just because one's income stops does not mean that the bills no longer come in. The noble Lord, Lord Haskins, who buys my milk, will not pay me anything if he does not get any.
I was also pleased to hear the noble Baroness's comments about premia which would be paid in respect of animals that had recently been, or were about to be, slaughtered. Quite apart from that—this has already been touched on by a number of speakers—rigid controls and restrictions are placed on the holding and its buildings which in certain circumstances amount to a de facto requisition of the assets for a time. I am sure that this may well be necessary in the public interest. But, for example, it means that a dairy farmer—this is quite apart from movement restrictions—cannot straight away acquire more cattle and start up again as, for example, a second-hand car dealer might do if his showroom was burned down.
I understand that no help is forthcoming under that heading because CAP rules do not allow it. However, quite apart from that, it is my view that the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and possibly also certain clauses in the recently signed European Charter of Fundamental Rights and general EU jurisprudence may well be relevant to that aspect.
744
At this point I merely ask the Minister to keep that in mind as, while I may be wrong, this does not look to me like a purely agricultural issue.
So far I have focused on farming, but in Cumbria the tourist industry is a much more extensive employer and contributes a larger part of the county's GDP. If you cannot go walking in the Lake District, for many people there is not all that much point in being there at all. Most of them have worked that out for themselves. But that was clearly foreseeable when the fells were closed. The tourist boards have in my view quite rightly drawn that point to the Government's attention and have asked, not unreasonably, for assistance to help their members deal with the inevitable and foreseeable consequence of the Government's decisions which have been taken in the wider public interest.
I wish to flag up another important point as regards tourism and agricultural interests. What are the implications for national parks if the disease spreads over the hefted flocks? That is already a concern in Dartmoor and it would be a problem of an entirely different order of magnitude in the Lake District. In short—this may seem a curious point—how would you keep grass down on the fells if there were no sheep to do it? Once a sheep has lost its heaf, it cannot be conjured back again out of thin air.
Let us be clear that what are not needed are more farm or rural diversification grants. Despite certain obvious problems, the structure of rural agriculture and tourism is not the real issue. The real problem is that of little or no cash flow and the destruction of trading assets. Last week, before my own troubles emerged, I raised the matter of the banks. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, made a significant point in that regard. Some banks are taking certain helpful steps in response to the crisis, and good for them. But I believe that what is needed is a means of preserving businesses which cannot trade profitably now but which have every expectation of being able to do so once conditions get back to normal. It is interesting to note that in its continental manifestation the CAP has a long tradition of subsidising credit. Perhaps that provides a useful opening.
In addition, as has already been mentioned, many small businesses will not be able to produce a cash income to pay the grocery bills. For immediate practical purposes they have ceased to exist, at least for the time being, but their proprietors are not out of work. It occurred to me that some provision might be included—as quickly as possible because speed is of the essence—in jobseeker's allowance to enable people affected by the crisis to draw some cash until they can get their old jobs back from their own businesses. My next point arises from my thoughts on my predicament. What about some kind of general capital gains tax rollover relief for affected businesses?
Many people in the countryside are going through hell. I have mentioned some of them but there is no need to enumerate them all. However, foot and mouth is here. The first, overriding priority must be to eradicate the pestilence as soon as possible. The next

745
priority concerns the future, as it does for those threatened by changes at Vauxhall or at Corus where workers experience similar worries, although, mercifully, not the horror of the crisis that I am discussing. I hope that this Government, and their successor of whatever political persuasion, will pursue those two priorities without dogma, ideology or preconception and will focus on practical measures to help the countryside and to help real people, because that is what this crisis is all about.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I express my sympathy for his loss. I appreciate the way in which he was able to speak of his problems in the context of his own area and in a European context. I also appreciate the helpful suggestions he made for the possible alleviation of the problems which face the country as a result of the epidemic.
I am sorry to say that a note has been passed to me since the commencement of the debate which states that on the six o'clock news it was announced that there are now 205 cases in the country. That figure is higher than the one the noble Baroness mentioned at the beginning of the debate.
I believe that towards the conclusion of her opening address the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, mentioned the task force that had been set up. I thought that she was rather coy about it, or perhaps my hearing was at fault. Is it intended that the task force will deal with the immediate problem or with the long-term problems of the countryside and country life? I was not clear about that.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I was not being coy. It was only set up this morning. I was there when the Prime Minister agreed with various interests that it would be an important and valuable asset. Its terms of reference are: to continue to monitor the wider difficulties posed by FMD for the rural economy as a whole—that, goes wider than MAFF, which understands the agricultural implications; to look at the specifics of immediate advice which could be given, for example, on restarting tourism in ways which did not compromise disease; and to look at the longer term possibilities for kick-starting the rural economy at the end of the outbreak.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I am always dubious about using military terms such as a task force which suggest immediate action with drastic steps being taken. One often suspects that the setting up of an organisation so entitled is a propaganda front which sounds fine but will have few co-ordination powers and will soon be forgotten. However, in setting it up, the Prime Minister seems, at last, to be aware of real rural problems. If it were an effective task force, it could be of great benefit to the country. It is high time such a task force was set up. My point relates to all political parties of whatever complexion. For many
746
years it has been difficult for the rural community to have an adequate voice as regards the policies of this country. A task force which represents the true interests of the countryside will be welcome.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. mentioned some of the immediate problems affecting the rural community. I sometimes gain an impression of a lack of grass roots common sense when dealing with some of the problems faced by the rural community at present.
Perhaps I may refer to my experience when I 'was a Member of Parliament for Montgomeryshire. Oswestry, the constituency of the noble Lord, Lord Biffen, bordered on mine and was at the centre of the foot and mouth disease epidemic in 1967. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, will follow. He was on the committee of inquiry into that outbreak. Being adjacent to the main centre of the outbreak, I knew a good deal about it. I had the impression then that people got down to the problem more effectively. For example, when animals had to be slaughtered on the farm, a JCB was brought in immediately; the animals were slaughtered, buried in a trench on the farm and quick lime to a depth of about a foot was placed on the carcasses. That occurred on many farms in Shropshire. No risk was taken. The carcasses were not delivered somewhere else.
I compare that situation with a story I heard this morning about the movement of carcasses from Anglesey to the Cheshire depot for rendering in so-called sealed lorries. The odd thing about the sealed lorries was that various limbs were protruding from them. Those bodies are being moved many miles from Anglesey to the rendering plant. Why were they not buried in Anglesey and quick lime put on them? I do not know whether the Minister knows the answer.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I apologise to the House because I am delaying matters. However, one has to answer some issues at once. Burial is an option but only when we do not cause more problems in environmental terms than we would solve by burial. Water tables are very high at present. Noble Lords will be well aware of that following flooding. We cannot go against the Environment Agency's advice about contaminating water courses through burial in circumstances where it is not satisfactory It is an option; it is assessed as an option.
The other difference is that in the 1967 outbreak one was dealing with 20 or 30 animals on a farm. We are dealing now with very large numbers, of sheep in particular. That means that burial is logistically much more difficult.
As regards sealed lorries, if people have the numbers of lorries which have had limbs protruding I shall be happy to follow that up. We have to be careful about anecdote. Strong measures are taken to ensure that corpses are disinfected and the lorries sealed and tested

747
to ensure that they do not leak at 30 degrees. If anything is going wrong with that, let us have the specifics rather than general anecdote.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I am very impressed by her knowledge. I accept the point about the high water table and understand that that can be an effective argument in certain areas. I still believe that burial is possible in some areas.
I heard on the telephone about an infected farm in Dumfries where cattle had been slaughtered at the weekend but the sheep were still about yesterday. The point has already been raised about the ineffective coordination in some areas. The noble Baroness cannot answer for particular failures in certain areas. But who is in charge of the different areas? Is an officer appointed in a specific area to be responsible for slaughter, co-ordination and so on?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the divisional veterinary manager would be the responsible person in the animal health office which covered the infected premises.
I understand what the noble Lord says. However, the Chief Veterinary Officer has made clear his priorities in terms of slaughter. Pigs have to be slaughtered at once. We have worked through the night when we have had cases of pigs. The next priority is cattle. The next priority is sheep. That is related to infectivity. When one has a resource that is not infinite, one has to prioritise.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, what is the logic of the projected slaughter of the unaffected pregnant ewes which have been away wintering? What is the justification for that? In her introductory remarks, the Minister said that if the sheep are within five kilometres of their home base it may be possible to return them to that land. Few ewes away wintering will be within five kilometres of their base. That scheme is a non-starter. It seems an enormous waste to get rid of pregnant ewes in this way if there were a possibility of arranging suitable transport between the wintering area and the home base—assuming that neither is an affected area. Surely it is possible to allow movements to their home base.
I turn to the economic, social and psychological effects of the outbreak. As many noble Lords know, I have lived in a farming community most of my life. I live in mid-Wales. One sees the effect on rural communities, described by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. It is almost as though the towns were in a state of siege. The high streets are empty, the shops are empty, the pubs are empty and the hotels are empty. The problem is very serious. Farmers are in despair. I noted this morning in The Times, I think, that in Devon, which has also been affected, the police were persuading farmers to give up their shotguns because they feared that they were becoming suicidal.
748
I understand how farmers in remote farms can get to that state of mind. The public do not fully appreciate the economic, social and psychological effects of the outbreak. The Minister of Agriculture has been effective in his presentations on television, talking about what the Government are doing, but they now need to take effective action. The have to do something that shows that they genuinely appreciate the effects on the rural community.
Questions have been asked as to whether it is possible to expedite the payment of sheep subsidy. Can we be assured that we have exhausted all the help that is available from Brussels, which has to be matched by funding from this country? If we have not, we should make sure that we have everything that is available. Are there any emergency funds available in Brussels other than the ones that have been mentioned?
We also have a Chancellor with a large surplus. It is said that Scrooge was a prudent man—good, sound and ethical up to a point. However, Scrooge went over the top, and the Chancellor is in danger of doing the same. He must appreciate that we have a national crisis that affects the whole of the rural community, which has not done very well under this Government so far. In the next week or so, I hope and trust that the Government will demonstrate by their actions that they are doing something about the rural community and the effects of the outbreak.
Lastly, I do not dispute for a moment that the Government are tackling the immediate problem in the right way. The priority is to get rid of the disease from this country. However, thereafter the Government must look at the problems of the rural community as a whole. I should be delighted to hear confirmation that the task force is intended to produce an effective long-term plan for the countryside. I missed that in the Minister's original announcement. Such a plan has been long overdue from this Government and their predecessors. The foot and mouth outbreak has highlighted the condition of the countryside to the rest of the country. I hope that something is now going to be done about it.
6.44 p.m.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness for updating us on a situation which has apparently got worse while we have been here talking. I join many others in thanking her for her co-operation during recent weeks. The situation has been tough for her and for all concerned with rural affairs, particularly the agricultural industry.
I ask the Minister to convey our thanks to Jim Scudamore for the tremendous job he is doing. His presentations have been very helpful. I also convey our thanks to all the veterinarians who are working in this tragic situation. At this moment, while we are here talking about the problems, they are working out in the fields and buildings.
In yesterday's debate on hunting, many people stressed the importance of animal welfare. That is a concern for all of us, as my noble friend Lord Byford said. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, also make a moving speech about that.

749
In today's debate on a national disaster and the state of agriculture as we see it now, we have to consider all aspects of welfare, not only of animals, but of the farming families who are suffering from the stressful business they are in. I could not help but wonder, when my noble friend Lord Inglewood was speaking, how many other noble Lords have been able to speak in debates on foot and mouth disease of their own experiences that day.
In times of adversity, people often get together. Perhaps at this moment the consumer begins to realise that food does not grow on supermarket shelves. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells made a noble speech yesterday, referring to the lack of understanding between rural and urban people. He gave a fine example of maintaining our national sport in the countryside without interference. As a farmer, I thank the right reverend Prelates for the tremendous support we always get from them on rural affairs. Today we heard from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford. It is a comfort to know that their thoughts and prayers are with the farming community at this time. Through the Rank Centre and the Royal Showground at Stoneleigh, the Church is bringing together a number of associations concerned with stress and creating a fund to give modest help to those in need. I am president of the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution, a very fine body which has raised a further £120,000 during the past two weeks. However, its work is increasing and we are having great difficulty keeping up with the requests—they are not demands—from many farming families for essential expenditure such as groceries.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said, I served on the 1967–69 foot and mouth inquiry. I am of an age when I can remember things from 35 years ago much more easily than things that happened last week. Today's disaster is like a holocaust for me. I was in among it on the previous outbreak. Having been a member of the committee of inquiry that reviewed the 1967–68 outbreak, I have more than a passing interest in what is happening today.
There are a few fundamental differences between the outbreak then and the one now. First, that outbreak was almost entirely confined to the dairy herds of Shropshire and the north Midlands. As my noble friend Lord Biffen will know from his own experience during that time, the outbreak in Oswestry started very near to where he lives.
On that occasion, the scale of the outbreak involved some 400,000 head of stock over a period of approximately eight months. It is significant that to date, in just over three weeks, already well in excess of 100,000 animals have been affected. As I said, in the previous outbreak the spread pattern, which was much tighter, was concentrated in the counties of Cheshire and Shropshire. The present outbreak has already penetrated most of the important livestock growing areas.
The speed of the spread of the current outbreak has been the subject of much speculation and conjecture. Although it has not as yet been totally established, I
750
believe that it is likely to be proven that the root cause of the present problem started with a meat product imported into this country. We did not have the disease here and, therefore, it had to come into the country from somewhere, entering, first, I believe, into the pig herd as waste human food, used in the so-called "swill" feeding system. As we know, and as we have been reminded by the noble Baroness, once the disease is established in pigs, the excretion of the virus is approximately 50 times greater than it is in other species, with cattle the second and sheep the least infective.
In that context, therefore, I make a strong plea for two things. Perhaps I am a little more bold than my noble friend Lord Soulsby, who referred to this issue. First, I believe that there should be an immediate and permanent ban on all swill feeding. It accounts for only a tiny proportion of feed for pigs. Secondly, far greater effort should be made to police all meat and other food produce at the point of entry into this country, as; In the case of the United States, Australia and various other countries with which we deal.
I should have been in Washington today. I did not go because of the importance of this debate. If i had gone to Washington and if I had been honest. as I would have been, I would have had to declare that I had been on a farm in the past 24 hours. They would have taken me apart. They would have taken away my shoes and steam-cleaned them, and they would have made sure that everything that I was carring was checked and double-checked and that I was not carrying anything that might spread the disease.
Having started in pigs, the disease is believed to have been transmitted by air to a local beef and sheep farm and, from there, via an extremely modern lairage at Hexham to the now famous Longtown market and into the trading fraternity. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford referred to that fact. He said that farmers expressed their surprise that animals are moved in that way through dealers and traders.
It may help to develop an understanding of the entire business if I provide some statistics. In 1967 there were some 400,000 livestock farms, some 500 auction markets and over 2,000 abattoirs. Meat was retailed through over 30,000 outlets. Today, less than half that number of farms have livestock, there are well under half the number of auction markets, the abattoir numbers have reduced to under 400—less than one-fifth of the previous number—while there are approximately 10,000 retail butchers. The supermarket involvement in retailing started in 1967, but it is worth identifying that in 1977 supermarkets accounted for 25 per cent of meat sales. Today, they account for 75 per cent of meat sales, with butchers selling only 13 per cent of the total. The other 11 per cent is sold through freezer outlets.
Therefore, a picture can be built up of a significant shift in the number of producers, with the greatest reduction occurring among pig producers, of whom there are fewer and fewer every day. There has been a drop in the number of abattoirs and a corresponding dominance by the multiple retail outlets. The

751
supermarkets in particular have a significant trading hold over a few large abattoirs and wholesale meat companies.
Therefore, a picture emerges which demonstrates in clear terms the trading armlock in which the supermarkets hold the livestock farmer fraternity. It is, of course, the armlock which was referred to recently by our Prime Minister. I believe that we have ignored it for far too long and we are now beginning to reap its whirlwind. In a Question that he posed in this House only last week, the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, reminded us that the present price offered to farmers for their stock is 60 per cent less than it was before the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, yet the consumer is paying 40 per cent more. Let us reflect on that for a moment and consider the situation in which we find ourselves.
Criticism has been levelled at the role of auction markets and livestock traders and the part that they have played in the spread of this outbreak. It is clear that it is the reduction in the number of abattoirs from over 2,000 to less than 400 which has contributed significantly to the need for animals to travel that much further. The same logic applies to the reduction in auction markets. So far as concerns sheep, the questions that we must address are: why is it done in that way and does it adversely affect the welfare of sheep?
I shall answer the second question first. All livestock in this country and, indeed, in the European Union is moved according to the legislation set out under a 1998 order concerning the welfare of animals in transit. That order not only specifies the type of vehicle, it also specifies the hours travelled by stock and by the driver. It is fair and reasonable to assume that such specifications are being adhered to.
It is worth acknowledging the vast change which has taken place in the entire motorway network since 1967. It permits rapid movement and allows stock to be taken from one part of the country to another. It is only in an emergency of the type that we are experiencing currently that it presents a problem. Therefore, it should not be seen as sinister except in so far as it is a direct consequence of the economic pressures which are at work.
Secondly, I turn to the workings of the trading fraternity. In order to understand them, we must remember what has happened with regard to the number of people who look after sheep. Not only has the number of sheep keepers reduced substantially but the vast majority has shed what was previously considered to be essential labour. By the year 2000, 75,000 producers were looking after some 40 million sheep, whereas in 1967, 120,000 with helpers were looking after less than 30 million sheep. It is also worth reflecting on the fact that, during a similar period, the number of workers, excluding the farmers themselves, reduced by approximately 75 per cent. As we know, some 40,000 farmers and farm workers left the land last year.
752
The result of those so-called "efficiency" changes is that the farmer is carrying out a great deal more of the work on a larger farm unit in order to receive less income. Therefore, in addition to the form-filling that he must do, the time that he has to market his stock is considerably less—hence the need for reliance on the trader. Perhaps we might reflect on the fact that on a typical Northumbrian stock farm of 380 acres, in 1976 it took 85 lambs to pay the rent. On the same farm in 1999 it took 323 lambs to pay the rent. In 1990 it took 0.6 lambs to buy a 100-litre tankful of road diesel but in 1999 it took 1.6 lambs to do so. In terms of machinery, it took 291 lambs to buy a medium-sized tractor in 1985 but in 1998 it took 700 lambs.
Noble Lords will know that this is lambing time. We have already discussed the difficulty of moving ewes. We also know that spring is a moveable feast. It starts in the south and moves north, often taking four or five months to get to the top of the country. What is not realised is that before lambing takes place the farmer collects up all the stock that has not been sold between the spring of the previous year and the present late winter and early spring and either sells it direct to the abattoir or takes it to the live market. That market is invaluable to the extensive livestock industry. It relies on the bids of the traders and many farmers dispose of varied lots of stock there. A trader who is knowledgeable can find outlets for the various classes of stock.
The sheep sector in particular is now the butt of much unfair criticism. It has been hammered by the consequences of BSE in cattle and by the associated trading hiatus. It is now being hammered as a consequence of maintaining the ridiculous practice of swill feeding of pigs and of our inability to repel imports of contaminated meat. Its own practices, which are based on practical necessity as a result of inexorable economic pressures, are under scrutiny but it is the reason for those economic pressures that perhaps has to be questioned.
We now have to establish how to rid ourselves of foot and mouth disease for all time. We need to set up systems to prevent its re-entry and, more than anything else, we need to have a proper and comprehensive debate and to redevelop agriculture in a way that is sustainable not only for people but also environmentally and ecologically. That approach needs to be sustainable in the medium and long-term. If we do not do so, we should court disaster of monumental proportions.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I, too, welcome this debate, although I have to admit that the situation is becoming increasingly depressing. I pay enormous tribute to the Minister for working night and day to help to solve the current crisis facing British farmers.
The knock-on effects of foot and mouth disease are truly horrendous for all sections of society, especially for our rural society. There are already rumours of no shooting this coming winter. As one who is involved in tourism, I suspect that visitor numbers may fall

753
dramatically, which would have horrific financial implications not only for us but for our staff and local businesses. That was eloquently described by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, I was deeply shocked to read in the papers today that some police forces are removing shotguns from farmers for fear that the suicide rate is going to escalate. These really are tragic times.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, mentioned people walking their dogs in the country. I strongly echo her concerns. Only this morning, I was talking to a friend who lives in Oxfordshire. She drives daily down the M4 to exercise her dogs in Hyde Park.
I must declare an interest as someone who has been trying to farm for the past 22 years. When I started I had 17 men and farmed 1,200 acres. Today I have four men and I farm nearly 1,400 acres. That is a sad reflection on the way in which farming has changed during that short period.
Is the Minister confident that current stocks of disinfectant are sufficient? There are various rumours in the press that there may be a shortage.
I thought that, like the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, I should speak from a personal point of view. I have looked up one or two interesting facts and figures which I shall relay to noble Lords to show how serious is the problem that faces farmers today. Ten years ago, I was selling wheat for £112 but today I am lucky to get £60. Ten years ago, barley was £120 but today it is just £68. The price of a loaf of bread or a pint of lager has certainly not decreased; in some outlets, the price has more than doubled during the past 10 years.
On expenditure, in 1990 I spent £30,000 on chemicals but last year I spent £41,000 on the same amount of chemicals. Likewise, 10 years ago, I spent £13,000 on fuel but last year I spent £28,000. Ten years ago, a 100-horsepower tractor cost £16,000 but today it costs £28,000. Likewise, a 15-foot combine has doubled in price during the past 10 years.
I hope that those figures show how tremendous the pressure is on arable farmers. One must not forget the cruel timing of the weather, which can dramatically affect yields. Last week, when we should have been sowing our spring crops, we had—this is no exaggeration—nine-foot snowdrifts and no electricity for four days. While I do not blame the Government for that, it shows the extraordinary circumstances that face farmers through no fault of their own.
All noble Lords will know that last autumn was one of the wettest on record. As such, the area of winter-sown crops is dramatically down—in our case, it is down by about 65 per cent. I like to think that we try to farm in the most efficient way possible but last year we lost money, as we did the previous year. There is a limit to how much longer one can go on sustaining such losses. Not unnaturally, the banks are greatly concerned. It will be interesting to see whether we get a response to the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Inglewood and Lord Williams, on the role of the banks. If I find it difficult to farm, heaven only knows how smaller farmers on less good land are going to survive.
754
The Minister will not be surprised to hear that once again I want to raise the question of biofuels—I gave her notice of that. In the Budget, the Chancellor directed further substantial sums of money at the gas industry to encourage it to produce cleaner road transport fuels—LPG and CNG. A duty rate of the order of 6p per litre is proposed. Why is a similar rate of duty not offered to the biofuels industry? Biodiesel and bioethanol are environmentally at least as good as gas. The indicated duty rate for biodiesel—25p per litre—is not a fair rate compared with that for gas and will not encourage the production of sufficient amounts of fuel to have an impact on air quality, to which the Government are rightly committed. That approach looks like blatant discrimination by the Treasury against the agricultural biofuels industry and favouritism of the gas industry.
Will the Minister confirm that MAFF fully supports a UK biodiesel industry that is based on a major increase in oilseed cropping, which will bring some much-needed prosperity to the countryside? Will she further confirm that she and her ministerial colleagues have done and will do all that they can to persuade the Treasury to treat the gas and agricultural industries equally in this regard by providing the same rate of duty for both fuels? I grow oilseed rape, which I export to Germany and Austria, where it is turned into biodiesel. Why do I have to export it? Can we not do the same in this country?
With agriculture on its knees, a real boost to biofuels would do much to meet the Government's environmental policy of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and it would give British agriculture a viable lifeline, which it desperately needs at this vital time.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I find this a very moving debate. It was impossible to listen to the speeches made by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and my noble friend Lord Inglewood without being struck very forcibly by the real disasters—easy words—that are happening in our countryside at present.
I am not a farmer. However, I live on the South Downs and the few fields that my wife and I own are let for grazing to the local Plumpton Agricultural College. Looking at the about-to-lamb ewes in a paddock adjacent to our house this morning, I wondered whether or not they would be alive when I return home at the end of the week. Sussex, thank God, is not yet an infected area; I hope that it never will be. Nevertheless, I asked the shepherd who looks after our sheep, and many more on the top of the South Downs, what was to happen to his pregnant ewes over the next few weeks. His answer—and I am very grateful to the Minister for her clarification of this point—was that, it being not yet an infected area, he thought the sheep would lamb in the fields, including ours.
I then asked him what he considered to be the difficulties of that. He put them in the following order of ascending importance: first, the weather; secondly, the fact that he was now the only shepherd in that area,

755
with a lot of territory to cover; and, thirdly, and most importantly, the fox. We have many foxes in the big wood that lies two or three fields away from our property. We are very grateful that the Southdown and Eridge Hunt occasionally draws the wood, kills a fox or two and at least moves the others on. The sheep are mostly Texels, which are tough and big, and the shepherd's view was that they hoped to be able to save all their lambs from the fox, except the very weak ones.
Having looked at the sheep this morning, I received two pieces of mail through my letterbox. One was from the Countryside Agency. In pursuit of the Government's wish that the South Downs should become a national park, it has issued a very clear pamphlet entitled A national park authority: making it work for the South Downs. Perhaps I may read to your Lordships the short mission statement:
"A South Downs National Park Authority would work in partnership with local people to conserve, enhance and manage the beautiful countryside of the national park and protect its wildlife and cultural heritage. It would work in ways that safeguard the area's special qualities while offering opportunities for quiet enjoyment and understanding of the South Downs. It would also work in partnership to sustain a living, working rural area".
Those are very important words; all fine stuff. I have no objection to that mission statement. Indeed the Sussex Downs Conservation Board, which I chair, played a part in the drafting of it.
I then looked at my copy of The Times, in which I read a very powerful article by Libby Purves, entitled "The first crocus of spring spells doom". It contained the following sentence:
"Barring a miraculous end to the epidemic … and a wholesale reopening of the countryside, thousands of families will face a drop in income which finishes them".
That, of course, is a theme of which we have heard a great deal in the past two or three hours in this House.
Living in Sussex, how do I reconcile these two pieces of paper? The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, who I am delighted to see resuming his place, talked about Radnor. I would like to speak a little about the South Downs in this connection, on a somewhat long-term basis, as a possible national paradigm for seeking solutions. Others have spoken much more knowledgeably than I can about the immediate present dangers.
The area of the South Downs consists of working farms—not just beautiful peaks, dales and lakes. It is an area of about 600 square miles. Our statistics may not be entirely accurate, but we reckon that it contains 600 farms, producing approximately 50,000 lambs per year. It is natural country for sheep; they love the chalk grassland; they are our natural lawn mowers. Active farms are needed to provide a beautiful landscape that is worthy of conservation. If many of these farms, some of which are quite small, go bust, there will be fewer sheep, fewer cattle, more scrub, more thistles, more nettles. It will not be set-aside land. It will be unfarmed, totally unkempt land. In those circumstances, no one will want to make great use of the new access that they have just been granted.
756
Under the supervision of the board that I chair, we have 2,200 kilometres of rights of way. With the cooperation of our local county councils, we quite rightly closed them all 10 days ago. Who will want to use those rights of way if, walking along them, they see only derelict, empty land covered in weed?
But there is another side of the coin. It is estimated that in the South Downs we have 30 million visitors per year. We are very lucky to live in a prosperous part of the country. Many of those visitors come prepared to spend a few pounds—a pint of beer, local sausages, cheeses and cider—and take something home with them. That is a potentially huge market for the farmers and those who work on the Downs.
Our challenge will be to meld in the farmers with the future national park. If the ramblers, the tourists from abroad and from this country, the walkers, can then be encouraged to spend money on local produce and eat local food in a local pub, as well as spending money on bed and breakfast accommodation, that would be a solution acceptable to all of us. In that process, they would have the opportunity to discover unusual birds and rare wild flowers and to explore our cultural heritage in the form of many old, archaeological sites on the Downs, if that was what they wanted to do.
In very broad language, that is what we are trying to achieve. For the past year we have been working on a South Downs enhancement scheme, which is about two months from completion. All the local NGOs, the Countryside Agency, and I hope MAFF, will put their signature to it. I shall be delighted to send copies of it, when ready, to any noble Lord who is interested in it. We hope that it will meet the twin objectives of the vision of a national park, to which I earlier referred, in a very busy part of England, and retaining the involvement of the local farmer and helping his pocket.
Perhaps I may quote one or two examples of what we have in mind. One is that the environmentally sensitive agreements (ESAs) and the Countryside Stewardship schemes should be made permanent rather than lasting for five to 10 years. In that way, not only would the farmer have certain knowledge of his income from both or either of those schemes, which in our part of the world have been fairly successful, but it would also mean that the reversion from arable to grassland was a permanent feature; and, following on from that, to broaden the objectives of both the ESA and the countryside stewardship schemes to include a wider range of landscape restoration and enhancement objectives.
I hope immediately and practically to introduce a South Downs marketing scheme. "South Downs", after all, is a very good brand name. We would start with lamb, move on to beef, add charcoal, and later perhaps venison and game birds. In the course of that, we would give some empowerment—a dreadful word, but I cannot easily find another—to local farmers. The involvement of the local farmer in this scheme is essential. It is the Downs to dinner plate scenario. Of course, we shall have to build up our own reliable supply chain: the involvement of local primary

757
producers, local abattoirs—the subject of a great deal of discussion—local wholesalers, retailers and restaurants. When recently in Normandy, I was struck by the fact that it was impossible to visit a restaurant there without seeing a sign on the window stating, in suitable French, "Normandy beef only". That is what we should replicate in our area of the South Downs with perhaps a much better return from the meat for the local farmer.
All of that must be set in the wider context of reform of the common agricultural policy. It is noticeable that the social effects of what the CAP achieves, particularly in terms of stimulating the rural economy, have proven to be the opposite of what the original EEC wanted; that is, fewer jobs, less local employment, larger farms, remote off-farm management and often corporately-owned businesses running farms. But if our farms are to survive in a globally competitive-free market, which is not going to change, we must think along new, more diverse lines. To achieve that, we need a national push in the right direction.
I was interested, as was the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, in what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said in relation to the DETR task force considering the wider rural economy. I should like to hear more about that. But there are two ministries on which I have my eye in this context. The first is the Treasury. Money is needed. For example, to quote one idea, why cannot there be tax incentives to create local marketing cooperatives, with a real incentive, through that tax help, for farmers to work together?
Secondly, we need MAFF to pay serious attention to constructive, forward thinking. During the debate on the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill I asked the Minister several times to obtain a commitment from MAFF to reply to the management plans on which the national parks work so hard and which often receive no reply at all. I obtained no reassurance on that point. But it is exactly the sort of thing MAFF should be doing. I hope that, arising out of this disaster of foot and mouth disease, MAFF will move forward to look at a long-term strategy for our farming industry and at putting money into it.
I note that MAFF has a new policy and corporate strategy unit,. I have great hopes for it and I hope it will not prove disappointing. If we are to build and restore our countryside and enhance it in the process in cooperation with local farmers, we will need some wholehearted support from the Ministry of Agriculture.
7.23 p.m.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, in rising I say to my noble friend that I hope she will take on board that the immediate actions taken in this crisis were firm but flexible. I should like to express my thanks to the Minister for Agriculture and also to my noble friend the Minister in this House, who, with her office, has always been available and willing so that we can obtain answers swiftly. I thank her for that.
758
In the report my noble friend gave us today in relation to the limited movement of animals to the abattoirs it is good to hear that pork has reached 75 per cent, beef 60 per cent and lamb 35 per cent. Those steps are putting British produce back into the market. But can my noble friend say, in relation to the now 205 confirmed cases of foot and mouth disease, how many of the new cases result from movements that took place before we were aware of the disease? Are such cases still arising or are they completely new cases? I am sure my noble friend will reply when she responds to the debate.
Another point which alarmed me was the reports in the media this morning that pregnant ewes may be slaughtered. I am sure that that news alarmed many other Members of your Lordships' House. If those animals cannot be moved back to the farms, is it possible to revert to what used to happen; that is, that they lamb where they are and help is given in the form of temporary buildings? It would be a shocking state of affairs if uncontaminated flocks and uncontaminated pregnant ewes had to be slaughtered. I hope that my noble friend can respond to that. It would be a disaster for many farmers who are already reeling and mean the end of the road for many others.
I was pleased to hear, following the meeting of the Prime Minister this morning with members of the agricultural community and business interests, that a task force will be introduced which will be overseen by the Minister for the Environment. The tourist industry is a big industry. Of the £12 billion it earns, £9 billion results from day trips. But people will not visit areas such as Cumbria, as the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said, because the reason for such visits is the chance to walk around freely and that cannot happen at present. Hoteliers and shops will suffer and the effects will be felt throughout the whole community. So help is needed in that area and it is good to know that the task force will be looking into that.
As we heard in response to questions from the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, we know now that the task force will not only look at the immediate future but will also look into the long term. The inquiry into foot and mouth disease—how and why it occurred and where it came from—is also welcome. But we need a longer and more intensive look at the whole future of the agriculture industry.
It has been said that the future is not about intensive farming. But that point should be thrown into the conundrum also, as should the role of the supermarkets and large abattoirs, some of which are actually owned by the supermarkets. All that needs to be considered.
What is the future for the agricultural industry? Can we give it a better and more permanent future? Time after time, because of the misfortunes that have occurred, we ask whether this or that can be done to keep the industry thriving. But all the hotels, shops and businesses which are connected with the rural industry and depend on people visiting those country areas are also suffering. It is therefore vital that we examine the agriculture industry and ask what is needed to make it

759
thrive. Does it need a complete revision of the CAP? All those questions need to be answered. We should not inquire only into the spread of foot and mouth but also into the longer-term future of our agricultural industry, which is vital to all of us. It is not only those who live in the country who benefit; it is also the urban dwellers who come to enjoy it; it is the visitors from overseas who come to see the areas of great scenic beauty, some of which are second to none.
We must look at the underwriting to secure the long-term future as well as dealing with the short-term problems. I know that my noble friend will take that message back from this House, a message that many speakers will repeat in this debate tonight time after time.
7.29 p.m.
Lord Biffen: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, mentioned his interest in 30 acres of pasture land. I echo that. I too have 30 acres of Somerset pasture land. I believe that that makes me a people's landowner. But above all, although it is an interest, I can truthfully say that it is barely an influence on my opinions on the matters being discussed this evening.
What is an influence is the fact that I live in Llanyblodwel, in which parish originated the foot and mouth scourge of 1967. No one who lived in that community and through that period can remember other than the anguish and the sense of bewilderment and of loneliness which captured and held captive the rural community. Although much was done to repair the damage caused by that foot and mouth epidemic, no one can believe that the scars disappear that easily. The character of today's debate shows that your Lordships are conscious of that; hence the current anxiety about the progress of this epidemic.
The 1967 epidemic was terminated by a most thorough and highly constructive inquiry conducted by the Duke of Northumberland, on which my noble friend Lord Plumb served with such distinction. The inquiry had many advantages, one of them being that it dealt exhaustively with the footnotes of the problem rather than going for the headlines. The headlines are most attractive. Organic farming, intensive husbandry and the CAP are enticing concepts but are not susceptible of immediate and constructive action.
I want to deal with one aspect of the current foot and mouth epidemic and put it into context. A task force has been suggested. I hope that all the inquests will be delayed until the epidemic has concluded because the longer it proceeds the more lessons we shall learn. However, the lesson that is already evident was drawn to our attention by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford. It is the speed with which the Ministry reacted. In today's circumstances, seeming individual delay causes frustrations and those have been represented here tonight. However, as regards the broad strategic management of the epidemic, the speed between discovering the virus and imposing the restrictions could hardly have been shortened.
760
Yet we know that in that blink of time the epidemic has spread nationwide. That is the horrifying aspect of the present situation and is in stark contrast with experience in Shropshire and the adjacent counties in 1967. I want to dwell upon that because the distinguishing feature of contemporary agriculture is to some extent size but above all transport and movement. I want to make five points about present British agriculture which makes Oswestry market in 1967 a very different place from Oswestry market today. I want to confine my comments to sheep, although with qualifications they could be applied to other aspects of husbandry.
First, in 1967 there was practically no export trade. Today, the sheep trade is heavily influenced, if not dominated, by a powerful export market, with all the movement that that implies. Secondly, there is a changing pattern in meat retailing, as referred to by my noble friend Lord Plumb. The rise of the supermarkets has concentrated meat distribution substantially and it would be a bold person who would assert that that has come to an end.
Not unconnected with that, but not dependent on it, is the substantial diminution in the number of abattoirs available for the processing of meat. I suspect that somewhere in between those factors—it is a subjective judgment, it is anecdotal and cannot be demonstrated—that the role of the dealers in the sheep trade is infinitely greater than it was when my father, as a tenant farmer, dealt in sheep and other agricultural produce.
It is almost as though today a great deal of livestock is treated as a commodity and not a matter of animal husbandry. That change has also had a powerful impact on movement. If one goes to Oswestry market today, looks at the wagons which convey the animals to and fro and remembers the corresponding wagons used in 1967, one begins to appreciate the enormous change that has overcome British agriculture, particularly as regards animal husbandry.
Given those circumstances, perhaps this was a scourge waiting to happen. I cannot assert that and I do not do so. However, even on the limited evidence that is available, this foot and mouth disease has spread with a rapidity which totally belies our previous experience and can be demonstrated as part of the modern process of agriculture; that is, to move more and more into a situation that is created and encouraged by the single market.
I shall not use this occasion to raise the foghorn of dissent about British relationships within the European Union. However, I say that when we proceed with policies that are designed to create the benefits which are presumed to derive from the free operation of the market and by the use of resources in that context, we must never overlook the other factors which must be balanced in that process.
The pursuit of the single market can be understood by our recent historical and political development but it is not a terminus; it is not an end in itself of our relations with Europe. It is a factor subject for constant consideration and adjustment. I believe
that

761
we are nom, seeing some of the implications of the size of the agriculture operations and the result that has on animal hygiene. That is at the core of the dilemma tonight.
However, we are learning that the epidemic, coming as it does at a certain point in the fortunes of the countryside, has a most horrendous implication. For that reason, I hope that when we come to the point of inquest—and may it come soon—we shall not be afraid to re-examine many of the political fashions which have held sway over recent years including what has been perhaps an insular approach to the problems of animal hygiene. We should be wise to state that no imports of animal products shall come from countries which have an endemic record of foot and mouth disease. We owe that as a minimum obligation to the farming community in this country.
There are lessons to be learnt from the highly contemporary character of this foot and mouth epidemic. Those in the countryside will look to Westminster for sympathy and understanding and a preparedness to stretch minds. I hope and believe that that process will start in this Chamber.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, once again, I am daunted by the expertise shown by Members on all sides of the House during the debate. I was interested in the most thoughtful words of my noble friend Lord Biffen and want to take up one point that he made. He said that sheep in particular were being treated by traders as a commodity. We have recently become only too well aware of that. If sheep are a commodity, why do they have to move around? I understand that these days the usual trade in commodities in done from one computer to another and the produce being traded is never moved. The problem we face here is that the produce is moved, and perhaps that is a matter which will arise after all this is over.
We are without doubt in the middle of a national crisis, and I believe that it is rapidly becoming a national emergency. I do not have very much optimism as a result of the fact that, when the weather is supposed to be much less favourable to the survival of the virus, the number of outbreaks appears to have increased almost day by day and is now double the figure last week. Everybody's priority is to eradicate the disease as quickly as possible. As has been said most clearly by my noble friend Lady Byford, we on these Benches support the Government's efforts to do all that they can, as I am sure they are, to achieve that. However, many questions arise from the outbreak which will need to be addressed at the proper time. Some of those questions may be relevant now.
Perhaps I may put a few questions to the noble Baroness, although I have not given her prior notice of them. The Minister said that no one had yet established the entry point of the virus into this country. Are there any indications that more than one entry point may be involved? That may or may not be significant.
762
Are the Government satisfied that the way that the campaign against the disease has been run places enough emphasis on keeping groups of outbreaks sufficiently isolated? I ask this because it appears that in the 1967 outbreak, to which my noble friend Lord Biffen referred, the one great success was to keep the outbreaks tightly grouped together in a small area of the country. The incidence of outbreaks in that area was much greater than in any of the groups of outbreaks that we are experiencing at the moment. Can anything be inferred from the present situation as to what may happen in the worst case scenario, which I dread?
The relaxation of the controls on movement in allowing carcasses to be taken to renderers in sealed wagons and cattle to be transported from safe farms to safe abattoirs sounds a trifle risky. I point out that just one human error in one consignment could lead to further disaster.
I understand that today there has been an outbreak in the Loire Valley in France. Are we doing anything about importing meat products from France as a result of that, or do we believe that it is a completely one-off outbreak?
One of the industries that is most affected by this epidemic has already been mentioned several times this evening: tourism. My noble friend Lord Inglewood and the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, mentioned it. Tourism businesses are losing many millions of pounds. Rural tourism maintains some 400.000 jobs. I understand that the tourism authorities have advised the Government that tourism business so far is running at some 75 per cent below normal for this time of year. Rural tourism should now be worth around £150 million a week. Cancellations have overwhelmed the industry, and thousands of potential visit ors from overseas have cancelled, even those whose destinations were to have been Edinburgh, London and other cities.
We welcome the setting up of the task force to look at how to re-establish the tourism business in the countryside, among other things. It will, however, have a monumental task in this particular area. I agree with the Minister that, by and large, compensation must be limited to those who are directly affected by livestock losses, but is it not possible for compensation be paid to self-catering and guesthouse businesses on farms where foot and mouth has struck, because at the moment they are completely stuck?
The countryside is in a desperate plight for various reasons with which your Lordships are familiar. I am worried about signs of relaxation of certain controls. The use of the phrase "slight risk" worries me, because any risk is to be avoided if possible. I allude specifically to the different advice given by our Chief Veterinary Officer and his Irish counterpart in regard to racing in that country. Surely, they cannot both be right. Is the Army to be involved? There has been a good deal of talk about it. Surely, because speed is of the essence in dealing with outbreaks, soldiers would be extremely useful and fit, which is probably one of the important matters.

763
As my noble friend Lady Byford said, the situation is dire. I hope that the Government will not relax restrictions until it is quite clear that the disease is overwhelmed and finished.
7.46 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I want to spend most of my few minutes on foot and mouth disease, but first I should like to thank the Minister for listening to the debate carefully and making so many helpful interventions. She must be undergoing great strain at the present time. I remember the 1952 Dumfries outbreak of foot and mouth which occurred soon after I started farming after the war. I have very great sympathy for my noble friend Lord Inglewood on whose farm foot and mouth has broken out this week. It is not all that far from my own farm, which fortunately is still free. I hardly dare answer the telephone in case it is bad news; and certainly I cannot bear to go home at the present time for safety reasons.
My noble friend Lord Inglewood, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and others referred to the total sterilisation of country life at the present time. There are no meetings and social activities. Farmers and their wives who have foot and mouth disease on their farms are in a distraught and dreadful state. Children are unable to go to school. Every farm road end has a gate across it with disinfectant, straw and sawdust. Altogether, farming is going through an even worse time than two or three weeks ago.
In that context, many farmers ask how on earth one can contemplate holding a general election on 3rd May of this year. Democracy means close reaction between candidates and the people and meetings. We cannot do it all by post. I hope that the Prime Minister very carefully bears in mind that it will be a very odd election if it proceeds at the present time.
Before coming to the brief point that I want to make on foot and mouth, I should like to echo all that noble Lords and noble Baronesses have said today about the plight of farming. Farming really is in crisis. The CAP needs to be reformed, but my worry is that that will inevitably mean less money for agriculture. I could see it coming all along. We already see the change from headage to modulation in the less favoured areas. I know of no livestock farmer in Scotland who will receive more money under the new scheme of LFAs; nearly everyone will receive substantially less. They thank God that they will get 90 per cent this year, 50 per cent less next year and then they are on their own. It is a very grave worry. The Government's moves in reforming the CAP have brought very disappointing results.
I very warmly support what the noble Baroness has said about the slaughtering policy to deal with foot and mouth. I praise the Minister's staff and the vets who work their hearts out. I hope that the Minister will pass on these words to the Scottish Executive, because I speak as much for Scotland as for England. We praise the staff and the vets. We praise the president of the National Farmers' Union in Scotland, Jim Walker,and,
764
in England, Ben Gill. They, together with local offices, are giving us a tremendous lead in very difficult times. I want to say "Well done" to the Dumfries and Galloway council. The convenor, Andrew Campbell, a distinguished farmer, has set up an operations room somewhat like the one that we had in the same area after the Lockerbie air disaster. It gives every possible assistance relative to foot and mouth and how best one should proceed.
I fear that the Minister's staff on both sides of the Border, in England and in Scotland, are overwhelmed and overworked. I do not know for how long they can keep up the pressure. They need extra physical support. I do not know where additional vets and other skilled operators will come from to help them stamp out the disease.
Are we taking too long to confirm outbreaks? A vet sends samples to the laboratory. They take a few days to come back. In previous outbreaks of foot and mouth if a vet came in and saw the disease the livestock were shot straightaway. There was no delay in getting scientific laboratory proof before action was taken. Those two or three days are fairly crucial. Also crucial is the time it takes to obtain a valuation, which has to be done on live beasts. In a crisis such as this, most farmers would accept the word of a good valuer if the beast had already been shot.
Can we really expect—noble Lords on all sides of the House have considered this matter—to get all the livestock that are likely to have to be slaughtered in the next week or two to the rendering plant at Widnes? It is hard enough to load 30 live bullocks into a truck, let alone getting in the same number of dead beasts that perhaps have been lying around for a few days. There is then the long transport to Cheshire from Scotland or from the south of England. The Government may have to think of an alternative or additional rendering plant if that is the way to go. In terms of concern in the countryside, there is an advantage in going to a rendering plant because the funeral pyres—I saw them burning when I was last in the north—are very distressing to those involved.
The Minister has given the best answer that she could in relation to ewes about to lamb. The noble Baroness could not have gone further than to say that with short distances, something should be fixed up if possible, but that, as a generalised state, will be difficult to organise. However, the thought of having to slaughter fit and well ewes just because they cannot be got to their home farms is most distressing.
The Minister was very helpful on the issue of the inquiry and the task force. We want a narrow and concise inquiry—the Phillips inquiry took far too long—on why the outbreak started. How did the infected meat get past the Meat Hygiene Service or other inspections? Last week I asked the Government a question. I was told that no meat was imported from countries where foot and mouth was endemic. I believe that it is endemic in South Africa and South America. Yet, we are still importing meat from those countries. We need to look at the matter very carefully indeed.

765
Whatever the World Trade Organisation says, the health of our livestock is more important than bringing in tonnes of Argentine or South African beef.
The Minister was helpful about grants. I now know of the £160 million, but that is agrimony which we are owed. That is not new money. I know where to get the LFA money after 19th March and the beef special premium, the sheep annual premium, the Buckler cow and the extensification early in April. But that is all money that we are due. However, it will be a helpful cashflow in these terrible times.
I hope that the Government will be as administratively flexible as they can in terms of the European Union— the Minister used the right word—the force majeure. Technically animals that have been slaughtered are not on the farm for retention periods. That must be overcome by a simple administrative act, otherwise many farmers will be disqualified from gaining certain grants that are due in the spring.
I should like the Minister to clear up one matter. The newspapers are not very clear on the issue. Some have said that one can restock after 30 days. I cannot believe that anyone would contemplate that. I believe that it will be nearer six months before one could consider it safe to restock farms. That means six months with no income and one has to then use the whole of the capital resources from the valuation to purchase new stock. That is very worrying.
The next problem that has been put to me several times is the issue of grass parks. This is the month when grass parks are let. Farmers take two, three or four fields here and there. That is important relative to the IAACS forms which are due in in the middle of May. If one does not have one's grass parks it affects one's IAACS forms. Can there be some flexibility here? It is no use saying that one can go to an auction mart and let off the grass parks now because we cannot get together. Anyhow, who will rent a grass park if they do not know whether they will be able to use it in May, June or July? That is a very important part of the agricultural economy. We shall need greater flexibility, bearing in mind the intransigence that is so often taken up over IAACS forms.
My last point has been touched on by many noble Lords. It is the important issue of tourism. I cannot overestimate this matter. It was been brought home to me by the Dumfries and Galloway council and the convenor that tourism has dropped like a stone in Dumfries and Galloway. Millions of pounds a week have been lost in Scotland. Hotels have a 60 per cent drop in room-lettings; conferences have been cancelled; and bed and breakfast lettings for the poor hard-up farmers are non-existent. Tourism needs an injection of help now because this is the beginning of the tourism season, working up to Easter.
I hope that the Minister will think carefully about that matter relative to compensation. I know and appreciate that there are principles here and principles there, but every now and again a principle has to be breached when a crisis is more important.
766
I have made these points, which not only highlight the problems of farming before foot and mouth, but how they have got much worse under foot and mouth. I wish the Minister well in trying to contain the disease as quickly as possible and in getting us back 10 normal farming again.
7.59 p.m.
Baroness Masham of IIton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this debate and the Liberal Democrats for having first put down the Motion. I must declare an interest as I own a flock of pedigree Texel sheep, a flock of Shetland sheep and a flock of Welsh Badger sheep, and I also live in the countryside.
I shall try in some small way to explain what a terrible feeling it is to be living with the threat of this virus and when it may strike and what the outcome has to be. One's heart goes out to those people who have already had their breeding flocks destroyed. The sadness that hangs over the areas which have been affected is difficult to explain, but it is a worrying time for everyone who lives in farming areas. They feel that they are sitting on a time bomb.
I have been listening whenever I can to the news and I get updates from the MAFF Internet site, but I was bemused when I saw and heard the Minister of Agriculture say on television on Sunday that the epidemic had been contained. On Sunday evening, the new number of farms affected by the outbreak was the highest so far—25 that day. How can the Government try to spin something so tragic and so important to so many people? They will lose faith and trust in the Government. But the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has tried today to give a more realistic summary of this awful situation. I thank her. The messages should be open, with no cover-up.
Both the Roman Catholic and the Anglican Churches have been offering prayers for the farming communities. I expect that the Methodists have too. We are living with a plague which can strike at any time. Many farmers feel isolated and need support, but sometimes the messages coming from MAFF are confusing. I ask the Minister to try to do something about that. I telephoned MAFF on Saturday to find out about getting a licence to move some of my in-lamb ewes on the farm. I telephoned Northallerton, who told me to ring animal health in Leeds. Leeds told me to ring back to Northallerton. I asked whether I was in an infected area. Both Leeds and Northallerton said no, but the website said that I was. The website map conflicts with the information given. On Monday my secretary telephoned again and received the same answers. Will the Minister please ensure that the website information is correct and kept up to date and that the map is readable?
With all the modern forensic expertise, surely it is possible to find the source of this epidemic. Where did the virus come from before the sheep became infected on the Northumberland farm? If it was from the swill, it must be possible to track the source. It is vital that it is found; otherwise, another epidemic might develop in

767
years to come. I hope that the Minister can give some assurance that no stone will be left unturned until we know the answers.
It is of concern to many people that sheep have been moving and crossing borders without notification. Will this outbreak make people more responsible, or will it continue to happen? I live on the edge of Wensleydale. A blanket of gloom settled over the dales when we heard of the first case in North Yorkshire at Raygill House Farm, between Bainbridge and Hawes. I send every sympathy to Mr and Mrs Lambert. How did that farm become infected? Was it from jackdaws or was it from a knacker who came to collect a cow that had died? They had a milking herd. They had not bought any stock from a market in recent times. Can the Minister tell your Lordships how that farm became infected? The Minister of Agriculture is so confident that the virus is "under control". But is it?
Last night I read in the Evening Standard that the Ministry of Agriculture is considering the slaughter of up to half a million pregnant ewes because they cannot be returned to their lambing quarters. With spring coming, why cannot they lamb where they are? It is possible to build shelters for the lambs out of bails of straw. It is horrible to think of healthy in-lamb ewes being slaughtered when they might never get the disease.
The headline of the Darlington and Stockton Times last Friday was:
"Business grinds to a halt in the hills".
An economic catastrophe is poised to strike the Yorkshire dales and moors as foot and mouth begins to rip the heart from rural businesses. Both in the Yorkshire dales and the Lake District, businesses are having to close down or come to a halt. Many farms have bed-and-breakfast to supplement their incomes. Outward bound activity centres, including some for disabled people, are hit. Businesses stare disaster in the face as fears grow that the Easter trade will be hit. I had hoped to open my trekking centre at Easter. People will no doubt take their holidays abroad, but they may be looked at with suspicion as being unclean.
We are facing a national disaster in more ways than one. The countryside is vulnerable and the people who live in it are even more vulnerable. I have to ask the Minister, who I know has worked, and is working, very hard, whether enough basic information is getting to the people. I am sure that sales of Jeyes fluid have gone sky high, but I am told that Jeyes fluid is not effective in killing the foot and mouth virus. Many people do not have a computer with a website. They cannot get the necessary information.
I asked the local district nurse what advice she and her colleagues had been given. They had not been given any advice about going onto farms. So she told me, "We ask the farmers if they want us". People are trying their best, but they are feeling in the dark at times.
It did not take long for the recommended disinfectant to run out in the North of England at the start of this plague, so increasing the stress. I had been
768
recommended to use Virkon or Aladine. Both were unobtainable, but I now have some. Is enough disinfectant now available for everyone who needs it?
Farmers with livestock have had problems with people walking their dogs on farmland. I have spoken of this before in your Lordships' House, but I would ask the Minister whether she read in the press about the Yorkshire farmer who, anxious to protect his cattle from foot and mouth disease, was attacked after trying to prevent two men with unleashed dogs from walking across his land. The farmer was taken to hospital, having been beaten up. The men shouted that they did not care about foot and mouth disease. It has not helped having the right to roam legislation.
Challenging people who think they can go anywhere is not easy, as that farmer experienced. With village police having been taken away, there is little support for country people trying to protect their animals. I have had a wooden gate smashed which was chained. When I replaced it with a metal gate the chain and lock were cut and removed. This was not on a right of way. But those who did it were dog walkers.
Farmers at this time need consideration and correct information. Barriers are being put up. The countryside may take a long time to recover from this tragedy. It will need help so that everyone can enjoy and relax in what we should all want to protect.
We should not forget the deer in the parks and the zoo animals which are at risk. Elephants can contract foot and mouth, as can hedgehogs. It is an extraordinary virus.
I shall end on a sober note. Vets and farmers are high on the suicide list. I ask the Minister: at this present time, are counselling services being made available should they be needed?
8.10 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Salisbury: My Lords, I share the sense of powerlessness in the face of what is clearly a national disaster. As my brother Prelate said, farmers know that we have them very much in the prayers of the Church. Through our parish priests and members of our congregations, we are doing all we can to support farmers in the rural parts of England. I am glad of and reassured by the radical measures being taken to tackle and eradicate this disease. I am grateful, too, for the Minister's dedication and hard work in this cause. Through her, we should thank all those who work to support her.
What I am most concerned about is the people affected by this outbreak—their future as well as their present. That is because what I detect from those living in our largely rural diocese is that the most destructive aspect of this disaster is fear. Fear takes hold because we do not know what is going to happen and how many lives and livelihoods will be affected by it.
"I should not be afraid for any terror by night. nor for the sickness that destroyeth in the noonday",
says the compline psalm recited by heart every night in the monastic community. Yet it is just the unpredictability, and not knowing where the disease is blowing or where it will crop up next, who might have

769
carried it casually from one place to another, that so undermines anyone's sense of purpose and hope for the future.
There is a fear that this may bring about the end of farming as we know it. We have seen a series of crises, of which foot and mouth is only the most recent, which have underlined how enormously vulnerable is farming in this country. The food industry that plays in a global market and the principles of free trade—which are not at all the same as the principles of fair trade, on which we are focusing this fortnight—have led us, the consumers, to expect our food to be plentiful, available all the year round and to be the very cheapest, no matter the cost to quality, how it is produced and where it has come from. Faced with this, the farming industry that I see in Dorset and north Wiltshire contains many people who cannot see at all the way ahead for their industry.
Secondly, there is the fear of isolation, both personal and corporate. When they padlock your gates, having taken samples for testing in the laboratory, and then go away, you become a prisoner locked in your cell. You have to decide which members of your family should stay in or stay out. I know many farmers' wives who are caught in a conflict between their role as mothers and wives and their other, equally important role at present as breadwinners. When I visited a north Wiltshire primary school last week, all the children missing were from farming families. They must stay isolated until sentence is passed.
Here I join in the plea that the inspections are made and the animals executed as quickly as possible. While there are helplines and friends, and our parish clergy and rural chaplains speak on the phone, farmers, many of whom work very much on their own, are now also physically and emotionally on their own. It is very dangerous for the health of any community to find a group within it who feel themselves to be so enormously isolated.
Thirdly, there is the fear that the farming community. and all that they are losing, may be doing so because in some sense they have brought it on themselves. First there is a prudential question: have we forced farmers to farm wisely or only for the short term? I think of the closure of a number of abattoirs, forced to do so by the enormous costs in the wake of the BSE scare and crisis. Yet that must be one of the contributory factors to the extraordinary notion that animals are being driven all over the country to be killed for food.
Then there is a theological question: have we worked with the grain of creation as good stewards of the earth's natural resources? Many fear that we have not done so and that we have been colluding with something essentially immoral in the way we have gone about resourcing and stewarding our farming industry.
Lastly, there is the human question, which is this: can we continue to treat farming as an industry any longer? Can we go on applying the rules of market
770
economy and product, along with marketing in targeted ways, in an area of our national life which cannot quickly adapt, and yet manages a hugely significant part of our whole landscape? In our built heritage we maintain a series of partnerships with the National Trust and English Heritage because we realise that the built heritage cannot survive in a free market economy. No longer do we allow people to pull down their stately homes because they cannot afford to keep the roof on. Instead, we support them in caring for the buildings.
Farmers cannot diversify quickly and, in the light of our current experience, the Government's White Paper on the countryside seems to have ignored a major area which needs scrutiny, consultation and some agreed solutions. We cannot leave all these problems to drift around among the forces of chance and economics. In that connection, I should like to echo the series of inter-related questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, in her speech earlier this afternoon.
There is a huge problem of great seriousness which must be addressed now, but there is also a major long-term concern for the future of farming in the life of the nation. Farming and life in the countryside is not an industry that we can detach from how we live. If we are serious about remaining a whole nation where we value each other's contributions and bear each other's burdens, we need to consider a far more serious and integrated policy for the future of farming than that indicated in the White Paper.
It looks like we are going to need a new White, Paper altogether. I say that because if the Government were to give a signal that the White Paper will no longer do as a blueprint for the future for the whole of the countryside in the face of this crisis, then I believe that a huge surge of confidence, a confidence that is not there at the moment, would sweep through the rural communities. They would feel that, at last, they were being heard. I think that it is extremely important that we do this. People living in the countryside do not believe—however unjustified this may be—that an essentially urban government hear them or are even able to hear them. A signal from the Government, indicating not only how to tackle the immediate crisis—I say again that I am grateful for all that is being done—but also a signal that we need to look again at the way in which farming is related to the management of the countryside, with all the economic problems that that will raise, would be enormously welcome and would raise confidence. People's lives are at risk because they are being undermined by fear almost more than by anything else. That is because they feel the fear of the unknown. I hope that the Government, with due consideration—I do not expect the Minister to make any immediate decisions this evening—will be able to give an assurance that there will be a future for the rural communities that will he a partnership, and that it will be a future that will give people hope when, at the moment, all they can see is blackness.
8.20 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I declare interests as president of the Countryside Alliance and as a small-scale sheep farmer with poll Dorsets. I am not so far, fortunately, in an infected area.
We all know that the crisis in the countryside did not begin in February of this year. Indeed, well before the last election in May 1997 there was a crisis rapidly developing, the origins of which lie in the long-term neglect of the rural infrastructure by successive governments and in the agricultural policy which has locked us into volume production and forced farming and increasingly towards intensification and industrialisation without tackling the social and environmental consequences.
After the last election, the present Government in many areas—to use a phrase that they used—"hit the ground running". However, in relation to the countryside, many of us felt that they hit the ground, stuck their heads in the sand and refused to listen to voices which were telling them how badly things were going wrong.
In February of this year came foot and mouth disease. The country was already in serious trouble. There can be no doubt at all that anyone listening either to this debate or any news bulletin will know that our countryside is now in free-fall.
I am coming to what I think are relatively minor criticisms in the context of all that is going on, but may I first pay tribute to the Minister in the House. As others have said, she has taken time to answer personal and what must at times have seemed very petty questions and queries from anyone who approached her. Her competence in handling this crisis can be in no doubt to anyone.
Perhaps I may also, as others have done, pass on through the Minister the tributes that I have heard from people who are directly involved with the MAFF staff on the ground. The only problem is that they are plainly—hopelessly, in some areas—overstretched.
May I also ask the Minister to pass on to her department comments I have heard, some of which have been echoed in the House, not least most recently by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham? What we want from the Minister's department is the truth. We want to be told straight. When we hear the Minister say that the epidemic is under control but then see the news bulletins and read the figures, we cannot marry the two. We do not want to be reassured or to be told what it is thought we would like to hear unless it is accurate. We would rather have the reality.
Secondly, we would like to see—it may be in place but the message is not coming across—not that the Ministry is responding to the outbreaks as they happen but that it is ahead of them and has in place proper contingency plans should things, heaven forefend, get even worse than they are now.
A number of noble Lords have asked whether we are getting enough information. There are certainly enough places to seek information, but if you want to know whether a rumour—and rumours abound at
772
times like this—about a suspected outbreak in your area is or is not true, it is very difficult to go through every website, to go through the BBC and to ring round to establish the truth. We need to be able to find out quickly from an accurate map where are the suspected outbreaks and where are the confirmed outbreaks in order that we may make our own arrangements and take steps to avoid travelling anywhere near those areas. It may be that that is being done, but it is a criticism that I am hearing.
Perhaps I may mention a matter which has been raised already by the noble Lord, Lord Luke; that is, the question of racing. There are many, many farmers who are very concerned that racing is still continuing here. We understand that the assessment is that racing in a limited way presents no risk. Farmers are even more concerned to learn that, first, Ireland takes a different view, and, secondly, that France—having confirmed its outbreak at 11.30 this morning—with immediate effect suspended all racing and other gatherings of animals in the two departments concerned. I understand that the movement of all livestock, including horses, throughout France is allowed only with a special permit and disinfecting.
It may be that we are right and they are wrong, but can we have some reassurance and clear guidance? I say this particularly to the noble Baroness because she is, of course, the Minister for the horse. There are quite a number of small horse shows continuing to take place, some of them without clear guidance as to what may or may not be done and as to whether proper precautions are being taken. Can the Minister reassure us that proper guidance is being given to organisers of events of that kind and that proper procedures are in place to ensure that no undue risk is taken?
Other noble Lords have spoken of concerns. which I am also hearing, about the time that it is taking to both confirm outbreaks and to slaughter animals. We very much hope that it is not simply a question of having standby "sharp shots", if I can call them that—people from the Army—in readiness but that adequate numbers of competent slaughtermen will be found to deal with the outbreak. Ideally, valuation should take place after slaughter rather than having animals waiting around for that reason.
Perhaps I may also, through the Minister, pay tribute to the people who are doing that work, which must be beastly, particularly when it involves, as it very often does, very, very distressed farmers. I have what I hope will not be regarded as an inappropriate criticism. Among those carrying out this job are people such as—I name only three of them because they are all over the country—David Jones of the David Davis Foxhounds; Roy Savage from the Teme Valley Foxhounds; and David Morgan from the Radnor and West Hereford. Those people are going to their neighbours and killing their livestock—and at night they have been watching on television Ministers from the noble Baroness's department voting to put them out of home and job. Will the Minister pass that back?
Perhaps I may also ask the Minister how many of the sealed trucks which we have heard will be transporting carcasses for some considerable distances

773
on our roads are available. There is concern that if sealed trucks are not available, risks may be taken. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to reassure us about that.
Among the criticisms I have made, perhaps I may add some praise. I am grateful that in the face of criticism—in particular from Ireland—the noble Baroness's department has allowed some movements under special licences for welfare reasons. Farmers are under the most enormous mental strain. To put a man or woman in the position of seeing his or her livestock suffer or of taking a risk and breaking the law to get them back or to deal with them is an impossible one. I am grateful that the present concessions have been made. I would ask the Minister—particularly in regard to animals which are about to calve or lamb in places where they cannot remain—to give great thought to allowing particularly carefully-supervised movements in such cases. The burden and the risk of people breaking the rules—I suspect many of us know people who have done so—is too great.
There was a question raised about disinfectant. I look forward to the answer because when I put my name down for any of the approved kinds of disinfectant two weeks ago, I was told that I was number 300 on the waiting list of my local agriculture supplier. I have yet to receive a call telling me that the stocks are in. In the meantime, we are doing our best.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness's department for allowing the market to start again and for allowing people to send their animals to slaughter. However, I am getting call after call from people who are horrified at the sums they are being offered in a situation where they have absolutely no choice but to accept. Let me echo what was said by a noble Lord who spoke earlier: will the Ministry look carefully to see whether there is an element of profiteering in what is going on?
As other noble Lords have said, it is not only the agricultural part of the economy which is in free-fall— I use that phrase again. Others have spoken about their particular parts of the world; perhaps I may speak about my village in Somerset, Exford. It has a population of 400 people, virtually all of whom work in or near the village. It has three shops, two hotels, a petrol station, a hunt kennels, which is the largest employer in the village, a farrier and a repair workshop.
The village relies entirely on farming and tourism. During the winter months, from October through to April, it is country sports tourism—people who come for the shooting or for the hunting. At this time of the year, when hunting stops elsewhere, farmers in particular from all over England go there to stay when they finish their lambing and their calving to follow the hunt, which goes on until the end of April.
I have received information from a local group which formed two years ago when people could see the crisis coming. The group called itself "Endangered Exmoor". People could scarcely have known then what they would be facing two years on. The post office is down 50 per cent on its business. The White Horse Hotel is empty; there have been 40 cancellations
774
and staff are to be laid off. On the day after hunting was suspended—the hunting organisations did so voluntarily across the whole country well before the animal movements restriction was in place—the garage began to see a huge drop in the number of people wanting petrol and diesel. I stress that large numbers of people follow the hunt in cars. One of the local hotels relies on five tourist coaches calling in every week for teas and coffees. All the visits have been cancelled. The local livery yard is having to reduce its rates and lay off staff. One of the other guest houses is struggling on the verge of bankruptcy. The farrier's business has dropped dramatically; so has business at the local stores and at the newsagent's, and all the pubs in the area are very quiet. One of the local businesses hires out horses. Its turnover—spring is its harvest time—is £40,000 a year. Last week it took cancellations from 20 Americans who had been coming for two weeks and would have hired horses almost every day. That business will have no income whatever and it has 20 horses to feed. Those are just some examples.
There is great gloom, and I readily understand the noble Baroness's department. It is not possible to extend compensation into all the areas where people are losing money. However, among all the headings of gloom there are rays of what seem to me to be real hope. One example is that Tindle Newspapers. the publishers of the local paper, the West Somerset Free Press, announced this week that it had established a hardship fund of a quarter of a million pounds for small businesses like its own—for people who either need immediate hand-outs to keep going or interest-free loans where the bank would not help. I imagine that there will be other people like that throughout the country; however, I should like to see the Government taking a lead in getting that kind of support up and running, and we have yet to see that happening. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, about the Government talking to the banks. I very much welcome the task force that has been set up under the Minister for the Environment. These a re the kinds of areas that I hope he will look at immediately. They are crucial.
In time, foot and mouth will be overcome. But the majority of us are fearful about how much or how little will be left of our countryside afterwards. Businesses will close; properties and homes will be sold; local families with local connections, with small businesses and small farms, will have to leave those communities. A vital link will have snapped. If we really value our countryside, we should be valuing those people too, especially, as the Minister acknowledged in her opening remarks, because they are the people who have shaped the countryside and we must look after them.
Finally, perhaps I may take up the points ma de by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury. What we look for now is not only competent action to deal with this crisis; we look to the Government for a lead. What we need is a department of rural affairs—not merely a task force—which will set about the job that desperately needs to be done; namely, to draw up

775
a radical plan for a new rural infrastructure. What we need is investment in small and medium-scale producers and new enterprises, possibly through or with the assistance of the regional development agencies, involving many of the kinds of ideas mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer.
There is presently a vacuum in the countryside. We look to the Government to put an end to the divisions that have marked the past four years and to take us forward, so that we have a countryside which is not dependent on subsidies or hand-outs, but which is dependent on enterprise and can regenerate itself and produce once again a living and working countryside. If we can do that, if we can have that leadership, then perhaps after all some good will come out of this bad business. As someone once sang, "You don't know what you've got till it's gone". We do not have our countryside at the moment; and how we miss it. Perhaps we shall try to take better care of it and its people after these events.
8.36 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is always a privilege to follow the noble Baroness—a privilege that I have enjoyed a number of times in the past few days—because she is so knowledgeable about the countryside and is so articulate in expressing her views.
I should declare an interest in so far as I have been engaged with agriculture all of my life and still am. I have cattle, and fortunately for the moment they do not have foot and mouth disease. Like so many other speakers, I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on her excellent, knowledgeable and diligent introduction to the debate. The work that she has done in the Ministry of Agriculture and her knowledge of what goes on is remarkable.
It is right to say that farming and the countryside are going through the deepest crisis that they have been through for years—my noble friend Lord Inglewood said "for a century", and I think he is right. Over the past four years we have seen the price of wheat drop from £130 a tonne to £60 a tonne; we have seen the price of milk drop from 26 pence a litre to 13 pence a litre. Admittedly, things are now getting better. Those were the terrible economic afflictions of the countryside. That in itself was enough. But to that was added the BSE crisis and the slaughter of the animals that took place; then there was swine fever and the slaughter of animals; now there is foot and mouth disease. It really is a wonder that there are any animals left in the countryside at all. I agree with the remark of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, that it is difficult to see how this disease can be described as being under control. I do not know how one controls a disease which is of its own volition free to move around from place to place.
For agriculture, there has been one series of blows after another. It is not surprising that farmers are in deep despair. Many are going bankrupt and many are
776
giving up. It is right that the Government should tackle the foot and mouth problem quickly and seriously. It is right to have a slaughter and compensation policy. But I was glad that my noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior explained in such detail why that was necessary. To many people it seems a curiosity—but it is right.
All this goes much deeper than finance and compensation. A farmer or his family may have built up a herd for 40 years and possibly longer, and to see the animals destroyed, each of which may have a name and each of which may be a personal friend of the farmer, is heart-breaking and morale-breaking stuff. All of a sudden, there is total silence on the farm. A farm once alive with noise is now cacooned in an eerie silence, with dead animals. That has an effect on the farmers, on the locality and on the countryside—an affect that goes far wider and far deeper than being just one of the hazards of an industry, or one of the hazards of a particular way of life. It delves down into the emotional, psychological and even spiritual core of people. It is no wonder that a Member of Parliament told me the other day that one of his constituents had said that she had removed her husband's guns just in case. Indeed, it is no wonder that a newspaper article today reported that the police have done the same thing.
There is an attitude of despair, not just among farmers but also in the countryside as a whole. Who will be the next victim? When will this wretched disease attack? As is so often forgotten, agriculture does not just provide food; it affects, for better or for worse, the entire landscape of the countryside. The environment is deeply tied up and affected by agriculture. Tourism is a vital ingredient to the countryside. As my noble friend Lord Inglewood asked earlier, who will go to the Lake District if you cannot walk when you are there?
So what happens to the bed-and-breakfast people? They lose out: they lose people and they lose money. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, told us a short while ago how in her part of Somerset 40 guests cancelled their bookings with a hotel in Exmoor. People had to be laid off. This crisis goes far wider than just a farmer with a few cows. It is the effect on the countryside as a whole. We are talking about a successful countryside, which means all those who are involved within the countryside; for example, in businesses, shops, transport, holidays, recreation, the environment and of course the wildlife. All the latter depend on a successful agriculture.
It is not the fault of the Government that we have foot and mouth disease. That is one of the hazards of life. I pay tribute to the way in which the Ministry of Agriculture, its officials and the Ministers have reacted to it. I have in mind, in particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. She has been so sensitive and so knowledgeable about the situation.
The present despair in the countryside is the accumulation of disasters of which foot and mouth disease is the latest torpedo. There was to have been a huge march this Sunday because—I hate to say this to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, because she is a

777
sensitive and caring person—the Government of which she is a distinguished and prestigious member are perceived by the countryside and those who live there as not understanding their problems, and not caring. That was underlined even further during a debate in another place some two weeks ago to discuss the parlous state of agriculture in the countryside. When the opening speakers for the Government and the Opposition spoke, there were only 14 Labour Members present in the Chamber. More were gathered in by the Whips as this was pointed out to them. But it is not surprising that people feel that the Government party does not know or care about the countryside, and that the countryside feels distanced from the thoughts and the understanding of Members of Parliament—
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the noble Earl define what he means by "the countryside"?
Earl Ferrers: No, my Lords. I shall not be quite as stupid as that. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, must know what the countryside is; he must know the difference between the countryside and the town. I shall not waste your Lordships' time on the question of a definition.
When agriculture is going through such a depression, it is surprising that the only contribution that the Government can make is to introduce a Bill to ban fox hunting, and thereby add yet more to the unemployment and the misery in the countryside. I shall say no more about that because we discussed such matters yesterday, and earlier today.
Foot and mouth disease will go, and things will get better. Normality in the countryside will return. There is a future in agriculture, although it may be difficult to see it now and it may not come as soon as we would wish. But when the population of the world is due to multiply fourfold in the lifetime of some of those who are alive today from 3,000 million in 1960 to 12,000 million in 2025, food will be required and agriculture and the countryside—they are bound up together—will prosper.
What can the Government do in the short and medium term? On the foot and mouth front, I hope that we can avoid shooting animals in front of other animals. I know that it is difficult to achieve that, but it is pretty fundamental in terms of animal welfare. I hope that we can dispose of carcasses quickly. There are those in Derbyshire who say that the smell of burning animals pollutes the air. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, who questioned the wisdom of carrying carcasses across the country, even though they are in so-called "sealed containers". If the disease is so virulent as to close markets, why risk its spread by moving known, diseased animals even in supposedly air-tight containers? I was interested to hear the answer given by the noble Baroness in response. However, for all that, the old method of digging holes, placing quick lime in them and then burying the animals was fairly effective and very swift.
I hope that the Government will try to explain the following to farmers—indeed, perhaps the Minister will explain the situation to the House. When vast
778
quantities of animals are slaughtered, this inevitably causes a shortage of meat for human consumption. Can the Minister explain why the price of meat in the retail shops increases by 40 per cent, while the price to the farmers decreases by 60 per cent?
The Government claim to be drawing down £150 million from the European Union. As my noble friend Lady Byford pointed out, that is money provided by the EU, not for foot and mouth disease but for currency fluctuations to which the Government are automatically entitled because of the strong pound. Indeed, they are entitled to much more. I believe that they are entitled to some £500 million. There was even a time a few years ago when they were entitled to £2,000 million, but they never took it. If the economy is doing as well as the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us, why do not the Government draw their full allocation and so relieve the difficulties being experienced by the industry? Over the past four years we have failed to draw that which was due to the United Kingdom; that is, not that which we might draw if we wished to do so, but that which was due to us because our currency stood high. As a result, our farmers suffer.
On other fronts, we ought to try to aim for "a level playing field"—an awful expression—for the United Kingdom. When milk was 16 pence a litre in this country, it was 24 pence a litre in Holland and 25 pence a litre in Ireland. There is no equality there. Imported food should be produced under the same animal welfare conditions as those that are imposed on British farmers. Thai chicken, Polish pork and Danish bacon all undercut the British product. Why? It is because our producers are obliged to incur higher costs over animal welfare than those of our competitors. The anomaly should be removed whereby imported food can be cut, processed, or even just packed in the UK, and thereafter labelled "British food", which it manifestly is not. This is wholly deceiving for housewives.
The Government should investigate the relationship between the price that is paid to the producer and the price that is paid by the consumer. Potatoes may be sold by the farmer for £150 a tonne, but potato crisps sell for £8,500 a tonne. Wheat may be sold by the farmer for £60 a tonne, yet the wheat content of a 50 pence loaf is about 3 pence. Of course, agriculture must compete in a competitive world, as do the supermarkets, but it must be a fair one. The idea that it is in the consumers' interests for supermarkets to buy the basic product as cheaply as possible is obviously nonsense. If agriculture were to go into permanent decline—there are those who say that we can buy our milk, beef and pork on the world market—what would be left here at home—a miserable, derelict, run-down countryside? Of course, there would be plenty of wildlife but of a different variety—bats, stoats and weasels. Gone would be the robin, the thrush and the songbirds. The dawn chorus would be a thing of the past.
A healthy countryside depends on a healthy agriculture. However, all is not doom and gloom for the future, though for the present it may seem like it.

779
We shall get over this disease, but there are major issues which must be addressed and it is vital that the Government should address them.
8.51 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I declare my interest not as a farmer but as a trustee of a property with a pedigree herd of Aberdeen Angus and a pedigree flock of north country Cheviots.
I start by taking a brief look back at the countryside before this terrible disease was imported and at what I might have said then in a debate on the countryside. As the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said yesterday and today, I should have said that it was a place of total disenchantment. Probably over half a million people would have marched through London this weekend in the biggest civil rights demonstration this country has seen. In real terms incomes from farming are probably at their lowest level since the Second World War. In a large section of the industry people are not earning a living unless finance and mortgage charges are minimal, and yet the screw is tightening.
In addition to the figures relating to recent years mentioned by my noble friend Lady Byford, the number of those leaving farming between mid-2000 and 2005 has been revised upwards from a third to more like a half. At a recent high-level conference it was estimated that by 2005 only 25 per cent of those farming now would have a future. On the back of that the whole infrastructure supporting the countryside is crumbling. We have a Government who do not understand the countryside or the problems farmers face and will not claim the full agrimonetary funds to which they are entitled.
The rural White Paper was a short-term piece of window dressing that neither looked at the main issues nor their consequences. We are saddled with an unhelpful and difficult to reform CAP. The Dutch and Germans illegally export to us specified risk material and the French illegally ban the import of clean, certified British beef. Now we have foot and mouth which, far from being just a farmer's nightmare, is a disaster and a national countryside emergency. Not a single aspect of the countryside is unaffected. I refer to riding establishments, vermin control, fishing, tourism, farm workshops, stock shows—you name it, everything and everyone is suffering detrimentally. Most people, particularly the "townies", are just not aware how everyday life is being changed, nor of the utter despair and isolation—the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, mentioned that—which are prevalent in many parts of the country.
I congratulate the Government on adopting the right policy of trying to stamp out the disease by killing and burning affected animals. I do not believe that vaccination is the answer for this country. However, the implementation of their policy has not been to a standard that one would have hoped. Stock are not being killed for days after notification. If France can get that bit right, so should we. Neither is dead stock being disposed of quickly enough. Can noble Lords
780
imagine not just the pain of seeing one's breeding stock slaughtered but the indignity of having to look at the dead and putrefying carcasses for days until they are burned and buried? That is cruelty to humans and an ignominious end to many years of hard work. The extra resources mentioned by the Minister are welcome but they are just a catch-up policy.
Let us look at the animal welfare problems. The disease has been spread much wider and more quickly because of the regulations on the transportation of livestock. These, and those that forced the closure of local abattoirs, combined with the pressure of the supermarkets to determine where stock can be slaughtered, have exacerbated our problems. Hundreds of thousands of sheep are in the wrong place for lambing and are suffering greatly. Although very limited livestock movement is now permitted, as predicted that has become a bureaucratic nightmare. Farmers are now being told that they will have to wait for days before their application forms can even be looked at when the stock, for their own sake, need to be moved now, today, and not at the end of the week.
Can the Minister tell me whether it is true that officials responsible for this matter are not working through the night to clear the backlog? Farmers work through every night at lambing time and businesses do so when that is necessary, so why cannot officials?
The licensing of stock going to abattoirs is also a mess and is unco-ordinated. Stock are taken there only to be turned away. The present system is similar to selling 300 tickets for an aeroplane that has only 250 seats. Surely there ought to be a more logical and ordered system with specific collection points so that controls can be implemented more efficiently and more effectively.
Despite the lead given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for which I admire her as she has done an excellent job, and the hard work of the veterinary profession and others, it is not surprising that the Government are being caught out by this tragedy. For them to say that they have the situation under control when they obviously do not just adds insult to injury.
There are further steps that the Government could, and should, take immediately. Will the Minister confirm that she will arrange for all farmers due to receive funds in the next few months for such items as ewe premium and HCAs to be sent the money immediately? They are all suffering a cash flow crisis. If they were to receive that money sooner rather than later it would help their cash flow problems. Will the Minister also agree to extend the closing date for Countryside Stewardship schemes beyond 31st May as at present FWAG and others cannot get to farms to assess claims?
I expect that many people do not understand the implications of having one's stock destroyed, so I hope that I may spell it out. It is not like a factory which can stop making widgets one day and quickly swap to another product the next. My noble friend Lady Byford said that a sheep farmer may take a year to return to production. I take the example of a beef farmer. If his stock are slaughtered today, he will get

781
compensation for their value. It will be at least six months—that is the minimum period—before he is allowed to restock. Then he will have to buy new breeding stock but that will be a problem. First, the stock will have to be suitable for his area; if not, they might die of some other disease such as red water. The stock will undoubtedly cost more than the money he receives in compensation due to the shortage of stock which will arise after the outbreak.
Let us assume that the farmer buys young stock that require six months to reach maturity. Then there are the nine months of pregnancy, followed by up to 30 months before the next generation is sold. That farmer will be without a cash flow for over four years. It should not be forgotten that the adjacent farmer, who is not directly affected, will inevitably suffer a huge cash flow loss this year, as will everyone else working in the countryside. I refer to those who own holiday cottages, B&Bs, pubs and local village shops. Many of those will not be around next year.
It is perhaps a little unfair to debate the future when the countryside is in the middle of a crisis, but it has to be faced. Let us hope that the Prime Minister, who has now, rather belatedly, woken up to some of the problems and held a meeting with representatives today, does not lose interest in the subject when all this quietens down.
The task force mentioned by the Minister is not enough to tackle the future. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle: it does not have the necessary gravitas and will not have the right direction. I suggest that a Royal Commission with a strict timescale be appointed. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury mentioned some of the issues that such a Royal Commission could consider. I add a few more to his list. In a sophisticated economy with high costs, should we try to produce food at world prices instead of high quality, high price food? Do we want farmers to be farmers; or do we want them to be park keepers? They cannot be both at the same time. What scale of unit and what kind of infrastructure do we want them to have?
The restructuring of farms is now in sharp focus. That issue cannot be fudged. Should some of those affected by the foot and mouth disease be encouraged to go back into an industry which would probably squeeze them out in a few years' time? Is that not a waste of money and a hurtful and deceitful thing to do to people? Should our system of stock farming change to prevent the trading of animals in the way that has currently developed which has helped to spread this foot and mouth disease outbreak?
Is our intensive agriculture right? Are we manipulating nature too much, making matters more difficult for ourselves and making ourselves more prone to disease? As long as we import food from overseas, we shall get disease. The current strain of foot and mouth disease started in India in the 1990s and rapidly spread East and West; and there will be new strains to come. Swine fever is caused by a carelessly thrown away sandwich containing imported ham; and again there will be more to come.
782
Although I am not a farmer my heart bleeds for them and those in the countryside who are at the receiving end of this disaster. Now is the time for the Government to show strong leadership and responsibility. That, sadly, has been lacking to date.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, this is designed to be a brief intervention on an issue which has both short and long-term significance and will inject, I am afraid, a further sombre note into today's debate.
I am not a countryman by background but I have a strong concern for the health of those who work in rural areas. The key issue of mental stress suffered by farmers, farm workers and their families is of major importance, and never more so than now. The noble Lord, Lord Plumb, referred graphically to this earlier in the debate. Research in the 1990s found that over 500 farmers in England and Wales killed themselves between 1979 and 1990. The research found that 70 per cent of working farmers had experienced mental health problems.
A survey last year of British tenant farmers by the National Farmers Union suggested that one in 10 is being prescribed anti-depressants. Seventy per cent of those farmers said that their business concerns keep them awake at night. More than 70 farmers and farm workers in England and Wales committed suicide in 1998. That rose to 77 in 1999. Farmers are now twice as likely to commit suicide as an ordinary member of the public. This issue was rightly raised recently by Prince Charles, with his great concern for rural life. Only today The Times—my noble friend Lord Hooson and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, referred to the article—described how Devon police are taking away the shot guns of those they believe to be at risk.
Stress induced suicide is clearly a growing problem in rural areas. It is now the second most common form of death among farmers aged between 16 and 45 years. This is hardly surprising. As many noble Lords have pointed out, farm incomes have dropped by two thirds in the past few years. Indeed, it is clear that there is a strong link between the social disadvantage of low incomes and mental health problems. This is compounded by rural isolation, described so graphically by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury. This problem may well spread further afield, beyond the farming community, as local businesses, our tourist industry and hauliers are hit by the foot and mouth disease epidemic, as described by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. Women married to farmers have a suicide rate more than 20 per cent higher than average. But rural suicides are, throughout the age range, predominantly male.
Suicide among young men recently has been the subject of investigation by the Men's Health Forum. It found that few health authorities have developed and implemented effective suicide strategies. Yet reducing the number of suicides is one of the key targets in the Government's Health White Paper and the National Plan. It is outlined in the National Service Framework for Mental Health. Health improvement plans were

783
found by the Men's Health Forum to be somewhat formulaic on the subject, concentrating only on mental health services. That is clearly insufficient to tackle the issue. Much of what is said applies to all men, not just young men. There is a reluctance to use primary healthcare and obtain counselling. Greater risks are taken by men with their mental and physical health. Men have a greater inability to show vulnerability and ask for help.
With the current epidemic of foot and mouth disease, not to mention some of the earlier tribulations, many farmers are seeing their life's work being destroyed. The problem of suicide in the countryside will, I fear, become worse. As it is, the Rural Stress Information Network, referred to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, has reported a 400 per cent increase in distress calls since the first outbreak in February.
The various avenues open to preventing suicide in rural areas were well documented in a research publication, Suicide and Stress in Farmers, funded by the Department of Health and published in 1998. The steps suggested in that report included improving the knowledge and attitudes of farming communities to mental disorder; ensuring that GPs and others are aware of the way mental problems present themselves; provision of out of area practitioner services for farmers who do not wish to seek help locally; regular health checks; vigorous treatment of depression; follow up of farmers with mental problems at home; support of farmers with financial difficulties; co-ordination of rural stress initiatives; and removal of firearms from those suffering from depression.
Few health action zones cover rural areas. Therefore that instrument for implementing those proposals is not generally available. As a county, Dorset provides an excellent example of developing an effective suicide prevention strategy. The relevant agencies have been pulled together and a strategy has been developed. I welcome the setting up of the Rural Mental Health Services Group last October dedicated to tackling these issues; and in particular the personal involvement of Professor Louis Appleby, the National Director for Mental Health. I also welcome the development of one-stop primary care centres in rural areas. Rural health services are often very limited, with small cottage hospitals closed or closing and fewer local GP practices as GPs consolidate into larger practices.
A great deal is being done by professional and voluntary groupings, especially through organisations such as the Rural Stress Information Network, the Royal College of General Practitioners rural practices group, the Rural Health Institute, the Farmers Crisis Network and the Samaritans. The Government have not been inactive. They have taken some valuable steps, outlined in the rural White Paper, particularly in conjunction with Mind on the RuralMinds project, designed to provide training and education for those providing support in rural areas. They have also given
784
a large grant to the Rural Stress Information Network and others as part of the rural stress action plan announced last October.
We need to ensure that all those measures are effective. The problems that I have outlined will only get worse as a result of the current crisis. I urge the Government to think and plan ahead and to redouble their efforts. Otherwise, there will be further avoidable tragedy in the countryside.
9.9 p.m.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for initiating the debate. I declare my interest as a landowner and retired farmer. I farmed for 35 years. As well as being an arable farmer, as one would expect in Norfolk, I also had cattle and sheep.
I remember the last two foot and mouth outbreaks, restrictions due to fowl pest and, unfortunately, recent restrictions in our county due to swine fever. However, I do not remember 1745, when, on 11th March, the London Gazette published the following Order in Council. I am trying to find your Lordships something else to listen to, so I shall quote it. It said:
"Whereas a Contagious Distemper now rages in several Parts of this Kingdom amongst Oxen, Bulls, Cows, Calves, Steers and Heifers, which if not timely prevented, may end in the entire Destruction of such Cattle".
It went on to list what to do:
"First, That all Cowkeepers, Farmers and Owners of any of the said several Sorts of Cattle, in any Place where the said Distemper has appeared, or shall hereafter appear, do, as soon as any of the said Cattle shall appear to have Signs or Marks of the said Distemper, immediately remove such Cattle to some place distant from the rest, and cause the same to be shot dead, or otherwise killed, with as little Effusion of Blood as may be, and the Bodies to be immediately buried with the Skin and Horns on, at least Four Feet in Depth above the Body and the Beast so buried, having first cut and slashed the hides … so as to render the same of no use".
Thirdly, among other things, it suggests:
"That they do cause the Houses or Buildings where any such infected Cattle shall have stood, to be cleaned from all Dung and Filth, and wet Gunpowder, Pitch, Tar or Brimstone to be fired or burnt in several Parts of such Buildings, at the same Time keeping in the Smoke as much as possible; and that the same be afterwards frequently washed with Vinegar and warm Water; and that no sound Cattle be put therein for Two Months at least".
I suggest that wet gunpowder might be an alternative to some form of disinfectant and I am sure that the brimstone was equally useful. I am positive that foot and mouth could not survive such treatment.
There are also letters from a tenant, Mr Bell, to my ancestor Horatio Walpole, who at that time was MP for Norwich. His comments ring true today as well:
"The observations which naturally occur to my mind on the above restrictions are as follows:
The farmers in Norfolk as to the above affair are to be divided into two sorts (viz) they that buy and they that sell turnips. They who have bought can't perform their contract neither can those Beasts which are half as near fatted be kept up but must shrink and dwindle to lean stock to the great detriment of the Owner. Which will make beef scarce and expensive dear.
The farmer who has sold his turnips not having stock of his own must throw away his turnips and greatly endamage his next year's crop of corn. The buyer by this Order being prevented feeding them.

785
Besides on the coming of this order many a Grasder has his stock at four or five miles distance the feed done or near done and can't remove them home where he has plenty but must keep them where they are in starving condition and perhaps lose his own turnips to the great prejudice of his following crop".
It strikes me that not a lot has altered.
I quote those examples to show that the problem is not new. Indeed, to bring noble Lords more up to date, I expressed my concern some eight years ago in your Lordships' House to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, who is not here, about the unnecessary transport of sheep over long distances. I suggested that the transport of carcasses would be much more humane than the transport of live animals. Later, I questioned the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch—I see that she is not in her seat; she was a moment ago—about keeping abattoirs local.
Norfolk is one of the few counties without confirmed cases in this outbreak of foot and mouth disease. I understand, and I hope that the Minister will not disillusion me, that only one farm is still undergoing tests. I believe that their result should be known soon. Also, sad to say, the lorry which was involved in taking pigs from Heddon to Cheals Foods was based in Norfolk.
For 20 years we have been involved in farm diversification. With the help of the Manpower Services Commission and with direct support from the local Ramblers' Association, we opened up 25 miles of footpaths. Some were on existing footpaths, some were new footpaths and some were discretionary. They link into the Norfolk Long-Distance Footpath system. We have a car park, toilets and so on, for which there is a small charge. We have a Caravan Club certified site, holiday cottages and children's nature activities. In other words, I believe that we did what the Ministry of Agriculture had been telling us to do for years in the way of diversifying. In 1989 we opened the park at Wolterton, where there had been virtually no public access. Many events take place at both venues, which are one-and-a-half miles apart.
On the Saturday after the first case of foot and mouth had been confirmed, we closed the park at Wolterton and the car park at Mannington and waited to see what others in Norfolk did. We were particularly worried about the grazing at Mannington, where we had many sheep belonging to a neighbour, and at Wolterton, where over 100 beef cows and their followers and organic sheep belonging to a tenant had been placed. In addition, over the past 20 years, the number of wild deer—red, roe and muntjac—in our area has increased significantly.
I am pleased to say that others seemed to follow us. The National Trust closed everything in East Anglia, including its holiday cottages. It is not allowing anyone on to any of its properties. The Forestry Commission closed Thetford Forest for the first time since it was planted over 80 years ago. I imagine that, again, that was done because of the considerable increase in the number of deer in that area.
I now want to tell the House what the county council has done. I do not believe that anyone has yet mentioned that county councils have played an
786
absolutely pivotal role in this matter. When the first case of foot and mouth disease was announced, Norfolk County Council immediately activated its emergency planning procedures. Of course, it was used to doing that because it had just done so following an outbreak of swine fever. Therefore, it was perhaps a little more clued up than were some counties.
Strong political leadership, combined with a unified approach and good corporate partnership, was the key. Within six hours of the Foot and Mouth Disease (Amendment) (England) Order being made on 27th February, Norfolk County Council closed off all paths adjacent to D notice farms in the county. Within 24 hours, the council used the order to make a declaration of prohibited areas everywhere. In other words, no member of the public could enter any agricultural or forestry land in the county of Norfolk except on a public highway. That included the use of footpaths and bridleways. Therefore, they shut everything.
Closure signs, which carried the county council's logo and contact number, were available to farmers and landowners all over the county immediately. They were distributed electronically via the NFU and made available on the county council's website. They were e-mailed so as to reduce the need for extra journeys. All routine visits to farm and rural properties by council officers were stopped on 28th February. All council-owned countryside facilities, such as nature reserves and picnic areas, were closed on the same day.
Education, mobile library and social services provided by the council took all the action needed to respond to the situation. They issued guidance to everyone, including schools, parents, bus operators, county highway services and all other service contractors. The county also acted promptly on allegations of illegal movement of animals and, by 1st March, was investigating three incidents. Members of the public were encouraged to be vigilant with regard to animal movement.
I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, may be interested to know that the county has already issued 360 licences for the authorised movement of some 29,000 animals by 29th March. Extra resources have been put in place to speed up the issuing of those licences. Applicants get a special licence pack, information and reminders of the strict disinfecting procedures that must be followed.
The council has also been working on a day-to-day basis with a wide range of partners, including the NFU, MAFF and many others. On 2nd March, the council hosted a constructive meeting with the NFU, the CLA and the Ramblers' Association, at which there was agreement about the need for the council's actions and support for the council in taking them. There is a good information exchange network between the council and partner organisations which operates on a daily basis.
On public information, the council set up a public seven-days-a-week helpline to answer any questions about foot and mouth or to refer people to other agencies that might help. By 9th March, the helpline had taken more than 800 calls and a separate licensing

787
helpline was set up on 5th March. The council had put out 17 news releases by 9th March covering all aspects of the situation and publicising the answers to the most frequently asked questions from the helpline. It has also issued specific advice for dog walkers and condemnation of instances in which closure notices had been torn down.
The council's website has a special link to foot and mouth, which is updated daily. The most frequently asked questions are amended and extended as necessary. I used that service this evening before speaking to find out what the situation is, but it still does not know about the last farm.
I am sure that all counties have done roughly the same but, frankly, I am proud of the efficiency of my old council and the speed with which it acted. I shall give just one example of local misery. My grazing tenant at Mannington has a problem with half of his sheep because they are on a neighbouring holding on sugar beet tops. At least, they were on sugar beet tops; they have eaten them. So far, he has not got permission to cross the road to our side of the road, where the sheep are going to lamb. It is perhaps ironic that an RSPCA officer came to look at the sheep because they had been reported as being on land where there was no food. That happened despite the fact that large quantities of straw and fodder-beet had been carted to them. The RSPCA officer was impressed by the effort that my tenant was making to keep his sheep under very difficult circumstances. That tenant has obtained from the website the necessary licence forms—all seven pages of them—to move his sheep. I hope that he got the forms in the post this evening and that he will be able to move the sheep.
Finally, what are we to learn? "Compensation to businesses other than farmers for consequential loss will no doubt be commented on by the Minister". That is what I wrote when I prepared my speech. Of course, she has answered most of the questions already.
The tourism industry, which is the most common form of diversification, will have serious problems. For example, the main north Norfolk tourism workshop, which was to have taken place on 30th March at Hockham, has been cancelled. Mind you, I think that that is the sensible thing to do. Also, we appear to have forgotten—no noble Lord has mentioned this so far—the fact that many charities and voluntary organisations are having great difficulty in operating, doing their jobs and raising money.
Secondly, we must look again at local production, at local slaughter and marketing of meat produce and at local distribution of, for example, organic food-in-box schemes. In other words, as the right reverend Prelate said, we must reduce food miles.
Finally, research must be stepped up so that this terrible situation, which affects everyone in this country, does not occur again with such disastrous consequences.
9.24 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, although I welcome the opportunity to have this debate I need hardly say that, like other noble Lords, I regret very deeply indeed the tragic circumstances in which it is taking place.
I declare an interest as a landowner in north Yorkshire, where I have a number of tenant farmers who are sitting on the edge of their chairs waiting and praying that they will not be affected by this dreadful outbreak of foot and mouth disease. All I can say is that I wholeheartedly agree with other noble Lords that we can only feel genuine despair for those individual farmers and their families who are undergoing such a debilitating and sole-destroying calamity. Surely, even those who hold the most jaundiced views about farmers and farming must now realise that we are witnessing an industry in total crisis, not to mention the associated human suffering.
In addition to those problems, the relentless demands on farmers continue—demands for cheaper food, higher animal welfare standards, a pristine environment, free and unrestricted access, and the continual whinging about the feather-bedding of farmers through subsidy. I am the first to say that, in my view, much of that subsidy is badly directed. However, I say to those who complain about support for farmers: what state would the farming industry and the countryside now be in, if it was not for support? We have a real crisis, but I can tell your Lordships that it would be much worse but for the support systems that are in place.
I should like to raise a further point, to which I may later return, concerning the question of red tape. It abounds all over every farmyard. Forms have become longer and deeper. The constant dialogue with which the farmers have to contend from the plethora of agencies now running the countryside is, quite frankly, driving them bonkers. Yet, despite that red tape, there remains a wonderful, stoical determination to carry on against all the odds, which I find extraordinary. Anyone who heard Clare Lambert being interviewed on the farming programme about her family's recent foot and mouth disaster in Wensleydale, which is very close to where I live, could not help but be moved—not just by the tragedy itself but by, as much as anything, her quiet determination to see the crisis through and to bravely battle on into what can only be described as a very uncertain future.
As other noble Lords have said, it is not only the farming industry that is suffering. The tourist industry, crucial to many rural areas, is on its knees. I quote from last Friday's edition of my local newspaper, the Darlington and Stockton Times:
"An economic catastrophe is poised to strike the Yorkshire Dales and Moors as foot and mouth begins to rip the heart out of local businesses".
That is no exaggeration. The stark fact is that we could be about to witness one of the greatest economic and human tragedies ever to face rural Britain, and I do not believe that that is an exaggeration.
I feel a genuine sorrow for the Minister and for everyone in her department. This is an awful crisis, which she and her colleagues have to face. She will

789
have to make some very difficult decisions in relation to where the balance of need lies. I do not think that anybody should underestimate that. I think the general view is that, by and large, the Government are doing what they can.
However, I was interested to hear on the recent farming programme the very severe criticisms made by the Irish Minister of Agriculture. Although I am not suggesting for one moment that he was right in what he said—and I do understand his considerable interest—I should be very interested to hear whether the Minister feels that any of his criticisms can in any way be substantiated. He clearly put forward some very strong suggestions, and I should be very interested to hear whether or not the Minister feels that they are helpful.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, perhaps I can intervene to say that it was not Joe Walsh, the Agriculture Minister; it was another ministerial colleague who made those comments.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I apologise if I referred to the wrong Minister; but my question stands.
Many noble Lords mentioned the crucial question of compensation, which is a hugely difficult area. But I say to the Minister that, whereas compensation is clearly being paid to farmers who have contaminated stock, there are others in restricted zones who cannot get their stock to the abattoirs under the scheme presently in place, many of whom have associated businesses. I sincerely hope that the Government will look favourably on them because they are a special case.
My noble friend Lord Caithness mentioned a number of issues to which I wanted to refer. He was right in his references to the countryside stewardship scheme and the bringing forward of some of the payments due over the next six months. That would certainly help the cash flow problems of those farmers in greatest need.
Another highly crucial point was mentioned; that is, the question of imports. As I understand it, we rely largely on a certification scheme conducted by the importing countries. Clearly that has failed and I join with other noble Lords in asking the Minister what the Government will be doing in the future to ensure that we do not encounter these problems again.
A point made by my noble friend Lord Ferrers was the possibility of raiding the agri-monetary and agri-environment pots. But those sums of money have been allocated for other purposes. There may be a short-term advantage in using them, but we must not draw down on those sums which have been specifically dedicated for other rural and agricultural purposes.
I regret that we have not had the opportunity of debating the rural White Paper. It is a great shame. I and many other noble Lords put pressure on the Chief Whip, but he decided, in his wisdom, not to give us time to debate it. Unfortunately, with the present crisis, it is difficult to debate it this evening. But I should quickly like to make one or two points in that regard.
790
Looking beyond the ghastly tragedy that we face at the moment, we must ask where farming is going. Global trading is something with which we shall have to live. But as we have seen, it brings its problems. Retailers and consumers must now make every effort to support our home markets. Producers must be given every encouragement to exploit local demand through good marketing and assessment of consumer need. We have not done that enough in this country; we must develop it and develop it fast.
That leads me on to the question of local abattoirs, to which the noble Countess, Lady Mar, referred, on this and many other occasions, as have other noble Lords. I realise that the Government have finally woken up—they have been woefully slow to accept the problems—to the fact that there is a need to reduce the bureaucratic costs of local abattoirs. However, it was brought to my attention the other day that the Food Standards Agency is now imposing additional restrictions on the abattoirs which may well negate any advantages to be found in the Government's new initiative. A letter was written to the Minister the other day from a number of sympathetic parties, which said,
"Rather than reducing the burden of charges borne by small and medium sized abattoirs, the proposals may give licence for inspectors' charges to be increased".
This is a serious situation and I hope that the Minister is able to respond to that.
I referred earlier to red tape and I hope that the Government will continue to look at ways of reducing it. In 1997, the Better Regulation Task Force, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, looked at that very problem and put forward 21 recommendations. Can the Minister tell the House how many of those have been implemented and how many are likely to be implemented?
The recent White Paper was helpful. It was pragmatic and put forward some useful ideas. However, I thought it was a little short on agriculture and a little long on bureaucracy. I welcome the switch to environmental payments. Unusually, I take issue with my noble friend Lord Caithness. He said that farmers cannot be farmers and park keepers, but I believe that they must be. The farmers manage the country and they must take responsibility for the land which they manage. However, they cannot do so if they do not have the proper support.
Some of the environmental payments are welcome and I welcome the change to agri-environment schemes. However, they must be targeted more effectively, they must be more regional and farmers must be paid for the true cost of managing the countryside. Paying them under a system of profits foregone, which is the case in some of the ESA areas, is a nonsense. If paid under a system of profits foregone, in this day and age they would be picking up a minus figure!
Clearly, farmers are taking every advantage to diversify. However, it is essential people realise that diversification is only helpful; it is not the panacea for the countryside. If we do not have a healthy, profitable agriculture to maintain the whole rural infrastructure,

791
all the problems that we are witnessing today will compound. Any support mechanism must recognise that simple fact. As the CAP develops and changes, I hope that the Government will always have that fact at the back of their mind. If we do not have such fundamental support, we shall see a total collapse in the whole rural infrastructure.
I feel that I have said enough, other than again to commiserate with those who are suffering. I hope and pray that the Government, with all the help that they have, can bring this dreadful crisis to an end as quickly as possible.
9.38 p.m.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate the crisis in the countryside today. I must declare an interest as a farmer and a landowner. I am a farmer with a small "f" because I have only a small Charollais pedigree sheep flock. But that flock means an awful lot to me. I have been building it up for many years from scratch and it is just beginning to achieve some success.
I live in a local exclusion area, the local outbreak being five kilometres from my farm. Since that initial outbreak in Staffordshire, some eight more have been confirmed within 10 miles. The funeral pyres are burning and the countryside is rank with the evil smell of smoke.
I was fascinated to listen with great interest to my noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, who explained in great detail how the disease spreads. I noted today on the wire the following reply from a government spokesman. When asked whether the disease was under control, the spokesman replied,
"I don't think anybody really knows that answer. After all, it's airborne".
Your Lordships will doubtless want to know who that spokesman was. It was none other than the Deputy Prime Minister.
I well remember the outbreak of 1967. Some 460,000 animals were slaughtered and the countryside was closed down—quite rightly. It all happened in the area in which I live. That outbreak began at Oswestry and was confined to the surrounding counties. In those days animals were not generally hauled long distances to slaughterhouses; there were very many more abattoirs. But today the requirements of the consumer have changed. Supermarkets are the main sellers of a vast range of quality meat and meat products. But they must be cost-conscious in the sourcing of fresh meat supplies. Such cost awareness often involves the use of large and conveniently placed abattoirs at strategic sites.
Today, far too many of the small slaughterhouses have gone. Animals are bought by dealers at, say, Carlisle market to fill an order from a supermarket chain. The collection operation is launched by the buyer or his agent or dealer: say, 20 beasts at Carlisle, a further 10 at Northampton, six at Uttoxeter and so
792
on. Just one dealer will complete an order for an abattoir based possibly at Taunton for the supply of local supermarkets.
The most local and first case in Staffordshire arose on a farm owned and run by such a dealer. He had 460 cattle on his holding and had bought a small bunch of cattle at Northampton market. One of those beasts developed foot and mouth. Large mileages are covered and holding farms may be used to rest the animals overnight while they are collected and assembled. The potential for the spread of disease, especially one as highly contagious as foot and mouth, is easy to see. I have never been in favour of the movement of live animals for export—my farming friends will pillory me for saying that—because I believe that for welfare reasons an animal is best slaughtered close to home with minimum stress, which provides better quality meat. Carcasses can be transported in refrigerated trucks anywhere these days.
Another matter which must be looked at very carefully is the practice of feeding swill to pigs. If swill is obtained from reputable and clean sources and is cooked to the right temperature for the correct time it is perfectly all right, but some farmers cut corners. The Waugh brothers' swill unit at Heddon-on-the-Wall was the source of the original outbreak. To all intents and purposes, it was not a well-run establishment and had been visited by MAFF officials on 22nd December last. I quote from an article in Farmers Weekly on 8th March:
"Allegations of uncleanliness in a yard strewn with uncooked food, dogs and foxes living off raw swill and overflowing slurry pits surrounded the Waugh brothers' pig unit at Heddon-on-the-Wall.
But despite being reported to MAFF, and the inspection by Ministry vets and local authority trading standards officers that followed on December 22, no action on account of alleged uncleanliness was taken against the Waugh brothers".
Why on earth not? Such action might have prevented this foot and mouth epidemic. The article went on to quote a lady who rents land adjoining the pig unit. She is reported as saying:
"Everyone wants to know why the authorities did not close them down. The entire area was filthy.
"Flocks of birds would feed freely and the place provided a constant source of food for a family of foxes that had built a huge earth close nearby. Why was this food allowed to be left all over the yard even after the inspection in December?"
That unit is typical of a small number of such farms which exist in the United Kingdom. They should not be in business. In Staffordshire, less than a mile from my farm, is a farmer who feeds swill to his pigs. The smell of cooking is appalling; it makes people physically sick. The farmer has recently been convicted on two counts of failing to comply with environmental orders to limit or curtail the stink of the cooking. That case has taken a very long while to come to court. The person in question was fined a minimal amount. I believe that he was fined £300 on each count with £200 costs. The day after the court case he was at it again. Last Thursday he was served an abatement order by environmental health officers for setting light to materials, including rubber tyres, the smoke from which fire was thick, jet black and acrid. Meanwhile,

793
the nuisance caused by his activities, which are obnoxious, has devalued local properties and, in some cases, made them unsaleable. He is, in short, a rogue farmer who takes absolutely no notice of the law. Such people should not be allowed to continue in business and give farmers a bad name.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister—I have given the noble Baroness notice of the question—how many farmers have contravened the movement restrictions since they ca me into force some two weeks ago. How many cases, or impending cases, are there in the Midlands, especially as in Staffordshire we now have three or more confirmed outbreaks and a large restriction area? What action is being taken to prosecute such infringements; and what are the fines? What cases so far have been to court; and what was the result?
I understand that the Waugh brothers' operation at Heddon-on-the-Wall used swill produced from waste food collected from airports. Is there any truth in that rumour?
As a keen racing man, with few winners under my belt, I find it reprehensible that the racing authorities have not banned racing in the UK for the duration of the present crisis. We are talking about a potential national catastrophe in terms of food supply, tourism and agriculture. To my recollection, all racing was halted during the epidemic in 1967. The MAFF website—it is an excellent source of information, especially at present, and I commend MAFF on it—states that hunting, shooting, fishing and point-to-point races are stopped. Why therefore has not racing? I am sure that it could not be that point-to-pointing is associated closely with hunting, but that horseracing has a much wider following. Even the former champion jockey, Willy Carson, does not support the continuance of racing while this epidemic is still with us. I know that racing people's livelihoods are at risk here, but the risk to the agricultural community, and everything connected with it, from the spread of the disease is potentially catastrophic. Racing is a pastime; farming is a business.
I firmly believe that following this epidemic and the previous difficulties of swine fever, BSE and more, it is vital that a wide-ranging inquiry and review into agricultural practices be instigated. I believe that the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister has already mentioned that matter. It is absolutely vital that British beef, lamb and pork regain their envied position of top quality produce, and the consumer must he confident that these products and the methods by which they are produced are safe and to the highest standards of welfare. The consumer will have to pay a fair price for such excellent products.
First, a possible solution might be that all farmers should be members of an organisation such as Farm Assured British Beef and Lamb—FABBL. Such an organisation would be empowered to carry out spot checks on farms, with statutory powers to inspect records, medicines, welfare practices and animal accommodation, among a number of issues. If a
794
farmer infringed the standards he should run the risk of losing his licence to farm. Good farmers will have absolutely no problem in complying with that.
Secondly, I believe that finished stock should be slaughtered at abattoirs no further than a certain distance from their farm of abode, minimising stress and improving the quality of the meat. If supermarkets do not like such an arrangement, that is tough luck on them. They have profited well out of the fanning industry for many years. It is time that they gave something back. The vast numbers of miles covered by dealer's cattle while being assembled must cease.
Thirdly, the feeding of swill is an outdated and potentially risky practice. Noble Lords much more knowledgeable than I have already said that for reasons of public health it should be banned and banned now.
Fourthly, the movement of animals between farms and markets should be rigorously monitored and checked. I understand that electronically implanted tags are becoming available for farm animals. Can the Minister provide the House with any information on that matter? We need to have full traceability of all farming livestock. Farming practices in this country must become the very best in the world.
Finally, this epidemic is a disaster for the agricultural community, encompassing farmers, vets, feed suppliers, tourism and everyone connected with agriculture and the countryside. I applaud the Government in their firm attitude, even though they could be doing slightly better—every government can. I pay tribute to those who are working very long hours to try to eradicate the problem. Theirs is the most difficult and harrowing of tasks. Their workload is enormous.
I feel so terribly sad for those farmers whose lifetime's labours have gone up in smoke from the funeral pyre. The economic damage to those tottering on the brink may well push them over the edge. I urge the Minister to consider the allocation of financial support. I cannot help but note that this is a tragically sad event, and that it would appear to take a disaster of this magnitude to force the Government to turn their attention to the well-being of the countryside community and the food producers. Action must be taken to ensure that never again can such a disaster be allowed to happen. I sincerely wish the Minister well in her very difficult task.
9.49 p.m.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, as so many noble Lords have said today, this is a sombre time for our countryside and for our nation. The countryside is not separate from our nation. The Government stated in their White Paper last autumn:
"Farming is important. It supplies most of our food. It directly employs around 600,000 people … It contributes £7bn each year to the UK economy. It is and will continue to be the bedrock of a UK food chain worth £57bn each year and 3.3 million jobs. Farming has defined most of the landscape and shaped its diversity".
With those facts in mind, no one can dispute that the countryside is a vital part of our nation.

795
After BSE, swine fever and the impact of very low competitive prices internationally, it is really a crisis—I use the word carefully—when we now have this foot and mouth outbreak. It is a situation in which two objectives should apply. First, those who do not live in the country should recognise, as I am sure all do, the social and economic suffering that is presently being undergone by those who live in the country. Secondly, and very importantly socially and politically, there should be solidarity between those in cities and those in the country. Such objectives of recognising the problem and illustrating the solidarity that is required are best achieved through action by government?
I have no commercial or technical farming experience, but I do have a home in the country. I have spent a considerable amount of time lately talking to my friends about the grave problems that they and their society, in which I play a small part, are presently facing. They identify three issues, which I commend to the House for attention. The first is the scope and treatment of the foot and mouth outbreak; the second is dealing with the social and economic aftermath of it; and the third is the need for a coherent food policy for this country for the future. I shall take them in turn.
First, as your Lordships in different speeches have illustrated, but it can be said pungently in one sentence, the foot and mouth outbreak has resulted in complete disruption of rural society in this country. One cannot overstate it. It is that bad. Secondly, such a crisis demands effective government action. There have been many questions to my noble friend the Minister about details of the programme to counteract the outbreak, but the prevailing sentiment that I have observed is that the Government's present actions are effective. One must remember that, geographically, numerically and logistically, this is an entirely different problem from that of 1967. It is major. It requires innovative solutions. There is no perfect remedy day-by-day. The Government are doing the best that reasonably can be done.
Thirdly, most important is the need for the Government to show sensitivity to the needs of the countryside and its community at this particular stage. I do not mean that sensitivity should be demonstrated in some palliative sense, but rather in a practical manner. It is appropriate that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture and my noble friend the Minister should speak to the farming and countryside community. It is very important indeed that representatives from the Treasury, civil servants and Ministers alike, should do the same. That would demonstrate not only sensitivity, but a preparedness for dealing with the problem when the solutions to it in the aftermath are required.
Fourthly, I turn to candour. That word is rarely used in politics. When used in a legal context, it is designed to indicate that people will say what they think, why they think it and what one should know about it. I cannot imagine that any rational observer of the Government's actions over the past few weeks could not but agree that they have shown candour.
796
That does not require a daily baring of the chest on every single aspect of government policy, but it does mean telling the truth. That, I believe, they have done.
Lastly, in this first sector of my remarks, I turn to action to address the scope and treatment of the problem. I listened carefully to the erudite analysis put forward by my noble friend Lord Soulsby. I did not find it satisfactory. It was illuminating, but not productive of future action. I cannot believe that there is not open to scientific investigation a system of vaccination that would solve this problem. Heads are shaken, but why is that? Only 10 years ago, vaccination was stopped. That was done for market reasons. The result has been that vaccination without insurance—here I refer to partial vaccination rather than a total system—is completely ineffective. Insurers will not insure unless vaccination has taken place, but people will not vaccinate unless there is insurance. Many with more experience than I shake their heads in dismay. However, there may be a different solution and it is certainly worth inquiring into that. Are we to contemplate—century after century, as it turns out—this kind of mass slaughter as the only remedy against a prevailing disease? We would not accept it in human beings. Why should we do so in animals? To those who shake their heads, I say that this is certainly worthy of inquiry. I therefore commend the Government's task force which will look at the effects of this outbreak on the wider rural economy.
I turn now to the second sector of my remarks; namely, how to deal with the aftermath. I listened attentively to the helpful intervention of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury. He wanted to see a new beginning. I do not agree that that is what we should embark upon. We should not seek a total new beginning. The right reverend Prelate set his remarks in the context of a Government White Paper that he said was not enough. I disagree with him. The White Paper was a serious attempt—the third in 12 months, following A New Direction for Agriculture and the Action Plan for Farming, introduced by the Prime Minister—to improve rural England. It is not a new beginning that is required, but rather building upon this White Paper. I invite the Government to note the following suggestion. They talk about rural regeneration and a seven-year plan of £1.6 billion. That was written four months ago. What we need now is a greater sum of money over a shorter period of years effectively to regenerate our rural communities after this crisis.
In addition, the White Paper said a great deal about supporting small rural business; the Phoenix plan. How inapt it now appears after this disaster, the Phoenix plan. But it involves £100 million; it is a start and it should be developed upon. I invite the Ministry which deals with this matter to put to their Treasury colleagues the following suggestion: that that £1.6 billion, that £100 million and all the other amounts that figure in the White Paper, which are payable over years, pall into insignificance at the losses currently being incurred week by week. I assume, being a relative political novice in the House, that there exist in government contingency funds for real national crises.

797
This is one. The funds should be used for it and used to develop the sensible suggestions which figured in the Government's White Paper.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I am extremely interested in what the noble Lord is saying. I have no doubt at all that the opportunities to generate new businesses in the country are absolutely essential for rural survival. But does the noble Lord agree that, rather than spending money on new businesses, at this moment in time it is absolutely essential to keep in business those that are there at the moment? I suggest that perhaps that money could best be used—or, indeed, other money—to ensure that we do not lose the farmers of this country, who are the backbone of rural Britain.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, I am grateful for that intervention, with which I entirely agree. I did not have the time properly to develop the point. I was suggesting that the part of the Government White Paper directed at new business should be partly adapted to meet the present needs of farming. That programme exists. It was presumably approved by the Treasury; it can be adapted to the exigencies of the present situation. It does not require yet another beginning.
Finally, I turn to the question of a food policy for the future. Two elements predominate in society's view of food. The first element is food safety. The Government's introduction of the Food Standards Agency is to be welcomed, but food safety depends on the second element; that is, food security. Where does it come from? Who produces it? How reliable is it?
I respectfully suggest that it is wasteful of the House's time continually to criticise the common agricultural policy and to worry about subsidies in other countries. It should be borne in mind—but it should be borne in mind because we apply subsidies as well. The OECD has identified the fact that, in the OECD group of countries, every day of each year there is spent by the governments involved 1 billion US dollars in subsidies. With the common agricultural policy and its a system of complex subsidies, the idea that we could safely look to a free market in food is, frankly, absurd. It may be a long-term objective worthy of pursuit, but it will not happen in the near future.
That therefore requires us to look to our country as the primary source of our food. In the long-term development of a policy that meets the required standards of food safety and food security, it is our countryside, our farming, that will best secure those twin national interests.
I fully appreciate that a long-term policy of this kind is not at the forefront of our considerations today. But it soon will be. People will find it all the more difficult to accept if, after a crisis like this, we cannot devise a longer-term policy that protects the countryside and the consumer, and therefore benefits the nation.
We have not, as some speakers have indicated, reached a state of Armageddon. We have a crisis, and it requires a solution. It is unfortunate that the crisis
798
and any potential solution should be characterised as "the countryside versus the cities", or "the farmers and the indifference of government". We are talking about our national interest. Farming may not have been the Government's top priority in the past three or four years; there were other demanding priorities of greater importance to the population. This crisis has brought the countryside to the forefront, and rightly so. I hope that in months to come the Government will rely not only on this House but on the citizens of our country to support a policy that meets three objectives: solve this problem; deal with its aftermath; and secure a safe food policy for the future. I understand those to be the Government's intentions and I commend that approach.
10.7 p.m.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, it is a daunting task to speak when we are in the midst of such a crisis and after so many of your Lordships have given the House a vivid picture of what is going on in the countryside and all the problems that we face. I declare my interest as a personal recipient of a great many of the forms of agricultural assistance that the Government provide. As a hill farmer, one qualifies for quite a number of them.
I echo the wish, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, for a scientific answer to foot and mouth. But so far as I understand this disease, the virus mutates at such a rate that normal vaccination programmes do not touch the issue—and that is only one aspect.
Over the years, we have seen crises develop in farming. We have had crises ensuring that the population has enough food. We have had crises ensuring that the population has healthy food. We now have a crisis that centres around having food produced under the controls and conditions that the Government have laid down and of which we approve.
If I am not mistaken, the Government started off in their term of office saying that every family was paying so many pounds a week extra in order to support the CAP, when food could be bought more cheaply on the world market. To some extent, I echo some of the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. But the world market is now being shown up not merely as cheap but as unaccountable. We saw a certain amount of what could be determined as unaccountable in our efforts to impose controls on the outbreak of BSE. We saw unaccountability on the content of animal foods; improper separation of food batches; problems tracing the parentage of affected stock; and the separation of specified risk materials. The list goes on and on. There are many aspects. The farming industry has doubled and redoubled its efforts to accommodate every new regulation that has been introduced to overcome these problems. Then we get foot and mouth.
The pound is strong against the euro, the meat wholesalers' and supermarkets' cold stores have rapidly filled up with cheap carcasses from Europe, and what do we find? In Dundee, spinal cord was

799
found in a lorry load of carcasses from Germany, and the same was found in an abattoir in England in a load of carcasses from Spain. What do we know about the sort of traceability regarding the animal production systems through which these carcasses have been processed, let alone about the as yet unidentified source of the foot and mouth outbreak?
During the course of this evening, and over the years, we have had a litany of the problems that affect farming and the countryside. The details are certainly very painful to hear. The falling incomes of farmers were referred to by my noble friend Lady Byford. From the MAFF figures that I saw on the website, it appears that total income from farming is now 40 per cent below what is was four years ago. It is now at the level at which it stood in 1980, which is very nearly a generation ago.
Forestry and coniferous timber prices are now 62 per cent lower than they were in 1995. I believe that there has been a slight increase this year. Perhaps in the course of the subject that we are debating tonight, I might wonder and speculate whether the Government cannot provide a small, local hike in coniferous timber prices by using trees now that they seem to be running out of railway sleepers for the burning of animal carcasses.
Even the other great rural diversification of tourism, which has been mentioned by most noble Lords who have spoken this evening, has not been having such a good time, even during the past year. In Scotland last year official returns showed a 10 per cent drop. Factors to which that was attributed are: fuel prices; the autumn petrol crisis; and the strong pound. All of this now appears to be insignificant when one considers the horrendous drop that the industry is experiencing at present.
I hope that it will not appear cruel of me to ask whether this is a moment when one might remind those businesses of what having a reasonable access to the countryside means to them. When it is suggested that there might be a levy per bed night or a similar contribution to help maintain footpaths or look after the countryside in popular mountain areas, like those where I live, there are always great cries of what an imposition that would be. However, we are now seeing how much this very vital industry depends on having a reasonably open and picturesque countryside.
I return to the current crisis. The newspaper headlines are rightly full of the welfare problems of lambing ewes and calving cows, which are now at some distance from their main steading. However, farmers are not just sitting idly by in the hope that something will turn up. Those who have stock are trying to think how to cope with the regulations and the situation in which they now find themselves.
My noble friend Lord Monro of Langholm mentioned sheep in Scotland. We are only a few weeks from 1st April. This is the date in Scotland when somewhere in the region of 750,000 hoggets, or young sheep, from the less favoured areas are due to be returned to their own holding from the low-ground
800
farms. But this will not be possible under the present regulations. It will thus aggravate the problems of the low-ground farmers, who are required under at least one current EU support scheme to keep their stocking density figures below 1.6 livestock units per hectare in order to qualify for a maximum payment; or otherwise below 2 livestock units. A farmer's own stock having to be held on the unit when they pass either the six-month or 12-month threshold, without being able to follow their normal pattern of sales and management, will aggravate this, as the rate at which each of the animals is assessed will increase substantially at each stage.
It is very reassuring to learn that a derogation was given at last week's Management Committee in Brussels to allow the use of set-aside land to provide extra grazing. Following on the restrictions that had to be imposed on some units because of the recent occurrence of TB, it is also perhaps fortunate that at times of disease farms are allowed to exceed these thresholds by a factor of 20 per cent. However, can the Minister say whether the Government are satisfied that this will really be enough in the circumstances that are now occurring?
A different avenue that might be helpful to explore comes under one of the agri-environmental schemes. I know that I have a management agreement that has been entered into under the environmentally sensitive areas scheme, where certain fields have to be closed off from grazing during the prime grazing season. That is fairly common under that type of scheme. If it was found to be advantageous because of stocking density problems, at what level of the administration would permission have to be obtained for those restrictions to be lifted?
I come back to one question which I hope will not require an immediate answer but there is no doubt that it will be looked into. We would all like to be reassured that the fact that the controls had to be administered through the mechanism of the devolved regions did not cause any delay in the introduction of the movement restrictions.
10.15 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I declare an interest. I am a small landowner with some Hebridean sheep. I farm grain in partnership. I have eight grey-faced Dartmoors. I hope that they will increase in number as they are very woolly and have woolly legs and are a rare breed.
I am also a member of the committee of the British Horse Driving Trials Association which holds approximately 10 events a year. It is not a large sport; in fact, it is probably the smallest sport in the United Kingdom. However, we take ourselves quite seriously. Of those 10 or 11 events, three have already had to be cancelled. They did not have to be cancelled but they were cancelled because the people concerned felt that it was thoroughly irresponsible to go ahead while the catastrophe in the countryside loomed.
That shows that this particular crisis has gone to the core of what I believe to be essential for the future of the countryside; that is, a multi-use countryside. In an

801
extraordinarily moving speech the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, spoke of huntsmen helping the Government to destroy cattle while at the same time some government supporters were trying to put those same huntsmen out of a job.
The countryside can only survive on the basis of a prosperous agriculture—that has been mentioned frequently—and a multi-use agriculture. It is worth doing some calculations. Before the war, the agricultural wage was 27 shillings and sixpence a week and a tonne of wheat sold for approximately £10. In effect a tonne of wheat took seven man weeks to produce. The most recent price for a tonne of wheat was approximately £70 and a top quality combine harvester/tractor driver/skilled agricultural labourer now probably earns £20,000 a year or £400 a week gross. A tonne of wheat now takes about eight hours' work to produce, as opposed to seven weeks' work before the war. That shows the enormous increase in agricultural productivity that has occurred as a result of the boost given to it by the Boyd Orr report after the war, the threat of U-boats in the Channel and continental starvation.
Scientific and productivity advances have ensured that world famine is totally unnecessary. It is caused only by evil people with twin 500 machineguns shooting people from the back of Toyota pick-up trucks. Of course, one will have famine under those circumstances. The world has no difficulty now in producing food. The problem was well identified by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, when he mentioned the billion dollar day. I multiply the billion dollar day by 365 to get the figure of 365 billion dollars a year. If you have that level of subsidy in agriculture, you will get the most appalling distortion. I then parted company with the noble Lord because there is nothing we can do about our own agriculture without going to Brussels. Let us not kid ourselves; Brussels runs agriculture. We cannot step one iota out of line.
When I first came to your Lordships' House a very long time ago, I voted enthusiastically for the accession treaties to the European Community. I remember people saying, "Ah, when the Brits are in they can change the CAP". What did I hear the Prime Minister say the other day? "With our influence in Europe we will change the CAP". I am afraid that the system is irrevocably broken; it is irrevocably harmful; and we must have control of our own agriculture. That is not a xenophobic remark. I am a xenophiliac; I love abroad. I love foreigners. I just do not like the way that they are running the European agricultural policy.
I give another little vignette. When my grandfather retreated from Mons in 1914, there were behind him fields full of oxen and people hand-hoeing the root crops. Now if one drives from Calais to Troyes one sees nothing but a prairie desert. The French countryside is deserted. There are deserted villages in the Massif Central and some in Burgundy are full of people only in the summer. The common agricultural policy has failed everyone. With the combination of an over—bureaucratised, uncontrollable CAP with world subsidies at the level to which the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, referred, we shall get into serious trouble.
802
I must be brief. I think that everyone has spoken at slightly too great length so I shall try to set an example for the remaining speakers. We cannot blame the store trade; it has been going for ever. In 1693 we passed an Act of Parliament banning the Irish store cattle trade. The Yorkshire farmers did not like the competition. In the 1950s, my noble friend Lord Jopling used to buy cattle in the Dublin market which would be put on boat and train and offloaded at his local station the next morning. The cattle would walk up the A1 to his farm. There is nothing new about the store trade. Last year I bought some sheep from, I think, Carlisle market. Luckily this year I did not do so; otherwise there would probably be foot and mouth disease in Surrey.
An appalling crisis has occurred. But I ask the Minister this question of which I have given her notice. I considered recently the countryside stewardship scheme. I rang the individual concerned who said, "I'm terribly sorry. I cannot come to your farm". If I want to go ahead, I have to get an application in by May. If I cannot get advice, I cannot put in an application. What will happen?
In the 1967 outbreak there was greater use of liming than now. Lime is not used because of various local authority waste disposal regulations. Can a knife be taken to those? I suggest that to bury and lime is better than burning. Furthermore, it appears that beasts are being valued individually which holds up the slaughter process. That cannot be right.
I stand to be corrected, but I believe that if a vet says that an animal has foot and mouth disease, he is not allowed to shoot it immediately. He has to take a swab, and it has to be confirmed. The Minister shakes her head. I shall go no further on that point.
There is a tiny sliver of a silver lining in this crisis. I believe that this crisis will have brought the countryside more to the attention of, and the grown up sympathy of, the rest of the town population. That may be a silver lining.
My final plea is this. This crisis will eventually be over. I think that criticisms of the Government have been mainly through ignorance. With foot and mouth disease, out comes a "blue book" plan from the Ministry of Agriculture. It is not like BSE, when nobody had a clue what was happening and they floundered their way through it. At least we know what to do. After the crisis is over, please may we have another equivalent of the Northumberland committee? I have not mentioned this to him, but I can think of nobody better to chair it than my noble friend Lord Inglewood.
10.25 p.m.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, I am grateful to those who have made possible this debate, which is very necessary at this difficult time for farmers and all those affected by the foot and mouth outbreak. Also, the recent dissatisfaction in the countryside deserves our attention and a search for a better way ahead.
This has been a sombre debate, but one of high quality. I thank the Minister for the way in which she introduced it, although it is a chilling fact that the

803
number of confirmed outbreaks has apparently risen by six since she gave us the details earlier. We have not been debating all that long. I also support the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, about farm incomes—or more accurately the absence of them. I shall come back to that point, which is critical to debates about the countryside.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, put forward some good ideas that should be considered, particularly the proposal for dialogue with the regional development agencies. There are regional differences and there will probably be even more by the time the outbreak finally ends.
I begin with the foot and mouth outbreak, which must be foremost in our minds at the moment. The sympathy of all in the House goes to the farmers. Our thanks go to all those who are fighting the outbreak, particularly the veterinary officers, public services and local authorities that have been referred to. The speed at which they are able to act may not be entirely satisfactory in some cases, but overall the response has been very good. The reaction was very quick at the beginning and they have done an excellent job.
We have embarked on a policy of slaughter to protect ourselves against the disease. I am sure that we can contain it and stamp it out, despite the present horrific scenario. We must keep our nerve.
It is disheartening that the cases are so widely dispersed, but it seems that all the cases can be accounted for by the trade in animals or by contacts in markets, notably from Longton in Cumbria, or the abattoir. However, it is disappointing that in certain cases, particularly in my county of Somerset, the virus seems more likely to have been spread by the wind or in some other way.
It is important not to confuse, as some have done, the real issue of how best to protect ourselves against foot and mouth disease in the future by attributing the problem simply to industrial agriculture or intensive farming. That argument has been exaggerated. We have had 20 years free from foot and mouth disease and it is 33 years since the last major outbreak. Of course, there have been huge changes in farming practice in that period. Most of the changes in the meat production sector have been led by the food chain and the development of supermarkets and strong catering companies.
The general global pattern is that foot and mouth is absent where the most modern farming practices are used, such as in western Europe and North America, but it continues to be present elsewhere, such as in southern Asia and parts of southern Africa. United Kingdom sheep and lamb production, which is the most affected so far by the current imported outbreak of foot and mouth disease, is an excellent example of extensive agriculture, which has traditionally involved some movement of sheep between the hills and the lowlands. Our cattle are, for the most part, grass-fed and our pig production is probably less intensive than that in many other countries.
804
I recall visiting a beef lot in the United States, in Greeley County, which had 10,000 cattle on one holding. We do not have that type of operation here. Basically, we practise an extensive agriculture. I also believe that there are two abattoirs within 10 miles of the farm at Heddon in Northumberland, where the first cases of the present outbreak took place.
I was in the Ministry of Agriculture at the time of the last great foot and mouth crisis when Fred Peart was the Minister. For some months, my life was wholly taken up with foot and mouth disease. I did not want to see it again and I do not want to see it again in the future.
Of course, it is far too soon to draw direct lessons for the future from the present outbreak. But one thing is certain: this is an imported disaster. We have not had foot and mouth disease in western Europe for years, and the present virus is a type which is found today in southern Asia and other distant countries. If we wish to maintain our slaughter and disease-free policies, rather than switch to a vaccination policy if that were possible, we must ensure that our defence against import of the virus is as secure as possible. I am sure that those of us who have been to Australia will remember being sprayed in the aeroplane. Those of us who went to America and admitted that we had been on a farm had our shoes taken off.
The defences in other countries are extremely severe, and it is important that that should be so. I assume that we should implement a strict enforcement of rules against personal imports of potentially risky material and exotic species and a tight control of waste products—in particular, from aircraft and ships. I also want us to consider the economic and health cases for the continuation, or not, of the feeding of swill—
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly interrupt the noble Lord. I completely agree with what he has just said. But how can we do it and not make a big hole in the CAP?
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, I believe that it is perfectly reasonable for a country which operates a slaughter and disease-free policy to ensure that it has effective protection at the frontier. I am not sure that that is wholly the case at the moment. The present outbreak which we are suffering suggests that we have imported the virus. Therefore, I do not believe that it is unreasonable to consider the issue.
I believe that the feeding of swill to pigs is a matter that certainly needs to be examined. I support the view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, that we must decide now whether or not to continue with that practice. He believes that we should not, and perhaps there are good reasons for taking that stance. In any event, we need to ensure that the regulations are respected. It is highly probable that they were not respected in this case.
When the Minister replies, I expect that she will say something about compensation. Obviously the direct losses to farmers when animals are slaughtered will be compensated. However, regrettably the many other

805
indirect losses, not only to farmers but to the transport industry, traders, the tourist industry and many others, cannot be compensated by the Government. People in the West Country are particularly conscious of that because of the cancellation of two great events—the Cheltenham National Hunt festival and the Badminton horse trials.
However, if this outbreak continues at its present rate, I believe that it would be wise for the Government to consider the possibility of forming a genuine disaster fund. The governments of many countries which are, for example, hit by hurricanes immediately create disaster funds. When we have a contingency fund in the Budget, there is no reason why we should not consider that. I am not saying that we should do so today, but I believe that we need to exercise a little forward-thinking about what we shall do if the outbreak continues as it is at present.
Foot and mouth disease is the nation's immediate concern. However, I want to say a few words about the problems of the countryside which are rather wider and which have disturbed public opinion. Of course, the countryside is much wider than farming itself. A huge range of resources come into the countryside from outside farming. The proposals that have been put forward for improving the rural environment or the maintenance of local post offices, pubs and local medical services—not necessarily in that order—are, of course, all highly necessary.
However, the first and strong point that I want to make—I am concentrating on one point—is that a thriving agriculture is an essential condition for a thriving countryside. If farm incomes fall to rock bottom, the countervailing effect of other measures for the countryside is unlikely to be sufficient to retrieve the situation. Other noble Lords have made that point, about which I am utterly convinced. It is important not to restrict ourselves as we so often do in the United Kingdom to general expressions of dissatisfaction with the CAP. We should examine what has happened to UK agriculture during the past few years. Like so much of British industry, there has been a continuous fall in the labour force—it goes down all the time—productivity growth has been strong, the size of enterprises has increased and diversification into off-farm activities has been marked. That has been facilitated by the stability of prices and the acceptable level of farm incomes, despite variations from year to year, which the CAP provided until about 1996.
Let us look at the facts. A large fall in farming income began in 1996. Between 1996 and 1997—in just one year—total income from farming fell by 35 per cent. That was due to a significant change not in inputs but almost entirely to the output effect. On output, the fall in prices was 10 times as important as the change in volume. Why did we have that catastrophic event? In that year, slightly less than half of the fall was due to lower prices for products and slightly more than half was due to the rise in sterling. By the end of the 1990s, net farm income was less than £10,000 and the average concealed even lower prices for cattle and sheep farms, for example.
806
There are moments when I wonder whether we have understood the consequences for UK farmers of our own actions. As prices under the reformed agricultural policy have been progressively pushed down—further cuts are in prospect—the market intervention arrangements have progressively weakened, with some compensation for farmers through direct payments. I welcome some of those changes for other reasons; namely, because they are good for international trade. The fact is that we have done well for consumers by cutting prices—by £65 a year for a family of four, according to the Government's statement on the full results of the last changes in the CAP—but we have also been cutting farm incomes. That is what is happening and repercussing in the countryside.
I do not want to stop the world and get off but it is essential, when we are cutting prices and support and making other changes, to cushion farmers better against a catastrophic fall in income. In particular, that means making the maximum use of the various permissible grants, including those related to the adverse effect of the rate of sterling, which we have not always done in a timely manner. Apparently, £156 million is now coming forward for March and April, which I am glad to hear. However, we have not always drawn or used such money. I believe that we have been rather frightened of the fact that we think that the cost of agriculture is so high that it would be terrible if we put any more money into farming. That is a silly argument because, as we know, support for agriculture currently represents I per cent—1 emphasise that figure—of total public expenditure in the European Union. That may be too high but it is not astronomical.
We need to take the maximum advantage and to give the maximum attention to farm incomes. If we do not do so, whatever else happens, we shall not have a thriving agricultural industry when we finally defeat foot and mouth disease.
10.39 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, like all other noble Lords who have spoken, I welcome the opportunity for this debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness the Minister for her erudite and clear opening speech, to which we listened with great interest.
I have to declare an interest as a farmer—I farm in Essex. I was brought up with cattle but I count myself extremely fortunate today because I am not directly involved with them any more. However, my brother runs an exceptional dairy herd and is a past president of what noble Lords probably still know as the Holstein/Friesian Society, although it now boasts the name, Holstein UK and Ireland. It is worth noting that he gave evidence to the inquiry into the 1967 foot and mouth outbreak on behalf of the British cattle breeders, in which my noble friend Lord Plumb was directly involved.

807
At this hour of the night I do not intend to deal with the wider ramifications of the problems faced by the agriculture industry. For the sake of brevity, I intend to fairly narrowly focus on the origins on this particular outbreak of the disease.
One of the joys of serving in local government is the great diversity of matters for which local government has responsibility. One of the more esoteric matters with which I had to deal was the implementation of emergency plans for industrial complexes under the then Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards (CIMAH) Regulations, which have now evolved into the Control of Major Accident Hazard Regulations. The purpose of those regulations is to ensure that the emergency services always have in place plans to deal with any major industrial accident from the scale of Chernobyl downwards. Those plans are the responsibility of the major local authorities. They are constantly updated, checked and tested for effectiveness, and, if required, revised. From time to time they are even rehearsed.
Speaking now with all the benefit of that very cheap commodity, hindsight, it seems to me remarkable that such a plan does not appear to have been available to come into operation immediately a case of foot and mouth disease was identified. Although human life is not involved, the need for such a plan is clearly immediately parallel to that for industrial accidents. I hope I am wrong. I shall be very pleased to hear that such a plan did exist. If it did, it seems a pity—and again I speak with the benefit of hindsight—that it did not involve an immediate ban on the holding of markets and the movement of cattle from the first identification of the disease. It is always possible and easy to relax controls. It is much more difficult to do so if you do not have an automatic procedure for starting.
I have reviewed the report of the inquiry into the 1967–68 outbreak of foot and mouth disease. I did so because if we want to look forward, we also need to look back to some degree. That report is very instructive. I shall not bore the House with too much of it. However, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the report into the outbreak of this disease, and the reasons for it, has already been written. It can be read in three volumes in the Library. In a book entitled Reports, Commissioners 7, volume XXX 1968–69, we find under "Recommendations" on page 960:
"a/. The ban on imports of mutton, lamb and pig meat from countries (or areas of countries) where Foot & Mouth disease is endemic should continue. Imports of offal should be limited to that treated in such a manner as to destroy the Foot & Mouth virus.
b/. Because there is a high risk of introducing Foot & Mouth into Great Britain by importing carcase beef and beef offal from countries where Foot & Mouth is endemic, on animal health grounds there should be a complete ban on all such imports".
In part 2 of the same report, which appears in a separate volume, Report, Accounts, Papers, 1969–70, volume V, we find on page 247, under "Swill"—and I paraphrase only slightly—
"Swill boiling plants should be licensed for periods of one year. Renewal should be subject to the inspection of the plant with revocation of the licence for contravention of the regulations.
808
Licensing and inspection are the responsibility of the local authority. Ministry vets should continue to assist with inspections".
In another volume from that time, this one entitled Accounts and Papers, Book 6, we find the report of the Chief Veterinary Officer on the origins of the 1967–68 foot and mouth disease epidemic. His conclusion is:
"I have been unable to discover any possible source of the infection other than Argentine lamb".
So he is certain. But the evidence is not conclusive. In her introduction the Minister said that she doubted that the precise cause of this disease would ever be proved. The report of the earlier outbreak also could not prove it, although it could be certain about what had happened. Those recommendations formed the basis of a plan to deal with a future outbreak when it happened. If that was appropriate 30 years ago, what has happened since that time?
I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me on a number of points. I recognise that governments from both main political persuasions have been in power since that time. But was action taken along the lines of those recommendations to restrict imports of meat and offal? I understand that the report was generally accepted but confess that I have not yet had time to trace and check the detailed regulations and restrictions that would and should have been put in place in the light of those orders.
Having said that, have the recommended restrictions on meat and offal imports been rigorously maintained over the intervening 30 years? That is all the more important the way foot and mouth disease has developed throughout the world over the past 10 years. Finally, is the Minister satisfied that the control and licensing of swill processing has been properly undertaken along the lines proposed? What we have heard tonight suggests that that cannot be the case. I am bound to say therefore that I agree with my noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior that swill should no longer be used.
In the light of all that I have said in relation to emergency planning, can the Minister say whether there was a genuine plan in place to deal with a possible future outbreak? If so, was it tested regularly and updated as the agricultural industry evolved? That is what will have to happen in the future if we are not to face a similar problem 20 or 30 years down the line, when many of us will not be around to deal with the consequences.
Of course I accept that a foot and mouth outbreak is very different from the possible industrial hazards that can arise. But the need for proper planning for this sort of situation is well known. Given what we know from the previous outbreak, and the conclusion that the earlier inquiry recommendations have almost certainly not been rigorously applied over the intervening years and amended to take account of the evolving pattern of the spread of foot and mouth disease, the agricultural industry will have some justification for feeling that it has been sacrificed on the altar of cheap food. As the impact of the restriction on movement and other activities spreads, we are beginning to observe the negative effects of the disease

809
across a much wider community. The cost to the country will be far greater than the cost of having in place proper planning and regulation.
I want to raise one other point which is now relevant. During the past 30 years the population of wild deer—in particular, roe deer, fallow deer and muntjac—across England has vastly increased. What steps are being taken to investigate whether those wild populations are infected with the disease? Those wild deer move freely across the country and I doubt whether there is an area which does not carry a surprising stock of them.
I want to pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, about vaccination. I am sorry that he is not in his seat. One of the purposes of the 1967–68 inquiry was to investigate the possibility of vaccination. Those countries where vaccination is regularly used are those countries in which foot and mouth disease is endemic. The two go together. Those countries which are free from foot and mouth disease have a slaughter policy.
It would be ironical if now, when Europe is at last taking up the slaughter policy, this country were to appear to be going the other way. That is not to say that there might not be a scientific development in future, but at present we should be clear—and I am pleased that the Government have made it clear—that the slaughter policy is the only tenable policy. We must live with that, uncomfortable though it is at the present time.
10.52 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, no one listening to the debate could fail to be struck by the sense of genuine sadness which has pervaded the proceedings. In taking part, I must declare an interest as chairman of a number of family companies concerned with land ownership, forestry, farming, construction, mineral extraction, tourism and national hunt racing. I have a personal stake in these companies whose assets for the most part are in Cumbria.
In the interests of brevity and avoiding repetition, I shall take the advice of my noble friend Lord Onslow and excise much of what I had intended to say. However, some things do bear repetition and one is to congratulate the Government on their handling of the crisis in the main. I extend my congratulations to the noble Baroness the Minister. Her sympathetic handling in these difficult times has won her respect both in your Lordships' House and in the wider community.
In terms of human suffering, it is beyond my imagination what farmers and their families are enduring. And at one removed, there are countless others affected by the outbreak. That came forcefully home earlier today in a moving and compelling speech by my noble friend Lord Inglewood. He is my near neighbour and my heart goes out to him. I can only guess at the feelings of rage, sorrow and despair experienced by country people overtaken by such disaster.
810
Earlier today, I spoke to the director of Farming Online, to which I subscribe. His feedback from the website confirmed what has been repeated so often today; that the agony of farmers is much compounded by the delay between slaughter and disposal. The Minister has already assured us that everything is being done to speed up that process and as in everything else I believe her. However, I stress the importance of this point to the debate.
I want to pick up two other aspects of today's debate. My noble friend Lord Vinson, who cannot take part today, mentioned to me a practical idea which was touched on by my noble friend Lady Byford. It concerns the relief of those who have paid or who are expecting to pay redundancy. A small farmer with perhaps two labourers will anticipate that he needs to pay redundancy just at the moment when his cash flow is weakest. In circumstances that I cannot quite remember, there was a scheme under which the Government offered to pay the first two redundancies of any business. In the case of a small farmer that was highly significant because it relieved him of a great deal of anxiety, whereas for a large industrial concern it would be neither here nor there. I am sad to say that I believe it was a Conservative government which withdrew the scheme. Will the Minister consider reinstating that simple measure which could have a big impact?
With a very heavy heart, I endorse the remarks of my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury about racing. realise the huge investment that rides on racing, but, living on the edge of the Lake District, I am also conscious that in the main there is a huge amount of understanding on the part of people, not all of whom are country dwellers, who are asked not to walk all over the countryside. My message to racing would be: stop. In this moment of crisis it is hard for people to understand that some individuals are allowed to roam at will while others are not.
I turn to local authority matters on which I do not believe the debate has touched very much. The sheer scale of the task faced by local government in this crisis is not widely appreciated. The impact on locally managed services alone is enormous: the curtailment of all mobile services—libraries, meals-on-wheels and the like—and the education service and social service provision. The public services in Cumbria employ 17,000 staff and the movement of all of them requires additional management in these difficult times. In addition, there is the hugely complex management of rights of way.
Today I spoke to the chief executive of an authority who reminded me of its duty, through the trading standards department, to license the movement of animals. I had no idea that that was a county council function. That strikes me as an awesome task. As always, it is carried out against the background of tight financial restraints. Cumbria County Council must also consider the closure of minor roads as another weapon against the spread of this infection, but as of this morning it was unclear as to its legal position or the extent of its powers.

811
Therefore, I should like to put some questions to the noble Baroness, and I am sorry that I have been unable to provide her with notice. Does the Minister acknowledge the hugely increased burden of work that is borne by local authorities? Does she appreciate that large numbers of local authority officers work round the clock in these difficult times to contain and manage the disease and its consequences? Can the Minister tell the House what support, financial or otherwise, local authorities receive from the Government towards the issuing of licences for the movement of animals? Finally, will the noble Baroness clarify the powers of local authorities in respect of their ability to close minor roads where necessary? If it is found that local authorities lack the necessary powers, can we have an assurance that the Minister will ensure that they get them?
I am perhaps prejudiced in favour of local government, having served as a Cumbria county councillor. I have always opposed the weakening of local government and the war of attrition that it has had to endure under successive administrations. I was therefore very gratified to learn from the chief executive of Cumbria that even in these bleak times the authority looked to a time when the cost had been counted and the rebuilding would begin.
In Cumbria, as elsewhere, not only farmers suffer; many others will feel the effect. As has been said a great number of times, in particular by my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, the tourism industry is already weakened by, among other things, fuel duties and a very strong pound. My noble friend Lord Biffen is right when he says that the scars of this disaster are likely to endure. However, I welcome the announcement that the Government are also looking to the future. A task force is to be set up. I slightly share the misgivings of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, as to who will be on it and whether it will really be the kind of vehicle that makes sense. We sometimes have the impression that the Prime Minister is selective as to whom he listens.
One should take account of another sad trend; namely, the leaching of wisdom from Parliament. There are fewer and fewer Members of another place who have ever had any experience of what one might call "productive work". That is not made up for by the 70 odd special advisers with an average age of 30 something who also have done nothing. So a little humility on the part of Government, and the need to connect with people who really do understand the issues is extremely important.
What is the starting point? The right starting point is to put this question: what is the strategic purpose of farming in the context of food production? My noble friend Lord Renton, much of whose speech I missed, touched on that matter. It would perhaps be impossible to draw meaningful comparisons between now and when Britain last needed home-grown food in order to survive; but that does not entirely invalidate the question.
812
It is difficult, but not impossible, to visualise a Britain blockaded through, say, terrorism, quarantine or even through trade tension. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what, in her department's view, should be the role of British agriculture? Is there a strategic view? Is there a concept of self-sufficiency in times of emergency? Would a strategic view take account of other areas of vulnerability—for example, that of energy? There could well come a time in the next generation where the suppliers of energy are in the hands of hitherto unexplored capricious regimes.
If there is a coherent strategy, it has passed me by. It is certainly not understood by those who derive their livelihood from the countryside. As has been pointed out, the Government's Rural White Paper remains—I think disgracefully—undebated.
The present agony and heartbreak will give way to enduring bitterness unless the language and the actions of the Minister's colleagues are changed, and changed radically. Labour's attitude to the countryside has been one of unambiguous hostility; some of it malevolent; and some of it through failure to understand. It is hostility that, in a strange way of spreading like an infection, has gone to other institutions. I would single out the BBC. It has not been at all helpful so far as concerns country issues.
In the interests of farming, the countryside and the British people, the Minister must persuade her colleagues to draw a line under that interlude of hostility. So fragile will be the fabric of agricultural and rural life that she must cause a new era of understanding to be opened. When she does she will have done the nation a great service and earned its gratitude.
11.3 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, on two issues in particular, namely those of rural services and rural crime and policing, there exists some most alarming statistics. First, in 1997 the Rural Development Commission's survey found the following: 42 per cent of parishes had no permanent shop; 43 per cent had no post office; 49 per cent had no school; 75 per cent had no daily bus service; 29 per cent had no pub; 83 per cent had no GP; and 92 per cent had no police station.
Secondly, an autumn 1999 survey for the television programme "Countryfile" found that 55 per cent of farms had been burgled; 45 per cent had suffered vandalism; 20 per cent had suffered arson; and 10 per cent of farmers had suffered physical abuse.
These two profoundly worrying sets of statistics are against a background of income that, as your Lordships have so frequently mentioned, has plunged from £6 billion in 1985 to £1.8 billion in 2000; 51,000 farmers and farm workers have left the industry in the past two years. We have the average net farm annual income down to £5,200 per farm. We are in the fifth year running in which farm incomes have fallen. There are many more sets of equally depressing statistics which I shall not give your Lordships this evening, but I could, such as rural housing and rural education, not to mention BSE and the appalling weather conditions.

813
And all this hardship and all this suffering against the prospect of a ban on one of their most favourite of pastimes, hunting. As if all that were not enough, we now have this terrifying pestilence of foot and mouth rampaging across the land, spreading, out of control, like wildfire across the countryside. It is as if our green and pleasant, land were at war with an unseen enemy who can spring up anywhere and everywhere to wreak his evil deeds; the Saddam Hussein of the British countryside.
I can assure the House that I know of the fear and terror that exist on farms at the moment, for I live in Devon, where we have three herds of dairy cows, 10 tenant farmers with mixed herds and where my wife is the farmer. All day we are glued to the media for the news on the latest outbreak, for we are only a few miles away from Hatherleigh; and it is gradually closing in on us. The tension is truly awful. We wait and we fear the worst. It is almost unbearable. As Noel Edmunds, who lives next door to Hatherleigh, said on "Countryfile" last Sunday,
"it is very, very frightening, it is like a medieval plague".
With great respect, it is very difficult for those of your Lordships who do not live in the country fully to appreciate the real severity of the crisis. I also want to say that I am sad and disappointed that there are not more noble Lords in the Chamber to discuss such an impending disaster. Yesterday, as we all know, we had a significant attendance for the debate on hunting. Of course, we cannot resume hunting until this terrible disease is wiped out.
I can tell your Lordships that, from the West Country's point of view, the only person who appears to have beer surprised by the speed and scale of the disease is the chief vet himself, for there was little reason why the spread of this disease should have been otherwise. Meantime, I do wish that the Minister of Agriculture would not persist in saying that the disease is under control, a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I dread to think what he might have said when the "Titanic" was going down, for the tentacles of the disease are already beginning to work their way into the very fabric of our society.
Under these worsening conditions, and now on the verge of a state of emergency, I ask the Minister to tell your Lordships if and at what point the Government intend to bring in the Army or the TA to assist. The transport of these slaughtered animals needs an efficient and highly co-ordinated operation to take them to their specialist rendering plants. Certainly, both the Army and the TA have the experience and ability to bring this about—much more so, I believe, than the ministry, which seems to be finding it impossible to cope. Secondly, I should like to ask the Minister why it is taking so long to slaughter condemned animals and how many days are elapsing between condemnation and slaughter. For undoubtedly such delays can only be adding to the spread of the disease.
In spite of the Minister's reassurances earlier today, I hope very much that she has taken on board many of your Lordships' misgivings about what the ministry
814
says is happening in the country and what many of your Lordships know is happening in the country. I regret to say that there is considerable criticism in the country, particularly in Devon from where I come, that too little is happening too slowly. The ministry must speed up its operations. I suggest that the Minister of Agriculture would be well advised to consider taking along with him a senior military figure to advise on the logistics of rapid and efficient co-ordination in a fast-developing national crisis.
Against an estimated potential loss of £2 billion to the rural economy, the Government must acknowledge the severity and scale of this crisis, along with the number of people and livelihoods involved. These are people who may not see recovery lying in any possible direction. Furthermore, without compensation for their indirect costs, which they are encountering through the export ban and the difficulties surrounding the movement of livestock, it is beyond doubt that they will be driven out of business. The burden of their lives is fast becoming intolerable.
All the ministry seems able to say is that the situation is "under review". I can certainly tell the Government that what is also under constant review is the way in which the Government handle this situation on a daily basis. Speaking on 26th February, the Prime Minister said that the Government will look at all the consequential losses. We call on the Government to do very much more than simply to look at this. Instead, they should bring to bear a sense of urgency and statesmanship to one of the worst rural crises since the Second World War.
11.11 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, like so many other speakers, I shall start by declaring an interest as a farmer. Furthermore, like the brother of my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith, I am a past president of the Holstein Friesian Society, although I am not as distinguished a breeder as my noble friend's brother. I should also declare that I am a director of a clearing bank. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and my noble friend Lord Inglewood both pointed out that the banks can make a significant contribution at this time of crisis. I accept that entirely and I shall certainly report to my colleagues the tenor of the remarks that have been made. Indeed, I believe that the banks do recognise their responsibilities and I am sure that they understand the part they have to play over the coming months, however terrible those times may be.
I fear that this crisis has drawn, predictably and totally unjustifiably, criticism of British agriculture from some sections of the media. British agriculture is not universally popular. It attracts a large amount of criticism—quite unfairly, in my opinion. One often reads accounts couched in pejorative terms such as "intensive" or "drenched in chemicals" and the like. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, cited three papers which, she felt, added insult to injury at this time by being less than fair. There has been criticism of the slaughter policy, saying that it is justified only for economic reasons. As the right reverend Prelate the

815
Bishop of Hereford pointed out, why else would one farm but for ultimately economic reasons. There is a lack of logic to those criticisms.
Criticism has also been levelled at production systems, which appear to be accident prone. As regards the term, "intensive agriculture", the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, pointed out that, even if that form of agriculture was somehow undesirable, we do not by any means farm intensively in comparison with other production units. However, over recent months, intensive agriculture seems to have been blamed for flooding, food scares, animal welfare problems and food quality. I believe that intensive agriculture could be viewed in rather different terms; one could say that intensive farming represents efficiency, conserving of resources and the reduction of waste.
If noble Lords think that I am being slightly paranoid about this, I remind them of the observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle. He graciously acknowledged that intensive agriculture had absolutely nothing to do with the foot and mouth outbreak; he wished nevertheless to ensure that the government task force looked at it. If ever blame was being laid before a subject has been examined dispassionately and carefully, this is it.
Of course, intensive agriculture or, for that matter, extensive agriculture must be reviewed by the task force. We shall welcome the opportunity to review carefully what has gone right and what has gone wrong in British agriculture. However, we should move away from the mindset that assumes that those people who are trying to meet the challenge, however unsuccessfully, of competing against a harsh and cruel economic climate by achieving economies of scale, are somehow in the wrong. Even small farmers attempt to achieve economies of scale through intensive practices; they need to do so. Why should it be assumed that there is something repugnant and antisocial about their activities?
The questions we have to ask are these. Which agricultural system causes the most problems in terms of pollution? Which agricultural system causes leakages to soil, air and water? Which agricultural system is more likely to enhance habitats and deliver access and other benefits to the community? It may be intensive agriculture; it may be extensive agriculture. I believe that we will find it to be a mix of both. So, please, let us now start again and get away from these mind-sets which are based on a thorough misunderstanding of the contribution that agriculture has made to the economy over the past 40 years.
Any other sector of industry which had produced such great improvements in productivity and delivered so much—including such high quality food—would be greatly welcomed by the community. I find it quite bewildering that there are sections of the media—I admit it is not universal in the media—which, even in this time of crisis, remain hostile to British agriculture.
If noble Lords are in any doubt as to whether the intensiveness or extensiveness of agriculture has anything whatever to do with the foot and mouth
816
crisis, they should think about what we have heard today, in this illuminating debate, about how swill may well have been the cause of it. That is clearly not part of an intensive agricultural system. I agree with my noble friend Lord Plumb and others that it should be abolished. I am sure of it—although here I am guilty, clearly, of jumping to my own conclusions before the evidence has been properly presented.
As to dealing in sheep and moving sheep around from market to market and amassing enough quantity so that the large multiple buyers ultimately have the group of sheep that they require to handle at one time, again, if anything, that seems a problem caused by production systems which do not match the buyer's requirement.
I hope that we can start afresh by looking at the contributions that British agriculture and, indeed—looking a little wider—world agriculture have made towards solving the world's problems over the past 40 years. During that time, the population of the world has increased by 90 per cent and food per capita around the world has grown by 25 per cent. This is because of the implementation of modern science and technology, breeding systems and so on. In the same time, food prices have fallen by 40 per cent.
However, there are still 1 billion people around the world who are undernourished or malnourished. So let us not be complacent having recognised the contribution that agriculture has made, particularly in the developed world, particularly in countries such as ours where we have an unrivalled choice of high-quality food.
Furthermore, if we look only at the United Kingdom, let us recognise also that we have introduced, and should be proud of it—I am certainly proud of it—higher animal welfare standards than other EU member states and other countries around the world. This may have put us at a slight economic disadvantage but I am not sure that it has. I think that we can and should—although it has not happened yet—be able to persuade the consumer that if we have these higher standards, our food is worth buying.
That of course brings me back to a point made by other noble Lords. Again, it may be some crumb of comfort from this desperate crisis. If we can, through a review such as is suggested with the task force, we should persuade people to recognise the strength and independence that we get from secure, high-quality food from British agriculture when compared to the food that we get from some sources around the world. We appear at the moment to be running great risks by importing such food.
We can go further than that and develop a sense of regional pride. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, suggested that he was going to brand food from the South Downs as something from his national park. I began almost to welcome the idea that I was going to be thrust into his national park, thinking that I would perhaps get a premium for my apples at last. Nevertheless, if we can develop a sense of pride in our food—which we deserve—we would be selling more of our food. I recognise that we, as farmers, are probably more culpable than anyone else in this regard.

817
A cheap hood policy is a part of the World Trade Organisation's commitment, and our commitment, to freer trade around the world—which is a much wider subject than the one we are discussing tonight—but we can and should be prepared to pay more for produce from our own country if we think that it delivers something that food from other countries cannot. British agriculture can deliver much more than our consumers realise.
11.20 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by thanking the Minister for the courtesy that she has shown to the House by attending virtually the whole of this debate and for deploying so much authoritative knowledge of her subject, thereby vastly increasing the burdens that she will have to carry tomorrow in terms of all the work that has accumulated during today. We are in her debt.
I do not know what any of your Lordships' incomes were five years ago, but I wonder how you would feel if, this year, your income was 69 per cent less than it is now. That is what had happened to farmers before the outbreak of foot and mouth. I wonder how your Lordships would feel if you were working in a family business and the return, having fallen for five years in succession, was now £5,200 per family. That had happened to agriculture before foot and mouth struck. Or how about being in an industry that lost 1,000 jobs every month for the past 18 months? That is what had happened to pig farmers before foot and mouth struck. I wonder how your Lordships would feel if, like them, you were working in an industry that was losing £4 million a week. That had happened to agriculture before foot and mouth struck. I wonder how you would feel if you were working in an industry in which the production costs were 2p per unit more than you were receiving. That is what had happened to the milk industry before foot and mouth struck. There is a background to this debate of anger which may have been obscured by the curtain of fear and grief that has been brought down by the outbreak of foot and mouth.
My noble friend Lord Arran mentioned certain figures in relation to parochial affairs. Perhaps I may add to those. Many noble Lords will not be aware of a figure that was brought to my notice by the Countryside Alliance. According to the rural group of Labour MPs, inner London authorities spend £1,326 per head of population, compared to the £787 per head that is spent in shire counties. All that adds up to a burden of resentment which we should have been able to judge next Sunday had not the curtain of foot and mouth fallen over the country.
I have no land now. The only interest I have to declare is my past. For eight years I was a shepherd of my own sheep, a flock of about 112 Border-Leicester ewes on which I put Suffolk tups. Being rather an indifferent shepherd, I quickly found that I should change to Clun ewes, which have a lower lambing average but are better mothers, and the result was slightly better.
818
I lived in a small rural community of the size of that described by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, a community of 400 souls. We were not graced with foxhounds or stables, but we had two pubs, a post office, a school and a bus service. The debate related to whether the street should be lit, and whether we could not manage to have old people's homes in our village rather than shipping them out to Rugby, where they could be visited only once a week.
That is my background. Therefore I have a deep sympathy with people in the country in relation to what is going on now. Perhaps I may draw to the Minister's attention a case that was brought to my notice recently. I understand that in the area around Hungerford there is one owner of sheep who has eight holdings on separate sites. On at least two of them the sheep that he grazes were diagnosed last Wednesday as having foot and mouth disease. They were not shot until this morning. I had this news from a Mr Alan Holland, a neighbour of two of those parcels of land inhabited by infected sheep: on one he has his herd of dairy followers and on the other his herd of breeding sows. The sows were tested on Saturday morning and declared clear. They were seen again this morning and were, I understand, again declared clear. However, I was happily at my desk 20 minutes ago when the telephone rang. Mr Holland told me that an hour-and-a-half ago his son had taken a call from the ministry through which he was told that 7,500 pigs will be slaughtered, starting at 9.30 tomorrow morning, as a precautionary measure.
The words "precautionary measure" lead me to ask the Minister to satisfy herself that I have the story right, and that that is what will happen. This will be devastation for that man. As the noble Countess demonstrated earlier, stockmen, herd and flock owners actually have an affinity with their animals. It is not like growing potatoes. It is not like running a machine. You have a relationship with them. It is devastation when you lose them. You are bereaved. We are looking at not merely bankruptcy but also real grief, and people in real shock.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Plumb that we must have a cordon sanitaire around this country in future of the sort that exists in the United States. I also agree with my noble friend Lord Arran that it is high time that the resources of the military were brought in, so that the manpower and the machine power can be used. I believe that my noble friend Lord Caithness recommended that we should revert to burying in quicklime. Indeed, with a military bulldozer and a lorry load of quicklime you can dispose of carcasses very quickly.
It is possible that the danger of the spread of the disease from carcasses is less than it is from exhalation of viruses, but it has not been proved that it does not exist. The spectacle of carrion crows and rats feasting themselves on these mouldering heaps and then going abroad in the country is not one that will bring comfort to anyone. But, again, we have to remember that those rotting carcasses were, in a sense, the friends of the people who have now got to sit and look at them—

819
sometimes for a week or so—before they are removed. That is cruelty of a very high order; and an end should be put to it.
I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, and one other noble Lord, who pointed out that every government have a contingency fund that is used to ensure that the books balance, even if things go wrong. Well, things have gone wrong in a big way. That is why we have a contingency fund. Like my noble friend Lord Peel, I agree that it should be existing farmers who are helped to survive rather than introducing new people with new capital into the countryside. This needs thought. But, first, the Benefits Agency must surely be brought in to assist people who have lost their income for anything up to four years, as one of my noble friends pointed out earlier. We are talking about a major problem that must be addressed with compassion and with speed.
But what are we inviting these people to survive into? The debate is about the countryside; it is not only about foot and mouth. Not unnaturally, most noble Lords have spoken only about the horrors of the immediate crisis. But surely what we ask them to survive into is a landscape and a community that actually works economically. We have not, as yet, found out how to do that, as I hope the figures that I outlined at the beginning of my too-long speech brought home to your Lordships.
It seems to me that not enough is understood about the dynamics of the relationship between market towns and their hinterland of villages. But one thing is very clear: a market town will not survive as anything but a dormitory if it does not have its own industry within it. Here I have to ask the noble Baroness, who is in the regrettable position of being in this House and not another place and, therefore, will have to answer for the whole of the Government, not just her department, to turn her attention to PPG 3 (policy and planning guidance note No. 3), which deals with housing and the effects of housing policy on country towns. Although all the aspirations stated on the front of the policy assert that its aim should be to achieve a viable economic community, the rewards for releasing industrial land for housing are so much greater than selling it on to another industrial user that industrial land is diminishing in market towns and employment is therefore diminishing. The result of that is "dormification" of market towns. The policy has not been in place long but that pattern is beginning to emerge and needs to be urgently addressed.
Finally, I welcome the right reverend Prelate's undertaking to mention to the most reverend Primate the possibility of a national day of prayer. All the churches need to pray on this matter. I believe that most of them are doing so and I hope that that practice is spreading into the towns as the crisis emerges. In the past 24 hours I have been asked independently by two people not connected with each other to ask for that. I believe in the power of prayer and I hope that it will instil in us a sense of the reverence which is due to the country and the animals that we have in our trust and which, sadly, we seem at the moment to have betrayed.
11.31 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, like many others, I am grateful to the Minister for this welcome and timely debate. I speak as someone who was brought up in East Lothian and grew up with a farming community and as a boy spent every Saturday morning on the local farm. I am married to someone who was brought up in rural vicarages in the right reverend Prelate's diocese, although under one of his predecessors.
I want to make three points at this late stage of the debate. First, I refer to the atmosphere of fear that the outbreak of this disease has produced in the countryside. It is palpable to the point of being tragic. It affects the whole of the community in prospect just as much as in actuality. In the Portsmouth diocese we had two of the earliest scares, one on the Isle of Wight, with the memory of the previous outbreak there very much alive, and the other in the Meon valley on the mainland. Both cases were given the all clear, but none the less, as outbreaks are increasingly confirmed elsewhere, the fear that grips farmers, their families and their workers is on the verge of becoming overwhelming. In south-east Hampshire and the Isle of Wight we watch all our borders, county, district and other, steadfastly. Most of us are near enough the sea to watch wind direction—that matter was discussed earlier—rightly or wrongly, with great zeal. We do both with something akin to terror, wondering whether the disease will affect our stock next.
Secondly, a number of people have asked me to raise the disputed question of vaccination. I do so in some trepidation after hearing the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, speak with his considerable academic experience. However, I was emboldened by what the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, said earlier. Much has been said in the debate about the rightness of the slaughter and destruction of so many animals in recent weeks. That was described movingly by the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, as a funeral pyre. I concur with that. Nevertheless, I believe that there is a case for suggesting that much further work needs to be carried out to develop vaccine for this terrible disease. I know that opinions differ as to the viability of what we have at the moment, although I understand that there are developments in the USA in this area. I speak here very much as a layman but laymen ask questions of me and sometimes they change my mind. It is a disputed area that needs to be looked at. Noble Lords are hopeful that we can look with optimism to the future.
But assuming we respond effectively to the present outbreak we cannot be sure that another will not arise. Dare we look forward to the day when a cheap and easily available vaccine becomes part of farm life?
Thirdly, I speak of a strategic rather than a reactive future. Here I think of what the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, said earlier. I am beginning to wonder how much more some of our farmers are prepared to take. To preach at a harvest festival in a small rural community where two farmers either face bankruptcy or are bankrupt is a chilling experience I shall never

821
forget It had something of the atmosphere of a funeral about it; and it comes back to my mind as I see the faces of farmers who have addressed us today.
The farming community is becoming increasingly gripped by an economic dread that its whole livelihood is on the verge of disaster. I believe that we begin to realise the extent to which our economic well-being is tied up with theirs only when we ourselves feel at risk. And the fragmented character of our society can lull those of us who are not farmers into a second best solution which is infinitely worse; namely to ignore what is on our doorstep, tacitly collude with those who might economically exploit recent events and hope that the problem will somehow go away.
In conclusion, I want to place on record—perhaps I may speak also for my colleagues on these Benches who have been present during the debate—how moving it has been for us to listen to the debate and for the searching honesty and reflectiveness of so much that has been said. I should also like to thank the Minister not only for initiating this debate but also for the compassion and effectiveness with which she has handled her part in this national emergency. I hope, too, that much of the information which has surfaced, and will surface in the concluding part of the debate, will become widely known in our local communities and beyond.
11.36 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, as the last of a long line of speakers, I thank the Minister for what she is doing and for what she has said today. I commiserate with the noble Baroness: she has not had her noble colleagues behind her in the debate. I hope that those honourable exceptions who have remained will talk to their friends and encourage them back when we again have a debate on the countryside.
I believe that the Government would genuinely like to get out of their difficulty over the Hunting Bill and to embrace the countryside more wholeheartedly. It is now an election issue and, assuming that the election is not put off, I strongly urge the Minister to persuade her colleagues to drop the Hunting Bill and concentrate on the real problems facing farmers. It would in itself be an enormous relief for farmers and rural businesses to know that they were the genuine focus of attention in the coming election. It is a particular irony that both the hunts and the shoots, while of course affected by the foot and mouth disease, are involved in the current campaign to prevent it spreading as they are in every rural crisis.
I sense that the Government are well aware of that but they still have to explain it to their Back-Benchers. Agricultural Ministers are in a difficult position because they have been much closer to the problem than their colleagues, as the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, pointed out. For this they have won a lot of respect from the farming community which should at least offset the snide comments they sometimes receive from newspaper columns and cartoons.
There is already a sense of national emergency, with MAFF staff overworked and dependent on help from elsewhere and beginning to acknowledge their own
822
limitations. We have to ensure that people generally recognise the extent of the crisis but we have also to be careful about exaggerating it. I have been reading reports of the recent emergency in Gujarat in which entire communities were swallowed up. Here we have a different emergency, a creeping emergency—the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, called it a free fall—in which those not immediately affected, especially in London and the South East, cannot appreciate its effects not only on farmers but also on the food chain, until it takes food on which they had come to depend out of their own mouths.
Perhaps I may talk for a moment about West Dorset where I live. There are fears about the future not only of farmers but of the entire local economy which is in limbo and has left people in a state of disbelief. The abattoir in Bridport has now reopened and farmers can obtain licences to move certain categories of livestock. That has brought temporary relief, but suspected cases of foot and mouth in neighbouring counties are only a few miles away. That risk. demands the strictest precautions. Even our farmers are staying on the farm and keeping their children out of school.
In several debates in the past few years we have spoken about the need for farm diversification, particularly the need for small farmers to move into other activities. The Government could do more in that direction, but we can talk about that another day.
One possibility for diversification is tourism, which is one of the major employers in the South West. In a sense, all farmers contribute to tourism and the enjoyment of the countryside. According to West Dorset District Council—which, like all local councils, has been very active and helpful during the crisis—there are 5,000 jobs in tourism and related activities in West Dorset alone, representing a total spend of £120 million per annum, or one fifth of all employment. As the Minister well understands, all those jobs are in peril because of foot and mouth.
I declare an interest, because my wife and I have had to close our small tourist attraction until further notice. All those of us who depend partly on visitors are concerned about the approach of Easter and what it may bring. Those involved with smaller historic houses and attractions are particularly worried, because there is already a shortfall of income to cover routine maintenance. Some properties are literally wondering whether they can afford to repair the roof, let alone make improvements to attract tourists.
Tourists used to be regarded as unnecessary extras or travellers known only to glossy magazines, but not any more. The smaller, family-size businesses are suffering in our part of Dorset. Group tours booked into hotels, inns and small attractions months ahead are being cancelled and farmers who have holiday lets, caravans or farm shops are losing money.
Anyone who depends on or even lives close to farmland is directly affected. Hauliers whose lorries are specially equipped to transport animals are staying off the road or adapting vehicles to other products as far as they can. The situation has eased a little with the Government's latest announcement of a temporary

823
licence for single or multiple movement on two sites in the same occupancy. That was especially welcomed by my neighbour, whom I spoke to this morning, who has cattle in calf on another farm two miles away. Such schemes apply only to safe areas and are limited to one short period, but they show that MAFF is being extremely helpful and flexible within the parameters of health and safety.
Many others are indirectly affected, especially the village shops, retailers, home-based caterers and stores that supply tourist attractions. As the Minister said, it would be almost impossible to measure the compensation that might be due. It is early days, but South West Tourism is talking about support for tourist promotion rather than compensation. We have heard the same from the North of England. The figure of £200,000 to cover the whole region, allocated through South West Tourism and the local authorities, seems too modest if it is regarded as compensation, but it would help to relaunch the tourist season once the peak of the crisis has passed. We must all pray that that will be soon.
Finally, I hope that the Minister will confirm that if farmers can prove that they have lost alternative income such as that from farm-based tourism, which the Government have encouraged them to earn, they will have a right to some compensation. The Minister knows better than any of us that average farm income is at its lowest for years, even though it seemed to be turning a corner. In fact, it is negative income, because small farmers who are close to retirement without any alternatives in sight are living off their hump, off their relations or off nothing at all.
11.44 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I have no personal interest to declare in this debate. In fact, for most of my life I have lived in cities and towns. However, for some nine months now I have lived in Northumberland and have become very much closer to the realities of life, particularly at present. I believe that I understand only too well the fear that people are experiencing during this outbreak of foot and mouth disease. I also know of the disintegration and destruction that such an outbreak can wreak in an area.
As is so often the case, there is a wealth of knowledge and expertise in this House. It has been demonstrated once again in this debate. We on these Benches are very grateful to the Minister and join with others in praising the role that she has played, and, indeed, is playing, in the crisis which we are all facing in this foot and mouth epidemic. As others have done, I also praise her patience and sensitivity and the meticulousness with which she has answered the personal inquiries of many noble Lords or their inquiries on behalf of people whom they know personally.
There has been a consensus in relation to some issues. There has been approval, first, of the speed with which the Government took action, and, secondly, of the strategy that they have adopted in an attempt to eradicate foot and mouth disease. We have heard
824
many moving, personal and illustrative experiences of what it is like to be caught up in the epidemic. Noble Lords have been able to highlight the very real day-to-day problems and to ask the Minister directly to respond.
Many noble Lords highlighted the importance of communication at such a time as this and drew attention to some of the problems which they see concerning the accuracy of the information that is available. I refer in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton.
The noble Lord, Lord Cavendish of Furness, and, more recently, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, mentioned the role of local councils. That is something of which I also have experience. County councils have been responsible for dealing with licences to move animals. I know full well that the situation in the part of the world in which I now live has been rather strange. On the Scottish side of the Border, people were able to obtain a fax to give them permission to move their animals but, to begin with, Northumberland County Council was not happy about that. I should be interested to know from the Minister whether instructions have been issued to county councils about how to deal with that matter.
My noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer highlighted several issues, many of which other noble Lords agreed with and, indeed, expanded upon in the debate. I believe that one important matter to which she drew attention was that this is a national issue. It is not only a matter which relates to the countryside; it affects us all. She highlighted the fact—indeed, other noble Lords took up the issue, too—that we have developed a system of shipping animals around the country and chasing large subsidies in the process. We now have an infrastructure of abattoirs and a retail system which add to the need to move animals around. Many noble Lords raised the issue of movement of animals. The right reverend Prelates the Bishop of Hereford and the Bishop of Salisbury in particular took up those themes, as did my noble friend Lord Hooson and the noble Lord, Lord Biffen. They emphasised the importance of stewardship and sustainability when dealing with the countryside.
Another area that we on these Benches care about in particular, and which my noble friend highlighted, was the importance of using the regions and regional development agencies to deal with some of the problems. Not only county councils and local councils but parish councils have an important role to play in these matters. My noble friend drew attention to the importance of recovery plans in considering how to deal with the crisis. She also raised an issue which I shall mention again—it was also referred to by other noble Lords—that is, whether the Government can use their contingency fund if we are dealing with a crisis.
The rural White Paper was discussed by many noble Lords this evening. I hope that the Minister will respond to the question of my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer about whether the Government

825
would accelerate some of the White Paper's ideas. That may be the role of the task force. Many noble Lords will be interested to hear her response.
We on these Benches are concerned about two other matters in this context; namely the environmental costs if we do not take care of our countryside and the need to consider farming in a way that involves taking care of the environment. In that regard I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, who is now a near neighbour of mine in Northumberland. Another of my great interests is energy efficiency. The noble Lord raised a good point when he asked about biodiesel and the help that could be given to farmers. He was absolutely right; people in Europe are further ahead in that regard. I hope that the Minister will respond to that. When we talk about the effects on the environment we are really talking about the sustainability of our planet. The noble Lord, Lord Plumb, highlighted that in his speech.
It is very late, so I shall discuss only briefly two other matters that I wanted to raise. The first has been mentioned by many noble Lords; namely, poverty in rural areas. While I was getting a cup of coffee, I heard the noble Lord, Lord Elton, read out a couple of figures on rural poverty that I was going to give; I shall not repeat them. Weekly household incomes are significantly lower in rural England than in cities—there is a difference of about £40. My noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer discussed the fact that some parts of the country are particularly badly hit. The average weekly wage in Cornwall is £292, that in Northumberland is £309 and that in Shropshire it is £317; the average in towns is £405 and that in the rest of rural England is £365. If one adds to that the fact that incomes are falling, which many noble Lords have discussed tonight, and that costs are rising, which has also been mentioned this evening, one will appreciate that we had a problem with rural poverty before we got into this crisis.
Noble Lords made several suggestions about how we could help people with their finances. Several noble Lords mentioned banks, some of which are I know trying to be helpful. I hope that the Government will encourage them to be even more helpful. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, discussed entrepreneurs. I shall discuss tourism in a moment—many of those involved in that industry are entrepreneurs. The Government can help small businesses in particular in that context. In our alternative Budget, we Liberal Democrats have always been particularly aware of that and have wanted to give extra help.
Several noble Lords discussed benefits. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, who is currently not in his place, rather imaginatively suggested linking benefits with the jobseeker's allowance. Other noble Lords discussed the Chancellor's contingency fund. There is a feeling on all Benches that we should consider ways in which to supplement people's incomes. In many parts of England, people who lose their job would be eligible for some unemployment benefit. We need to be imaginative and not bound by what has happened previously.
826
Finally, I want to say a little about tourism. As I said, many of those involved in tourism are entrepreneurs. We should do all that we can to help them. As noble Lords have explained, when people do not visit an area it is not simply the hotels and pubs that suffer; it is also the shops and other services that are used by those living in the countryside. This evening we have heard graphic descriptions of empty shops in country towns. I know that tourism is growing in Northumberland. As someone who has lived in the South East all my life, I can say that it is very pleasant to go out without encountering a permanent traffic jam, which is the experience of most people who have lived in the southern and south-eastern corner of this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and others spoke about tourism in Cumbria. From an e-mail that I received from somebody living there, I am aware of the farm tourism initiative and an injection of direct funding for developing such tourism projects in the area, with the aid of local training and support and quite a lot of money from Europe. The organisers of that initiative have built up quite a fund of information and expertise. However, the fund will finish in June. Other noble Lords have spoken about asking the Government to be flexible when considering various funds and ways of claiming money to help. That is another example that I hope the Minister will consider.
This has been a long debate about very real problems experienced by individuals, many of whom feel isolated and desperate—some even suicidal. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones made a valuable contribution in some depth to the debate, and I hope that the Government will respond to his points.
I hope that the Government will be able to draw on today's debate to inform and guide their efforts to deal not only with the crisis of the foot and mouth outbreak but also with the longer term measures that we need to take if we are to have a sustainable countryside that is understood by everyone in Britain—not just by those who live in the country. I hope that the support the Minister has had from all sides of the House will enable her to take those measures forward in any future initiatives.
11.57 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, this has been a very long and wide-ranging debate. Perhaps today the House has been close to its best. We have debated a crisis of some scale, showing great compassion to those who are suffering. Many noble Lords have paid tribute to all those who are working to gain control of the situation. I, too, would like to pay tribute to the Minister for all that she is doing, for all that she has done and for the way in which she has conducted this debate. I also pay tribute to Jim Scudamore and to the whole team for everything that they are currently doing to bring this crisis to a speedy end.
The countryside has been in crisis for some time. This outbreak of foot and mouth disease has seriously exacerbated the problems. My noble friend Lady Byford opened by giving examples of the financial

827
status of the industry. Many noble Lords have, in my opinion quite rightly, criticised the Government for their failure to address countryside issues and for their lack of understanding and appreciation of the cash crisis and lack of reserves that are aggravating this particular disease crisis. Real farm income has fallen since 1967 by an average of 80 per cent. That seriously exacerbates the situation of many businesses. However, I do not intend to spend any more time discussing the Government's failings in the agriculture industry over the past few years.
Today's debate has centred much more on the present crisis, not only in relation to the disease of the animals but also in relation to the enormous human hardship and suffering, the extent of which has been brought home to me as a result of the debate. Some of the experiences of noble Lords about which we heard tonight really brought the problems home. I hope that those reading Hansard tomorrow learn something from the debate. Many small businesses linked to tourism, commerce and farming are not directly involved with livestock, but they too are suffering from the effects of this disease.
The purpose of today's debate, and what I hope the Government are attempting to do, is to repair the neglect of the past by positive action plans for the present and the future. We heard many useful contributions tonight, which, it is hoped, will be helpful. But I should like to raise again a few of the issues mentioned.
Perhaps the biggest human problem throughout the country is cash flow. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, raised the question of how our farmers are to live month after month with no income. It has been said that those who lost the whole of their herds may not be in receipt of an income for perhaps four years.
We heard much tonight about communication, about which I have had personal experience. We refer not so much to communication on the national front, but to communication in the local areas so that people know what they are doing. There is no doubt that the Government have totally lost the confidence of the rural communities—as the march would have emphasised—and the agriculture and food industries. They must win that confidence back. They must get their communications right and come forward with positive ideas as to what their intentions are. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, spoke of "biofuels". There must be other imaginative ways of helping the farming industry.
Many noble Lords spoke of the problem of abattoirs—the reduction from 2,000 to 400, and from locally-produced, locally-slaughtered and locally-marketed food of first quality to a market where livestock is motored all over the country and can go to three or four abattoirs before finally being killed. That cannot be right.
Compensation was mentioned, and that links in with cash flow. I am sure that that is something on which the Minister and her colleagues will be working.
828
It is vitally important that the Government come forward very quickly with what help will be forthcoming for those who are suffering, both in terms of immediate cash flow by bringing forward grants and also in the longer term. They must indicate what they intend to do in relation to compensation and how they will help farmers rebuild their stocks and their businesses.
Resources were mentioned. Many noble Lords spoke of involving the military. The Minister told us she was already using the vets and had other parts of the services standing by. That is to be welcomed. One of the criticisms that came across in the debate, and came across to me before coming into the debate, is that although the Government moved quickly once the outbreak became apparent, three or four days were lost through inactivity. However, the scale of the problem increased significantly. We heard about carcasses lying around for a long time and delays in slaughtering. The point was made several times that those matters must be speeded up; that bureaucracy must not be allowed to get in the way. If the Countryside Agency has to be involved, let us involve it. The Prime Minister spoke about a task force. Perhaps that is not the right body; I believe that we want considerably more. At least one noble Lord suggested a Royal Commission. Whatever the body, we need to speed things up. We need clear statements and understandings of where we are going.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers and others spoke of drawing down agrimoney. I understand that there is agrimoney to be drawn down and it would appear that it should be.
The noble Lords, Lord Plumb and Lord Soulsby, made a strong point about swill. Noble Lords strongly believe that actions should be taken to prevent swill ever again being used as a feed. It is thought to have been a root cause of this and the 1967 epidemic.
Finally, the noble Lords, Lord Williamson and Lord Elton, and others discussed the contingency fund. I have no knowledge of it but I imagine that there is one. It is not the business of Members on this side of the House to decide where the money should come from. It is our business to press the Government to provide money for compensation in order to help cash flow and to maintain the industry.
Members on all sides of the House believe that it is in the interests of the nation to maintain its own food supply. The thought of losing our livestock industry and being dependent on imports—and other countries might suffer the same crisis—is awful. It does not bear thinking about. Anything that the noble Baroness and her Government want to do in order to ensure the continuance—or resurgence, if that is what it has to be—and health and welfare of our livestock industry will be welcomed from this side of the House.
12.7 a.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I knew that this would be an impassioned debate; I knew that it would be a well-informed debate; and I knew that in a winding-up speech beginning after midnight it would

829
be impossible to reply to everything raised without trespassing on the generosity that the House has already shown to me.
Given the levels of anxiety expressed about many specific issues relating to the current handling of the disease and its outbreak, the best thing I can do is to respond definitively to as many issues as possible. I shall undertake to take forward many of the constructive suggestions which have come from all sides of the House. However, I hope that noble Lords will understand that in so doing—and not responding in kind to some of the criticisms about the Government's policy on agriculture—the House should not take silence as assent to some of the analysis I have heard from the Benches opposite; or to the proposition that only after this crisis did the Government become interested in agricultural policy or devote any resources to it; or that we were starting from nowhere in terms of the reshaping of agricultural policy. The Strategy for Agriculture was launched in 1999. It was built on by the Action Plan for Farming. As my noble friend Lord Brennan reminded us, the Rural White Paper, far from negating the importance of farming, stated how central it was to the rural economy. Tonight we have heard many expositions of the effect on the much wider rural economy of this particular blow to farming.
I promise the House that we shall undertake those issues to which the noble Lord, Lord Biffen, referred, in terms of long-term inquiries into some of the fundamental issues relating to disease control. My right honourable friend has made it absolutely clear that in so doing we shall listen to dissenting voices. Perhaps that reassures the right reverend Prelate. While at the moment there is unanimity about the inappropriateness of vaccination policy, for example, one of the lessons from the Phillips report is that we must keep challenging conventional wisdom as things change, whether it is the structure of the industry or scientific advance. While the position is quite clear at the moment, that does not mean that one's mind should be closed for all time or one does not take account of developments. Therefore, there will be a long hard look at the lessons to be learnt from the outbreak.
I make clear to noble Lords that that is different from the task force which was announced today by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. That task force is very immediate. Its first meeting is tomorrow and will be chaired by my right honourable friend the Minister for the Environment. It will bring together Ministers from other departments, but also, I hope, some of the people who were at Downing Street today, to look very closely at the impact on the rural economy here and now, and, for example, whether, as the noble Baroness suggested, measures in the rural White Paper can be brought forward. It may also look at some of the issues of regionalisation to which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred.
Today, a great deal has been said about the importance of keeping rigorous controls in disease management. At the same time, a great deal has been said about the impact on tourism, everyday life and
830
rural businesses. It is already apparent that as we see the pattern of the disease emerge there are big differences in different areas of the country. It may be that the Highlands of Scotland remain disease free for some time. At the moment East Anglia—Norfolk, Suffolk— and the west of Wales are also disease free. We must look to the future and make sure that responses are proportionate to the risks of the disease.
Earlier I was asked to react with candour. What we have tried to do is to make public the veterinary risk assessment of various activities, whether it is the opening up of footpaths or horse-racing, and give clear advice on risk management in situations where it is necessary. The greatest risk is the movement of live animals which are susceptible to the disease. That is why we have difficulty in balancing assistance to those who need to move live animals with the risks of the disease.
I say to the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Salisbury—I understand why he is unable to be in his place tonight—that perhaps the most useful thing we can do is build on what we already have, whether it be big issues like reform of the CAP or the market towns initiative in the rural White Paper, to which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred, rather than start again on a new White Paper. I have spent more than 30 years in politics. When the right reverend Prelate said he believed that a surge of confidence would sweep the countryside if we announced another White Paper I was not convinced that that would be a universal response. I know exactly where he was coming from. We need to take policies forward, but whether we need to start again, or build on what we have, to cover the areas is a different issue.
It is important that we do not rush to judgment. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, mentioned their analysis of some of the glibber comments made about, for example, the role of intensive farming in the outbreak of the disease. We need some cool analysis rather than rushing to judgment on a great number of these issues. For the same reason, I hope noble Lords will understand if I do not comment further on ongoing investigations as to the original source of the outbreak. Therefore, it is important that we do not rush to judgments, particularly glib ones.
There is always the temptation to take an issue, which is important for one reason, and use a set of circumstances to justify it for another reason. We need a rigorous analysis of the role of rural abattoirs. There were a large number of small abattoirs in 1967 when we had a very bad outbreak of foot and mouth disease. There were specialist trades that involved movement of animals. Even when animals travel a long way to abattoirs, when they end up dead and not mixing with other animals going on to other farms, they are not an enormous disease risk.
We should pay tribute to the vigilant official veterinary surgeon of the Meat Hygiene Service at an abattoir in Essex who had never seen a case of foot and mouth disease in his life, but who diagnosed that first case. The noble Lord, Lord Biffen, said that in a blink

831
of time the disease had spread very quickly. I do not think that analysis is correct. We acted very quickly when we knew we had the disease in the country. I am grateful for the recognition of that.
The reason we have seen such a great emergence of the disease over the past three weeks is that it was incubating before anyone knew we had a single case in the country. It was being spread by movements of sheep, many of which, because of the nature of the disease in them, were not diagnosed when they first showed symptoms. There was widespread dispersal of disease throughout the national flock into large areas of the country before we even knew that there was a single case anywhere. As a result, we are still seeing the consequences, not only in those cases that were infected before the movement controls came in, but because the disease was not easily diagnosed. So we are seeing second and third wave disease in those flocks, and we are seeing cattle which have caught the disease from sheep on the same farm. That means that one is not dealing with one simple incubation period but a series of incubation periods.
We have had the controls in place. We do not have, so far as we know, more than one focus of disease. The disease would certainly be far worse if those movement controls had not been in place. But the nature of this particular outbreak, combined with the structure particularly of the sheep industry—something that has been mentioned many times—and the way in which markets work, has meant that a great deal of disease was disseminated before anyone had diagnosed a single case.
Having said that, perhaps I may update the House as to the outcome of the standing veterinary committee meeting in Brussels today as specific questions were asked about the import of meat from France after the case was confirmed today. I can tell the House that restrictions have now been imposed on all movements in and out of the département of Mayenne where the case was found with respect to both the rest of France and to other member states. That covers the same livestock and products as involved in the movement restrictions imposed on the UK and is broadly equivalent to the restrictions imposed on Essex following confirmation of the first case in the United Kingdom. So there is an even-handed approach by the Commission. I should also tell the House that imports of meat from Argentina to the EU have been banned until 15th April pending clarification of the situation there in the light of a significant outbreak.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, asked whether we have a proper contingency plan. I have to tell him that we have a national contingency plan. That is required by the Commission. It has to be submitted to the Commission and regularly updated. It has to be there in every other member state. Each animal health office has to have a local contingency plan. Some of those—I think the one in Carlisle but I am not 100 per cent sure—were tested out and reviewed earlier this year. It is not the case that there was not a
832
contingency plan in place. Every outbreak is different and there is not a "one size fits all" plan to deal with every situation.
I was asked about manpower, resources and the use of the Army. We have had discussions with the Armed Forces about the help that they might now give. It is likely to be logistical help; that is, in helping to dispose of carcasses and possibly in farm killing. I should like to make clear, because there has been some speculation, that it is not about killing wildlife. I was asked about the role of wild deer. The risk assessments are very clear on wildlife. One runs the risk of doing far more harm than good by the dispersal of wildlife which is not grossly infective. At the moment, there are no plans to cull wildlife of any kind.
There has not been any reluctance to call in the Armed Forces. It has been quite clear from the beginning that we could have support from any other part of government. But the point was made by some noble Lords that licensed slaughtermen should be used to undertake this distressing work, which has to be done in a humane way. The training of Army marksmen is not exactly directed in normal circumstances to this kind of work. If we can have enough licensed slaughtermen to do it, I still believe that that is the best way forward. Obviously, we have to look at the scale of disease. I am very conscious of the points that have been made today about distress in particular and the potential disease risk in terms of the delays that have on occasion taken place.
I would not pretend to the House that everything has been done in every case as quickly as any of us, particularly the Chief Veterinary Officer, would have wished. He has set himself a target of slaughter within 24 hours and disposal within another 24 hours. I hope that, in the main, that target is being met. In some cases it is not being met because of resource difficulties. But we are bringing in as much help as we can. Some of that resource in terms simply of digging trenches and building pyres can be accessed from the private sector and contractors just as speedily as—and perhaps even more speedily than—it could be accessed from the Army. We have to look at the whole range of possibilities and then decide what is the most effective under the circumstances.
I said to noble Lords that we shall and we do bury when necessary. I understand that quicklime is no longer used because it preserves the carcasses. Decomposition kills the virus due to the acidity produced during rigor mortis. The thinking in this area therefore is that we do not want to preserve the carcasses with quicklime.
Noble Lords have referred to the rendering plant that is being used. That plant is presently working for 24 hours a day. It is being supplied by a fleet of lorries that have been tested to ensure that they are leakproof. We are looking at the possibility of opening another rendering plant. However, as with the issue of burial, we have to be careful that we do not create more environmental problems, or problems of a different kind, by the methods of disposal. That is the reason why we are looking carefully at the proposal.

833
However, I hope that more rendering capacity will come on line very quickly. Indeed, in some cases it may be possible to utilise landfill but, again, only in situations that receive approval from the Environment Agency and the relevant local authority. We shall explore those proposals as well.
Perhaps I may respond to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and the noble Lords, Lord Luke and Lord Monro. At present, most cases are being confirmed on clinical grounds alone, without the need to take cultures or wait for lab results. The longest waits for lab results concern negative outcomes. Sometimes it can take longer to secure a negative result than people might hope, but that does not represent a delay in terms of diagnosis.
On valuation, it is normal practice to value live animals. Every effort is being made to ensure that animals are valued and slaughtered as quickly as possible. On occasion, valuation has taken place at the same time as slaughter. However, perhaps I may take this issue away and discuss it at one of our regular Friday meetings held with representatives from the whole industry. I believe that different views will be held on valuation. Perhaps we shall be able to devise mechanisms to ensure that valuation does not hamper or delay slaughter.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, asked me about the potential slaughter of 7,500 pigs on a neighbouring farm. I shall certainly look into the details of that case, but I must say to him that this area is one where heroic measures need to be taken. Where foot and mouth disease is confirmed, it is the policy to take as a dangerous contact any contiguous pig herd. That is because of the greater hazard of disease transmission posed by pigs, which ranges over and above that posed by cattle and sheep, and for windborne spread.
Lord Elton: My Lords, what has caused particular concern here is the fact the sheep in the field next door had been diagnosed six days before they were shot.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I understand that, but I have already pointed out to the House—the Chief Veterinary Office has confirmed this on several occasions—that there is an order of priority which starts with pigs and moves on to cattle, with sheep at the end due to their lower infectivity. In an ideal world all the animals that needed to be slaughtered would be dealt with very quickly. However, if choices have to be made, those are the criteria that are used.
Several noble Lords have asked about financial help. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, asked about the compensation on which there is no debate or argument; namely, the compensation for slaughtered livestock. As far as I am aware, as at yesterday, £33 million had been paid to farmers out of an estimated £36 million that had been valued. We aim to make those payments as quickly as possible—as, indeed, the agrimonetary payments which, as I have described to the House, have been drawn down early and are being made as quickly as possible.
834
So far as concerns the banks—a point raised by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel and by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood—I was present at a meeting that we had with the banks very early on to discuss the situation and to brief them on it. As noble Lords have said, there has been an announcement—first by Barclays and then by the other banks—about a moratorium on debt repayments. There is another meeting with the banks scheduled for tomorrow which I shall try to attend. Obviously, the points raised today about the extension of help will be transmitted to them there.
As to the question of other schemes and the need for flexibility, I have dealt with the issue of force majeure and grazing on set-aside. The Commission has been extremely helpful and any other issues which arise about particular payments will be taken up with it.
The noble Earls, Lord Onslow and Lord Caithness, raised the point about Countryside Stewardship and ESA schemes. I am well aware that at this time of the year farmers are drawing up applications and that visits by officials have, for obvious reasons, been suspended. When the situation has stabilised, we shall ensure that potential applicants can still receive appropriate technical advice about joining the schemes and, if necessary, application windows will be extended beyond the end of April for the ESAs and the end of May for country stewardship schemes, which I hope will be of assistance.
Perhaps I may say a word about the very important issues that have been raised on stress and isolation and the need for support.
Earl Peel: My Lords, on the issue of compensation, the question was raised about farmers who did not have infected herds but who were living within restricted zones and therefore could not get their stock away. I and other noble Lords asked the Minister whether her department would consider compensating them as a matter of priority.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, there are many matters of priority in terms of compensation. It is a very difficult issue. I quite understand the concerns of people under restriction; we lived through this with Classical Swine Fever. This situation affects large numbers of people over and above those who have herds; there are other people who lose out. The whole of the country is under restriction of one kind or another on animal movement; different people have different difficulties at different times.
The noble Earl spoke about people who cannot move animals to market, for example, because of restrictions, even though they do not have the disease. Another noble Lord spoke about people who have bed and breakfast enterprises on their farms and who are losing bookings. We have said that we will look at all these issues and the cases that are made for compensation. But the breadth of effect on different industries and individuals of this crisis is enormous. It would be wrong to suggest that the Government are an insurer of last resort for every financial consequence that will come out of this. I understand that people will

835
argue for priority in their own individual sectors—we will look at all those cases—but the impact of this will go enormously wide and differentiating between different people's losses will be extremely difficult.
I am aware, however, of the point that has been made about the immediate cash flow problems for individuals. From the beginning, we have been in contact with the Department of Social Security about issues such as the Jobseeker's Allowance and the ability of people who are temporarily laid off to be able to claim it. Equally, we are in contact with the Inland Revenue about working families' tax credit. We shall continue to monitor the situation and attempt to be as flexible as possible in ensuring that people are given as much financial support as we can give in the circumstances. I shall certainly make sure that issues such as redundancy are raised with the relevant departments.
The issue of support and advice was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford. Perhaps I may make it clear that we are giving the Rural Stress Information Service, which we believe provides a vital link, half a million pounds in this financial year. If it appears that current funding is to be exceeded, we shall look at diverting more resources. I can confirm that we are making £300,000 available for a second rural stress action plan for the financial year 2001–02. We shall keep the issue of funding under review in the course of the next year in the light of demands made because of the current disease outbreak. We greatly welcome the establishment of the Arthur Rank Centre Addington Fund. I know of the work that it did in East Anglia during the outbreak of classical swine fever. I am sure that it will be much appreciated.
There are one or two other issues that I should try to cover. The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, raised an important question about the safeguarding of genetic material for rare breeds in particular. Outside infected areas, farmers can be licensed to freeze the eggs and sperm of cattle for embryo transfer and AI. That could not occur in an infected area but it can occur in a more general control area. Genetic material would need to be quarantined in flasks. The point has been taken on board and some provision has been made.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, will the Minister give way? Does that apply to sheep as well?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am afraid that my briefing only tells me about cattle. If I can find out and let the noble Earl know, I undertake to do so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked about the cause of the outbreak at Hawes in North Yorkshire. I understand the noble Baroness's concerns. The attempt to establish that link has taken some time. In most cases, the link is straightforward and we have published on the website where the links are. I am sorry to say that the case she mentioned is still under investigation. Obviously, we shall try to find out as soon as possible.
836
Talking of the website leads me to issues of communication. My noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, had some criticisms of the website. Others have been very complimentary about it. In the main, it has been an enormously valuable source of information. I have figures indicating that the number of hits on the website has reached huge proportions. It has been a source of accessible information for the majority of farmers who have direct access. It has also been used by particular breed and livestock associations and by the NFU locally in order to get information out to people who do not have direct access themselves. We can always make the website better. If there are specific criticisms, I shall be glad to hear them in terms of trying to put matters right.
In terms of "putting right", I should put right the figure that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. I missed out a decimal point: £3.3 million has been paid out so far, not £33 million. I thought that we were doing rather well!
As for the timetable for the lifting of restrictions that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Lord, Lord Monro, mentioned, there is no set six-month period. Once a farm is confirmed as having foot and mouth disease, animals have to be destroyed and disposed of under official supervision. Slurry and bedding are removed and held for a period sufficient to ensure that the virus will be destroyed. Cleansing and disinfecting can then start—that is, a preliminary disinfection followed by a thorough cleansing. There is then a second disinfection and a veterinary inspection to confirm that the job has been done satisfactorily. The relevant period is 21 days after final cleansing and disinfection for any animal to be introduced on to the farm. That has to be sentient animals, which are monitored for another 28 days by the State Veterinary Service for signs of disease.
Where several outbreaks have occurred in the same neighbourhood, veterinary advice may be that lifting the restrictions on the earlier cases should be delayed until the later ones are due to be declared free of disease so as to prevent the possibility of re-infection. I am afraid that there is no simple answer about the length of time involved. It depends on veterinary assessment—
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am sorry to interject at this point. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for that clarification. Am I right in thinking that it is a misconception that is going around that the disease has to be cleared nationally before people can start restocking? Can the Minister confirm that that is a misunderstanding?
Baroness Hayman: Yes, my Lords. I do not believe that anyone is saying that restocking cannot start until we have no more cases nationally. As I said earlier, it may be possible to regionalise the disease if we clear areas, or if some areas do not have disease at all. There is a separate issue here about exports, which is a very different matter and is approached on a national basis. However, in terms of restocking, if we were dealing

837
with only one case, the timetable could be quite speedy. I would not like to hold out too much optimism in that respect because if that case occurred in an infected area—we have some areas that are the very foci of infection—the fact that there was an early case would not mean that the ban could automatically be lifted. Veterinary assessment would also take into account the surrounding cases. I do not believe that there is a one-size-fits-all answer in national terms.
I should like to respond to an issue that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, about the outcome of the Northumberland committee. I understand that the UK law was amended to reflect the recommendations of the Duke of Northumberland's committee of inquiry. Since the UK joined the EU, imports of meat and meat products have been governed by EU legislation. Imports from countries where FMD is endemic are subject to the strictest of conditions, for example, only de-boned mature beef can be imported. As we know, bans can and. indeed, are imposed where outbreaks flare up, such as has happened in recent months as regards South Africa, and Argentina with the decision of the SVC today.
The issue of the treatment of pregnant ewes has been raised, especially by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. I believe that today's reporting about a mass cull of pregnant ewes has not been helpful in terms of policy options. Obviously there are a number of alternative ways of dealing with what is a large and in some cases intractable problem. None of the answers is particularly palatable. It is certainly not a matter of talking about mass slaughter. As noble Lords pointed out, although local movements will not be of help to many people, they will be of help to some people and they 'will be used. In other cases, it is possible to let the ewes lamb where they are. We are giving advice and support about how that could be managed least badly, as is the RSPCA and other organisations. We are looking at a wider movement scheme. However, even if we can introduce that—earlier I mentioned some of the difficulties involved in balancing that with disease risk—it would not solve everyone's problems because it will not be possible to move pregnant ewes from infected areas into areas without disease for reasons that the whole House will appreciate.
I am terribly conscious of taking too much time. I shall deal with two or three other points as quickly as I can. I say to my noble friend Lady Mallalieu as regards the risk assessment of racing that the conditions under which the CVO felt that animal health and diseases would not be compromised were made clear. believe that that information is published on the website. We are trying to provide as much guidance as possible for those involved with horse related activities in order for them to take sensible decisions as to the appropriateness of going ahead with activities.
I am grateful that the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, reminded me that I ought to pay tribute to the amount of work that councils have been involved in. LACOTS has been involved from the beginning, particularly in the issuing of licences, but there is an
838
enormous number of other matters including movement controls that have involved a great deal of effort on the part of local authorities, as the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, mentioned. I cannot at this stage make any announcement about financial support but I am certainly conscious of the costs that have been imposed on local authorities in this area.
On the vexed question of faxed copies of documents, local authorities have the duty of issuing licences but they also have the responsibility of choosing the format. We have made clear that we prefer hard copies as we consider them more effective in terms of enforcement. The police prefer hard copies. However, in some areas authorities are willing to accept faxed copies when people face snowdrifts and terrible weather. There has been variation in that regard. As I say, the format is the responsibility of local authorities.
My noble friend Lady Mallalieu also referred to disinfectant supplies. We have been in daily contact with the trade association representing disinfectant manufacturers. Production has been stepped up enormously. We believe that overall there is enough stock of disinfectant. In the first few days of the outbreak we approved 35 new disinfectants, all of which have been tested and have been found to be efficacious in terms of countering foot and mouth disease. They are all listed on the MAFF website with a link to the manufacturers' sites which feature information on availability. Inevitably availability becomes patchy in some circumstances. However, I am assured that overall there is no shortage of supply. In the past couple of weeks reports of such problems have diminished, although they were present right at the beginning of the outbreak.
I should say something about swill. That matter was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, and the noble Lords, Lord Soulsby and Lord Dixon-Smith. It would be inconceivable that we did not deal with that issue in the longer term review as a matter of principle. As has been pointed out, swill is fed to pigs in a very limited number of premises—about 1.4 per cent of the pig herd is fed on swill. Schedule 5 to the Animal Byproducts Order 1999 requires catering waste to be processed for at least 60 minutes at a temperature of not less than 100 degrees centigrade. If that is done properly, it kills off any virus that is present. I assure the House that swill plants are licensed and are inspected regularly. I understand that they are inspected twice a year. The Chief Veterinary Officer has ensured that all swill plants will be paid an extra visit. It is important again to spell out that it is illegal under any circumstances to feed to farmed animals catering waste imported into Great Britain on aeroplanes, ships or planes.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, does MAFF give notice to those farmers who use swill before it does the checks or are there spot checks with no notice whatever?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, pass! I am writing to the noble Earl already. I shall also have to write to him on that issue.

839
We shall have to consider two issues for the future: regulation and enforcement. Weakness can come from either side of that equation. The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, spoke about enforcement. We will have a thorough look at the regulatory framework and the enforcement mechanism. If we can learn things from other countries we shall do so.
Concerns have been expressed about what has been termed profiteering by the slaughterhouses. The Minister made clear his long-held view that all members within the food chain have an interest in understanding each other's problems and cooperating for the long term, rather than seeking to take short-term advantage. That is even more pertinent at present. We do not have a normal market in meat operating at this time. Now the MLC is publishing prices again, I think that more transparency comes into the situation. There is additional risk of abattoirs being closed down because they have suspect animals in them and additional costs over and above those I have explained that the Government will meet in terms of veterinary supervision. If there is concern about profiteering, rather than reflecting additional risk, the Office of Fair Trading exists to investigate anti-competitive behaviour. It is possible for individuals or trade associations to raise issues about which they have concerns with the Office of Fair Trading.
I am enormously conscious that I have not dealt with a vast range of issues. I wanted to tell the noble Baroness about vibration and tractor seats because we have had some success there.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, was courteous enough to tell me that he would raise the issue of biofuels. I could have guessed that he would do so. We recognise the environmental benefits and the diversification opportunities. The noble Lord knows that we initiated the green fuels challenge in the Pre-Budget Report and have taken action, cutting duty by 20p a litre compared with fossil diesel. I know that he will be concerned that that was not enough. But a significant expansion of oil seed production could
840
conflict with the Government's objective of reversing the decline in farmland bird populations. I do not state that to score a point. I simply reiterate to the House that with regard to many decisions about the structure of agriculture we have to look for laws of unintended consequences. Equally, because we are looking to the future, that involves possible long-term developments which could be sustainable and important for our countryside.
The main message I gained from today's debate was the strength of feeling about the fear and desperation but, equally, the commitment to find a way for agriculture and the livestock industry to continue. It is the Government's responsibility to do everything that we can to eradicate the disease to allow that future for the industry. The right reverend Prelate was right to remind us that it is an industry with hard economic facts behind it, but we all agree that it is more than just another industry. It is integral and crucial to our sense of ourselves environmentally and as a nation. We cannot imagine hills without livestock on them. It would be a different country if they were not there. That is why the livestock industry affects all of us, not just those involved in it, or even just those involved in the wider rural economy that is under such strain at the moment.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, may I briefly say how much we have all appreciated the Minister's very full replies to all our questions, well beyond the call of duty. I know that she will not be going to bed just yet, but when she does, may she sleep well.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has indicated that he believes that it would be appropriate not to seek to press his Unstarred Question tonight. I believe that he hopes that it will be on the Order Paper at the end of tomorrow's business. All noble Lords due to take part in the debate tonight were informed.
House adjourned at four minutes before one o'clock.

  Defence Exports
  Defence Exports
  Transatlantic Defence Industry Co-operation
  Transatlantic Defence Industry Co-operation
  Gulf Personnel and Anthrax Immunisation
  Gulf Personnel and Anthrax Immunisation
  Lord Chancellor's Role
  Lord Chancellor's Role
  Land Registry: Performance Targets
  Land Registry: Performance Targets
  Home Office Challenge Fund
  Home Office Challenge Fund
  Nice Treaty: Enhanced Co-operation Measures
  Nice Treaty: Enhanced Co-operation Measures
  Post-war Credits
  Post-war Credits
  "Giving Time, Getting Involved"
  "Giving Time, Getting Involved"
  Employment and Social Policy Council
  Employment and Social Policy Council
  Wythenshawe Hospital Heart Transplant Unit
  Wythenshawe Hospital Heart Transplant Unit
  NHS Trusts: Financial Arrangements
  NHS Trusts: Financial Arrangements
  War Pensions
  War Pensions
  Environment Council, 8 March
  Environment Council, 8 March
  Countryside Schemes
  Countryside Schemes
  Chemicals Policy: EU White Paper
  Chemicals Policy: EU White Paper
  Motor Vehicle Traffic
  Motor Vehicle Traffic
  Common Land Legislation
  Common Land Legislation
  Referendums: Draft Guidance
  Referendums: Draft Guidance
  Demolition in Conservation Areas
  Demolition in Conservation Areas
  Sporting Events: Funding
  Sporting Events: Funding
  Royal Parks: Cars driven on Footpaths
  Royal Parks: Cars driven on Footpaths
  Cultural Property: UNESCO Convention
  Cultural Property: UNESCO Convention