Sitting of 21 March 2001

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

    Ministerial Visit (Iran)
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: If she will make a statement on her recent visit to Iran. [153300]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): My visit to Iran, at the invitation of the former Iranian ambassador in London, was to help to build partnerships for better co-operation between our countries to halt the flow of heroin from Afghanistan through Iran into Europe. That causes social problems on the way. This co-operation will benefit both the UK and Iran. While I was there, I signed a memorandum of understanding between Iran and the UK on drugs co-operation and pledged a further £78,000 from the UK to help Iranian drug demand reduction efforts.
    Mr. Mackinlay: I fully endorse my right hon. Friend's endeavours to combat organised drug crime between here and Iran. Her visit was highly publicised, so can she tell us whether she had an opportunity to reinforce the United Kingdom's deep concerns about continued civil rights abuses in Iran, particularly bearing in mind the fact that her visit coincided with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's listing the Mujaheddin as a proscribed organisation? Were the right signals conveyed to Tehran during her visit for that important reason?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I consulted the Foreign and Commonwealth Office before I left. The issue was raised with me and I explained what had been done. We, as a Government, are opposed to capital punishment and the kind of human rights violations that take place in Iran. However, if we are to make progress, it is better to work with countries for change; talking to people makes change a possibility. If we just ignore and condemn, that will not bring about change. Iran has a different culture, but while I was there I raised the issue of human rights with every Minister I met and referred, in particular, to the case of the folk who went to the conference in Berlin and were imprisoned for that.
    Mr. John Bercow: What assessment has the right hon. Lady made of the uses to which the Iranians have put the £2.68 million contributed by the British Government to the anti-drugs effort? How does she expect the additional £78,000 to be allocated, and is she now able to throw any light on the real reasons for the sudden resignation of the head of that country's anti-drugs headquarters, General Mohammad Fallah?
    Marjorie Mowlam: General Mohammad Fallah resigned and then took up his job again. I think the explanation of why he left now becomes a secondary issue.
    The money allocated from this country goes with that from other countries to the United Nations, and the UN drugs team uses the money. I saw it being used to improve the systems for night vision on the border and to assist customs and excise. It is used to help to stop the drugs moving through.
    Mr. Michael Clapham: Although I appreciate the need for the memorandum of understanding to prevent drugs from coming to Europe and to the United Kingdom in particular, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a need to strike up a dialogue with the country in which the drugs originate? Perhaps we could establish a European package so that farmers who currently grow poppies are encouraged to diversify into other crops. The poppy, which has caused so much misery, could be replaced by other crops.
    Marjorie Mowlam: The United Nations drugs unit has a policy of co-operation between European countries to feed into the UN's efforts in Afghanistan. The Taliban are in discussion with the Iranians, so there is some communication between them on policy. My hon. Friend's suggestion that European Union countries should be involved is valid. We have just managed to do that elsewhere, and Spain is taking that approach in its relations with Colombia. The European Union has provided 105 million ecu to help to prevent the production of cocaine in Colombia. I am sure that, in time, we will begin to understand that such countries face problems partly because of the demand in Europe, so I hope that the policy that my hon. Friend described will be followed.

    Regulatory Reform Bill
    Mr. John Healey: If she will make a statement on the impact of the provisions of the Regulatory Reform Bill [Lords] on the regulation of business. [153301]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office(Mr. Graham Stringer): The Bill will enable Government to reform whole regulatory regimes originating in different pieces of legislation using a well tried and tested parliamentary procedure. That will simplify legislation and make it less burdensome for business while maintaining the necessary protections for both the consumer and the environment.
    Mr. Healey: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. There is strong support for the Bill among businesses in south Yorkshire, including members of the Federation of Small Businesses whom I met on Friday night. Many will welcome the 51 reform proposals that are now in the pipeline under the Bill. However, will he explain how firms that want other outdated and overlapping regulations removed in the future can register their concerns, so that he can consider using the powers that he will have at his disposal under the Bill?
    Mr. Stringer: My hon. Friend's experience in south Yorkshire reflects my discussions with businesses throughout the country. In addition to the 51 items that we listed, businesses are invited to use the Cabinet Office website to suggest proposals for regulatory reform. They can write directly to us at any time or inform us of their concerns in the many consultations that we hold with them, in which I will be delighted to tell them that although we want the reforms, the Opposition do not.

    Public Appointments Commissioner
    Mr. Graham Brady: If she will make a statement on the work of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. [153302]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): The Commissioner for Public Appointments, Dame Rennie Fritchie, regulates ministerial appointments to public bodies within her remit. Her work and advice are highly regarded and respected by the Government.
    Mr. Brady: The Minister knows that it is a year since the Government faced swingeing criticism from the Commissioner for Public Appointments about the practice of stuffing national health service trust boards and health authorities with Labour crony appointments. In the 12 months since then, they have continued that practice in their appointments to the new primary care trust boards. Dame Rennie Fritchie has been—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That does not sound like a question. If the hon. Gentleman agrees to ask one quickly, I shall allow him to continue.
    Mr. Brady: I shall indeed be quick. Dame Rennie Fritchie's inquiry into the practice as it relates to primary care trusts will be concluded at the end of the month. Will the Minister ensure that the report is produced very early in April, so that the Government cannot sweep it under the carpet?
    Mr. Stringer: What an extraordinary statement from a party that appointed a three-times failed Conservative candidate as chairman of the Yorkshire health authority—that was its approach to public appointments. The Labour party has co-operated with the Commissioner for Public Appointments and accepted her recommendations. If the
    328
    hon. Gentleman reads the text of the report, he will see that the Government's appointment of local councillors reflects the proportion of councillors on the ground.
    Mr. Brady indicated dissent.
    Mr. Stringer: That is what the report says, unlike when the Conservatives were in government and they put their friends and their friends' wives into every appointment going.
    Tony Wright: I think it is recognised that the Commissioner for Public Appointments is doing a good job and I hope that she will soon be reappointed. However, what matters is which public bodies are covered by her remit. Will my hon. Friend ensure that new public bodies automatically come under her remit unless there is a good reason why they should not?
    Mr. Stringer: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The Government have extended the number of appointments covered by the commissioner to more than 30,000. We always consider whether new bodies are appropriate for the Nolan process. However, bodies that are established quickly for specialist purposes and last for only two or three months are not appropriate for it.

    Regulation
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: If she will make a statement on her role in interdepartmental co-ordination of Government policy on regulation. [153303]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): I chair the panel for regulatory accountability that looks at new regulations in the pipeline. We have also appointed a regulatory reform Minister in each Department; and on Monday, the Regulatory Reform Bill, which was introduced in December, had its Second Reading in the House.
    Mr. Fabricant: I thank the right hon. Lady for her answer. In her role as the regulator of Departments, is she aware that this morning—on top of everything else—the Foreign Secretary admitted that he had leaked documents to a BBC journalist, even though he had previously denied that? Is she further aware that, less than four years after being elected, the Government are characterised by hype, no delivery—and now sleaze?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I am not sure that that has anything to do with the nature of the questions being asked today, and it shows how panicked the Conservative party is by the prospect of an election. It is trying to hide the previous Government's record of sleaze.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: In the co-ordination to which she has referred, will my right hon. Friend make it an absolute responsibility of all Departments to ensure that the public know that the Government are committed to better regulation, whereas the Conservative party is committed to deregulation, particularly if it erodes conditions for working people?
    Marjorie Mowlam: That is a central aim of the Government, but we will not achieve it in the unbalanced

    329
    way the Conservatives did. The Regulatory Reform Bill is an example of balance in legislation. It aims to ensure that basic rights—unlike the Tories, we will not apologise for them or portray them as excessive and costly—are upheld. I am not going to apologise for the minimum wage, for improving maternity leave, for bringing in parental leave, for giving millions of employees the right to paid holiday for the first time, or for tackling discrimination against the disabled. We will be proud of those changes, but we will not forget the needs of business and never have done. This morning, five draft Bills were published which will make 51 improvements and save business £40 million. The Regulatory Reform Bill is balanced to protect workers' rights and to help business.
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: In the course of her discussions on regulation with colleagues, what did the right hon. Lady discuss with the Foreign Secretary in relation to the Stockholm summit this weekend? What attitude will the Government take to the proposal from UNICE—the Union of Industrial and Employers' Confederations of Europe—and Eurochambres for introducing a rigorous programme of business impact assessments?
    Marjorie Mowlam: We are working not only across Departments but with the Commission, the European Parliament and other member states to improve and simplify the European regulatory environment. As part of that we participate in the Mandelkern group on better regulation, which has produced a very good report on specific, practical recommendations. Last week, I talked to the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office before his departure for Stockholm, and he addressed issues relating to the summit report. The development of a system in the Commission to assess the costs and benefits of all proposed European legislation is one of the key elements that we are working towards.
    Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that reply, but I am afraid that I was looking for something more specific. Can she say that it will be the intention of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary at the Stockholm summit this weekend to secure a Council agreement requiring the Commission to undertake immediate discussions with business organisations on introducing an business impact assessment system, and to commit the Commission to do so within a maximum of 18 months?
    Marjorie Mowlam: Yes.
    Mr. Brian White: Given that the usual Tory reaction of approving a Bill in the other place and opposing it here was evident on Monday night when we debated the Regulatory Reform Bill, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that she will continue to make proposals that will deal with inconsistencies and anomalies in a whole raft of regulations in different areas, rather than the individual cases that can be dealt with under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I was as surprised and disappointed as my hon. Friend by Conservative Members' reaction to the Bill, given that the Opposition
    330
    in another place supported it in principle. The Conservative party has a very poor record of regulatory reform in government, having introduced no fewer than 13 times as many regulations as were repealed under the deregulation initiative between 1994 and 1997. Conservative Members are now opposing legislation that could bring £40 million in benefits to business and the community in just five early reforms.

    Modernising Government Programme
    Mr. John Wilkinson: If she will make a statement on progress with the modernising government programme. [153304]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Ian McCartney): We are making excellent progress, as illustrated in "Citizens First—Open All Hours", the modernising government annual report, which was published in September.
    The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) should be aware of the strong consumer focus of the London borough of Hillingdon. For example, as part of the best value review, the council consulted residents widely to ensure that proposals are geared to local needs. Those proposals include more foster carers, action to tackle fly-tipping and a telephone call centre operating out of hours.
    Mr. Wilkinson: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the aim of the modernising government programme was to involve public service users, not providers, more closely in matters affecting their lives? In that context, how can he justify the action of the NHS in ignoring so far the 100,000 petitioners who have urged that Harefield hospital be retained and built up? How is it that a vested interest, such as the Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster health authority, which is a member of the regeneration partnership, can lead the consultation on the future of the hospital?
    Mr. McCartney: I have no detailed knowledge of individual hospitals and shall write to the hon. Gentleman. However, there has been a 6.7 per cent. increase in the NHS allocation in his area; £184 million has been allocated for next year, compared with the previous allocation of £169 million. More than £500,000 has been invested in modernising an accident and emergency unit; there is £500,000 for a new cancer network; and tens of thousands of pounds have been allocated to reduce the area's long waiting lists.
    The Government are modernising the health service; the Tories just want to privatise it.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the progress that has been made on developments in UK Online, especially the section on life events, which will provide a great service to the public at times of great need. May I suggest that one way of improving the site and monitoring its success would be to establish a link for Members of Parliament to feed in suggestions about how to develop it further?
    Mr. McCartney: I am more than happy to offer every Member of Parliament the opportunity to express their

    331
    ideas. Indeed, one aim of the site is to seek information on a regular, daily basis from its users about how to improve both it and the services that it provides. As a consequence, we shall improve the site, based on customer feedback. If my hon. Friend wants to make suggestions, I will ensure that we try to incorporate them, so long as they are good.

    Government Services (Accessibility)
    Fiona Mactaggart: If she will make a statement on making Government services more accessible to the public. [153306]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Ian McCartney): We have appointed consumer champions in all the key central government services to find out and meet users' needs. I visited my hon. Friend's constituency on 15 March to launch the booklet "Citizens First—Open All Hours", which details progress to date on providing extended opening hours across the public services. We will provide electronic access to all relevant services by 2005. The UK Online citizens' portal went live on 4 December 2000.
    Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply and welcome the Government's commitment to extending access to public services in health, education and employment. I was particularly pleased to welcome my right hon. Friend to the NHS walk-in centre in Slough—open 15 hours a day, 7 days a week—where he saw the work of Sally Patrick and her excellent team.
    Can we look forward to other public services having an extended opening hours culture so that citizens who are at work—after all, there are many more of them under this Government than there used to be—can get access to public services?
    Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is right, and I can give her a commitment that there will be a rolling programme for a range of services across the public sector, based on the "Open All Hours" document. Some of those services will be accessible 24 hours a day, some will be accessible at weekends, and there will be some early morning and late evening services. The basis of those changes will be feedback from consumers using local government and community services.
    I ask my hon. Friend to pass on my best wishes to Sister Sally Patrick, who looked after us last week when I visited the Slough centre. It has already seen 10,000 patients in the first few months of operation and is now one of 40 NHS walk-in centres which provide a first-class health care service to people every day. Only four short years ago, such centres did not exist under the Tories. This Government, however, are modernising the health service.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Has the right hon. Gentleman read either of the EURIM—European Information Society Group—reports on e-government and the modernisation of government? One of the working parties involved was chaired by the hon. Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran). Is he glad to hear that my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has announced that it is Conservative party policy to proceed with suggestions such as those made in the reports? Will he make urgent representations
    332
    regarding implementation of the Senior Salaries Review Body recommendations, to ensure that Members of Parliament have proper IT that links in with the Government system? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Older. I ask the House to come to order. The noise is unfair to hon. Members who are interested in the question.
    Mr. McCartney: It sounds just like home at the weekend, Mr. Speaker.
    I am fully committed to IT provision over the next few years, not only in terms of modernising the House. That includes not only equipment, but training, in terms of services both in the House and at constituency level. If the hon. Gentleman has any views on the matter, I ask him to contact me, as he has a friend at court.
    On the second issue, I have not read Conservative party proposals in detail, but if they have at last turned the tide away from the incompetence on IT that was demonstrated by the previous Government, progress will have been made. The current Government were left with a huge legacy of failure in virtually every IT system procured by the previous Government. That cost the taxpayers of Britain hundreds of millions of pounds and delivered few good services. We are at last turning that around and are at the leading edge in the delivery of e-commerce.
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will my right hon. Friend go a step further on public services and see whether we can get the public to elect the people who run those services—especially the quangos?
    Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend raises the issue of democratising quangos. That is exactly what this Government have done. We have removed Tory placemen and women and replaced them with local people. We have removed Tory business men and replaced them with people from ethnic minority communities. We have replaced Tory placemen with local women. We will continue to ensure that quangos and other public bodies represent the communities in which people live, not merely Tory placements.

    Anti-drugs Strategy
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: What new steps are under consideration in the Government's national anti-drugs strategy. [153307]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): The Government are undertaking research to develop a better understanding of the dynamics of the UK and international drugs market, which will improve our intelligence on the class A drugs threat assessment. The national treatment agency and pooled treatment budgets will come into effect on 1 April 2001. We announced in the Budget significant additional investment for targeted action at local and regional level. That will provide an opportunity to build on the experience of initiatives such as parents against drug abuse in south-west Cheshire.
    Mrs. Winterton: Studies show that one in 10 drivers under the age of 40 get behind the wheel having taken drugs ranging from cannabis to cocaine. Traces of drugs

    333
    are found in one in five people killed on the roads. Will the Minister therefore introduce a national anti-drug driving campaign, bearing in mind the fact that young people have, on the whole, learned the lesson about not drinking and driving?
    Marjorie Mowlam: The Government are researching the issue to which the hon. Lady refers. That is the best way of tackling the question of driving under the influence of drugs, legal or illegal, and of providing ways to help the police enforce existing legislation more effectively. It is now being developed alongside other initiatives.
    Jackie Ballard: Does the Minister for the Cabinet Office agree that the members of the Runciman commission were respected and knowledgeable people who undertook a detailed, independent, scientific study of the problems of drug use and abuse? If so, why have the Government rejected each of its recommendations out of hand?
    Marjorie Mowlam: The Government implemented a large number of the Runciman recommendations. The few that we rejected included one on cannabis. Our approach is clear: the scientific evidence is insufficient to convince us that the law should be changed. However, that does not prevent discussion and debate. If the scientific evidence changes, we will reconsider the matter.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. [153331] Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 21 March.
    The Prime Minister: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House. I shall have further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Winterton: Livestock is an important and substantial part of agriculture in my constituency. Will the Prime Minister assure hon. Members that farmers whose animals are slaughtered as a result of foot and mouth disease will receive compensation immediately, and that businesses that are affected by the restrictions will receive 100 per cent. relief from the business rate for six months? Will he also ensure that those who are dealing with the outbreak are allowed to use burial to get rid of the carcases that are currently lying on farms?
    The Prime Minister: First, on compensation, I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that, yes, they will be paid 100 per cent. compensation. Indeed, we have already paid out £80 million-worth Of compensation. We are trying to make sure that any compensation is paid within seven days.
    334
    In respect of the burial of animals, there have been difficulties over the issue of water tables, particularly up in the part of the world that the hon. Gentleman represents. We are making arrangements with the Environment Agency now to try to ensure that we get the necessary burial sites, because that is the best way of disposing of the animals quickly. We believe that we will have those in place very shortly.
    Finally, in relation to those farms that have been affected not by the disease but by the restrictions on movement, yes of course they will be subject to the measures that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment announced yesterday in respect of relief from business rates.
    Mr. Paul Flynn: In a few days' time, a cynical, selfish international company will wreck irreparably some capacity in the British steel industry and destroy the lives of thousands of steelworkers. Yesterday, the Government gave unprecedented aid to tourism. Will the Prime Minister now consider a similar unprecedented package for those steelworkers, many of whom will never work again? The problems of tourism are serious but temporary; the devastation suffered by the steelworking communities is permanent.
    The Prime Minister: Of course, we urge the company yet again to reconsider the proposals that mean that 6,000 people are made redundant by Corns. That is a very serious situation for those communities affected and for those individuals affected. In addition, we will be there, standing ready and willing to give whatever help we can to those people, should those plans go ahead. Of course, we are well aware of our obligation —and have the financial capacity —to stand behind those people. However, that is secondary to our first desire, which is to ensure that the plans for redundancy do not go ahead.
    Mr. William Hague: Yesterday's record number of new foot and mouth cases, and the 25 cases already announced at lunchtime today, show clearly that there is no immediate end in sight, not just for farmers but for huge numbers of rural businesses now facing ruin. May we welcome yesterday's announcements by the Government taskforce, but say to the Prime Minister that there is an urgent case for immediate help?
    I wrote to the Prime Minister earlier today with a proposal for an emergency scheme that would give struggling rural businesses loans to help them through the crisis. I gave him notice that I would raise it with him this afternoon. Will he consider adopting the scheme?
    The Prime Minister: First of all, as we announced in yesterday's statement, we are already considering with the Small Business Service and others ways in which we can ensure continuing credit for small businesses. That would include, for example, use of the small firms loan guarantee fund. It may in practice be quicker and easier to build on an existing scheme rather than to invent an entirely new one.
    I should also say that we can give further details of the proposals on business rates. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment will be providing more details of the help, but the scheme will cover all 118 rural local authorities and businesses in those areas with

    335
    rateable values of less than £12,000 will be able to apply if they are facing serious hardship as a result of foot and mouth disease. We estimate that this will cover about 75 per cent. of all businesses in rural areas. Depending on the take-up, up to 50,000 people could benefit.
    Obviously, we shall also consider carefully the proposal that the right hon. Gentleman has just put forward. I would, however, say that, of course, Government help is important, but those rural businesses cannot exist on Government subsidy. What those businesses—particularly those in tourism—most need is custom, business, trade. They need people to come into the countryside and to realise that there is no reason why they should not go there and resume normal tourist activities. On the contrary, it is absolutely vital for the survival of those tourist industries that people do so.
    Mr. Hague: I welcome the further details of the rate relief scheme from the Government. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have called for more details of that over the past week.
    However, may I press the right hon. Gentleman to consider more quickly—given that he said that he would consider—the help that could be given to the cash flow of businesses through loans? The crisis for those businesses is now in its fifth week, whatever happens in the next few weeks. The biggest problem facing hotels, shops, tourist attractions and other small businesses is cash flow, even if those businesses were to turn up a little now. The proposal that we have put to the Prime Minister would offer those businesses emergency help in the form of a loan of up to £10,000, which they would not have to pay back until they were making a profit again. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept that scheme, or if he wants to build it on to a different one, will he come back to the House with an alternative to it, and do so as soon as possible?
    The Prime Minister: Of course we will come back with the proposals that we are making. The relief that we are suggesting should be given to people in respect of tax, VAT and business rates will help those businesses.
    In his letter to me, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the fact that, with a large budget surplus, we would be able to offer the £500 million fund that he was asking for, and that that fund would allow for emergency loans of up to £10,000 for a business. In all frankness, even a loan of up to £10,000 will not help a country hotel or a major tourist attraction through this problem.
    That is why, in addition to whatever measures of relief we are offering, it is important to make it clear that, although people should obey the restrictions in place in the countryside, it is important for the tourist industry that we send out the clearest possible message that people should not be cancelling their bookings at hotels and tourist attractions. On the contrary, they should be going there and making the most of the tourist industry and trade in a responsible way.
    Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister is right to say that £10,000 would not make a huge difference to a huge tourist attraction. But it would make a huge difference to tens of thousands of small rural businesses, and they are the ones at greatest risk.
    336
    On the question of dealing with the outbreak itself, the Prime Minister will be aware that since last Thursday the backlog of infected animals awaiting slaughter has gone up, from 64,000 to 108,000 yesterday. The backlog of dead animals awaiting disposal had doubled to 80,000 as of yesterday. We wi11 not control this outbreak until we clear these backlogs. Will the right hon. Gentleman now agree to a far greater deployment of the Army, with its manpower and its engineering and logistics capabilities, on tasks such as the burial and disposal of carcases?
    The Prime Minister: On the measures to control and eradicate the disease, I will deal with the point about the Army. There is a lot of confusion about this issue. The Army has made it quite clear—as the right hon. Gentleman will see from the detailed statement that the Ministry of Defence will issue later today—that there are three different aspects to ensuring that we control and eradicate the disease in the areas most affected. One is the issue of logistics; the second is the issue of slaughter; and the third is the issue of disposal. We have the slaughtermen there, and the contractors who can come in and carry out the disposal. There is no doubt that the principal problem is one of logistics, and of organising and administering those tasks in the areas most affected.
    As the disease has progressed over the past few weeks, we have been able to see that it is increasingly concentrated in certain main areas. Indeed, more than half the 46 new cases announced yesterday were in Cumbria and Dumfries, with several more in Devon.
    Now, what is important is to use the Army for what it says it will do best—that is, the logistics operations. There are now logistics operations from the Army in each of those main areas; there is a full control and operations centre in each of those areas. That really is, according to all the best advice we have, including that from the farmers' union on the ground, the best way to make sure that we can then organise the operation properly so that the animals are identified, slaughtered and disposed of properly.
    Mr. Hague: I am sure that it is right that the main way in which the Army can be used successfully is in a logistical capacity, but this is an urgent, massive and growing problem and only a handful of personnel are being used in a logistical capacity. A Ministry of Defence spokesman said today that MAFF has asked for only 60 soldiers in Devon and the rest are on standby, waiting for word. There are large amounts of military resources on standby.
    When there is a desperate shortage of people to help to deal with the crisis, no one in the countryside can understand why the Government are not making use of the thousands of soldiers and heavy machinery that they have at their disposal, and making use of them more urgently than has been done so far. Will the Prime Minister step up, as a matter of urgency, the deployment of the Army to the tasks of which he has spoken?
    The Prime Minister: We now have in place the necessary people for the logistics. I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman-[interruption] I simply ask Opposition Members to listen to this, because we have looked at it very carefully in line with the comments of people on the ground: there is not a shortage of slaughtermen; there is

    337
    not a shortage of contractors to dispose of the animals. It is necessary, however, to organise the operation properly. There are now the logistics teams in place.
    The other problem is a shortage of vets. That also is very important. Let me tell the House what we have done. The daily rate for the vets has been increased from some £160 to £250 per day. There is a new call for private vets. I should say, however, that the normal State Veterinary Service of 220 is running at more than 1,100. However, we will bring in even more, particularly in Cumbria and Devon where they are urgently needed.
    In addition, we are ensuring that burial arrangements are being agreed with the Environment Agency, because, as I said a moment ago, burial is preferable to burning. In addition to that, we shall have in place within the next week sufficient rendering capacity so that we will be able to dispose of some 250,000 sheep carcases per week. That is the best way to dispose of those animals—through burial and through rendering.
    We have the capacity to do that now. What we need, I repeat, are the logistics teams in place. They are now in place. [Interruption.] I say to Opposition Members who are shouting at me that this has been a situation in which the people on the ground have suddenly had to upgrade the whole nature of their operations in the most extraordinary way. I ask people to spare a thought for the pressure that they have been under.
    Now that we can see that the disease is concentrated in certain areas, we are able to concentrate more and more resources on those areas. I think that that is the best way to proceed. In addition, we have proceeded throughout not just according to the advice of the veterinary service, but, at each stage, with the National Farmers Union.
    Mr. Hague: The people on the ground have done a magnificent job in upgrading their capability—sometimes they have upgraded their capability faster than the decision-making machinery of Her Majesty's Government has.
    On a final point, a huge spectrum of people. ranging from the Liberal Democrat leader of Devon county council to the Cumbria tourist board to Labour Members of Parliament, have raised real questions about whether county council elections in certain areas— [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] From all parties. Can elections possibly proceed— [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must say to the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) that he had best be quiet.
    Mr. Hague: Labour Members should listen to some of their colleagues. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) has said:
    "I would be looking to have some kind of delay".
    Is he meant to be frit? The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) has said:
    "There is an argument for postponement".
    The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) has said:
    "The Government is clueless about the scale of chaos in Cumbria".
    Labour Members should listen to their colleagues.
    338
    Given that people from different political parties have raised those concerns and given that having the option to delay some local elections requires legislation quickly, is the Prime Minister absolutely sure that he will not regret later doing nothing now?
    The Prime Minister: Voices are raised on both sides about this, but we are concentrating, as we should be, on controlling and eradicating the disease.
    As for the elections, they are the elections set for 3 May. I understand the feelings of those who say "Let us postpone those elections", and I will of course listen carefully to their representations; I simply ask people to bear in mind two other factors to be weighed in the balance.
    The first of those factors is the signal that we would send out to the country. If we sent out a message that, in effect, the democratic process had to go into suspension, that Britain was in a state of quarantine, that we were in some way closed for business—I worry about the effect that that would have on the tourist business. I do ask people to bear that in mind. Many interests need to be taken into account in rural areas.
    Secondly, I simply ask the right hon. Gentleman this: postpone until when? For one month, two months, six months? In 1967, this disease went on for eight months. I simply believe that we should weigh these factors sensibly in the balance. Of course I will listen to the representations that are made, but what should be done ultimately is what is right in the interests not just of the countryside but of the whole country—people in the countryside, and people not in the countryside—and that is what we shall do.
    Mr. Hague: Very briefly— [Interruption.] The Prime Minister has asked me a question.
    May I say—very briefly, given the time—that the Prime Minister must weigh against that the fact that three weeks ago the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said that coming to the House for three hours was a distraction from dealing with the crisis? He will have to be happy that for all the authorities in Devon and Cumbria, spending four weeks fighting an election is not a distraction from dealing with the crisis.
    The Prime Minister: As I have said, of course I understand the representations of those who are making the case for postponing the elections, and will listen carefully to them. I simply say this to the right hon. Gentleman, if we are quoting individual Ministers or shadow Ministers: I think it was his own shadow Agriculture Minister who denounced the prospect of postponing the local elections just a couple of weeks ago.
    Leaving all that aside, the question is, what is the right thing to do? I simply say to the right hon. Gentleman that of course I will listen to those representations, but it is important to weigh in the balance the question of what signal we would send if we did indeed postpone the local elections.
    I am acutely conscious—because the right hon. Gentleman raised it earlier—of the issue of the tourism industry and businesses in the countryside. What they need, even given the gravity of the situation, is for people to go about their business as normal, as far as is possible. We must send the message out to people that Britain is

    339
    not in a state of quarantine; on the contrary, provided that they obey the restrictions in the countryside, people should go and enjoy the countryside as they should.
    Mr. Ben Bradshaw: The head of tourism in the south-west told me today that the local elections must go ahead, because to delay them would send completely the wrong message to wider Britain and the wider world. Will the Prime Minister ensure, however, that the Government provide accurate and up-to-date information that makes it clear to people that, even in counties that are badly affected—such as Devon—many places are open for business as usual?
    The Prime Minister: Of course it is important for us to send that message to people very clearly. [Interruption.]I hope that Opposition Members who are shouting at my hon. Friend realise that I think they have some responsibility to back up that message, and not say to people "Don't go into the countryside." What we should be saying to people is, "Obey the restrictions, but it is important for the tourism industry that people do enjoy the countryside".
    There are businesses in Bath, in York, even in London, that are suffering as a result of the drop in the tourism trade. That is why it is so important that on the one hand we send the message that is necessary to control and eradicate the disease, and on the other hand we send the clear message that people should by all means go into the countryside, but they should obey the restrictions that are there.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that this is not the time for politicians to be talking about our livelihoods, in terms of elections, when other people are seeing their livelihoods literally going down the tubes, hour by hour and day by day. [Interruption.] I understand why some Conservative Members are worried about their livelihoods, but that is another story.
    Does the Prime Minister share the concern, and, indeed, the view that it is unbelievable, of Ben Gill, president of the National Farmers Union, who has acknowledged today that, much to his dismay, half the abattoirs in this country are closed, despite the current scale of difficulty? Is that not an extraordinary state of affairs and what are the Government going to do about it?
    The Prime Minister: Of course it is the case that there are abattoirs that are closed precisely because of the problems that we have had over the disease, but that is why we are seeking to ensure that we open the abattoirs that we can in order to process the animals that are being killed for the food chain now. It is perhaps worth saying to the House again, just to set some of this in context, that, at the moment, we are slaughtering about 250,000 animals a week for normal human consumption in the food chain. Outside the time of the disease, we would normally slaughter about 500,000 each week. It is worth setting that against the 400,000 that we have slaughtered for reasons of foot and mouth disease. We are having to
    340
    balance making sure that we are getting animals to slaughter with making sure that the abattoirs themselves are clean and free from disease.
    Mr. Kennedy: A couple of weeks ago, the Prime Minister properly, although four years too late, called for a serious searching debate in this country about the nature of our farming industry, the rural economy and the whole food chain. Does he acknowledge that one of the things that needs serious searching attention is the absence, all too often, of abattoirs in various parts of the country and the knock-on effect that that is having, not least in the present crisis, with the moving of animals and the traceability of the problem itself? Will the right hon. Gentleman give that urgent attention once we are through the immediate crisis?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, the decline in the number of abattoirs—particularly small abattoirs—happened some time ago. I know that there is a serious debate as to whether the absence of sufficient numbers of small abattoirs is a contributory factor in disease spreading—not just foot and mouth, but any type of disease. Again, there are views on both sides of that argument.
    As for the question of the long-term future and viability of the farming industry, of course, it is important that, once the immediate difficulties are out of the way, we sit down and look at that very carefully, but it is not a process in which nothing has happened in the past few years. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food reminds me that, last year, we conducted a series of debates and consultations with the farming industry over rural development regulation and over how to change the native of the farming industry over the coming years. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman's party participated in those discussions—and very constructively, too. There will be an opportunity for us to consider some of those long-term questions. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, that will await the end of the immediate position which is one of eradicating and controlling the disuse.
    Mr. Jonathan Shaw: Whenever my right hon. Friend chooses to call the day, can he assure the House and indeed the country that he will lead a campaign to save the pounds: that is, £16 billion worth of cuts proposed by the Conservative party—cuts to schools, cuts to hospitals and cuts in the fight against crime? Does he agree that that will be a popular campaign and that it will not need a flat-backed lorry to get it off the ground?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that the choices before the country will be very clear. There is a major dividing line between the two political parties. We are in favour of additional investment in our schools, hospitals, police and transport system and the Conservative party is committed to £16 billion worth of cuts in those vital services.
    Mr . Nick Hawkins: Despite the Prime Minister's previous waffle about only needing logistical support, does he not realise that, with dying and dead beasts lying in fields and on farms for days, people in the country need support from the Army? Is not the real reason why the Army has not been fully

    341
    deployed the existence of an internal Whitehall turf war between the Treasury, MAFF and the MOD? Will the Prime Minister not recognise that he is held responsible by people in the countryside and must sort this out?
    The Prime Minister: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no: that is completely and totally untrue. We have made it clear that there are no resource restrictions on dealing with this disease at all. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that this Government —in spite of the fact that the last Government paid out not a single penny piece in agrimonetary compensation —have pulled down some £600 million of agrimonetary compensation since we have been in office. We are deploying the Army as we are because that is the united view not simply of MAFF, but of the Ministry of Defence and the Army experts. The Army stands ready and willing to do whatever is necessary.
    I repeat that there is not a shortage of slaughtermen, and there is not a shortage —at the moment, at any rate —of contractors to do the work. There is, however, a shortage of a proper logistical operation to tie the whole administration together in those areas where the disease is at its strongest. It is precisely that operation that the Army is now carrying out.
    Mr. Llew Smith: Would the Prime Minister care to comment on the activities of the steel company Corus which, on the day it was formed, handed over £700 million in sweeteners to its shareholders; it then appropriated £900 million from the, workers' pension fund; it then wasted £135 million in buying up firms abroad; it then compensated an incompetent former chief executive to the tune of millions of pounds; and yet it has announced the closure of one of the most efficient steel plants in the world, in my constituency of Blaenau Gwent, for reasons that the company describes as financial?
    The Prime Minister: It is precisely for that reason that we have asked the company to reconsider its decision. I pay tribute to the trade unions for the way in which they have assembled a package to save their jobs and their industry. It is a proper, commercial package that has been properly worked out and would make a profit for the company. It is exactly for those reasons that we have asked the company to reconsider. We still hope that it will hear that call and reconsider the decision that has caused such devastation in my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Mr. James Paice: Despite the Prime Minister's earlier comments, do not the figures speak for themselves? The rapidly lengthening list of animals awaiting slaughter shows that the time scale between diagnosis and slaughter is too long and is
    342
    probably part of the cause of the increasing rate of outbreak of the disease. Does he agree that in light of the delays and the need for speed, now is not the time for any haggling over small aspects of valuation; for squabbling between different Departments; for waiting for the Environment Agency to look at every single aspect of the matter; and for political correctness about not using hunt servants as slaughtermen? Will the Prime Minister do everything he can to bang heads together and to make sure that those actions are carried out as quickly as possible?
    The Prime Minister: Of course; that is precisely what we are doing. Before the hon. Gentleman shakes his head, he might at least listen to my answer. For example, there has been a problem —in certain parts of the country, at any rate —in agreeing the proper price for the slaughtered animal. We are agreeing a tariff that will quicken the valuation process. For example, we are slaughtering before valuation where necessary. For example, slaughter before lab tests —the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition last week —is now happening in 80 per cent. of the cases and is happening wherever necessary. In relation to the Environment Agency, there is an issue in respect of water tables. We cannot simply ignore that or pretend that it does not exist. However, we are working with the agency to clear any obstructions so that we can use burial, which is far more effective than burning.
    In relation to any bureaucratic rules —for example, those which say that vets, having visited an inspected farm, cannot visit a new farm —we are changing all those rules and removing whatever bureaucratic obstacles we responsibly can on the advice of the chief veterinary officer. We are putting in place a process for checking all the flocks in non-infected areas so that they can be declared non-infected as soon as possible. All of that is being done.
    In particular, the time for slaughter is being shortened considerably and, as a result of the logistical exercise that I have just described, we will be able, over the coming week, to shorten the time between slaughter and disposal. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the fact that all of this has been required as we have seen how the disease has been concentrated in certain areas. The disease is in certain areas and not in others. Even though the situation is immensely grave, it is worth emphasising once again that, at present, less than 1 per cent. of the livestock of this country has been subject to slaughter.
    What is important is that, as we see how the disease is concentrated, we put in a more and more intense effort into those areas, and that we are now doing. People at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and on the ground are spending every hour that they can working on the problem. It is right that we recognise the contribution that they have made.

Equal Pay (Audit)
3.30 pm
Mr. Vernon Coaker: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require employers to carry out an audit of their pay structures' compliance with the provisions of the Equal Pay Act 1970—[Interruption]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps hon. Members would leave the Chamber quietly.
Mr. Coaker: I shall begin by publicly thanking the Equal Opportunities Commission for its help, and by congratulating it on its recently published report entitled "Just Pay".
In 1970, my noble Friend Baroness Castle, who was then First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, introduced the Second Reading of the Equal Pay (No. 2) Bill. I reread her inspirational speech, and found many moving quotes that set the scene for today's debate. She said:
"There can be no doubt that this afternoon we are witnessing another historic advance in the struggle against discrimination in our society, this time against discrimination on grounds of sex … While other people have talked—lots of people have talked—we intend to make equal pay for equal work a reality".
She went on to say:
"The concept of equal pay for equal work is so self-evidently right and just that it has been part of our national thinking for a very long time … Indeed, as far back as 1888, the TUC first endorsed the principle of the same wages for the same work. —[Official Report, 9 February 1970; Vol. 795, c. 914.]
Some 30 years after those remarks, what would Baroness Castle make of the progress that we have made? I think that there would be pride in the progress that has been made, but disappointment that equal pay is still not a reality. Thirty years after the 1970 Act, discrimination in pay is still a reality for many thousands of women. Equal pay for equal work may have been part of our national thinking for a long time, but it clearly still requires major national action. Our practice has often fallen far short of the ideal.
The pay gap between men and women has narrowed since the 1970 Act was passed. In 1970, the gap stood at 31 per cent. It is smaller in 2001, but women working full time still earn, on average, 18 per cent. less per hour than men. Women working part time earn 39 per cent. less per hour than male full-time workers. It is clear, therefore, that the initial progress made soon after the 1970 Act became law in 1975 has faltered and that the pay gap, especially for women part-timers remains stubbornly high.
That is as unacceptable as it has always been, but the differential is striking when we consider the accepted view of society today. We believe that we are a modern society, free of the prejudices and injustices of the past. In many respects, that is true: there is more equality of opportunity, and discrimination in all its forms is being dealt with, but so much more remains to be done.
Continuing with that work fits in well with the Government's agenda of bringing about social inclusion and delivering greater equality of opportunity. Eliminating the gender pay gap makes a statement about the sort of society that we all want—a society in which ability and talent are what count, and in which everyone's ability is utilised to the full.
344
The elimination of the gender pay gap would improve the quality of life of working women, both now and in the future, and help to tackle child poverty. However, there are also sound business reasons for tackling the pay gap, as many employers already recognise. Fair pay makes recruitment and retention easier and increases productivity.
So what are the reasons for the continuing existence of the gender pay gap? The "Just Pay" report identifies a number of key factors that need to be addressed. They include discrimination in pay and occupational segregation, as well as the unequal impact of women's family responsibilities. The cumbersome nature of the tribunal processes available to women seeking to tackle pay inequality also causes problems.
The Government have taken, or are about to take, action on some of these issues and a number of reforms are in place. Measures such as higher maternity pay, the working families tax, credit, the children's tax credit, new rights for parental leave, trade union recognition, better child care and, of course, the minimum wage are making a huge difference to the position of women and families in our society. However, the challenge of equal pay remains, and neither the Government nor those outside who campaign for this must shirk it.
I know that the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Ms Jowell), is to bring forward proposals to speed up the industrial tribunal system, under which women try to air their grievances. In 1998–99 it was taking an average of 19 months to go through the system. Other proposals will include continuing to improve child care and providing real choice for women.
Let us look at the impact of occupational segregation on the gender pay gap. The fundamental issue is the valuation of women's work in the labour market and, in particular, the work of part-timers. The low status in the labour market of part-timers—predominantly women—is a major problem that again highlights how crucial education and training are.
The part of the gap caused by pay discrimination is the focus of my Bill. The Equal Opportunities Commission estimates that that accounts for 25 to 50 per cent. of the pay gap. Such discrimination is not necessarily intentional, but can result from procedures and policies that unwittingly fail to give women equal pay. If employers are not required to audit their pay structures to ensure conformity with the Equal Pay Act 1970, how do we know what is going on?
The figures according to the new earnings survey in April 2000 show that in my region of the east midlands, in craft and related occupations, women's earnings are 62 per cent. of male earnings—nearly a third less. In sales occupations, the figure is 68 per cent. Overall, in all occupations in the east midlands, women earn 74 per cent. —roughly three quarters—of what men earn.
To quote a specific national example, the recent Bett report into higher education showed a number of examples of unequal pay. Females were paid less in almost all occupations and at all grades in universities. The earnings of female academics were, on average, £4,000 less than those of male academics. If it is happening in that field, among highly educated women, one can imagine some of the problems and difficulties

345
experienced elsewhere. I am pleased that the Government are starting to address the issue in the higher education sector.
The Equal Opportunities Commission conducted additional research, seeking evidence from employers about their pay practice. Some 301 employers were surveyed by National Opinion Poll. The key findings were that 11 per cent. of all respondents said that women progressed more slowly than men. Some 32 per cent. of public sector employees conceded that jobs done mainly by men had access to bonus or performance payments, whereas those done mainly by women did not. Twelve per cent. said that part-timers did not have access to occupational pensions.
It is for those reasons—the reality of life in our society—that my Bill is necessary. It would require an audit by employers of their pay structures to see whether they complied with the law. It is clear that without such a review, employers will not be able to judge whether they comply. According to the Equal Opportunities Commission survey, only a third of respondents had conducted any review of their pay system. In a more flexible job market, with more individual negotiation and considerable variety in the way in which people are paid, we must do more to ensure that such procedures are put in place. How much longer must we wait? I believe that most people would have expected us to win that challenge by now.
At the end of her speech in 1970, Baroness Castle said:
"There is just one thing I would like to say in conclusion. It is to pay a tribute to all those who have argued and striven over the past years for equal pay for women, and in particular to those hon. Members on both sides of the House who have championed the cause which is coming to such happy fruition today."—[Official Report, 9 February 1970; Vol. 795, c.929.]
I hope that my ten-minute Bill can play a small part in continuing the effort to make equal pay a reality and to finish the task begun by those who went before us.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Vernon Coaker, Gillian Merron, Liz Blackman, Ms Joan Ryan, Mr. Derek Twigg, Ann Keen, Angela Smith, Ms Julie Morgan, Mr. Chris Pond, Ms Ruth Kelly, Mr. Jonathan Shaw and Mr. John Heppell.

EQUAL PAY (AUDIT)
Mr. Vernon Coaker accordingly presented a Bill to require employers to carry out an audit of their pay structures' compliance with the provisions of the Equal Pay Act 1970: And the same was real the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 6 April, and to be printed [Bill 71].
Opposition Day
[7TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Mr. Speaker: I should inform the House that I have put a 12-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. I have also selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I call Mr. Nick Brown to move the debate. [Interruption.] I apologise. I call Mr. Tim Yeo.
  3.41 pm
  Mr. Tim Yeo: I beg to move,
  That this House expresses its deep concern about the increasing extent of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, its appreciation of the work the vets and others involved in efforts to contain the disease and reduce its effects and its sympathy for farmers and those involved in other businesses in rural areas whose livelihoods are under such severe threat: supports the Government's objective of containing the outbreak and the measures it has announced so far; but regrets that the Government has not acted more swiftly and effectively in tackling the crisis; and urges the Government to take immediate and practical steps to help the worst affected areas of the country, including the adoption of a strengthened slaughter policy, an increased role for the army in disposing of carcases, the deployment of more veterinary resources and a business rate exemption for affected businesses.
  You may be anticipating events, Mr. Speaker, in asking the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown) to move an Opposition debate.
  Britain's livestock industry is in peril. The rural economy is haemorrhaging. There is visible evidence day by day that the gathering crisis is growing. As of last night, more than 100,000 animals were awaiting slaughter and more than 80,000 carcases were rotting in the open air. In the six days since the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food last came to the House to make a statement, the number of confirmed cases of foot and mouth disease has risen by more than two thirds, to 411, and the number of animals condemned for destruction has almost doubled to 350,000.
  The crisis is spiralling out of control. The Prime Minister's bland words a few moments ago could have been spoken only by a man ignorant of what is happening in his own country, is contemptuous of those communities whose prosperity his policies have done so much to damage and is still refusing to devote the resources that the crisis requires for its resolution. [Interruption.]
  Contrary to the politicking of which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food accuses me from his sedentary position, let me make it clear that the Opposition will continue to give the Government full backing for measures that are necessary and effective if we are to get the disease under control. Even when they are unpopular, as with the large-scale cull proposed last week, we shall not shrink from giving our support if it is right to do so.
  I pay tribute again to vets and others in the front line for their efforts to contain the disease. I offer my personal sympathy, too, to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his departmental colleagues. They are carrying a heavy burden on behalf not just of Government, but of the nation. They are clearly working under enormous pressure.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend aware that the divisional veterinary officer in Staffordshire faces a difficult situation? A constituent of mine, Christopher Jackson of Bagots Pigs, finds himself in breach of welfare regulations because his pigs have given birth to piglets, causing overcrowding, yet he has been told that he can neither slaughter nor move the pigs, and the divisional veterinary officer has said that he has had absolutely no guidance from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and. Food.
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend raises an important point; the farmer whose position he describes so succinctly is by no means alone in facing such difficulties. The Minister will have paid careful attention to my hon. Friend's point and I hope that, in the course of the next 24 hours, someone in the Minister's office will be able to get a message to my hon. Friend's constituent to deal with that impossible situation.
  Above all, our hearts must go out to farmers: working with livestock is not just a job—it is a way of life. The men, women and children who see the animals that they have reared prematurely destroyed are losing not only their livelihood but part of their family. I hope that the thoughts of every hon. Member are with them at this time of profound distress.
  Miss Julie Kirkbride: Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), one of my constituents is in a similar predicament. He has 2,500 sheep in Staffordshire; he wants to bring them back to Worcestershire but he cannot move them because of a D notice on the Worcestershire farm. Sadly, we have foot and mouth in Worcestershire. He, too, has an incredible animal welfare problem: his sheep are trying to graze in muddy fields where there is no grass and the ewes are lambing. In normal circumstances, he would be prosecuted on animal welfare grounds. Will my hon. Friend put to the Minister the case for such animals to be culled under the programme?
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is right. She describes a problem that faces a large number of farmers. We have raised it with the Minister, and I know that he is very conscious of it. The solution is not easy. We do not want to weaken the measures that have been taken to try to curb the disease, but it is those measures that prevent many farmers from moving lambing ewes to the places where they want them to be. As a result, there are serious animal welfare consequences. I know that the Minister will have taken note of that point; I intend to return to it later and to suggest a way forward.
  We are also concerned about the effect of the crisis on other industries. That is why my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition proposed a new scheme to give businesses in rural areas financial help in the form of a loan of up to £10,000, repayable, when they return to profitability, by a surcharge on future tax bills.
  In the past half-hour, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) has returned from the British travel trade fair in Birmingham, where he met people from throughout the country who are charged with the difficult task of supporting the tourism industry. People are becoming frustrated and angry at the lack of positive action. They have received plenty of sympathy and warm
  348
  words, but they want clarity and financial help to deal with a cash-flow problem that becomes more acute day by day.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: On financial packages, will my hon. Friend focus on national insurance contributions? Perhaps such contributions could be deferred in order to keep people in employment. Will he seek an assurance from the Government that no interest will be payable on deferred tax and VAT?
  Mr. Yeo: My right hon. and learned Friend makes two important points. Like many Conservative Members, he was disappointed by the lack of tangible measures to help from the Minister for the Environment, who spoke yesterday after the second meeting of the taskforce. My right hon. and learned Friend has proposed an extremely practical way to help—relief from national insurance contributions—that, no doubt, could be introduced quickly.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: My hon. Friend will be aware that compensation for farmers whose livestock had to be killed as a result of foot and mouth is paid at today's market price and that that is well down on recent prices, which themselves were low enough. Will my hon. Friend press the Government to ensure that compensation for destroyed herds and flocks is paid at a reasonable rate and not at today's market price?
  Mr. Yeo: The Minister will have heard that point. He was shaking his head as my hon. and learned Friend spoke—I believe that compensation is now being paid at pre-crisis levels. However, the point is important and the fact that my hon. and learned Friend felt it necessary to raise it shows that the message about the basis on which compensation is paid has not yet been effectively communicated to all the farmers in his constituency and in many other constituencies.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: The Minister has very clearly stated that no consequential loss payments will be made. Will my hon. Friend seek assistance from the Ministry to help those farmers who have received no income for the past five weeks and are facing severe hardship because their farms are covered by a form D, or are in an exclusion zone?
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend describes a problem faced by a large number of farmers. We have made it clear that, given the severity of the problem on this occasion, we believe that it would be right to give help for consequential losses to a number of carefully defined farmers. Without such help, many farmers will find that survival is a matter of weeks, possibly even days, and unless the principle of providing help for consequential losses is accepted, a chilling message will be sent to them, because there is no other prospect of their receiving any kind of relief.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: If the principle of help for consequential losses were accepted, where would the hon. Gentleman draw the line? My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food invited the hon. Gentleman to write to him a few weeks ago, so will he inform the House where the line would be drawn?
  Mr. Yeo: We have already suggested a number of categories, one of which includes farmers whose cattle

  349
  pass the age of 30 months, at which point the value of the cattle suffers an unrecoverable decrease. Movement restrictions can prevent farmers from realising the market value before cattle reach the age of 30 months. They are the sort of people to whom compensation should be paid for their consequential losses.
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I certainly understand what my hon. Friend says, and there is no doubt that compensation and consequential loss are greatly exercising the minds of all those involved in this tragic crisis, but much greater than that is the spirit of fear that is engulfing agricultural communities, whether or not their areas are affected by foot and mouth disease. I have today been contacted by Jonathan Barber, eastern region secretary of the National Sheep Association. He has two main areas of concern: first, the speed at which the virus is spreading is, in his view, completely out of control and, secondly, there are not enough people to deal with the problem. That is the fear engaging the minds of people in East Anglia and all over the country, even in those areas fortunate enough, at the moment, not to be affected directly by foot and mouth.
  Mr. Yeo: My right hon. Friend speaks with great experience of the industry. The same fear exists in my constituency, as the disease appears to be spreading, despite comments from the Prime Minister. A case was confirmed in a constituency neighbouring mine, just the other side of the county boundary in north Essex, so the disease is getting closer to Suffolk and Norfolk. A real feeling of fear exists in farming communities there, and it is increased by what appears to be the lack of urgency in the measures being taken in some parts of the country to get on top of the problem.
  We have backed the main steps that the Government have taken to date. We want to continue a bipartisan approach, so far as we can, to what is clearly a major national crisis, but it is our duty, as the Opposition, to speak out when we believe things are going wrong and the Government's response is inadequate. Since we last debated foot and mouth, there have been worrying signs of dither and confusion inside the Government. To claim, as the Minister regularly does, that the situation is under control may please the Prime Minister, as he ponders his election timetable, but it is in stark contrast to the facts on the ground.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does my hon. Friend agree that, even now, we are getting mixed messages from the Government and different Departments? I have just received by fax a copy of a leaflet that Derbyshire county council is issuing in the Peak district, which receives more than 20 million visitors a year. It urges:
  "Help us to protect our countryside-don't visit unless you have to."
  How does that compare with what was said yesterday by the Minister for the Environment, who told people to visit the countryside?
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and I was going to come to it shortly. Conflicting messages are now coming out of different branches of government. Indeed, I sympathise particularly with the position of
  350
  county councils, which simply do not know what instructions they should give people who want to visit their areas.
  Dr. Gavin Strang: The Conservative party has had five weeks to propose the swifter and more effective policies described in the Opposition motion. I scoured the records this morning and could find no trace of any such policies from the Conservative party. Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has introduced the policies, including the pre-emptive slaughter policy, to deal with the crisis? Are not the Opposition jumping on the back of a national crisis to make political capital? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to hon. Members not to shout. The farmers and the families about whom we are worried might misunderstand hon. Members if they shout across the Chamber.
  Mr. Yeo: The intervention of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) does him little credit. He has in the past taken part in some of these debates in a rather better informed and constructive manner. Had he attended any one of the five previous occasions on which the subject was discussed in the House, he would have heard me and my hon. Friends suggest specific and constructive measures, and I shall do so again today. Now that he has forced me to do it, I shall remind the House of how many days ago we said that certain things should be done.
  Let me go back to Sunday 11 March, a pivotal day in the crisis. The Minister said on television that the situation was under control but, on the same day, I called for the Army to be brought in to tackle the backlog of unburied carcases and unslaughtered animals. In the 10 days since, the number of confirmed cases of foot and mouth disease has trebled; the number of unburied carcases is rising by 16,000 a day; and, in the last six days, the number of animals awaiting slaughter has risen by two thirds to well over 100,000.
  If the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh had been paying attention, he would have seen that the policy that we were recommending would have addressed the situation. Indeed, instead of making complacent and unfounded claims, the Minister would have served farmers and the whole country better if he had acted on the constructive suggestions that I made on 11 March, which were repeated on a wider front two days later by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
  It is now 10 days since we called for the Army to be given a hands-on role in carcase disposal; it is seven days since we called for vets to be given discretion to order and carry out slaughter on suspicion; and it is five days since we called for on-farm burial to take place wherever it is environmentally safe to do so. Not one of those common-sense steps has been taken. As a direct result, the crisis today is far worse than it need have been. Farming today is in dire peril and it deserves a far more urgent response from Ministers than it is now receiving.
  Let me call once again for the Government to announce this afternoon that, first, the Army will be deployed more comprehensively than at present. It is no disrespect to the

  351
  service men and women who were sent yesterday to Devon to point out that it is a ludicrously feeble use of a major national resource. The Government must make the full engineering and logistic assets of the Army available at once. With the number of unburied carcases mounting at the rate of 16,000 a day, it is grossly irresponsible not to allow the Army to engage directly in a task that is plainly beyond the capacity of those now addressing it.
  Secondly, vets must be given authority to order the immediate slaughter of animals when there is clinical evidence to justify it and to ensure that the slaughter is carried out at once. That policy was successfully pursued in 1967, and the delays that are occurring are extremely dangerous. There is growing evidence that the disease is spreading from farm to farm, and leaving 100,000 animals wandering around in the open air while they await slaughter is simply folly.
  Dr. George Turner: My understanding is that a vet has only to make a telephone call to obtain permission to go ahead with slaughter on clinical grounds. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that not even that call is necessary when we know that many vets in the field are fresh to this problem?
  Mr. Yeo: We are receiving reports from all over the country of several days' delay from when vets want to carry out the slaughter to when it takes place. If the hon. Gentleman listens to what is happening outside the House instead of reading out Labour party press releases, he might be better informed before he intervenes.
  Mr. Owen Paterson: My hon. Friend is probably not aware that, in the Select Committee on Agriculture this morning, the chief veterinary officer acknowledged that there were problems in getting animals slaughtered quickly enough. He recommended that, instead of using pistols as in 1967, vets use two drugs, Expirol or Euthatal, and he said that he would look into it.
  Mr. Yeo: I am glad to hear that the Government are belatedly considering assisting vets to carry out an extremely urgent task. I hope that no more time will be lost before the problem is addressed. Whatever the message from central Government, we know that delays are occurring and we run the risk of inspection spreading still further.
  Mr. Peter Luff: I am glad that my hon. Friend makes that point. I was in Worcestershire yesterday talking to a friend of mine whose pedigree longhorn herd was put down on Monday. There has been no cattle or livestock movement on or off that farm for three months. It is clear that the disease spread from another farm where the animals were not slaughtered sufficiently quickly.
  Mr. Yeo: I am afraid that that is not an isolated case. My hon. Friend makes a powerful point.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Although there is ground for criticism, does the hon. Gentleman
  352
  accept that, in Cumbria, the time between clinical diagnosis and slaughter has been reduced to between 24 and 36 hours in most cases?
  Mr. Yeo: The fact remains that even on the Ministry's figures, the number of animals awaiting slaughter is growing rapidly. It is 108,000 today and was about 60,000 a week ago. The problem is getting out of control. The Government are behind the game.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: My hon. Friend will know that Mr. Huntbach, who suffered the second outbreak in Cheshire, which was seriously devastated in 1967. attempted last Friday night to call the Ministry, as did the local vet. There was no answer and no answering machine, so the telephones are not being manned 24 hours. Having failed to contact the Stafford office, he tried Worcester, which told him to call Stafford again. Eventually, he was given a fax number, but it took 24 hours before contact was made. That is where the delay is occurring. The offices need to be fully staffed now.
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I should make it clear that the Opposition's quarrel is not with Ministry officials at the sharp end, who are working under enormous pressure and are clearly overstretched, but with Ministers and Labour Members, who claim that the situation is under control when plainly it is not. They say that delays are not occurring when they obviously are. It is not the fault of officials that they are not available to answer the telephone 24 hours a day; it is obviously beyond their capacity to do so.
  The Minister must know about the countless delays. The Government's claims are absurd. Farmers and hon. Friends call me six or seven times an hour every day with examples similar to the case outlined by my hon. Friend. If I am getting those calls, the Minister's office must be receiving ten times as many. It is not helpful to make claims that are plainly unfounded.
  Mr. David Tredinnick: On a related matter, the disease was diagnosed at Higham Lane in my constituency on Sunday. Some heifers with blisters were shot on Monday, but 250 cows were still alive yesterday. The Atherstone hunt kennels are across the road. The hunt's servants are qualified as slaughtermen and could be deployed to kill the animals. Does my hon. Friend agree that political correctness is preventing those people from being used to assist in the crisis?
  Mr. Yeo: I shall address the problem of resources to carry out the slaughter in a moment. My hon. Friend makes an important point.
  The third policy is the need for the immediate introduction of on-farm burial, which was used widely in 1967. On Monday, the chief veterinary officer described burial as the ideal option. The Environment Agency should already have indicated where the water table makes burial unsafe for human health reasons. Piles of rotting carcases are themselves a serious environmental and health hazard, and I find it hard to believe that there are no areas where on-farm burial can safely be used.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about on-farm burial, but is not the difference

  353
  between 1967 and now the fact that we have BSE in our cattle, and we do not want to turn an animal disease into a human problem?
  Mr. Yeo: There are a number of differences between the 1967 outbreak and the present one However, it is over four weeks since we first learned of the problem, and the Environment Agency should by now be able to advise on those parts of the country where on-farm burial would be a safe alternative to other disposal methods, and I am disappointed that it is still not being used to a significant extent.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that most farmers know exactly where on their land they could bury animals, whether or not there is a high water table? Will he acknowledge that in 1967, when the problem was tackled within 24 hours at most, stock was buried on farms and there was no adverse reaction whatever from that process?
  Mr. Yeo: The fact that no damage appears to have been done by the widespread use of on-farm burial is important. As my hon. Friend says, farmers will usually know what parts of their land are suitable. They should be able to establish, perhaps just by a phone call to the regional office of the Environment Agency, whether approval can be given straight away. Regional offices will also have information about the location of aquifers and so on, so there should be no difficulty getting an immediate answer. It is hard to understand why that quick, simple disposal method is not being more widely used.
  Sir Michael Spicer: Will my hon. Friend press the Minister for an immediate decision, and not just a general assurance that he will look into the matter? Certainly in Worcestershire, with the rendering situation as it is, thousands of can ases will be lying around not for days but for weeks. This matter needs immediate attention.
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is right. It is clear from the figures that I have quoted that, far from being kept under control, the problem is getting worse day by day. As I said, between Monday and Tuesday, the number of unburied carcases rose by 16,000. If that is to continue for any length of time, it is an alarming prospect.
  The country cannot understand why the simple, common-sense measures that we are calling for are not being implemented immediately. On wider policy issues, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) mentioned, the Government must stop sending out conflicting messages. Even within the Ministry last Thursday there was confusion about whether the proposed new large-scale cull in Cumbria included cattle. That caused alarm in the region, and the position was later clarified, but it underlines the need for an accurate presentation of any new Government measures.
  Now we are told that the cull, which last week was said to be a necessary tactic to curb the spread of foot and mouth disease, may be postponed. On what basis was the original decision taken? What has happened to make the policy less urgent? Some of the questions that I faxed to the Minister's office last night are relevant. In particular, what is the scientific advice for selecting a 3 km radius for the clean-ring strategy, and for excluding cattle from the clean-ring strategy cull?
  354
  Confusion has also emerged because of contradictory statements about the countryside. The Minister has, quite properly, issued warnings about not visiting livestock areas. He has been consistent in that and we support him, although it is becoming harder now to judge which farmland is a livestock area because clearly a lot of it does not have livestock. We should err on the side of caution. However, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which seem to be unrepresented here. are telling a very different story. Indeed, it might have been helpful if Ministers who are supposed to be responsible for the taskforce had taken the trouble to attend the debate. Given the lack of understanding shown by the taskforce of the scale and urgency of the problem, they might have benefited from being here because they would have learned a bit more about the problem.
  Mr. John Bercow: Everybody has noted what my hon. Friend has just said. Given the importance of the national crisis, the urgent need for steps to tackle it and the constructive measures suggested by my hon. Friend, can he explain why, of more than 300 Labour Back Benchers, fewer that two dozen are present?
  Mr. Yeo: I am afraid that I cannot shed any light on that but, as my hon. Friend knows, it is part of a pattern. When the crisis in the countryside is debated, the Government Benches tend to be thinly populated.
  Last week, the Minister for the Environment spoke about what he called "safe" areas. Can the Minister of Agriculture enlighten us about how a safe area can be identified, given that the lengthy incubation period means that even areas that do not have the disease may be about to suffer an outbreak? Yesterday, the Minister for the Environment told us that the countryside was open for business. That statement has confused the public because it suggests that there are differences of view inside the Government. It creates the problems that my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire described in relation to Derbyshire county council, which must decide whether to reopen rights of way and footpaths.
  The right approach is to say that getting foot and mouth disease under control is the overriding aim. Nothing should be done that might jeopardise progress towards that goal. Even non-farming businesses that are suffering, such as tourism, will benefit most if foot and mouth is contained and exterminated. That is the only permanent solution to the problem. Timely action along the lines that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and I have been suggesting for some time will help to achieve that solution, curb the spread of foot and mouth disease and rebuild confidence in the countryside. Further delay by the Government will raise fears that they are still not ready to respond on the necessary scale.
  The subject of timely action brings me to a further point. The Minister will be aware that, for some days, rumours have been circulating that his Ministry was making specific preparations to deal with an outbreak of foot and mouth disease some weeks before the first case was confirmed. I have no means of knowing whether those rumours are true. If they are, the implications are very profound indeed.
  Will the Minister make clear to the House at the earliest opportunity—this afternoon, I hope—exactly when the Ministry was notified of any suspected cases of foot and

  355
  mouth disease? Will he also explain the basis on which the Ministry makes contingency plans to deal with foot and mouth? Are those plans regularly updated? If so, in what way? Is there an explanation for the fact that someone who has been approached to supply timber sleepers in case incineration is required has told broadcasters that she had not been contacted by the Ministry since the 1967 outbreak? If the contingency plans involve regular contact in the normal course of events, I hope that the Minister can explain why that person has suddenly reappeared on the list in that rather unusual way.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: My hon. Friend may like to point out to the Minister that, as I understand it, underwriters at Lloyd's received inquiries from the German equivalent of the NFU about getting exceptional insurance for foot and mouth before Christmas.
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend suggests another important line of inquiry, which reminds me to ask the Minister whether any officials in the British Government had contact with officials in other Governments and European Union institutions prior to the confirmation of the outbreak in Britain on 19 February. As I said, there are persistent rumours relating to several different aspects of the outbreak. At the very least, there were suspicions in the Ministry about the possibility of an outbreak occurring. Even if the Minister was unaware of such suspicions, I am sure that he will want to make inquiries among his officials to find out at what level and in which offices they might have arisen.
  Let me return to the resources that are available for curbing the spread of the disease. I understand that there is now a shortage of vets. Is the Minister satisfied that the private sector is being used as much as necessary? I hope that resource constraints are not preventing more use of vets from private practice. Are retired vets being returned to the state veterinary service, or are there obstacles to prevent that from happening? Some retired vets may have invaluable inexperience of foot and mouth.
  Mr. Tim Boswell: Will my hon. Friend also seek to discover whether any positive attempt has been made to recruit members of the veterinary profession? I understand that it is relatively easy to pick up additional veterinary resources from abroad, but it has been reported to me that, for whatever reason, a lack of attention has been paid to options such as approaching private veterinary practitioners in this country to see whether they have spare vets who could help to deal with the outbreak.
  Mr. Yeo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion. He has a great deal of experience in the industry and, like others, he shares my concern that there may be a repository of expertise that is still not being fully utilised. Earlier in the week, we heard from the chief vet that he was concerned about the shortage of vets and about overstretch among those who work in the state veterinary service.
  Where slaughter is delayed, is full use being made of the slaughtermen attached to hunts? That issue has already been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick). I understand that the Countryside
  356
  Alliance is ready to make additional slaughtermen available at very short notice. I hope, therefore, that whatever the reasons for the mounting numbers of unslaughtered animals, the figures are not increasing because of any reluctance on the part of officials. Such officials will not necessarily be in London; they could be in the regions. Will the Minister confirm that appropriate instructions have been given to regional offices to ensure that they take advantage of that resource? Furthermore, can slaughtermen employed in abattoirs that are currently closed because of the outbreak also be deployed?
  Now that we are four weeks into the outbreak, clear regional differences are emerging. Of course, the overriding aim is to contain the disease and to prevent it from spreading, and no risks must be run that would jeopardise progress towards that goal. The Minister has previously acknowledged the problems raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) with regard to ewes in the lambing season. These problems are now acute in a number of areas. I recognise the difficulty of trying to alleviate them without running unacceptable risks such as those that I have mentioned. However, is it possible on a short-term basis to authorise vets in private practice to license limited movements of sheep over short distances? Could vets issue such authorisation when they, in conjunction with farmers and any other local people who are directly concerned, are satisfied that it is safe to do so?
  I should like to mention two further questions that I faxed to the Minister last night. Why are only sheep traced from markets to be destroyed, and not pigs or cattle on the farm where the sheep are now located? What is the scientific advice concerning infectivity of dead animals, not least with regard to attacks by foxes or other vermin, and how does that relate to the ban on meat imports from foot and mouth countries?
  I should like to speak about many other detailed matters, but I know that many hon. Members want to raise important constituency matters and I must leave time for them to do so. This is a crisis that is getting worse, not better, and which needs to be at the top not only of the Minister's agenda, but of that of the Prime Minister. More than one industry is now suffering serious damage and time is of the essence in the response. The Opposition are ready to back any emergency measures that are needed to tackle the problem. The Government should now act with greater urgency and on a bigger scale than hitherto. I commend our motion to the House.
  4.19 pm
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "expresses grave concern about the very serious effect of the current foot and mouth outbreak on farmers, the livestock industry and the wider rural economy; supports the firm and rapid action taken by the Government to control the spread of the disease, identify outbreaks and slaughter and dispose of animals that are infected or `at risk'; pays tribute to all those who are continuing to work around the clock to combat this devastating disease; endorses the Government's policy of intensifying disease control measures in areas of high infectivity and working towards modifying controls in areas that have remained free of the disease; expresses deepest sympathy to those farmers whose herds and flocks have been slaughtered in order to control the disease; and welcomes the Government's provision of financial support to farmers including

  357
  £156 million in extra agrimonetary compensation and a preliminary package of measures to assist the wider rural economy including temporary business rate relief for affected businesses."
  Hon. Members will notice that the amendment is not very different from the motion. I hope that we can continue to deal with matters in a relatively bipartisan manner.
  I wish to take the opportunity to update hon. Members on the latest position on the foot and mouth disease outbreak, and then set out the Government's response to the matters that the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) perfectly properly raised.
  At 1 pm today, there were 410 confirmed cases in Great Britain and one case in Northern Ireland. Out of a total United Kingdom cattle, sheep and pig population of more than 55 million, 390,000 animals have been authorised for slaughter, and 262,000 have already been slaughtered.
  There are two confirmed cases in cattle on farms in east Holland, and two suspected cases. The link appears to be a slaughterhouse in Holland where sheep imported from France were slaughtered. A European Commission decision to block exports is expected later today.
  The Dutch Government have declared an intention to use ring vaccination. The Commission is applying strict conditions, including the early slaughter of vaccinated animals. An emergency meeting of the European Union Standing Veterinary Committee will take place on Friday.
  Out of 160,000 livestock farms in the UK, 1,937 have been placed under restriction because of a confirmed or suspected case of the disease. We have been able to lift restrictions on more than 1,077 of those farms, leaving 860 still restricted.
  Mr. John Redwood: Outside the worst affected areas, there are restrictions on movement. One of my constituents, who has a sheep farm, wanted to move his sheep for lambing. He was told that he could not. He wanted to move them so that they could have some grass because they were running out of food and needed attention. In 48 hours, he got four different versions of what he could do in the ensuing week. Will Ministers look into that urgently, and provide strong, clear and consistent guidance so that farmers who are worried to death know what they can do within the rules?
  Mr. Brown: As other Conservative Members can tell the right hon. Gentleman, those matters have been much discussed in the House over the past few weeks. The whole of Great Britain is a controlled zone. There are no unauthorised, unlicensed movements of livestock—at least, there are not supposed to be. A range of schemes has been designed to help the trade and animal welfare. I will say more about that later.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: Following on from the point of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), on Thursday, the Minister announced a voluntary welfare disposal scheme, which, we believed, would affect sheep and pigs. On that day, I asked the Minister when it would start, and whether it could begin within 48 hours because people were desperate. Nearly a week later, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food office in Leicester has received no communication from MAFF to explain the way in which the scheme will work. Mr. Stevens in my
  358
  constituency is absolutely desperate. Will the Minister apply his ministerial toecap to the posterior of his officials to ensure that they communicate with people on the ground? Mr. Stevens can then get on with slaughtering his fattened sheep within 24 or 48 hours.
  Mr. Brown: As the person who devised the scheme over the long, hot summer last year for the classical swine fever outbreak, I am as keen on it as anyone.
  Mr. Duncan: What is the delay?
  Mr. Brown: It all sounds so easy, but there are special problems in the sheep sector. A small part of the market—approximately 37 per cent. —is working normally, but the market price for the product that people want to move has collapsed. There is a question about the rate one would pay under the welfare scheme for animals that are coming into it without disrupting the part of the market that is working normally. The Intervention Board is considering that with the industry.
  Mr. John Townend: Delay, delay, delay.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman may shout, "Delay, delay, delay", but people will not willingly offer their animals for a scheme without knowing what they will be paid. Frankly, I do not blame them. If hon. Members will allow me, perhaps I can make some progress.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Brown: I always give way to hon. Members, and I shall, but I wish to make some progress first.
  The development of the disease in the United Kingdom continues to reflect the pattern that we identified from the start. The continuing rise in outbreaks largely reflects the spread of infection before the first outbreak was confirmed. The spread mostly occurred in sheep, which do not always show clear symptoms. As a result, further waves of outbreaks have occurred because of local spread.
  We still cannot know how many outbreaks there will be. However, leading epidemiologists are working on predictions which I will, of course, share with the House. We expect the rising trend to continue and new cases to occur for a considerable time. As I have said before, this is a devastating disease for farming and for the rural communities affected by it. I have on a number of occasions expressed my sympathy to all those suffering at a time of uncertainty and distress. I do so again today, and I know that that is an expression that unites the whole House.
  Mr. William Cash: The Minister will know that two of my constituents spoke on the radio today on the timing of the notification of the outbreak. One of the people, Mr. Mike Littlehales, said that he had been called up by a lady in MAFF who wished know how it could update its records in case of a further outbreak of foot and mouth. Mrs. Fran Talbot had a similar point to make.
  If we do not know exactly when the outbreak began—it having started and first been notified in Essex, but having apparently originated in Northumberland—and if it turns out that there was notification at an earlier stage, that

  359
  would be very serious. Will the Minister be good enough to ensure that we have full published transcripts and details of the operational plans, so that the suspicion that the outbreak started at an earlier stage will now be made clear?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a speech.
  Mr. Brown: If I misled the House in the way in which the BBC misled the country this morning, I would have to come here and resign. I shall make that point to Mr. John Humphrys when I next see him.
  The first case of foot and mouth disease in this country of which I was aware was that in the Essex abattoir, and the case on the farm adjacent to it. I was notified on the Tuesday night during our week's recess that there was a suspected case. I understand that my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Hayman had also been notified. The following morning—the Wednesday morning—that case was confirmed to me. On the Thursday night of that same week, I was told that there was a suspected case in Northumberland, at Heddon-on-the-Wall. That case was confirmed on that Friday. I telephoned the Prime Minister, who was in the United States of America, and later on that Friday we imposed complete and absolute movement restrictions by declaring the whole of Great Britain a controlled area by 5 o'clock that same day. That is the sequence of events. Officials in my Department, and Ministers, were not aware that the infectivity was present in the country for an earlier time period for the simple reason that it was not.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Brown: Perhaps it will be easier, Mr. Speaker, if I deal with this urban legend at the appropriate point in my speech, because urban legend it is.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Brown: There are times, Mr. Speaker, when I think that I am talking to myself. What I said was: perhaps it would be easier if I dealt with this in the appropriate passage of my speech. I will then take interventions on the point, if anybody wishes to perpetuate the myth, or, indeed, raise another one. Perhaps the Martians have visited us, or something like that. But for the minute, I will make some progress because I want to deal with the perfectly proper points that have been raised by the Leader of the Opposition and by the hon. Member for South Suffolk. I would like to consider the way in which the Government are dealing with the disease, and I will take interventions that arise from what I say. However, I ask the House to let me say it first.
  From the outset, we rapidly put in place firm disease control measures.
  Mr. McLoughlin rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister has said that he wants some time before he gives way.
  Mr. Brown: That action, and every action since then, has been taken on professional advice, and, in particular, on the advice of the chief veterinary officer, Mr. Jim Scudamore.
  360
  I want to deal with that famous urban legend—the question of MAFF having known about the outbreak in January on the basis of inquiries made by MAFF staff about supplies of railway sleepers. I understand that there is a similar legend about disinfectant supplies from another supplier company, and the answer is the same. The rumours that we knew in January are completely untrue. The Government first learned about a possible outbreak on 20 February. The first case was confirmed on 21 February.
  I understand that, in January, my Department's animal health office in Staffordshire carried out a regular foot and mouth disease contingency planning exercise. This is conducted every year; there is nothing unusual about it. Staff were contacting vets, slaughtermen, disinfectant suppliers and suppliers of railway sleepers for incineration. It is sheer coincidence that the exercise took place a month before a genuine outbreak, but coincidence it is. If the question is why we rang that particular supplier after other suppliers had been rung—I understand that that is a caveat to this urban legend—the answer is that the Department was checking prices.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way because I want to talk to him about that exact point. I quote not a Martian, but a MAFF spokesman who said today:
  "From time to time we do emergency planning exercises. We are not aware if this was one of those cases."
  Can the right hon. Gentleman understand that it is deeply worrying when MAFF officials say that there may be a planning exercise going on, but they are not sure? The very person they approached about railway sleepers says that the last time he was approached was 1967. That raises suspicions and mere abuse about Martians does not answer them.
  Mr. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the sentence I uttered before he intervened, he would understand that that particular supplier was contacted because the local office was checking prices. In other words, it was getting the competitive rate. That is the answer and that is all there is to it. The exercise—the local area offices' update—is conducted annually region by region. There is nothing unusual in it. We check the availability of a range of items that we might need to procure from time to time. The exercise is not an invention of the Labour Government—exactly the same procedure was carried out under the previous Government, and perfectly properly.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I want to make a procedural point. A number of people in business, whether they be farmers or those associated with tourism, or the trout farmer in my constituency who cannot move any of his fish, are affected by the crisis. Members of Parliament are receiving an increasing number of telephone calls from concerned constituents, so it might be useful if the Minister elaborated on policy. Are such people able to claim compensation? Can they get some restrictions lifted? I have been telephoning his Department, the staff of which have been diligent and courteous, but can Members have a dedicated helpline so they can get action taken on requests that they make?
  Mr. Brown: I have written to all Members setting out the helplines and contact lines and a regular daily update

  361
  is provided for Members of Parliament, which I place in the Library of the House, the Government Whips Office, the Opposition Whips Office and the Whips Offices of the other parties. That front-line information is available.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I thank the Minister for giving way. He has just given the House the serious news that his Department's epidemiologists predict many more cases and that the crisis will go on for a considerable time. In those circumstances, it would be grossly irresponsible of the Government not to put in hand measures to bring in the Army to deal with the crisis. What measures are in hand to do that?
  Mr. McLoughlin rose—
  Mr. Brown: I am torn between explaining what we are about to do, which includes dealing with the point made by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton—Brown), and taking interventions. I shall take the interventions. Then, if the House will allow me, I shall make progress.
  Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. My point follows on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold said. The Minister says that he expects a number of outbreaks to occur for some time. Obviously there is concern in tie countryside—not just in agriculture, but in the tourism industry, which has added significance—so, although I realise that it is difficult, can he give any indication of the time scale that he has in mind?
  Mr. Brown: Perhaps I did not make clear enough what I intend to do. Once I have the result of the epidemiologists' work, I intend to put it in the public domain. It is currently being "peer-group assessed", but I understand that it will reach me very soon—within days rather than weeks. When I have seen it, I will share it with everyone else here, and we can make our own assessments. As those who are familiar with such exercises will know, it will not give a detailed timetable, but it will include a range of possible times, so it will give us all something to work towards.
  I intend to share the information with the House rather than keeping it to myself, just as I have done in the case of every other piece of information that has come to me.
  Mr. Tom King: Neither my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton—Brown) nor my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) quoted the Minister correctly. Did I not hear him say that he expected the rising trend to continue for a considerable time? Is that really the case?
  Mr. Brown: I am afraid that it is. May I explain why in summary now, and deal with the issue in more detail later?
  It is clear now, as it would not have been clear a fortnight ago, that in Devon, Cumbria and southern Scotland, and potentially in the midlands and on the Welsh-English border, there are concentrations of infectivity in such amounts that we are no longer dealing with the emergence of the original spread of the disease in animals. We are now dealing with animal-to-animal infection. There is sheep-to-sheep infection in Cumbria,
  362
  and I regret to say that we are certain that there is cattle-to-cattle spread there as well. Those circumstances underpin the need for more rigorous action in pursuit of the existing policy in Cumbria and southern Scotland.
  Mr. Richard Livsey: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Brown: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman after I have explained the proposals for the area that he represents. I think that that would be fairer.
  Before I finish the business about urban legends, there is one about the Antec disinfectant company. It is effectively the same as the railway sleeper issue. Antec's chief executive officer has claimed on the radio that MAFF must have known about the presence of foot and mouth disease, because we contacted the company in November to discuss supplies. The procurements and contracts division has confirmed that it did speak to the company in November, but that was part of a normal contractual discussion, and we have a normal supply-chain relationship with the company. I must say that I am very tempted to look into that! Anyway, all this is urban legend.
  Mr. Luff rose—
  Mr. Brown: I know that the hon. Gentleman's constituency is affected, and I have something to say about it. If he will let me deal with that first, he can intervene later. I know that more needs to be done in his area, and I want to say what that "more" is.
  Mr. Luff rose—
  Mr. Brown: Patience!
  Since 23 February, all animal movements have been at a standstill. Since 2 March, tightly controlled arrangements have operated for animals outside the infected areas to be transported directly to slaughter for human consumption. I understand from the Meat and Livestock Commission—I know that Members will be interested by this—that the pig sector is back to 85 per cent. of normal production, and that the figures for beef and lamb are 60 per cent. and 38 per cent. respectively.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: As the Minister knows, I have written to him about that. My constituency contains a major abattoir, to which livestock is brought from as far away as Wales, travelling through highly infected areas of Devon. That is causing enormous concern in the greater part of Cornwall that currently contains no infection. Farmers are saying that there is surely some risk in bringing cattle such a long way through highly infected areas, and I think they would appreciate some response from the Minister.
  Mr. Brown: The risks involved in the licensed movements are extremely low, although I understand the nervousness and concern. The question that is usually raised concerns the spread of the virus by air—the plume from the animals. I am giving a presentation in the Department on Friday to discuss questions relating to the disease and how it is spread, and also to vaccination. However, as I told the Select Committee on Agriculture

  363
  this morning—the chief vet has confirmed this—the dangers of a spread of the virus by a plume are essentially associated with pigs. The risk of animals in transit such as cattle and sheep spreading the virus by that means is vanishingly small. That is the veterinary advice to me.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Brown: I give way. I do not want to be discourteous to the House, but, at the same time, I want to make some progress.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: The Minister is being helpful. He is answering all the interventions with great courtesy and as clearly as he can. I am grateful that he is putting information in the Library, but may we please have presentations such as the one to which he just referred; can there be presentations specifically for Members of Parliament? Many hon. Members' constituencies on both sides of the House are now affected. It would be helpful if we had some clear presentations from his officials and others on the points that he has touched on.
  Mr. Brown: Yes. I want to meet the hon. Gentleman's request in two ways. If there are hon. Members here on Friday—I know it is not a convenient time for hon. Members—who would like to come to the presentation at 10 o'clock at the Department, which has been arranged primarily for journalists and broadcasters, they may do so. I extend an invitation to any hon. Member who would like to come to that presentation to ring my private office. I will arrange for a seat to be reserved for them. They can see the same presentation is being given to the journalists.
  I shall also arrange to have the entire presentation repeated midweek at a time that is convenient for hon. Members, so that there will be a second chance to see it. More than that, at the second presentation, I will arrange for the epidemiology to be presented by someone who is qualified to do so, so that hon. Members can have an insight into that, too.
  Mr. Luff: Will the Minister give way? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Brown: I give way.
  Mr. Luff: I am sorry that Labour Members do not want the House to be properly informed, but I wish to raise with the Minister the question of the adequacy of information. The website is not up to date. The maps are not detailed enough to establish where outbreaks are occurring. When I rang a ministerial office today about the MPs hotline, the staff thought that there was some sort of hotline and said that they would come back to me with a number, but they have not done so yet.
  The information that the Minister says is in the Whips Office is not there; I have just been to ask for it. We have not had that information, but it would help enormously if more information could be provided more systematically.
  Mr. Brown: The daily update that is intended for Members of Parliament is in the House Library. I am sorry if it has not got through the usual channels. It was
  364
  supposed to, but the usual channels do not always work as well as they should, and I can say that from personal experience. I had guessed that things had improved since my day, but perhaps they have not. My intention is that the information be available for all Members of Parliament, which is why I put it in the Library. It is supposed to be more regularly available.
  I should like to deal with the point that was properly raised about animals that are trapped by the movement restrictions. It is a serious problem. The whole country is under movement controls at the minute. I recognise that we have created considerable animal welfare difficulties for farmers, particularly in respect of lambing, calving and farrowing. On 9 March. we introduced arrangements for limited local movements of animals. As of yesterday, we had issued 6,400 licences under those arrangements in England. In addition, this week, we are bringing in arrangements to allow animals to be moved on longer journeys, subject to strict controls on the cleansing and disinfection of vehicles. I know that that sounds arduous, but it is vital as a disease control measure.
  Mr. Ben Bradshaw: My right hon. Friend may have been planning to address this point anyway, but I would be grateful if he addressed reports that Devon trading standards office has received reports of more than 200 illegal animal movements in the past few weeks. Is there any substance in those reports? If so, is that not extremely worrying ?
  Mr. Brown: I cannot comment on the volume. There have been reports of illegal movements of animals and where people are caught, they will be prosecuted. I beg people not to do it. There is no easier way of keeping the disease outbreak going than illegally moving the animals without licence. We all have common cause in this.
  If the animal welfare problems cannot be addressed on the spot or by licensed movements, animals can be entered into a new voluntary welfare disposal scheme. Payments will be made. It is, the intractable nature of the sheep sector that is causing the delay.
  Mr. John Burnett: I questioned the Minister about this matter last Thursday. This afternoon, he has given an explanation of the delay, but he assured me last week that a voluntary animal welfare disposal scheme would be introduced within a matter of days. I cannot stress enough to the Minister how important that is; it is dreadfully important. We hope such a scheme will be Introduced within 24 hours. Will he assure the House that the level of compensation will be reasonable, at market value and will reflect the many weeks in which cash has been paid out to feed animals well beyond the date at which they otherwise would have to be fed?
  Mr. Brown: If paid the market value now, I would be paying less than what I am trying to pay the farmers. Unlike the pork and beef sectors, part of the sheep sector has collapsed. There are a range of reasons for that which I am happy to discuss, but it is probably better for me to set out how I am trying to solve the problem. I am trying to solve it by getting a price for the welfare scheme that is—of necessity, to some extent—artificial. I want to set it at such a rate so that it is the best possible compensation I can get to the farmers in these appallingly difficult

  365
  circumstances without destroying that 38 per cent. of the market that is still moving. There is nothing I can do that, in the long term, would be a substitute for getting the market back to working normally.
  If that sounds insufficient, let me say also that I am looking carefully at what can be done in the short term to help sheep farmers; they are not the only people who have been hit, but they have been hit the hardest. In the medium term, we are looking at what we can do to help the industry to get back on its feet. In the long term, we are looking at what sort of industry we want in this country; in other words, how we get the industry closer to the marketplace, how we make it more sustainable and how we make sure that the support payments impact on the farmer's income, rather than on the number of sheep.
  To do that, I am looking hard at proposals for genotyping the national flock to make it resistant to scrapie and BSE. I am looking closely at the work of the hill farm taskforce to see how we deal with the medium-term questions involved in the hill farm allowance and what better use can be made of rural development regulation to underpin hill farmers' incomes. I have opened discussions, in general terms, with Franz Fischler and the Commission to examine the issues around the sheep premium review, which is due now in any event.
  I am looking at whether the Government might want to do other things specifically to help those people caught by this terrible outbreak of the disease. Among those are whether we should offer extra help to those who want to take their agrimonetary payment, their premium payments—which we have managed to get protected by the Commission—and perhaps something else, as part, potentially, of something like an early retirement package for those who, frankly, have had enough and wish to retire. We will look at what we can do to help those who wish to be on-goers in the industry and at whether a restructuring of the whole support package might be the right way forward.
  I will not be imposing anything from above. This will all require careful thought and discussion, not least with farmers' leaders and with individual farmers on the ground. These issues are under active consideration in Government. We are discussing what can be done now, what can be done in the medium term and, above all, what is the long-term prospect for the industry and how we best structure the support package. I intend to share those ideas with others and not impose them from the Government; I would like to get a consensus on them. We all realise that some things have to be done in the sheep sector. We would want those to be done in any case, even without this disease outbreak.
  Miss Kirkbride: I thank the Minister for the way in which he is treating the House on this matter. He will have heard my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) about the sheep farmer who has 2,500 sheep in Staffordshire that he is unable to move. What can I tell the farmer about the measures that the Minister has mentioned concerning applying, on animal welfare grounds, for the sheep to be culled, with some compensation? Whom does he apply to? What time scale
  366
  is the Minister looking at? Can that farmer apply now? Under what time scale can the Minister possibly offer a compensation price?
  Mr. Brown: I am trying to get the scheme open very quickly, and by that I mean in a matter of days. I am trying to get the price to a level that is as decent as possible, but it will not please people who refer back to what the market price was before the outbreak. I would advise the hon. Lady's constituent, if the animals are not yet infected, to look first at whether it is possible under the new licensing arrangements to move them from clean area to clean area. The second option or route would be to try and manage the problem on the site, or on a neighbouring site. However, from her description, the fact that the forage has gone means that that route is probably not possible.
  The third route is intended to be the route of last resort. The Government are not offering a convenient, state-sponsored market. I must state that as firmly I can, because I know what people would really like in these circumstances, and I cannot provide it.
  Mr. Townend: The drop in the number of animals going to abattoirs would lead one to expect a rise in prices, but that has not happened. Is that due to a big increase in imports? Secondly, have the Government made progress in finding the source of the outbreak? I understand that the strain of the disease indicates that it was brought in from abroad. Is not it about time that we banned imports from countries that have had any incidence of foot and mouth in the past for year or so—especially South Africa, which might be the source of the disease?
  Mr. Brown: The South African bit is another red herring. In fact, we ban meat and other products that carry infectivity from all the regions around the world that have foot and mouth disease. However, it is no good for the hon. Gentleman on the one hand to call for bans on countries rather than regions, then for other hon. Members to say that they hope that I will be able regionalise the problem in the United Kingdom later. We can approach the problem in one way, or the other. I have high hopes that we will be able to regionalise the problem, as the extermination measures begin to bite.
  Charlotte Atkins: Will my right hon. Friend clarify the question of movement of animals over distances of more than 10 km? The MAFF website invites farmers to apply for licences, but I understand that the Ministry's Leeds office has not issued any licences to farmers who want to move animals. There is an important animal welfare problem, especially for ewes in lamb and cows in calf. Those animals are going to give birth imminently, and many farmers in my constituency will have to move animals distances of up to 15 miles. They want clarification about what they can do to speed up the process.
  Mr. Brown: A welfare scheme is in place that should facilitate the movement of clean animals from uninfected areas that are subject to movement restrictions but nothing else. The scheme provides for a single journey to the holding—either the animals' home farm, or elsewhere if other arrangements have been made—where they are to

  367
  lamb. If that is not happening for the farmers in her constituency, I will pursue the matter for her. The Ministry's preferred route with regard to dealing with animals moving from areas that are subject to movement restrictions but in which there is no infectivity is that, on welfare grounds, the animals should be moved under licence. The journeys to the home farm will be strictly controlled and probably escorted, and completed in a single run. If my hon. Friend will draw the difficulties being experienced in her area to my attention, I will have the matter pursued by my private office, either later on today or tomorrow.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: The Minister has explained the difficulties with the voluntary welfare scheme with regard to sheep, but may I urge him to consider opening the scheme for pigs tomorrow? I telephoned his private office last Wednesday about the case of Mr. Richard Webber. Last Wednesday, he had 400 pigs that could not lie down. That is a very serious welfare problem. The Minister had a pig welfare scheme in place last year, and I urge him to open a similar scheme tomorrow.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Lady is right, and makes a perfectly fair comment. I want to open the pig scheme as quickly as I can, to cover exactly those circumstances that she has described. The preferred route for disposal of pigs is to get the chain working normally. Much of it is working normally but, as we found out from the classical swine fever outbreak in East Anglia, problems emerge very quickly when the chain is not working properly. Such problems require decisive action, and the hon. Lady is right to press me on the point. I will get on with the matter.
  Mr. Phil Hope: May I tell my right hon. Friend how much the whole House appreciates the manner in which he is handling this debate and all the issues that are being raised?
  I wish to ask about travellers with regard to containment and contamination. Where a travelling group arrives at an infected area, is the advice to the police that they should be asked to stay there or should they be moved on, as many people want? My fear is that if travellers are moved on, they simply become another vector for transmission. I do not know whether MAFF has issued guidance and advice on that issue.
  Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. The House seems to like me so much that it keeps calling me back here. I am not sure whether to take that as a compliment.
  My hon. Friend invites me to give either one piece of unpopular advice or another piece of unpopular advice. Travellers, like everyone else, should stay away from farmed livestock. If they have been in contact with farmed livestock, they should take exactly the same precautionary measures that everyone else has to take before moving. My advice to everyone is to stay away from farmed livestock.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Brown: I wi11 take a few more interventions but then I really would like to make some progress, because there are some things that I know right hon. and hon. Members want to hear—even if they pretend not to.
  Mr. Livsey: I thank the Minister for his generosity in giving way. As he will know, there are nearly 1 million sheep in Powys. In the 1967 outbreak, it was very common to put a calf in with the sheep because they show early warning signs of the disease. I gather from what was said in the Select Committee this morning that this is exceedingly difficult. Only 5 per cent. of sheep actually show signs of the disease. Will the Minister consider this practice and also the use of cull cows, which are of very low value?
  Mr. Brown: That is a perfectly sensible livestock management practice, and I commend it. Cattle can act as markers for sheep flocks.
  Mr. Duncan: Will the Minister contemplate, in extremis, allowing slaughter under the welfare disposal scheme first and sorting out the payment and compensation afterwards, if need be?
  Mr. Brown: I understand the sensible thinking that underpins the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. However, this is a voluntary scheme and it is difficult to ask people to deliver animals to a voluntary scheme and then argue about the money afterwards. If the hon. Gentleman reflects on his time in business, does he think that he would have done the deal first and haggled about the payment afterwards? Frankly, I think not.
  Mr. Chris Ruatle: I had a meeting with five farmers in my constituency on Monday. In Wales, in the Vale of Clwyd, we have many small farms, which send only two or three animals to slaughter at a time. Those farmers asked whether it would be possible to send their two or three animals to a central location if their vehicles were disinfected when they left the farm and got to the central location so that the animals could be collected by a large wagon and taken off to slaughter.
  Mr. Brown: That is a perfectly fair point. At the beginning of the outbreak we were considering whether collection centres might be a viable route. I am advised that at the moment they are not, because of the risk and the need for intensive management of some centres. As the situation progresses, I hope that it will be possible to put such arrangements in place. I hold out the prospect of such an option in the future, but I cannot announce it now.
  I should like to make some progress, because I know that the House will be interested in what I have to say next. As the disease has incubated and revealed itself, our understanding of the outbreak has increased and we have been able to refine the disease control strategy. On 15 March I set out our safety-first strategy of intensified efforts in the areas of the country where the disease has spread and, provided that other areas remain disease-free, modification of restrictions in those unaffected areas.
  Outside the infected areas of the country, the rest of Great Britain remains a controlled area. Movements are allowed only under strict, licensed conditions. We are

  369
  aiming to protect those parts of the country so far free of the disease. The precise geographical definition is still subject to epidemiological advice. but, broadly speaking, it is Scotland north of the Forth-Clyde valley, much of eastern England, part of the south coast and south-west Wales. We shall not permit welfare movements into those currently disease-free areas.
  In his statement to the House yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment reported on the work of the rural taskforce. I reinforce his message by urging the public to continue to stay away from farmed livestock and to take special precautions in infected areas. At the same time, however, I want to make it clear that a range of country activities can be safely undertaken, particularly in unaffected areas. That is the best way to help rural businesses, which depend on visitors and tourism.
  In the areas in which we are intensifying our efforts, the greatest concentration of infection is in the adjoining counties of Cumbria and Dumfries and Galloway. Those two counties account for more than 40 per cent. of all confirmed cases, and substantially more of those confirmed recently.
  Mr. Hogg: I sense that the Minister will soon come to the extended cull. If so, will he help the House on one point? In dealing with the killing of healthy animals, what steps will he take to safeguard the blood lines of specialist flocks? Several specialist groups of cattle, pigs and sheep could effectively be eliminated if a whole flock were to be destroyed under the extended cull scheme. What does the Minister have in mind?
  Mr. Brown: A later passage of my speech will deal with that point, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman is on to a perfectly proper point.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Brown: I should like to make a little progress before returning to specialist breeds at the relevant point in my speech.
  The infection has mainly been concentrated in the sheep flock, although there is now cattle-to-cattle spread in Cumbria. The potential for rapid spread in that area makes it necessary to destroy sheep and pigs within 3 km of the infected farms, as I announced last Thursday. The chief veterinary officer, Jim Scudamure, visited Cumbria on Monday to speak to local farmers and their representatives, as well as veterinarians. He explained the reasons for the slaughter of sheep and pigs within the 3 km zones.
  In carrying out the programme of destroying animals within those zones in Cumbria and south-west Scotland, we shall look sympathetically at the scope for protecting rare breeds, wherever possible. We are discussing how best to achieve that with representatives of farmers of rare breeds.
  Mr. Tim Collins: The Minister's point is of great concern to my constituents and those of all right hon. and hon. Members who represent Cumbria. He said that he would seek to preserve specialist herds. If those herds are wiped out, there will be no
  370
  question of replacements being purchasable from off some other shelf. If they are gone, they are gone for good, and the farmers concerned will face no possibility of rebuilding their businesses and livelihoods.
  The Minister said that he would seek "wherever possible" to protect those herds from the effects of the wider cull. Earlier today, he also said that the Dutch were considering a ring vaccination scheme around the area in which foot and mouth has broken out in the Netherlands. Vaccination is a highly complicated and sensitive issue, but if that is the only mechanism by which we may keep some rare herds in existence, will the Minister consider it?
  May I extend to the Minister a repeat of the invitation that many people in Cumbria have offered him? I know that he is busy, but if he could come to the county, an awful lot of people would like to see him.
  Mr. Brown: What the hon. Gentleman says is true. My earlier outline plan would have taken me to Cumbria this afternoon. I said previously that I would tell all the county's Members of Parliament when I would visit Cumbria so that we could meet on a bipartisan basis with, at least, farmers' leaders and representatives of the veterinary profession to discuss what is being done, and why and how. I know that there is much interest in all those points. I should also want to look to the future and discuss a recovery plan and the future shape of the industry once we have defeated the disease.
  I have never ruled out vaccination. I am not an enthusiast, and I should take a lot of persuading before agreeing to it. The professional advice that I have had goes against it, for all the reasons that we have previously debated here. I have not ruled out vaccination in the context of rare breeds, although I am not certain that it would achieve the result that the hon. Gentleman anticipates.
  We are taking specific interest in rare breeds and shall do whatever is necessary to protect them. However, if animals get the disease, they must be destroyed. There is nothing that I, or any Minister in my position, can do about that.
  Let me make some further progress. I want to say something about the situation in Devon, which is also very serious. As I explained to the House last Thursday, our policy in Devon is to carry out intensive patrols—veterinary inspections—every 48 hours on all farms within a 3 km radius of an infected farm. That work is intensive and must be undertaken by people with veterinary knowledge. Its purpose is to ensure that cases of foot and mouth disease are identified as soon as possible and dealt with, by quarantine and slaughter.
  Like all our actions, that measure is under constant review, but it is designed to try to prevent mass culling in the peculiar circumstances of Devon farms—where the farm structure is relatively small and the farms are close together. Everyone in the House will understand what that means with regard to the risk of spreading infectivity. I appeal to everyone to co-operate with the authorities in Devon over that intensive and focused disease-control strategy, designed to defeat the disease before it spreads further and necessitates more widespread culling.
  As we have already discussed, and as the hon. Member for South Suffolk emphasised, there are serious logistical issues in Cumbria and in Devon in relation to slaughtering and disposing of infected animals. There is much interest

  371
  in that matter in the House. In essence, the House is saying to me, "Why can't it all be gotten on with quicker? Why can't the animals be killed and removed immediately? Don't you need to do all this faster?" I want to set out exactly what we are doing to try to increase the rate of all that and of the disposal of carcases. We are acutely aware of the need to reduce the time between confirmation and slaughter and the time between slaughter and disposal.
  Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition made a number of suggestions for action to help speed up our response to the disease, and they are reflected in today's Opposition motion. They are all helpful suggestions and I shall address each in turn.
  The first is to allow vets to slaughter on suspicion of foot and mouth disease. Following the early cases of the disease, the Government's policy has been that vets can authorise slaughter on the basis of their clinical judgment. For some time, more than 90 per cent. of all cases have been slaughtered without the need for laboratory tests. The reason is obvious: we now know that we have foot and mouth disease in this country, so it is not necessary to confirm each case. In almost all cases, the judgment of the individual veterinarian is enough.
  The second proposal—also perfectly sensible—is that the Government make an appeal to vets from abroad to come and help in the fight against the disease. Probably our largest bottleneck in the control of this extended outbreak is veterinary resource—we need vets. In the first week of the outbreak, we made such an appeal, and 70 foreign vets are already in the country, seven are arriving today and up to 30 will arrive next week.
  The third proposal is that the Government bring final-year veterinary students into the front line against the disease. We have already done so. More than 100 have been appointed to work alongside the state veterinary service, and we hope that a further 70 will join soon.
  It was also suggested that we employ retired vets. We are recalling retired vets to the colours—making use of their skills and services. We are increasing still further the number of vets involved in fighting the disease. More than 1,000 vets have already been appointed to the SVS; that compares with the 220 who would normally be employed as fieldworkers. In Cumbria, we have increased the number of Government vets from 14—the number on 28 February—to 64 on 7 March and, as of Monday this week, the number is 101. The extra numbers are being drafted into Cumbria because it is necessary to do so.
  Mr. Roger Gale: Has the right hon. Gentleman discussed the possibilities with the president of the British Veterinary Association? I was speaking to him at lunchtime and got the distinct impression that no such discussions had taken place and that the private sector could probably help a great deal if it was asked to do so.
  Mr. Brown: The private sector has been asked to help. The communications take place between the chief vet and the president of the association, so the chief vet, not I myself, would conduct those discussions. However, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House earlier today, the rates of pay offered for the work have been increased, and I hope that the new rates will be attractive to some vets in the private sector.
  372
  Many of this country's approximately 22,000 vets are in private practice, especially in small animal practices that they have built up themselves over many years, and it is not easy for them to put their private work to one side and suddenly work temporarily for the Government and then return to private practice. I appeal to those vets who can help to do so. We have upped the rates of pay to try to make the work more attractive, and I hope that that helps.
  The Leader of the Opposition's fourth suggestion was to make more use of burial to dispose of carcases. We already use burial, but, admittedly, in a small number of cases. We are in favour of using burial where appropriate, but I should tell the House about the constraints on doing so. There are geological factors, such as the risk of contaminating water sources and, especially in the Cumbrian hills—as those who know the area will readily accept—there is shallow top soil with granite underneath, which makes burial not such an attractive option. Herds and flocks are much larger compared with 1967, so much larger burial sites would be needed. We are working closely with the Environment Agency to identify and use suitable landfill sites for the burial of carcases.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it true that the divisional veterinary officer for Cumbria has sought for weeks to assure Ministers that everything was under control and that resources were available when, in fact, it now turns out that what he was saying was simply untrue and was misleading Ministers?
  Mr. Brown: That is not a fair picture of events. If my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall spell out what we are doing to reinforce the normal state veterinary service presence in Cumbria, so that we have a veterinary and a non-veterinary team sufficient to tackle the growing task there.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Brown: I shall deal with the disposal routes before taking an intervention.
  Burning and burial are not the only disposal routes; we are also using rendering plants. Four plants are already operating, and we intend to have six in use by the end of the week. We also plan to use dedicated slaughterhouses and rendering for at-risk animals that do not have the clinical symptoms of foot and mouth, but those abattoirs will, of course, have to be specifically dedicated to the task.
  Ms Joan Walley: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for all that he is doing to deal with the situation, but can he assure the House that he is now able to make an order to ban the spreading of liquid condensate, which relates to rendering plants? I understand that the consultation period finished on 5 March, and that nothing now prevents him from making that order.
  Mr. Brown: That is a slightly separate issue. My hon. Friend has long and tirelessly pressed Ministers on that matter. I am not certain about the condensate issue because I have been fully engaged in the disease control

  373
  operation. I think that an order is due soon, but if my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall write to her setting out the position.
  Mr. James Paice: The Minister has described the problem of finding enough vets, and we appreciate the efforts that he is making, but earlier this afternoon the Prime Minister said that there was no shortage of slaughtermen. assume that the Minister endorses that statement, so can he explain why the list of animals awaiting slaughter is increasing? By virtue of the fact that they are on that list, a vet has already seen them and diagnosed the disease. If there are sufficient slaughtermen, why cannot they go in almost straight behind the vet?
  Mr Brown: That is a fair question; I intend to deal with it once I have finished with the points made by the Leader of the Opposition. This is at the heart of the debate: how can we provide a better service, get the affected animals killed quickly, proceed with the proactive culling of animals that are at risk, and remove the carcases expeditiously?
  Mr. Andrew Miller: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the rendering plant at Halton means that transport travelling south to north and from north Wales comes close to my constituency. Is he satisfied that the vehicles used are sealed properly, or is another urban myth going around given the stories in the local press suggesting that animals legs are sticking out of the trucks?
  Mr. Brown: If anyone sees an arrangement that he believes to be unauthorised or wrong, he should note it and note the licence plate of the vehicle involved. I promise that I will have the matter checked. The whole disease control situation is now awash with urban legends. I understand how they arise, but they do not help. I am satisfied that the transport protocols at sufficiently robust to keep the risk of spreading the disease to an absolute minimum.
  The real risks of spreading the disease are the movements of people and vehicles from sites of infectivity and the unauthorised movement of animals. Even if people think that no risks are involved because the animals look healthy, they may not be. If they are incubating the virus, moving them will cause it to spread. I urge people not to do that.
  Sir Michael Spicer: Does the Minister accept that the facilities for rendering are quite inadequate? I know about the position in Worcestershire—the nearest rendering plant is in Exeter, which is three to four hours away. Two lorries are trying to deal with thousands of carcases, but it will take several weeks to clear the area. The Minister must give an absolute assurance that he will take a specific decision within 24 hours to deal with the problem by burial. Rendering is simply not sufficient to cope with the problems in Worcestershire.
  Mr. Brown: I understand the hon Gentleman's point about disposal routes. A range of alternatives is available, and when burial can be used, it will he. However, I shall say a little more later in my speech about how we intend to manage the intensified outbreak in the area that the hon. Gentleman represents and the areas linked to it. I might have something new to say to him.
  374
  I wish to deal with the point that the Leader of the Opposition perfectly properly raised about bringing in soldiers to help with the slaughter of animals and the disposal of carcases. As of yesterday, Army logistic support teams have been deployed at MAFF's request in Cumbria and Devon. More than 70 members of the 1st Battalion, Prince of Wales Own Regiment have been deployed to Carlisle and up to 130 members of the Royal Military Police, contributing logistical expertise, will be available to deploy to Exeter. Their role is to enhance command and control and to provide supervision of the disposal process. They will get it better organised and that will free up veterinary time.
  The soldiers will supplement MAFF's regional staff in the co-ordination of contractor teams already involved in disposing of carcases. That will speed up the disposal process and release vets to tackle the spread of the disease. We are keeping the position under review, and I must stress again that any Government resource that can help will be used.
  I also wish to deal with the Leader of the Opposition's proposal for a business rate holiday for rural businesses. I am pleased, as I know that most Members are, that yesterday my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment was able to announce a preliminary package of measures—I stress that it is a preliminary package—to help affected rural businesses, including three months relief from business rates.
  We are taking further action to speed up the Government's response to the disease. Incidentally, I take no personal affront at the hon. Member for South Suffolk chiding me on these matters. Yes, we need to do better, and that is what we are setting out to do. We are doing all that we can to free up vets so that they can concentrate solely on veterinary matters; we are looking to take on more veterinary surgeons as temporary veterinary inspectors; and revised remuneration arrangements have now been finalised and are being announced later today.
  We have put in place two senior officials as directors of operations—one in Cumbria and the other in Devon—and they are able officials drawn from the heart of the Ministry. I can also tell the House that the permanent secretary agreed this morning to appoint a director of operations for the west of England. We are creating the post with immediate effect and it will be located at the Worcester office. The role will be exactly the same as that carried out in Cumbria and in Exeter, and it will be at grade 5 level. We will keep under review the need to reproduce that arrangement elsewhere.
  To contain the problem in areas other than Devon and Cumbria, we are acting on a recommendation of the chief vet and negotiating with the Ministry of Defence to secure Army support in Gloucester, Worcester and Stafford. With our colleagues in the devolved authority, we are urgently considering the need to do that in Dumfries and Lanarkshire. Follow-up action is being taken with the Ministry of Defence. That is the latest position.
  Some hon. Members will know that I was in the Agriculture Committee all morning, so I am not as fully briefed as usual. However, I knew that the House would want to know that the new logistical structures are being put in place where the permanent secretary believes that to be necessary. I wholeheartedly support what he is doing. The reason for the new arrangements is to ensure that the slaughtermen, of whom we believe we have

  375
  enough, get to the task as soon as it is required to be carried out. The contractors can come in behind them and either remove the carcases or bury or burn them on site.
  We have taken measures to ensure that the valuation of animals before they are slaughtered does not cause unnecessary delay. Again, later today I plan to introduce arrangements to make it possible for animals that are subject to compulsory slaughter to be valued according to a standard valuation tariff. As it is a generous tariff, people will be tempted to accept it rather than go to valuation and arbitration. That will speed up the system and, frankly, put more cash in hard-hit sheep farmers' pockets. That is my intention.
  Mr. Paterson: On burial, who decides where flocks will be disposed of? As I told the right hon. Gentleman in the Select Committee this morning, the Environment Agency says that burial is the least preferred option, which is in direct contravention of the recommendations of the 1969 report. Someone in the agency is making a decision on a constituency case of mine today. Will the Minister ensure that hon. Members are able to telephone a senior official of the agency to ensure that burial takes place, because that is the preferred option in my area?
  Mr. Brown: Decisions are made on a case-by-case basis on the advice of local officials. Our officials make the decision and we consult the Environment Agency. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the anomaly. Of course burial is an attractive option for people who wish to dispose of carcases for disease control purposes. However, for those whose responsibility it is to protect the environment—including the water table—it is less attractive. We are looking at what can be done. Essentially, our approach is pragmatic, but we cannot poison the water table, and I am sure that no one is asking us to. The decision is made locally by the officials in charge. In the areas that are subject to the new control structures, that is by the appointed Ministry official. We consult the Environment Agency but, ultimately, it is for the Ministry to make the decision on a case-by-case basis.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is being extremely generous.
  Mr. Sean Jackman, a self-employed farming contractor in Winslow in my constituency, has not been able to work for three weeks. On the assumption—at which I am not cavilling—that the Government will continue to resist calls for compensation for lost earnings, and further to what the Prime Minister said at Question Time about building on the loan guarantee scheme, will the Minister explain the time scale for that extension?
  Mr. Brown: I have been candid with the House and said that I cannot promise that we will consider all contingent losses. No Minister could. It is a difficult issue. If the hon. Gentleman compiles a list of the contingent losses that he thinks the Government could accept, he will face the same problem. I am not trying to make a party political point. The problem is intractable. I cannot make a statement today in response to the issue that he is pressing
  376
  because it is not necessarily within my Ministry's gift. However, the Government are considering what more can be done and an announcement will be made shortly.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: The right hon. Gentleman quickly covered areas such as mine that have no cases of foot and mouth. Will he consider sending out good information—perhaps in the form of advertising—to tell people where they can go in rural areas, such as the seaside? The Government have £30 million of television advertising booked for an election that I suspect the Prime Minister will want to delay. Perhaps those slots could be used for that information campaign.
  Mr. Brown: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who represents the Ministry on the taskforce, tells me that the matter is under examination, and we hope to be able to put something into the public domain shortly. As well as being authoritative, that information has to be crisp and accurate. That is being considered, and the work that the hon. Gentleman properly asks for is under way.
  I turn now to the compensatory arrangements. Our overriding priority is to bear down on the disease and eliminate it as quickly as possible. That is not a matter that divides the House. We are also doing a lot to help farmers financially. We have agreed to pay £156 million in extra agrimonetary compensation. To the average beef farmer that is worth £450 on beef special premium and £650 on suckler cow premium. To the average dairy farmer it is worth £2,300 and to the average sheep farmer it is worth £650. We have made special arrangements to make the payments over March, April and May.
  We are fully compensating for animals that have to be slaughtered because of infection or exposure to infection, and that includes the value of common agricultural policy subsidies that would have been claimed on the animal. So far, committed compensation for compulsory slaughter stands at £80 million, and it will rise further in the weeks ahead.
  We have taken steps to safeguard subsidy payments to farmers whose claims might otherwise have been put at risk by animal movement restrictions. Assistance is being given to the Meat Hygiene Service so that abattoirs, including small ones, do not bear all the increased costs that arise from the exceptional measures being imposed at present. We are working to do more. I recognise, for instance, the concern of beef producers whose animals are subject to movement restrictions that push them over the 30-month age limit The Opposition have been pressing me on that point, and I am considering what I can do. As hon. Members would expect, I know the arguments in favour of pump-priming the pig industry development scheme levy, and I am considering whether that will be possible.
  I also have to look to the longer term. I want to consider the effect on disease control of movement of sheep across large distances and through livestock markets. I want to examine the risks to animal health of illegal imports of meat products. I want to look at the role that swill feeding might have played in the disease outbreak. I want to look in particular at the sheep sector, as I explained briefly to the House earlier, and consider how the rebuilding of the flock should be handled. We are working on improving

  377
  traceability in the sheep sector and at how to progress existing plans for scrapie eradication. I intend to pay special attention to how the various options under the rural development plan can be deployed to help.
  Some of the problems of the livestock sector are deep seated. Many result from a long history of production-based subsidies under the common agricultural policy. We need to take the long view and work with industry to create a sustainable future for the livestock farmers in the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe. The more that we can do that in a bipartisan spirit, the better. There is not much disagreement between us about the need to reshape the common agricultural policy or to provide enduring, sustainable support measures for livestock farmers, so I hope that we can take a relatively politics-neutral approach to the matter.
  Mr. Paul Keetch: The Minister mentioned the cause of the outbreak and he spoke earlier about urban myths. Is he aware of the rumour circulating in certain elements of the press that animal rights activists are claiming that they stole a phial of foot and mouth disease from a MAFF centre at Pirbright and that they were the initiators of the outbreak? Will he state, once and for all, that that is not the case, and put that myth to bed?
  Mr. Brown: We should all take a deep breath. My strongest suspicion is that there will be a far more prosaic explanation. That does not mean that we should not concentrate on finding out why our country has had two viral disease outbreaks in animals in a short time. It is right to focus on what has made us more vulnerable. But I have to say that animal rights activists are at the far end of a scale of suspects. The Ministry are working on the matter, and I am afraid that I must tell the House that the outcome is likely to be far more prosaic. The remedy is likely to be pretty prosaic as well, which is something that we can discuss together. Again, I would wish to consult the House before putting any further measures in place. However, if further measures are required, they will be introduced.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way; he has been tremendously generous in doing so in this debate. Does he accept that an outbreak of foot and mouth is an extreme psychological blow to the farmer concerned? Compensation can never bring back the animals, but even if it is an amount on account, will the right hon. Gentleman personally ensure that it is paid as quickly as possible with minimum bureaucracy?
  Mr. Brown: I hope to do better than that. I am looking at further support that can be provided immediately and at what can be done to provide a medium and long-term future for the livestock sector. In particular, I am looking at the relationship between measures necessary for recovery immediately after the disease and those which, for a range of reasons with which the hon. Gentleman and many other hon. Members are familiar, are necessary in the longer term. If we can pull all those strands together, perhaps some good may come out of a great evil. If that can be achieved, preferably with some consensus between us, it will be a good thing.
  Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you be kind enough to tell
  378
  the House whether this is a question and answer session or whether we are taking part in a debate in which Members of Parliament are being asked to speak only for 12 minutes? A number of people have attempted to get in two or three times.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I tell the right hon. Gentleman, who is an experienced member of the House, that whether hon. Members seek to intervene on the Minister is entirely a matter for them? Whether the Minister gives way is entirely a matter for him.
  Mr. Brown: I am trying to be courteous to the House. If I sense that the mood is that I should now make progress with my speech, no one would be happier than me, except possibly the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery).
  I should like to deal with the question of vaccination of animals. I have arranged for a presentation for journalists who are covering the issue on 10 o'clock on Friday. Again, I extend an invitation to hon. Members to come to that presentation in my Ministry; they are all welcome. However, I will repeat the presentation and mount another on the epidemiology next week or later, depending on when the epidemiology is available for presentation. I believe that many hon. Members have an interest in that.
  Of course vaccination remains an option, but the current veterinary advice to me is that that is not the way that we should proceed at the moment. I must not rule it out, but I do not intend to use it in the near future. My position has the full support of the Agriculture Council, to which I gave a report in Brussels on Monday. The other member states are in agreement with our disease control measures. Commissioner Byrne is planning to write to all European Union Agriculture Ministers, setting out the Commission's approach to vaccination. When I receive his letter, I shall put it in the Library so that all Members can see what the Commission is telling member states.
  I have been keeping everyone informed, not just the Council of Ministers. In addition to my statements to the House and my appearance before the Select Committee on Agriculture this morning, all Members of Parliament have been written to with advice on relevant sources of information, including the helpline and website. A daily update on the disease situation is being placed in the Libraries of the House and a mechanism has been put in place to ensure that Members are informed directly as soon as a case is confirmed in their constituencies.
  The disease is a tragedy for all those affected, whether directly or indirectly. I am enormously grateful for the work of the state veterinary service and local authorities, and for the support of the farming organisations, many other organisations and the general public. I appeal to everyone to continue to work together. I am grateful for the consensual bipartisan approach that the House has taken so far. Working together, we can succeed in bearing down on the disease, which should not divide us. In so doing, we can achieve the Government's objective of regaining our disease-free status and, once we have done so, keeping it.
  5.34 pm
  Mr. David Heath: I applaud the Minister of Agriculture for the rational way in which he has again addressed the House.
  During the unfolding tragedy of foot and mouth disease, which has had incalculable effects on the agriculture industry and so many other rural businesses, we must bear in mind that dissention, whether it occurs on political grounds, within the farming industry or among those trying to deal with the outbreak, is the enemy of effective progress. We must not fall into that trap. Equally, however, it is right for all hon. Members to express our constituents' concerns. We often speak in the House about fear of crime being as bad as crime itself. In this instance, fear of the disease is almost as bad as the disease itself, because of its effects on members of the rural community. They feel that the sword of Damocles is hanging over their heads and are not sure whether, the next day or week, their business will be for ever ruined by the disease.
  The Government should have four clear objectives in dealing with the crisis. First, the obvious primary objective is containment and eradication of the disease. I hope that nothing is done in any sphere of central or local government to jeopardise that objective. Secondly, we must deal with the welfare not only of livestock, but of people who are involved in rural industries, which is equally important and concerns all of us. Thirdly, we must in the short term establish the viability of as many businesses as possible, whether or not they are farm businesses. Effective short-term measures are needed to improve cash flow and to provide security. Finally, we must work on reconstruction, about which the Minister made some significant points. I do not believe that this is the right time to speak in detail about the reconstructive measures that are needed within the agriculture industry, but we must realise that that is our next port of call.
  May I express yet again my support for some of the difficult decisions that the Minister has made during the past few weeks? I should like also to express gratitude and recognition—I hope that I do so on behalf of all hon. Members—in respect of the extraordinary efforts that are being made by so many MAFF officials and veterinary surgeons, as well as by people in the farming community and elsewhere who are trying to deal with the situation.
  Mr. Burnett: While the Minister of Agriculture is in the House, I should like to ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware of how marvellous a job is being done by MAFF's vets and other employees on the ground. I heard this morning from a constituent whose animals have been slaughtered and to whom the vet and MAFF officials were very helpful. The vet, a Mr. Bud Boyd, came from Texas. He was not only incredibly sympathetic, but was immensely supportive of the farming family, who were enormously grateful to him.
  Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend represents one of the foci of infection and knows at first hand how difficult the matter is, so his testimony is valuable.
  Having expressed our support for what local people and the ministerial team are doing, we must now turn to the deficiencies in the arrangements. Although we support the objectives and, to a large extent, the strategy, we are aware that there have been holes in the implementation.
  380
  Indeed, the Minister was good enough to recognise the existence of such holes. It is right for us to try to address some of those problems so that they can be improved in the short term and to enable us to learn in the longer term.
  First, let me deal with the disease itself. We have had some discussion about contingency planning and the possibility of local arrangements for annual contingency plans or exercises.
  A substantial amount of evidence suggests that the contingency planning was not equal to the task. That is a criticism not of those who are trying to implement the plans, but of long-term emergency planning arrangements between MAFF, other Departments and non-governmental departments. Ample evidence shows that those arrangements were inadequate or not in place.
  Mr. Nick Brown: That is not unfair criticism. I had hoped to have new directors in place in Government regional offices to improve co-ordination between the Ministry and other departments in the regions. Without the outbreak of the disease, we could have moved seamlessly to establish the arrangements. We had recognised the problem. and we are acting to put it right.
  Mr. Heath: I am grateful for that intervention, and for the Minister's recognition that my criticism was not unfair; I never make unfair criticisms. I am trying to make constructive criticisms to improve matters for the future.
  Elements of the basic planning give slight cause for concern, for example, the difficulty of sourcing disinfectant in the first week of the outbreak, and the sudden realisation of the existence of a wider range of appropriate disinfectant products than the original list contained. The annual updating of contingency plans might have avoided the problem. There was a failure to use community Pharmacies as a potential source of disinfectant. Pharmacological authorities brought to the Government's attention the fact that, when the agricultural suppliers had run out of advice and materials, other sources existed in many rural areas.
  Hauliers reported to me that, in the first week of the outbreak, they drove to and from the continent and there were no disinfectant wheel baths at Folkestone or Dover. We therefore had the potential to export the disease to continental Europe.
  For a long time, local authorities were unclear about their powers to close rights of way, bridleways and open areas. There is a further anxiety, which I would put to the Minister for the Environment if he were present. During consideration of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, I tabled amendments that would have allowed closure to deal with zoonoses. The Government rejected them and substituted an amendment that covered only human health. I hope that the Minister will reconsider that provision before the next epidemic so that we do not suddenly find that we have no means of closing areas that are open under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.
  Mr. David Drew: I make no apology for heaping praise on local government officers again. Trading standards officers as well as those in charge of rights of way have borne much of the pressure. If my county is typical, those officers have met almost daily to

  381
  make decisions and to work with MAFF officials, vets, valuers and others in the private sector. That shows how emergency planning can work, despite some difficulties.
  Mr. Heath: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. However, I hope that he agrees that there are great differences between local authorities in the extent of emergency planning and the environmental health advice that they are offered. Relatively few county councils have a scientific department, which could provide the sort of advice that elected representatives need to deal with such a crisis.
  We are trying to deal with a veterinary crisis without many of the Government vets who should be in place. That is a criticism not of the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Minister, but of decisions that were taken earlier to halve the number of vets in the Government service. That has greatly weakened our ability to respond to this crisis.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, at the beginning of this outbreak, we had half the vets that we had at the time of the 1967 outbreak? That reflects what has been happening to the Government's veterinary service. We need to consider that matter—after we have got rid of the disease, obviously—in terms of contingency planning for the future and of co-ordinating these issues at a European level. We now have partners in Europe that we did not have in 1967.
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is obviously right. That was the point that I was making We are less able to deal with a crisis of this kind because of some very foolish decisions that were taken some years ago to reduce our effective barriers to epidemic. That has been exacerbated by the closure of abattoirs, especially small abattoirs, and by the fact that we now move animals over much greater distances on a more regular basis.
  On the action being taken, I suspect that the Minister's tactics for dealing with the epidemic are absolutely right. They certainly accord with the veterinary advice that he has received. I shall not enter into the discussion about inoculation as a means of fighting the disease, although I would be interested to know what contrary advice the Dutch Government received that brought them to a different decision. In my constituency, a gentleman is electioneering on the basis that he would introduce immediate inoculation and vaccination as a means of dealing with the problem. I think that he is entirely wrong-headed in that view and that, if he were to put it to farmers, they would show him the error of his ways.
  We have already touched on the problem of the time lag between diagnosis and slaughter. The Minister said that he had been dealing with that. I can only say to him that it is not before time. That was a matter of great concern to many farmers who recognised that their flocks or herds were potentially diseased, but who had to wait for the diagnosis to be confirmed before anything could be done about it, knowing that all the time their animals were breathing out a plume of virus that could infect other animals on their farm or a neighbouring one.
  Local management has been a major issue. I do not say that to criticise the regional veterinary officers. I am simply saying that they were overloaded with the logistical demands that were placed on them to deal with the veterinary side of their work and with everything else
  382
  that they were being asked to do. It should have been obvious from the time when it became clear that we had two foci of infection—or three, if we include the Welsh borders, the Marches—that there needed to be a single person in charge. That is a matter of management, and a matter for the civil service, but I commend the decision that has now been made to put such a person in place. That is exactly the right decision.
  On disposal, I believed from day one that burial was a better option, particularly for the relatively small number of carcases that we were dealing with in the early stage of the epidemic. I am disappointed that that option was rejected so early, that the Minister is still, apparently, fighting battles with other Departments about the ways of dealing with carcases, and that that method has not been made available.
  On the use of the Army, I have received messages from, and had direct contact with, people involved with the Army who cannot understand why the relevant units are not being used. Let us remember that four Royal Engineers units and five Territorial Army regiments are stationed in the UK. They have 140 devices known as combat engineer tractors, which are not tractors at all, but are similar to the JCBs that one finds in civilian life, except that they have tracks on them. Those devices have not been brought into use, and neither has the Royal Logistic Corps. I find it difficult to understand why it is considered preferable for support to be provided by a few military policemen, however eminently qualified they may be, rather than by Royal Engineers with diggers, who could do the job.
  Mr. Keetch: Does my hon. Friend agree that bringing in the Army would further emphasise that this is truly a serious national crisis?
  Mr. Heath: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The key point is that, in a crisis that is overwhelming rural areas to such an extent, every single part of Government should have been mobilised from day one. There is sufficient evidence that that was not the case and that MAFF tried to fight a lone battle without the support of other Departments. Indeed, some decisions seem inexplicable.
  The Agricultural Development and Advisory Service was effectively laid off from day one because it could not go on to farms. An agriculture advisory service that cannot get on to farms is no good and it had to sit around at home, waiting. Although it was put at the Minister's disposal, no staff were deployed to assist the Ministry in dealing with the epidemic until two or three weeks later. That is a scandalous waste of a human resources.
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: Does my hon. Friend agree that a consequence of that waste is concern among the farming community that it has not heard enough about the rationale for the culls? Does he also agree that the Government could and should, as a matter of urgency and to ensure that the partnership between farmers and the Ministry continues, outline a clear justification for these dramatic measures? I am sure that they have to be taken, but their logic has not always been clear to people who have to suffer the consequences.
  Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend is right. He is referring to the clarity of the information provided and I shall come to that.

  383
  On resources, clearly there have not been enough vets in the field. Part of the problem has been the rate of pay, which the Minister has increased from £160 to £250. That is welcome, and I hope that the increase goes some way to meeting needs, but it has been reported to me that valuers are being paid £500 a day plus commission. Perhaps he can confirm that. Our sense of priorities seems topsy-turvy: we pay vets less than half what we pay valuers to value carcases after diagnosis. That is nonsensical and I hope that the Minister will consider it.
  Mr. Drew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heath: I must be careful, because other Members want to speak, but I shall give way once more.
  Mr. Drew: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving way a second time.
  I have talked to valuers and we must be fair to them. They make two points: first, they need to value when the animal is alive, so they need to be on the scene quickly. Secondly, they face the same problems as vets in being unable to go on to farms. It is important to understand that there is a difference between clean and dirty vets, and valuers, and how that delays the process.
  Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I am not convinced that valuers have to value while the animal is alive. If the Ministry changed its specifications, they would not have to do so. I suggest in the gentlest way possible that vets also have to examine animals while they are alive and they have the same restrictions placed on them. Perhaps there is an equivalence that he is not addressing.
  I wholeheartedly welcome the Minister's offer to give Members of Parliament information on the epidemiology and other matters through a presentation. That is extremely helpful. However, on the provision of information to farmers and concerned people, I have serious worries about the extent of readiness. There is huge reliance on the internet, but it is a foreign country to an awful lot of farmers and they simply are not using it to get advice. They simply do not know what is put on the internet for their benefit and the amount of information sent to them on paper is nugatory. In fact, they have received practically none, which does not help them to deal effectively with the disease.
  Information will not have been received by many people who keep animals on smallholdings. A few years ago, I would have counted myself as one, as I bred Tamworth pigs and kept a few breeding sows. As I had only a small herd, I would not have been on any list of farmers and it would have been difficult to find out what to do and what precautions to take. Those who think that that is not important should remember that the closure of Exmoor resulted from an outbreak in a flock of eight sheep. A small amount of infectivity in a tiny herd can cause a real problem.
  More information should be made available and the Ministry could valuably have used intermediaries. That takes us back to the point about the use of ADAS officials, because there is also a case for using farmers themselves as intermediaries. They have offered their services as
  384
  liaison officers and they could talk to their colleagues. Surely we should take them up on that offer and use them effectively.
  The clarity of the information provided leaves much to be desired. Partly because of the structure of government, there have been apparent mismatches between information and a hice from MAFF and from other Departments. That does not always happen in the devolved Administrations, however, and the guidance from the National Assembly for Wales, whose Minister for Rural Affairs is overseeing those matters, is immeasurably better than any so far produced in England, and I commend it to the House. It shows the advantages of genuinely joined-up government.
  Welfare disposal schemes have been discussed and it is a great shame that the pig scheme at least is not yet in place. I understand the difficulties with sheep, but there is a real problem with pigs because weaners cannot be moved on for finishing and the older pigs are still hanging around. The welfare problem needs to be dealt with and we need clarity as to the welfare disposal schemes. We also need the potential for on-farm slaughter to assist the process.
  On ewes, I have a story to tell from Mr. Guy Thomas-Everard, who farms in west Somerset. He has ewes in lamb that he wants to move to lambing sheds just across the A396. However, he needs a movement order and he got in touch with the Ministry two or three days ago to request one. He rang me this morning to say that he had been told that there was a licence sitting on a desk at the MAFF regional office in Bristol, but it could not be issued because there was no executive officer there to sign it. That is not satisfactory, as bureaucracy is overriding common sense. The matter needs to be considered.
  Maureen Prince, who I believe lives in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the leader of the Conservative party, and her colleagues arranged to produce a disposal mechanism by cremating carcases on their property to stop piles of animals building up. The vets agreed, but the Ministry said no. Officials do not have to say yes or no on every single case; we should use common sense to fight the disease.
  On welfare of people, I commend the Farm Crisis Network, which has been doing a marvellous job. Farmers are concerned about whether they can pay their taxes; they are worried about Lady day; they are worried about their rent; they are worried about how to make ends meet. That is the main problem, and the point has been repeatedly made that it goes well beyond farming.
  Shopkeepers in my constituency in towns well away from farming and tourist areas all say that their businesses are being decimated, mainly because a lot of them depend on people visiting out of season, perhaps at this time of year. Such people are generally fairly well off. They read The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph, which tell them that they must not go to country areas. Being socially aware and responsible, they do not—and do not spend their money. As a result, the newsagent, the butcher and the food shop, for instance, experience cash flow problems.
  Although I welcomed the announcement made by the Minister for the Environment, serious questions remain to be asked. Many measures are still being considered, rather than being introduced. Moreover, it appears from what we

  385
  heard from the Prime Minister today, that the relief is going only to communities identified as being rural—communities of fewer than 3,000. Many of the problems exist in market towns with populations of more than 3,000, and if they are left out the help will not reach those whom it needs to reach. We need much more clarity about the arrangements relating to value-added and other tax.
  Mr. Guy Thomas-Everard, to whom I am indebted for his contribution, says that he was in touch with the Taunton Inland Revenue office today. After a delay, he was told to ring a special helpline number. When he did so, he was told to ring the Taunton tax office, which then said that it had no information above the Government's plans and could not help. We can do without lack of co-ordination of that kind.
  Let me say something about the financial position of farmers specifically. It would help us enormously to know what is to be done about cattle aged over 30 months, and cattle going through the over-30-months barrier, while they are in a restricted area. It would also help us enormously to know what will happen to lambs that would normally be taken to market but which, by the time the restrictions end, will unfortunately be mutton.
  Mr. Livsey: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Heath: Yes, for the last time.
  Mr. Livsey: Is it not extraordinary that people with lambs that are ready for marketing and—in my constituency, certainly—are within 10 miles of a slaughterhouse cannot market them, because they are in a restricted area? This morning the Minister told the Select Committee that sending animals directly to the slaughterhouse was the option carrying the least risk. Would it not improve farmers' cashflow and get the meat to the supermarkets?
  Mr. Heath: That is self-evident, and I hope that the Minister will consider it.
  I understand that there has been an almost automatic derogation to allow grazing of agri-environmental scheme land under the current emergency. That is very welcome, but will the Minister also consider delaying the 31 May deadline for new applications for the countryside stewardship scheme? At present, no application can properly be made because no one can go on to the land—and once the deadline has been missed, a whole year will pass before assistance is received.
  Let me ask a more fundamental question. Will the Minister look at commodity prices? We hoped that the dairy industry had finally secured an uplift in milk prices over the past month or so, but that now seems a forlorn hope. We also hoped that there might be an improvement in meat prices, but there is now a very variable situation throughout the country, and the lack of an effective market—because of the lack of literal markets—means that prices are depressed, especially in certain sectors. Will the Minister consider the National Beef Association's proposals for a price-fixing mechanism as a temporary measure? That would restore at least some common sense while no genuine market exists.
  As a great many Members wish to speak, I shall draw my remarks to a close. I hope that the Minister has not ruled out the possibility of a degree of consequential-loss
  386
  compensation, for which we have argued from day one. I am thinking particularly of those who are directly affected by Government decisions over which they have no control: they cannot make alternative arrangements, and meanwhile they are experiencing substantial losses.
  Will the Minister ensure that the strongest possible case is put to the Government for proper use of contingency funds? If this is not a crisis of the kind for which such funds are intended, I do not know what is. The Ministry should ensure that other Departments are mobilised as well, because we are fighting a war against this disease, and if we are to continue to do so we must ensure that all available resources are deployed effectively. I am afraid that many people in rural areas, while applauding some of the Minister's actions, say that not enough has been done so far.
  6.5 pm
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: There is a lot of anguish in my constituency today. That was demonstrated this morning, when a number of my constituents from the inner Lakeland area, in particular, the town of Keswick—under the flag of the Cumbria crisis alliance, which was set up recently—spoke of their concern. I have also had meetings with representatives of the tourism industry over the last couple of weeks, most recently at my home last weekend. A number of people attended, including representatives of all the tradesmen in my constituency and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
  There are problems, and there is a feeling that many of them are not being addressed. It is not just a question of a Government response. So far, 193 businesses have told the Cumbria tourist board that they are in trouble. For example, 17 of Cumbria's 24 youth hostels have closed. In fact, however, the Lake district is effectively still open, because many of our towns and villages are still providing the facilities that they have historically provided. The problem exists on the fells and at the access points. They are closed, but there are still many parts of Cumbria that warrant visits by tourists. Keswick is still open; our attractions are still open.
  Before reaching the centrepiece of my speech, I want to say something about the measures introduced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment yesterday. They are welcome as a first stage, but it is important to keep a close eye on developments over the coming weeks. There will be further problems despite the introduction of those measures, and dramatic action may be needed to resolve them.
  Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) advocated a subsidy for hoteliers and other operators in the Lake district national park to help them with their advertising bills, so that they can decide where to advertise in the national media. I support that idea, and also ask my hon. Friends to keep in mind the suggestion that I made yesterday—that attractions in the county should be subsidised. Honeypot attractions may well be the best way of bringing people back. The county contains more than 100 such attractions, many of which are still open. There are lake cruises, sports centres and environmental attractions, all of which could well be supported with taxpayers' money.

  387
  I think that the county's car parks should be free. I also think that, as the crisis develops, we should seriously consider introducing a system of free public transport, enabling people to travel throughout the Lake district easily and without expense.
  I turn to what I believe to be an important issue. There are problems within MAFF in Cumbria. I believe that they will be addressed, but I think that my constituents and certainly the farmers are entitled to know that we know what they are.
  The work that the vets have been doing is wonderful; they are much appreciated by the farmers. In my office, we have had repeated calls from farmers saying how pleased they are with the service that is being provided. However, the problem in the county is in MAFF's management structure. Indeed, the director—the local officer responsible for operations—has not proved competent in dealing with the crisis. The machine has been desperately slow. There has been a lack of lateral thinking. That local officer has not got things in Cumbria under control, despite the information that he has been giving Ministers and the private office to the effect that things are under control: they are not.
  There has been too much sticking to protocol. As far as I can see, there has been a complete breakdown in communication between Cumbria and MAFF officers in London. Information has not been getting through on the failure of resources to deal with the escalating crisis, but I am assured by Ministers that the financial resources are there. That is not the problem; it is a logistical problem. Indeed, I welcome the most recent initiatives that have been taken by the Government in that area.
  One very informed person told me that the management insisted on every box being ticked. That perhaps indicates the nature of the problem. Others have said that the local machine has been an old dinosaur at work, and that decisions were taking too long.
  More control is needed at local vet level so that fast action can be taken and all the necessary arrangements introduced. The six-day delay from notification to disposal has been unacceptable. That has been exploited by the media in the county, reasonably, in my view, because it is a matter of legitimate concern. To this day, I cannot understand why the MAFF representative in Cumbria was not relaying to the Department his particular concerns in that area. I do not think that, in 22 years, I have ever criticised a civil servant from the Floor of the House of Commons, but the way the situation has been managed by senior management has been such a disaster that I have to say it; this is the forum in which to say it.
  Another constituent said that we were not getting on top of the problem. We are still dealing only with reported cases, not with potentially traceable cases. I understand that the water board and a number of contractors have offered heavy equipment. I am told that they have been turned down. Where are the Royal Engineers? Why was there a shortage early on of slaughterers? Why was the centre told that everything was in order when there was a shortage of slaughterers? Why were we not told nationally that there was a shortage of vets? Every hon. Member in the county was picking that up, but the last people to admit it were those in the Department itself.
  388
  The other day, when a MAFF official was being interviewed on camera by Border Television, I had to intervene to protest at the way in which the questions were being answered. Even as late as our meeting in Kendal last Thursday, officials were not prepared to spell out what the deficiencies were in the county. It was only after I had intervened that I noticed a change in the approach of that interviewee. I am told that there is no shortage of money; I am satisfied that it is simply a matter of organisation.
  May I say how much I welcome the appointment of the new controller of operations, Mrs. Jane Brown, a grade five civil servant who in the past day has gone up from London? Let her be fully aware of the fact that I will unreservedly support her, as I hope other hon. Members will, in some of the difficult decisions that she will have to take. If we are going to wipe the problem out, we must adopt a fresh, almost ruthless approach. We cannot afford the delays that have characterised the approach up to now; delays have certainly characterised the approach in Cumbria.
  I congratulate Ben Gill on the courageous way in which he has led the NFU during this difficult period. He has had to stand up to complaints in Cumbria from local NFU representatives, who are under pressure from local communities. He has stood by a principle that he believes in—the idea that real action was necessary.
  I refer to the future. My view is that the way the disease has been managed in Cumbria has been so unsatisfactory—I have mentioned a civil servant who has been responsible for the programme—that the National Audit Office will inevitably have to hold an inquiry. It will be as a result of that inquiry that the truth will unfold.
  What worries me—I will be frank—is that the Government will be blamed for deficiencies at local level that were not fully revealed to Government. [Interruption.] Oh, yes. Ministers are certainly responsible for what has happened. I understand that, but I am worried about the fact that a lot of the information was not getting through to them. We expect our civil servants to reveal to Ministers in times of crisis precisely what is happening on the ground. In this case, it did not happen.
  6.16 pm
  Mr. David Maclean: In the 18 years I have been privileged to be a Member of Parliament representing a wonderful part of Cumbria, we have faced various threats: the possibility of Sellafield closing or losing jobs, of the north-west railway line going into decline and not being repaired, and of Carlisle not getting a new hospital. All have been major issues, but I have never before seen or faced the complete meltdown of our county. The danger we face in Cumbria is that we will suffer such losses in the rural sector, in tourism and in other industries that it will take us years and years to recover.
  I say to colleagues on both sides of the House who have two or three cases of foot and mouth in their constituencies, to those who have 48 or 45 cases in their constituencies—they can appreciate the extent of the damage—or to those who have 12 or 15 cases: I pray to God that they do not get 130 cases in their constituency. I pray to God that it does not get into their cattle herds and cut a swathe through their area, as it is doing through my constituency tonight.

  389
  Foot and mouth is now hitting farms in my constituency at the rate of more than 1 an hour: there have been 29 cases in the past 24 hours. I cannot count the number of sheep that have been slaughtered: it must be between 5,000 and 10,000. I give the numbers of cattle that have been slaughtered on individual farms: 152, 100, 184, 225, 320, 154, 150, 160, 157, 467, 425, 400, 205 and 870. Can colleagues imagine the cremation pyre for 870 prime cattle? What is happening in that part of north Cumbria tonight is almost unimaginable.
  There will have to be a mega-inquiry after this. Today is not the day for recriminations. I could fill volumes with the stories that I have heard in the past few weeks on how the problem has been handled, but I wish to flag up a few issues. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell—Savours) has been right to say that the whole issue has been a shambles at times, but he should not put the blame solely on one official in Cumbria. It was on 5 March that I called for the Royal Engineers and Royal Logistic Corps to be called in to help. The help arrived only this week, 15 days later. On 8 March, I called for more resources and said that the situation was out of control in Cumbria. Two days later, the Minister said that everything was under control.
  On 10 March, I called for more vets from around the world to be called in. I know the MAFF contingency plan—call up Commonwealth vets and some others through the vets network—but I thought that we needed more. On 11 March, I called for vetelinary students to be mobilised and vets to be permitted to authorise killing without waiting for lab results. We are still sending 10 per cent. of tests for results. That is not necessary.
  One Labour Member said that the vets had to make only one phone call, but one phone call to whom? Should they phone someone in Carlisle, or someone in London—someone who is not looking at the cattle and the sheep with the blisters? Why should a qualified vet have to phone anyone to say, "I have found cattle with blisters; it is foot and mouth," and then seek permission to authorise killing? It may only involve a matter of minutes for the vet to pick up the phone, but I suggest that the decision may take slightly longer.
  On 13 March, I sent the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food a ten-point plan. I say to the hon. Member for Workington that I sent it not to Carlisle, but directly to the Minister's office. In point 1, I said:
  "We are desperately short of vets, particularly in Cumbria."
  I urged the Minister to call the colleges as they, the universities and the schools would be going on holiday soon. Hundreds of student vets would be available, and we should get them in now.
  I asked for the five-day quarantine; ban on vets to be lifted; I referred to that as recycling dirty vets more quickly. I also said:
  "When the new 'suspect' farm is contiguous to or near a confirmed farm then the 5 day ban is now totally unnecessary. Of course contaminated vets should not go near a likely clean farm of a suspect miles away."
  I understand that that is now under consideration, but I called for it on 13 March.
  In point 2, I said that vets must be
  "given the authority to order a kill as soon as they see Foot and Mouth on a farm."
  I asked the Minister to let Ministry vets
  390
  "slaughter herds if they honestly believe, from the clinical signs, that it is foot and mouth."
  In point 3, I said:
  "Valuation and slaughter teams must go in immediately after a vet confirms Foot and Mouth.
  There are plenty of valuers around … We have cases in Cumbria of animals waiting up to 10 days to be slaughtered after a farmer and a vet suspect Foot and Mouth disease."
  That was a week ago and the length of time has come down considerably. It is now down to two or three days, but that is still far too long.
  In point 4, I said:
  "Burial must now be included as an option.
  Please intervene with the Environment Agency and insist that burial can be a safe option especially for sheep. You do not need to bury everything and with vast quantities of lime it is a safe option when the water table is low."
  I asked the Minister to give himself
  "three options—burning, rendering and burial, and that would give MAFF a chance to get ahead of the game."
  In point 5, I called for the power to seal off minor roads; in point 6, I called for disinfectant zones to be created on major roads. In point 8, I said that all unnecessary activity in the heavily infected areas of the country should be stopped. In point 9, I called for the setting up of
  "a national MAFF advisory telephone bank with lots of staff to tell farmers what to do about Form D restrictions.
  I have lots of evidence of farmers being given a Form D and no-one then contacts them again. I am told that one farmer, in Cumbria, in ignorance, has moved silage from one farm to the other and spread Foot and Mouth disease."
  Finally, I said that massive television and radio advertising should be used to warn and advise the public. Apparently, that will now happen, but I called for it on 13 March. On 14 March, I wrote to the Minister to beg him to grant Cumbria county council the power to close minor roads.
  On 15 March—the famous Ides of March—Nye had the mistake of the Minister, when he included cattle. It is trendy these days for people to sue because of stress experienced for minor things. Last Thursday night in Cumbria, I could have found 10,000 farmers who would have sued for millions because of the stress that they suffered before the Minister had the decency, correctly, to go back on television and apologise for the mistake that had been made.
  On 17 March, in desperation, I wrote to the Minister again. I said that there were now two things to do. The first was to appoint a supremo to take command in Cumbria. A team of experts should be sent there and control should be devolved. I believe that Jane Brown has arrived there today. I am grateful to the Government for listening to my suggestion.
  I also called for the Army, the Royal Engineers and the Royal Logistic Corps to organise things. I said that there were plenty of civil contractors and that we did not need troops digging trenches; civil engineers could do that. In Cumbria, there are dozens of firms that are not allowed on to farms; agricultural drainage engineers and contractors cannot go near farms. Their plant is sitting idle and they desperately want to help. I concluded by saying that the appalling delay in Cumbria had been caused by a failure of the whole logistical back-up system to kill and to dispose of animals quickly enough.

  391
  What we do not have in Cumbria—despite the Prime Minister's words today, I suspect that we will not have it by the end of the week—is the situation that I called for in my letter to the Minister. I said:
  "You must get to the situation that when a farmer calls with a suspect case, a MAFF vet can be there within two hours at most. If he or she, from a clinical examination, believes there is foot and mouth then that vet must have the authority to authorise the slaughter and make one telephone call to the Emergency Command Centre who will then dispatch completely self contained teams to deal with it. That team would have an auctioneer to do the valuation, a slaughter group to conduct humane slaughter with proper captive bolt pistols and they would be followed on to the site immediately by a big team of private contractors and/or aided by Army Engineers to dig the holes necessary, build the pyres and get the carcases onto them. That team should not come off the farm until the fires are out and a decontamination unit has decontaminated the farm along with all the vehicles, personnel and equipment of those who carried out the burn or burial."
  Is that wrong? Have I got that plan wrong? From my experience as a MAFF Minister; from my lay experience as an appointee, by this Government, to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons; and from my knowledge as a junior officer in the Territorial Army, I know that there is a simple logistical task for the military to do. That task, understandably, was not for MAFF's qualified vets, who have their own speciality: diagnosing the disease and calling in the others.
  Tonight, I am not confident, but we are slightly further down the road. So much time has been wasted, however. The disease has now reached epidemic proportions and a firestorm is sweeping through north Cumbria tonight. For the sake of our whole country, I say to those colleagues with one or two cases—or with 45, as the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) has in his area—and to others with ten or a dozen cases: I hope that we in Cumbria have a unique epidemic and that that hotspot will remain unique to us. I would not wish this on the rest of the country for a king's ransom.
  We must have on-farm burials in Cumbria. I will not bore the House by reading out the letter that I sent the Minister for the Environment on Sunday, urging him to overrule his own Environment Agency and to permit on-farm burials. I also wrote to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, urging him to overrule the Environment Agency. From all sides we have had demands to let burials on farms proceed. I know that that is MAFF policy; it has always been MAFF policy and it is the safest policy.
  My criticism of the Government and of MAFF Ministers is that they should have had the courage to say that we faced a crisis of epidemic proportions and that, in most cases, there would be on-farm burial, except in a few cases where it was unsafe to do so. Cremation would then take over.
  I beg the Minister not to use two council refuse tips in Cumbria—the waste tips at Hespin wood and Flusco quarry. Flusco quarry was going to be closed by the Environment Agency three years ago because it is a limestone quarry and even domestic garbage was leaking out. Now it has been lined with plastic and is to be sealed. A methane gas pipe is to be put in; if 6,000 sheep are put in it, it had better be a big pipe.
  392
  We have 100 years of experience of what happens to animals when they rot in the ground. We have no experience of what happens when they are in a sealed—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  6.28 pm
  Mr. Russell Brown: I do not intend to speak for too long this evening. I share the anguish of other Members and the worries of all those who are so desperately affected in the 29 areas of the country that have been touched by this outbreak of foot and mouth.
  I appreciate that agriculture is an issue devolved to the Scottish Parliament; none the less, I would hope that Members in this House will appreciate that devolution can be swept to one side. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said that there were 45 cases in my area; the latest figures I have show that that is rapidly increasing towards 60.
  We must share the difficulties that face those affected. Some people, until four or five weeks ago, would have looked at agriculture and said, frankly, that it had nothing to do with them. Only now are they beginning to see that what is happening is seriously impacting on their lives and livelihoods.
  Many animals in Dumfries and Galloway are still waiting to be slaughtered. The numbers involved are astonishing, especially given how many animals have been slaughtered already. I got a real glimpse of what was happening when I visited the community in Langholm in the east of my constituency a week last Friday. I was due to meet local people to discuss the impact that the outbreak was having on them, and what the future held. It was evening, and as I crossed the bridge into the town the fields to my left were on fire. That was the first time that I had ever witnessed the sight: television footage or newspaper photographs do not give a real impression of what it is like.
  I hope that hon. Members attending the debate, and those who have not been able to do so, will read what has been said today, and consider the extent to which the disease is affecting people. For example, schoolchildren cannot begin to understand what is going wrong in their communities. They have been moved back and forth every day for perhaps a week or 10 days. There is smoke in the atmosphere, and the fields seem to be on fire after dark. That is not a healthy environment—not because of the smoke, but because of what people are seeing every day.
  On the evening about which I am talking, I met the local community initiative group. We talked about concerns involving tourism and small rural shops. Rural areas do not have strong and vibrant economies, so everything is based on small and medium-sized enterprises. A lot of help will be needed in the future.
  I have spoken in some detail with the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border several times over the past couple of weeks, and he has told me that his perception is that the authorities in Dumfries and Galloway are coping much better than their counterparts in Cumbria. The House has heard this evening, from the right hon. Gentleman and from my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell—Savours), how desperate the situation in Cumbria has been.
  The Dumfries and Galloway local authority has co-ordinated the work in my area, and it has done an excellent job, controlling operations from a bunker at the

  393
  council headquarters. People working there have been through some pretty desperate days, and I think back to the Lockerbie air disaster in 1988. My predecessor in the constituency was constantly in touch with the command centre at that time, when it was also having to deal with an extremely difficult situation. I do not want to draw comparisons between then and now but this foot and mouth outbreak has been my worst nightmare. I only wish that I could wake up and find that it had never happened.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been criticised for saying that the outbreak was under control. I want to examine what controlling the disease has meant to those working at the sharp end in my area. They have tried to keep this terrible disease within the confines of the local authority boundary, and to ensure that it does not spill over. Clearly, the disease may have spilled over from Cumbria into my area, and vice versa, but we are trying desperately to ensure that it does not go further afield and reach Ayrshire and the Scottish borders.
  A lot of help will be needed, and Ross Finnie, the Rural Affairs Minister of the Scottish Executive, will be making announcements in the coming days about what help will be made available. For my part, I have spoken to the banks to encourage them to help people affected by the outbreak. Only one of the three main banks in Scotland has responded to my appeal, and I am bitterly disappointed that they are not responding quickly enough to people's needs.
  My constituency has five large estates, and many tenant farmers. I am not about to say that different treatment should be given to different people, but we must look closely at what is being done. Tenant farmers watching all that they own being wiped out must wonder how they will survive. If they want to stay in the business, they will have to hang on to the end of the year, when they can buy stock. However, the price of that stock will be much greater than it is at present. Breeding will take place next season, so businesses will only start to reap any benefits 18 months from now.
  People cannot survive on fresh air, so support must be made available. Especially careful thought must be given to the problem of what we must do for some tenant farmers.
  There are some excellent pedigree animals in my area. People are desperately worried about the Cheviot flocks grazing on hills in the east of my constituency, and about what can be done to protect them. There are also excellent flocks of Suffolks and Texels, and we must do our utmost to protect them, as their strong bloodlines extend over generations.
  I have also been contacted by families with pet sheep and lambs. One's heart has to go out to them too; they need as much support as possible.
  I am sure that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border will be sick of hearing me say what I have said so often over the past couple of weeks, which is that I have almost ceased operating as a politician. I am more of a social worker, talking to people on the telephone for 30 and 40 minutes at a time, rather than the usual five minutes. In the current situation, all hon. Members must undertake such long conversations with people, simply as a matter of decency. I am delighted to have been able to put social workers at Dumfries and Galloway council in
  394
  touch with people whom I consider to be at risk. They are happy to step in and ensure that people are getting the support that they need.
  At the end of the day, questions will be asked about the cause of the outbreak, and who is to blame. We will have to get back to the fundamentals: if there has been something wrong in the conduct of someone's business which has caused this tragedy, we will have to deal with that. I would go as far as to say that, if necessary, the matter should be dealt with through the court system.
  The shape of our countryside will be different in the future. There is always a glimmer of hope when a tragedy such as this comes along. We will have to look closely at agriculture, and all the other elements that feed into it. I hope that we will be able to do so sooner rather than later.

  DEFERRED DIVISIONS
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I now have to announce the results of the Divisions deferred from a previous day.
  On the motion on Weights and Measures, the Ayes were 182, the Noes were 263, so the motion was disagreed to.
  On the motion on European Security and Defence Policy, the Ayes were 303, the Noes were 133, so the motion was agreed to.
  [The Division Lists are published at the end of today's debates.]

  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  6.38 pm
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: No one could have heard the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and not be moved by the great devastation that has hit his constituency. He has prayed that no other farmers go through what those in his constituency have gone through, but farmers everywhere fear that that is exactly what will happen. That burden will overhang the farming industry and community over the next few weeks.
  I was horrified to hear the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food say that he did not think that the crisis had passed, and that there were many more cases still to come. That admission was brave, but it is worrying and scary for any hon. Member in this Chamber with an agricultural constituency.
  The Opposition do not get many days on which to choose the subject of the debate, yet this is the second time that we have used our Opposition Day to discuss something that the Government should have found the time for. This is a national emergency—the Government have found no time to allow us to debate it, yet the Opposition have.
  The Government have sent out mixed messages during the crisis. A newspaper report of 12 March said of the Minister of Agriculture:
  "While the Government denied that it was being overwhelmed by the foot and mouth crisis, Mr. Brown insisted that he was 'absolutely certain' that the devastating outbreak was under control."

  395
  The right hon. Gentleman gave a reassurance then which he was unable to give with any certainty today. I was very concerned by the Minister's admission.
  Let us be in no doubt that this is a disaster for the countryside. Things were bad enough before the outbreak started; the agricultural industry has been going through a continuous crisis for quite some time. The accountants Deloitte and Touche published an analysis of farm incomes in October 2000. Average-sized farms of 202 hectares that earned £80,000 in the mid-1990s earned just £8,000 in 2000, and might run up losses of £4,000 in 2001. That was before the outbreak started.
  The crisis is comprehensive—the fall in farmgate prices and incomes is affecting every sector of the industry. Net farm incomes are down by 16 per cent., dairy farm incomes by 21 per cent., upland livestock farm incomes by 26 per cent., and lowland livestock farm incomes are down £1,500.
  The industry was just starting to believe that there were signs of a turnaround before the outbreak of foot and mouth. Having gone through a very bleak period, farmers saw some signs that things might be starting to get better, but any improvement has now been totally wiped out.
  I represent a constituency of outstanding natural beauty, which covers a large area of the Peak district. More than 20 million people visit the Peak district each year. It is, without doubt, the lungs of Britain, with a catchment area of Sheffield, Manchester and the west midlands. On a bank holiday, it feels like the whole of that catchment area comes to my constituency. Yet I believe that we have taken the countryside for granted. We think that it exists because of nature, but that is not the case. It is farmed, maintained and looked after by farmers—that is what makes it the countryside that we love and enjoy going to see. If we do not realise that, we will be in peril of losing one of Britain's great national assets—its countryside.
  There has been much talk about the 1967 outbreak and the comparisons that can be drawn, but I do not think that many comparisons can be made, because the farming environment has changed dramatically. Farms are now bigger and when a farm is infected, more animals are involved. For the past 20 years, Governments of both colours have encouraged farmers to diversify but now they find that the money that they invested in diversification is not bringing in the returns that it should. That is one of the great problems of the rural economy. We must remember that we are talking about the future of the rural economy, not just that of the agricultural industry.
  Too many mixed messages have been, and are still being, sent out by the Government. We heard Ministers say yesterday that the countryside was open and that people can go there providing that they do not come across cattle and sheep. In the Peak district, we do not have much arable farmland; it is mainly given over to livestock.
  Derbyshire county council has issued the following notice:
  "HELP STOP THE SPREAD OF FOOT AND MOUTH
  Help us protect our countryside—DON'T VISIT UNLESS YOU HAVE TO."
  I believe that the county council put up that notice in good faith. Yesterday, however, the Minister for the Environment gave a different message to the House and
  396
  to the nation. Can we please have some consistency? People do not want foot and mouth to spread, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border said, but they need to know what the advice is from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
  Towns in my constituency such as Bakewell and Ashbourne have been devastated by the lack of visitors. Indeed, some business people have set up a mutual self-help group, known as Hartington and Newhaven Development, or HAND. I shall be going to see those people on Saturday morning because they want to express to me their concerns about the future of their industry and the way in which they can survive the crisis. One of the establishments in the group was serving 60 lunches until a few weeks ago; it now serves three or four. That is the kind of devastating impact that the outbreak has had on small rural businesses as well as those in the agricultural sector. It is incumbent on us as Members of Parliament to tell the Government that those are the concerns that businesses throughout the Peak district have to face, partly because of the Government's mixed messages about whether access to the countryside should be encouraged or prevented. That is the problem.
  I hope that the Government will get their act together in the next few days and send out one, single message so that people can understand what the criteria are for access to the countryside and certain areas. That is particularly important in the run up to Easter, which is a tremendously busy time for our small rural businesses. If they lose their takings or their takings are substantially down at Easter, they will not be around next Easter or even this summer.
  This is a crisis for the agricultural industry; it is also a crisis for rural Britain and the rural environment. For far too long, we have taken the countryside for granted. The Government have brought in right to roam measures to give people greater access to the countryside, but the truth is that this crisis threatens the very existence of our countryside.
  6.48 pm
  Mrs. Diana Organ: Following the contributions of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), none of us wants the maelstrom that has hit those areas to be visited on our rural areas.
  In my constituency, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said in his opening statement, there is a concentration of the outbreak of foot and mouth. There are nine confirmed cases and others are suspected.
  Three weeks ago, at the beginning of the outbreak, when the Forest of Dean was made an infected area due to the outbreak on the other side of the Wye valley in Herefordshire, I attended a planning meeting that included representatives from the Ministry of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food, the police, the Forestry Commission, the district council, trading standards and emergency planning departments, as well as the commoners from the statutory Forest of Dean. At that meeting, I raised the important issue of sheep roaming free in the statutory Forest of Dean. We are not sure exactly how many sheep there are, but believe that there are about 5,000. They are grazed there by right of cot commoners or badgers.

  397
  I asked whether the sheep would be mustered and penned together. The area of the forest is wide, and contains many towns and villages. I was told that there had been advice that it would not be good policy to muster the sheep since that would cause tremendous disturbance and disruption, which would increase the risk of spreading infection. I was told that only 40 per cent. of commoners had holdings elsewhere for sheep, which raised the difficulty of where the sheep would go. The forest enterprise could identify only five areas in the statutory forest that could be fenced in, and even they would create problems with grazing the animals. I made it clear that I would want to see someone take responsibility for the problem. I was told that responsibility for managing and checking the sheep, and for keeping them in the statutory forest area would, as it always had before, fall on the commoners themselves.
  Since then, the situation has changed. At Coleford magistrates court today, Glyn Barclay a badger, was tried at short notice and found guilty of allowing his sheep to roam free outside the statutory forest. Indeed, they were roaming down the A48. He was heavily fined, and the case was dealt with quickly to show its importance.
  There has also been a confirmed outbreak in the village of English Bicknor, outside the statutory forest. A couple of weeks ago, free-roaming sheep went on to the farm in question from the statutory forest. The farmers were told by MAFF to pen those sheep separately and feed them. They did so, but have now had a confirmed outbreak of foot and mouth disease, although it arose not from a link with those sheep, but from a link with Ross market.
  On Friday, at my surgery, a gentleman arrived breathless and late. He apologised, and said that he had been held up by a sheep truck. I said, "They can't be moving sheep around; how do you know there were sheep in it?" "I could see them," he said, and we realised that he was talking about an area inside the statutory forest where one of the commoners was moving sheep in an open truck.
  In addition, there has been a confirmed case at a farm in Blakeney, which abuts the statutory forest, and we must consider the possibility that that will infect the sheep in the forest. I have written to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and the head of the planning team in Gloucestershire to ask them to reconsider the decision taken three weeks ago so that we can go ahead with mustering the forest's free-roaming sheep. We need those sheep to be properly managed, as they patently have not been to date. I want those 5,000 sheep checked to ensure that they do not have the disease, and we must be sure to protect the surrounding agricultural community.
  It is clear that in recent weeks some—though not all—commoners have behaved irresponsibly. Indeed, MAFF has made it known to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) that commoners have been obstructive in letting out their sheep at night. Such behaviour contrasts directly with the measures taken in the surrounding agricultural community Other farmers are rigorously enforcing controls and taking every possible precaution.
  I seek urgent reconsideration of this matter. The decision must be taken on the advice of experts, but since we have all suddenly become experts on foot and mouth, let it be left to real experts. The free-roaming sheep could cause a serious risk, although I appreciate that there has
  398
  until now been no evidence that infection among any Forest of Dean flock has come from them. I do not ask for a cull, which would be a complete change of policy. At present, the sheep are clean, and a cull would also include deer in the forest. However, we must consider penning and controlling the sheep since the commoners are not doing so themselves.
  In my area, as in all others, farmers are extremely anxious, and not only on the nine farms that have foot and mouth. Those farmers are at a loss to know what to do as they grieve the loss of their animals and businesses, some of which may have been built up over generations.
  I have a few further issues to discuss, including concern about mixed messages from MAFF. There are problems with the website. Although it is excellent in part, I have been told that it is not updated frequently enough. Local farmers are finding out about outbreaks from the local news rather than the MAFF website. Nor is it precise enough. It will say, for example, as it did in a case last week, that there has been one on a farm near Lydney. That information was no good since the farm was in Purton, which is not near Lydney. Farmers need to know whether an outbreak is on the farm next door or 3 km away. The information on the website is not accurate enough.
  I am also concerned about information for the general public. We have all become experts on foot and mouth, and I have heard some curious stories. One lady, for example, rang up to say that she knew that sheep in a nearby field had foot and mouth because all the baby lambs had pink legs. Lots of new-born lambs have pink legs, and it is not a sign of foot and mouth. Suddenly, however, everyone is an expert.
  We need to put out more accurate information for the general public whom we are asking to play a part by keeping out of the countryside in infected areas and away from footpaths and the statutory forest. We need to make sure that people do not panic and build up myths that could damage our farming community and tourism industry. We need accurate information.
  I want to touch on what is happening to other rural businesses in my constituency. The Forest of Dean is beautiful and unique, and it depends heavily on tourism. Indeed, it depends more on tourism than it does on livestock. Although I recognise that we must do absolutely all that we can to secure the future of the livestock industry by eradicating this dreadful disease, I do not want the tourism industry sacrificed.
  Since 27 February, my area has been classified as infected. That creates punitive problems for businesses such as local pubs, outdoor centres, centres running canoe courses and the Newent bird of prey centre. All those places are either closed or serving few visitors. Cancellations have been made at our hostels and at all our caving centres. We must recognise that people can cope with a problem for a short time, but that they face cancellations not for now, but for June and July as schools pull out. We need much more support. We need not sympathy alone, but measures to tide businesses over until the affected area is cleared and we can open up the forest again.
  The work of the taskforce must be widely publicised among businesses. I have been asked what the Government are doing and have said that the taskforce would report and that a transitional package would be put

  399
  in place. But people do not know what is in that package, and I must point out that there has not been enough information even in the House of Commons Library about what the taskforce is doing.
  I welcome, as small businesses will, deferrals of value added tax on businesses, the three-month business rate relief and support from the Small Business Service in the form of a loan guarantee scheme. All that is good, but we need more. The taskforce must go on meeting and making recommendations. That information needs to be disseminated to businesses close to infected areas so that they know what help they can obtain during this difficult period.
  Many people in rural areas have made a terrific sacrifice. Although we welcome the work that is going on, the rural community—farmers and small businesses—must have clear messages both from MAFF and other Departments about how the Government are handling the matter and seeing it through, and about what we are doing to assist businesses in this dreadful situation.
  7 pm
  Mr. David Curry: I want to raise some practical issues that affect my constituency. There is only one outbreak cluster in the area—in Hawes in North Yorkshire. Although my constituency does not have an outbreak, a large part of it is in an infected area, so the impact is strong.
  My first concern is for farmers in an infected area who do not have the disease on their farms. They are heavily restricted and cannot sell or move their animals. Their cattle are going over the 30-month limit—cattle are often marketed at 28 or 29 months. There is a similar problem with lambs. When they push up their second teeth, they are sold as mutton and that can mean a 50 per cent. price discount.
  Those farmers do not stand to receive compensation, but they are losing substantially because their animals are eating their capital, yet generating no revenue. The matter is serious. Those farmers are directly concerned. Will the Minister of State look urgently at that matter when she considers compensation? The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has already said that compensation is needed in relation to the over-30-months scheme for cattle.
  I want to draw attention to the problems of farmers whose ewes are away from the main farm. The Minister said that they have an option: they could repatriate the ewes voluntarily, provided that the animals were passing from an area of lesser infection to one of greater infection. In practice, there is little of the voluntary about that; many farmers have no real choice. Their ewes are in lamb in extraordinarily difficult circumstances—on small patches of land where little food is available. There is high mortality among ewes. The farmer cannot bury or dispose of the carcases. There is also high mortality among lambs. In my constituency, one farmer's ewes were eating ivy and so produced many dead lambs. If a farmer wants to bring his sheep home, the sheer hassle involved is almost prohibitive.
  I understand why the regulations are in place, but the distances—as well as the series of journeys to get disinfectant—and the costs mean that in practice, for a
  400
  farmer who is really concerned about animal welfare, the only sensible choice is slaughter. However, that farmer will not receive proper compensation: because his action is deemed voluntary, he will receive only two thirds of the price. A responsible farmer would not regard that as a voluntary choice. Will the Minister of State consider that matter seriously? The animal welfare implications are very real.
  The most chilling remarks that I have heard in my constituency during the past few days have been from farmers who ring me up to say, "The best thing for us would be to get the disease on our farm. Then we'd get the proper compensation. We are suffering because we do not have the disease — There is only a short step from farmers who think that the restrictions are unreasonable or perverse and who are suffering because they are combating the disease to people who might be tempted to relax their guard or even, in marginal cases, attract the disease. The sheer frustration and anguish of farmers, their sense of vulnerability and foreboding, cannot be exaggerated.
  It would help if the Minister of State explained why some of the exclusion zones have been drawn as they are. Around Hawes, they are extremely wide; they stretch 25 miles to Ripon, yet they are much shorter in other directions. There are some perverse lines on the map. I realise that one needs to identify proper traceable features, but farmers who are 25 miles away from an outbreak and under restriction know that other farmers only half that distance away are not under restriction. The Minister of State should consider local authorisation for the revision of those boundaries where that can be done sensibly and rationally so as to liberate some farmers. The older idea of drawing a circumference around affected areas might be considered.
  I want to look ahead. At the end of this experience, we shall need to draw the threads together. I want to make a pre-emptive strike by noting three conclusions that I hope will not be drawn because they are entirely false.
  The first is that the outbreak is all the fault of intensive farming. That is the greatest load of nonsense I have heard. As foot and mouth is endemic in the third world, yet the United States has managed to eliminate it entirely, it is difficult to argue that intensive farming generates the disease. That is a false and ridiculous conclusion.
  The second false idea relates to abattoirs. There is a case for small, local abattoirs—but not on the grounds of animal health. The case for such abattoirs is that they serve a local market and meet a proper need. It is not to do with hygiene. We closed down many abattoirs, and many of them badly needed it. Between 10 and 15 years ago, Britain was heavily over-abattoired; there was much surplus capacity.
  It is ironic that the disease was detected in an inspection of a modern, up-to-date abattoir. I am in favour of such abattoirs. Of course, small abattoirs have a role, but they, too, must be modern and up to date. Let us consider such abattoirs sensibly rather than in the context of the romantic folklore that, by definition, they are superior to what has replaced them.
  The third false statement is that the outbreak is all the fault of the supermarkets. I regret that the Prime Minister made such silly remarks about supermarkets when he visited Gloucester recently. The supermarkets have probably done more to change the shape of the common

  401
  agricultural policy and of agricultural development in the United Kingdom than any politician. By and large, they have done so for the better.
  We must look to the future—the Minister of Agriculture talked about that. Many people will leave agriculture as a result of this experience. The average age of farmers in Britain is 59. Farmers will receive compensation if their animals are slaughtered. I accept that he has said that he has tried to make that compensation generous rather than otherwise, but for many farmers, it will be their retirement pension. He would be well advised to consider whether some modest outgoers scheme might not be a useful weapon to deploy at this stage, despite the arguments levelled against such schemes in the past.
  We must also bear in mind the heavy costs of stock replacement. The Minister of Agriculture may be paying a good price for the cull, but that price probably comes nowhere near the replacement cost of the animals, simply because less stock will be available Some farmers who are suffering now may do well soon if they have stock available for sale as replacement stock and a marketplace for it.
  The shape of British agriculture will change dramatically; BSE did not change it but foot and mouth will. It is inevitable that live animal exports will come under scrutiny. It will be difficult to resume them. I have supported such exports. My constituency earns a large part of its agricultural livelihood from sheep, and export plays a part. It will be difficult to resume exports, especially as only one vessel, the Farmers Ferry, is used. We may have to examine the practicalities involved. There will be consequences for the market. The Minister of Agriculture talked about the need to restore a functioning marketplace; those factors must be taken into the equation.
  Scrutiny of live auction marts is also inevitable. I support them. In my constituency, where many farmers lead an isolated life, the mart is the one place where they meet other farmers. Indeed, if Government are looking for an instrument to tackle social exclusion, the live auction mart could play a major role in rural parts of the United Kingdom.
  I realise that questions will be asked because of the problems of transmission, so the Government must think about what measures might be necessary to reassure people that the live auction system can continue, while eliminating any risk that might stem from them. At the same time, I believe that introducing a pause before traded animals can be dispersed is likely to be the inevitable consequence.
  We will also need to consider meat imports. Meat can be imported from regions where foot and mouth does not exist, but from countries where it does, and many people will want to be reassured that the controls that govern the movement of that product in the country of origin are strong enough to enable us to have confidence in that trade. If we regionalised the United Kingdom and had regions that were free of the disease, I doubt very much whether it would be easy to export our products on the basis that some of our regions were free of foot and mouth when it was endemic in others.
  The disease will accelerate the trend away from support for production towards support for the public good. Even before this crisis, the question for farmers was what they
  402
  should do in a society that is well-off and well fed, that has no problems with food security and that is mobile and environmentally conscious. The answer is that they will have to move to new marketplaces, going up the food chain and producing better food. They will also have to move to recreational and environmental markets.
  We, the other parts of society, must define what we want in terms of the public good and what we are willing to pay to achieve that public good—a more difficult problem. We should have that sensible debate sooner rather than later, as it would take us entirely in the direction that the previous Government and this Government have been going, to try to move away from supporting production to defining agriculture in the wider rural context. That is the sensible way forward.
  Finally, the Government are taking the right actions, but there is a danger that they will lose the argument because of the problems involved in implementing them. If an animal is slaughtered and disposed of rapidly, that is better than if it hangs around. Putting right the practice is an important element of winning the arguments of principle involved in the Government's actions, and I am sure that they will observe that importance.
  7.12 pm
  Mr. Michael Connarty: It is rather ironic that 1 should follow the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) in the debate, as we have recently been to Poland together, where he inveigled me into talking about agriculture for much of the time, when I wanted to talk about the chemical industries and the development of information technology, which are my natural interests.
  Some might not have predicted that I would take part in this debate, given that Falkirk, East is mostly an industrial and residential constituency, but I can claim some credentials because, between 1980 and 1990. when 10 per cent. of the beef farmers in the Forth valley area went out of business for economic reasons, they came to me, as leader of the council, and we struck up a very good dialogue which continued between 1992 and 1997. When they came to the House to lobby they would see me, even though I was the Member for Falkirk, East, because they did not seem to receive much of a hearing from the former Member for Stirling.
  The new Member for that constituency, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), has a very close relationship with the farming community, but she has been rostered to sit on the Whips Bench today. However, we have been talking about the issue, and I know that she is in close contact with the farming and tourist industries in Stirling.
  Although Falkirk, East is mostly an industrial and residential constituency, it has a hinterland, as do all constituencies, except those in cities. Sadly, that hinterland contains two farms at which foot and mouth has been suspected during the recent outbreak. I told the farmer and his family that I would mention their plight today. Although their animals have not suffered from foot and mouth, outsiders might think that they would be better compensated if they had, as the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon has suggested, because it seems that they will receive no compensation for the losses that they suffered when their farm was embargoed and movements frozen while it was under inspection.

  403
  The farmer's mother and wife came to see me at the weekend, and they were in a rather emotional condition. They are concerned about the hard work of a young, enterprising farmer, who is under 50—well below the average age of 59. He decided to diversify in what seemed to be the right way. In fact, he became a haulier, stocker and wholesale sheep dealer for abattoirs, the markets and the supermarkets. He had a well-worked-out business plan, and he seemed to be doing very well until the recent outbreak.
  Although some sniping and posturing has occurred, most of the debate has been enlightening, intelligent and balanced. It does not help farmers if hon. Members try to score points rather than settling down together to work in a bipartisan manner to solve what is a massive problem for them.
  I want to raise the issue of consequential loss. It is clear that there is a spectrum of claims. That spectrum includes matters far removed from farming and the breeding and rearing of animals, but I hope that farmers and those in farming-related enterprises, directly linked to the production and distribution of animals, will be treated slightly differently from those who may also suffer, but have a tenuous link to the industry because they happen to be in the rural environment.
  The problem occurred as a consequence of something that happened on the farms. As a non-farmer who does not come from a farming community, I have to say that it happened because of something done by a farmer. Someone did something in the farm food chain that caused the disease to spread. All the people whose livelihoods depend on farming should be considered to be victims of that act. I heard the Minister say that one of his aims was to put more money into farmers' pockets, and he said that the Government will consider whether more can be done.
  I want to relate the story of the Stewart family of Drum farm in Bo'ness. They are a young family who had broken away from rearing animals, by fattening sheep for four weeks before market. Those who know about farming understand that that involves feeding high-protein cake. Although the cake is expensive, those who use it normally get their reward in the end because they can sell lean sheep at a good price. The family purchases for abattoirs on a wholesale basis and they offer overnight lairage for local abattoirs. They also buy sheep to sell on to the supermarkets.
  The family also owns a livestock haulage firm, running eight lorries. Theirs is a small firm, not a large concern, but they employ 11 men. At the weekend, it was remarkable to hear them say that they were really worried in case they had to lay off any of those people because they had been very loyal. Their firm was clearly haemorrhaging cash, but they did not want to make anyone suffer who had shown them loyalty as they changed from being farmers and breeders and developed their new business.
  The family owed 6,330 sheep the day before the foot and mouth outbreak. I am told that the sheep were worth £2.50 a kilo before the foot and mouth outbreak, but the family gets just £1.75 a kilo for the sheep now that they have been released from their incarceration and can take the beasts to market. That represents a cash loss of more
  404
  than £90,000 to that business. A bank manager would need to be very understanding to be happy that a business had lost that amount of money in such a short period. That money will be not recoverable unless the Government seriously consider compensation.
  During the 10 days that it took for the family to get the all clear, when they were almost locked in, they had to bring in feed in bags because no one could take feed to the farm in large lorries. They keep sheep at a number of places in my constituency, and they had to take medical supplies to all those animals, some of which were suffering because they had been kept long beyond the day that they should have gone to market.
  I commend the family on being very enterprising. Now that they have been allowed to move, they have started to take small herds of sheep from smaller farms directly to the local abattoir, and they are involved in the secondary business of moving the carcases to supermarkets. They are trying to recover some of their losses, but they are not getting anything like the money that they should. If we say that such consequential losses should be written off, I am sure that that would be the tip of the iceberg. All the other Members whose constituencies contain many sheep farms and other type of farms that are also frozen under the embargo will say that they are also losing out and that it will be a long time, if ever, before they recover.
  My plea to the Government is that they treat businesses such as that run by the Stewart family as direct farming units and compensate them as direct farming units. If we do not do that, we are saying that it is better to have beasts with foot and mouth slaughtered than it is to do what the Stewart family did. They showed a real public concern. I understand that only one sheep was ill and that they had been to many markets, but not to the Longtown market in the borders. They called in the local vet, who did not know whether the sheep had foot and mouth—he did not know what was wrong. Therefore, he decided to call in the MAFF vet.
  As soon as the MAFF vet stepped on to the farm and took a test, the two farms that the family use were embargoed and locked off for 10 days. The fact that the family did their public duty cost them money. It is therefore rather odd to hear from the media that the Government will not compensate them because their losses are consequential. I would say that they are direct losses.
  Mr. Stewart asked me to pass on a few thoughts on the wider issues. The first relates to proper washing and disinfecting at markets. The Stewarts' haulage firm has full wash-bay facilities that are often used by other people hauling back and forward to the market in Edinburgh. Although it is probably a matter for the Scottish Parliament, and I do not know how it happened, I have been told that the wash-bay facilities have been taken out of one of the markets in Edinburgh because the sewage did not conform to the environmental health regulations. That seems rather strange. Instead of moving the market or upgrading the treatment facilities, the wash bay was removed. That does not suggest that the people who run the market have much concern for public health. I hope that that matter will be considered either here or in the Scottish Parliament.
  Mr. Stewart feels strongly about the second point that he made. He said:
  "UK meat now has an image problem. The public perceives meat as being expensive because of recent problems. In real terms the lamb price being paid to farmers is 30 per cent. less than before.

  405
  Consumers need to be made aware that meat is good value for money, and it has been for a long time. The British public wants meat of the highest standards like Scottish lamb."
  I am sure that he meant "like British lamb", and he adds:
  "They need to be made aware of the good value of lamb for their money.
  If this does not happen we will have greater imports of inferior meat coming into the country than ever before. We must not forget that it was probably imported meat that caused the whole problem in the first place."
  I heard my right hon. Friend the Minister say that we will crack down on the illegal importation of meat. Clearly, that is very welcome.
  On the next point, I disagree with the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon. Mr. Stewart said that the marketing structure had been extremely fragile for many small farmers and small hauliers, and the market had become far too dependent on large farming and hauling enterprises. Small farmers had to take the price given, and that probably would not sustain them. Mr. Stewart thought that he had found a niche market in which his small haulage firm could sustain a large number of small farmers. It would provide good value for money and he would give them good rates for haulage, lairage and so on. The outbreak has thrown the situation into chaos and he said that we must consider seriously how we can help small hauliers and small farms to sustain their contribution to agriculture. I agree that the smaller farmer seems to be more concerned about the quality of the product rather than the number of the beasts that they turn out.
  I wish to quote the conclusion of my letter to my right hon. Friend the Minister, because I hope that the Government will take this point very seriously. I wrote:
  "I hope that the Government are planning to offer adequate compensation to farmers and livestock haul ers such as the Stewarts of Drum farm, Bo'ness."
  If we do not, we shall be seen as not having treated the whole farming industry in a proper manner.
  I end my remarks with an ironic story. Mr. Stewart has a close friendship with another haul er who comes from the Cumbria area. His animals were found to have foot and mouth, and he is looking to buy a farm in Scotland when he receives his compensation. That is a crazy indictment of the way in which compensation is being paid.
  7.24 pm
  Mr. Tom King: I welcome the debate, because the tone of the House has reflected the extreme gravity of the situation. As many Members have said, the problem does not affect just agriculture. Anyone who has read the front page of The Times today will have seen that the village of Porlock in my constituency reports a total absence of visitors and that there has been a collapse of all the businesses involved in tourism and with the wider Exmoor community
  I have just received a report of a meeting in Porlock village hall today, where I shall be on Friday. Two hundred people in the village hall, the chairman and director of the national park, the local director of the National Trust and the chairman of the district council all recognised the extraordinary gravity of the situation.
  I was concerned whether it was appropriate to table this motion, and I discussed the matter with my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo). However, it is
  406
  important to make a distinction. I believe that we should take a bipartisan approach to this serious and growing problem, but the Government should realise that some real problems need attention. That message must go right across government.
  On an earlier occasion, I pointed out to the Minister that people did not know what foot and mouth looked like. I urged on him the need to advise people on how they could recognise the symptoms and he made a reasonable reply. He said that he understood my reasonable suggestion. Most of the people dealing with the problem have never seen foot and mouth, and I understand—I may be wrong—that Mr. Jim Scudamore is about the only person serving in MAFF who was involved in any significant way when the previous outbreak took place in 1967.
  The great problem with such issues is the collective memory. No Minister has ministerial experience of dealing with foot and mouth; hardly anyone in MAFF or in Parliament has either. I have been here a long time—some people say too long—and I came to the House two years after the previous outbreak. Therefore, I hope that someone is keeping a careful diary of every event in this outbreak.
  Although the Minister said that it was a good idea and that he had the matter in hand, it was nearly 10 days before the first pictures appeared showing what foot and mouth looked like. They were good because they showed what to look for in cattle, pigs and, in particular, sheep, which are liable to get blisters on the palate which makes the disease very difficult to recognise. I hope that those pictures will be stored and a stockpile will be kept so that they can be printed instantly should an outbreak occur again.
  Today, we heard the Prime Minister commending burying in line. The 1968 report shows that that was the preferred method then. It warned against burning because of the risk of spreading the disease further. It is only now, in week five, that we seem to be returning to one of the strong recommendations of the 1968 committee. It is important that we learn lessons. Prompt slaughter is another of the 1968 recommendations. Discretion should be given to vets so that they can move faster. It is as though we have had to reinvent the wheel.
  A further recommendation in the 1968 report was that we should bring in the Army earlier and provide assistance at an early stage. I have just received the excellent foot and mouth bulletin that is produced by the National Farmers Union in the south-west; I always ensure that my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk receives a copy. The bulletin says that Major Belinda Forsyth has now appeared on the scene in Devon. She is the commander
  "of the army team which has been brought in to assist with the logistics of the slaughter and disposal operation. She has 25 two person teams out in the field, organising contractors, coal, straw etc, so freeing up vets' time for more appropriate work."
  That is jolly good. However, the bulletin adds:
  "What she does not have is access to military resources or manpower, and we remain to be convinced that resources in that regard are adequate."
  No Minister should be embarrassed about asking for military assistance. In the Ministry of Defence document "Defence Policy 2001",
  "Military Aid to the Civil Community"

  407
  is a justification for defence expenditure. I recall its being used during strikes by ambulance men. That is carefully provided for and part of peacetime security. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is entitled to expect a proper contribution.
  The leader of my party implied in his speech two nights ago that a vast resource is available. I might have to disagree with him. The Royal Engineers are overstretched, so I am not sure how large the resource is. However, whatever is available should be used and, with great respect to the Minister, should be in place because such arrangements take time to organise. That was a recommendation of the 1968 inquiry.
  That inquiry made another recommendation. It is obvious and, I think, starting to be accepted that it is impossible to manage the crisis from Whitehall or regional offices. One Member made a profoundly true remark when he said that the Ministry and all Government offices are institutionally urban. Calls to the regional office in Bristol are answered by terribly nice people who have probably never seen a farm in their lives. They have been recruited in Bristol to do a call centre job or whatever. The problem in the south-west is that the regional office in Bristol is going to close and has lost some of its key people. The Minister should worry about the wisdom of that closure, because suddenly that office is desperately needed.
  Management of the crisis cannot be run from a regional office; there must be local discretion. I understand that we are to have a south-west supremo who will be based in Worcester. That will not serve Devon and Cornwall too well. Let me give the Minister an example of a pathetic case. People are ringing up because they have seen ewes in a village called Enmore. The west country has had terrible weather in the past few days, with 2 in of rain and snow on Exmoor. The animals are out and there are welfare considerations. The farmer has asked to move his sheep to new grazing which is 5 miles away, but an earnest, decent and conscientious person sitting in Bristol has read up the rules and told him that he cannot have a local movement order because that is limited to 5 km. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals turned up, looked at the ewes in the field in the village of Enmore and ordered them to be shot. They have been killed because someone in Bristol who has never been to my constituency looks at a map and cannot use his or her discretion. That cannot be right.
  I understand the problems that Ministers face. I dealt with a few when I was in Government and recognise that the crisis has a complexity beyond most of the difficulties that I encountered. It cannot be controlled from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in Nobel house or the regional offices. There must be local discretion.
  Common sense must be applied. To make a further movement of livestock, a lorry has to be sent to a regional cleansing centre. When a farmer in my constituency gets a movement order and wants to move animals, the closest regional cleansing centre is in Exeter. A farmer from Weston Zoyland, which is 5 miles outside Bridgwater, would need to send his lorry to Exeter, bring it back to Weston Zoyland to load the animals and take it to a farm four miles away, before sending it back to Exeter to be
  408
  cleaned again. South Molton has a regional cleansing centre, but there has been an outbreak two miles from there.
  On the market situation, a large pig producer in an infected area—thank God it has now been cleared—cannot move his pigs because the price has collapsed and the slaughterhouses will not take them. The other slaughterhouse in my constituency deals mainly in beef. Although it could be open, the flood of Irish beef has meant that it has laid off its people because it cannot sell beef at commercial prices.
  The rising trend of outbreaks will continue for some time. Farms and the rural community as a whole are facing a crisis. Half our potential county councillors are farmers who are locked on their farms. For the Prime Minister to parrot what the Leader of the House said about holding the county council elections on 3 May sends a bad signal. It seems that the Government's best argument for not cancelling them is that people throughout the world would say, "Good Lord! The British have cancelled their county council elections."
  If those elections go ahead and any Agriculture Minister goes near the hustings, there will be a riot. They know that it is their job to work. They will not be able to campaign because the Government have responsibilities at a high level to deal with the crisis. If we get a measure of control in force and the election and its related activities cause the disease to burst out again, I shudder to think what fate would face the Government, and they would deserve it. Although I understand the pressures, I hope that people realise that we are in a major crisis and it must be given top priority.
  7.36 pm
  Mr. Mark Todd: If the debate is to have any value, it should focus on two issues: first, whether the Government's strategy is right and, secondly, whether that strategy's implementation is satisfactory. We have heard little about the strategy. The farming community accepts that the Government's objective to eliminate the disease as fast as possible and restore our country to its previous disease-free status is right. Our strategy is to identify each outbreak, trace it and eliminate the animals involved and their contacts. My only concern is that, although farmers are persuaded of that, the population at large are not sure that that is the only route to eliminate foot and mouth in this country.
  I have just received a briefing from the Soil Association, which is promoting a meeting tomorrow to discuss the possibility of using vaccination around the areas with the highest concentration of the disease. I shall be surprised if that I proposal does not receive a good deal of support from people who are concerned about the welfare implications of the strategy and the likelihood of succeeding with the methods that we have chosen. Although my right hon. Friend touched on the possibility that there might be a plan B should the mechanism that we have identified fail, we need urgently to work out whether there is a fall-back strategy that could be implemented reasonably quickly.
  The current strategy has my support. We have not established that it cannot work, although there is evidence that, in some parts of the country, resources are being overwhelmed by the demand placed on them. I have received many inquiries from people who are concerned

  409
  about the need for slaughter and the possibility of exploring alternatives. We should continue to keep an open mind and engage with the wider public in some of the complex issues that have not been played out. That is why I welcome the announcement of a briefing to journalists on Friday.
  I want to concentrate on the effectiveness of our delivery of the current strategy. We need to put any comments into context. I listened with care to the remarks made by experienced Conservative Members. It is easy for us to criticise with hindsight, and there has been a tremendous number of references to 1967. It is clear that this outbreak of the disease was not identified early, which means that the virus had numerous routes of transmission that could not be shut off because it had already passed through them. There appears to be far more movement of stock, particularly of sheep, than in 1967, making spread of the disease rapid and exposure wide and not readily predictable.
  The main carrier is our sheep flock, in which movements and locations of animals are far less traceable than in other species. Flocks and herds are far larger than in 1967, making the sheer scale of the outbreak far greater given the lack of early identification. This virus is particularly hard to spot in sheep, making early identification hard. Sheep are fanned extensively, making identification even more difficult in most conditions.
  The outcome of those disadvantages is that the disease is far more widespread than in 1967. I share the gloom of Front-Bench Members about the prospect of an early end to the disease or even an early sight of its peak. We face a logistical nightmare. Instead of the relatively tight concentration of outbreaks in the mdlands in 1967, we have outbreaks the length and breadth of the country. That makes the concentration of scarce critical skills in the right places much harder to achieve than before.
  When faced with such a problem it is normal, first, to define where those skills add most value and, wherever possible, to simplify the processes that skilled individuals have to follow and, secondly, ruthlessly to prioritise the tasks that they have to carry out. On that point, some of the comments about inexperience this time round have some resonance. Insufficient care has sometimes been taken to define clearly what vets do best and on what they should concentrate all their time. We have not used some of the key analytical and management skills early enough.
  The critical tasks in disease control are identifying the disease, valuing the stock, killing the animals and disposing of the carcases. When risk analysis is also involved, movement control management requires analytical skills of a high order. We have had to increase the number of vets available, and identification remains a vital task for the farmer himself. The Government have done their best to recruit vets, but a lack of vets is not the major cause of our difficulty. Understandably, there have been difficulties with valuation, for which there should be simple, fair formulae. I was encouraged by the fact that my right hon. Friend the Minister said that we are moving towards that.
  There is clearly a difficulty in getting qualified slaughtermen to the right places at the right time. As abattoirs are running well below capacity, it should surely be possible to bring those skills to the places where they are needed. Live animals pass on infections—as far as we can tell, often within hours. It is critical that the gap
  410
  between identification and slaughter be cut from days, which is how long it takes in some parts of the country. to hours.
  Destruction of carcases is less critical. In disease control, the critical issue is whether the animal is alive. The presence of carcases is obviously distressing to farmers and others and runs the risk of spreading other kinds of disease, but the destruction of carcases is clearly a lesser priority than some of the other tasks facing the team confronting the disease. As other hon. Members have said, burial is less of an option than in 1967 simply because of the scale of the herds and flocks that we are dealing with. There is also a greater awareness of the potential for pollution from burials. In my area, where there have been seven outbreaks, I would be extremely doubtful of the value of burials on land that lies within the flood plain. Nevertheless, it is clear that burials should be made easier, and we urgently need to clarify what might be the Environment Agency's concerns.
  Movement control is a complex process of risk analysis. The disease could be incubating at the time of movement and animals could be infected during that time, so any movement carries some risk. My constituents expect vigilance to prevent the further spread of the disease in the area. Many farmers have expressed concern to me about the complex process that must be undergone to acquire movement licences. That should be simplified for the convenience of farmers and, just as importantly, to reduce the work load on our hard-pressed public servants, who have better things to do than shunt bits of paper around the countryside.
  Clear information is critical to the handling of this crisis. Although MAFF's website is excellent in many respects, it is not always up to date. It should include details of sites where a form C has been issued. People should be aware of the high risk attached to a vet's opinion that an outbreak is likely to occur. Farmers have had one high-quality mailing, and I myself received one. They now need much more detailed practical information on issues such as obtaining movement licences, access to the voluntary scheme that has been referred to, rules on disinfectant and restocking and aid packages for farmers considering alternative uses for their property. They need to know how agrimonetary compensation schemes will be firmed up, how exactly the schemes will work and within what timetable.
  Initiatives are being taken in my area which are outside the Government's grasp. I commend the Derby Evening Telegraph campaign to aid farmers in the area. It works directly by fundraising and encouraging support for local rural enterprises that have been badly affected by foot and mouth because visitors and business partners have been discouraged from coming to see them. We need market support mechanisms to maintain the prices of the tradeable sector now and through recovery. I commend also the Minister's approach for examining the long-term issues. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) made some intelligent remarks about the issues that we must confront.
  Finally, we urgently need definition of the policies necessary to aid recovery. Many farmers face a complete reassessment of their life prospects, and it is entirely understandable that they may be considering retirement or an alternative future. We should help them in their time of need. Rural development plan resources are almost

  411
  certainly inadequate to meet that requirement. We should review the resources already set aside for schemes, which are available to fund alternatives to farming.
  Farming and related rural enterprises have a great future in this country. I have said that before and I say it again—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that this is a very important debate and many hon. Members want to participate. If everyone takes their 12 minutes, there will be widespread disappointment.
  7.48 pm
  Mr. Roger Gale: I shall endeavour to be brief, but I want to make a couple of points on behalf of the farmers of east Kent. The area is not recognised on the maps that one sees on television as being heavily affected by foot and mouth disease, but of course as in any other agricultural area, the knock-on effect is dramatic.
  I want to talk about animal welfare on behalf of farmers because there seems to be a mood abroad that farmers do not care. The press have indicated that some of my local farmers are weeping for their bank balances, and one farmer this morning described that quite simply as "offensive crap". He is right to use exactly those words. Farmers care enormously for the welfare of their animals. They care because, as that farmer said, if one has built up a flock of Merinos over three generations and that flock is slaughtered, one is likely to cry. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) referred to a field of lambs that the RSPCA ordered to be shot. The cameras do not go into those fields; they are not allowed to. The pictures that the public see on television are not the worst images, although piles of dead animals and palls of smoke are bad enough. The dying lambs; the ewes out in the cold; the pigs crammed into sheds unable to move; the cattle that cannot be moved—those are what ordinary people do not see in newspaper photographs or on television.
  This morning, a farmer told me about his flock of sheep on waterlogged pasture, with no edible grass. He has only a fortnight's supply of feed and once that is gone, he will be cleaned out and those animals will starve. I am told that sheep are already starving on the Isle of Sheppey in Kent. There is no veterinary care either; even if there was, the farmers cannot afford it. The impact of all of that on farmers who care for their animals is simply terrifying; the impact on the animals themselves is just as bad.
  I resented it when the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box this afternoon that thousands of sheep went to the abattoirs every week, and that just a fraction of the national herd was involved, so it did not matter. Of course it does. The knock-on effect extends beyond the animals that are culled and has an impact on every farm and every animal across the land. In the main, those animals cannot be moved into fresh pasture or shelter for lambing; they cannot be moved to feed in areas where there is no feed. The knock-on effect on those who supply wheat feed is just as bad because they cannot get their food to areas where the animals need it.
  As I said, the cameras are not going in so people are not seeing that. However, today my farmers and the British Veterinary Association told me, "Cull and bury, and do it
  412
  fast." That is the message, but there is a backlog of animals waiting for slaughter and burial. In the Chamber last night, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment quoted Humpty Dumpty in "Alice Through the Looking-Glass":
  "'When I use a word .. it means what I choose it to mean'" — [Official Report, 20 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 215.]
  Today's word seems to be logistics; that was the message from the Dispatch Box at Prime Minister's questions. The logistics team of soldiers—who, I am sure, are doing a good job—are going into the west country. However, people there do not need logistics; they need soldiers with machinery to go in and bury the dead animals.
  I am angry for those people because a farmer and his wife with dead animals in their pasture are like every man and every woman with their dead dog or dead cat lying unburied on their lawn for days. That is what the Prime Minister is ignoring. The Minister of Agriculture is a decent, honourable and caring man, and his speech was very beguiling indeed. However, the bottom line is that we need not logistics but troops to do the job—the culling and burying. We do not need vets to do that. The BVA and the farmers want that done, and they want it done now.
  I want my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) to listen. My farmers' criticism of him and of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—not the Government—was not that we had called for a postponement of local elections in Cumbria and Devon, but that we had not done that nation wide. There is no recognition that this is a nationwide problem; it is about not just Cumbria and Devon, but every farm in the land. Do the Government seriously believe that they can go ahead and send out canvassers because advertising has already been booked and 3 May is in the diary, holding the countryside and the rural economy in contempt, when Ministers should be doing the job that they were elected to do and sort out the crisis? If they do, they will pay a terrible price. The farmers are paying a terrible price now, and it behoves all of us to recognise that.
  7.55 pm
  Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) mentioned the need to look at strategy, and to consider whether it is right and whether it is working. I want to say a few things about both the short-term and long-term situation for my famers.
  In Pembrokeshire, we have two main industries, agriculture and tourism, both of which have been hit heavily in the past few weeks. We have been fortunate in not being directly affected; ours is still a clean area. However, we have had a couple of blips and worrying incidents, when everyone held their breath. Basically, we export livestock, including cattle, to other areas, where they are fattened up and we have therefore kept clear of foot and mouth disease.
  My farmers, with whom I have been regular contact since the outbreak started, wanted me, first, to tell the Minister how grateful they are that he is listening to what they have to say, and is being open about the advice that he is getting. That is a major concern for my farmers, especially bearing in mind the historical record. However, I shall not go into that now, because farmers also tell me that they are desperate that the issue should not become

  413
  political in any way. They are grateful for the cross-party approach to the issue, which is far too important to make cheap political points on the back of the United Kingdom's rural economy. That is the other prime message that my farmers in Pembrokeshire would want to give the House.
  I join my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell—Savours) in praising the role of Ben Gill, who has shown great courage in his approach to the problem. He, too, is looking to both the long term and the short term, even when it has been difficult for some of his members to cope with that.
  Although we must keep the problem clear of party political issues, we cannot ignore a couple of small points arising from past decisions. First, there is a shortage of vets because of the decimation over 10 years of the state veterinary service. Secondly—and this relates to my Pembrokeshire farmers—another problem arose from the restrictions imposed after the BSE cr sis.
  Mr. Damian Green rose—
  Mrs. Lawrence: I see the Opposition spokesman gesticulating. I hope that he will agree with what I am going to say, especially since his Government, regrettably, were responsible for those measures.
  Mr. Green: Two minutes ago, the hon. Lady said that farmers in her constituency did not want the problem to be treated with cheap political points. She is now making cheap political points.
  Mrs. Lawrence: I am terribly sorry if the hon. Gentleman thinks that raising regulations that had to be introduced because of BSE is a cheap political point. Those regulations are having a major impact on livestock farmers in my area. The over-30-months scheme, for example, is having an impact, along with movement restrictions. My farmers in Pembrokeshire are responsible people and could, if they wished, fatten their livestock on waste vegetable matter, as happens in other areas. They choose not to because they are responsible people who keep their animals on grass until the last minute and send them to market before the 30-month limit. As a result of the foot and mouth outbreak coming on top of the BSE restrictions, they must face the fact that they simply get the sum, under the OTMS, for cattle for which they would normally get market value.
  Since the end of February, I have argued in the House that affected farmers should be classed as eligible for direct, rather than consequential, compensation. As a result of the regulations, their cattle are as condemned, just as they would be if they had FMD. I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) chooses to ignore that fact.
  Several concerns that I expressed in our debate on 5 March have now been addressed. I spoke about small-scale movement of livestock within holdings, so I was pleased to hear about provision for further movement and for licensing longer journeys in clean areas. That provision will be helpful in my constituency.
  My local branch of the National Farmers Union has spoken to me about the role of the Army. It recently said, "Jackie, tell the Minister that we are desperately concerned. We want everybody to pull together, including
  414
  the Army, but we want them to be used appropriately." The Army could, for example, be put in charge of ensuring that proper disinfection systems are up and running for movements over long distances. It certainly has the necessary manpower for such tasks. The NFU has significant concerns, which I am sure were the basis of the comments that my right hon. Friend the Minister made earlier.
  I should like to make a quick point about the broader scene with regard to farming business and the wider rural economy. A couple of weeks ago, I rang the Samaritans in my area to find out how much more their services were being used. Clearly, some people are desperate about facing the future with so much uncertainty. I was told that not only in Pembrokeshire, but in the area represented by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) and in Carmarthenshire, a shortage of funding means that the Samaritans in those areas can offer a counselling service only during certain hours of the day. For the rest of the time, the service has to be switched to Swansea, an urban centre that is some 70 miles away. I ask local authorities throughout Wales and the United Kingdom to consider giving stronger support to organisations such as the Samaritans, as they are very useful in helping people to cope with difficult circumstances. They are especially important in respect of farming, as so many farmers lead extremely isolated existences.
  I have already mentioned the OTMS. Farmers have told me that a 28-day movement restriction is needed for animals that have just been purchased at market. It has been suggested that they should stay in one settlement before being moved again, so that any disease can manifest itself within those 28 days. I was sent an article from Farming News by Mr. William George, a livestock farmer in Camrose in my constituency. He pointed out the final paragraph of the article, which states:
  "The solution being mooted … is some form of movement control. A limit to the frequency of stock movement.
  It would mean more red tape and checks, but could have made isolating this terrible FMD outbreak much easier."
  The article deals with a matter of growing concern among people in Pembrokeshire.
  We have also read in the newspapers recently about farmers who have been responsible enough to take out insurance to cover them for of foot and mouth losses and whose policies have come up for renewal during the outbreak. Apparently, many farmers have been refused renewal by the insurance companies, which are happy to take money when there is no FMD, but whose attitude changes the minute that it appears on the scene. They are behaving immorally by not fulfilling their commitments to allow farmers to renew their policies. Will the Government please consider introducing a proper, Government-based insurance scheme that will cover all farmers in respect of any such problems in future?
  My farmers also continually express concerns about imports. I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend say that he would look into illegal imports and consider what action needs to be taken on them. He also gave an assurance that he would look into regulation regarding pig swill. It is an absolute scandal that £5,000 is the maximum fine for someone who is shown to have broken the rules by feeding unsterilised pig swill, when, if feeding unsterilised swill is shown to be the cause of the disease, it will have cost the British economy £9 billion.

  415
  I have spoken for only nine minutes, but I am aware that other hon. Members want to raise constituency issues. I should like to speak about one further concern among my farmers in Pembrokeshire. They are decent, honest people who are trying to make a living from the land. They have been most anxious about reports published recently in the national media about movements arising from so-called sheep leasing, allegedly used to beat quotas; there have also been reports of some farmers moving animals closer to sources of infection. Of course, anxieties have also been expressed about illegal movements in general. My farmers are anxious for the Government to take quick and efficient action if there proves to be any substance to those allegations. They fear that unless such action is taken, illegal activities could wrongly influence people's attitudes towards them, as they are honest, decent people.
  8.5 pm
  Sir Robert Smith: I shall try to follow the example of the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) and keep my remarks short.
  Like many rural MPs, I have been approached by many farmers who are very worried about the outbreak. On one occasion, two farmers' wives "hijacked" me into their car as I walked down the street. They wanted to press the concerns that I hope to get on the record now. Obviously, the Minister of State may not be able to address all my points; if so, I hope that MAFF will consider the details and write to me.
  I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), who made a general case about all farmers and the economic plight that they are suffering, whether or not they are directly affected by the disease. I want also to associate myself with comments made by other hon. Members about the wider community.
  The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) rightly raised the issue of consequential costs, which the Government will have to confront. We are discussing a major crisis that has hit an industry that was already on its knees, and which was blighted by so many other problems that it simply could not take on board the consequential losses of the outbreak. I join in expressing sympathy for people in the area represented by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and in neighbouring constituencies. Many of them have been devastated by the disease, and I thank him for expressing the wish that the rest of us will not face such serious problems.
  I am disappointed that even when Ministers say that welfare movements will be improved, it takes time for such changes to be made. Once the hope has been prompted that a measure will be introduced to help in dealing with the crisis, it must be delivered as quickly as possible if farmers' morale is to be kept up. They sit at home and see the issues being reported, but then find that they are not necessarily arriving on the ground.
  Many people are anxious about the quality of imports and have asked about their control and inspection. Labelling is a related concern. It is extremely disappointing for farmers to hear about carcases entering
  416
  the country to be butchered here and then turn up as British meat in the supermarket, especially when they have met far higher quality standards than the producers of that imported meat and have paid proper attention to disease and to human health.
  If licensed movement is to work for the farmers, proper capacity is required in the abattoirs. Farmers have told me about their worry that the imports of foreign meat that arrived during the complete close-down have reduced the available capacity to make such licensed movement work. What are the Government doing to monitor the abattoirs' capacity and their ability to provide an outlet at the other end of the process? If such measures are to relieve farmers' problems, abattoirs must be able to process the stock.
  Abattoirs have raised with me another serious concern. They are worried about how long they will have to close down for if they open up to take licensed movements but end up receiving infected animals. The risk of closing down for a month—the time scale applied for many closures—and suffering the consequent damage is not one that they are willing to take. That risk is especially great with regard to sheep whose symptoms are less obvious.
  I heard on the phone recently about worries in respect of the fact that some flocks have been traced back to the market very late in the process. Farmers who are trying to protect their herds want reassurance that information on where every movement has ended up is now out in the open. They do not want suddenly to find that a nearby flock carries a high risk and that they have not been able to take extra precautions.
  Let us consider the wider lessons and the way in which we can deal with some the problems of movement. One farmer made the point that if we are going to create producer co-operatives, reduce movements and introduce electronic auctions, farmers need to have more confidence in the grading at abattoirs. Any sizeable producer co-operative will have to use more than one abattoir. Such producers will not get a choice of abattoirs, but if they opt out of the co-operative, they can choose the abattoir where the grading is most sympathetic to the supplier. I have raised that point with Ministers and the Meat and Livestock Commission.
  Farmers have made the valid point that if they have no confidence in the grading system, they will not happily auction animals electronically to any old abattoir for a price that can be downgraded when the animals arrive. For farmers to reduce movements and ensure that the system is working efficiently, they must have confidence in the grading system.
  I want to emphasise the strain on those farmers who are not yet directly affected. That is a problem throughout the country. It is vital that we learn lessons from the crisis. Clearly, most of MAFF's energy must be directed at containing and controlling the outbreak. However, it must also try to learn how to avoid a recurrence. We cannot go through such a crisis again. If the original trigger is not identified, fully understood and placed on the record as soon as possible, we cannot be confident that we will have the necessary precautions for avoiding a recurrence.
  I stress to the media the importance of balance. It is difficult for them to deal with a continuing crisis that takes time to develop, because they need a new story or angle all the time. The fire-break strategy caused a media feeding frenzy about the slaughter of healthy animals. An

  417
  outbreak of any disease on a farm means that all animals on the farm are slaughtered. Some may be healthy at the time, but all animals must be slaughtered to contain the disease. The fire-break strategy is simply an extension of that, because the disease is not easily contained or easily detectable. Rather than referring to the slaughter of healthy animals, the media should use the phrase "apparently healthy". The strategy is being used to remove infectivity from the flock.
  I especially remember Kevin Bouquet revealing the journalist's lack of perspective when he nearly began a report by saying, "They are about to murder"—before correcting himself and using the word "slaughter". There must be perspective in reporting the outbreak if the wider public are to understand and embrace the strategy.
  Obviously, I cannot meet farmers groups now. However, in meetings between representatives of NFU branches, Members of Parliament and Members of the Scottish Parliament, and with individual farmers, I have been impressed by the energy with which they try to understand the wider issues that affect their industry and the complexities that surround them. Often, when I am on a platform and one farmer confronts me with a question that is almost impossible to answer, another mentions the complex reason for a certain regulation, for instance, before I have a chance to try to reply.
  Farmers live and breathe their industry. Farming is not a nine-to-five job; it takes over farmers' lives. The crisis deeply affects them and their families. The nature of the disease controls means that their natural support networks are not there. I hope that the wider community understands how seriously they are affected, and that the Government recognise the importance of tackling the crisis, and of taking every possible measure to contain it now. I urge them on in their actions. They must accept some of the anxieties about implementation and the need to take advice from the Army. They must take their action forward because the disease must be tackled quickly, efficiently and effectively if the strain is to be removed from all our farmers and the wider community.
  8.14 pm
  Mr. Huw EdwardsIt is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith), who speaks with great authority about the experience in Scotland, and to follow other hon. Members who have spoken with passion about the serious predicament that faces the country. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) told especially disturbing stories and spoke very well.
  I did not expect to attend a debate in the House today, because I had made plans to be in my constituency to share a platform with the Archbishop of Wales. I regret that I am not able to do that, but I am sure that people will appreciate the necessity of my being here to speak on behalf of the farmers of Monmouthshire.
  Until last Friday, we had had a few scares, but no outbreaks in Monmouthshire. Last Friday, the first case was confirmed on a small farm in Grosmont near the Hereford border. The outbreak in Llancloudy in Herefordshire meant that movement across much of Monmouthshire was restricted. The case in Grosmont sent a shudder through Monmouthshire farmers, who expressed to me the anxieties that I shall outline.
  418
  Although the outbreak in Grosmont was confirmed on Friday, the stock was not slaughtered until Monday. I took that up with the Ministry vet in Cardiff, who informed me that the infected stock were killed over the weekend, but local farmers dispute that. I should like my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to make inquiries at the National Assembly for Wales about that.
  Neighbouring farmers say that they were not formally notified of the case and they believe that communications have not been as good as Ministers said they ought to be. There has been a suspect case at the neighbouring farm of Mr. David Probert, who was chairman of the Monmouthshire branch of the National Farmers Union until a couple of years ago. He shot the suspect sheep immediately and put them in bags. He is now awaiting, with some trepidation, confirmation of an outbreak. I have discussed those matters with Mr. David Thomas, the Ministry vet in Cardiff, and I appreciate his help, advice and willingness to speak to local farmers.
  I recently spoke to a pig farmer in my constituency. We have few pig farms in Monmouthshire, but Mr. Whittal-Williams informed me that there are 3,000 pigs currently on his farm. At this stage, he would normally have only 2,000. The extra pigs are overweight and growing rapidly. They cannot be housed adequately, they are fighting each other and some have even fallen into the slurry pit and drowned. That is an especially disturbing animal welfare case. Mr. Whittal-Williams feels incredibly frustrated that he cannot either get the pigs to abattoirs, which will not take them anyway, or get them destroyed on animal welfare grounds and be compensated. I welcome the announcement of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture that animal welfare considerations for slaughtering such pigs will be in force as quickly as possible.
  In recent discussions in my constituency with the NFU and the Farmers Union of Wales representatives expressed anxiety about the welfare of sheep in Monmouthshire, about the need to move lambing ewes indoors, and about farms that are divided by the restricted area boundary. Farmers cannot bring their sheep from one part of the farm to another because the boundary runs through it. They also want to be able to bring home sheep that are on tack, so I am glad that licences are available for that. I am grateful for the representations that farmers have made to me and for being able to convey them to Ministers.
  Farmers have expressed anxiety about dealers who buy and sell livestock around the country and put small groups of livestock together. As my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) said, a 28-day restriction on livestock movement could help to prevent such outbreaks.
  Farmers have also expressed frustration over the role allocated to the Army and hon. Members have spoken of the need to involve the Royal Engineers. I have in my constituency the senior Territorial Army regiment in the country: the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers. They go out on exercises every month.
  Mr. James Gray: I have heard the hon. Gentleman say that before. The senior Territorial

  419
  Army regiment in Britain is, of course, the Honourable Artillery Company, which is 200 years older than the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers.
  Mr. Edwards: Thank you, Jamest—that was really useful. The hon. Gentleman has intervened on me on that point three or four times, and I still believe that I am absolutely correct. The regiment that the hon. Gentleman represents is the oldest, whereas the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers is the senior regiment. I hope that my point has been made.
  Farmers with pedigree herds are also concerned that, if the disease spreads, they will have their entire herds wiped out after building them up for many years. The previous owners of their farms, perhaps their fathers, often helped to build up such herds, and it would be a tremendous tragedy if they were to be lost completely.
  I am grateful for the way in which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has dealt with the crisis. As I said in the House a week or so ago, the farmers of Monmouthshire do not often compliment Agriculture Ministers. I have represented them when there has been a Conservative Agriculture Minister, as I now represent them when there is a Labour one, and there is a feeling that my right hon. Friend has handled the crisis rationally and soundly. That is not to say that they have not been concerned about some aspects of the crisis and how it has been dealt with. Of course, there has been concern about the delays in having sheep and other livestock identified and slaughtered.
  I am grateful that my right hon. Friend has made available the agrimonetary compensation. It is important to reiterate that this Government have devoted more than £600,000 to agrimonetary compensation, whereas the previous Government did not devote one penny to it. Agrimonetary compensation is not compensation for foot and mouth, but it is right that it has been brought in as quickly as possible to provide an important mitigating form of support.
  The tourist industry in my constituency is very important. My constituency includes the beautiful Wye valley, and the Llanthony valley, of which many people are unaware. I hope that, when the time is right, they will be able to visit it. In those tourist areas, market towns such as Monmouth, Chepstow, Abergavenny and Usk have all been affected by people's sense of responsibility that they ought not to travel into rural parts of the country. Perhaps that feeling is genuinely felt, but it is somewhat misguided. We have so many attractive pubs, restaurants and hotels, probably all of which have been affected in one way or another by the lack of custom resulting from the restrictions.
  I have been speaking to the proprietors of the Crown hotel at Whitebrook in my constituency. It is a beautiful small hotel with an equally beautiful restaurant, which has suffered quite considerably. I know that the proprietors appreciated the measures that the Minister for the Environment announced yesterday. Those announcements went further than many people in the tourist trade had anticipated, and I am sure that those people are grateful for that and will look forward to the introduction of any future measures.
  The farming community has been subject to a number of crises in the past five to 10 years, and now it is facing another crisis. I hope that we can all work together to
  420
  support those in tha community who have worked with great resolution. I feel the greatest sympathy for them, but they need much more than sympathy and I hope that we can work together to bring about a resolution to this crisis.
  8.23 pm
  Mr. Eric Pickles: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) and express my commiserations to him and his farmers. Mi e was the first constituency in which the fires started to brn, and I know exactly what he must be going through. I is very difficult talking to farmers whose livelihoods ae being destroyed before their eyes. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) talked about Members of Parliament all being social workers now, and that is indeed the case. We are spending a lot of time with our farmers, trying to solve various problems.
  I am pleased to see the Minister of State on the Front Bench. It would be churlish of me not to thank her for her office's help when I had a problem earlier last week with getting some sheep moved to Brindles farm in my constituency from the neighbouring fields. The farm is well outside the 3 km net, and was working within the regulations, but people on the ground were unwilling to take the necessary decision. Had it not been for the kind intervention of the right hon. Lady's office, that movement would not have happened, which would have led to the unnecessary deaths of perfectly healthy sheep.
  That case illustrates the problem that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) mentioned, which is that people are unwilling to take decisions. It is absurd that a Member of Parliament has to ring the Minister of State's office to arrange for a few sheep to be pushed through a hole in a hedge in a field in Essex. There is a lesson to be learned from that.
  I also need to thank the right hon. Lady for the decision to speed up the opening of the abattoir in my constituency in which the foot and mouth outbreak was first diagnosed. I went round the abattoir last Friday with the owner, looking at the preparations for reopening, and I was struck by the necessity of getting that abattoir back into operation. It was strategically important for the pig industry of the United Kingdom, and it will help enormously in dealing with the problems from which that industry is suffering. It is a good thing that it is going to reopen, particularly as it ensured, by being so vigilant, that the foot and mouth outbreak was identified so early.
  One of the more chilling aspects of the Minister of Agriculture's statement this afternoon was his saying that the crisis—far from being over and far from being under control—is going to get much worse, and that the number of cases, and the number of herds affected, is going to rise. The disease is undoubtedly going to spread. We are experiencing exactly the same sort of thing that we did in 1967. This is a peculiar disease, because it will jump over a farm, missing it completely, and occur in another one. It will then jump again, quite wildly, across the county.
  My worry is that, while we are trying to get this outbreak, this epidemic, this great crisis under control, we now have to start to think about what is going to be left. I believe that we need a rescue package. We have gone beyond talking about compensation now. We have gone beyond haggling over individual carcases. We are talking about what is going to be left, what kind of British agriculture will exist, and what kind of support services there will be, in terms of abattoirs and haulage services.

  421
  Gaining control over this dreadful disease should not blind us to coming up with a rescue package. After all, in one small section of the pig industry, 800 tonnes of sow carcases are being processed every week. Something is happening to those pigs that are not going to slaughter. We know the effects and we have to ensure that, as we start to bring the industry together, there is some means left by which the industry can survive.
  Many problems that farmers face, especially the fall in farm incomes, have been described today, most notably by my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin). About three weeks before the outbreak, I met about 16 farmers who are well established in my constituency to discuss the crisis in the industry. They said that few of their children want to take over their farms and many have gone into other businesses. A young farmer who graduated from Reading university about three years ago told me that only two of his class are active in agriculture. People have moved into jobs elsewhere.
  Farmers tell me that they are simply overstaffed. Many are keeping people on because of the commitment that they feel towards their employees, but the prospect of their being able to retain staff is beginning to diminish as the crisis deepens. Farmers quote a long list of burdens that have been placed on them by the Government and local government, such as having to collect taxes, having to distribute benefits, having to fill in forms and having to duplicate paperwork for different Departments.
  Yesterday, I was surprised by the Minister for the Environment's comments on the climate change levy. He said, "Don't worry about the climate change levy. It will not really affect farms." He added that
  "overwhelmingly, it will be larger and non-rural businesses that will certainly have liabilities under the levy." —[Official Report, 20 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 195.]
  I am sure that that is absolutely right. More urban businesses will be involved, but rural businesses will also be affected by the levy. Significantly, my farmers raised the climate change levy with me and have also received telephone calls about it since the outbreak.
  Even if the Minister for the Environment is right about the long-term benefits that the levy will achieve, surely it makes sense to ensure that farmers who are facing up to these great difficulties are relieved of that problem. Why place additional burdens on farmers at this most difficult time?
  Today, I talked to an old friend who is a hill farmer in the Pennines, where I used to live. His farm and his area are fortunately free of foot and mouth, but he wanted me to tell the House that if foot and mouth strikes, he will give up. That applies not only to him but to the majority of his neighbours. Restocking simply would not be worth while—he could not afford to restock—and if farmers go out of business, the nature of the Pennine foothills will change for ever.
  May I make a suggestion to the Minister about how to get the pig industry back in operation when the crisis passes? East Anglia, for example, has been hit badly because it has suffered from classical swine fever, so we must recognise what has happened to that industry. When foot and mouth descended on us, pigmeat imports increased enormously, but some supermarkets underestimated consumers and put on the market joints that people simply did not want. The net result was the complete collapse in the price of pigmeat.
  422
  To retrieve the position, we need to go with the market and the way it operates. We must support infrastructure and we should encourage the private commercial storage of pigmeat by giving aid to abattoirs. Such a system could operate only if it went with the general trend: modern consumers want meat traceability. Encouraging private storage of meat by commercial abattoirs would enable us, in time, to offer a guarantee that such pork came from a farm free of foot and mouth. That would be a better way in which to stabilise quality in the market after the crisis and I hope that the Minister will consider ways to achieve that which flow with the general mood of market.
  I have one message to pass on from my farmers: the crisis is about respect. They expect the Government to respect the countryside. Ministers talk about people going to the countryside, but that runs contrary to what they know is right in respect of ensuring that the outbreak does not spread. When they talk about tourism, my farmers say that what they are really talking about is the enormous amount that the Labour party has spent on posters and its publicity campaign.
  The signal for which the outside world does not look is a Labour candidate wandering up the drive in a borrowed Barbour and a red rosette. That is not what will end the crisis.
  8.35 pm
  Mr. David Drew: When I last spoke in a debate on this subject, my speech preceded that of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). He made some nice remarks about me, and until the last minute of his speech tonight, I had intended to make some nice remarks about him. I could go along with nearly all he said during the first 11 minutes, but that last minute contained remarks that could be described as a little far-fetched.
  This has been a sombre debate, as indeed it needed to be. It has also been an honest debate. However, some of us become riled by accusations based on the idea of town versus country. Many of us represent what I would describe as semi-rural areas, which contain urban centres in the form of market towns but which also feature a rural hinterland in the villages and the surrounding land, most of which is farmland.
  At times such as this, it behoves everyone to try to bring people together. I have been genuinely impressed by some sharing of ideas about strategy and by the attempts of politicians on both sides of the divide to find some hope in what has been happening. There is no case for politicking: many people look to this place for leadership, and they will not find it if we are seen to be bickering and point scoring.
  We are going through an emotional time, and we have heard some moving speeches. I pay special tribute to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), whose constituencies are at the centre of the catastrophe.
  We are, in fact, talking about three separate parts of the agricultural environment. There are the hot spots—Cumbria, Dumfries and Galloway, and Devon. There are a number of other areas in which infectivity is present, and must be dealt with through a range of measures. Then there is the rest of the country, which may have experienced the odd case but to which we are trying to

  423
  restore some normality. We are, however, sharing common worries and calling together for the cohesive action that is needed.
  If there is any lesson that we can learn from today's debate, it is this. It is not necessarily the case that mistakes have been made, but there have been problems in the way in which policies have evolved, and in the way in which decisions were—or should have been—made.
  We should recognise, following what was said by my right hon. Friend the Minister, that more bad news seems likely, but as the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar sensibly said, the disease is difficult to predict. There have been two outbreaks in my constituency, and there is no rhyme or reason as to why those holdings suffered and others have not. Pray God the others will not suffer, but there is a measure of uncertainty about how the disease begins to take hold, which makes coming up with solutions that much more difficult—if, that is, we are to avoid the most drastic solution, which is the "clean ring", or proactive culling.
  There is much that we should try to do in regard to the science of the problem. Some of that is for the future, but we need to use some science today to learn how to discover further outbreaks as quickly as possible, to implement a slaughter policy, and—this seems to be, in many respects, the most difficult aspect—to dispose of animals in the right way.
  Alongside the science of dealing with the disease are all the usual problems over money and compensation. It may be of secondary importance, but we fool ourselves if we regard it as being of no importance. Unfortunately, for all sorts of reasons, people haggle.
  As I said in an intervention during the speech of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), there was some criticism of the work of valuers in the other place. I have talked to valuers and they have fiercely defended their position and the way in which they work under pressure. They seem to be paid more than vets from private practice, and perhaps that needs to be changed, but we need all those people in place.
  It is not a question of MAFF doing all the work, with the help of the Army and other public servants. We are indebted to the private service and must try to make that relationship work as well as it can. When I talk about the public service, it is important to remember local government, as I have tried to do whenever I have spoken, because it has done an amazing amount of good work.
  I want to talk about agriculture because that is the issue that most affects me and we should, I suppose, concentrate on it, but like every other hon. Member in an affected area where there is infectivity, I know that other parts of our environment and the context in which people live their lives are being drastically affected. I have in my constituency the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust centre at Slimbridge, which for the past two weeks has been closed. An organisation that relies almost entirely on people coming through the door—I accept that there is some charitable giving on top of that—is day after day incapable of opening. It has staff with whom it does not know what to do. Should it get them to do some tidying up or research, or should it lay them off? Those are the dramatic, drastic decisions that people face in those areas.
  424
  I am indebted to MAFF because it has helpfully clarified the position with regard to whether such organisations should be open or closed. That makes a lot of difference in respect not only of loss of revenue in the immediate future, but of possible insurance claims and of how to re-gear. Businesses based around other wildlife face a tricky transitional period in getting the public back into their facilities again. It will perhaps not be as tricky as restocking will be for our farmers, but it is a difficult exercise that must be thought through carefully. People will need monetary help as well as advice on how to do it.
  Other hon. Members have spent some time going through the antecedents of the disease. I can make suppositions only on the basis of what we appear to know about where it came from, the implications of that and the way in which it has spread throughout the country. My hon. Friends the Members for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) and for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) both talked about the movement of animals throughout the country. We need to consider carefully whether those movements are excessive and whether we should demand that animals stay in situ for longer.
  Whether one thinks that that was a causal feature or an effect, the nature of the movement of sheep in particular has added to the seriousness of the outbreaks. I do not mind saying that we must question at least some of the ways in which dealers operate. Perhaps they feel that they are in the frame to take too much of the blame. They will in due course have the opportunity, through the media and in other ways, to defend their position.
  From talking to farmers—dealers are, in their own way, farmers—I know that there is some question about whether we have gone too far in allowing such movement to take place. That leads us to questions about the food chain. Clearly, sheep are not traceable in the way that cattle and pigs are. More particularly, we must look at the centralisation of the food chain and how we move animals nationally and internationally. Some animals were exported to France and had to be slaughtered.
  I want to look forward. We know the difficulties of the current situation and we feel great sorrow for those who are affected and in the depths of despair. However, we will see the problem through and get on top of foot and mouth. In so doing, we must recognise that, in reconstructing the industry, we must learn some lessons. There may be some value in re-engineering a localised food chain that locks into what the consumer seems to want. That is not a call for a drastically different food chain, but one that is in tune with what the customer wants. That will involve different production and distribution methods, which cannot come too soon.
  We must examine how MAFF has performed. There seems to be agreement across the House that it has handled the basic strategy well, but there are points of detail, particularly in the hot spots. I heard what was said by hon. Members from Cumbria, where things are very difficult. There is an issue about the command-and-control structure and the way in which MAFF can give information. We can learn from that and get on top of the disease. We must look outwards and onwards, as that is what our farmers want at this time.
  8.47 pm
  Mrs. Angela Browning: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise some matters of great importance to my constituents. We have cases of foot and

  425
  mouth and, as in many other constituencies, the farming community is on tenterhooks. The pressure on farms—particularly the small family farms in my constituency, which is a livestock area—is enormous. I hope that, as the days go by, we will hear about the ways in which the Government are addressing the issues raised tonight and on earlier dates by hon. Members because the present situation needs to be changed.
  In my area, slaughtered animals have been left in fields for up to a week before removal. However, it is not just that they lie in the fields. They are attacked by vermin, and that is a matter of great concern in terms of the spreading of the disease. Of course, moving animals that have been lying in that condition for a week is a very unpleasant task. Anyone who knows what happens to an animal post mortem will know that. There is also an added risk in terms of what is spread when the animals are moved.
  Ministers have heard pleas from both sides of the House. It is essential that animals be disposed of immediately they are slaughtered. The plan must be there and put into action. Members on both sides have called for the Army to be more actively involved. In Devon, it has been deployed this week, but not for the purpose of overseeing the removal and disposal of animal carcases.
  I have heard the arguments against burial on farms. Clearly, there are some farms and parts of farms where burial would be highly inappropriate, particularly because of leaching, contamination and the level of the water table. However, farmers know their land, and I believe that carcases could be disposed of on-farm in many cases. In that way, we could speed up the system and allow vets to be released to do other work. That would make a significant difference, as the task of overseeing the disposal of animals could well be left to the armed forces.
  The Minister of Agriculture said that the problem was likely to get worse. The figures in my area show that it is getting worse every day. We must therefore make big changes in how we tackle the slaughter of animals and the disposal of carcases.
  I intervened on the Minister earlier about a case in my constituency involving the welfare of pigs, and I was grateful for his response. People in this country say that they care about animal welfare, but they would be appalled if they could see some of the critical problems on-farm. The pig industry especially is in great distress, as animals are growing in size and are densely stocked. On welfare grounds, therefore, something must be done to help pig herds.
  The scheme introduced last Thursday has a proper structure. Matters to do with compensation remain to be discussed, but I reiterate a plea that I have made before: will the Ministry please allow animals to be slaughtered on veterinary certification alone? We could then deal with the rest of the bureaucracy and the payments afterwards. Such an approach is justified on welfare grounds, and it would mean that we could start to sort out some of the pig industry's problems tomorrow.
  I want to pay tribute to Mrs. Jean Turnbull of the National Pig Association. Her telephone number has been circulated around the country, so that pig farmers undergoing a great deal of stress and worry can ring her, day or night. She has also given out her mobile number for the same reason. All hon. Members who have had to deal with some distressing cases in the past two weeks
  426
  will have appreciated the fact that people like Jean Turnbull have offered their support in helping to talk people through their problems.
  We should not underestimate the stress that the farming community is going through. It is tragic and difficult for people to come to terms with the slaughter of their animals, but hon. Members from all parties have noted that the problem is not confined to them. Families waiting to see whether they are going to be the next to suffer are also under stress. For instance, a lady telephoned in the morning a week ago last Sunday as I was peeling the vegetables, saying that she just had to talk to someone. That illustrates the stress that families are going through.
  The consequence of the outbreak for many people will be that they will lose their farms. Tenant farmers in my constituency tell me that they will have nothing if they lose all their stock. Many of them are close to retirement, and do not have the years in front of them in which they can rebuild. Even if they were given the money tomorrow, the experience has knocked the stuffing out of people of that older generation. I therefore urge the Minister of State to look at what can be done to help those who want to leave farming, and to give hope to the younger generation who will have to face the challenge of restocking and starting again under the most severe of circumstances.
  It will be a long time before farms can be restocked. People's financial problems arising from the loss of stock will be exacerbated by the fact that there will be a long lead time before they can restock and get going again.
  All hon. Members pray that the outbreak ends as soon as possible, but the reality is that it will not just disappear. The problem will remain for some months to come. Even when the last case has been dealt with, there will be a long period of restructuring and reorganisation before farms can get back into business.
  I also ask the Minister of State to address the situation, particularly in the west country, where there are animals that could be slaughtered for the food chain now. I was encouraged to hear the figures on how the amount of meat in various species is increasing in terms of its distribution through the food chain.
  I am particularly concerned about the sheep industry and about getting more sheep into the food chain. This is the time of year when thousands of animals, known in the west country as hoggets, are ready for the table. They are about a year old and have been fattened up. We need those animals to come to slaughter and to enter the food chain. Has the Ministry considered whether there may be a case for intervention if the meat from animals that are slaughtered for the food chain is not immediately taken into the food chain? That would give farmers some hope.
  Some farmers are having difficulty feeding their stock. Mr. Lee, in Sandford in my constituency, has a feed bill of £4,000 a week, but no income. Mr. Hill, who farms a smaller farm in Ashley, has a feed bill of £1,000 a week, but no income. Farmers are extremely worried about how they will continue to feed their animals. Has MAFF considered contingency arrangements for emergency feedstuffs when the feed runs out, as it certainly will for some of my farmers in the next couple of weeks? They will not be able to buy feed for their animals because they cannot pay for it, which is very distressing.
  Much has been said about bureaucracy. I know only too well how difficult it is to get wheels turning as quickly as one would like on occasions. However, a little more

  427
  flexibility would help. In my constituency, for example, there is a very small, minor country road going through a farm. It is between Uplowman village and Stag Mill. The local villagers have, by consent, decided not to use the road through the farm because there is an alternative lane that can easily be used to bypass it. They do not want to put the farm at risk. The "road closed" signs put up by the villagers were taken down by the authorities, and they were told that they would be fined if they did it again. That is surely bureaucratic nonsense.
  I have not phoned the Minister's office about the matter because I know that she has a lot of very difficult cases to deal with and that a lot of people are ringing her. However, where common sense prevails in a local community whose members want to protect the local farm, surely that common sense can be respected, without the need for an official to take the signs down. After all, it will not inconvenience anybody. That is an indication of the enormous concern and respect felt in the rural community for farms. The problem affects the whole countryside.
  We have heard much this week about alternative industries in the rural areas connected with farming—perhaps not the most obvious ones—that are affected. I ask the Minister of State, as many hon. Members have tonight, to clarify what is meant by access to the countryside. I confess that I would be hard-pressed to advise a constituent what it really means. It is not sufficient to say that people should not go near grazing animals in fields. We all know that the disease can be transmitted on the wheels of vehicles and by people. Although human beings are not affected by the disease, they can carry it, so there is a certain nervousness in rural communities, which understand these things, about what is meant by access to the countryside.
  A lady in my constituency has just invested her life savings in a fishing tackle shop, yet people cannot go out into the countryside to fish—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Many hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate, so I ask Members to be brief so that as many as possible may speak.
  8.59 pm
  Mr. Nick Ainger: I shall be as brief as I can, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  I have great sympathy with all the hon. Members who have spoken about the way in which their constituencies have been directly affected by outbreaks of foot and mouth disease. I am fortunate enough to have a large farming constituency that has not, so far, had an outbreak, although a suspected case a few weeks ago turned out to be negative.
  I intend to speak on the impact of the current situation on my constituency and my farmers. I have some suggestions for my right hon. Friend the Minister of State that may ease matters. My farmers have problems of animal welfare and the costs that flow from that. In particular, the establishment of the longer-distance licence movement scheme has raised some problems. It is, I accept, a brand new scheme, which is bound to have
  428
  teething problems, but it is important to address such problems quickly so that movements in my constituency and that of my he n. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs Lawrence) may take place.
  Pembrokeshire, Carmarthenshire and, to a lesser extent, Ceredigion are areas in which there are many sheep during winter. Thousands of sheep from elsewhere in Wales are now on pasture that should be used for dairy herds. That is adding significantly to animal welfare problems for sheep that should be moved elsewhere and to the costs of farmers who want to get their dairy herds into the fields.
  There are also welfare problems for dairy herds that are off their home farms and within the same area but outside the short-distance movement radius for the previous licensing scheme. That problem was brought to my attention by Mr. and Mrs. John, whose home farm is near Templeton in my constituency, but who rent land 25 to 30 miles away in Angle. They have 50 dairy cows calving on that land at the moment. They want to bring the cows to their home farm for obvious reasons. They are travelling three times a day back and forth, which is not a good thing when we are trying to limit the number of movements. It is essential that the licence scheme for longer-distance movement should be got up and running.
  The initial problem with the availability of application forms has now been sorted. That was followed by the problem of centres for disinfection and cleaning of vehicles, which are essential. That, too, is now up and running. Now, however, as my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) said, there are questions about the licences themselves. I understand that matters are in hand, but the licences must be made available as quickly as possible.
  I perceive a further problem. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State said that movements would be accompanied, and I have reservations about that. I understand that agricultural development advisory service staff will accompany the vehicles, but as some round trips may amount to 100 or 200 miles, tying up staff to accompany some vehicles may create a problem with finding personnel to accompany others. As the vehicles will be sealed, just as Customs and Excise seals bonded vehicles between a port and a bonded warehouse, would it not be better for ADAS staff to seal a vehicle at one end and have another member of staff at the receiving farm to ensure that the seal had not been tampered with? It would seem better to use ADAS personnel in that way than to insist on them making the full journey.
  I want to raise with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State the over-30-months scheme, to which other hon. Members have also referred. An early decision is needed that payment will be made to farmers with beef cattle who, through no fault of their own, cannot get the cattle to market before the 30-months deadline and who thus make a substantial loss. That would be welcome.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food referred to the need to establish collection centres so that the smaller beef producers can put together a load of animals to be taken to an abattoir. I realise that there are difficulties, but I hope that work will continue on such schemes; they offer a way of ensuring that beef cattle get to an abattoir before the 30-months deadline

  429
  I have some comments on the wider rural economy. As I have pointed out in previous debates, I was a Member of Parliament when we were dealing with the Sea Empress disaster, which had a massive effect on the tourism industry although there was a huge compensation scheme. In my constituency, the tourism sector is probably far larger than the agriculture sector in that it employs more people and generates more revenue. Even in seaside resorts such as Tenby and Saundersfoot, hoteliers are already expressing real concern about the impact of foot and mouth.
  We learned several lessons from our experience after the Sea Empress disaster in 1996. The first was that perception is all. News programmes covered in great detail, rightly, the environmental damage—the huge amounts of oil washed up on the Carmarthenshire and south Pembrokeshire coasts. During the first week of that disaster, the phones rang constantly at the hotels and caravan parks; unfortunately, all the calls were cancellations. Even though the disaster happened in February, people were cancelling their July and August holidays because of their perception that the whole environment of Pembrokeshire was so seriously damaged that they would not be able to take their holidays. That was not true, but that was the perception at the time.
  The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who is not in his place at present, referred to the cancellation of the county council elections—as did his hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). If that happened, the perception would be that the whole British countryside had closed down. We know that that is not true—especially those of us who live in our rural constituencies. We know that people are moving about. I accept that there are real restrictions in those areas where there are outbreaks, but the vast bulk of Britain has no restrictions—people just need to be sensible.
  The hon. Member for Nest Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) said that the advice from MAFF was hit and miss—it was not clear. However, it is horses for courses. We cannot have people walking across the moors in the Peak district, where there are huge areas of open land and a large number of sheep; but elsewhere, people can go into the countryside to visit particular attractions or towns—to castles, beaches and so on. We have to get that message across.
  Timing is all. That is the second lesson that we learned from the Sea Empress. It is pointless to mount a massive advertising campaign—as has been suggested—if, while we are trying to promote the idea that everything is okay in the countryside, we see only bu ning pyres on our news programmes.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment rightly announced, following the work of the taskforce, that investment and additional resources will available to tourism associations and so on, but it is essential that the advertising campaign is timed correctly, otherwise it will be completely fruitless. The intention will not be achieved because people's perceptions will be formed by what they see on their television screens. No matter how many adverts are run and how many articles appear in newspapers, we shall not achieve our aims while those pictures remain on our television screens. It is essential that the campaign takes place and that we gear up for it, because there is no question that it will be needed.
  430
  There will be very large consequential losses not only in agriculture, but in the tourism sector. I am very pleased with yesterday's announcement, but it is an interim statement, and the taskforce clearly needs to undertake further work. However, I remain convinced that substantial funds will have to be made available in various forms to the rural economy, to our farmers and to our tourism sector, so that they can fully recover.
  9.11 pm
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Together with the constituency represented by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), my constituency, which is in south-west Cheshire, is the largest milk field in Europe and the most intensive dairy farming area in the United Kingdom. That area was at the epicentre of the 1967–68 outbreak of foot and mouth, which devastated the farmers, their families, the rural communities and many of my constituents and their forebears in Darnhall, Winsford and the other villages in the area.
  The book, "Plague on the Cheshire Plain"—published in 1969, by the then editor and his colleague of The Chester Chronicle, Messrs. Herbert Hughes and J. 0. Jones—records, in all its horrific detail, the scale of my constituency's appalling experiences of that time and the beginnings of the recovery that took place a little under a year later. The preface states:
  "We say now, it must not happen again … This, then, is the story of Cheshire's greatest farming disaster—this long trouble on some of the fairest fields in England. It is a story which, we hope, will never have to be told again."
  With two confirmed cases at Baddiley, just a short distance from my family's home in the constituency, the spectre of my constituents having to go through that disaster again, 34 years later, is all too real. For Mr. Hockenhull and the Huntbach family, who have lost all their stock, that has now become real, and I know that the House will join me in saying that our hearts go out to them. None of us who lived through that time—1 was 10, and remember it well—will ever forget the acrid and bitter smell of the burning cattle pyres blazing across Cheshire.
  I did not intervene on the Minister about that point because I understood why he seemed not to want to take interventions at the time, but the 1967 outbreak, which geographically was relatively contained compared with today's epidemic, lasted nine months, which may be a guide to the time scale that we must seriously contemplate today. Following that dreadful time, there were many lessons to be learned, most of which were set out in the excellent and thorough 1969 report. Sadly, I am now doubtful whether all those lessons were learned, although many were.
  In Eddisbury today, there is real fear, stress and anger. However, my constituents are responsible people; they support the measures that have been taken, but they want them to go much further, much faster. In the interests of time, I shall not list what many right hon. and hon. Members have already mentioned, but I endorse all that they have said.
  Of all the lessons in the 1969 report, the key one is speed of action in containing the spread of disease. Speed is of the absolute essence, especially between farmers contacting the vet, the vet investigating the clinical suspicion and confirming the presence of the disease, and the slaughter and disposal of the animals. It is important

  431
  that the animals be buried in preference to burning. However, burning may be necessary, and on-farm disposal is the key.
  I pay tribute to all the residents of Eddisbury who have notably sought to comply with all the restrictions, because they are deeply conscious of the desperate anxiety that exists.
  Safe zones have been mentioned, but it is unfortunate that zones that were safe in Cheshire on Tuesday then became unsafe on Wednesday—the very day the Minister talked about the concept. That is unhelpful and we need much greater clarification. I call on the Government to give aid to all who seek to help the farmers, as well as to provide that clarification for all those who live in the country and depend on the rural economy.
  A problem arises out of yesterday's announcement by the Minister for the Environment about compensation. Understandably, he focused his remarks on the retail sector, even though many, such as Mr. Clacker's company in my constituency, are contractors laying pipelines across farmland on behalf of the utilities. They are not in the retail sector, but they have been desperately seriously affected. However, because they have a job but now no income, they are not able to access the compensation arrangements. It is important that their needs should be taken into account, so I call on the Government to consider carefully the needs of the non-retail sector.
  I want to be brief, and I know that the Minister has sought to address today the issue that I shall raise now. I received information on the day that the outbreak was announced suggesting that several constituents had heard that timber supplies for pyres had been sought many weeks before the outbreak began. With due diligence, I spoke to those sources and I raised the issue in the proper manner in a named day written question that is due for answer tomorrow. I shall not prejudge the issue even though I know that press speculation and some excitable comment has attracted headlines. However, as far as I am concerned, the answers will be received tomorrow and that is when we shall judge them. I look forward to that, and I am grateful to the Minister for addressing my concerns.
  I want to ensure that the Minister and his team are aware of an issue on which I have been guided by Mrs. Perry of Pear Tree farm, who has experience of the 1967 outbreak, and the House of Commons Library, which at breakneck speed came up with some evidence today. I have not heard much from the Ministry about the contact that it has had with the Meteorological Office. Weather is a key issue. According to historical records, we are entering the windiest time of the year and we have extensive evidence from the outbreak in 1967, notably from Mr. Rowland Tinline, about wind-driven spread.
  There have been all sorts of experiments about lee wind and wind-driven spread but, in summary, Mr. Tinline's research showed that
  "airborne spread was the major spread mechanism. Wind direction, wind speed and 'wind swing' were the major weather variables that influenced spread. Rainfall had little effect except perhaps in isolated cases".
  Experiments have demonstrated that considerable reduction in outbreaks could be obtained by reducing the slaughter and confirmation periods through increasing
  432
  exponentially field veterinary staff. I therefore endorse everything that is happening to try to increase the numbers of such staff.
  The issue of ring vaccination has been touched on today, but the research shows that such schemes
  "were successful in terms of controlling spread but showed that accurate weather forecasts is about 20 days in advance were required."
  That is why it is so important, in considering all the options, to liaise closely with the Meteorological Office. I am sure that the Minister will want to reassure me that such liaison is taking place. Wind-driven, airborne spread appears to be taking place in Cumbria, not least because of the turbulence created by the wind.
  I am conscious that I need to keep my remarks brief, but it is appropriate to share with the House something that has touched me greatly in the current crisis. It is an anonymous prayer—that is typical of farmers and their folklore—that appears in the book "Plague on the Cheshire Plain". It was written by a Shropshire farmer in 1967, and I am sure that the whole House will share in these sentiments:
  "Let us pray for those who tend our herds and flocks and all who stand guard this day. May God comfort the afflicted and give them new hope. Strengthen the resolve and diligence of those who tend with loving care the coven hoofed animals and remove the fears which each day brings.
  Let us give thanks for the fortitude of the few who labour in the task and for the understanding and self denial of the many.
  Let us pray for the winds to be stilled so that a calm and peaceful countryside can open its pleasures once again to all people."
  I wish to offer support for the Minister for what he has done so far, and ask him to listen carefully to all the constructive points about more action that have been made in this serious debate.
  9.19 pm
  Mrs. Janet Dean: I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in the debate, because the issue is of grave concern to my constituents. I apologise that I could not be present in the House earlier, but I sent a note to the Speaker's Office to explain that I had a long-standing constituency engagement.
  I returned to the House because the issue is so important. Seven cases of foot and mouth disease have been found in my constituency—one bordering the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) and six in a hotspot in the Leigh and Bramshall area
  The disease is devastating for people who are directly affected by it and, as many hon. Members have said, it is desperately worrying for those who farm close by. However, it is not just farmers who are under a great strain. The local cattle market in my constituency has closed, which has had a knock-on effect on the retail trade in the market town of Uttoxeter. It has also meant that the Friday retail market, which takes place on the cattle market site, no longer takes place and Uttoxeter race course has closed. Sadly, the local abattoir has had to close, with 15 men being laid off.
  Local businesses that are also in difficulty include those that one would not expect to be affected, such as the glass works in Tutbury. Not only is that firm missing the tourism trade, but it is losing out on orders for competition prizes because those are not taking place. Hopefully, as a

  433
  result of yesterday's announcement by the Minister for the Environment, the canals will reopen. That will help a local company that produces a superb book on canals.
  Like many hon. Members, I welcome yesterday's statement. It is desperately important that we do not accept that all the countryside is out of bounds. It is not. However, we must be careful about where we allow people to go in our countryside. The most important consideration is to tackle foot and mouth.
  The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) mentioned Cheshire. I grew up on farm there, and I know what it was like when there were outbreaks of foot and mouth. My father had just moved over the border into Staffordshire when the 1967 outbreak occurred. Thankfully, my family's farm never suffered from foot and mouth, but the fear that we might have been next is very real in my memory. It was different then because Cheshire had mainly dairy herds.
  Blame has been placed on the lack of abattoirs. It is true that there are fewer of them, but one of the greatest problems is the movement of livestock, especially sheep, around the country and into different markets. That was the source of the outbreak in Leigh. Farmers from that area have contacted me because they are worried about the way in which the disease is being handled. There is concern that the disease is hidden in sheep. One farm, which has now had foot and mouth diagnosed in its cattle, was checked by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for several weeks because it had sheep from Longtown market. However, those sheep have not tested positive.
  People are deeply worried that sheep in areas where there are also cattle may be the hidden source of future outbreaks in cattle. I have received requests, which I have conveyed to the Minister's office, for the introduction of a voluntary disposal system so that people who are prepared to give up their sheep within two miles of an outbreak are allowed to do so. I hope that that is given serious consideration.
  We must also carry out a risk assessment of the possible causes of future outbreaks. No doubt much of the disease is spread by the wind, but the problem is compounded because foot and mouth is not easily identifiable in sheep. Perhaps cases were identified quickly in Cheshire because the disease was predominantly in cattle.
  One of the main points that farmers have raised with me and, I am sure, many other Members, is that we must try to speed up the time between identifying the disease and disposing of carcases. That is crucial for disease control and for environmental reasons, and also because, otherwise, people are living on farms alongside dead animals.
  Another issue that has been raised with me is closure, which I understand will be for six months. It means not only that farmers cannot have animals on the farm for that time, but that they will be unable to produce hay and silage. Farms that close now because of foot and mouth disease will need fodder for animals when they are allowed to return.
  I know that the Government are doing everything possible to look at how the system can be improved. In the end, sadly, the disease will run its course, but I hope that we can put an end to it far quicker than we did in 1967.
  9.25 pm
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I commend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the way in which he opened the debate. He was correct to say that this is not a party political matter, and he handled it as such. Indeed, how could it be a party political matter? We all agree on the problem, which is foot and mouth, and we all agree on the solution, which is eradication.
  The right hon. Gentleman's remarks were in contrast to those made by the Leader of the House yesterday, perhaps by way of a slip, when she said that animals were in quarantine, not people. Two farmers who telephoned me today after hearing that were extremely frightened by the implications, but that is not the tone in which the Minister conducted the debate and I am grateful to him for it.
  It is essential that country people have confidence in the way in which the system is operating. The Minister may find it unpleasant to know this, but he must understand that there is a lack of confidence in the far south-west about some aspects of the situation. Time does not allow me to quote correspondence in great detail, but one farmer who wrote to me, Roderick Young, said that the tenants of a particular farm
  "have been subjected to living in quarantine surrounded by their stinking dead animals for the last six to seven days."
  He concluded:
  "It is quite obvious to those on the ground. surrounded by the stinking, rotting carcasses of their animals that something is not quite right."
  He makes a good point.
  If we have 108,000 animals waiting to be slaughtered and 80,000 waiting to be disposed of, we are not there yet. That is why I wish that the Minister had been able to consider using the Army in a different way. Nobody suggests that the Army should go boar hunting in Essex, but it does have expertise, through the engineers, in performing tasks such as burial, and it would be well capable of doing that. I shall not ask the Minister to assent to my next comment because I do not think that he will like what follows. I suspect that he might have some sympathy with what I am saying, but the Army is not being used in that way because the Prime Minister knows that if it were, the cat would be right out of the bag and people would realise that this is a national crisis that goes far beyond the regions that are affected.
  As this is a national crisis, we have gone far beyond mere talk of compensation. We must realise that we are talking not about compensating individuals, but about the need for massive infrastructural input to ensure that whole regions do not simply crash out of economic prosperity altogether.
  In the hope that many of the hon. Members who have been here for some time will be able to contribute to the debate, I shall make my final point. We must look at control. The Agriculture Minister will remember an exchange with me on 1 February. when I put it to him that when there is good, solid evidence abroad about unsafe meat coming into this country, it is not a sufficient response to say that to act in those circumstances might be considered anti-European. The one point that is common ground between us—the Minister has always had the courage and grace to admit it—is that this condition came from overseas, and whatever other conclusions we come to, we need to look at our importation controls.
  9.29 pm
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I have nothing but praise for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He has treated the House with great courtesy and patience and he has tried to be as helpful as possible. The substance of all his remarks today and on previous occasions is that we want national unity to tackle this crisis. He said also that we want to have a Parliament that he can report to regularly. It would be an absolute scandal if a Government with 14 months of their mandate left, a massive majority and now a national crisis to add to their other unfinished business, plunged the country into an unnecessarily premature general election. That would be a great disservice. The Prime Minister's remarks this afternoon gave me the impression that he was not fully apprised of the great national calamity facing us. He talked with a glib assurance that was deeply disturbing and in marked contrast to the tone adopted by his right hon. Friend the Agriculture Minister.
  The Government should not divide those parts of the country that are terribly beset by this dreadful disease by holding local elections. They should be postponed in certain areas of the country, but not necessarily everywhere. It would be contrary to the Minister's wish to maintain national unity if the Parliament to which he is answerable were dissolved prematurely and unnecessarily. We must face the crisis together and fight it together. We wish to give the Minister the support that his gentlemanly and sensible conduct manifestly deserves.
  9.31 pm
  Mr. Damian Green: Anyone who has listened to our debate over the past few hours will have been struck by two things: the sheer scale of the crisis facing our countryside and the extent of the misery that it has created for communities across the United Kingdom. We wanted an Opposition day debate because of our alarm—which is increasing day by day—about the fact that, in some ways, the response to the crisis in the countryside does not measure up to the scale of the problem.
  I have no complaint about the Government's motives and objectives, especially those of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, whose speech was, I think, appreciated by the whole House. He is much more aware of the desperate nature of the situation than, I suspect, some of his colleagues. However, some of the Government's actions have been late, half-hearted and not effective enough. There are two separate crises hidden within the overall problem: the farming crisis, and the collapse of various local economies that depend on a combination of tourism and agriculture. Our motion and the Government amendment both make that clear, yet the wider economic aspects were only touched on by the Minister. However, they should be taken just as seriously as the farming crisis.
  I shall say a few words about farming first. In the past few hours we have heard from Members on both sides of the House that farmers want speedy and decisive action. They need quick diagnosis, quick slaughter if necessary and quick disposal of carcases. Above all, they need immediate, authoritative and clear advice. All too often they are still getting none of that and I am afraid that all the Minister's charm cannot hide that fact. Too many farmers in Britain today are not just frightened: they are confused and are getting contradictory advice from local and regional offices.
  436
  That is why, a few days ago, we proposed three specific actions that the Government could take. As many Members on both sides of the House have said, we recognise that this is a national crisis, and in those circumstances, it is the role of a responsible Opposition to be constructive as well as critical. That is what we have sought to be, and we shall continue our role as the crisis proceeds. The Minister has made moves following our suggestions about speeding up the slaughter without requiring a lab test and bringing more vets to the front line. I am glad that he recognised that our suggestions were genuine and constructive. In return, may I say that we welcome the steps that he has taken, but we want him to do more and we want him to do it quickly?
  Last week, we suggested that the Army be used for the disposal of carcases We welcome the small steps that the Government announced yesterday, but they are not enough. The average wait of two days between diagnosis and slaughter, and another two days between slaughter and disposal, disguises the longer and more dangerous gaps that are occurring in some cases. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr . Campbell—Savours) said that he was pleased that, in Cumbria, 36 hours is now the going time between diagnosis and slaughter. I am sure that many of the farmers in Cumbria, about whom we heard some eloquent tales from my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), still regard the 36-hour wait as inadequate as the crisis threatens to envelope them.
  I hope that the Minister will deal within the next few days with the welfare of animals, which is becoming one of the new focuses of the crisis. My hon. Friends have said a lot about pigs, but he should deal also with the thousands of sheep that are starting to lamb in unsuitable land, miles from were they should be. For two weeks, farmers have known that many such sheep are dying. They cannot move them and they are asking MAFF for guidance, but too often they are getting none. I know that from my constituency and from colleagues representing areas around the country. I profoundly hope that the Minister's words will be followed by action within hours, rather than days. Th a is what is needed if a serious animal welfare crisis is to be prevented from hitting large areas of the country, including some that have not been as badly hit as those about which we have been hearing. The outbreak could spre td and hit new areas.
  I am also grateful to the Minister for his unequivocal statement that he and his officials had no knowledge of any infection before 18 February. I am happy to accept his assurance that the phone calls that were made to timber merchants were part of a regular contingency planning process. However, that gives rise to another vital question: what does all this contingency planning achieve? If there is a contingency plan and it is regularly practised, why is it taking so long for sensible solutions to be put in place? The Minister made welcome comments about valuation tariffs, but we are now a month into the outbreak. Is not the Army included in the contingency plan? Various hon. Members spoke bout using the Royal Engineers. Whether or not one believes that it is right to use them—the Opposition believe that it is—surely the Army would have been included in any contingency plan. There is no evidence in the Government's reaction to suggest that it was. Whatever time and effort was put into the regular contingency plan, it was, frankly, a waste of energy, as the Government seem to have started from scratch.

  437
  Similarly, as the debate is rolling on we are hearing that the Environment Agency is gearing up for action with regard to on-farm burial. Will the Minister of State tell us whether the agency is included in the contingency planning process? When was it brought in to consider suitable burial sites? Does not it already have records telling it where the sites are located? If so, why are we not using them now, four weeks into the crisis? From the outside, it is impossible to tell whether the Environment Agency is being dilatory or whether its attention was directed at the problem too late. It holds the key to the solution to one part of the crisis and it needs urgently to raise its game.
  The crisis goes much wider than farming. Yesterday, the Minister for the Environment announced some welcome steps towards dealing with the wider issues, although I fear that they are too tentative. As many of my hon. Friends said in response, more needs to be done and it must be done now. I am delighted that the Minister for the Environment has joined us. It is regrettable that he has not participated in the debate, not least because the motion and the amendment make clear that there are two sides to the outbreak: the agricultural crisis and the wider crisis.
  Indeed, I agree with one of the points that the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ) made in a thoughtful speech. She said that, as someone who followed the crisis carefully because of her constituency interests, she did not know what the taskforce was doing. She wanted more information; the debate afforded a good opportunity for providing it.
  Yesterday, the Minister for the Environment made some welcome announcements. However, it is significant that, in a 16-paragraph statement, he used the word "consider" four times. That sums up the statement; the Government are considering doing many things. I shall quote part of a fax that the chief executive of the British Incoming Tour Operators Association sent my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) a couple of days ago:
  "We need help—and we need it fast if Br tain's inbound tourism industry is not to collapse. I've been in this industry over 30 years and I've not seen anything like it (including the Gulf war!)"
  It continues:
  "No long drawn out 'consultation' processes or 'reviews' or 'consideration will be given' … & Action this day, please!"
  He is right.
  In a 24-hour period, the organisation received many damaging cancellations. They include 12 adult German groups, representing a value of £14 million, and 21 student groups, representing a value of about £1 million. The Austrian Government have advised their nationals not to travel to the United Kingdom. Ninety per cent. of language students for a particular course have cancelled. Tour operators report that forward bookings are non-existent.
  Confusion at the heart of Government exacerbates the problem. The Prime Minister and Labour Members have told us that we must encourage tourists to visit the British countryside and that it is open for business. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) pointed out, Derbyshire county council, doubtless with the best intentions, has taken out adverts headed "Help Stop the Spread of Foot and Mouth", which state:
  "Help us protect our countryside—don't visit unless you have to."
  438
  It is not surprising that potential tourists are confused about the message.
  Mr. Luff: I am delighted that my hon. Friend is highlighting that point. In tonight's Worcester Evening News, the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock), is reported as urging
  "people to stay away from the countryside in an effort to curb the spread of foot-and-mouth in the county."
  Is not that different from the message that the Prime Minister gave the House this afternoon? Is it not time for the Government to clarify their message?
  Mr. Green: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. There is confusion in Government about solving the crisis. Resolution will remain difficult as long as the confusion continues.
  Many businesses besides tourism are in severe, possibly terminal, difficulties. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) therefore called today for interest-free loans for businesses that qualify for rate relief. Attracting tourists back to the English countryside will take some time. It is clear that we need practical action now to help the cash flow of those businesses so that they continue to exist to take advantage of any upturn. Conservative Members will continue to offer practical ideas; they are desperately needed by thousands of businesses, which will go under unless the Government act now.
  Everyone in the House and in the country shares the objective of ending the crisis as soon as possible. I hope that everyone shares the view that the Government should concentrate all their energy on dealing with the crisis. The Minister admitted with characteristic honesty that the epidemic will get worse and that the outbreak will show a rising trend. If he is right, the British people will not understand it if the Government do anything to suggest that solving the crisis is not their highest priority. If they have another matter at the forefront of their thinking in the next few weeks, they will fail to tackle the crisis in the countryside and earn the condemnation of those who live and work there. They will pay the penalty, and they will deserve it. For the sake of those who are clinging to their livelihoods throughout our country, I hope that the Government will choose the honourable path.
  9.44 pm
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): The debate has reflected accurately the fears and anxieties felt in all parts of the country as a result of this dreadful disease. Right hon. and hon. Members of all parties have spoken of the immense distress caused to farmers who have had confirmed cases or suspected cases, or who are in infected areas. Members representing non-infected areas have also vividly expressed the fear of farmers in their areas that they might be affected in their turn. A number of hon. Members mentioned that, including the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), who also praised the Opposition for holding this debate.
  While I fully understand that the Opposition would choose this subject for debate, I do not accept that Ministers have not made time to address the House on these issues. The Minister for the Environment made a statement yesterday, and regular statements have also

  439
  been made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who was also, quite properly, giving evidence to the Select Committee on Agriculture all morning.
  The severity of the situation has understandably and powerfully been referred to by many Members. Not surprisingly, that has been particularly true of Members from Cumbria. The speeches by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell—Savours), the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and other Cumbrian Members showed that they were deeply concerned. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) has an Adjournment debate on this very subject tonight.
  The south-west has also been very badly affected and, not surprisingly, has been referred to throughout the debate. So has the area round the Welsh border—particularly Powys—and the area of Dumfries and Galloway, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) made a powerful speech. There are a number of worrying hotspots around the country. Even in my own part of the world, we are very concerned about the concentration in Durham, Tyne and Wear and the adjacent area of Northumberland, where there are also a considerable number of cases.
  We have also heard outstanding contributions from hon. Members representing other areas who are very close to the situation of farmers in their constituencies. They include my hon. Friends the Members for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) and for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger), and the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith).
  Let me say something about the role of all Ministers in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on this issue. As has been pointed out by many hon. Members, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has shouldered a huge burden of responsibility, and I certainly echo the many compliments that he has received in the Chamber today. My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Hayman, as Minister responsible for animal health, has also been fully involved in the issue and has to report regularly to the other place.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is the Ministry's representative on the taskforce, building on his experience working on the rural White Paper and as the Minister responsible for the countryside. I have responsibility for trade issues, not many of which have been aired today. None the less, many companies throughout the country are affected by export restrictions. I assure the House that we are working closely with companies to provide the necessary certification for when they are able to export again. We also work with them when they encounter export obstacles created by other countries—either European Union or third countries—because import blockages are imposed, even against products not covered by the restrictions. That is an important area of work. As a result, I have a weekly meeting with representatives of the trade and the companies concerned to tackle some of the issues.
  440
  I pay tribute to officials and staff. People are working round the clock. I have experienced that on visits to offices around the country, and I know that many administrative staff in the Ministry's regional centres and animal health staff are making Herculean efforts to tackle the problems.
  A number of Members, including the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), referred to the 1967 situation. He and I bumped into each other in the Library last night and we discussed that outbreak, to which the hon. Member for ddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) also referred because of his constituency interest in it. We have learned lessons from 1967 and it would not be true to say that no one involved in tackling the disease this time has any knowledge of what happened during that outbreak. Indeed, the chief vet himself, Jim Scudamore, has such knowledge.
  I accept the differences, to which hon. Members referred, between tt e two events. Many Members on both sides made the point that the current outbreak has occurred at a time of enormous difficulty for farming. The tourism industry was perhaps not as important to the national economy in those days, but this time round, Cumbria and Devon, two of England's premier tourism areas, are affected. as is tourism in other parts of the country, as hon. Members vividly described.
  There are also differences in our knowledge of the environment, which affects some possibilities, but not all, of disposal by burial. On wider losses, the Government have already beer more imaginative than were the Government in the 1967 outbreak—certainly in respect of considering the welfare disposal route for animals, the work of the rural taskforce and other, wider measures.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the Minister accept from me that the wider losses are analogous to a natural disaster and that they will place a great burden on local authorities? Local authorities can take advantage of the Bellwin scheme, so can we consider a similar measure to support them in their dealings with local businesses in affected areas? Will she also consider the Treasury suggestion for a community investment trust to achieve urban regeneration, which could be used to regenerate rural areas as well?
  Ms Quin: I know that the hon. Gentleman wanted to contribute to the debate and he makes some useful points. Obviously the rural taskforce is examining some of those issues, but it make sense to consider what has worked elsewhere—urban regeneration schemes, for example—and think about whether such ideas can be applied to the current situation. The Bellwin scheme can be considered in that context.
  Another difference from 1967 is that this country is a significant agricultural exporter. That was pointed out in an interesting article in the press yesterday by Professors Thompson and Oswald. Not surprisingly, many Members on both sides of the House referred to the different measures taken to tackle the disease, including the various ones mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.
  There are measures for disease control and for protecting specialist breeds and flocks, which two Members raised, and we have introduced a scheme to

  441
  allow movement of animals to slaughter to help the market to pick up. I hope that the welfare disposal scheme will start very shortly.
  Mr. Duncan: When?
  Ms Quin: I said "very shortly", which is what we expect. I want to pick up points made by hon. Members by saying that it is best to introduce the scheme properly and in a way that will work. That is why we are preparing it in the way that we are.
  Many Members mentioned the various schemes relating to the movement of animals, including short-term movement. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) thanked my office for its help, but I take his point that we want the scheme to work without the need for our private ministerial offices to be contacted. The longer-term movement scheme is also important, and is now under way.
  Members on both sides of the House have said that bureaucracy must not override common sense, and I accept that.
  Mr. Maclean: Will the Minister give way?
  Ms Quin: I will not, because I have only a few minutes in which to finish my speech, and I want to respond to a couple of points made by the right hon. Gentleman himself. As he knows, we spoke earlier about the situation in his area.
  The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) made an interesting point about variation in the size of restricted zones. The borders of the zones are sometimes pushed beyond the minimum to natural boundaries, or for topographical or meteorological reasons. The hon. Member for Eddisbury mentioned the importance of meteorological considerations. None the less, the distance to which he referred seems lengthy, and we shall therefore look into the example that he gave.
  Mention was made of the increase in the number of vets. The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) met a vet from overseas who had come to help us, and the number has indeed increased considerably. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) mentioned on-farm burial. Animals have been buried when it has been safe to do so, but in each case we have been guided very much by environmental considerations.
  The right hon. Member for Bridgwater said that we should not be embarrassed about asking for military assistance. I assure him that we are not, and that the Army is already deploying successfully at three levels. We expect its contribution to increase in the way outlined by my right hon. Friend the Minister.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Workington mentioned changes in management in Cumbria I am glad that he welcomed the arrival of Jane Brown as director of operations. I also commend to him the assistant chief veterinary officer, Richard Drummond, who will oversee veterinary operations in the area.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) asked about the countryside stewardship scheme. I assure him that we are considering whether it may be necessary to extend the deadline for applications beyond 31 May, as
  442
  he suggested, and also considering ways in which we can help farmers to make applications between now and the deadline.
  Wider issues were mentioned, particularly by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) —who now seems deep in conversation. Those wider issues are important. Many speakers have talked movingly of the effect of the crisis on the wider rural community, and of the devastation faced by some members of that community. It is particularly frustrating that in many cases that devastation—that reduction in commercial opportunities—is unnecessary, which is why it is so important to convey a clear message. Over the next few days, we shall embark on television and other publicity to make that message as clear as possible.
  I applaud some of the efforts made by the Cumbria taskforce—which has been mentioned—by the taskforce comprising Exmoor businesses that have united to seek opportunities, and by similar efforts in the area represented by the hon. Member for West Derbyshire.
  The Government have kept the House informed and responded to hon. Members' concerns. We have to bear down on the disease as effectively as possible.
  Mr. James Arbuthnot rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question: —
  The House divided: Ayes 171, Noes 305.

  Division No. 164]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Chidgey, David

  Allan, Richard

  Chope, Christopher

  Amess, David

  Clappison, James

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Collins, Tim

  Baldry, Tony

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Ballard, Jackie

  Cotter, Brian

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Cran, James

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Bercow, John

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Day, Stephen

  Body, Sir Richard

  Duncan, Alan

  Boswell, Tim

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Evans, Nigel

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Fabricant, Michael

  Brady, Graham

  Fallon, Michael

  Brake, Tom

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Flight, Howard

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Burnett, John

  Fraser, Christopher

  Burns, Simon

  Gale, Roger

  Burstow, Paul

  Garnier, Edward

  Butterfill, John

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Gibb, Nick

  Gidley, Sandra

  Cash, William

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Gray, James

  443

  Green, Damian

  Paice, James

  Greenway, John

  Paterson, Owen

  Grieve, Dominic

  Pickles, Eric

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Prior, David

  Hammond, Philip

  Randall, John

  Hancock, Mike

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Rendel, David

  Harvey, Nick

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hawkins, Nick

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Hayes, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Heald, Oliver

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Ruffley, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Horam, John

  Sanders, Adrian

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

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

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Keetch, Paul

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Key, Robert

  Spring, Richard

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Stunell, Andrew

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Swayne, Desmond

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Syms, Robert

  Leigh, Edward

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Lidington, David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Livsey, Richard

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Loughton, Tim

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Townend, John

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Tredinnick, David

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Trend, Michael

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Tyler, Paul

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Walter, Robert

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Waterson, Nigel

  Madel, Sir David

  Wells, Bowen

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Malins, Humfrey

  Whittingdale, John

  Maples, John

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Mates, Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Willetts, David

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Willis, Phil

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Moore, Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Yeo, Tim

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Norman, Archie

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Öpik, Lembit

  Mr. Peter Luff and

  Ottaway, Richard

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Ainger, Nick

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Allen, Graham

  Benton, Joe

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Berry. Roger

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Best, Harold

  Ashton, Joe

  Betts, Clive

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Blackman, Liz

  Austin, John

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Banks, Tony

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Barnes, Harry

  Borrow, David

  Barron, Kevin

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Beard, Nigel

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Browne, Desmond

  444

  Burden, Richard

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Burgon, Colin

  Grocott, Bruce

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Grogan, John

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Hain, Peter

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Caplin, Ivor

  Healey, John

  Casale, Roger

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Caton, Martin

  Hendrick, Mark

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Heppell, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clark, Dr Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Clelland, David

  Hoey, Kate

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hope, Phil

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Cohen, Harry

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Coleman, lain

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Colman, Tony

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Connarty, Michael

  Hutton, John

  Cooper, Yvette

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Corbett, Robin

  Illsley, Eric

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Cousins, Jim

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cox, Tom

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cranston, Ross

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Crausby, David

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'ty S)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Davidson, lan

  Joyce, Eric

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Lanelli)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

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

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Dawson, Hilton

  Kemp, Fraser

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Khabra, Piara S

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Kidney, David

  Dismore, Andrew

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dobbin, Jim

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Doran, Frank

  Lammy, David

  Dowd, Jim

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Laxton, Bob

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Edwards, Huw

  Levitt, Tom

  Efford, Clive

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Fisher, Mark

  Linton, Martin

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lloyd. Tony (Manchester C)

  Flint, Caroline

  Lock, David

  Flynn, Paul

  Love, Andrew

  Follett, Barbara

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Foulkes, George

  McDonnell, John

  Fyfe, Maria

  McFall, John

  Galloway, George

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McNamara, Kevin

  Godsiff, Roger

  McNulty, Tony

  Goggins, Paul

  MacShane, Denis

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McWalter, Tony

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading )

  McWilliam, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  445

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Salter, Ma tin

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Sarwar, Mohammed

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Martlew, Eric

  Sawford, Phil

  Maxton, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Meale, Alan

  Sheerman Barry

  Merron, Gillian

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Miller, Andrew

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mitchell, Austin

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Moffatt,Laura

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Morley, Elliot

  Snape, Peter

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B' ham Yardley)

  Soley, Clive

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Speller, John

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Mountford, Kali

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Stevensort, George

  Mudie, George

  Stewart, lan (Eccles)

  Mullin, Chris

  Stinchcorribe, Paul

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Murphy. Jim (Eastwood)

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Stringer, Graham

  Norris, Dan

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Olner, Bill

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  O'Neill, Martin

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Timms, Stephen

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Todd, Mark

  Pearson, Ian

  Touhig, Don

  Pickthall, Colin

  Trickett, Jon

  Pike, Peter L

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Plaskitt, James

  Turner, D Desmond (Kemptown)

  Pollard. Kerry

  Turner, D George (NW Norfolk)

  Pope, Greg

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Tynan, Bill

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Watts, David

  Purchase, Ken

  White, Brain

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Rapson, Syd

  Raynsford, Nick

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Wills, Michael

  Winnick, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Winterton Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wood, Mike

  Rogers, Allan

  Woodward, Shaun

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Worthington, Tony

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wright, Tony(Cannock)

  Roy, Frank

  Wyatt, Derek

  Ruane, Chris

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Ruddock, Joan

  Mr. David Jamieson and

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Mr. Kevin Hughes.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House expresses grave concern about the very serious effect of the current foot and mouth outbreak on farmers, the livestock industry and the wider rural economy; supports the firm and rapid action taken by the Government to control the spread of the disease, identify outbreaks and slaughter and dispose of animals that are infected or 'at risk'; pays tribute to all those who are continuing to work around the clock to combat this devastating disease; endorses the Government's policy of intensifying disease control measures in areas of high infectivity and working towards modifying controls in areas that have remained free of the disease; expresses deepest sympathy to those farmers whose herds and flocks have been slaughtered in order to control the disease; and welcomes the Government's provision of financial support to farmers including £156 million in extra agrimonetary compensation and a preliminary package of measures to assist the wider rural economy including temporary business rate relief for affected businesses.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS
  That the draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 1st March, he approved.
  NORTHERN IRELAND EQUALITY
  That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Designation of Public Authorities) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 1st March, be approved.
  PENSIONS
  That the draft Social Security (Reduced Rates of Class 1 Contributions) (Salary Related Contracted-out Schemes) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 1st March, be approved.
  PENSIONS
  That the draft Social Security (Minimum Contribution to Appropriate Personal Pension Schemes) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 1st March, be approved.
  PENSIONS
  That the draft Social Security (Reduced Rates of Class 1 Contributions, and Rebates) (Money Purchase Contracted-out Schemes) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 1st March, be approved.
  SOCIAL SECURITY
  That the draft Tax Credits Up-rating Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 26th February, be approved.
  FINANCIAL SERVICES AND MARKETS
  That the draft Open-Ended Investment Companies Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 27th February, be approved.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
  That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 77) on 2000/2001 Special Grant for Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Children (HC 315), which was laid before this House on 12th March, be approved. —[Mr. Touhig.]
  Question agreed to.

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

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

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

Foot and Mouth (Cumbria)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Touhig.]
10.17 pm
Mr. Eric Martlew: I apologise to the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, for keeping her on the Front Bench. She has been here for most of the day and I am sorry that she will have to be here for a while yet.
May I thank my right hon. Friend for coming to my constituency on Sunday at very short notice to talk to the National Farmers Union and the farmers regarding the very serious problems that Cumbria has with foot and mouth? There are more cases of foot and mouth in Cumbria than in any other county in the United Kingdom. In my constituency, which does not have a very big rural area, two more cases were identified today. The problems are increasing.
There will obviously be an inquiry into the outbreak. It may be through the Select Committee system or there may be a public inquiry. When that inquiry is held, it will look into the reasons for the outbreak, what went wrong, what went right and how we will deal with the situation next time. It will come back to the fact that what really started the problem was the two or three-week delay in the notification of the disease at the farm at Heddon-on-the-Wall. Unfortunately, that delay allowed the disease to spread throughout the country, specifically within Cumbria. That has led to the problems that we see today.
Much concern has been expressed today about the farmers and their families. I reiterate that; there is no doubt that they are devastated and, in many cases, are in despair. I have talked to farmers in my constituency and throughout Cumbria and there is a sense of desperation.
My constituency is mainly urban—90 per cent. of the population is urban—but there is no division between the two communities. There is great support among those who live in the city centre for help for those on the farms and in the rural community. Carlisle city council intends to allocate £250,000 tomorrow for aid for those who are suffering, and I applaud that. There is no division between the communities, and no one should try to create one. There has been too much talk in this House over the years of town and country: this crisis has brought us together, and it should keep us together.
Concern has been expressed about how the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has dealt with the situation. Some farmers' grievances are justified, even if others arise from anger that something has gone wrong and a need to blame someone for it. Certainly, no blame can be laid against the staff who have worked in my constituency. The vets and slaughtermen, those who have gone out to farms and those who work at Rosehill, Edenbridge house and the new crisis centre that has been set up at the civic centre have worked tremendously hard. Unfortunately, we must ask them to work that hard for a lot longer since there is no sign of abatement. I pay tribute to them.
The Government made the right decision in deciding that the regional headquarters in my constituency should expand. It was under threat, but if we had closed it,

449
Cumbria would have more serious problems now. The decision to expand it depended greatly on the calibre of the staff, and they have shown that calibre recently.
There has been criticism about communication problems. Whether the true extent of the problems did not go down the line from Carlisle to Whitehall, or whether Whitehall was not listening, I do tot know. I have, however, been deeply concerned about those problems, and have brought them to the Minister's attention. Over the weekend, too, I made several telephone calls to Downing street. I am glad that a senior civil servant, Jane Brown, has been sent to Cumbria, and I hope that the Minister will tell us more about her brief. I hope that she will have powers to take the immediate decisions needed if we are to get on top of the crisis.
Last Thursday's announcement on a cull within 3 km of an affected farm was greeted with anger and dismay by some farmers in my constituency That anger abated somewhat when we clarified the position with regard to cattle, and there has been further change since then because my right hon. Friend the Minister of State met National Farmers Union representatives in Carlisle on Sunday and went on television later to explain the policy to people beyond that group. In addition, the chief vet, Jim Scudamore, came on Monday to talk to vets and farmers.
Time has also changed matters since last Thursday. Almost a week later, it has become apparent that the Government's policy announcement was correct. The increase in cases has proved the Government right, though I must enter the caveat that we have to listen to local opinion, especially among vets. Where a farmer has good reason to protect his stock, that farmer should have a right to appeal.
I have already thanked my right hon. Friend for coming to Cumbria on Sunday. The NFU in Carlisle much appreciated her visit, and she learned as much as they did from it. She was told one or two things about which she had not been aware, particularly about delays. I also pay tribute to the NFU in Cumbria with whom my relationship has not always been of the best, but we have worked well together during this crisis. I pay tribute to Nick Utting, the local NFU secretary. We have done a lot, but much remains to be done.
Will my right hon. Friend the Minister of State give me some information on targets? There is still concern about delays, although I accept that the situation is improving. I hope that as soon as an outbreak is confirmed—or perhaps as soon as it is suspected—the target should be that action is taken: the diseased animals should be destroyed within 24 hours and within a further 24 hours they should be buried or removed from the site—sent to the rendering plant or whatever. That is important. We cannot say that the outbreak is under control until we can act within such time limits. Hopefully, the number of cases will start to decline in the not too distant future, but the problem will continue for a while.
I wholly support the involvement of the Army; that is obviously a help and we shall see the benefits. However, I am not sure whether we need to bring up hundreds of soldiers with heavy-lifting equipment—probably from the south of England—to carry out burial and disposal. Good civil engineers and building contractors in Cumbria have the expertise to carry out such work, with the advantage that they are there already—we do hot have to wait for them to arrive from Salisbury plain or wherever. I hope
450
that my right hon. Friend will carefully consider the involvement of more local contractors to help with disposals.
Compensation for slaughtered animals is being paid quickly—that point came out at our meeting with the NFU. There is no problem with that; the animals are valued and slaughtered and the cheques are being sent out. There was no complaint about that, which is good. However, the agriculture sector will need a great deal of support over the next three to six months—perhaps for a year or more. The Government must find ways of providing that support.
We need to examine the structure of the agricultural industry. We should consider what we really need in Cumbria—what we want farms to do—and make the necessary adjustments in the sector.
I welcome the support announced by the Government yesterday for the wider rural economy. However, we need to look further into the matter, so it was especially pleasing to hear that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment had agreed to meet a delegation from Cumbria to discuss what is needed to help the whole county. I hope that meeting will take place towards the end of next week, because immediate action is needed.
Agriculture is not the only problem—tourism faces great problems. The affected areas of Cumbria stretch from Silloth on the Solway plain to my constituency and up to the Scottish border and south of Penrith—probably a quarter of the county. Fortunately, the rest of the county does not seem to be affected yet—touch wood. However, there are effects on the whole of Cumbria because of television programmes and pictures in the newspapers that suggest that the entire county is affected. That is not the truth. Areas such as Barrow, Whitehaven, Kendal and Workington do not have a problem. People can visit those places and enjoy their holidays. We must get that message across.
It is not helpful when the Leader of the Opposition says that the Cumbria tourist board is in favour of cancelling the elections. I have checked that point. The tourist board did not say that; it is the personal view of the chief executive. Obviously, I understand that the Leader of the Opposition misquotes people; he misquoted me today. I still have not found out where he got the quote relating to my criticism of the Government.
It would be wrong to cancel the local elections in Cumbria, especially if we are singled out along with Devon. What does that say to people who are thinking of coming to stay? It suggests that there is something seriously wrong in Cumbria, and people will not go there. Let us consider the impact that that is having on the Cumbrian economy. Agriculture is losing £5 million a week and the tourist trade is losing up to £10 million every week—a £15 million loss in a county with a population of less than 500,000. That is a major hit, and it would be bad enough, but we know that it will get worse unless we can get the tourists back. It has been calculated that we will lose £70 million if things have not improved by Easter. As the holiday season begins, the losses will amount to £20 million or £30 million a week. We must do something drastic about that.
I want to make two points before I conclude my comments. Cumbrian Members of Parliament are here now. The Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness

451
(Mr. Hutton) is sitting on the Front Bench and my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell—Savours) is sitting behind me. We must accept that the economy of Cumbria will go into recession this year. We cannot disguise the fact that people will lose their jobs and businesses will close. Some people have said that Cumbria is in meltdown, but that is not true and it does not help.
The Cumbrian economy will bounce back. How soon it bounces back and how high it bounces will depend, first, on those of us who live in the county. We must decide how we shall get out of the situation. It is no good holding up our hands, saying, "Help us." We must take action. Although the Cumbrian taskforce is very useful, Cumbria county council must be the lead organisation.
Secondly, we need assistance from the Government. Agriculture needs Government assistance, as does the whole county, but it does not just need money. However, it will need quite a lot of money, and I hope that the assistance will be generous. We must remember that public money is involved; we cannot throw it away. The Cumbrian taskforce should be given some money so that it has the option of picking out the priorities, and I hope that that will be discussed during the delegation's visit next week.
Finally, the economy will not improve greatly unless we eradicate foot and mouth disease throughout the county. We can do the other things that I have mentioned, but the main priority must be to get on top of this terrible disease and wipe it out in Cumbria as quickly as possible.
10.33 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) on initiating this debate, and I fully understand and appreciate the reasons that have prompted him to do so. I very much welcome his presence here tonight, as well as that of other Members with a deep interest in the issue, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell—Savours) and the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton). They represent different parts of Cumbria, but they are all deeply concerned about the consequences of foot and mouth disease not only for the farming community, but for the wider economy of Cumbria.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is also here. That is particularly appropriate given his work on the rural taskforce that will be responsible for dealing with many of the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle has raised.
I thank my hon. Friend for his work in facilitating my visit to Cumbria last weekend. That was very much appreciated. The meeting that he organised with farmers' representatives was particularly valuable in providing me with many telling examples of some of the problems that have been experienced in the area.
I was amused—and sorry—that one media report of my visit alleged that I had met everyone but farmers. That is simply not true. I do not know whether the reporter concerned does not understand that National Farmers
452
Union officials are also farmers or simply overlooked the fact that, later in the day in Keswick, I met different types of farmers, including different types of livestock farmers. However, the visit was informative for what the farmers told me.
I am glad that the visit was followed by the visit of the chief veterinary officer, Jim Scudamore, who met several farming representatives and took a great personal interest in some of the veterinary and management issues that were raised with him and that had been raised with me the day before.
There is no doubt that Cumbria is, by a long way, the area most affected by the foot and mouth outbreak. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) is present, and it is true that a wider area in the south of Scotland, including Dumfries and Galloway, has also been badly affected. We Know how some cases of the disease were transmitted and affected Cumbria particularly severely. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle referred to the original outbreak at Heddon-on-the-Wall—it still seems to be the original outbreak—and it is alarming that the lesions on the animals there suggested that the disease had been around for some time. Given the fact that it had been transmitted to the neighbouring sheep population and given the movement of sheep around the country, the extent of the problem became clear after a few days.
The trade at livestock markets—in particular, that at Longtown—enabled the disease to be carried around the country. Although it was carried around the country, most of the sheep that wont through Longtown market stayed in the Cumbria and Dumfries and Galloway area. That is clear from the number of outbreaks that have occurred there. We must consider a whole range of issues—including those relating to the movement of animals and how the disease is transmitted—to learn the lessons properly.
It is particularly tragic that the disease has become so embedded in the sheep population. Cumbria contains many sheep, but the way in which sheep are affected makes it difficult scmetimes to recognise that they have the disease. They may carry the disease and infect other livestock, particularly cattle, and that adds to the huge problems that are now being experienced.
My hon. Friend referred to the measures that are being introduced in Cumbria to tackle the disease. I appreciate his comments about the proposals for the wider cull. I understand the distress in Cumbria. My right hon. Friend the Minister apologised fully for the initial misunderstanding at out the scope of the extended cull. Given the tremendous problems in tackling clear examples of disease, the talk of an extended cull alarmed Cumbrian farmers. None the less, I agree with my hon. Friend that there seems to be greater understanding on both sides of the border of the veterinary reasons why the chief vet recommended the wider cull.
Although the animals are often referred to as healthy, "apparently healthy" would be a better description. They are dangerous contacts and may well incubate and carry foot and mouth. We are keen to avoid thinking that we have got on top of the disease only for it suddenly to break out again mote virulently and over a much wider area because of the movement of infected sheep. Farmers increasingly recognise the need to avoid that. Such an outbreak would be appalling news for Cumbria and bad news for our livestock industry. On the advice of the chief vet, we believe that the measures are necessary.

453
The number of animals for which slaughter has been authorised in Cumbria is about 165,000. The number that has been confirmed slaughtered is 118,000. Some 46,000 are awaiting slaughter and 26,000 are awaiting destruction. I was concerned about the delays that were cited to me. Some of the changes reflect our determination to ensure that the targets for dealing with cases from confirmation to slaughter and from slaughter to disposal are fully complied with. The vital target is to ensure that the time between confirmation of the disease and slaughter is as short as possible. We must act on that most speedily. Obviously, the time from slaughter to disposal should also be as short as possible, but in disease-risk terms, it is less important than the first target.
There are different forms of disposal of animals, including burial. My right hon. Friend mentioned the difficulties in Cumbria because of the shallow soil and complications with the water table. None the less, we are not against burial if it can be safely carried out in accordance with good environmental standards. There is also the landfill option. My hon. Friend did not mention that, but he knows that we are pursuing it. However, I noted the concerns about one of the sites that was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) in the earlier debate. Again, everyone has to be content that the landfill site is appropriate and does not present risks. Rendering and incineration are other forms of disposal.
During the longer debate that preceded this one, hon. Members asked about slaughtering on suspicion. That happens in the vast majority of cases. They asked also why a qualified vet should have to telephone head office before slaughter is ordered. Concerns were expressed, not by my hon. Friend but by others, that that could slow down the procedure, but it speeds it up by triggering the next stages of valuation and disposal. Often, it is extremely useful for the vet at head office to discuss with
454
the vet in the field the details of the case, its likely connection to others and so on. That is an important link in the chain.
The use of the Army in Cumbria has been addressed. There is a command-and-control centre in Carlisle, as there is in Exeter. We are considering further support with the Ministry of Defence. The comments of my hon. Friend and the farmers in Cumbria whom I met showed a clear understanding of what the Army could and could not do, unlike comments that have been made about the use of the Army more generally.
The management changes that we are introducing in Cumbria will be important. The arrival of Jane Brown as director of operations is a helpful development. She is a very senior MAFF official, and she will co-ordinate the Army logistics and the disposal mechanisms, and work with existing staff and new staff who are being brought in. It is also important to highlight the work of Richard Drummond, the assistant chief veterinary officer, who will be responsible for veterinary operations in Cumbria and the north-east. I have known him since the beginning of the outbreak, when he was advising me on an earlier visit that I made to the Heddon-on-the-Wall area, and I know that his role will be useful.
My hon. Friend mentioned the wider issues. Jane Brown will participate in the Cumbria taskforce because we believe that the Ministry has a role in its work. When I was in Cumbria at the weekend, I was interested to hear about the setting up of the taskforce, and I endorse my hon. Friend's comments about Cumbria county council's role in the process—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at thirteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Deferred Divisions
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (S.I., 2001, No. 85)
That the Weights and Measures (Metrication Amendments) Regulations 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 85), dated 16th January 2001, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th January, be revoked.
The House divided: Ayes 182, Noes 263.

Division No. 162]

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Allan, Richard

Fox, Dr Liam

Amess, David

Fraser, Christopher

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Gale, Roger

Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

Garnier, Edward

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Gibb, Nick

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Gidley, Sandra

Baker, Norman

Gill, Christopher

Ballard, Jackie

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Beggs, Roy

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Berth, Rt Hon A J

Gray, James

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Green, Damian

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Greenway, John

Bercow, John

Grieve, Dominic

Blunt, Crispin

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Boswell, Tim

Hague, Rt Hon William

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Hammond, Philip

Brady, Graham

Harris, Dr Evan

Brake, Tom

Harvey, Nick

Brand, Dr Peter

Hawkins, Nick

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Hayes, John

Browning, Mrs Angela

Heald, Oliver

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Burnett, John

Horam, John

Burns, Simon

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Burstow, Paul

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Butterfill, John

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Jenkin, Bernard

Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Cash, William

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Keetch, Paul

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

Chidgey, David

Chope, Christopher

Key, Robert

Clappison, James

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Coleman, lain

Kirkwood, Archy

Collins, Tim

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Connarty, Michael

Lansley, Andrew

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Cotter, Brian

Leigh, Edward

Cran, James

Letwin, Oliver

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

Lidington, David

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Curry, Rt Hon David

Livsey, Richard

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Loughton, Tim

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Luff, Peter

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

McCartney, Robert (N Down)

Day, Stephen

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Donaldson, Jeffrey

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Duncan, Alan

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Duncan Smith, lain

McLoughlin, Patrick

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

McNamara, Kevin

Evans, Nigel

Madel, Sir David

Fabricant, Michael

Maples, John

Fallon, Michael

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Feam, Ronnie

Mates, Michael

Flight, Howard

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

456

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

May, Mrs Theresa

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

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Moore, Michael

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

Spicer, Sir Michael

(B'ham Yardley)

Spring, Richard

Moss, Malcolm

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Nicholls, Patrick

Streeter, Gary

Norman, Archie

Stunell, Andrew

Oaten, Mark

Swayne, Desmond

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Syms, Robert

Ottaway, Richard

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Page, Richard

Taylor. John M (Solihull)

Paice, James

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Paterson, Owen

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Pickles, Eric

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Prior, David

Tredinnick, David

Randall, John

Trend, Michael

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Tyler, Paul

Rendel, David

Tyrie, Andrew

Robathan, Andrew

Walter, Robert

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Waterson, Nigel

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Webb, Steve

Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

Whittingdale, John

Ruffley, David

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Wilkinson, John

St Aubyn, Nick

Willetts, David

Sanders, Adrian

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Shepherd, Richard

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene (PaisleyN)

Clapham, Michael

Ainger, Nick

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Alexander, Douglas

Clark, Dr Lynda

Allen, Graham

(Edinburgh Pentlands)

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Ashton, Joe

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Atkins, Charlotte

Clelland, David

Austin, John

Clwyd, Ann

Barnes, Harry

Coaker, Vernon

Barron, Kevin

Coffey, Ms Ann

Bayley, Hugh

Colman, Tony

Beard, Nigel

Cooper, Yvette

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Corbett, Robin

Begg, Miss Anne

Corbyn, Jeremy

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Cousins, Jim

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Cranston, Ross

Bennett, Andrew F

Crausby, David

Benton, Joe

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Berry, Roger

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Betts, Clive

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Blackman, Liz

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Davis, Rt Hon Terry

Borrow, David

(B'ham Hodge H)

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Dawson, Hilton

Bradshaw, Ben

Denham, Rt Hon John

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Dismore, Andrew

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Dobbin, Jim

Browne, Desmond

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Burden, Richard

Donohoe, Brian H

Burgon, Colin

Doran, Frank

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Dowd, Jim

Cabom, Rt Hon Richard

Drew, David

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Drown, Ms Julia

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Edwards, Huw

Caplin. Ivor

Efford, Clive

Casale, Roger

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Caton, Martin

Ennis, Jeff

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Chaytor, David

Flint, Caroline

Church, Ms Judith

Flynn, Paul

457

Follett, Barbara

Mackinlay. Andrew

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

McNulty, Tony

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

MacShane, Denis

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Foulkes, George

McWalter, Tony

Fyfe, Maria

McWilliam John

Gardiner, Barry

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Gerrard, Neil

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

Gibson, Dr Ian

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Godman, Dr Norman A

Martlew, Eric

Godsiff, Roger

Meale, Alan

Goggins, Paul

Merron, Gllian

Golding, Mrs Llin

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Michie, Bil (Shef'ld Heeley)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Miller, Andrew

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Moffatt, Laura

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Grogan, John

Moran, Ms Margaret

Hain, Peter

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Mullin, Chris

Hendrick, Mark

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Hepburn, Stephen

Murphy, Jm (Eastwood)

Heppell, John

Murphy, t Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Hesford, Stephen

Norris, Dan

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Hinchliffe, David

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Hodge, Ms Margaret

O'Hara, Eddie

Hoey, Kate

O'Neill, Martin

Hope, Phil

Organ, Mrs Diana

Hopkins, Kelvin

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

Pearson, an

Howells, Dr Kim

Pickhall, Colin

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Pike, Peter L

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Plaskitt, James

Humble, Mrs Joan

Pond, Chris

lddon, Dr Brian

Pope, Greg

Illsley, Eric

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Primarolo Dawn

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Prosser, Gwyn

Jamieson, David

Purchase Ken

Jenkins, Brian

Quin. Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Quinn, Lawrie

Radice, Rt Hon Giles

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Raynsforrl, Nick

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Robinson Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Joyce, Eric

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Rogers, Allan

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Ross, Err ie (Dundee W)

Kelly, Ms Ruth

Rowlands, Ted

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Roy, Frank

Khabra, Piara S

Ruane, Chris

Kidney, David

Ruddock Joan

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Kingham, Ms Tess

Salter, Martin

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Sarwar, Mohammad

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Savidge, Malcolm

Laxton, Bob

Sawford, Phil

Lepper, David

Sedgemore, Brian

Levitt, Tom

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Short, Rt Hon Clare

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Skinner, Dennis

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Linton, Martin

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Soley, Clive

Love, Andrew

Southworth, Ms Helen

McAvoy, Thomas

Speller, John

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Squire, Ms Rachel

McDonagh, Siobhain

Steinberg, Gerry

McFall, John

Stevenson, George

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Stewart, an (Eccles)

Mclsaac, Shona

Strang, t Hon Dr Gavin

458

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Ward, Ms Claire

Stringer, Graham

Watts, David

Sutcliffe, Gerry

White, Brian

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Temple-Morris, Peter

Wicks, Malcolm

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Timms, Stephen

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Touhig Don

Wills, Michael

Trickett, Jon

Winnick, David

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Wood. Mike

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Woodward, Shaun

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Worthington, Tony

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Tynan, Bill

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Walley, Ms Joan

Wyatt, Derek

Question accordingly negatived.

Deferred Divisions

  EUROPEAN SECURITY AND DEFENCE POLICY
  That this House takes note of the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 27th November 2000 relating to the Presidency Report to the Nice European Council on the Common European Security and Defence Policy (document 14056/3/00) and the three unnumbered Explanatory Memoranda submitted by the FCO on 22nd and 23rd January relating to the establishment of permanent CESDP bodies; welcomes the Government's approach to a Common European Security and Defence Policy; and supports the Govenment's intention to pursue this intitiative in the EU and in close co-operation with NATO.
  The House divided: Ayes 303,Noes 133.

  Division No. 163]

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Burstow, Paul

  Ainger, Nick

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Alexander, Douglas

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Allan, Richard

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Allen, Graham

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ashton, Joe

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Caplin, Ivor

  Austin, John

  Casale, Roger

  Baker, Norman

  Caton, Martin

  Ballard, Jackie

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Barnes, Harry

  Chaytor, David

  Barron, Kevin

  Chidgey, David

  Bayley, Hugh

  Church, Ms Judith

  Beard, Nigel

  Clapham, Michael

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Clelland, David

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Clwyd, Ann

  Benton, Joe

  Coaker, Vernon

  Berry, Roger

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Betts, Clive

  Coleman, lain

  Blackman, Liz

  Colman, Tony

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Connarty, Michael

  Borrow, David

  Cooper, Yvette

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Corbett, Robin

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Cotter, Brian

  Brake, Tom

  Cranston, Ross

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Crausby, David

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Browne, Desmond

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Burden, Richard

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Burgon, Colin

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  459

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Joyce, Eric

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

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Keetch, Paul

  Denham. Rt Hon John

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Dismore, Andrew

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

  Dobbin, Jim

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Khabra, Piara S

  Doran, Frank

  Kidney, David

  Dowd, Jim

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Drew, David

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Eagle, Maria (L pool Garston)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Edwards, Huw

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Efford, Clive

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Laxton, Bob

  Ennis, Jeff

  Lepper, David

  Feam, Ronnie

  Levitt, Tom

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lewis. Ivan (Bury S)

  Flint, Caroline

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Flynn, Paul

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Follett, Barbara

  Linton, Martin

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Livsey, Richard

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lloyd. Tony (Manchester C)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Love, Andrew

  Foulkes, George

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Fyfe, Maria

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Gardiner, Barry

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  McFall, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Gidley, Sandra

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McNamara, Kevin

  Godsiff, Roger

  McNulty, Tony

  Goggins, Paul

  MacShane, Denis

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McWalter, Tony

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McWilliam, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Grogan. John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hain, Peter

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Meacher. Rt Hon Michael

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Meale, Alan

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Merron, Gillian

  Harvey, Nick

  Michael. Rt Hon Alun

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Miller, Andrew

  Heppell, John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hesford, Stephen

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Moore, Michael

  Hinchliffe, David

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hoey, Kate

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hope, Phil

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Mullin, Chris

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Murphy. Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Norris, Dan

  Illsley, Eric

  Oaten, Mark

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jamieson, David

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Jenkins, Brian

  O'Neill, Martin

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Osbome, Ms Sandra

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Pickthall, Corn

  Jones, Helen (Wamngton N)

  Pike, Peter L

  460

  Plaskitt, James

  Stevenson, George

  Pond, Chris

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Pope, Greg

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Stringer, Graham

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Stunell, Andrew

  Purchase, Ken

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Quin. Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Rendel, David

  Timms, Stephen

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Touhig, Don

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov try NW)

  Trickett, Jon

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Rogers, Allan

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Roy, Frank

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Ruane, Chris

  Tyler, Paul

  Ruddock, Joan

  Tynan, Bill

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Salter, Martin

  Watts, David

  Sanders, Adrian

  Webb, Steve

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  White, Brian

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Sawford, Phil

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Williams. Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Wills, Michael

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (xford E)

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Wood, Mike

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab''ns)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Soley, Clive

  Worthington, Tony

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Spellar, John

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Wyatt, Derek

  Steinberg, Gerry

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Amess, David

  Evans, Nigel

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Fabricant, Michael

  Arbuthnot. Rt Hon James

  Fallon. Michael

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Flight, Howard

  Beggs, Roy

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bercow, John

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Blunt, Crispin

  Fraser, Christopher

  Boswell, Tim

  Gale, Roger

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Garnier, Edward

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Vi ginia

  Gibb, Nick

  Brady. Graham

  Gill, Christopher

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bruce. Ian (S Dorset)

  Gray, James

  Burnett, John

  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

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  Heald, Oliver

  Collins, Tim

  Heathcoat—Amory. Rt Hon David

  Cran, James

  Horam, John

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Johnson Smith,

  Duncan, Alan

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Duncan Smith, lain

  Key, Robert

  461

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Mates, Michael

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Lansley, Andrew

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Leigh, Edward

  Moss, Ma colm

  Letwin, Oliver

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Lidington, David

  Norman, Archie

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Ottaway, Richard

  Loughton. Tim

  Page, Richard

  Luff, Peter

  Paice, James

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Paterson, Owen

  McCartney, Robert (N Down)

  Pickles, Eric

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Prior, David

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Randall, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Madel, Sir David

  Robathan, Andrew

  Maples, John

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  462

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Ruffley David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Tredinnick, David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Trend. Michael

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Shepherd, Richard

  Walter, Robert

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Whittingdale, John

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Spring. Richard

  Willetts, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Streeter, Gary

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Syms, Robert

  Question accordingly agreed to.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Illegal Drugs
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
9.30 am
Mr. Nigel Evans: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue, which I know is in many ways a cross-party one. I know that there will be much consensus about what I am about to say. Many hon. Members have approached me in the past few days, since I won this spot in Westminster Hall, to say that they would be interested in contributing to the debate; several others who unfortunately cannot be here today have also shown an interest in it.
It is widely accepted that illegal drugs are the scourge of modern society. They ruin lives and leave behind not just death, in many instances, but family break-up, and they are one of the major causes of crime not just in this country but throughout the world. Drug-related crime is conservatively estimated to cost the country £2.5 billion—I have heard much higher estimates. Almost two thirds of criminals test positive for one or more drugs.
Drug use among our youngsters is also worrying, although I stress at the outset that the vast majority of young people do not take illegal drugs. There is a perception that it is the norm for anyone under 25 to do so, but it is not. That should be stressed time and time again. However, a recent study by the Alcohol and Health Research Centre confirmed that teenagers from Britain are more likely than are most of their European counterparts to have taken drugs. The report's author, Dr. Martin Plant, said:
"One of the problems we have is that drug taking has now become so commonplace that it is widely regarded as socially acceptable."
The report found cannabis use—that is, the percentage of those who had used it at least once—in Britain to be 35 per cent., in France 35 per cent, in Ireland 32 per cent., in Sweden 8 per cent., and in Greece 8 per cent. So we can see that we have a real problem compared with our European neighbours. The percentages of respondents aged between 16 and 59 in England and Wales reporting the use of cannabis, cocaine and heroin in the British crime surveys of 1994, 1996 and 1998 show an upward trend. Again, we have a real problem: the number of those admitting to taking illegal drugs has increased.
Deaths from hard drugs, such as heroin, cocaine and Ecstasy, have risen dramatically during the past six years. Since 1995, cocaine-related deaths have risen fourfold in England and Wales, while Ecstasy has featured in two and a half times more fatalities. Heroin or morphine-related deaths have risen by 110 per cent. from 357 in 1995 to 754 in 1999.It must be noted that that Office for National Statistics study did not include deaths registered as having been caused by drug overdoses.
66WH
Drugs are now commonplace in all parts of our society. More and more companies are testing their employees for drug use. British Airways recently announced that its crews were to face spot tests for drink and drugs—I think that we would all welcome that.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I congratulate him on securing this debate. Does he agree that the taking of hard drugs appears to be getting disproportionately worse in rural areas? The figure for hard drug addicts in Gloucestershire has risen from 28 in 1997 to 112 today. Does he agree that one of the best methods for combating that menace to our society is to have a proper preventive education programme? Only four police officers are dedicated to that task in Gloucestershire. Should not the Government wage war in that respect? Although they have announced a small amount of extra money for the drugs and alcohol action teams, should not they fund more dedicated police officers for a preventive education programme?
Mr. Evans: Like my hon. Friend, I represent a rural constituency. There is a perception that the drugs problem exists only in big cities and large towns. The Minister will know that that is not the case. There is a drugs problem in rural areas, and because the areas that we represent are so rural and so large, it is difficult to police them. We need to redouble our efforts on prevention, and education is the key. That is how we can get the message across to young people, especially in small rural schools, and we have to do it as early as possible. It is never too early to start.
I welcome the announcement that British Airways is introducing drug testing in the workplace. Doctors and nurses, too, will face random testing for drink and drugs under proposals that are being drawn up by the NHS trusts. The General Medical Council and the majority of medical students back the proposals, although the Royal College of Nursing would prefer the scheme to be voluntary. If we are to be treated by doctors and nurses, we want to know that they are not suffering from the effects of drugs.
Yesterday, we heard that the British Army is reputed to be relaxing its rules against drug use, in order to ease the shortage of recruits. More than 2,300 soldiers have been discharged since drug testing was introduced in 1995. In 1999, 485 soldiers tested positive for illegal drug use. In the last 10 months of last year, 580 tested positive, so the problem is getting worse.
Mr. Paul Flynn: I am most interested in what the hon. Gentleman says. Will he extend his enthusiasm for drug testing to tests for legal and illegal drugs on parliamentarians and civil servants?
Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman's views on this issue are widely known and sincerely held. I disagree with him on many points, but I agree that we should consider the possibility of extending drug testing into key areas—for instance to pilots. I should not like to be on an aircraft where I thought that the pilot was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The same would apply if 1 were going into hospital. Drug tests are being used increasingly in many areas of work, particularly where machinery is

67WH
used. [Interruption.] No, the issue must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. I am not going to rule it out, and I am not going to rule it in.
Mr. Flynn: Surely it is a matter of the greatest seriousness if people are inebriated—and their judgement is therefore affected—when they are in charge of a country, in charge of a legislature, or in charge of a foot and mouth outbreak.
Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case. His suggestion should be looked at, but on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps the Minister will consider it.
The message for new recruits, according to a headline in the Evening Standard, is that the Army seems to be going soft. I am sure that the last thing that the Government would like is to be seen as a soft touch on drugs. I hope that the Minister will refer to this new policy so that we can find out where the Government stand. A record number of British people are being held in jails abroad, which demonstrates that the problem is still with us, and that it is on the increase. We must be vigilant in all areas, including rural areas, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has said.
My hon. Friend mentioned education, which is how we can make the greatest inroads. The classroom is an important tool in getting the message across to our youngsters as much as possible. The simple fact that we declare substances illegal does not mean that people will immediately be influenced not to use them. We know that the reverse is often true. The chief rabbi wrote a piece in The Daily Telegraph today along those lines.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way to me again, especially as I am afraid that I cannot stay for the whole debate, as I am due elsewhere. Does he acknowledge that the Cotswold objective group on the role of drugs and alcohol in crime and disorder recently introduced a good initiative in the form of a needle exchange? Not only did many users come forward, but it was discovered that the youngest user in the first week was as young as 12. Does that suggest that the problem is becoming more serious in rural areas and affecting our youngsters at a younger age? We must pay attention to that.
Mr. Evans: There is no doubt that people are getting older at a younger age—if that makes any sense; I hope that it is the most illogical statement that I make during the debate. We would all be depressed by the knowledge that people as young as 12 were injecting themselves with illegal drugs. I hope that the support that they receive, in a voluntary or a professional capacity, will be sufficient to wean them off drugs. It is appalling and chilling to think that lives are blighted and wasted before they have even been lived. I shall say a little more about treatment shortly, and I hope that the Minister can respond positively. That 12-year-old should be in the classroom, but I suspect that he rarely visits any classroom, which is absurd. I hope that teachers will receive full support to help and assist that child.
All children and young people have role models. Everyone seems to be dazzled by the glitterati and the soap stars these days. The photograph of Daniella
68WH
Westbrooke, a former "EastEnders" star, that showed that her nose had been eaten away by cocaine addiction, was one of the most horrifying pictures that I have seen in a national newspaper. I could barely look at it. As most youngsters look towards soap stars as examples that they would like to follow, I suggest that we use that photograph in any advertising campaign. If it cannot put people off snorting cocaine, I do not know what can. I read that she is trying to free herself from her addiction, but, sadly, is regularly relapsing. Few of us understand the pressures of addiction to cocaine and how people free themselves from it. She is certainly no role model for those who look up to people on television, although there are some good role models.
Another celebrity who is no role model is Eminem, about whom there was much publicity when he came here from the United States. There was an investigation following his performance in Manchester, as he was reported to have not only taken drugs on stage in front of 15,000 fans, but encouraged many of them to take Ecstasy and other illegal drugs. I suspect that there were many youngsters, perhaps people as young as 12, in that audience.
I do not know what stage the police investigation has reached. I hope that if it is proven that Eminem, from the stage, encouraged 15,000 fans—some of them may have been children—to take Ecstasy, the Minister will consider the incident seriously and ensure that the information is passed to the Home Secretary and that Eminem is forbidden to come to this country to play here again. It is appalling for someone like that to encourage our young people, who look up to him as a role model, to take drugs. The United States of America has a strong policy on admitting people to the country if they are known to have taken drugs. I hope that we will take an equally hard line and prevent a United States citizen who has so much influence to spread such a message from coming here.
Many others act as role models; I think of Ellen McArthur, Tracey Edwards, Colin Montgomery, Steven Redgrave and David Beckham, who walked out of the Eminem concert with his wife—good on him! He was disgusted by what he saw—Denise Lewis, Tim Henman, Lennox Lewis and Michael Owen also show that young people have many role models.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend has been generous in giving way. Does he agree that the courts have a role to play in deterring those dealing in drugs with intent? A teenager in my constituency on his way to a night club recently was found to have 12 Ecstasy pills. That was far too many for his personal consumption, and he was convicted for dealing with intent. He was sentenced to 20 hours. community service. Does that not send totally the wrong message?
Mr. Evans: Absolutely. It is a joke. Whenever they can, the police put a lot of effort into cracking down on drugs, but for courts to impose such sentences must be morale-sapping for them. I suspect that no hon. Member would want that.
Mr. Flynn: Given that a thousand times as many people are affected by tobacco, and have their lives wrecked and their health destroyed by it, than are affected by cocaine, and that even more are affected by

69WH
the abuse of alcohol, will the hon. Gentleman set an example by ending the sale of tobacco and cigarettes in his shop in Swansea?
Mr. Evans: I would be more than happy. I also sell alcohol, so the hon. Gentleman could get me on that as well. However, he knows that we operate within the law on the sale of cigarettes and alcohol, and I would back a Government advertising campaign that spread information about the dangers of drugs. I happen to own a convenience store—
Mr. Flynn: The hon. Gentleman is a drug pusher.
Mr. Evans: I own a convenience store, and tobacco is one of the many products that we sell. I agree that we need to educate people away from cigarettes and restrict their use of alcohol to a moderate intake. If the Government ever decided to make cigarettes illegal, I would stop selling them immediately. The emphasis is on the Government taking action.
Jackie Ballard: Following that train of thought, we know that alcohol and tobacco are widely used, including by many hon. Members. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when parents have a cigarette or a glass of whisky to help them unwind at the end of the day, they may give their children the message that it is okay to take drugs to relax or unwind, but that the youngsters may then decide to take another drug that is not as dangerous as alcohol or tobacco?
Mr. Evans: Yes, that may be the perception, but I do not agree with it. Those who have a gin and tonic to unwind at the end of the evening do not do so to get stoned, but people who take cannabis do. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady is falling into the trap of thinking that cannabis is not so bad, that it is a drug for younger people to use instead of gin and tonic, and that such drinks are only for the grey set. I totally disagree with her. In a moment, I shall cite what Professor Henry says on the subject, and I hope that she will keep an open mind.
I congratulate our teachers. I have spoken to a number of teachers in Ribble Valley over the past couple of days to find out what work they are doing, not only for children but for parents. I understand that it is now the policy for schools to educate parents in how to recognise whether their children are taking drugs. It cannot be an easy job—they are not skilled in it—and teachers would welcome whatever support can be offered. Teachers certainly appreciate life education. I am a Rotarian, and we do a lot to support life education vehicles throughout the country, which spread the message to young people about all substance abuse—not only drugs, but all substances, including glue, over-consumption of alcohol and cigarette smoking. I congratulate the people involved on what they do. I believe that they now have more than 50 mobile classrooms.
There were mixed messages from the Runciman report. I congratulate the Government and the Home Secretary on standing up against its recommendations on reclassification of some drugs. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold has talked about sending the
70WH
wrong messages. What message would have been conveyed by reclassification of those drugs in a way that made them appear more acceptable?
I congratulated the Government on establishing the post of drugs tsar, which was a good idea. I hope that the drugs tsar will keep his messages straight and clear. There should be as few mixed messages as possible. When he talks about cracking down on hard drugs he must emphasise that it cannot be inferred that he will therefore be relaxed about soft drug consumption.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has presented a seven-point plan on drug taking. There is not time to list those points now, but it is vital to give head teachers the freedom to implement anti-drugs policies in schools and allow them to exclude pupils when they judge it necessary. There should be an emphasis on education. An emphasis in schools on the illegality of drugs will not have the desired impact. They should emphasise drugs' effect on people.
Professor Henry, a toxicologist who sees accident victims in the course of his work in the accident and emergency unit of St. Mary's hospital, wants more research to be done into the long-term effects of taking so-called soft drugs such as cannabis. I urge the Government to re-examine the need for that work. There is a perception that soft drugs, are not as bad as alcohol. Much research has been done in the United States of America, and we should follow suit, as well as sharing information as much as possible.
I welcomed drug testing and treatment orders when they were introduced, but they have not been as successful as they could have been. I believe that the drop-out rate is 50 per cent., which is far too high. I ask that they be re-evaluated, to ascertain how they can be made more effective.
I have received a letter from the Rev. John Garfoot, a Methodist minister in Norfolk, about treatment of addicts. He wants more Government action, and I agree with him. He writes:
"The basic mistake…is that drug misuse is treated as a crime problem not as a health issue. Seizures are commendably up but still massive quantities of illicit drugs are getting through to the streets. Arrest referral schemes are good but the damage is already done. What is needed is to attract into treatment drug misusers before they reach this stage. As it is, the only way many can get treatment is to commit an offence and be arrested. So treatment, treatment, treatment should be the watchword."
I agree.
Dr. Brian Iddon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the doctor whom he mentioned just now has not only been under investigation by the Home Office in the past, but is currently under investigation by the General Medical Council for prescribing high doses of drugs to the most chaotic addicts? If he is banned from practising, hundreds of the most chaotic drug users in London will be released onto the streets. No other doctors will take them up. Does the hon. Gentleman regard that as serious?
Mr. Evans: I am not aware of the case that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, and I hope that he will have an opportunity to make his own contribution to the debate. We must ensure that people with a problem receive treatment as early as possible. Banging up some of those drug users in prison without treatment is

71WH
useless. Forcing them to commit crimes to get treatment is the wrong approach. I hope that the Minister will give close attention to what the hon. Gentleman has said. He is chairman of the all-party group on drugs misuse and takes the issue very seriously.
A legal loophole exists with respect to crack cocaine. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, it is illegal for the owner or occupier of a property to allow cannabis or opium to be smoked on the premises, but the law does not cover crack cocaine, which had not really been heard of when that Act was introduced. I understand that when raids are made, people need only to throw away the drug and they cannot be touched. Please will the Government look again at that?
I turn finally to drug driving, which is a real problem and is on the increase. As the Minister will be aware, I raised the issue on 5 February during Home Office questions, and I urge the Government to consider a four-point plan. This would include, first, a national campaign to highlight the dangers of driving while under the influence of drugs. That should take the form of a high-profile television and poster campaign. Secondly, the highway code should be redrafted to contain more information on the dangers of drug driving. Learner drivers must be expected to know about the dangers. I have a copy of the section of the highway code that deals with alcohol and drugs, and it is so small as to be almost useless.
Thirdly, it should be compulsory to he asked about the issues surrounding drug driving in the driving theory test, and drivers should not be allowed to progress to their driving test unless they have answered the questions correctly. Fourthly, information should be given out when anyone applies for a driving licence, or with other correspondence sent out by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, telling people about the ill effects of alcohol and drugs.
The four-point plan is straightforward. I know that the RAC wants more to be done about drug driving. Indeed, a letter from the RAC states:
"An estimated eighty-five per cent. of 22—25 year olds believe that their peer group regularly drive after taking drugs. Drug driving could be more prevalent than drink driving within this age range."
The letter continues:
"Unlike alcohol, most respondents attached little social stigma to driving after having taken ecstasy. One respondent described: `No, it's not shunned as such. There isn't anybody I know who'd get into a car with somebody that is drunk, but there is an awful lot of people I know who would get into a car with someone who is on E."'
We must do a lot more. I know that the Home Office recently announced the introduction of roadside tests to find out whether people have taken drugs. I welcome that, as far as it goes, but it seems to go no further than did our attempts to deal with alcohol consumption 20 or 30 years ago. More research is required into effective ways of testing for drugs. Please will the Minister consider the idea of an advertising campaign, and of rewriting the highway code to ensure that it contains much more information about the effects of drug and alcohol consumption on drivers? Will he make certain that the theory test will include questions about alcohol
72WH
and drug taking, and that anyone who answers those questions incorrectly will fail the test? The problem cannot be over-emphasised.
Someone in my office spoke to the question bank manager at the Driving Standards Agency. He wants the highway code to include more information about drugs, because that would make it possible to question people in more detail about the problems of driving under the influence of drugs or drink. Any action taken by the Government that helps to educate youngsters about the problems of taking drugs will receive full support from the Opposition. We have a common battle to fight, and I want the Government, of whatever political colour, to get on with the job.
9.58 am
Mr. Paul Flynn: There have been two reports on drugs in the past 12 months. There is the "United Kingdom Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator's Annual Report 1999/2000", which is vacuous piffle, unscientific, self-admiring and useless. Perhaps that is too generous—I tend to be mealy-mouthed whenever I talk about the drug tsar's report. Then there is another report—"Drugs and the Law: Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971"—which is scientific, authoritative, independent and practical. It was written over two years by a group of policemen and scientists, and it comes up with solutions. The sad thing is that the first report represents the policy both of the Opposition and the Government, and the second does not.
I have listened to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) with some interest. All drugs are damaging, and one should always make one's own position clear. I am a user of drugs— I am devoted to wine and beer, in modest quantities. They add a great deal of pleasure to my life and help me to relax.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: Those are both legal.
Mr. Flynn: All drugs are potentially damaging, but they are all part of nature, and gifts from God, to be used in either a detrimental or a beneficial way. On the subject of medicinal drugs, I must repeat that I have never taken an illegal drug in my life—and although I have had arthritis since I was a child, I have not taken any medicinal drugs for the last 25 years, and I do not intend to start doing so.
In considering the drugs problem, it is completely distorted to talk about the harm caused by a small group of illegal drugs and ignore the enormous damage to lives and health caused by legal drugs. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley, as I mentioned earlier, is a purveyor of tobacco and cigarettes, and of alcohol. He might also be a purveyor of medicinal drugs. The number of deaths caused by Ecstasy has been mentioned. Over recent years, the average number of such deaths, which were all terrible tragedies in themselves, and devastating for the families concerned, has been seven. The number of people killed by anti-depressants during every one of the past 10 years is between 400 and 500. More than 1,000 people are killed by analgesics every year, 120,000 by tobacco and 40,000 by alcohol. The costs that follow from all the other problems caused by those drugs are also high.

73WH
The hon. Gentleman has outlined the conventional, timid politician's approach, which is inexcusable. We should blame politicians. The hon. Gentleman told a story of failure. The turning point in British drug law was on 27 May 1971. The Misuse of Drugs Act is nearly 30 years old. All the parties agreed about it. The Act started out as Labour legislation and was subsequently taken up by a Tory Government. The result of that legislation—the result of policies the same as those presented by both the Government and the Opposition this morning—has been a 2,000 per cent. increase in drug harm in Britain. We are the worst drug users in Europe. We have more deaths, and they are increasing at a steeper rate, than in any other country in Europe.
For the past 18 months, I have been writing a report for the Council of Europe, as rapporteur for the Committee on social, Health and Family Affairs, which has looked at drug use in 43 countries. There has been a mountainous increase in all drug use in England and Wales—the part of the UK for which there are figures. How dare we, with this record of continuous failure by all Governments, dare to preach at other countries? How dare we reject this independent inquiry, which suggests reforms? Instead of reforming, we fall back on the comfortable, self-admiring report produced in Whitehall, which simply says that we should carry on, appear to do something and throw money at problems. We set up organisations and we create new bureaucracies so as to give an appearance of activity.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley mentioned drug education. That is a fascinating subject. There are incontrovertible reports of drug education leading to increased drug use. However, I know of no case, and I would challenge anyone to produce one, in which anti-drug education has led to a reduction in drug use. We used to talk about Operation Charlie.
Mrs. Winterton: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's point. Does he agree that more sex education has led to more sexual activity among the young, especially the under-age?
Mr. Flynn indicated dissent.
Jackie Ballard indicated dissent
Mrs. Winterton: That is true, although hon. Members are shaking their heads. That is the effect of the way in which such education is given. If it is merely a damage limitation exercise, which is so often the case with sex education, and, in some cases with drugs education, one will get the result that the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) described. However, a genuine drug prevention programme, sustained over a period of time, gives different results, as has been shown in America and elsewhere.
Mr. Flynn: I ask the hon. Lady, as I have asked Governments of both political colours over the years, to give me an example of a scientifically examined anti-drug programme that led to a decline in drug use. Sex education certainly does not have much effect. Most young people in this country have been at it for a long time before sex education arrives in their schools. If we want an example of excellent sex education, we should
74WH
look to the Netherlands and its remarkably low rate of unwanted pregnancy and abortion. That is the model to follow.
I do not want to take too long, but the hon. Lady should consider what America did in the 1950s, when anti-drugs groups were sent out to tell young people not to do drugs. They told young people that drugs were wicked—which is exactly what young people wanted to hear—and that their parents would not like them to do drugs, which presented them with another challenge. All young people want to do things differently from their parents. The groups also said that drugs were dangerous, but all young people are risk takers and believe that they are immortal. The anti-drugs groups sent out a message that was irresistible to young people, so drug use followed that drugs education programme as surely as night followed day.
There was once something called Operation Charlie, which other hon. Members may want to mention. Again, a tiny piece of drug education that involved 40-odd children for a brief period proved absolutely nothing, but we used it as a basis for our beliefs about what the way out should be. The Government refused to consider the practical policies that have reduced drug harm in Switzerland, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Italy. We should consider fairly what is happening in those countries, which are all moving away from the idea of prohibition, and what is happening in Sweden. Its policy of strict prohibition is similar to Britain's, and drug use there is rising rapidly. Of the 43 countries in the Council of Europe, the two countries with increasing drug problems—although Sweden starts from a low base—are the two most prohibitionist countries. Countries with policies based on intelligence and pragmatism have fewer and reducing problems.
The speech by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley was the traditional one that we have heard many times. He referred to the Rev. John Garfoot. I had a case in my constituency of a young man who had reached the point in his life—as many addicts do after a bereavement, the loss of a relationship or another major event—at which he wanted to kick his drug addiction. That feeling does not always last long. Within a fortnight, he might have changed his mind, but when he came to me, he wanted to get off drugs. Could I, as his MP, or anyone else get him on to a course? I could not. I had to tell him that the only practical way of getting on to a course of treatment for his drug addiction was to commit a crime that was serious enough to put him in prison, and he would receive treatment straight away. That is exactly what happened with the son of a woman who bravely went on Radio 2 and said that she wanted her son to live. That is the current position in this land.
We are going down that road because of political cowardice and our failure to face up to the practical ways of helping people. We, as politicians, must take some of the blame. We cannot blame drugs, because they are inert substances, with which mankind can do as it wishes. By refusing to take hard decisions, we in the House are responsible for drug deaths. If present trends continue, there will be at least 1,000 avoidable drug deaths in Britain during the 10 years of the policy in the document, and we will be to blame. We can try to blame drug pushers, but why do they exist?

75WH
There is an illegal drug trade, and drugs empires, because we have prohibition. We are following exactly the same policies of prohibition that were followed in America in the 1920s with alcohol, and we are therefore having the same experience. The only way to start to get control of the drug problem and reduce it, instead of increasing it every year, is to collapse the illegal, criminal and irresponsible black market and replace it with a market than can be licensed, controlled, policed and regulated. At present, there is not a child in this country, of almost any age, who cannot get hold of a soft drug. If we had a licensed market on which soft drugs were available, people who sold drugs to children would lose their licences and go out of business.
Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman must be aware of the enormous amount of smuggling in cigarettes and alcohol from the continent to this country that is taking place now. Does he not realise that, if we have the licensed system that he suggests, white van man will come into this country with truckloads of illegal, or licensed, substances, and children would have access to them, too?
Mr. Flynn: Where does the hon. Gentleman think white van man is now? How does he think uncontrollable amounts of drugs are getting into Britain now? The price of heroin has hardly changed in 40 years; there is no problem with the supply of drugs coming into Britain, as there is an open door for drugs. In a legal market there could be some control over the sale of drugs, but there is no control over an illegal market. There are other advantages, too: if people use the drugs legally they can take them without having to mix the soft drug cannabis with the terrible, addictive, killer drug tobacco, which the hon. Member for Ribble Valley sells in great quantities. People could take soft drugs by other means—by eating, by drinking, or through inhalers, for example—which are far safer than smoking. They could also take milder forms of drugs in a market where they were not prohibited.
In the United States under prohibition, the alcohol that was sold was distilled spirit, which was concentrated and easy to transport, but the alcoholic content was difficult to control. In this country now we have drugs and their lethal and addictive products in their most concentrated form. If there was a legal market for cannabis, the situation would be the same as it is in Holland, where people do not set out to get stoned; the hon. Member for Ribble Valley is entirely wrong about that. They have a choice of perhaps a dozen different forms of cannabis that they can smoke, or take in drinks or in a cake. In a legal market, the great majority take the mildest forms of drugs, as most of us drink wine or beer rather than spirits.
The responsibility is on us, as parliamentarians, to look fairly, intelligently and rationally at the drugs problem. The main difficulty is our own political prejudices and our fear of being pilloried as drug
76WH
pushers by the popular press. It is the job of politicians not to follow what the tabloids tell us, but to give a lead; that is the only way for us to reduce drug harm.
Mr. Eric Illsley (in the Chair ): I shall call the party spokespersons no later than 10.30 am. I should be grateful if the remaining two Back Benchers could divide the time left until then between them.
10.12 am
Dr. Brian Iddon: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on securing a debate on this important topic. In 1999, when Keith Hellawell published his first annual report, we had a major debate on the subject that took an entire Friday afternoon. I had hoped that that exercise would be repeated last year, and I asked the Leader of the House to secure such a debate, but one was not forthcoming. I hope that the Minister will take note of that, because drug misuse is Britain's number one social problem and all hon. Members should be given the chance to debate the anti-drugs co-ordinator's annual report when it is published.
When the Government took office, we were spending about £1.75 billion annually on tackling the misuse of drugs. Since then, the figure has increased several times, most recently in the March Budget. Will the Minister give us an up-to-date figure on what all the Departments are spending on tackling the issue?
When the Government began their work in 1997, most of that money was spent on enforcement, but little treatment was available for addicts or those who were affected by drugs. Since then, I have pressed the Government to move more closely to the treatment end of the spectrum. I believe that drugs misuse is a health issue with criminal consequences, rather than a criminal issue with health consequences. However, until recently, the increased sums devoted to tackling drugs issues have been spent at the enforcement end of the spectrum, and we have left it rather late to increase treatment provision.
I am worried that people who enter treatment via the Government's enforcement measures will gain preferential treatment over those who have not. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) illustrated that problem with an example. Surely it should be the other way round: those addicted to drugs or who have a drug problem should be able to secure preferential treatment without entering the criminal justice system.
I stress from the outset that I strongly deplore the misuse of all substances, including alcohol and tobacco. Ultimately, however, prohibition will not work. It is a complex issue, and I am pleased that we are able to debate it today. As it is difficult to collect data on such illegal activities, we do not know the scale of the problem. However, I congratulate the Government on devoting more money, which is long overdue, to researching drugs misuse. We must understand what drives people to the brink and how to stop them taking that path. Health and treatment must be available at the time of need.
Last year, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs published a report, "Reducing Drug-Related Deaths", which I recommend to right hon. and hon.

77WH
Members. It states that alcohol is responsible for 28,000 to 32,000 deaths per annum, and that smoking kills about 120,000 people per annum. We also know precisely how many deaths—580, in 1998—are caused by paracetamol. Unfortunately, we do not know precisely how many deaths are caused by illegal drugs—or even by legal ones such as methadone, an opiate substitute.
The report provides two figures for deaths by drugs overdose. On page xii, the 1998 figure is quoted at between 1,076 and 2,997, but, on another page in the main body of the report, the figure of 2,300 is given. That illustrates how we do not know the precise number of deaths attributable to drugs. Thousands of deaths are also caused by infection following the injection of drugs as a result of HIV and the hepatitis B and C viruses.
The report refers to the failure of coroners' offices to challenge death certificates signed by doctors before they forward the data to the Office for National Statistics, in London. Will my hon. Friend the Minister tell us what action the Government are taking to implement the recommendations of that excellent report?
Page xx of the report states:
"We conclude that the current system for collecting and reporting of drug related deaths in the UK stands in need of considerable amendment and strengthening".
I urge the Government to take note of that advice.
It is not only illegal drugs that cause deaths. The benzodiazepines are responsible for an ever-increasing number of deaths, especially when taken with other drugs such as alcohol. According to the dance magazine Mixmag, which takes a responsible attitude to drugs misuse, GHB—or gamma-hydroxybutyrate—is becoming an increasingly used so-called "recreational drug". If the chemistry is understood, it can be manufactured in the kitchen sink. We do not need to import drugs from abroad on to the dance scene. Irresponsible people—some of whom have had no training in synthetic chemistry—can make them in the garage or at home. We must get across to young people the dangers of using this veterinary anaesthetic, especially at the same time as alcohol consumption, when it can be fatal.
The drug pushers recognise that fashions and drugs change to suit the mood of the day, especially on the dance scene. Unfortunately, "brown and white" has now entered that scene; drug pushers are dangerously mixing brown heroin with white cocaine and pushing it to young people as a new substance without telling them the main constituents. There is therefore a new danger of poly-drug use, which has become a mega-problem in Britain.
Hon. Members might be surprised to learn that, according to coroners' reports, the hotspots for deaths from drug use are Blackpool and the Fylde, Brighton and Hove, inner London north, Lincoln, Peterborough, Norwich, Pembrokeshire and Reading. Some of those towns and cities would not be uppermost in our minds as hotspots of drug misuse and death.
Loss of tolerance to opiates is the principal cause of death, especially for prisoners who have served relatively short sentences. During that time, they may have largely abstained, thus developing a reduced tolerance to the opiates that they were taking before
78WH
entering prison. Therefore, proper aftercare for prisoners is essential if we are to avoid their deaths through overdose on release. So far, however, aftercare has been fairly pathetic.
We must also consider the impurity of street drugs. When one young person died from one ecstasy tablet, the world lit up with headlines about it. Sadly, last year, when almost 50 people, mainly in the Glasgow, Merseyside and Greater Manchester regions, died from injecting biologically contaminated heroin into muscle tissue, those events were, by comparison, hardly mentioned in the national press. It was a great tragedy that went unnoticed.
I cannot understand why we do not return to the system of positively encouraging heroin addicts to register at clinics and prescribing them clinically pure heroin until we can wean them off it. That happened before 1971, and I urge the Government to re-examine the idea. It would take heroin addicts off the streets and away from the dangerous street heroin, and treat them as people whose health is at risk.
The debate will continue, and I hope that it does so in greater depth than we have time for today, because it is important to talk about social problem number one. The illicit drugs trade is one of the largest industries in the world—larger than steel or automobiles—and represents 8 per cent. of world trade. It is a pyramid selling racket that not only damages our health, but severely damages the economy. No tax is paid to the Government, and most profits leak out of the country to end up offshore.
10. 22 am
Mr. Desmond Browne: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on securing such an important debate. The contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) demonstrate the complexity of the issues that are involved. The extent of the problems that we have discussed so far perhaps shows that we should have had the debate on the Floor of the House. Certainly, enough is said about how important and difficult the issue is and how it is one of the greatest challenges that faces our society, but we do not seem to debate it much.
At the risk of encouraging my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West to suggest that I am just reinforcing failure, I will speak about the extent of drug trafficking and dealing in our communities. I recently spoke to the deputy divisional commander in my constituency, who told me that the police estimate that 80 per cent. of crimes of dishonesty—excluding car crimes—in my constituency are committed to fund a drug habit. An article in The Guardian on 10 July 1998 stated that the Office for National Statistics estimated that total consumer spending on drugs in Britain is somewhere between £4.3 billion and £9.9 billion.
Undoubtedly, illegal drugs and their abuse destroy families, lives and communities. One of the greatest obscenities, particularly in some communities in western Scotland, is that criminal dealers flaunt their wealth and power in the communities that they destroy. Throughout the land, individuals with no visible means of support enjoy life styles that belie their legitimate status. Not only does their trade destroy those with

79WH
whom they live, but they rub people's noses in their manifest wealth—their life style often includes large cars and houses, foreign holidays and ostentatious spending.
There has been a manifest failure to reinforce the message that crime does not pay. The 1998–99 report of Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary in Scotland states:
"An important dimension of impacting on drug traffickers… is the money they derive from it. Confiscating their assets is increasingly seen as a vital part of the law enforcement effort. Despite legislative advances and focus by police and the Crown the end results remain disappointing. About £630,000 is the total of orders made and the monies actually collected can be less. This is significantly disproportionate to the money made from crime."
For about 12 years, a substantial body of law, designed to help confiscate the assets of crime, has been in place. It has the stated objectives of punishment: denial of access to funds to resume criminal activities, deterring others and taking criminal money out of circulation—but they are just not working. In Scotland in 1999–2000, confiscation orders amounted to £822,270. To put that into perspective, the report from which I gleaned that information estimates that the current cost of the financial investigation in Scotland by police forces was, in terms of staff alone, £900,000. We are still only reaching the tip of the iceberg, yet we are spending more money than we can ever hope to recover. In 1995, research for the Home Office concluded that as much as £100 million from drug trafficking was likely to be available for confiscation—so why are we so poor at it?
Apart from the underlying philosophy about legislation of illegal drugs, it is clear that the legislation fails because it is possible to confiscate only where there has been a conviction. Even then, the courts are not obliged to confiscate the proceeds of crime; they only "may" do so. That contrasts with the effective use of legislation for civil confiscation and forfeiture in the Republic of Ireland—I had intended to speak in detail about that, but I shall pass over it quickly. The police themselves conclude that in Scotland there is a disparity between forces and their approach to asset confiscation. Senior officers lack commitment to that; it is seen as ancillary to core police work and there is a preconception that criminals have no assets worth recovering.
It is interesting, in the light of the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East, that agencies—this includes government agencies—do not always work effectively together in sharing information. They are hidebound by legal and procedural constraints that allow the sharing of information and intelligence only in circumstances that prevent, or help to detect, crime, that help to apprehend offenders, or that allow the assessment or collection of duty or tax.
Another report mentioned a case study that is relevant in that regard:
"The police were investigating and ultimately arrested an individual whom they suspected of trafficking in drugs. During the course of the investigation, documents in possession of the Inland Revenue were turned over to the police. These documents revealed that for the past 10 years, the defendant had reported to the Inland Revenue that his earnings rose from his activities as a drug trafficker. Since he always paid a substantial tax Bill, the Inland Revenue did not complain."
80WH
There is a lack of general awareness among the community at large of the importance of whistleblowing and suspicious transactions. The evidence suggests that money-laundering legislation works well in the financial service industries. Indeed, there are regularly about 14,000 disclosures per year to the National Criminal Intelligence Service economic crime unit. A straw poll in my constituency of businesses who must trade with people who deal in drugs revealed a total lack of awareness of obligations in that regard. The Government are working on that, and have announced a major initiative in the draft Proceeds of Crime Bill, which will introduce civil confiscation, tighten up on money laundering and implement the second European Union money laundering directive.
In Scotland the report of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary has helped significantly to improve the work of the police in this area, as has the setting up of the Scottish Drugs Enforcement Agency. There have been additional resources. We must increase awareness both among the public and the business community of their responsibilities. Again at the risk of bringing my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West to his feet, I shall mention the fact that as a consequence of the deaths in the west of Scotland that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East spoke about. our tabloid newspaper, the Daily Record, has run a persistent campaign to empower communities against drug dealers. I unequivocally support that campaign, because communities are being destroyed not just by the presence, but by the activities of those people.
Mr. Flynn: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Browne: I will not on this occasion, as I am concerned about the time.
Finally, there is no reason why we cannot empower our communities to deal with this, but parliamentarians and the Government have an obligation to put in place the framework for a confiscation programme that shows people that crime does not pay.
Mr. Eric Illsley (in the Chair): Before I call the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard), may I ask the three party spokespersons to respect the convention of speaking for only 10 minutes each?
10.31 ams
Jackie Ballard: At the beginning of the 20th century a professor of physic at Cambridge university wrote in a standard medical text book:
"The sufferer is tremulous and loses his self command, he is subject to fits of agitation and depression. He has a haggard appearance, a renewed dose of the poison gives temporary relief but at the cost of future misery."
The professor was talking about coffee. As the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) said, no drug, either legal or illegal, is totally harmless. Alcohol and tobacco are responsible for many deaths and the related illnesses put high demands on the NHS. So does tranquilliser addiction. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) gave us some figures for that.
Ideally, none of us would use any kind of drugs except for medicinal purposes, but it is not an ideal world. For reasons of low self-esteem, stress, boredom and

81WH
unhappiness, many people take drugs to help them to relax, unwind or escape from life's pressures. We have all, I expect, met someone whose life has been blighted by drugs. My father died of cirrhosis of the liver, so I know from close hand the impact that alcohol can have on an individual and on the family. I recently met a 17-year-old who had been involved in crime since the age of six. He started burgling people's houses when he was six because he was small, and the older boys with whom he hung out gave him crack cocaine as a reward. His life has followed a fairly disastrous path ever since. He had written himself off at the age of 17, as having no hope of redemption.
A young man from my constituency was convicted of dealing in Ecstasy at the age of 18. He was a university student and his case may have been similar to that described by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). It was his turn to get the Ecstasy for the others in his flat, and he therefore had more in his possession when the flat was raided than one person would be expected to need or use. He was convicted of dealing and ended up spending two years in Strangeways prison. That obviously has had a major impact on his life. He has not only experienced imprisonment, but acquired a criminal record. A criminal record for drug dealing will affect his ability to travel to other countries for the rest of his life.
There is no argument between us about the fact that drugs of whatever kind are harmful and can damage individuals and society. The big question is what can we do about it. In 1994, the chief constable for West Yorkshire said:
"The current policies are not working. We seize more drugs, we arrest more people. but when you look at the availability of drugs, the use of drugs. the crime committed because of and through people who use drugs, the violence associated with drugs it's on the increase. It can't be working."
That chief constable was Keith Hellawell.
One member of the Conservative party has advocated the legalisation of all drugs as a liberalisation issue, arguing that it should be of personal choice. Many former chief constables support the legalisation of all drugs on the grounds that it would cut off a large income supply from organised crime. Some people say that legalisation of cannabis alone, for example, would send a more credible prevention and education message about the more harmful hard drugs. It would also allow for regulation of the quality of drugs, thus reducing health risks. That is an argument for legalising all drugs. I am surprised by the number of young people who are, say, vegetarians or vegans, and check the labels on every product that they buy in the supermarket, yet will buy tablets in a nightclub. They have no idea of the content or purity of those tablets.
Prohibitionists argue that cannabis is a gateway drug to harder drugs, which are more damaging to society because of the cost of addiction and the associated crime. When I recently visited a drug treatment centre at a prison in Devon, I was shown statistics on gateway drugs. Without exception, all the hard drug users who had gone through the treatment centre had started by smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol when they were very young. Desperation and diminishing returns had encouraged them to move on to harder drugs. Some of them had not even tried cannabis, and only a tiny fraction of the 6 million people in this country who have
82WH
used cannabis move on to harder drugs. Many drug addicts are also alcohol-dependent; their problem is one of dependency. Because cannabis is illegal, users have to resort to dealers to buy supplies, and of course, it is in the dealer's interest to try to introduce them to harder, more lucrative and addictive drugs. Some people argue that legalisation of cannabis would break that link and, rather than leading to increased hard drug use, would reduce it.
Some people say that cannabis could, in effect, be decriminalised simply by non-enforcement of the law. That already happens in many police force areas. The percentage of people dealt with by cautioning in 1988 was 25 per cent; in 1998, 39 per cent. This is another example of a postcode lottery: in some areas, people are given a caution; in others, they go to court and receive a fine or even risk imprisonment. The Police Foundation report, which was mentioned earlier, recommended that drugs classifications and penalties should be adjusted to reflect current scientific understanding of the relative risks that different drugs pose. I will not go through the report's recommendations; I am sure that hon. Members who are interested in the subject will have examined them. However, Dame Ruth Runciman said:
"We have concluded that the most dangerous message of all is that all drugs are equally dangerous."
Not all drugs are equally dangerous, but all drugs are dangerous to some extent.
Much more needs to be done to provide treatment for people who have an addiction. Other hon. Members mentioned the difficulty of getting treatment. I recently received a letter from a parent in my constituency whose son, a heroin addict, has been committing burglaries to support his habit. The father desperately wanted treatment for his son but was told that the burglary offences were not serious enough for automatic treatment referral. The suggestion was that the son needed to commit some more serious offence.
The lack of residential treatment facilities is a huge problem. People who have been through drug treatment units in prison often need follow-on residential facilities when they leave prison, but those are not there for them.
In my view, prohibition has not kept the number of users down. It uses valuable resources and criminalises large sections of the population. It is time for us, as politicians, to catch up with the debate—we are not leading it; many national newspapers and members of the public are ahead of us—and to stop being politically timid. We must develop an effective drugs policy with the objective of reducing the harm caused to society and individuals by drug misuse of all kinds, whether legal or illegal.
10.39 am
Mrs. Ann Winterton: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on introducing this interesting debate. The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) has been as consistent as ever—we expect nothing less—but I must point out, in response to his scathing remarks about education and prevention, that drink—driving education has actually worked. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. lddon) made the point that we should have a full day's debate on drugs. I second that, and also his comments about immediate treatment programmes

83WH
for all those who need them. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) made a thoughtful contribution, predominantly about drug-related crime.
It is obvious to everyone—this was remarked on earlier—that the Opposition support the Government in their overall policy towards illegal drugs. From time to time, we have made constructive suggestions. For example, we believe that there should be greater emphasis on tackling the supply side. The work of customs officials, National Criminal Intelligence Service personnel and others involved in the struggle to prevent drugs from reaching the United Kingdom should be highly valued, not least because those people are becoming ever more successful in preventing huge shipments from reaching our shores. However, we all know that the amount of drugs that enter the country illicitly continues to cause concern. How can we best ensure that people, especially the young, are aware of the nature of those substances? What can we as a society do to protect the vulnerable from succumbing to peer pressure, and possibly ruining their lives by taking drugs?
In February, the drugs tsar, Keith Hellawell, said that:
"we need to discriminate between different drugs and the relative harm caused."
That is right to an extent, and explains why the Government have concentrated on heroin and other class A substances. However, it would be a fundamental error to ignore class B substances, especially cannabis, for several valid reasons. We all know the cannabis problems that face us at the moment. So many members of the public, especially the young, do not know that the drug has psychological and physical side effects, some of them serious.
The main psychoactive ingredient, THC, has certain psychological effects, which is why there is widespread, so-called recreational use to experience highs, altered states of consciousness characterised by emotional changes such as relaxation, altered perception and heightened sensory experiences. Not many people are told of the possible unpleasant psychological reactions to cannabis intoxication. Evidence supports the occurrence of more serious, although rarer, psychological problems. Dr. Andrew Wilski recently wrote:
"Today in my work as a consultant psychiatrist, I would estimate that 75 per cent. of the young people I see suffering psychotic illness have a history of cannabis abuse".
That is a telling figure.
Cannabis also has a more subtle, universal effect on concentration, memory and co-ordination, which I would have thought was not frightfully good for students. Another concern is the effect of cannabis on psychomotor functions, which has implications for driving, when perceptual accuracy and attention are vital. There are comparisons with intoxicated drivers who cause accidents. That serious problem was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley.
84WH
There can also be physical side effects, including increased heart rate, lower blood pressure, damage to the respiratory system and development of lung cancer. There is a 20 to 30-year latency period between the initiation of regular smoking and the development of cancer. Decriminalisation of cannabis will hugely increase the numbers of people who smoke on a regular basis. Thirty years down the track, we will see further lung cancers. THC promotes tumour growth. Well-documented research points out that cannabis can affect fertility, and when used in pregnancy can impair foetal development.
There are also worries that cannabis is a gateway to other drugs. Hon. Members have talked about the serious consequences of the use of hard drugs. Many cannabis users do not go on to use harder drugs—but studies have found links between cannabis and heroin, and I do not think that any user of heroin, cocaine, Ecstasy or other drugs has not begun by using cannabis. One reason advanced for that is that using cannabis puts young people in contact with users and sellers of the drugs, increasing the risk that they will be exposed to, and urged to try, more drugs.
Last February, the drugs tsar and the Minister for the Cabinet Office agreed that the Government should turn a blind eye to soft drugs Now, however, Keith Hellawell appears to have changed his mind. Research in New Zealand found that young people who had smoked a joint once a week were 60 times more likely to take hard drugs in future. As a result of that finding, he stated:
"The pro-legalisers who have said that cannabis isn't a gateway drug will have to look, at this hard and long."
Mr. Flynn: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Winterton: Forgive me, but because our time is so restricted, I must proceed. Keith Hellawell continued:
"I can say now cannabis is a gateway drug. I have not found any evidence anywhere that cannabis is not harmful, is not carcinogenic or that its usage will not lead to harder drugs."
More than half of all young people have not taken drugs. Of those who do, many resist moving on to other more harmful drugs. We must support those young people, but it is vital that Ministers send out the right message. To support young people, it is important that we have a national campaign. The drug action teams, which were set up to deliver drug treatment and prevention programmes locally, obviously cannot introduce a national campaign, which must be introduced by the Government, the drugs tsar, or a combination of the two. The same constructive message must be reinforced by schools, Churches, parents, people in sport, people in the music and entertainment industry, and any individual or organisation with influence over the young. We need such a sustained campaign, not to preach at our young people but to explain why, in their own best interest, they should stay off drugs, including cannabis.
I for one could never go down the path taken by the Liberal Democrats, or by others in the Chamber who have said that they believe that decriminalisation would solve the problem. I deplore some press statements, and some articles in what I would usually call responsible newspapers. I think it almost impossible that if we decriminalised, we could ever reduce the number of drug

85WH
users. That point of view is seconded by the deputy administrator of the Drugs Enforcement Agency in the United States, who said:
"Whether all drugs are eventually legalised or not, the practical outcome of legalising even one, like cannabis, is to increase the amount of usage among all drugs. It's been said that you can't put the genie back in the bottle.
Mr. Flynn: I invited the hon. Lady to come to the Netherlands. She would find there that decriminalising cannabis, by separating the two markets, has meant that young people can use soft drugs in safer ways and less harmful forms, and not be exposed to the hard drugs market. The result of 20 years of decriminalisation of soft drugs in the Netherlands has been that use has reduced to a fraction of what it is here. Why does the hon. Lady persist in the nonsense of saying that decriminalisation would increase use? It does not.
Mrs. Winterton: The hon. Gentleman always makes that point. Of course, more factors than decriminalisation are involved, as he knows. I mentioned, for example, the difference in the number of abortions and single mothers in Holland, and the difference in the number of young people who do not take drugs of any description. That is partly because the family situation in the Netherlands is much more supportive than it is here—in fact, our traditional family has broken down. Other factors involved, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Netherlands is the drugs centre of Europe. There is manufacturing and growing there; we import Ecstasy and other things from the Netherlands.
Indeed, if the hon. Gentleman lived in the outskirts of Amsterdam, he would not like to see the pimping and other activities that feed on the drug taking there. I am sorry, but far more factors bear on the problem in the Netherlands than those that the hon. Gentleman—disingenuously, as always—picked out from his bucket of reasons. I disagree with him. He may be able to live with the consequences of decriminalisation, if it ever happens—but I could never bear to take that risk, and would not want it on my conscience. I believe that many other people in this country feel the same way.
10.50 am
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): I congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on securing this debate and thank him for his bipartisan approach to such an important and serious issue, which affects all our communities. As can be seen from the piles of paper under which I am almost buried, it will be impossible for me to answer all the points raised in I he debate, but I will write to hon. Members whose questions I do not have time to deal with.
The emphasis in the debate has varied between the view that this is a health problem with criminal consequences, and the view that it is a criminal problem with health consequences. It is actually both, which is why the Government's policy on drugs has four prongs. First, we intend to provide education to help prevent young people, in particular, from becoming drug users. The second prong is treatment. The third is to cut off the supply of drugs, and the fourth is to protect
86WH
communities, which are often badly damaged by drugs. I thank hon. Members who have given their support to that approach today.
All communities are affected by drugs. One of the earlier contributions to the debate emphasised that drug abuse is a problem that is increasing more in the countryside than in urban areas. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) for providing some extremely interesting statistics about the areas where unlawful drug taking has the worst consequences. However, the problem is not just rural or just urban; it affects all our communities.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley talked about the Eminem concert. Clearly, I cannot comment on that because the police are investigating the matter. However, it is worth saying—although it is an obvious thing to say—that the law should be applied to everyone equally, whether they are pop stars, footballers or anything else, and whether they are encouraging people to take unlawful drugs or inciting violence against certain groups.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley made the case for his four-point plan to deal with drug driving. He mentioned that he had raised the matter at Home Office questions. I am aware that he has also been in correspondence with Lord Whitty on the matter, and I want to quote briefly from Lord Whitty's letter to the hon. Gentleman, because it deals precisely with the sort of education campaign that he suggested. Lord Whitty wrote:
"The Department is working on the question of an appropriate publicity campaign. One of the key questions for an effective campaign is the precise nature and extent of the problem because all the professional advice we have tells us we would need to target the campaign accordingly (as demonstrated by the success of the drink-driving campaigns). We would need to give positive advice informed by research and for enforcement to be backed up by reliable detection methods. We do not believe that a generalised campaign (or generalised information such as you have suggested) would necessarily reach the right people."
Lord Whitty recognises that there is a problem, but we need to think more about direct use of resources to target the problem. A specific approach, rather than a more generalised campaign, is needed.
The point that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley raised about the law not covering crack smoking on premises is partially true. The police can take the same action against the owners of crack houses as they would against the owners of pubs and clubs where dealing was encountered. We are considering whether the relevant provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 need to be updated, but in considering whether to extend the scope of the existing offences we are mindful of the concerns of voluntary organisations that work with drug misusers. They are extremely concerned about their own liability to prosecution.
It is possible to become extraordinarily depressed when some hon. Members say that the problem is always growing worse. We have a 10-year strategy, and the targets that we published in the second annual report are being met. In response to the question that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) asked about young people taking drugs, I must point out—although I do not want to over-emphasise this—that according to research by John Balding, the number of 14 to 15-year-olds who experimented at least once with

87WH
illegal substances fell to about 26 per cent. in 1998, from 32 per cent. in 1996. That is a glimmer of hope, and although it does not mean that the problem is solved, it is an important statistic.
If there was a common theme or question between those with a belief in liberalising the drugs regime and those who support the bipartisan approach of the two Front Benches, it was that there should be no criminal gateway to treatment for drugs problems. We all agree about that. The Government strategy is aimed at providing treatment for all who need it. The investment in treatment is almost doubling, from £234 million in 2001–02 to £400 million by 2003–04. That was announced as part of the spending review settlement. We are setting up a new National Treatment Agency to bring about a step change in treatment services, based on that major new investment.
I do not want hon. Members to think that we are complacent. The situation is not satisfactory.
Mrs. Winterton: Is there any Government research into the effectiveness of different forms of treatment? Are the programmes good value for money, and do they produce the results that the Government want?
Mr. Stringer: I can take this opportunity to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East and the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) that programmes are assessed for effectiveness, and that we need to improve our empirical and evidence base on what motivates or drives people to take drugs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), who talked about recovering the proceeds of crime, made his points extremely well. The answer to his question is similar to the one that I gave to the hon. Member for Congleton. Several proposals in the draft Proceeds of Crime Bill would undermine criminal markets. We have increased the amount of assets being seized, but it is not sufficient at present. Making the law more effective will satisfy the objectives of one of those four prongs, which is to destroy supply lines and stop people making a profit from the drug market. I do not have time to say more. I thank the hon. Member for Ribble Valley for initiating the debate.

Families (Scotland)
11 am
Mr. Bill Tynan: I welcome the opportunity to consider the impact of the Government's policy on families in Scotland. I am surprised that no members of the Scottish National party are here, because the debate is important to the people of Scotland. Opposition Members have condemned measures implemented by the Government because they involve additional regulation, because they do not do enough or because the Government appear to show no ambition. However, the manifestos of the major Opposition parties in the 1997 general election said little about pledging resources to tackle the problems of the poor in Scotland.
The Government have tackled the issue of poverty not only within Scotland and the United Kingdom, but internationally. The concept of the family and the traditional stereotype image of the past have changed dramatically. Whether or not we approve, young men and women are engaging in relationships at an earlier age, and are consciously entering long-term relationships outside the previously conventional marriage model. Although society believes that marriage traditionally creates the best environment in which to raise children, we must recognise unfortunately that it is not always possible. When relationships or marriages break down, policies should be in place to provide parents with a choice of financial and structural support, such as the provision of nursery care and after-school clubs, side by side with the working families tax credit and the children's tax credit. Work should be a real option for parents. It is vital to ensure that children have the best start in life.
A modern Scotland must be designed to meet the needs of children. Scotland should be a place where men and women have opportunity and real choice—the chance to use their talents and realise their potential to the full. I believe that the Government are breaking down the old barriers that for too long have held families back. They are eliminating the stigmatisation of lone parents caused by the language and vocabulary of the previous Government. Indeed, many individuals have suffered deep despair, poverty and lack of opportunity because of the inaction and lack of compassion of successive Tory Governments.
Government policies are benefiting families in Scotland in three ways. First, they are making work pay. Secondly, they offer a renewed, replenished and reformed system of benefits. Thirdly, through increased child care provisions, they offer better opportunities for parents to balance the responsibilities of work and parenthood.
In a memorandum to the Scottish Affairs Committee, the Low Pay Unit argued that the goal of making work pay is as yet unmet by the advanced industrial economies. A key part of the Government's strategy in tackling family poverty must therefore be to make work pay. Nothing crystallises the difference between this Government and the last Tory Government more than the fact that one of the few proclaimed triumphs of the Major Government was the winning of an opt-out from the European social charter. Nothing highlighted more clearly their vindictiveness towards working people than

89WH
the damage and waste of that Government's final years. Is it not a disgrace that it was considered a triumph that, after 18 years of Tory rule, we had the lowest paid workers working the longest hours in Europe? The Tories denied working people basic employment standards and rights. I would therefore welcome Government measures that would overcome the poverty trap, and ensure that people are rewarded fairly for their endeavours. The Scottish Low Pay Unit welcomes the minimum wage, tax credits and the future tax reforms—potentially radical and progressive steps that demonstrate the Government's intention to put employment and economic policy at the heart of a national anti-poverty strategy.
The minimum wage is one of the Government's greatest achievements. It underpins the system of working tax credits and is tackling the scandal of low pay. It is building fairness and transparency into the work force. Until now Britain has never benefited from a national minimum wage. If we examine history, we can imagine what a future Conservative Government's attitude would be. In the 1970s, wages councils existed to set minimum wages for certain industries, yet the Conservatives abolished them in 1993. The Tories predicted that the national minimum wage would be a disaster. In 1997, the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) said:
"I think the minimum wage is a truly immoral policy."
It appears that he has now changed his mind. Its success and the increase of the national minimum wage to £4.10 this October tell a different story. The Scottish Local Government Forum against Poverty argues that it is a step along the way towards the goal of good wages for people in work, so that they can be taken out of poverty. The Low Pay Commission report states:
"Employment effects have been broadly neutral and employment among vulnerable groups has grown."
In all, 120,000 people across Scotland, or 6.1 per cent. of the work force, are benefiting from the national minimum wage. It should be noted that the national minimum wage has had the single most beneficial effect on women's incomes since the Equal Pay Act 1970. I also welcome the working families tax credit as a second part of the strategy. The Scottish Council foundation describes the credit as possessing the potential to make a significant impact on tackling in-work poverty. It allows families to keep more of what they earn. It is a crucial element of the strategy to tackle child poverty within a generation.
The old system of family credit had many faults, not the least of which was that, across the UK as a whole, more than half of family credit recipients also had to pay tax. Working families tax credit provides a fillip for moving low earners out of the poverty trap, and its payment through the wage packet makes clear the link between work and greater financial reward. Around twice as many single parent families are benefiting as did under the old family tax credit. Approximately 2,089 working families in my constituency are benefiting from the credit. From this April, they are guaranteed an income of £214 a week for full-time work. From June, the £5 increase will mean that they will effectively receive a minimum hourly rate of £6.40.
90WH
Reforms to the national insurance scheme have also helped families. For too long, national insurance acted as a barrier to people on welfare who wanted to get into work. The Government have eased the burden by abolishing the entry fee and raising the thresholds.
Targeted cuts in direct taxation for hard-working families are also welcome. It is vital that we build a tax system that is fair for low-paid families; one that allows them to keep more of what they earn. Around 7,740 people who work in my constituency of Hamilton, South are benefiting from the 1p cut in the basic rate of income tax, which has brought the tax to its lowest for more than 70 years.
The introduction of the 10p rate is a further valuable measure towards making work pay. I welcome the £300 above-inflation extension in this month's Budget. That means that the first £1,880 is now taxed at 10p rather than at 22p in the pound. In total, by this April families will have seen a significant fall in the direct tax burden. The burden on a single-earner family on average earnings with two children will be at its lowest since 1972—down from 21.5 per cent. in 1996–97 to 18.6 per cent. this year. By October this year, Scottish households will be, on average, £580 a year better off as a result of all the measures that come into effect this year. Scottish households with children will be £970 a year better off as a result of measures introduced by Parliament as a whole. A single-earner family with two children on average earnings of £25,400 will be £520 a year better off in real terms. The same family, on half average earnings, will be £3,000 a year better off in real terms. Families with someone in full-time work will have a guaranteed minimum income of £225 a week or £11,700 a year.
I turn to child support. Child poverty is a disgrace. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said, it is a scar on the nation's soul. Every child should have the best possible start in life, and no child should be condemned to poverty. For 20 years, the living standards of families with children fell behind those of families without children, and the rest of the population. Around four years ago, the average income of households with children was about 30 per cent. lower than those without children. Such a situation was totally unacceptable.
I therefore welcome the Government's reforms to child support. A more generous, integrated network of child financial support is being created. Child support for a family on average earnings with two children fell by 5 per cent. in real terms between 1979 and 1997. It will rise by about 50 per cent. during this Parliament. Labour introduced child benefit in 1977. It failed to rise in real terms during the 1980s and for most of the 1990s, and cruelly it was frozen by the Tories from 1987 to 1990.
The Government have shown that they are committed to the principle of universal child benefit by raising it to its highest ever level in real terms. Child benefit for the eldest child has risen to £15.50 from this April. In 1997, it was only £11.40. Child benefit helps around 8,900 families in my constituency of Hamilton, South. Child benefit for each subsequent child has risen to £10.35. That amounts to an increase in real terms of 26 per cent.
The increase in support for all children of all families has been striking. Combined with the increases in the working families tax credit, financial support for the first

91WH
child of a family will range from £15.50 to £50 a week. In 1997 the range was between £11.05 and £27.70. Nothing else more clearly highlights the Government's commitment to the eradication of poverty.
The married couples' allowance was a badly targeted measure. It was the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea who began phasing it out, describing it as having "the least on-going justification". Under the Tories, the allowance was cut from 40 per cent. to 15 per cent. Martin Barnes, the director of Child Poverty Action Group, last month supported its abolition. He argued that it was
"outdated, discredited and failed to put children first. The best way to recognise marriage through the tax system is to support children."
The Government have been right in reforming the allowance through the introduction of the children's tax credit. The specific aim of that credit is to support children. Again, that is vital in meeting the targets for the eradication of child poverty. The credit will be worth £520 a year for low and middle-income families. Significantly, it is worth more than twice the value—£197 when it was abolished—of the married couples' allowance. Up to 400,000 Scottish families will benefit. The only potential difficulty involves take-up. That is why I welcome the Government's £4.7 million national advertising campaign in anticipation of that.
The baby credit of £20 a week—£1,040 a year—for families in the first year after the birth of a child, is particularly to be welcomed. Families often need additional support at such a time. Martin Barnes argues that the new credit is
"a boost to parents and carers for children."
On child care, I welcome the fact that the Government have recognised that the best start in life for children cannot be achieved by financial measures alone. Practical, day-to-day support for parents and children is required. It is vital that the Government's child poverty strategy provides parents with the opportunity for parents to work. I welcome the alliance of parents, communities, professionals and voluntary organisations that is being built to achieve that aim.
Last December, J. K. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter books, spoke to the National Council for One-Parent Families of her struggle in trying to raise a child in poverty. As a single parent, she has spoken of the enormous barriers that she had to overcome in attempting to find part-time work. The same is true of all mothers who wish to work.
One of the biggest obstacles in that area, of course, is child care. Last year, the Scottish Affairs Committee spoke to representatives of the Govan initiative. They stated that problems with child care caused some people not to bother applying for work. In the 18 years when the Tories were in power, fewer than 74,000 child care places were created. I therefore welcome the Government's measures to help people to combine work and parenting, especially the national child care strategy, which aims to ensure that there is good-quality, affordable child care for children throughout Scotland. To target the greatest need, family centres with £42 million extra resources have been developed to support families with children aged three and under.
92WH
I welcome the local information services, the national website and the information line that has been set up to give parents accurate information and to help them make informed choices.
The new deal for lone parents has played a valuable part in giving lone parents the opportunity to work. The scheme offers individual help and support; lone parents are helped to overcome the barriers that prevent them from taking a job. Joining is simple; participants can telephone an advisor or visit a job centre. In total, a national network of about 800 personal advisers offers comprehensive help and advice on job search, training, child care, benefits and financial support.
I welcome, too, the enhancement of choices announced in the Budget. The reality is that all parents hold down two jobs—the one that pays the wage and the most important one, raising a healthy, contented, happy and well-adjusted child. This month's Budget has built on these measures; the flat rate of maternity pay rose by almost £15 to £75 in April 2002 and will be £100 the following year. The pay period for maternity pay has been extended from 18 weeks to 26 weeks from 2003; the right to two weeks' paid paternity leave for working fathers from 2003 is paid at the same rate as the statutory maternity rate. The £200 increase and the sure start maternity grant will be paid from April next year.
The changes provide support for all families who need it most when they need it most. They provide an increased choice for women to stay at home and look after children in the crucial first months of life. That is possible only because of the sound economic foundations that the Government have laid. The Chancellor's tough choice in introducing a new economic framework will ensure economic stability for Scottish families in the long term. Those achievements are of great benefit to Scottish families; we have the lowest inflation rate for 30 years and the lowest long-term interest rates for 35 years; mortgages average £1,200 a year less than they did under the previous Government. More people are in work than ever before; there is the lowest unemployment since 1975. National debt is down so that much more money can go into public services and to deserving, hard-working families. Living standards are up by 10p in real terms.
The Government are delivering for the people of Scotland; changes in taxation, together with the introduction of targeted credits are rewarding work. New measures to balance the responsibilities of working parenthood are offering new opportunities for employment, boosting the income of families and bringing us closer to the goal of full employment. A new, integrated and seamless system of child support has been built in pursuit of the eradication of child poverty.
The Tories' record is of 18 years of neglect, the two worst recessions since the war, record unemployment, interest rates at 15 per cent., record repossessions, one in five families with no one in work, one in three children growing up in poverty and few rights for hard-working families. If we gave the Tories a chance, that would happen again.
I ask the Minister to recognise three points, and, first, the role of parenting. The nurturing of a child by its own parents is of enormous value and, as the Scottish Poverty Information Unit pointed out to the Scottish Affairs Committee, child care is work. With that in

93WH
mind, I hope that the Government will examine further steps to ensure that where both parents work, sufficient time is made available for them to spend with their offspring in the vital stages of their development.
Secondly, there should be more recognition of the great diversity of families in Scotland today; the European Commission's 1996 "Guide to Good Practice, Work and Childcare: Implementing the Council Recommendation on Childcare" made the case for arrangements taking account of special circumstances. For example, children with disabilities, may need parents to take more time off, perhaps for hospital appointments. As the Scottish Parenting Forum argues, in rural areas of Scotland, men in particular are self-employed in the fishing and farming industries. The Government might like to examine further ways of providing enhanced provision for such groups.
Adoption is another important issue. I welcome recognition of the need for adoptive parents to spend time at home. The adoption system is vital to the future of many children and it is important that every possible provision is made. The Government might consider placing greater emphasis on the, importance of attachment for adoptive parents. Adopted children are often the most disorientated and in the greatest need of support. The Government should consider giving adoptive parents equal rights to parental leave.
The Government have the vision and the policies to deliver real, tangible improvements to the lives of Scottish families. This Parliament has made a substantial start and, given another term, we would achieve further progress. It is important to recognise the value of the family to society.
11.20 am
Mr. Michael Connarty: I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on introducing this excellent debate. It is important and timely to examine the impact of UK national policies on Scotland. Some people north of the border—particularly the Scottish National party—are the real enemy of the Scottish people when they pretend that everything that matters now takes place at the Scottish Parliament and that nothing important to Scotland ever happens here in Westminster. They pretend that, until there is an independent Parliament in Scotland, this Parliament can make no difference to the lives of the Scottish people. The reality is that our Parliament has made a significant difference, particularly to families in Scotland.
My hon. Friend referred to statistics, and I have been reading a briefing by the Economic and Social Research Council on the impact of Government policy. The statistical basis runs from 1991 to 1997, which helps us to understand where we came in. Increased deprivation in the family unit was clear during that period. The research showed that single-parent females, as opposed to females in general, were less likely to he in work. In 1997, 3.6 million children were living in poverty. Job-poor people were shown to be income-poor people. The final interesting statistic was that: poverty was not continuous, but a fulcrum. People went from absolute poverty into low-income status and teetered on the edge. If they were lucky, they stayed at low-income level, but most of the time they fell back into absolute poverty, usually because of a break-up of the family unit or one or both parents losing their jobs.
94WH
I have not been able to obtain statistics, but public housing was significantly correlated with poverty. People living in public housing saw poverty as the consequence of being unable to struggle into private housing, particularly after a marriage break-up or the main breadwinner's unemployment. In those circumstances, people had to seek public housing. I hope that that problem will be addressed in the future. As a socialist, I regard it as a great indictment that people view public housing as something that they fall into rather than a life style choice.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South said, the Government have addressed these problems, and he referred specifically to child benefit. I shall not provide statistics about my constituency. We could all provide a litany of figures if we wanted to. I have been hammering away through the press, and I hope that my constituents know the facts. General policies are important, and the most significant is the working families tax credit. If job-poor means income-poor and that means deprivation, it is the transition from unemployment to work that matters—and it is now worth while to leave the poverty trap on benefits. The Government have made a significant difference through the working families tax credit, which has been a great success in my constituency.
I am in constant touch with the employment office, which tells me about the numbers of people who, when they work out the figures, realise that taking employment will make them significantly better off. The minimum wage has been a significant factor. They are no longer being offered £1.50 per hour as cleaners, but a minimum of £3.80 per hour and £4.10 per hour after the latest rise. The Scottish nationalists said that we were continuing with Conservative policies and we could not possibly introduce the minimum wage—but we brought it in. They then complained that it was too low and that it should be £4, not £3.80, and we made that increase too. The last item on my tick list for the minimum wage is the introduction of the adult wage from the age of 18. If people wish to be treated as adult workers, they should be paid an adult wage. I am sure that many hon. Members here today went into work before the age of 18 and expected to earn a man's wage by the time they reached 18. I hope that we will bring that in.
We are talking about getting people into work. Job-poor means income-poor and the Government have tackled that with the new deal. The figure in 1997 was burned into my mind: 513 young people under the age of 26 in my constituency had been unemployed for six months or more. In October 2000, the figure was 47. When 500 young people who are hanging around street corners go into work, it changes the atmosphere of a town. When I go around Grangemouth and Bo'ness people tell me about the difference that has made. Under the Tories, parents would tell me that they could not get their sons out of bed because they had no purpose. There were no jobs and they had given up. Those parents now tell me that their sons have an apprenticeship with BP, are working for Zeneca or Syngenta or have a job in some other part of the economy.
There is a change in the way that mothers and young people react. There is no more walking out of the house in anger because of feelings of frustration. Young people have returned to live in the family home because they

95WH
have a job and can make a contribution. They have a bit of pride. The Government have found that generation who were lost by the Tories. They should be recognised as having done a great deal for them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South mentioned child benefit. The significant change in child benefit is important to many families in my constituency. It affects thousands of people. People receiving child benefit for a first child who also receive the working families tax credit can now have an income of over £50 per week more than when the Government came to office. That is very significant. I also commend the Government for introducing the baby tax credit. In those first years when incomes and family arrangements are usually dislocated, that extra money will not be just £10 a week, through the family tax credit, but £20 a week. However, not even spending £4 million on advertising will do enough to make everyone take up that benefit. People will still ask why they are not getting their £10 when they have forgotten to apply. Employers should ensure that all their employees put in their forms so that they receive the £10 from 1 April.
The final group that I want to mention is pensioners. In a sense I will do some recanting here, which I fully admit the Government deserve. I gave them stick over the rise last year. I and many others, including the Pensioners' Forum, demanded a link between the increase in earnings and the increase in the pension. With the £200, which is worth £4 a week, and the forthcoming increase of £5 and £8 for pensioners, the Government will have increased the level of the pensioner income by more than the increase in earnings between 1997 and 2001. I called the £200 a gimmick and I demanded on the Floor of the House that pensioners be given a real-terms increase. The Government have now responded to our demands. The fact that pensioners can receive the £200 as part of the new settlement has been welcomed by the pensioners that I meet in the Pensioners' Forum and others. They realise that the Government have delivered an increase in pensions higher than the increase in average earnings from 1997 to 2001.
The last element in the family is the grandparent, who may be a pensioner. When a young parent seeks assistance when the family group is composed of one earner and two children, or a young person seeks first employment, the older members of the family give so much. Our elderly parents helped to give us all a good start. They helped us to achieve a level of earnings and standard of living that was much better than they could had. At last, the Government are delivering for them and have listened to family groups.
Although we will debate the general economy next week, I want to point out that the stability created by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and the Government is the most important factor in giving the economy a chance to cope. The Tories predicted a crisis if the minimum wage was introduced, and that would have happened had we run the economy in the way that they did. Getting 1 million people back into work, as we have done, would have been a problem had we run the economy as the Conservatives did. The Government have listened to representatives of family groups and
96WH
given us a stable base on which to deliver policies that have made a significant difference to the lives of families in my constituency and others throughout Scotland.
11.31 am
Mr. Desmond Browne: I congratulate my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on securing the debate.
The substantial turnout of my Labour colleagues and the representation of both the Liberal Democrats and Conservative parties demonstrate the importance of this issue to the people of Scotland and its representatives. It is a pity that we do not have time for them all to make a contribution to this debate. Hon. Members will have noticed the absence of the Scottish National party. That shows clearly that they have other priorities. I suspect that if we were discussing the timing of a ministerial announcement they would be here in numbers, making substantial points.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South has comprehensively dealt with many of the direct policies that have been put in place as a result of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's five successful Budgets to support families. Today, I want to concentrate on what might be termed indirect help for families and how that has impacted on my constituents.
One of the key elements in ensuring that families can enjoy a secure and happy life style is that their family income is stable and assured, and at a level that allows them to make informed and confident decisions about the future. In an area such as Kilmarnock and Loudoun with its persistently high unemployment and the very painful transition from a manufacturing economy to a service economy, too many families were denied that ability for far too long because they could not find work or, indeed, work that paid more than benefits.
When we came to power in 1997, some 1,135 of my constituents were among those termed as long-term unemployed, and more than 3,000 had no jobs. That is why it was so important that the issue was addressed urgently. It was also important because under the previous Government it had been a matter of policy. In my constituency the response has been successful beyond everyone's wildest dreams. First, we introduced the new deal. I know that our opponents have consistently criticised the new deal, and the official Opposition have made it absolutely clear that they would remove it completely, but since its launch the new deal for 18 to 24-year-olds has helped 1,393 of my constituents, and 639 have been found jobs. I would like the official Opposition and the Scottish nationalists to tell those young people who have been able to find independence through the help given by the new deal that it has all been a waste of time, as they have consistently said. I suspect that the response from those young people would be termed in what we may call unparliamentary language.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: We are all anxious for young unemployed people to find jobs. If the hon. Gentleman analyses the numbers in his constituency and throughout Scotland, he will discover that the reason why young people are now finding jobs and were not before is not the introduction of the new

97WH
deal and all its glossy brochures and media spin, but the strength of the economy, which is based on the Conservative policies of the past 10 years.
Mr. Browne: I thank the hon. Lady for that observation as it gives me an opportunity to give the lie to that argument, as I have done previously. I shall find the statistics, and she can join me in examining them. The statistics for my constituency should be examined not only over the Government's term in office, to consider the effect of their choices in benefiting people, but over the longer term, by which I mean since 1979.
As the hon. Lady will know, there have been several periods of growth during that time, although, unfortunately, because of how her party managed the economy, they were followed by periods of deep recession. The significant factor in respect of long-term and youth unemployment in my constituency is that no one ever benefited from any of the previous periods of growth. In previous periods of growth, either unemployment remained the same or youth unemployment, in particular, increased. It is only because of the intervention of the new deal, in the context of continued growth, that we have been able to tackle that problem. Previously, economic growth managed by the Tories bypassed my constituency and many other constituencies in the west of Scotland—some of my hon. Friends are nodding in agreement. That was because the Government did not care about them. This Government care about the entire country, and deliver for areas such as mine.
It was recognised that the new deal was not enough. Pockets of persistently high unemployment exist in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Minister, and they had to be tackled through special means. That was why we lobbied and were happy that East Ayrshire was one of the pilots for the enormously successful action teams for jobs. In the short time of its existence, Jim Burns and his team at the Employment Service have built an excellent partnership with the local authority, local training providers and local businesses. They have already helped 397 local people in my constituency, and they have found work for 140.
The importance of such a targeted initiative is that it was backed up by real money, given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for people in such areas to be helped out of long-term unemployment and into work. The figures might not seem significant, but in both constituencies in the pilot areas, such targeted help has helped 20 per cent. of those w ho were long-term unemployed and registered for jobseeker's allowance—in six months, they are out of unemployment and into work. That is a sign of how successful such initiatives can be. That is why I was pleased that the Budget included a commitment to extend the action teams over the spending review period and to create more action teams. Whenever I speak to my hon. Friends about the matter, they ask how they can get action teams for their constituencies. I am sure that they will be able to get them soon, because the pilot has been so successful that the scheme is about to be rolled out over the country. I look forward to the benefits of the action team in East Ayrshire being extended to even more of my constituents and those of other hon. Members.
The importance of partnership has also been recognised in the proposal to create local strategic partnerships to create local employment plans. Such an
98WH
approach has been widely welcomed by Kilmarnock and Loudoun. The East Ayrshire Employment Initiative, of which I am an unpaid director, brought together not only the local authority and representatives of the Westminster and Holyrood Parliaments, but representatives of local business and the wider community to provide advice, guidance and support to people who are looking for work. Only last week, I directed a constituent in his late 50s who had been unemployed for more than six years to George Fraser and his team. They will be able to identify for him the barriers to employment, give him the skills to overcome those barriers and, I hope, find him a job in the not-too-distant future.
It is vital that that service remains available to my constituents. The funding and new initiatives provided by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment have done much to ensure that families can look forward to the future with confidence.
Educating our children is as important as supporting them financially, as we have heard from my hon. Friends. Although the delivery of education is a devolved issue, education has benefited directly from the Chancellor's successful management of the economy. The targeted assistance announced in last year's Budget was passed directly to schools by the former Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs in the Scottish Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith). I am sure that hon. Members will forgive me if I digress to express my regret, and that of many other hon. Members, at his decision to retire. We all understand why he plans to retire. He has shown great courage and has made a significant contribution to Scottish public life, which was motivated by a desire to bring people out of poverty. We should congratulate him on that, and we wish him well in the future.
I asked a number of local head teachers what it means to them to receive the direct funds. Stewarton Academy, which is justly renowned for its successful music provision, has embraced new technology. That has included wide area networks with feeder primaries and even contact with National Aeronautics and Space Administration in the United States. The head teacher, Derek Mathieson, told me that some of the funding was used to set up links for a local area network within the school, which will do much to enhance his pupils' education. He was able to make local decisions on spending and to enhance his school's development plan because the local authority and its director, Mr. Mulgrew, embraced the philosophy of the Chancellor to devolve as many decisions as possible to schools. That allows teachers at the chalk face to address the particular educational needs of their pupils.
Similarly, Mrs. Starrs, a teacher at St. Sophia's primary school in Galston, was able to use the funding to improve her school's environment by converting a redundant cloakroom into a workspace that will enhance her pupils' education. Mrs. Maclean, the head teacher at Gargieston primary school, was able to use the funding to secure additional staff.
Such uses of funding are examples of decisions that are taken locally in response to local needs and to the needs of local families. Head teachers and staff work out local development plans and consult the families that

99WH
they serve. None of that could have occurred without Government guidance from the Chancellor. He has repeated the spending exercise this year, and I hope that the new Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs in the Scottish Executive, Jack McConnell, will repeat the practice of his distinguished predecessor. I know that such an approach will be warmly welcomed in Ayrshire and by head teachers in my constituency.
I turn to assistance for the disabled. Families with disabled members face additional costs over and above those faced by other families. That is why I welcome the disability income guarantee, which comes into force from 1 April, substantial increases in the disabled child premium, and changes to the disability living allowance higher rate mobility component and incapacity benefit, which deliberately target help for the younger disabled. I also welcome proposals on assistance for carers.
I address a specific issue that puts a great strain on the finances of families with disabled members. On Monday, I had the honour of presenting a petition to Parliament bearing more than 2,000 names on behalf of the Kilmarnock forum for the disabled. The forum has been campaigning for more than a year for the winter fuel allowance that is paid to pensioners to be paid to disabled people on medium or high rates of disability living allowance. The campaign co-ordinator of the group, Mrs. Margaret Lees, told me that such disabled people are particularly susceptible to secondary infections brought on by the cold because of their mobility problems, and that some of their conditions are adversely affected by the cold. They have great difficulty getting out of the house during the winter and can run up very large bills in attempting to manage their disability. They require urgent help, and I ask the Minister to give a message to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security that giving the allowance to such people would be widely welcomed in Kilmarnock and Loudoun by able-bodied people and disabled people alike. Such a change would enhance the Government's reputation for caring for disabled people.
The Government have done much for families in Scotland, both directly and indirectly. However, there is much yet to do, and only the return of this Government will ensure that families in Kilmarnock and Loudoun can continue to benefit from the increasing prosperity of our country.
11.44 am
Mr. John Robertson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on securing the debate and on his excellent speech.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about the Government, we have done much, but there is much still to do. That is a fair point. In Anniesland, we have more problems than most when it comes to poverty. The number of jobs has increased by almost 14 per cent. during the Government's time in office, but we remain one of the four worst areas in Scotland for unemployment problems. I ask the Minister to examine the situation, because there are not many employers in the constituency. We need work, particularly in regenerating the Drumchapel area and shopping centre. Young people hang out there, but it has no facilities.
100WH
Undoubtedly, there is a link between poverty and crime. Again, my constituency suffers more than most, but what better way is there to reduce resentment than to help those who are worse off to achieve a higher standard of living? We must do that, and I am glad that the Government have identified that need. The Budget recognised that families, and especially children, are important. My hon . Friend the Member for Hamilton, South said that he particularly liked the increases in the working families tax credit, child benefit and children's tax credit, and that they would go a long way to help families. I thoroughly agree. The jobseeker's allowance, which will increase in October, will also help.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has proved again that he is the family's champion by increasing maternity leave from n 18 to 24 weeks. He also announced that we would pay fathers for paternity leave from 2003, which will also go a long way. As a father of three children, my family did not have a lot, particularly when my youngest was born. Any help that could have been given would have been gratefully received. As a parent who has tried to shoulder my share of the responsibility over the years, I know that the increase will go a long way, not only in helping the family in general, but perhaps in showing male members of the family that they have a job to do and must share the commitments.—[Interruption.] I am glad that hon. Members agree.
Mr. Ian Davidson: Not all of them do.
Mr. Robertson: As my hon. Friend says, not all of them do.
The Chancellor also helped small businesses, some of which were complaining that they could not afford the paternity leave. I am glad that small business relief has allowed businesses under the £20,000 threshold to claim back the full amount while, in effect, larger employers reclaim 92 per cent. In 2002, the threshold will double to allow 11,000 businesses per year to qualify, which will mean that 60 per cent. of businesses will pay a lot less than before. That dispels the myth that Labour does not help small businesses; Labour helps businesses and families.
The real challenge is to eradicate child poverty, which will not be done easily or quickly. The Government have at least pledged to try; I wish that the Conservatives had tried so hard when they were in government, instead of appeasing the paymasters. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said, abolishing child poverty is a complex problem that needs a multi-dimensional approach. We need to provide a decent income, extra help for those who cannot work. excellent public services, a good education that ensures equal opportunities for all, and voluntary and community sectors working in partnership to deliver best practice. That will not happen overnight, but it epitomises what needs to be done. We must work together in the private and public sectors to help each other. If we could pull people out of poverty, society would be better, and, if society were better, more money would be available. If more money is available, businesses do better, and the whole country does better. I think that the Government are doing their best, and that they can make that happen.

101WH
Billions of pounds have been invested in schools, which emphasises our continued policy of putting children first. Added investment in health makes clear our commitment there. The jobless total for Britain has fallen to below 1 million and has greatly improved in Scotland—although Anniesland is, unfortunately, black spot, and I have asked the Minister to examine that.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) for mentioning disability, although he pre-empted the next part of my speech. His points are valid and apply not only to Kilmarnock and Loudoun, but to the whole of Scotland—and even to the whole of Great Britain. I am pleased that under the new deal for disabled people families with severely disabled children will benefit, from next month, by an extra £11.05 for each disabled child. I wish that it were more, and that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor would do more, but it is a start. I am sure that he will make improvements in years to come.
My colleagues' remarks have shown that the Government are a Government for families. They can go into the next election with pride in their record, and with the expectation of a second term. The alternative does not bear thinking about.
11.51 am
Mr. Ian Davidson: Following on from the speeches of my hon. Friends, I take up the theme that there is much still to do. I thought that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) took the biscuit—as he does, on occasion—by covering every area in which the Government have made improvements to date. Although we have done enough to be proud, and to justify re-election with larger majorities, we must recognise the need to tell people where we intend to go next. We cannot stand still. I want to focus on areas where there is still work to be done.
Unemployment in my constituency has dropped by more than 30 per cent. since the last election, but that drop is smaller than in many constituencies where absolute unemployment was lower to start with. Everybody is rising up, but the constituencies that were at the bottom remain there. If anything, the gap is widening. Glasgow has such concentrated difficulties and deprivation that it contains six of the 10 Scottish constituencies with the highest unemployment. There must be a greater area focus on Glasgow, perhaps with tax breaks, or additional funding, direct from No. 11. Additional cash must be spent on Glasgow if it is to share in the increasing prosperity that the Labour Government have brought to Scotland as a whole.
A major difficulty in my constituency—and, I am sure, in similar constituencies—is the scale of poverty of ambition. In a considerable number of families in my constituency, a tradition of unemployment and low wages has persisted for three, four, five or six generations. Such families believe that they are never likely to rise above the lowest income level. They do not look for improvement because they think that to strive is to be rejected. They must be given the opportunity to break out of the cycle that some of my colleagues mentioned: poverty, unemployment, low-paid jobs and
102WH
then back to poverty. I can see no reason why the children of the poor in my constituency should not have the same access to the best jobs as those from wealthier backgrounds. I recognise that the hardest target—the poorest—will cost the most to lift to the standard of the rest. That is a price worth paying. As a Labour Government, we should make it clear that in our next term, and the term after that, we intend to make a concerted effort to deal with the problems of the most deprived in our society.
Some of my hon. Friends mentioned education, which offers a way out of poverty. Some of the schools in my constituency and in the city of Glasgow reflect the legacy of capital underspending over generations. When I was chair of education in Strathclyde, we received enough capital allocation from the Government to replace primary schools every 400 years. When schools and educational establishments are allowed to fall into decay, whereas pubs, bookies, bingo halls and other kinds of centres in the community are built to the highest standards, that inevitably sends to our youngsters a message that education is not valued by society.
More cash for staffing must be given to schools in the poorest areas. It has always been absurd that the head teachers and promoted posts who got the most money tended to be those in the most prosperous areas, because their schools were generally larger and salaries were paid on a per capita basis. That created a financial incentive for people to move out of poor areas into better-off areas, effectively moving away from the hardest tasks to easier tasks. The Government must try to find ways of reversing that process.
Although I recognise that many of these problems are now the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament, we at Westminster have the same responsibility to Scots in poverty as to all those in poverty across the United Kingdom. There are ways in which we can take helpful action from the centre.
I turn to the plight of families living in poor housing in my constituency. Again, I recognise that much of that is now the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament, and I regret that it is one of the areas in which it has not moved forwards as quickly as I should have hoped. However, we do have responsibility for housing benefit. For many people in my constituency, the operation of the housing benefit system acts as an enormous disincentive to taking work. They are caught in the trap of council tax benefit, housing benefit, low wages and part-time work, and are often unable to calculate what the benefits of work will be—notwithstanding the advantages of the working families tax credit and similar measures, which I applaud. We need to do more to ensure that the operation of the housing system no longer serves as a disincentive to self-advancement.
The thrust of the Government's policy, as dictated by Treasury rules, is to privatise council housing. That ideological obsession about removing housing from local authorities is a diversion from the main task of providing first-class housing to all. I am sure that, like me, the tenants in my constituency have no objection to genuine competition between alternative providers. However, they find it unfair when the scales are rigged and the balance is weighed so overwhelmingly in favour of privatisation, because that takes the choice out of their hands. A choice between a change of ownership and a continuation of dilapidation is no choice at all.

103WH
Pensioners are an important part of families, and under the previous Government pensioner poverty was a blight on our society. I applaud the Government for introducing the minimum income guarantee. I also applaud the five churches in my constituency that last week distributed to their entire congregations a leaflet that was drawn up by myself and the Benefits Agency to publicise the minimum income guarantee and to urge pensioners to take it up. Another seven churches distributed the leaflet to all their parishioners during the previous week, and three more will do so this weekend. Such partnership between church and state, acting in the interests of the poorest in our society, is greatly to be applauded. However, the issue of free television licences enables us to draw attention to the enormous difference in life expectations. It is anticipated that 50 per cent. of people in my constituency will live to the age of 75, and that in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) more than 66 per cent. will reach that age. In some constituencies in England and Wales, the estimate exceeds 75 per cent. I see no reason why constituents of mine should not aspire to the life expectations of those in the most prosperous areas.
I believe that the measures that I have outlined are affordable. Millions-indeed, billions-of pounds will be flung at the current agricultural crisis, just as billions were flung at BSE. The crisis of poverty among many of my constituents and those of my colleagues is equally deserving of money, and we should pledge to spend money on them in the next term of this Labour Government.
12.1 pm
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Perhaps it is appropriate to have a change of party at this juncture, although I have no complaint about the fact that five Labour Members have spoken so far. Nor do I blame them for taking this opportunity to claim credit—in some cases, deservedly so—for a number of Government initiatives. However, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) was right to say that we need to look ahead and ask where the money is going. Moreover, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Robertson) said, although much has been done, there is still more to do. I do not agree that all the Government's initiatives have been effective or conducted in the best possible way, but I none the less welcome the fact that there have been a number of them.
Although the problems associated with poverty are extremely important and have to be dealt with, we should remember that this debate is concerned with the impact of Government policies on families in Scotland. We must consider the entire perspective, because in dealing with poverty we must level up, rather than down. Some who are regarded as part of the better-off strata of Scottish society nevertheless feel vulnerable in the light of current events. They fear that their standard of living and quality of life will decline rather than improve.
Given that I have an 18-month-old child. I should declare an interest in knowing whether the Government recognise a commitment to families. The principle behind such a commitment is right, and it should be
104WH
given priority. It is clear that supporting people who bring up children is an important investment in the future quality of our society—not just in economic terms, but in terms of citizenship, social justice and the entire fabric of society. Of course, such support boils down to practical measures. It is a fact of life that in the flexible labour force for which this Government and the previous Government have argued, parents will be working, even in households where there is only one parent. We must ensure that the income available to those who work is sufficient to provide a good home for their children. Child care is also vital, and the right type and quality must be made available.
The Secretary of State has been a working mother, and she will not mind my saying that during last week's Question Time we had an informal discussion in the wings on the impact on children of such work. It has been suggested that working mothers might not be helping their children and should stay at home instead, but my view is that that is a fruitless and unfair debate. The truth is that many children who were brought up by working mothers proved well-adjusted and happy individuals. Working mothers need to know not just that the child care that they need is available, but that it is of the right quality. As was said, we do not want a left-luggage office for children, and more needs to be done to ensure that the right care is available. A nursery is not a place to park children; it is a place that provides children with a stimulating environment before they go to school.
I am proud of my association with the expansion of nursery education in my area. The north-east of Scotland was one of the first parts of Scotland to achieve almost total nursery provision for four-year-olds, and we are well on the way to achieving the same goal for three-year-olds. The Conservative party opposed campaigners for the expansion of nursery provision because its members regarded nursery education as an inappropriate leftist issue. Indeed. when the regional council was founded it came into power with a Conservative majority. Several nursery units, which the previous independent council had built, were not opened for 10 years because the Conservative group did not believe that that kind of provision was desirable. The policy changed only after the Conservative group was heavily defeated in local elections.
I am glad that Liberal Democrats co-operated with the Labour party to implement the strategy that created universal nursery education. [Interruption.] I can hear the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) muttering from a sedentary position, but I shall go further. That strategy demonstrated that for whom one votes makes a difference, even in local council elections. People realised that a fundamental shift in policy can bring about a beneficial change.
Families contain not only children, but older people and pensioners. The commitments that have been made to pensioners go some way to assuaging their anger about the 75p increase to state pensions and have made them feel that they are beginning to be treated differently. I shall be bullish and say that the Liberal Democrat party has made a positive contribution by campaigning and petitioning on the back of the 75p increase. I welcome the fact that the Government are under pressure from not only Liberal Democrats, but their own people and pensioners' organisations.

105WH
Never mind the argument about the earnings link. Pensioners have a right to expect that pensions and associated benefits will keep pace with general improvements in the economy. It is no longer acceptable to relate pension increases only to the cost of living, and no Government should accept doing so. As everyone else's earnings rise in line with the economy, pensioner poverty is accentuated. Although this is neither the time nor the place to develop that argument, it is one reason why the Liberal Democrat party will make a commitment to improve the income of pensioners, and especially older pensioners, the centrepiece of our general election campaign—whenever that may be. Whether or not we have an opportunity to deliver that policy, we shall pressurise any future Government to adopt it.
We have secured a commitment to provide personal care for the elderly in Scotland. I hope that that issue will be taken up by the United Kingdom Government for two reasons. First, if it is right for Scotland, it is right for the remainder of the UK. Secondly, if the UK Government made such a commitment, it would take the pressure to find the money off the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive, which would ease the pressure on other resources.
Much has been made of the new deal. It is important to put it on record that those of us who criticised the new deal did not criticise and do not criticise the practical assistance and support that it has given to individuals. We appreciate that that kind of resource often delivers benefits to individuals. However, we are concerned by the high cost of the programme. A few people may have benefited substantially, but many did not benefit or the benefit was not connected to the new deal. Additionally, two questions arise. First, as a windfall tax for the duration of this Parliament has been the prime basis of funding for the new deal, how will the programme be funded in the next Parliament' Secondly, the Government have benefited from a growing economy, for which they claim the credit, but would that mechanism stand the test of being the best way of funding the programme if the economy went into a downturn?
I agree with the hon. Member for Pollok that to give people access to education, training and ambition and to raise standards we should encourage the private sector to play a more active part in poorer communities. More money must be spent, but it does net have to be state money; it could be private money from firms that employ people or open facilities that people can use, work in and gain benefit from.
Mr. Connarty: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that about 80 per cent. of those who have entered work through the new deal are now in unsubsidised employment? It is a mechanism for access, not to sustain them with public subsidy.
Mr. Bruce: I accept that entirely, but the hon. Gentleman will agree that the Government did not create the jobs. They provided the training and the economy created the jobs. There has been a happy match, but that may not continue in all economic circumstances.
The Government may have a commitment, but they are in danger of making life too complicated with too many different initiatives. If they really want to address
106WH
the issues facing families, simplifying the tax system and easing the burden on the lower paid would be a far better way of doing so than too many, too complicated initiatives that not everyone understands.
12.11 pm
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on raising this important issue for discussion today. He and other Labour Members have made many valid points, and I agree that it is deplorable that, in such a debate, there is no representation from the Scottish National party. However, we are having a perfectly good debate without Scottish National party Members. I think that that shows that we do not need them as much as they need us, the Westminster Parliament.
The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. George Foulkes): I thought that the hon. Lady was referring to the Tories.
Mrs. Laing: They need the Tories as well.
Having criticised the Scottish National party for its total lack of presence this morning, I am aware that I stand here alone—but that is not unusual, and I am not daunted by the massed ranks of the Labour and Liberal Democrat alliance in Scotland. I am used to facing them alone, ever mindful of the fact that safety is not always in numbers and that Robert the Bruce was massively outnumbered by enemy forces when he won the battle of Bannockburn. All hon. Members in this Chamber will agree with me on that.
We all want to create the best environment in which young people can make a good start in life. In most cases, but not all, such an environment requires a stable and well-supported family. Conservative policies always take account of the fact that many people, for a huge variety of reasons, do not start their lives in a stable family environment. However, that does not mean that we should ignore the family's undoubted role as the basic building block of society.
Many hon. Members have quoted statistics today. and the hon. Member for Hamilton, South rightly detailed the effects of the Chancellor's recent and previous Budgets. However, what is spun from the Dispatch Box and in the media is not always what happens in practice, and we have had a chance to examine what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done in the past few weeks. We found that his claim that he is attempting to support families and relieve poverty is a matter of interpretation of the figures. The figures used by the hon. Member for Hamilton, South have been achieved by excluding indirect taxes and non-standard tax relief, and they work only if one agrees that a typical family has no mortgage, no pension savings, no car and does not pay anything to a local council. I do not think that that is a typical family.
I have examined the figures on an average family in Scotland and discovered that recent Government policy has increased tax for such families by approximately £670 per year, which is significant. The following figures are from the House of Commons Library and Chantrey Vellacott—I have not made them up.
The changes in income tax rates give a gain of £431 to that average family. However, abolition of the married couples allowance loses them about £300; abolition of

107WH
mortgage interest relief at source loses them £326; and abolition of dividend credits on the pension tax—I agree with the many hon. Members who have said that pensioners are an integral part of family life—loses them £400. The changes to national insurance contributions gain them £233, and the cut in VAT on fuel gains them £22. However, the increase above inflation of petrol tax and the freeze on vehicle excise duty lose them £185. Tobacco tax increases above inflation lose them £193. Although I might agree with that tax, that statistic should still be taken into consideration. Council tax increases above inflation lose them well in excess of £100. Although child benefit gains them about £170, if one adds up all the figures, the total loss is £670. That cannot be simply ignored.
Let us consider other ways in which the Government have implemented their policies. I ask the Minister—although this is really a matter for the Chancellor—why there was one year's delay between abolition of the married couples allowance and introduction of the children's tax credit. The Chancellor announced that he would replace the married couples allowance with the children's tax credit and said that, in his view, that was a reasonable change to fiscal policy. Why, however, was there a year's delay? Was it to allow the Chancellor to rake in more money to the Treasury's coffers, so that, a couple of weeks ago, he could give away what was taxpayers' money in the first place? He can say that he is giving money to families, children, pensioners, unemployed people and those who are in serious poverty only because he has been taking so much more in tax. It is not his money; it is money that he has taken from hard-working families in Scotland over the past four years. There is therefore a certain disingenuousness about the way in which his policies are presented and spun.
I want to leave enough time for the Minister to answer the few questions that have been asked. Hon. Members have, however, made some points that are worthy of comment. It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Robertson) -accuse the previous Conservative Government of appeasing the paymasters. It is nice to hear good old-fashioned socialist rhetoric again; at least it gives Conservative Members something to get our teeth into. In fact, the Government whom I supported did not appease the paymasters; they encouraged the growth of the economy, which creates jobs.
Mr. David Marshall: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Laing: With apologies to the Minister, I shall briefly give way.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. The hon. Gentleman must be brief.
Mr. Marshall: It hurts me to be less than nice to the hon. Lady. but the Minister who is about to reply to the debate and I sat in the House through 18 years of Tory Governments and saw the misery that they inflicted on
108WH
hundreds of thousands if not millions of families. There is nothing that the hon. Lady can say to defend the actions of 18 years of Tory government.
Mrs. Laing: Of course I will try. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but, as I have already said to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), jobs are created by a strong economy and not through spin and rhetoric. I was also interested to hear the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) speak. He was absolutely right about the effect of working mothers on their children. At least, I trust that he was right. However, as he says that the Secretary of State agrees with him, he must be right. Families are helped not by rhetoric and spin, but by real policies and proper management of the economy, which is what Conservative Governments have given this country.
12.21 pm
The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. George Foulkes): I join other hon. Members in justly congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) not only on securing the debate, but on a speech that was so good and comprehensive that I feel almost redundant. We have had a good debate, and most contributions have been excellent. I can tell those who have not participated that there is a debate en poverty tomorrow afternoon and one on the economy next week in Westminster Hall. There will also be a Scottish Grand Committee. All that shows the importance of this Parliament to the people of Scotland. The fact that the Scottish National party is not present, even on an away-day basis, is a disgrace and an insult not only to the House, but to the people of Scotland.
There are two strands to our support for families: financial security and help to balance work and family. Everyone knows that worries about money and making ends meet can create insecurity and tensions in families, so financial security is vital. When we took office in 1997, the economy was in total disrepair. Unemployment was at record levels, and youth unemployment was a disgrace. Inflation averaged more than 6 per cent. between 1979 and 1997. Interest rates peaked at 15 per cent. and remained in double figures for four years. Mortgage rates averaged 11 per cent. between 1979 and 1997.
Hon. Members should consider the difference since 1 May 1997. Economic growth has averaged 2.7 per cent. Employment has increased by more than 1 million in the United Kingdom generally and by over 100,000 in Scotland. That makes a difference to families. Youth unemployment has decreased by 78 per cent., which means that 31,500 more people are in work, thanks to the new deal. Long-term interest rates are at their lowest for 35 years. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) mentioned mortgage rates; they are down to 6.75 per cent. or lower. The average mortgage paid is £1,200 less since 1997. All that has a profound impact on families. Jobs, low inflation and low mortgage repayments make families more secure and more likely to stay together. We shall have a full debate on poverty tomorrow.
On top of those measures, we have introduced the national minimum wage—which has helped many people, particularly women—and the working

109WH
families tax credit. Of course, there is more to do, but my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) knows that there is only one Government, of one party, who will do more in that direction. I hope that he remembers that and votes Labour. He and all my other colleagues will be pleased that the Government have made a pledge on full employment. We did not achieve it under previous Labour Governments, but this Government are totally committed to it.
The Green Paper recently launched by the Prime Minister, "Full Employment in a Modern Society", discusses the next steps towards full employment: dealing with drug addicts; advisory and outreach services for lone parents; further help for lone parents to move into self-employment; and greater training flexibility. Those are substantial steps forward in dealing with disadvantaged or hard to place people who are out of work.
Work-life balance is crucial, and we are helping people to cope with the competing demands of work and family life. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is here today to underline the importance of the debate. She copes with the demands of home and work, as do most parents.
The nature of work is changing. The new economy, based on skills and knowledge, brings new challenges. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South and the hon. Member for Gordon
(Mr. Bruce) raised the issue of child care, which is vital to help women, in particular, to continue work. That is a devolved matter. However, in 1979-80, under the previous Government, fewer than 32,000 children were in local authority nurseries. By June 2000, more than 98,000 children were in publicly funded child care. That is a step-change that makes a difference for working families and that the Labour party can be proud of. The working families tax credit, another significant move towards helping working families, is worth an extra £20 million a year in Scotland.
In order to recognise the
importance of work-life balance, the Government introduced the work-life balance challenge fund. I am delighted to announce that another Scottish company will benefit from that fund, which encourages businesses to help their staff achieve a sensible balance between work and home life. Cigna Healthcare, based in Greenock, has secured a share of the £10.5 million challenge fund, which will allow it to access expert help and advice about the development and introduction of diverse an d flexible working patterns. Cigna joins previous Scottish winners of the
110WH
challenge fund that are at the forefront in modernising working life in Scotland, such as Standard Life, Scottish Coal, Perth and Kinross council and Renfrewshire and Inverclyde Primary Care NHS trust. We have made a further £5 million available. I urge my colleagues to spread the word and to urge other Scottish organisations to bid for a share and explore ways of introducing flexible working patterns for the benefit of all.
On behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I wish to take this opportunity, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), who has announced that he will leave Westminster at the next election. He is planning to leave Holyrood as well. On a day that we discuss social justice in Scotland, it is fitting that we recognise his commitment to social justice, which is well documented. He left a distinguished career in medicine and entered politics in 1987 because he wanted to ensure that others have the same opportunities that he enjoyed. He has made a lasting contribution through ministerial office in Westminster and in Holyrood. I am sure that hon. Members will join me in wishing him a long, happy and fulfilling retirement.
I wish to discuss the partnership between the Government and the Scottish Executive; if I had time, I could go into great detail about it. That partnership is essential to our work on social justice. As a result of our economic strength, more money has been provided to the Scottish Executive for health. education and social justice. However, I cannot go into greater detail because of contributions other hon. Members wish to make. Thankfully, there will be many other debates this week and next week in which I will have that opportunity.
In conclusion, the Government have made clear their total commitment to the family. We have restructured the tax and benefit system to provide more generous help to families. The new children's tax credit provides extra income for 400,000 families in Scotland, and the working families tax credit ensures that 108,000 families in Scotland are better off. There is support for new mothers and fathers. There is also help to make work pay for 120,000 Scots, and for families, through the introduction of the minimum wage. The new deal for lone parents in Scotland helps more than 7,000 people. The Labour Government are building a fairer, more inclusive society.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: After that gallop by the Minister, we will move on to the next debate.

Aldridge Fire Station
12.30 pm
Mr. Richard Shepherd: I shall try to emulate the Minister of State, Scotland Office in the previous debate by galloping through what I recognise is a very local problem. I am grateful to the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), for his presence. I understand that the brief was a late one; he had to take over from his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Home Office. I am also grateful that Mr. David Winnick-
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. The hon. Gentleman must refer to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).
Mr. Shepherd: Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am also grateful that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is present and would like to contribute. I am sure that that is agreeable to the Minister.
As the Minister knows, the West Midlands fire service, with the approval of the West Midlands fire authority, is seeking approval for a proposal to close the single-engine fire stations at Bloxwich and Aldridge and to replace them, under a private finance initiative, with a two-engine community fire station, in a location that is more central to the combined areas of their responsibilities. The local authority advises me that the single-pump Aldridge fire station covers a population of 59,271 and the single-pump Bloxwich fire station a population of 49,814. As the population of Walsall is 259,488, that total of 109,488 represents 42 per cent. of the borough's population. As the new location means that more people will be further away from the new station than at present, the public has, understandably, widely expressed opposition to the proposal. At present, Bloxwich attends an annual average of 1,277 incidents in its station area and, as the fire service document "A Better Way?" states, is busier than most one-pump stations.
The station also undertakes community fire safety work aimed at the local community. The fire service document tells us that the average figure for Aldridge is 662 incidents and that the fire station also undertakes a small amount of community fire safety work. None of those figures has been put in context. It is not clear whether Bloxwich is the first, second or third busiest one-pump station in the west midlands, or whether Aldridge is at the bottom of the scale or very nearly so. It is also not clear whether fire stations in the region are more immediately in need of upgrading or replacing with a new community fire station.
Aldridge fire station opened in 1968 and comprised a four-bay appliance room with a covered wash-down area adjoining a two-storey block which formed the operational and administrative side of the station, with offices, lecture room, and stores on the ground floor and recreational, dining and sleeping facilities on the second floor. A training wing, including two lecture rooms and living and sleeping accommodation for 16 students, was attached to the station but was closed when the West Midlands brigade training centre in Smethwick opened. The station has served the separate communities that comprise Aldridge-Brownhills well throughout the intervening years.
112WH
On 23 May 2000 I received a letter from Mr. K. J. Knight, the chief fire officer of the West Midlands fire service, advising me that he was proposing to develop a community fire station for the Aldridge and Bloxwich areas. The two-pump community fire station would be built, financed and operated by a private sector partner, allowing the West Midlands fire service to deliver what he claimed would be an improved service to the community. Mr. Knight went on:
"The project will result in the provision of a newly constructed community fire station which will enable the West Midlands Fire Service to deliver an improved service to the surrounding community from a strategically placed site. The facility will provide accommodation and training facilities for two pumping appliances and personnel with an integral, purpose-built safety education facility through which community safety education programmes can be delivered. The estimated capital cost of the project would be £3.5 million to £4 million."
Mr. Knight promised to keep me in touch with the public consultation process. The initial public response to the proposals was not favourable. When the West Midlands fire service published its proposal under the title "A Better Way?" the facts about the proposed north-east Walsall community fire station, with an accompanying glossy brochure sharing that title and containing a precis of the larger document, were studied with interest by many local residents.
The fire service set out various options for Aldridge fire station, which it described as a one-fire-engine station staffed 24 hours a day by four full-time watches whose annual number of incidents over the past three years was 662, in addition to which it undertakes a small amount of community fire safety work. The running costs, not including central overhead costs, are £755,251.
The three options were to do nothing, to refurbish or to rebuild on site. It is claimed that to rebuild a new fire station on the existing site to current standards would cost £2.2 million. At no point did the fire service mention that there had also been a training wing of two lecture rooms and living and sleeping accommodation for 16 students, nor was there an explanation of what the current standard or whether it is a statutory requirement.
I sought an explanation when I wrote to the chief fire officer on 27 November, raising among other things my concerns about the admission on page 4 that a second fire engine consistently fails to reach fires in Aldridge within the time recommended by the Home Office. The response was a deafening silence. I did not receive a reply to my letter and when I wrote again on 19 January, Mr. Knight responded only to my questions on response times. I still do not know what the current standard is, or whether it is a statutory requirement.
Similarly, despite writing on 6 March, I have failed to establish what is the projected response time from the fire service's "optimum location", which is widely believed to be in Pelsall, to Streetly, or whether any test runs have been carried out to confirm the reliability of the computer-generated times that the fire service quoted to me.
The refurbishment options costed have been estimated for comparative purposes. Many facilities that would be required to achieve a minimum acceptable standard of accommodation for future needs cannot be

113WH
achieved within the confines of existing buildings. The need to achieve satisfactory provision for women fire fighters, access for the disabled, satisfactory storage provision for personal protective equipment and so on are all essential enhancements within the short term. The station training facilities consist of a drill tower that requires upgrading. That is the burden of the arguments advanced, understandably, by the fire service.
Building condition surveys identify substantial repair and maintenance costs in the next four or five years. There are no community fire safety facilities on the site. In view of those factors, the Bloxwich station is considered a high priority for replacement. Refurbishment of the existing station would cost approximately £637,000. I shall not go through the options, as the documents are readily available to the Home Office.
Many of my constituents feel that the best-value criterion is impossible to assess without reference to the state of the stock across the region. They are also puzzled by Mr. Knight's comment that there is a potential for over-provision at Bloxwich, when that pump station is one of the busiest ilk the west midlands. The over-provision is presumably a reflection of the capacity of the two-pump Walsall fire station to meet some of the present responsibilities Bloxwich. That is what prompted the fire service's response at the public consultation meeting at Bloxwich, where it was argued that it makes more sense to relocate Bloxwich further into its area. The widely leaked preferred location in Pelsall Villa football ground at Bush grove off Walsall road, Pelsall, would be outside Bloxwich's current area and close to Walsall fire station. It would create a greater bunching of fire stations
towards the centre of Walsall.
Mr. Knight also told the meeting that
"it is true that if you live in Aldridge then response times will be worse under this proposal."
That is cited from page 56 of the annexe that was given to the fire authority. The point made by Mr. Knight has been apparent to many people in Aldridge-Brownhills and it has fuelled our concern that response times might become longer for the majority of people in the present Aldridge fire station area.
As a local resident, the statutory consultation process was directed at me, and I carefully followed its progress. I and other residents noted that the consultation period co-incided with the Christmas period, and that it was deemed to have started on 21 November 2000, one day after the West Midlands fire authority had agreed to proceed with a consultation. The chairman, Councillor Peter Bilson, said:
We took a positive decision in the light of material for the consultation being ready for commencement to bring forward the start date".
The press was notified of that, and Mr. Knight wrote to me on 20 November 2000, which was proper, as he had previously written to inform me that the consultation period would probably start early in December. On that point, I had misled many constituents who had written to me about rumours concerning the future of Aldridge fire station.
In any event, the public consultation leaflet was not distributed until the end of the month—and even then, I am told, only patchily. Some residents of Streetly, who
114WH
receive the Sutton Coldfield Observer rather than the Walsall Advertiser, said that they were not sent the leaflet, even though they live in the Aldridge area. As the fire service has a statutory duty to consult, I and many of my constituents are greatly concerned about those matters.
In politics, it is generally thought that Christmas and August are the worst times to conduct an effective consultation. Mr. Dale Hall, the project design and report author of Opinion Research Services Ltd., which is based at the university of Wales in Swansea, agreed with me that the timing of the consultation process was "not ideal". However, Mr. Knight told me that he had been advised that it was one of the best times to consult, as people were on holiday and at home and therefore had more time to consider the proposals. That has not been my experience of what has now become, for increasing numbers of families, a major holiday period.
None the less, the process commenced. Four public meetings were held, and six people's panels were convened. As I had attended meetings—including one that had been arranged by the Fire Brigades Union prior to the public consultation—I made a point of attending the one that the fire service organised on Saturday 13 January. At that meeting, a petition against the proposals was presented to the chairman of the West Midlands fire and civil defence authority, Councillor Peter Bilson, by the leader of Walsall council, Mike Bird. It was claimed that it contained 22,000 names.
On 26 February, I received a report on the public consultation by Opinion Research Services Ltd., entitled "Community Fire Safety Strategy". It summarised the conclusions of the six people's panels, each of which comprised between eight and 10 members, and the four public meetings. The report revealed that membership of the people's panels was restricted to people aged between 21 and 55. That is of great concern, as Aldridge-Brownhills has the highest proportion of residents aged between 40 and pensionable age in the country. Despite the age restriction, four out of the six panels decided against the proposals, and two were in favour.
With regard to the panels' discussions, the report states that
"it would be wrong to treat the study as some kind of referendum or statistical estimate of the balance of opinion in the community".
However, it also states:
We believe the findings are reliably indicative of public opinion in Walsall".
The report accepts that four of the public meetings "resoundingly and overwhelmingly" rejected the proposals. The accounts of the meetings contain several references to the presence of serving fire officers. My experience of the Streetly meeting was that, of the 50 people present, 19 were dressed in fire service uniforms, helping to promote the consultation process. The report implies that serving fire officers who were dressed in mufti, rather than those who were in uniform, were trying to protect their interests. That is unfair. Serving fire officers have been assured that their jobs are safe. Mr. Knight has stated:
There are no proposals for job losses".

115WH
Councillor Bilson has said:
There will be no job losses: that is recorded. There will also be no loss of fire engines. It is up to the chief how the fire fighters are deployed. All the laws and standards need to be met."
We all accept that. All the fire officers whom I have met have been principally concerned about their ability to meet the Home Office response times for the new fire station, wherever it is located. Clearly, without a specific location it is difficult to assess whether that is true.
The Fire Brigades Union's report for the fire authority meeting on 19 February simulates, by way of example, journey times from the prospective Pelsall site. The times given are for the time it takes to travel the distance and do not include times for mobilising, traffic, speed humps or restrictions. For example, on that basis, Pelsall to Freeth road, Brownhills—a travelling distance of 3.8 miles—would take 11 minutes. Clearly, travelling to the nursing home in Hednesford road, Brownhills would take some minutes longer. On the same basis the travel time to Anchor road, Aldridge is 10 minutes. Therefore, points further to the east and in Streetly, such as Foley road, Hardwick road and Blackwood road, would take longer.
The report was incorporated in a much larger one prepared for the West Midlands fire authority's consideration. I understand from a member of the authority that, unfortunately, it was not made available to members until a few hours before their meeting on 9 February 2001, at which they were asked to approve the proposals, which they did. The report contains several press cuttings indicating that 2,000 letters were presented to the fire service, yet annexe H of the report records only 1,612 letters having been received, although, according to page 172 of the report, 1,267 were discounted as being outside the time of the consultation. Annexe J relates to Walsall council and reports the views of council committees, including the policy and resources committee, the Walsall area planning committee, the highways and transportation committee and various other area planning committees.
While Aldridge, South area planning committee resolved to receive and note the proposals, Brownhills and Aldridge, North area planning committee recorded that it
"does not support the closure of the Fire Station at Aldridge. The cover provided by the Fire Station is effective and efficient and, in the interests of public safety, the Committee supports its retention".
Bloxwich area planning committee resolved that
"consideration should be given to the modernisation or rebuilding of Bloxwich Fire Station at a location within the Bloxwich area."
Darlaston area planning committee resolved that
"this Committee opposes any proposals to close existing fire stations on safety grounds as the extra time taken to reach a fire from a centralised location could lead to loss of life".
Willenhall area planning committee resolved that it
"notes the Report in respect of its own area and supports its colleagues in other areas which could be affected by this detrimental move".
As far as I can find out, the fire authority has organised no visit to the fire stations affected by the proposal.
The chief executive of Walsall council listed the points raised by councillors at a members' seminar. They raised the question of the required response time and whether
116WH
a new station serving a larger area could achieve that. They also raised the issue of the replacement or enhancement of tilt two existing stations at Aldridge and Bloxwich as an alternative to the development of a new site. Another of the issues raised was whether the present proposals should be viewed in a wider context, for the division or the service as a whole, and with specific reference to neighbouring stations such as Sutton Coldfield ant Fallings Park. Concerns were also expressed about the proposal in respect of local traffic patterns and the bui1d-up of traffic on local roads year by year.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), I should inform hon. Members that, as is traditional with the half-hour Adjournment debate, he has notified me, the initiator of the debate and the Minister of his interest in participating.
12.48 pm
Mr. David Winnick: I shall take up very little time, to allow as much time as possible for the Minister. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) for allowing me a couple of minutes. As has been pointed out, the amalgamation affects Bloxwich fire station in my constituency. There is significant concern about that, and I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, for whom I have great deal of time and respect, that that should also be taken into consideration.
Bloxwich is a densely populated residential and business area of the borough, and, according to the West Midlands fire authority, Bloxwich fire station is one of the busiest of the one-pump stations. I first wrote to the Minister on 27 September 2000, stating that there was a good deal of understandable anxiety about the matter. Since then, I have been in correspondence with Ministers and the chair of the fire service, as well as with the chief fire officer. On the whole, I am not happy with the response that I received. It may be that, regardless of today's debate and I he consultations to which the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills referred, the issue is clear cut and will go ahead, but I must emphasise that there is a feeling that the amalgamation should not proceed.
Obviously, I cannot speak for Aldridge or Pelsall, but in Bloxwich worry continues and it is shared by a number of residents and elected local representatives. In those circumstances, I hope that today's debate means that the matter is looked at again. I do not expect the Minister to say that it is off, but I urge that the amalgamation of the fire stations in that part of the borough be reviewed. I hope that that will be possible.
12.50 pm
The Minister of state, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I congratulate the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) on securing the debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) for his intervention on behalf of his constituency. As the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State cannot be here today, unfortunately, owing to a late governmental commitment. I am happy to stand in for him and I shall pass the full text of the debate to him for his attention.

117WH
I understand the concern that has been expressed about the proposal by the West Midlands fire and civil defence authority to replace the two fire stations at Aldridge and Bloxwich with a new fire station serving both areas. Before dealing with specific points, I shall make a few background remarks. The fire service as a whole in this country consistently achieves high standards of performance, often in difficult and hazardous circumstances. Its high level of performance in responding to fire calls has been confirmed year after year by the Audit Commission. According to the latest figures for 1999-2000, the fire service nationally met attendance standards in responding to fire calls on 96 per cent. of occasions. In the west midlands, standards were met on 95.3 per cent. of occasions. Obviously, we shall strive to raise those levels, but that shows a good level of performance.
The fire service is also to be commanded for the range of community-based initiatives that it undertakes throughout the country to promote fire safety in the home. We want such progress to be measured against the commitment to prevention as the first line of defence against fire, and we want to develop a more clear vision and strategy for the service. I welcome particularly the excellent programme of community fire safety work being implemented by the West Midlands fire and civil defence authority. Throughout that process, we have established the principle of best value and the West Midlands fire and civil defence authority, as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills s said, is defined as a best value authority under the Local Government Act 1999. Under that duty of best value, authorities are required to secure continual improvement in the exercise of their functions, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. It is their duty to do that, and the statutory responsibility for achieving it lies with the fire authority. It is for the West Midlands fire and civil defence authority to keep its fire cover provision under review and, in particular, to provide a service that meets the national standards of fire cover.
I turn now to the Aldridge and Bloxwich fire stations. In January last year, the authority submitted a bid for support under the private finance initiative to replace single-appliance fire stations at Aldridge and Bloxwich with a new two-appliance fire station within the Walsall metropolitan borough council area. In April, it was selected as one of the bids to go forward to the next stage. The authority is in the process of developing its outline business case, at which point we shall wish to consider, in consultation with professional advisers, the scope of the scheme, whether PFI requirements are met and, in particular, whether the scheme represents value for money.
The private finance initiative has been mentioned at various points in the debate, and I well understand the controversy that arises about that method of financing public sector investment. I have the largest PFI hospital in the country in my constituency and there has been much controversy about that. In fact, the building work is many months ahead of schedule; and such a method has been efficient, but strong worries persist. The Department for Education and Employment has recently announced a £90 million PFI initiative for improving schools in eastern Norfolk. Head teachers
118WH
have expressed concerns, and I understand the anxieties about that method of financing—it can give rise to doubts—but, ultimately, Government policy is right.
If the Government approve in principle the allocation of PFI credits and the scheme is endorsed by the interdepartmental project review group, it would be open to the authority to put the project out to competitive tender, select a preferred bidder and develop its final business case. At that stage, the project would be closely examined to ensure that PFI requirements continued to be met.
I now come to the nub of the debate, and I emphasise as strongly as possible that considerations relevant to a PFI project are different from those that come into play when the closure of fire stations is under consideration. A separate statutory process applies. Approval of any PFI scheme does not of itself imply that other consents will necessarily be forthcoming. I shall describe in a few moments the procedures relevant to closing fire stations.
Several points were made about public consultation, which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary must take into account when examining any application. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills has put on the record the weaknesses that he believes are inherent in the process. His views can be taken into account both by the relevant authorities and by my right hon. Friend when matters reach him.
The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills referred to correspondence with the chief fire officer. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, on a couple of occasions, he was invited to a meeting to discuss his concerns? I know that he was unable to attend the fire authority meeting to which he referred. I urge him to enter into correspondence and discuss directly with the chief fire officer the concerns that he raised. That form of communication is important for resolving the issues.
I understand that the authority expects to submit its outline business case to the Home Office next month. Section 19(4) of the Fire Services Act 1947 applies and it is separate from the PFI process. A fire authority cannot, under that statute, reduce the number of fire stations, fire appliances and fire-fighting posts without the express consent of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The authority's proposed closure of Aldridge and Bloxwich fire stations when the new station is operational would require an application under section 19. To date, the Government have received no such application from the fire authority.
How will my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary deal with those applications when they arrive? His role is specific and he can grant approval only if he is satisfied that three conditions have been met. First, the proposals must have been sufficiently widely publicised in appropriate detail and with adequate time to enable interested parties to make representations. That is the nub of my response to the hon. Gentleman's many questions. My right hon. Friend will have to consider various matters at that stage. The age of panels, the timing over Christmas and so forth can be raised legitimately when my right hon. Friend is considering those questions. Secondly, my right hon. Friend must be satisfied that the representations have been properly considered by the authority and, thirdly, Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services must advise that national standards of fire cover will be maintained.

119WH
My right hon. Friend must ensure that those three important conditions are met, and he can assess them only after an application under section 19 has been made. I repeat that no such application has yet been received, which makes it difficult for me to comment in detail, except to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North and the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills have raised important issues for the record. I can give the assurance that if an application is received, we shall also take other representations—for example, from whoever may be the Member of Parliament at the time—into account. I can give the further assurance that no proposal will be approved unless we are entirely satisfied that national fire cover standards are being maintained—a critical question for the Government and for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
To conclude, I repeat that I understand the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North and the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills. The authority will have to consult and will know about the issues raised in our debate. If an application is made under section 19, it will be considered by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Consultation, national fire cover and the question whether the authority has considered the issue properly will be matters of concern to my right hon. Friend, and it will be entirely appropriate for any Member of Parliament to address those matters at that stage.
I have tried to respond to the points that were made, and I am glad that we have had the opportunity to have this debate.

Health and Safety Executive (Hull)
1 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara: At full complement during the 1980s and early 1990s, the Health and Safety Executive office in Hull had eight inspectors, covering the full range of local industry with the exception of specific control of major accident hazards sites. In recent years, the office has been systematically run down to its present complement of three operational inspectors, with the intention of closing it later this rear. That will reduce the number of inspections in the region by some 600 contacts per annum, and will result in inferior health and safety cover for many thousands of workers. It will probably lead to a great increase in accidents, and will prove less cost effective.
There are three main arguments for maintaining the HSE office in Hull: the industrial profile of the Humber region, the region's geographical isolation, and value for taxpayers' money. The Hull office is part of the Yorkshire and north-east region of the HSE, which also has offices in Newcastle, Leeds and Sheffield. Inspectors from Hull will be relocated, and future health and safety in the Humber region will be enforced from the Leeds and Sheffield offices both of which are more than 60 miles from Hull, yet we are asked to believe that there will be no detrimental effect on the service in the region.
A similar proposal to close the HSE office in Poole an area not renowned as a hive of industrial activity—has recently been reversed. The Hull office is low-cost and more cost-effective than its Sheffield and Leeds counterparts. Its closure will leave a city that is one of the largest in England, and which has particularly high-risk industries, more than 60 miles away from the nearest HSE office—an unprecedented situation. Moreover, in the opinion of trade unions and others involved in the Hull exercise, the procedures that led to the decision to close the office were underhand, misleading and inconsistent with the Government's declared policy on the HSE.
The Humber sub-region has a unique economic structure. Measured by tonnage, the Humberside ports account for more than 20 per cent. of all import and export trade in the United Kingdom. They are busy ports that are not only vital to our island economy, but extremely dangerous places in which to work. They need regular and expert attention, and ample accident statistics reveal what happens when the systems fail. Given that Sheffield is some 70 miles inland, there can be no logic or rationale in moving HSE inspectors who cover such coastal activity from Hull to Sheffield.
Agriculture, which is another dominant feature of the Humber region's economy, also accounts for a high percentage of fatal accidents year on year. Yet the enforcing authority for this rural activity will be based at the heart of the urban manufacturing and commercial institutions of Leeds—miles away from where it is needed, and in some of the most expensive office accommodation in the north. Humberside is also the international centre of caravan construction, which is another industry renowned for heavy work, fast production and accidents. Construction is a risky business. Work situations can change daily and require a quick response. With the closure of the Hull office, there will be no such quick response in Humberside.

121WH
Grimsby, which is on the south bank of the Humber, is the undisputed food capital of Europe. I should mention that in making this case I have the support of my hon. Friends the Members f or Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey). The food industry employs many thousands of people, and has an accident rate that is higher than that of most other industries. Its workers are even further from the protective services of the HSE.
Twenty-six top-tier control of major accident hazards sites are located across Humber side, including oil refineries and petrochemical sites. They represent the most serious potential for disaster and are situated on the coast, for obvious reasons. It would make sense to locate the COMAH inspectorate the same area, so that visits can be frequent and thorough. Instead, it is to be based in Sheffield, although there are only six COMAH sites in the whole of South Yorkshire. Let us not forget that the dark shadow of the Flixborough disaster in 1974 still hovers over Humberside-although the site of that disaster would now be regarded as minuscule compared with the big COMAH sites that are now in the region. We still live with the memories and lessons of that tragedy on Humberside.
The HSE policy for Yorkshire and the north-east appears deliberately to distance inspectors from the industries and sites for which they are responsible. A typical day's work for a docks inspector travelling from Sheffield will involve driving a round trip of 150 miles, which in today's traffic could take up to four hours—and that is a conservative estimate. That reduces the working day by half, is paid for at great expense to the taxpayer and results in the loss of a great deal of expertise. Under the new proposals, the estimated annual mileage per inspector will be an incredible 26,500 miles. Every hour spent driving is one hour less inspecting; every mile driven is a drain on the financial resources of the HSE and on the physical and emotional resources of the inspectors involved.
It makes no sense for HSE inspectors to spend half their working days as highly qualified taxi drivers. That is why the decision to close the HSE office in Poole was reversed. Over a full year, the aggregate driving time is up to 66 working days per inspector. If the full quota of eight inspectors work out of Leeds and Sheffield, a total of 528 inspection days per annum will be lost due to unnecessary travel. That will more than double the cost of travel and subsistence claims per inspector, and will lose them valuable inspection time. Moreover, it is unlikely that improvement and prohibition notices will be followed up as vigorously as they would be if they were issued locally. If those notices are not followed up, they will be ignored, as happened in Hull last year. A prohibition notice was ignored a demolition site, leading to the deaths of three people, one of whom was a constituent of mine.
As the quantity and quality or cover declines, the service inevitably becomes reactive instead of proactive—investigating accidents instead of preventing them. That is already becoming apparent in Humberside. Accident statistics reveal that over the past two years, as the Hull office has been run down, there has been a significant increase in loss of life, with 19 fatal accidents and almost 1,500 major Injuries in the region. All that suffering and heartbreak is being caused to save the princely sum of £2,428 a year.
122WH
It is not known exactly when the decision to close the Hull office was made, but it was taken without reference to the users of the service: employers, workers, trade union officials and local councils were consulted. The Government produced a document entitled "Revitalising Health and Safety", in which they promised to improve consultation and to extend promotional activities, working closely with local communities. Whoever wrote the document failed to draw it to the attention of the Health and Safety Executive officials in the Yorkshire region. No local group supported the decision to close the whole office. Indeed, the only good thing to arise from the exercise is that it has united all parties with a vested interest in health and safety in their opposition to the closure and the crass way in which that foolhardy decision was made.
The total absence of consultation is serious. When I asked a parliamentary question about the consultation process, I was told that a meeting had taken place between Mr. Bill Callaghan, chair of the Health and Safety Commission, Mr. Chris Willby, regional director of the HSE and local union officials. I want to set the record straight and stop the deceit—it is not clear exactly when the decision to close the HSE office in Hull was made, but it was certainly made before Christmas 1998. That meeting arose only because of representations made by local constituents and trade unions to the three local Members of Parliament and took place on 15 May 2000, more than 18 months after the decision to close the Hull office had been made and after the matter had been put in the local domain, drip by drip. There has been no consultation.
At that meeting, Chris Willby told trade union officers—Bill Callaghan was a witness to his statement—that the closure was necessary because the HSE was unable to recruit to the Hull office. Six weeks later, in reply to a series of written questions, I was informed that the HSE had not tried to recruit to Hull since 1997, so why was it stated that there was no possibility of obtaining candidates for important positions in Hull? I was told that the meeting on 15 May 2000 constituted the due consultation process prior to the decision being made, but no such meeting would have taken place without the insistence of local Members of Parliament. The decision to close was made at some time during 1998.
Another of my questions concerned the environmental impact of the closure. It is a legal requirement for organisations to undertake environmental impact assessments of their activities. It seems that no such assessment was made, and there was certainly no reference to any environmental impact assessment in the replies that I received. Subsequently, I asked my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment to place a copy of the Sykes report, with its appendices, in the Library, but a different document was put there. The title of the Sykes report that I wanted to see was "Accommodation Review—Future of the Hull Office" dated 22 March 1999. It shows the total savings from closing the Hull office as £2,428 per annum, albeit at a cost of 600 annual contacts. It states that the only reason for closing the office is a problem of remote management. 1 believe that 19 deaths and 1,500 major accidents show how remote the HSE management in Yorkshire and the north-east region is, and it will be even more remote at the end of the month.

123WH
Moreover, the reply from my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment was carefully drafted. The Department did not provide the report that I wanted, but instead provided the report entitled, "Accommodation Review:Yorkshire and north-east region business needs". However, even that was revealing. It gives the criteria necessary to meet the HSE's policy. First on the list is the need to be able to reach 90 per cent. of all premises within a travel time of one and a half hours. With current traffic patterns, it is not usual to travel from Leeds or Sheffield to Hull or Grimsby in less than an hour and a half. At peak times, one would be lucky to complete the journey in two or two and a half hours. Anyone who thought that those criteria could apply in that area must either have driven when there was no traffic on the motorway or have significantly broken the speed limit. Journeys are longer still for the many people coming to Humberside who live south or west of Sheffield.
Close consideration of the review would support the closure of the Sheffield office and an increase in the Humberside contingent. At peak times, it takes an hour to travel between Sheffield and Leeds, which are within 30 miles of each other. Hull is between 60 and 70 miles from those cities. The Sheffield area, moreover, has a lower death rate—15 in the past two years—and has only six COMAH sites, less than a quarter of the 26 in Humberside.
The whole process is littered with failure. There has been failure to consult, and failure to comply with Government policy as stated in the document "Revitalising Health and Safety". There has been failure to comply with the HSE's policies of working with the community and of holding environmental assessments, and failure to meet HSE criteria on target compliance. There has been failure to provide adequate answers to a Member of Parliament, and failure to provide effective health and safety cover for the people of Humberside.
Mr. Sykes made an insulting offer to representatives of the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union on 13 February. He said that, if we are very lucky, premises in Hull will be used for a monthly surgery, where people can go to have their cases examined. Presumably, somebody will put the Saltend oil refinery in his haversack, dump it on the surgery table and point out its problems. If there is excessive demand, the surgery might be opened even more than once a month. How very nice. How generous. How insulting.
Great questions remain. Why has deceit been used and misleading answers given? Why has there been no proper consultation process? Why was an environmental assessment not properly carried out? Why is the HSE office in Hull being closed, despite the substantial loss in efficiency that will result? Why have 19 people been killed and 1,500 seriously injured? Those people deserved the same protection as workers elsewhere in the country. Those figures are likely to rise, and all for a paltry saving of less than £2,500
1.17 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on securing the debate. I have listened carefully to his points about the Health and Safety Executive's decision to close the Hull local office at the end of this year. I understand his concern, which he has every right to express in this Chamber, but I do not share his view that the standard of service in Humberside that the HSE provides will be adversely affected by the decision.
It is not fair to make the link, as my hon. Friend did, between the reduction of inspectors at Hull and what he claims as increases in deaths. I acknowledge that there have been a number of deaths. I concur with my hon. Friend's last point—as would my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and members of the HSE and the Health and Safety Commission—that people in Humberside deserve the same protection as in the rest of the country. The HSE's decision about deployment of resources does not diminish its commitment to the people of Humberside, which is equal to its commitment to people elsewhere.
The proposals are, intended to improve overall service delivery as part of the restructuring of the HSE, over several years, to which my hon. Friend referred. There is a centralised telephone contact for information and, from 1 April, there will be centralised telephone, e-mail and internet reporting of incidents. Staff in Sheffield already handle telephone and postal complaints, and almost all meetings are held at the premises of duty holders.
Those changes date back to 1976, when the HSE reorganised its field force from one based on numerous small offices and small districts to a national structure based on fewer largo offices. The introduction of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 increased its, responsibilities. It had to become flexible and keep abreast of developments in industry, which required a different organisational base if it was to meet the increased demands and keep up with developments. Those and subsequent changes have allowed inspectors to develop a deeper expertise—which is a safer way for the organisation to operate—by concentrating on a smaller range of industries and delivering more focused plans of work.
Further changes took place in 1995, when the HSE reorganised its field operations directorate to a regionally based structure. That included the formation of the Yorkshire and north-east division with its main offices in Leeds, Sheffield and Newcastle upon Tyne. Most small district offices had closed, but some were retained as outstations; the Hull office had only four inspectors at that time.
Although Hull was retained as an outstation, much of the inspection activity in the area was carried out from the Sheffield and Leeds offices. Following the formation of the area structure in 1976, the chemical industry and most construction work on Humberside were inspected from Sheffield because of the need to keep staff together to develop their expertise, knowledge and experience. In 1995, inspection of the engineering industry transferred to Sheffield, with agriculture and the services sector, including the docks, being inspected by inspectors based

125WH
in Leeds and Sheffield respectively. Those changes have not affected the coverage or standard of inspection. The people of Hull have not noticed the gradual switch from inspectors based in Humberside to inspectors based in the Sheffield and Leeds offices. The HSE inspects the same premises, investigates the same accidents and participates in the same events, as it would have done if the Hull office had not been reduced. However, the range of inspector resources and expertise available in the Yorkshire and north-east region cannot be delivered by only three or four inspectors.
It is not only the HSE that has recognised the need to deploy its resources differently, and to enable its staff to work together to develop the expertise and depth of experience that they need. Several trade unions have also closed their offices as they rationalise their structures to provide a more effective regional service, so the HSE is not out of step with other organisations.
I agree with my hon. Friend that the efficacy and efficiency of the service is more important than the location of individual small offices The HSE must use its resources as efficiently and effectively as possible. It must therefore have staff resources that can be deployed in a planned manner to meet strategic demands. That is an important part of the Government's revitalising health and safety strategy.
Inspection and investigation policies are set by the HSE nationally on the basis of risks arising from work activities, irrespective of location. Decisions to investigate accidents, incidents and reported ill-health are determined by their nature and severity, not by location. The HSE puts considerable effort into ensuring that its approach and standard of service is the same across the country irrespective of distance from the office. That applies as much to Humberside as to any other part of the UK.
Resources need to be flexible so that inspectors can be redeployed, often at short notice, to respond to changing priorities. Having small numbers of inspectors in small offices does not aid flexible deployment. I understand why the closure of small offices, such as that in Hull, might cause concern but I reassure hon. Members that the decision was not taken lightly. It followed a thorough UK-wide review that considered the needs in the region and those in Humberside. The restructuring changes are in line with changes in the service industry and in other agencies.
When coming to its decision to close the office, the HSE also considered the need for a local office to serve the people of Hull. However, the office receives few personal callers and, as I have said, telephone and postal complaints are already handled by Sheffield staff. There is also soon to be a centralised telephone contact for the reporting of incidents. I think that the conclusion that there was a limited need for an office physically located
126WH
in Hull was rational. The main need is for liaison and joint participation with local organisations to continue as before.
The HSE will continue to service the needs of those areas. In general, the same staff will continue to participate in local meetings and liaise with trade unions, local authorities and employers organisations. Where possible, the HSE will maintain and increase contacts with local organisations, in line with revitalising the health and safety strategy. It will continue to develop partnerships as it does in other areas of Yorkshire and the north-east division. The HSE also proposes to acquire premises in Hull in which to host meetings with employers, local officials and the public. My hon. Friend derided the notion of surgeries, but they are a more responsive way of linking with local stakeholders and meeting their changing demands. I am sorry that he derided that offer, because I think that that approach is very important. It could be a way of developing services in the future.
Staff considerations have been an important factor in the decision. At present, there is only one inspector in the Hull office, who is due to retire in June, and an administrative officer. Two operational managers remain in Hull, but the staff that they manage are in Leeds and Sheffield.
Staff development has also been an important consideration. The HSE has a large number of trainee and relatively inexperienced inspectors. To develop their careers, inspectors must be able to move posts to gain experience—in a larger office that would be possible. The pooling of expertise and experience is an important ingredient in encouraging and enabling staff to develop. For that reason, inspectors are increasingly reluctant to join a small office and, as a responsible employer, the HSE is reluctant to move staff against their will.
My hon. Friend mentioned consultation and referred to the meeting with trade union representatives in May 2000. The amount of work already being carried out from Leeds and Sheffield came as a surprise to the representatives at the meeting. The reasons behind the decision were discussed and understood, if not accepted.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the Sykes report, about which there seems to have been some misunderstanding. The report referred to by my hon. Friend "Accommodation Review-Future of the Hull Office" was not the Sykes report. It is a different report, produced by the HSE estate management team about the financial implications. I will ensure that a copy of that report, if that is the one that he wants to examine, is placed in the Library.
In conclusion, the decision to close the Hull office should not be seen merely as a local decision. The centralisation of HSE offices resulted, in the first instance, from the increasingly complex demands placed on HSE, and a desire to maintain safe and equal standards across the country.

Rail Services (Berwick-upon-Tweed)
1.30 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: There are five stations in the constituency of Berwick-upon-Tweed, all on the east coast main line, although only Berwick and Alnmouth are served by long-distance trains. Berwick serves the whole of the eastern borders, and Alnmouth serves the whole of mid-Northumberland. In the case of Berwick, the train is vital to communication. It is a much quicker way of getting to central London than travelling by either air or car, because the town is a long way from the nearest airport. The train is unusually important in the economic life of the town.
Acklington, Widdrington and Chathill stations are served only by a minimal Northern Spirit service, which also stops at Alnmouth. Alnmouth station is operated by Northern Spirit, despite the fact that most of its passengers actually use GNER services. I hope that, in the longer term, the smaller stations will get an improved service from local trains. The service could run from Newcastle to Edinburgh. The trains could be electric, as they would run on the main line, stopping also at existing and reopened stations between Berwick and Edinburgh. Some stations have been reopened, and there are plans to open one or two more.
My main, immediate concerns are the east coast main line services, which have been badly affected by the Hatfield crash and its aftermath, and the unnecessary obstruction of the building of a platform at Belford for local services. I have said that GNER is the main operator on the east coast main line, but I should also mention Virgin Cross Country, which provides daily services to the west country and the south coast. Nobody I know wants Virgin to get the east coast main line franchise. The company would have a monopoly on Anglo-Scottish rail travel, and GNER has shown that it is worthy of the franchise. We all hope that that will be tied up soon, giving GNER the opportunity and encouragement to invest further in its services. Any other outcome would be greeted with absolute horror from end to end of the east coast main line.
However, the Virgin Cross Country service is extremely useful. When it goes wrong, it tends to do so pretty disastrously, because it intersects with so many other lines as it works its way from Dundee to Penzance or from Edinburgh to Bournemouth. It provides connections right into the midlands, into south Yorkshire and other areas for passengers from Edinburgh, Berwick, Newcastle and further south. Standards on the Virgin services have never been as good as those on GNER, nor is Virgin as good as GNER at looking after passengers when something goes wrong, and I have considerable experience of that. Nevertheless, it is an important service.
One problem caused by the services being divided among three train operators is that they frequently fail to give adequate information on one other's services. If there is a limited service, another operator's train may be a vital link in one's journey. I also receive many complaints from constituents about the complexities of ticket pricing. There are some good offers, but if they do not fit with people's journeys, if people do not know about them, or if they are not told about them because they ask a particular company whereas it is another company's offer, they are left with a very high standard fare to pay.
128WH
GNER's standard of service prior to Hatfield was generally very high—both speed of journey and on-train service. I feel sorry for the GNER staff, given all they have been through in recent months. I admire the way in which they have coped, not least with the terrible trauma of the Selby crash, in which regular passengers, whom they knew well, and rail worker colleagues lost their lives. Journeys in this period, especially during the floods, have sometimes been a nightmare, but GNER has made great efforts to help passengers to get through it. Thanks to Railtrack's restrictions, and Railtrack's failure to meet targets, journey times are not back to pre-Hatfield levels, and they will not be back to that level by the promised date of Easter.
We heard yesterday that the Rail Regulator has had to place an enforcement notice on Railtrack. Will GNER be able to return to full, normal services by 21 May, the new dare set by Mr. Winsor in that notice? Before Hatfield, the journey from Berwick to London on GNER took as little as 3 hours 35 minutes, which is pretty good timing for a 350-mile journey; but that journey now takes another 40 minutes. The quality of service has been reduced, and the full timetable has not been restored. For example, the 7 pm train to Edinburgh from King's Cross station has not been restored to the timetable, and there are other gaps. The total capacity of train spaces available is not what is was before Hatfield.
In recent years, GNER has added stops at Berwick and Alnmouth stations. Alnmouth has a much more limited service than Berwick, but the service meets people's needs verb well. I hope that GNER will continue to be sensitive to local demand and consider making additional stops, as it has in the past, if it can attract additional business. All three companies should realise that normal fare structures do not always take account of the benefits of charging a reasonable fare for commuting and shopping trips to Newcastle and Edinburgh, especially as it can cut road traffic to both cities. Berwick provides a striking example of the extent to which people use the long-distance train to take major shopping trips to Newcastle and Edinburgh. It is quick and it takes them directly to the shopping centres. Reasonable fares are important because they will encourage such journeys.
Early every morning, a train leaves Belford station for Newcastle. Every evening, it returns to Belford. It would be an ideal train for commuters—people with jobs in Newcastle or people who want jobs in places on that route such as Cramlington—and students going to college. It would take traffic off the Al, and would be much better than going by bus, which sometimes involves two or three changes. However, no one can get on the train. The station was closed years ago, and there is no platform in the siding where the train now waits twice a day.
A group of local people, the Belford rail users group, has set out to put that right. People from that group made sure that everyone in the country knew about the closure of the Belford branch of Barclays bank. They are among the most energetic of campaigners. They have set their minds on getting the rail service at Belford restored, and rightly so. They secured a design for a platform that could have been built in eight days and craned on to the site overnight, and no track or signalling alterations would have been necessary.

129WH
Northern Spirit, the company that runs the train service, showed interest and has been supportive. The group secured funding commitments from Berwick borough council, Northumberland county council, the Countryside Agency, Belford parish council and the Johnny Johnson trust. The Strategic Rail Authority indicated that funds could be made available and fast-tracked, because the project would have cost less than £100,000. The Department the Environment, Transport and the Regions, represented by the Minister, seemed encouraging, and the project fitted well with the Government's policy on rail development and their rural transport initiatives.
The next step was for Northern Spirit to carry out a risk assessment. Suddenly, obstacles started to appear. Railtrack told Northern Spirit that a short platform proposal would not be acceptable. I wrote to Railtrack and Northern Spirit on 5 February, and the group drew the attention of those companies to the fact that the leader of the Liberal Democrat party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), had opened a station with a short platform at Beauly in January 2001.
On that day, the Strategic Rail Authority issued a press release stating that Beauly had a short, 10 m platform and was
a good example for the further development of integrated transport in the rural communities in Scotland and, indeed, in the United Kingdom as a whole."
However, Northern Spirit wrote to me on 19 February, saying that the Belford project
"is unfortunately prevented at present by an HMRI"
Her Majesty's railway inspectorate—
"restriction on construction of 'short' stations on safety grounds".
Northern Spirit enclosed a further letter referring to the Beauly case, in which it said that Railtrack had said that
"safety approval would not be forthcoming for a new facility at Belford, permission for the development at Beauly having been secured under a previous regime."
What is that previous regime? There has been no change of Government during that time, and there has been no change of railway inspector. No one, least of all the railway inspectorate, could under stand to what that referred. Indeed, Her Majesty's chief inspector of railways is a little puzzled—possibly even a bit annoyed—to find someone else representing his views before he has uttered them. Mr. Coleman wrote to me:
"I am able to inform you that the Health and Safety Executive's Railway Inspectorate (HMRI) has not vetoed the opening of Belford station on any grounds."
He then set out earlier correspondence in which the inspectorate had pointed out what procedure needed to be followed—it had indeed been most helpful and constructive.
Railtrack is claiming an objection from the railways inspector when no such objection I has been entered, and using that non-existent objection to tell Northern Spirit not to proceed in the matter. If Railtrack's advice had been followed, it would have required a full-scale platform 51 m long that would h the cost £250,000 to build. That would have been completely over the top, quite out of scale and definitely not the solution followed at Beauly. A perfectly acceptable procedure currently operates at more than 150 stations for single-
130WH
door operation at short platforms. The Northern Spirit trains, which provide the service, are equipped for single-door operation. If Railtrack stopped being obstructive, Northern Spirit could submit a risk assessment in terms that the inspector would be likely to accept on the same basis as the Beauly platform.
I am also told that Railtrack is now saying that any station project must be submitted by Northumberland county council. No one said that previously, and that was not the advice of the railways inspector. That may be possible, but it adds an unnecessary complication, and is another moving of the goalposts, such as happens at every stage. Railtrack must now put its weight behind the proposals and take a positive approach. I appeal to the Minister to do whatever he can to remind Railtrack that it is Government policy that a flexible approach should be taken to such matters.
While I am on the subject of Railtrack's approach, I add a further plea for it to take a more positive attitude to the Aln valley railway project, which is a scheme to reopen the line between Alnmouth and Alnwick. It is a widely supported scheme with major tourist potential that has secured big funding pledges from many sources. It would adjoin the east coast main line at or near Alnmouth station on derelict land, but with no direct connection currently proposed with the main line. Again, Railtrack constantly produces objections rather than looking for solutions. That scheme is an opportunity for Railtrack, not a problem. It would greatly increase the use of Alnmouth station. I gather that a meeting is scheduled for 27 March to try to sort out Railtrack's latest concerns about the lease needed, and I very much hope that it will approach that meeting in a positive spirit, and that someone will attend who will have the power to make a decision and get things moving.
Railtrack should get on with it—get the east coast main line back in a condition that will enable GNER to run fast and frequent services once more and cope with rising demand; get on with it by enabling Belford passengers to use the train that already runs to Belford twice a day; and get on with it by dealing with the Aln valley railway project. The three rail operating companies should recognise that there is a local market of people who will use trains if their services, fares, information and promotion take account of what people need from the railway. When companies have done so, it has shown to be effective. I want the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to use every effort to get Railtrack to deliver, to secure a more positive attitude by the company to new facilities, in line with Government policy, and to encourage traffic on to the railways.
1.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Robert Ainsworth): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on securing this debate, giving the Chamber the opportunity to discuss the east coast main line rail services in his constituency.
In the aftermath of Hatfield, most services were disrupted due to speed restrictions imposed by Railtrack for safety reasons. Further disruption was caused by the adverse weather conditions over Christmas and the new

131WH
year. Virgin west coast services were severely disrupted by problems associated with modernisation work at Willesden and in the Euston area. The disruptions have shown how important the railway is to its customers and to the economy. Much of the network is now operating reasonably consistently, although several long-distance services on the main Great Western and west coast main lines will continue to be affected beyond Easter. The east coast main line should resume normal service in May. The hon. Gentleman referred to what the Rail Regulator said yesterday about getting the service back to normal as soon as possible.
The right hon. Gentleman specifically referred to the performance of Virgin CrossCountry. While a revised timetable remains in place, the service is becoming more stable by the week. I am pleased to say that improvements are in the pipeline, and Railtrack and the regulator agree that services should be back to normal by the start of the summer timetable on 20 May.
New rolling stock is to be introduced from next year and, by 2003, that will facilitate an improved timetable with faster journey times, a clock face timetable, a doubling of train mileage and new services on new routes.
The Strategic Rail Authority has considered the proposals put forward by Virgin Stagecoach and GNER for a replacement east coast main line intercity franchise. An initial recommendation has been made to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, which is being considered. The authority has been criticised for the time it has taken in awarding some of the new franchises. However, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that, when awarding franchises for up to 20 years, it is imperative not only to secure the best possible deal for passengers, but to ensure that the preferred counter-party has the capacity to deliver the proposals. Franchise replacement aims to secure a sustained improvement in performance and a step change in customer service through increased investment. The authority is currently replacing those franchises that are due to expire in 2004.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the need to improve and increase the frequency of local services, including services from Berwick-upon-Tweed to Alnmouth. The authority will not specify particular improvements to services and make them a condition of acceptance of franchise bids, but will expect bidders to propose improvements where they see merit in doing so, having consulted local stakeholders, local authorities, rail passenger committees and rail user groups.
Services currently run by Northern Spirit and First North Western will be combined to provide a coherent network of local services throughout the north of England. That will exclude fast inter-urban services, which will be provided under a separate new trans-Pennine express franchise. The northern franchise will focus on working with the passenger executive committees, with a separate business unit in each area.
I understand that the Belford rail users group is pursuing proposals for extended platforms at Belford station with Northern Spirit. That is the most appropriate way forward pending replacement of the Northern Spirit franchise. Funding for that proposal, as
132WH
well as for the Alnwick proposals to which the right hon. Gentleman also referred, may be available from the rail passenger partnership scheme, which is administered by the Strategic Rail Authority.
The rail passenger partnership scheme was set up by the Government with £105 million of new public funding to encourage local rail initiatives. The fund offers support for new investment proposals that produce significantly wider benefits for both integration and modal shift. To take forward a rail passenger partnership bid for Belford, a business case will need to be prepared to satisfy the authority's planning criteria. Bids must demonstrate value for money and the delivery of the scheme.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke at some length about what he considered to be the obstruction of the proposals for Belford station. I am told that the Belford proposals will be considered under a regime similar to the one that applied to the facility that was agreed in the constituency of the right on. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy). No new regime is to be imposed on the Belford proposals. The right hon. Gentleman may have been told that it will, but it is not true. The Belford proposals will be treated similarly to those in the example that he gave.
I am told that the reason for the current delay is that we are awaiting further submissions from the Belford rail users group. If, as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to imply, that is not now the reason, we need to ensure that progress is made. My information is that a submission will be needed. It will be necessary to know, for example, what types of trains will be used at Belford station, how many services will stop there and what passenger numbers are likely. Attention will need to be paid to control of the situation and, with respect to a guard, establishing that there is only a single-door operating system. If the relevant matters are dealt with, there is no reason for a block on the proposal.
Mr. Beith: The Minister is being very helpful, but perhaps he should be told that three of those four points are well known to all the parties concerned. The train is a known feature; it is the same one that arrives every day. Its facilities and requirements are all known. However, new submissions keep being required. Nevertheless, I know that the campaigners will urgently provide all the information that is required, as long as the goalposts do not keep moving. I am grateful to the Minister for telling us that there is a basis on which to proceed.
Mr. Ainsworth: The right hon. Gentleman's account was clearly not in line with the information that I am giving. We need to establish whether my information is correct and, and if it is not, we should get to the bottom of it and understand the hold-up.
I now want to mention the east coast main line upgrade. The east coast main line is the high-speed link carrying Britain's fastest train service between London, Yorkshire, the north-east and Edinburgh, and linking into Scotland's prime routes to Glasgow, Aberdeen and Inverness. It also handles cross-country, commuter and local passenger services, and carries considerable freight and mail traffic. The route is primarily a two-track railway, with four tracks in certain sections—mainly at

133WH
the southern end. Speeds over the northern third of the route between Newcastle and Edinburgh range between 80 and 125 mph. On an average day there are 1,900 passenger trains carrying 200,000 passengers, and 250 freight services with a loading of around 200,000 tonnes. The route is therefore vital to the economic health of many regions of Great Britain.
It has long been accepted by all parties that the upgrading of the east coast main line is a necessity and a priority. It would provide additional capacity for both passenger and freight demand while improving the network, enabling train operators significantly to improve the quality and reliability of their services as their customers expect. Railtrack has had a substantial design team working on the scheme for nearly three years to enable the route to carry more passenger trains, faster trains and more freight services. The creation of a four-track railway for much of the route is also a fundamental part of the scheme. The authority was informed by Railtrack in early February of an increase in its cost estimates for the upgrade, and they have recently examined the details of the increases together. As a result, there has been a temporary pause in the franchise replacement process for the east coast main line inter-city services. As I have mentioned, it is important to get the franchise right, even if it means waiting a little longer. It is hoped that there will soon be an announcement about the way forward.
Earlier this year, the authority announced the prospect of a new, purpose-built railway, capable of running trains at 200 to 225 mph. Such a line would provide the necessary capacity and make possible journeys between major cities that were dramatically faster as well as more convenient, comfortable and reliable. Depending on the route, journey times from London to Manchester or Leeds could be reduced to less than one hour 30 minutes; journey to Newcastle could be reduced to around two hours and those to Scotland could take less than three hours.
The authority's preliminary work has enabled it to develop a better understanding of the potential costs and the benefits of a dedicated high-speed line running from London to the north. The authority is now inviting consultants to bid to develop the case for a new line with the aim of determining the best concept by the end of March 2002. Including destinations and corridor options, this stage of the study will need to assess the environmental issues relating to a high-speed line, together with the implications for the existing rail network and franchises, which are unlikely to cope with the demand expected in 10 or 20 years. The high-speed line is a project for the second decade of the 21st century, if the case for it is acceptable. For that reason, the need remains to press on with the planned upgrade of the east
134WH
coast main line and the replacement of the franchise so that journey times and capacity can be improved as early as possible.
We want to deliver a bigger, better and safer railway, with improved punctuality and reliability, reduced journey times and higher standards of customer service. Our intentions are clear and our 10-year plan provides the mechanism to achieve our aim of 50 per cent. more passengers and 80 per cent. more freight over the next decade.
The £180 billion investment programme of public and private money will include £60 billion to improve the national rail network with new track. signalling, stations and rolling stock. I have already stressed the importance of franchise replacement, which the Strategic Rail Authority will take forward, as well as working closely with other transport providers and promoting integration of different modes of transport.
The authority published its strategic agenda on 13 March. That sets out the course that it will follow to achieve improvements for passengers and freight, and the way that the infrastructure will be enhanced. The agenda reflects considerable consultation and discussion with the industry and other bodies. It describes progress with franchise replacement and sets out clearly the next steps, including details of how the remaining franchises will be replaced.
Freight development will be based on encouraging competition and innovation, increasing capacity and providing more terminals and providing financial support to get the freight off the road and on to the railway. Infrastructure enhancement recognises Railtrack's two distinct businesses—operations and maintenance, and major projects. The agenda sets out how, assisted by the rail modernisation fund, the authority will work to deliver the biggest public-private partnerships in Europe. It also focuses on necessary developments in other areas—including better training and development of staff and building project management skills—as well as more research, new equipment and information systems for passengers.
The authority intends to publish a more detailed strategic plan in the autumn. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is encouraged by the planned improvements that will benefit passengers using services from Berwick-upon-Tweed. We expect the privatised train operating companies and Railtrack to work in partnership with one another and the authority to turn the vision of the 10-year plan into a reality. With the amount of public money that is being invested in the railways, we expect the industry to deliver the goods. With sustained Government investment and determination, we shall get Britain moving and give people a transport system on which they can rely.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

DEFENCE

  Service Personnel (Compensation)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the review for compensation arrangements for those killed and disabled during service with the armed forces will be completed; how the review will be presented to Parliament; if payments resulting from the review will be retrospective; and if he will make a statement. [154044]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) on 16 March 2001,Official Report, column 756W. This stage of the review has taken longer than expected because of legal and financial complexities. It is proposed that any new scheme would be introduced for all incidents giving rise to illness injury or death after the date of introduction. Claims relating to incidents which occurred before this time would continue to be covered by the existing arrangements. Following consultation, we expect to take final decisions on the review by early next year, when we will inform Parliament in the normal way.

  Logos and Branding
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent by his Department on departmental and agency logos and associated branding since 1 May 1997. [152645]

  Dr. Moonie
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Job Evaluation
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason service officers have not had the same job evaluation as enlisted personnel; and if he will make a statement. [153979]

  Mr. Spellar
  Job evaluation of both Other Ranks and Officer posts has been routinely undertaken since 1970. A new job evaluation system was introduced in 1997 and was extensively tested across all ranks including Officers. During the period leading up to Pay 2000, priority has been given to evaluating Other Ranks in order to assign posts to pay ranges based on job weight. Most Senior Officer posts have now been evaluated. We are about to begin a comprehensive programme of evaluation for the remainder of the Officer corps with the aim of completing the first tranche by September to meet the stated requirements of the Armed Forces Pay Review Board.
  210W

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Peerages
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council how many members of the public have contacted the Appointments Commission to give their views on its role and the criteria and the process used to select applicants for nomination for a peerage. [153807]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I understand that 40 members of the public have responded to the Commission's invitation for views on the process and the criteria it has drawn up to guide its assessment of nominations.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council how many applicants for a People's Peerage have their main home outside the United Kingdom. [153764]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I understand that of the 3,200 applications for consideration by the Appointments Commission as non-political peers received by 17 November 2000, 17 have their main home outside the United Kingdom.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Salaries
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the President of the Council how many hon. Members voluntarily elected to forgo(a) part and (b) all of their parliamentary salary in the 2000–01 financial year. [154516]

  Mrs. Beckett
  No hon. Members have taken a reduced parliamentary salary during this financial year.

  Fair Trade Products
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee what fair-traded products are(a) used and (b) sold in the cafeterias and restaurants of the Palace of Westminster. [155066]

  Mr. Dennis Turner
  While I cannot, of course, answer for the policies of the Refreshment Department in another place, I am pleased to confirm that the following Fairtrade Mark products are sold in the cafeterias and restaurants of the House of Commons: "Clipper" teas; "Tikki Café" coffee beans and ground coffee from Matthew Algie Tea and Coffee Merchants; and "Divine" milk chocolate and "Dubble" chocolate rice bars from The Day Chocolate Company.

  The House of Commons Refreshment Department also has a policy to support the aims of the Cotonou Convention, specifically with reference to the purchase of Caribbean bananas and cane sugar.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Policies (Manchester, Gorton)
  Mr. Kaufman
  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 the Manchester, Gorton constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 30 November 2000. [154496]
  211W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 30 November 2000 regarding a similar query. I explained that the impact of Home Office policies and actions is not normally collected by constituency and the statistics which the Department collects cannot be matched in the way requested. The three major projects which I mentioned are ongoing. They are a burglary reduction project in Rusholme, a targeted policing project against armed crime in South Manchester and the neighbourhood wardens projects in three parts of Gorton.

  The Manchester Youth Offending Team received a visit from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in December 2000 and there was a significant increase in the number of Pre-Sentence Reports prepared for the courts during that quarter. There are plans for this progress to be sustained.

  As I explained in the earlier reply, all the policies of the Home Office will in a more general way impact on Manchester, Gorton to a greater or lesser extent. Changes since I last wrote to my right hon. Friend are as follows:
  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, but once again this is not collected on a constituency basis.

  Departmental Policies (Sutton and Cheam)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Sutton and Cheam constituency, the effects on Sutton and Cheam of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154416]

  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 latest 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 Sutton and Cheam constituency or the immediate locality:

  Reducing Burglary Initiative

  One project from Sutton was awarded £35,000 under round two of the Reducing Burglary initiative. The project will work on anti-social behaviour and other crimes
  212W
  and include increased use of intelligence gathering, surveillance and arrest to direct resources on prolific offenders. Anti-social behaviour, civil and repossession orders will be used to address offending by those likely to fill the void left by the removal of prolific offenders. A partnership approach will be taken to tackle issues such as the improvement of housing allocation and pre-school education provision.

  Youth Offending Teams (YOTs)

  The Youth Justice Board (YJB) are funding an Intervention Scheme and a Bail Supervision Team in the Sutton and Cheam constituency. Between September 1999 and March 2002 the YJB are contributing almost £120,000 to a Network Drugs Advice Project. The project will reduce crime by reducing drug and alcohol use among young offenders. A project worker will be based in each of the two YOTs and will assess levels of substance abuse and the influence it may have on individuals' crime-related activity. Motivational interviewing, solution focused, brief intervention, rational emotive behavioural and existential therapeutic approaches will be provided for approximately 1,500 young people over the period of the bid.

  The YJB are also contributing nearly £85,000 to a Bail Support Scheme. The project aims to reduce offending by young people while subject to bail; reduce delays caused by non-appearance of young people in court and reduce unnecessary use of secure facilities for young people on remand.

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

  Departmental Policies (Lancaster and Wyre)
  Mr. Dawson
  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 Lancaster and Wyre constituency, the effect on Lancaster and Wyre of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154681]

  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 latest report will be published shortly.
  213W
  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 polices 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 Lancaster and Wyre constituency or the immediate locality:

  Closed Circuit Television (CCTV)

  Wyre Community Safety Partnership was awarded £120,000 for a project entitled Wyre CCTV Unit. The scheme will consist of two CCTV units, capable of being deployed to any part of Wyre targeting short term crime 'hotspots' and communities, which are suffering from incidents of youth crime and disorder.

  Youth Offending Teams (YOTs)

  The Youth Justice Board (YJB) is funding two Intervention Schemes and one Bail Supervision Scheme in the Lancaster and Wyre area. Almost £57,000 is being funded towards Drugline Lancashire—Preston Arrest Referral and Cautioning Plus Project. The main aims of this project include the provision of direct services to challenge cycles of drug use and crime: counselling, information, befriending, advocacy, holistic welfare, early and crisis intervention. They also include the establishment of a networking system combining a focus on drugs, crime and young people.

  Approximately £37,000 has been awarded for the Lancashire Restorative Justice Project. The main aim is to provide both victims and young offenders with the opportunity to communicate with one another in a safe environment in order that the offender may make amends for previous inappropriate behaviour and assist the victim to come to terms with the harm suffered.

  A Bail Support Scheme has been awarded £191,000 in the area. The project aims to provide a practical alternative to magistrates and courts in Lancashire and Blackburn for remands to custody, secure accommodation and remands to local authority accommodation.

  More generally, all of the policies of the Home Office will impact on the residents of Lancaster and Wyre to a greater or lesser extent. For example:
  376 Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships have been established;
  racial harassment and racially motivated crimes have been made criminal offences by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998;
  the asylum backlog has been cut from 103,495 at the end of January 2000 to 66,195 by the end of December 2000; and
  good progress is being made in reducing the incidence of fire deaths in England and Wales. They have dropped from 605 in 1997 to 534 in 1999.
  Information on the Home Office and its policies is also published on its website (www.homeoffice.gov.uk).
  214W

  David Blagden
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received on the subject of David Blagden; and if he will make a statement. [154418]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have received a good deal of correspondence on Mr. Blagden's behalf suggesting that his continued custody is unfair and unjust given the nature of his index offence and the length of time he has served. There has also been considerable media interest in the case of this discretionary life sentence prisoner both at local level and nationally.

  Legal advisers acting for David Blagden are currently challenging by judicial review the content of material due to be put before my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, for his consideration of the Parole Board's recommendations following its hearing of this case on 2 May 2000. Until this action is concluded, it is not possible to respond to the Parole Board's recommendation.

  Prison Education
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the education budget for the Prison Service was for the 2000–01 financial year; and what it will be for the 2001–02 financial year; [154525]

  (2) what the education budget for the Prison Service was for the financial years (a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01; and what it will be for the 2001–02 financial year. [154527]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information available is for certain identifiable areas of education expenditure, covering payments to education and library service providers and purchase of education materials. It does not include the private sector managed prisons.

  Expenditure in 1999–2000 was £47.4 million. Forecast expenditure in 2000–01 is about £50 million.

  Both of these figures include Value Added Tax (VAT) payments, where applicable, but do not include refunds to prisons of any recoverable VAT, details of which are not readily available.

  As announced in paragraph 23 of the recently published plans for the new partnership between the Prison Service and the Department for Education and Employment "Improving Prisoners' Learning and Skills", a copy of which is in the Library, funding for education, libraries and education materials will be at least £51 million in 2001–02, with planned increases to at least £59 million in 2002–03 and £63 million in 2002–04. These figures allow for VAT refunds.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the average number of hours per prisoner spent in educational classes per week, in each year from 1992 to present; and if he will make a statement. [152874]

  Mr. Boateng
  The available information is set out in the table. Information is not available for years before 1995. Comparable data are not collected from private sector prisons.
  215W
  The figures relate only to education classes delivered by education contractors, who are in the main further education colleges, and do not include vocational training, physical education or distance learning. Not all prisoners need or wish to participate in education classes and the figures do not therefore reflect the number of hours spent by those prisoners who engage in education classes.

  Year

  Average number of hours per prisoner per week spent in education classes in public sector prisons

  1995

  3 hours 36 minutes

  1996

  3 hours 12 minutes

  1997

  2 hours 54 minutes

  1998

  2 hours 54 minutes

  1999–2000

  3 hours 12 minutes

  Note:

  Figures may not all be on a like for like basis as the 1999–2000 hours of study data relate to the financial year not calendar year as previously.

  Average number of whole weeks spent on remand by adult defendants in indictable cases in 2000

  Averaqe whole weeks spent remanded:

  In custody

  On bail

  Number of defendants

  Adult defendants who were remanded in custody throughout court proceedings

  6

  0

  1,563

  Adult defendants who were remanded in custody for part of the proceedings

  4

  8

  1.449

  Adult defendants who were remanded on bail only

  0

  10

  14,046

  All adult defendants

  1

  6

  24,750

  Prisoner Releases
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, for the period between the commencement of the Home Detention Curfew scheme and 28 February inclusive,(a) the number of prisoners released on the scheme, (b) the number of prisoners convicted of each specific offence who were released on the scheme, with a breakdown of the offences committed, including specific offences committed by prisoners normally classified under the categories (i) other homicide and attempted homicide, (ii) other violence against the person, (iii) drug offences, (iv) assaults and (v) other offences, including a breakdown of the prisoners normally classified in the sub-category of other offences called other offences, (c) the average sentence (i) received and (ii) served, and the average period spent on the scheme, in respect of each specific offence, (d) the number of prisoners released on the scheme, with a breakdown of the offences committed, who (i) breached the conditions of the curfew, (ii) disappeared and were recaptured, (iii) disappeared and remain unlawfully at large and (iv) had their licences revoked, and for what reasons, (e) a breakdown of the specific offences committed by prisoners released on the scheme while on the scheme, including all offences committed by prisoners who committed more than one offence and (f) a breakdown of the specific offences committed by prisoners released on the scheme who committed a further offence while on the scheme that was similar in character to that for which they were originally convicted, including all offences committed by prisoners who committed more than one offence; and if he will make a statement. [152693]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 8 March 2001]: I have written to the right hon. Member and placed a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will respond to the letters from the hon. Member for Manchester, Central dated 19 October 2000 and 17 January about Mr. H. H. R. (H11001080). [154589]

  Mrs. Roche
  Lord Bassam wrote to my hon. Friend on my behalf on 16 February.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what average time was spent on remand in 2000 by(a) females aged under 21 years, (b) males aged under 21 years, (c) adult females and (d) adult males, respectively. [154653]

  Mr. Boateng
  Provisional figures for time spent on remand are given in the table.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the longest period of detention a person at present seeking asylum in the United Kingdom has been held in detention since arrival at a port of entry in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [154453]

  Mrs. Roche
  The longest period of detention of an asylum seeker currently detained under Immigration Act powers and so detained since their arrival in the United Kingdom on 30 July 1999, is 600 days.

  While detention under Immigration Act powers should always be for the shortest period possible, the decision on whether to maintain detention is strictly monitored and made on a case-by-case basis. Various factors influence that process, such as an individual's previous history, connections with the United Kingdom and an assessment on their willingness to comply with the terms of any temporary admission or release. In all cases detention must be considered essential for it to continue.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy with regards to ethnic Albanians from Presevo returning to that part of Serbia after being refused asylum in the United Kingdom. [154260]

  Mrs. Roche
  Under the Milosevic regime, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) was not prepared to accept failed asylum seekers back into the country. It has therefore not been possible to make returns to FRY (apart from Kosovo) for several years. However, following the change of government and the restoration of full diplomatic relations, we are in touch with the authorities of the FRY about arrangements for returning FRY
  217W
  nationals with no basis for continued stay in the United Kingdom. We shall not seek to enforce returns unless we are satisfied that to do so would be consistent with our international obligations.

  Deportations
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women have been deported in each of the last three years for (i) criminal and (ii) immigration offences; and if he will make a statement. [154459]

  Mrs. Roche
  The requested information on the number of persons deported in each of the last three years for criminal and immigration offences is shown in the table. Information on the gender of those persons removed is not held centrally and could be obtained only by examining individual case files.

  Persons removed from criminal and immigration offences 1998–20001.2

  1998

  19993

  20003

  Criminal offences

  Conducive to the public good4

  115

  115

  5—

  Following court recommendation6

  240

  250

  5—

  Immigration offences

  Breaches of Conditions of leave to enter and remain7

  1,350

  790

  5

  Deportation of family members8

  15

  9—

  5—

  Total1

  1,720

  1,170

  1,705

  1Includes voluntary departures

  2Under the provisions of section 3(5) and 3(6) of the Immigration Act 1971

  33 Data are provisional

  44 Under section 3(5)(b) of the Immigrati, in Act 1971. This may include instances of deportation where the) e was no conviction of a criminal offence

  5 Not available

  6 Under section 3(6) of the Immigration Act 1971

  7 Under section 3(5)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971

  8 Under section 3(5)(c) of the Immigration Act 1971

  1 Less than 5

  Note:

  All figures rounded to the nearest five

  Number of persons convicted at all courts and sentenced to a term of imprisonment1 for offences relating to animal cruelty, England and Wales 1997–99

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Offence

  Convictions

  Of which sentenced to a term of imprisonment

  Convictions

  Of which sentenced to a term of imprisonment

  Convictions

  Of which sentenced to a term of imprisonment

  Protection of Animals Act, 1911 (as amended)

  867

  45

  887

  56

  825

  55

  Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981. Sec 8

  8

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  Protection of Animals Act, 1934

  4

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  Docking and Necking of Horses Act, 1949

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Pet Animals Act, 1951

  4

  —

  6

  —

  9

  —

  Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1954

  30

  3

  19

  3

  21

  1

  Animal Health Act, 1981, Secs 40–42, 46 and 49 and Orders made under Secs 8, 9, 37, 38, 39 and 43

  57

  —

  62

  —

  34

  —

  Slaughterhouses Act, 1974

  —

  —

  2

  —

  4

  —

  Abandonment of Animals Act, 1960, Sec 1

  21

  —

  26

  1

  12

  —

  Animals (Cruel Poisons) Act, 1962

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Animal Boarding Establishments Act, 1963

  2

  —

  5

  —

  6

  —

  Riding Establishments Acts, 1964 and 1970

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Slaughter of Poultry Act, 1967

  3

  —

  15

  1

  7

  —

  218W

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of animals that were used for experimental purposes in England and Wales during the last 12 months. [154458]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Information relating to scientific procedures performed on living animals is collected and published for each calendar year and laid before Parliament in a Command Paper in late summer the following year. The number of animals used in scientific procedures which were started in 1999, the latest year for which figures are available, was 2.57 million. More detailed information is given in Table la of the publication Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain, 1999, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Criminal Record Checks (Volunteers)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what circumstances business volunteers working as mentors in schools will be required to be checked by the Criminal Records Bureau: and if so whether they will be exempt from paying the fee. [154004]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  On the assumption that the person's role was unpaid and entailed working in a school or unsupervised access to children, the person would be eligible for a high level disclosure which would be free of charge.

  Cruelty to Animals
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were convicted of cruelty to animals in England and Wales in each of the last three years, who were sentenced to a term of imprisonment. [154455]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information taken from the Home Office's court proceedings database showing the number of persons convicted of cruelty to animals who were sentenced to a term of imprisonment during the period 1997–99 is given in the table. The proportion of those convicted of an animal cruelty offence sentenced to a term of imprisonment rose from 4.9 per cent. in 1997 to 5.4 per cent. in both 1998 and 1999.
  219W

  Number of persons convicted at all courts and sentenced to a term of imprisonment' for offences relating to animal cruelty, England and Wales 1997—99

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Offence

  Convictions

  Of which sentenced to a term of imprisonment

  Convictions

  Of which sentenced to a term of imprisonment

  Convictions

  Of which sentenced to a term of imprisonment

  Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1968,Secs 1, 2 and 6

  8

  —

  5

  —

  11

  —

  Protection of Badgers Act, 1992 (except Sec 13)

  25

  10

  4

  —

  10

  4

  Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981, Sec 9

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981, Sec 11

  —

  —

  3

  —

  3

  —

  Wild Mammals (Protection) Act, 1996

  3

  —

  7

  2

  —

  —

  Breeding of Dogs Acts, 1973 and 1991

  4

  —

  4

  —

  4

  —

  Diseases of Animals Act

  74

  —

  65

  —

  39

  —

  Wild Birds Protection Acts

  63

  —

  42

  —

  118

  —

  Total

  1,177

  58

  1,159

  63

  1,104

  60

  Includes offenders sentenced to a term of detention in a Young Offender Institution

  Metropolitan Police (Suspensions)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Metropolitan Police officers have been suspended from duty for a period of over 18 months due to allegations about their conduct in each of the last five years. [154452]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has provided the information in the table:

  Year of suspension

  Number of officers suspended

  1996

  13

  1997

  14

  1998

  40

  1999

  12

  The figure for the year 2000 is not readily available because the 18 month period has not yet elapsed.

  Sectarian Violence
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce legislation to treat sectarian motivated violence and harassment as a specific crime. [154389]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We have no present plans to introduce legislation to make a specific offence of violence or harassment motivated by hostility based on

  Table 1: Asylum cases granted temporary admission (excluding DAS)

  Arrival month

  Total Heathrow Terminal 1

  Total Heathrow Terminal 2

  Total Heathrow Terminal 3

  Total Heathrow Terminal 4

  Monthly total

  September 2000

  150

  179

  216

  105

  650

  October 2000

  161

  126

  211

  116

  614

  November 2000

  155

  152

  230

  117

  654

  December 2000

  166

  171

  236

  127

  700

  January 2001

  101

  114

  212

  94

  521

  February 2001

  101

  126

  200

  92

  519

  Port total

  834

  868

  1,305

  651

  3,658

  220W
  the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a religious group. The courts already have power to reflect aggravating factors of this type in the sentences they pass.

  Entry Permits
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the criteria under which an immigration officer may grant(a) an asylum seeker and (b) an immigrant a 28 day permit to enter the United Kingdom. [154297]

  Mrs. Roche
  Although immigration officers are able to exercise discretion when granting leave to enter, there are no specific categories which provide for entry for 28 days only; therefore, no criteria exist for such a grant of leave.

  Newly arrived asylum seekers would not normally be granted entry on arrival. They would, instead, be granted temporary admission pending consideration of their application for asylum. Dependent upon circumstances, the period of temporary admission will vary. However, if they had no friends or family in the United Kingdom and were granted temporary admission, this could initially be for one month, but again no specific criteria exist for this.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) asylum seekers and (b) immigrants were given temporary admission to the United Kingdom by immigration officials at Heathrow in each of the last six months. [154308]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information is given in the table
  221W

  Table 2: Non asylum cases granted temporary admission (excluding DAS)

  Arrival month

  Total Heathrow Terminal 1

  Total Heathrow Terminal 2

  Total Heathrow Terminal 3

  Total Heathrow Terminal 4

  Monthly total

  September 2000

  111

  181

  231

  84

  607

  October 2000

  79

  169

  188

  67

  503

  November 2000

  99

  136

  187

  84

  506

  December 2000

  102

  143

  209

  52

  506

  January 2001

  106

  165

  166

  84

  521

  February 2001

  123

  154

  220

  90

  587

  Port total

  620

  948

  1,201

  461

  3,230

  Note:

  All totals exclude asylum dependants (DAS.)

  Airwave Public Safety Radio
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment has been made of the trials of the Airwave public safety radio communications system; and if he will make a statement. [154431]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The main evaluation began on 19 March when Divisions in the Lancashire Constabulary started to migrate progressively to Airwave and use the service operationally. Service performance will be assessed continually by the Lancashire force and the Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO) against rigorous criteria and a formal report is planned for issue in June 2001. If the service meets the criteria set out in the main Airwave contract then national implementation of the service will begin.

  Last autumn a number of contractually defined tests to prove radio coverage and service features and performance were carried out. Both Lancashire and PITO were party to these tests which proved satisfactory. PITO subsequently ran and monitored a large number of scripted quasi-operational tests on the to system for a seven week period between November 2000 and January 2001. These tests involved some 300 police personnel drawn from the majority of forces in England, Wales and Scotland. User feedback was generally very positive.

  Coram Family
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional information the Charity Commission has requested from the Coram family since the Attorney-General intervened in the collection scheme. [153669]

  Mr. Boateng
  This is a matter for the Charity Commission, who will write to the hon. Gentleman. A copy of the Commission's reply will be placed in the Library.

  Promotional Campaigns
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [153420]
  222W
  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]: The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Home Office Campaigns

  1996–97—Expenditure £5.23 million

  Car Crime Prevention

  Accelerated Promotion Scheme for Graduates (APSG)Police

  Electoral Registration

  Special Constables

  Fire Safety

  Retained Firefighters

  1997–98—Expenditure £2 million

  Absent Voting

  Accelerated Promotion Scheme for Graduates (APSG) Police

  Electoral Registration

  Special Constables

  Fire Safety

  1998–99—Expenditure £1.8 million

  Electoral Registration

  Accelerated Promotion Scheme for Graduates (APSG) Police

  Fire Safety

  Special Constables

  Crime Partnerships

  1999–2000—Expenditure £6.37 million

  European Parliament Election—including United Kingdom-wide

  household door drop

  Accelerated Promotion Scheme for Graduates (APSG) Police

  Electoral Registration

  Fire Safety

  Special Constables

  Door drop for European Elections

  2000–01—Expenditure to date £24.43 million

  Fire Safety—including household door drop in England and Wales

  Vehicle Crime

  Police Recruitment including Accelerated Promotion Scheme for Graduates (APSG)

  Human Rights

  Rolling Registration

  Home Office Agencies

  (b) Forensic Science Service

  1996–97—Expenditure £61,914

  Corporate sector direct mail campaigns

  Corporate sector (trade Press) advertising campaigns

  1997–98—Expenditure £92,700

  Law Enforcement sector (trade press) advertising campaigns

  223W

  Corporate sector (trade press) advertising campaigns

  1998–99—Expenditure £54,883

  Corporate sector (trade press) advertising campaigns

  Law Enforcement sector (trade press) advertising campaigns Corporate sector direct mail campaigns

  1999–2000—Expenditure £32,899

  Corporate sector (trade press) advertising campaigns

  Law Enforcement sector (trade press) advertising campaigns Corporate sector direct mail campaigns

  2000–01—Expenditure £9,713

  Corporate sector (trade press) advertising campaigns

  Corporate sector direct mail campaigns

  Law Enforcement sector (trade press) advertising campaigns

  Prison Service Agency

  1996–97—Expenditure £40,000

  Prison Officer Fast Track

  1997–98—Expenditure £28,000

  Prison Officer Fast Track

  1998–99—Expenditure £48,000

  Prison Officer Fast Track

  1999–2000—Expenditure £

  2000–01—Expenditure £0

  UK Passport Agency

  1996–97—Expenditure £10,000

  Abolition of British Visitors Passport

  1997–98—Expenditure £0

  1998–99—Expenditure £0

  1999–2000—Expenditure £678,000

  Passport Extension

  Passport fee increase

  2000–01—Expenditure £50,000

  Passport Awareness Door Drop

  Departmental Public Bodies

  (c) Commission for Racial Equality

  1996–97—Expenditure £300,000

  European Year Against Racism

  1997–98—Expenditure £0

  1998–99—Expenditure £40,000

  Personal Responsibility

  1999–2000—Expenditure £0

  2000–01—Expenditure to date £200,000

  "Would I?" campaign.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Corus
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what factors arising from the downsizing of Corus will be taken into account in his current review of company law. [154515]

  Dr. Howells
  The wide-ranging review of company law launched by Government in 1998 is being conducted by an independent steering group of company law experts, business people and others. It is expected to present a final 224W
  report to Ministers later this year. I am sure that the steering group will take all relevant factors into account in reaching its conclusions and recommendations

  Miners' Compensation
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what arrangements his Department has made for undertaking further medical assessment procedures in the north east of Wales since the current office was refused planning permission by Wrexham County Borough Council.[154545]

  Mr. Hain
  Healthcall has been asked to cease assessments in May. There are only a small number of claimants in the Wrexham area and Healthcall is investigating alternative sites in the area for the portakabin modular unit with the help of the local council.

  In addition, Healthcall is in the process of equipping two mobile testing units to be used throughout Great Britain. If it is unable to identify an alternative site for the portakabin it plans to use the mobile units to test in Wrexham as and when the need arises.

  I visited this site recently and have given an undertaking that there will be no disruptions or delay to the processing of claims of appointments.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many more claims for compensation his Department expects to receive from ex-miners and their families from the north east of Wales. [154547]

  Mr. Hain
  It is difficult to forecast the number of further claims of compensation for respiratory disease expected. Nation-wide, there are currently 1,000 new claims initiated in respect of respiratory disease each week. The current number of claims is currently 140,000.

  In relation to vibration white finger, VWF, there was a cut-off date on 30 September 2000. The total number of claims is 118,000.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what timescale his Department has for processing claims for compensation from ex-miners and their families from the north east of Wales. [154546]

  Mr. Hain
  It is difficult to say how long it will take before the last claim is assessed in the north east of Wales. New claims can still be made and across the UK there are about 1,000 new claims each week. We are prioritising the most injured and eldest miners and widows.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claims from ex-miners and their widows from the north east of Wales coalfield his Department has received in the last five years. [154548]

  Mr. Hain
  In the area of north east Wales, as defined by the postcodes LL11–16, 18–22, 24, 26, 28–29, 32–34, CH1 and 4–8, IRISC, the Department's claims handlers, have registered 1,256 claims in respect of compensation for respiratory disease and 549 claims in relation to vibration white finger, VWF. To date, there have been 371 individual payments totalling £1.37 million in respect of respiratory disease and 139 individual payments in respect of VWF amounting to £0.66 million.
  225W

  Gas and Electricity Prices
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the price paid for electricity and gas (a) by very large consumers in the United Kingdom steel industry and (b) by their competitors in Europe. [154276]

  Mr. Hain
  Figures are not separately available for energy prices to the iron and steel industry.

  In general, industrial consumers in the UK paid lower prices in real terms for electricity in 2000 than in any year since 1970. Average prices paid by industrial consumers for electricity in the UK in 1999 were seventh lowest of the 12 EU member states for which data are available. We recognise that some large industrial consumers may be paying more for electricity than their EU counterparts.

  In general, industrial consumers in the UK paid higher prices in real terms for gas in 2000 than in 1999, however they remain lower than in any year prior to 1996. Average

  Natural gas prices for industry, pence per kwh

  1 January 2000

  1 July 2000

  Size 14–2(116.3 GWh p.a.)

  Size 15(116.3 GWh p.a.)

  Size 14–2(116.3GWh p.a.)

  Size 15(116.3 GWh p.a.)

  Belgium—National

  0.66

  n/a

  0.84

  n/a

  Denmark—National

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Germany—Dusseldorf

  0.94

  0.77

  1.19

  0.85

  Spain—Madrid

  0.84

  0.84

  1.02

  1.02

  France—Paris

  0.83

  n/a

  0.97

  n/a

  Ireland—Dublin

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Italy—Milan

  0.84

  n/a

  1.05

  n/a

  Luxembourg—City

  1.08

  n/a

  1.34

  n/a

  Netherlands—Rotterdam

  0.82

  0.65

  n/a

  n/a

  Austria—Vienna

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Finland—National

  0.86

  0.72

  0.96

  0.75

  Sweden—National

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  UK—National

  0.65

  0.52

  0.71

  0.52

  Notes:

  1. Prices include all taxes unless refunded. Prices converted using monthly average exchange rates.

  2. n/a indicates that data are not available usually because of confidentiality issues.

  Source:

  Derived from Eurostat Statistics in Focus

  Electricity prices for industry, pence per kWh

  1 January 2000

  1 July 2000

  Size Ih (50 GWh p.a., 10MW, 5,000 hrs)

  Size Ii (70 GWh p.a., 10MW, 7,000 hrs)

  Size Ih (50 GWh p.a., 10MW, 5,000 hrs)

  Size Ii (70 GWh p.a., 10MW, 7,000 hrs)

  Belgium—National

  3.01

  2.58

  3.17

  2.72

  Denmark—National

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Germany—Dusseldorf

  2.86

  2.59

  3.87

  3.44

  Spain—Madrid

  3.50

  3.23

  3.50

  3.23

  France—Paris

  2.80

  2.52

  n/a

  n/a

  Ireland—Dublin

  3.31

  3.01

  3.31

  3.04

  Italy—National

  4.07

  3.66

  4.54

  4.13

  Luxembourg—Grand Duchy

  2.71

  2.38

  2.72

  2.40

  Netherlands—Rotterdam

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Austria—Vienna

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Finland—National

  1.92

  1.85

  1.93

  1.85

  Sweden—National

  1.79

  1.67

  1.91

  1.78

  UK—National

  3.17

  3.11

  3.32

  3.09

  Notes:

  1. Prices include all taxes unless refunded, Prices converted using monthly average exchange rates.

  2. n/a indicates that data are not available, usually because of confidentiality issues.

  Source:

  Derived from Eurostat Statistics in Focus
  226W
  prices paid by industrial consumers for gas in the UK in 1999 were the lowest of the eight EU member states for which data are available. The latest information available suggests that large industrial consumers are continuing to pay less for gas than their EU counterparts, despite the recent increases in prices.

  The Department conducts a quarterly survey of 1,200 manufacturing companies in Great Britain, the results of which are published in "Energy Trends". Data collected by this survey for Quarter 3 2000 indicate that extra large industrial users of electricity, i.e. those consuming more than 150 GWh per annum, pay 2.54 p/kWh and that large industrial users of gas, i.e. those consuming more than 8.8 GWh per annum, pay 0.529 p/kWh.

  Data from Eurostat, the Statistical Office of the European Commission, for electricity and gas prices to different sizes of consumer are published twice a year in their "Statistics in Focus" publication. The latest available information for the largest consumers from this source are presented below:
  227W
  Data from a private consultant, "Energy Advice", indicate the latest prices for these sizes of consumer are as follows:

  Gas prices for industry, pence per kWh

  1 January 2000

  1 July 2000

  1 February 2001

  Size D(106 GWh p.a.)

  Size F(1164 GWh p.a.)

  Size D(106 GWh p.a.)

  Size F(1164 GWh p.a.)

  Size D(106 GWh p.a.)

  Size F(1164 GWh p.a.)

  Belgium

  0.76

  0.69

  0.96

  0 89

  1.21

  1.13

  Germany

  0.99

  0.72

  1.30

  1 01

  1.62

  1.18

  France

  0.85

  0.80

  1.00

  0 95

  1.25

  1.20

  Italy

  0.94

  0.84

  1.17

  1 02

  1.39

  1.19

  Netherlands

  0.83

  0.69

  1.00

  0 86

  1.25

  1.12

  UK

  0.56

  0.51

  0.57

  0.51

  0.77

  0.73

  Notes:

  1. Prices include non-refundable taxes.

  2. UK prices are estimated averages of all suppliers. New contract prices in mid February are estimated as 1.01–1.06 pence per kWh for large consumers on firm supply terms and 0.92–1.01 pence per kWh for interruptible supplies.

  Source:

  Energy Advice

  Electricity prices for industry, pence per kWh

  1 January 2000

  1 July 2000

  1 February 2001

  Size Ciii(52.5 GWh p.a., 10MW, 5,250 hrs)

  Size Civ(70 GWh p.a., 10MW, 7,000 hrs)

  Size Ciii(52.5 GWh p.a., 10MW, 5,250 hrs)

  Size Civ(70GWh p.a., 10MW, 7,000 hrs)

  Size Ciii(52.5 GWh p.a., 10MW, 5,250 hrs)

  Size Civ(70 GWh p.a., 10MW, 7,000 hrs)

  Belgium

  3.14

  2.72

  3.24

  2 83

  3.27

  2.87

  Germany

  3.20

  2.79

  3.13

  2 52

  3.31

  2.68

  rance

  3.00

  2.70

  2.82

  2 55

  2.84

  2.56

  Italy

  3.85

  3.43

  4.63

  4 50

  4.83

  4.72

  Netherlands

  3.26

  2.96

  3.35

  3 15

  2.81

  2.77

  UK

  3.52

  3.41

  3.08

  2 97

  3.08

  2.97

  Note:

  Prices include non-refundable taxes.

  Source:

  Energy Advice

  Electricity prices for industry, pence per kWh

  Size Eiv. 80MW Special Contracts/"As Found", 1 February 2001

  Minimum

  Maximum

  Belgium

  2.40

  2.62

  Germany

  2.10

  2.52

  France

  2.03

  2.21

  Italy

  3.97

  4.10

  Netherlands

  2.25

  2.45

  UK

  2.35

  2.87

  Note:

  Prices include non-refundable taxes

  Source:

  Energy Advice

  BNFL
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with BNFL in respect of the implementation of the company's new management of change arrangements. [154200]

  Mr. Hain
  I met senior managers of BNFL on Tuesday 13 March, but managing change within BNFL is a matter for the company, subject to the satisfaction of the nuclear safety regulator, the Health and Safety Executive.

  British Coal Canteen Workers (Equal Value Claims)
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the progress 228W
  towards a settlement between British Coal and its canteen workers on equal value claims. [153613]

  Mr. Hain [holding answer 19 March 2001]
  Negotiations between the legal representatives of British Coal and the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) have re-opened. On 7 March, British Coal made a new and significantly improved offer, but unfortunately there has, as yet, been no response from the NUM side.

  I very much hope the NUM will give the offer the serious consideration which it merits, as I am anxious that a way can be found to allow payments to be made to the claimants as quickly as possible.

  Departmental Policies (Sutton and Cheam)
  Mr. Burstow
  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 Sutton and Cheam constituency, the effects on Sutton and Cheam of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154417]

  Mr. Caborn
  The parliamentary constituency of Sutton and Cheam has benefited from a range of initiatives since May 1997. Direct business advice and support to small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) has been provided by the DTI through core programmes and the Business Links. While my Department does not collect detailed statistical information on a constituency basis, over 2.360 requests for advice, information and support from SMEs in Sutton and Cheam have been handled by the Business Links since May 1997
  229W

  Departmental Policies (Truro and St. Austell)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  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 Truro and St. Austell constituency, the effects on Truro and St. Austell of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997.[154530]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department has provided the following support for businesses in Truro and St. Austell constituency since May 1997.

  Regional Selective Assistance (RSA)

  RSA is a capital investment grant linked to the creation or safeguarding of jobs in designated areas of need (the Assisted Areas). Two RSA grant offers totalling £0.675 million have been made to businesses in the Truro and St. Austell constituency, to support projects with a total capital expenditure of £7.3 million, and to create and safeguard a total of 163 jobs. The whole of the constituency is included in the new Assisted Areas map effective from July 2000; only parts of the constituency were included in the previous map.

  Enterprise Grants

  The Enterprise Grants scheme is a simplified scheme that was introduced in April 2000 to help small firms undertake fixed capital investment projects. Two offers totalling £0.024 million have been made to firms in the Truro and St. Austell constituency.

  Smart

  Smart awards are designed to help small firms with the introduction of new products and processes. Two Smart awards totalling £0.07 million have been made to firms in the Truro and St. Austell constituency.

  Business Link

  PROSPER Business Link has provided services to small businesses in the Truro and St. Austell constituency since 1997. These include general and specialised advice to help businesses grow, export development counselling, ICT advice, and a full range of specialist information. From April 2001 these services will be provided by the Small Business Service operating through a franchise awarded to a PROSPER led partnership. This new service will be more customer focused ensuring that services are driven by local need.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Child Protection
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions her Department has had with the Council of Europe to develop joint policies for the welfare and protection of children. [154449]

  Clare Short
  My Department has not had any recent discussions with the Council of Europe on child protection. However, children are central to DFID's programmes for the eradication of poverty.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what checks her Department makes on goods imported into the United Kingdom to ensure that they are not made by child labour; and if she will make a statement. [154457]
  230W
  Clare Short
  My Department is committed to the reduction of child labour with special emphasis on the worst forms. We do not make checks on goods imported into the UK but are supporting the efforts of Governments, non-governmental organisations, and international bodies such as the International Labour Organisation to end exploitative child labour in developing countries in both domestic and export sectors.

  We are also providing assistance to business, through, for example, the Ethical Trading Initiative and the Resource Centre for the Social Dimensions of Business Practice, for the elimination of child labour and other exploitative labour practices, including in supply chains. We support the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development guidelines for multinational enterprises.

  In November 1999 we published a report on child labour—"Helping not Hurting Children"—which outlines the dangers for children of calls for boycotts and trade sanctions. A copy will be sent to my hon. Friend.

  General Agreement on Trade in Services
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement about the impact of the proposed General Agreement on Trade in Services on basic services in developing countries. [154302]

  Clare Short
  Developing and developed country governments choose both the sectors in which and the extent to which they liberalise services under the General Agreement on Trade in Services. Services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority—that is, public services like health and education services—are explicitly excluded from the GATS (although private services are covered by the GATS).

  Further liberalisation of private services under GATS offers developing countries potential benefits in a number of different sectors. Increased competition in basic services such as banking, transport and telecommunications would provide more efficient and effective infrastructure in developing countries, which is vital if they are to achieve the economic growth they need to reduce poverty.

  Colombia
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made to the US Government concerning the use of herbicide spraying as part of the drug-crop eradication campaign, Plan Colombia. [153933]

  Mr. Battle
  I have been asked to reply.

  The FCO and other Departments maintain a wide-ranging and regular dialogue on drugs issues with the US Government and other key international partners. This dialogue includes discussion of drug crop eradication methods in Colombia and in other drug producing countries.

  We have indicated our support for the principle of independent international monitoring of the aerial fumigation of large-scale illicit drug cultivation in Colombia.
  231W

  Strategy Unit
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when her corporate strategy unit for aid policy department 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. [150370]

  Clare Short
  A strategy unit was established in DFID's Policy Department in 1998. The unit itself publishes no reports, but it played a co-ordinating role in the production by DFID of a set of nine publicly available strategies for achieving the International Development Targets. Special advisers do not participate in the work of the unit. It contains two full-time and one part-time regular departmental staff.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Departmental Policies (Manchester, Gorton)
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effects on the Manchester, Gorton constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 6 November 2000. [154500]

  The Solicitor-General
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 6 November 2000,Official Report, column 1W.

  On 13 November 2000, the City of Manchester branch of the Crown Prosecution Service underwent the reorganisation I referred to in my previous answer. In line with the Glidewell proposals, the branch now has Trial Units and Criminal Justice Units covering the North and South Manchester Policy Divisions. At the present time and for the foreseeable future, it is unlikely that the Crown Prosecution Service will be able to co-locate with the police at Elizabeth Slinger Road Police Station.

  In partnership with other agencies, the Crown Prosecution Service has made a concerted effort to reduce the length of time, between arrest and sentence, that persistent young offenders remain within the criminal justice system. On 25 November 2000, there were 201 persistent young offender cases currently before Manchester Youth Court. On 14 March 2001, that figure had been reduced to 137. Similarly, the average time from arrest for all current cases has shown a reduction from 98 days to 89 days over the same period. All these changes illustrate the Government's successful period. All these changes illustrate the Government's successful policy of speeding up the work of the criminal justice system.

  On 15 January 2001, section 51 Crime and Disorder Act 1988 came into force. One of the first cases dealt with by the City of Manchester branch involved the arrest of four defendants under Operation Auction 1. This, as my right hon. Friend knows, is a police operation set up to combat a high level of street robberies in Gorton. The four defendants made their first appearance before Manchester City Magistrates Court on 16 January 2001. On 24 January 2001 they appeared before the Crown
  232W
  Court. One of the defendants, Stuart Smith, indicated immediately that he intended to plead guilty to assault with intent to rob. He entered his guilty plea on 8 February 2001 and was sentenced to a Detention and Training Order for two years. This illustrates the potential effectiveness in speeding up serious cases. Slightly over three weeks from the.date of his first court appearance, the defendant received a substantial custodial sentence. Previously the case was unlikely to have been finalised within three months. Committal proceedings would have taken approximately eight weeks and a further four weeks would have elapsed between committal and a plea and directions hearing at the Crown Court.

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

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Balkans
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on NATO's decision to allow Serb forces into a section of the buffer zone between Kosovo and Macedonia. [154012]

  Mr. Vaz
  Following the successful negotiation of a ceasefire between the Yugoslav army and local Albanian leaders, the Commander of KFOR (COMKFOR) has authorised the return of FRY forces to one sector of the 5 km Ground Safety Zone (GSZ). Around 900 FRY military personnel have deployed to a small section of the GSZ on the border with Macedonia. In accordance with pre-conditions laid down by COMKFOR, they will not deploy any tanks or heavy artillery. They must also ensure that no Serb irregular or paramilitary forces enter the GSZ. The deployment is being monitored by KFOR.

  Tibet
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice he gave to the Princess Royal concerning her plans to visit Tibet. [154209]

  Mr. Battle
  Government discussions with the Royal Households about the planning and pattern of overseas visits are always in confidence.

  Uganda
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the conduct of the presidential election in Uganda. [154299]

  Mr. Wilson
  The presidential elections in Uganda provided a genuine choice of candidates and alternative policy platforms. In general candidates were able to campaign throughout the country and to present their policies through the media.

  We share the concerns expressed in the preliminary report by the consortium of local organisations which monitored the elections (NGO Election Monitoring Group-Uganda) over reports of violence and intimidation including by Government agents, which marred the later stages of the campaign, and over reports of serious

  233W
  irregularities in some areas on polling day. We await the Ugandan Electoral Commission's response to these concerns.

  The patience and goodwill of the majority of Ugandan voters is a testament to their desire for democratic participation.

  President Mugabe
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations were made to the UK by the Belgian Government regarding President Mugabe's recent meeting with the Belgian Foreign Minister. [154673]

  Mr. Wilson [holding answer 20 March 2001]
  The Belgian Government made no representations.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations were made to the Government of Belgium regarding President Mugabe's recent meetings with them. [154672]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 20 March 2001]: The UK's views on the situation in Zimbabwe were explained to the Belgian Government in writing before their meetings with President Mugabe on 5 March.

TREASURY

  Motor Fuel
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the annual cost was in 2000 of the Customs and Excise staff, vehicles and equipment used to combat the smuggling of motor Fuel products into Northern Ireland; and how much excise duty he estimates was lost as a result of such smuggling .[153428]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]: The annual cost of Customs and Excise staff in Northern Ireland tackling all criminal activity affecting its areas of responsibilities was £3.3 million in 2000.

  Customs and Excise do not have an estimate of excise duty lost through smuggling of motor fuel products in 2000.

  Departmental Policies (Manchester, Gorton)
  Mr. Kaufman
  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 the Manchester, Gorton constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 6 November 2000. [154498]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Since 6 November, the pre-Budget Report 2000 and Budget 2001 have introduced a number of policies which will further benefit the Manchester, Gorton constituency. In particular, all 10,900 pensioners in Manchester, Gorton will receive an above-inflation increase in the basic state pension from April 2001; and all 2,300 Working Families Tax Credit recipients in Manchester, Gorton will receive an additional £5 per week from June 2001.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Truro 234W
  and St. Austell constituency, the effects on Truro and St. Austell of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154537]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Truro and St. Austell, 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 1,210, or 41 per cent., youth unemployment is down by 84 per cent., and long-term unemployment has fallen by 75 per cent.

  Macroeconomic stability is being complemented at the microeconomic 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 1,161 young people in Truro and St. Austell constituency gain valuable skills and experience—646 (56 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, 2,600 families in Truro and St. Austell 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 22,700 in Truro and St. Austell, 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 13,800 in Truro and St. Austell.

  Departmental Policies (Lancaster and Wyre)
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Lancaster and Wyre constituency, the effect on Lancaster and Wyre of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154683]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Lancaster and Wyre, 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 590. or 33 per cent., youth unemployment is down by 74 per cent., and long-term unemployment has fallen by 66 per cent.

  Macroeconomic stability is being complemented at the microeconomic 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 596 young people in the Lancaster and Wyre constituency gain valuable skills and experience—327 (55 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, around 1,500 families in the 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 22,100 in Lancaster and Wyre, will receive an above-inflation increase in the

  235W
  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 14,400 in Lancaster and Wyre.

  Departmental Policies (Sutton and Cheam)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Sutton and Cheam constituency, the effects on Sutton and Cheam of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154413]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Sutton and Cheam, 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 786, or 56 per cent., youth unemployment is down by 84 per cent., and long-term unemployment has fallen by 86 per cent.

  Macroeconomic stability is being complemented at the microeconomic 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 260 young people in Sutton and Cheam constituency gain valuable skills and experience—150 (58 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, 500 families in Sutton and Cheam 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 15,400 in Sutton and Cheam, 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 10,100 in Sutton and Cheam.

  Tax Credits (Wales)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many families in Wales are eligible for the Working Families Tax Credit; [154552]

  (2)how many people in Wales have (a) applied for and (b) receive the Children's Tax Credit. [154551]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates of the number of families in Wales in receipt of the Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) are shown in the WFTC Quarterly Enquiries, copies of which are in the Library.

  On the Children's Tax Credit, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers given to the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on 6 February 2001, Official Report, column 497W.

  Fuel Duties
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received on the level of fuel duties; and if he will make a statement. [154708]
  236W
  Mr. Timms
  The Government have received numerous recent representations on a wide range of issues including fuel duties. These have all been given careful consideration.

  Taxation (Shrewsbury and Atcham)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have gained since 1 May 1997 in Shrewsbury and Atcham from the(a) reduction in VAT on fuel, (b) reduction in the basic income tax and (c) introduction of the 10p starting tax rate; and if he will make a statement. [154659]

  Dawn Primarolo
  All people in Shrewsbury and Atcham who have purchased domestic fuel and power since 1 September 1997 will have benefited from the reduced rate that came into effect on that day.

  Nationally, almost all income tax payers gain from the introduction of the 10p starting tax rate and more than 85 per cent. of taxpayers gain from the cut in the basic rate.

  For the number of taxpayers in Shrewsbury and Atcham, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 19 January 2000, Official Report, column 513W.

  Annuity Reform
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the calculation underlying the statement in the Red Book 2001, page 95, paragraph 5.67, on the costs of undertaking annuity reform; and if he will make a statement.[154144]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Relaxing the existing requirement to purchase an annuity would provide an incentive for some to use pension schemes for purposes other than providing a secure income throughout retirement. Costs will vary depending on the nature of any reforms, including what level of income must first be secured and what tax charge is applied to withdrawals above that level. Proposals for tax-free withdrawals could cost billions of pounds a year in lost income tax and extra tax relief.

  Income Tax Returns
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many days leeway are allowed before a fine is imposed for late submission of personal income tax returns after the due date. [154584]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Where a tax return is received on the day after the statutory filing date, no penalty is imposed for late submission.

  The statutory filing date for most returns is 31 January, so such a return received on 1 February is not penalised. A return found in tax office post box by 7.30 am on 2 February is assumed to have been delivered before midnight on 1 February,and is not penalised.

HEALTH

  Midwives
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many midwives there were in(a) May 1997, (b) 1979 and (c) at the latest date for which
  237W
  figures are available (i) in total and (ii) in full-time equivalents; and if he will assess the impact of the 1994–95 change from a pay scale based system to an occupation code-based one. [142990]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  The system of classifying National Health Service staff by occupation code introduced in 1995 has proved successful, improving quality of information and at the same time reducing the burden on data suppliers.

  NHS hospital and community health services: midwifery staff in England as at 30 September each year

  Year

  Whole time equivalent

  Headcount

  1979

  20,020

  1—

  1997

  18,050

  22,380

  1999

  17,880

  22,800

  1Not available

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10

  2. Figures exclude learners and agency staff

  3. A new classification of the non-medical work force was introduced in 1995

  4. Information based on this classification is not directly comparable with earlier years

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the role of local councils following the abolition of community health councils. [144193]

  Ms Stuart
  The democratic deficit in the National Health Service has long been recognised. In future, democratically elected councillors will take on from community health councils the important function of scrutinising local NHS service through local authority overview and scrutiny committees (OSCs)

  The provisions that give local authority OSCs the new powers to scrutinise the NHS are contained within the Health and Social Care Bill, which is currently before Parliament. The Bill will enable the OSC to scrutinise and review the operation, management and development of the NHS bodies within its area, it will then make reports and recommendations of those NHS bodies based on the results of that scrutiny.

  The aim of the new scrutiny arrangements is to allow flexibility and to enable the building of local authority scrutiny models that are fit for ensuring that the NHS is scrutinised rigorously, and that scrutiny is democratically accountable to the local population.

  Treatment Costs
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate his Department has made of the average cost per NHS patient of treatment by(a) an orthopaedic and (b) a podiatric surgeon [147270]

  Mr. Denham
  We have made no such estimates.
  238W

  Nurses (Housing)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what housing is being built for nurses employed in NHS hospitals in the Greater London area. [148312]

  Mr. Denham
  In the spring of last year a housing co-ordinator was appointed to facilitate access to appropriate affordable housing for National Health Service staff in London and already some 500 units have been available.

  An accommodation bureau has also been established and a database now exists containing all the units available. The bureau will enable individual members of staff to he made aware of what is available and to ensure that maximum efficiency is made of the accommodation we currently now access.

  A number of bids involving some 7,500 new homes for own occupation for NHS staff have been made under the Starter Home Initiative Challenge Fund via the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. These are currently being evaluated and an announcement will be made in June.

  Overseas Doctors
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what support and assistance he will be providing to assist overseas doctors in completing the required professional and language tests to enable them to register in this country as part of his proposal to recruit overseas doctors under the NHS plan. [149804]

  Mr. Denham
  We have no plans to support doctors (many of whom will still be resident in their home countries) while they prepare for professional and language tests that are, in themselves, no guarantee of employment in the United Kingdom. The early stages of testing are, however, more accessible as they are now available in a number of countries outside the UK.

  Free Eye Tests
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in(a) the UK and (b) each health authority area benefited from free eye tests in the last year.[153147]

  Mr. Denham
  In 1999–2000, there were some 11.8 million free National Health Service sight tests carried out in the United Kingdom. Figures for health authorities in England are shown in the table.

  Number

  Avon

  197.740

  Barking and Havering

  71,990

  Barnsley

  39.420

  Bedfordshire

  101,630

  Berkshire

  129,910

  Bexley and Greenwich

  73,790

  Birmingham

  233,450

  Bradford

  107,360

  Brent and Harrow

  88,530

  Bromley

  58,490

  Buckinghamshire

  111,690

  Bury and Rochdale

  71,460

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  113,930

  Cambridgeshire

  133,610

  239W

  Number

  Camden and Islington

  57,770

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  95,410

  County Durham

  98,070

  Croydon

  59,890

  Doncaster

  53,570

  Dorset

  144,230

  Dudley

  62,210

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  97,490

  East and North Hertfordshire

  102,700

  East Kent

  128,480

  East Lancashire

  103,720

  East London and the City

  129,190

  East Riding

  106,560

  East Surrey

  63,540

  East Sussex

  145,170

  Enfield and Haringey

  93,560

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  70.050

  Gloucestershire

  109,260

  Herefordshire

  35,540

  Hillingdon

  45,130

  Isle of Wight

  26,560

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  49,490

  Kingston and Richmond

  50,760

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  105,590

  Leeds

  130,610

  Leicestershire

  179,730

  Lincolnshire

  125,780

  Manchester

  81,960

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  95,570

  Morecambe Bay

  59,260

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  101,320

  Norfolk

  153,110

  North and East Devon

  95,610

  North and Mid Hampshire

  90,270

  North Cumbria

  60,250

  North Derbyshire

  59,240

  North Essex

  176,190

  North Nottinghamshire

  81,100

  North Staffordshire

  85,070

  North West Lancashire

  103,740

  North Yorkshire

  125,300

  Northamptonshire

  107,470

  Northumberland

  59,040

  Nottingham

  117,420

  Oxfordshire

  101,590

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  117,820

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  98,430

  Rotherham

  41,860

  Salford and Trafford

  85,830

  Sandwell

  65,270

  Sefton

  57,070

  Sheffield

  103,480

  Shropshire

  89,010

  Solihull

  32,680

  Somerset

  109,570

  South and West Devon

  137,330

  South Cheshire

  125,870

  South Derbyshire

  116,550

  South Essex

  146,830

  South Humber

  70,180

  South Lancashire

  41,710

  South Staffordshire

  112,150

  Stockport

  53,300

  Sunderland

  55,900

  Tees

  119,930

  Wakefield

  65,330

  Walsall

  54,400

  Warwickshire

  87,130

  West Hertfordshire

  99,270

  West Kent

  179,630

  West Pennine

  80,190

  240W

  Number

  West Surrey

  123,040

  West Sussex

  149,260

  Wigan and Bolton

  101,500

  Wiltshire

  126.950

  Wirral

  70,380

  Wolverhampton

  58,230

  Worcestershire

  101,490

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the countries in which officials of the Food Standards Agency have conducted investigations into the safety of food destined for British markets. [150242]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 13 February 2001]: Primary responsibility for the safety of food rests with the national competent authority of each country, whether a member state of the European Community or a third country. It is the responsibility of each individual country to ensure that food exported to the United Kingdom complies with both national and European Union food safety requirements The EC, and not the United Kingdom Food Standards Agency, has competence for monitoring and, where appropriate, investigating issues of compliance with EU food safety law, both in third countries exporting food to the European market and in member states producing food for trade within the EC.

  NHS Computer Systems
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to begin further consortia procurement programmes for IT systems in the NHS before the post-implementation review of the South West Procurement Programme has bee n completed and published. [153096]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 9 March 2001]: As indicated in the National Health Service information management and technology procurement review (published by the NHS Executive in June 2000), the South Western regional procurement programme needs to have been judged as successful by means of a post-implementation review before this approach can be recommended nationally.

  In the meantime, however, individual trusts outside South Western region may use a consortium approach to procurement if they wish to do so, and some trusts are doing so at present.

  Blood Donors
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action he is taking to increase the level of blood donations in each of the next five years; [153566]

  (2) what steps he is taking to increase the level of blood donorship in each of the next five years; and if he will make a statement. [154396]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Blood Service (NBS) plans to recruit 420 000 more donors in the financial year 2001 to 2002. Future recruitment of donors will depend on the demands for blood. The NBS target for collection
  241W
  is produced annually based on the success of a rolling marketing and communication plan to maximise blood collection.

  NBS is working to recruit and retain donors by mailing campaigns and television and radio advertising. A new campaign will be launched later this year. These encourage more frequent donation patterns and NBS research has shown that the "Give Blood" message is successful. Communication with donors continues through a series of initiatives which include the NBS magazine "The Donor", sent to donors twice yearly, contacting donors to remind them of their next donor session and further development the NBS website with plans to include on-line invitations to give blood.

  Medical Records
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health under what circumstances NHS hospitals and trusts may withhold medical records from patients who have requested them; and what recent guidance he has issued to hospitals and trusts on this subject. [153774]

  Ms Stuart
  Medical records can be withheld from a patient where the record contains information that may cause serious harm to the physical or mental health of the patient or any other person or includes confidential information about a third party. Guidance on this issue was issued in 1991 and remains in force.

  Waiting Times
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in which health authorities more than one patient in eight has waited over one year for in-patient treatment, excluding day cases, in the last year. [153966]

  Mr. Denham
  The health authorities at which more than one in eight patients on the waiting list for an ordinary admission have been waiting for more than 12 months are shown in the table.

  Health authority1

  Percentage of patients who had waited 12 months or more

  East Surrey

  14.7

  Southampton and South West

  14.2

  Hampshire

  West Sussex

  13.4

  1 At 31 December 2000

  Note:

  1 in 8 = 12.5 per cent.

  Organ and Tissue Retention
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Retained Organs Commission will validate the system to be used by the Ashford and St. Peter's Hospitals NHS Trust for recording the organs and tissues retained following post mortem. [153948]

  Mr. Denham [holding answer 15 March 2001]
  The Retained Organs Commission (ROC) expects to receive a recommendation from the South East Regional Office of the National Health Service Executive on the accuracy of the cataloguing of retained organs by the Ashford and St. Peter's Hospitals NHS Trust by 30 April 2001, at 242W
  the latest, in accordance with the guidance issued by the commission on 9 March, a copy of which is at www.nhs.uk/retainedorgans.

  Validation by the ROC of the system used by this trust will depend upon the substance of this recommendation.

  Barnet Health Authority
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about waiting lists in the Barnet health authority area. [154739]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 20 March 2001]: The in-patient waiting list at Barnet health authority has fallen from 7,321 at 31 March 1997 to 5,507 at 31 January 2001, (the latest date for which figures are available). This represents a decrease of 25 per cent.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new measures he plans to introduce to reduce the incidence of(a) overuse and mis-use of medicinal drugs, (b) physical abuse, (c) sexual abuse and (d) neglect of residents of homes for the elderly. [154077]

  Mr. Hutton [holding answer 20 March 2001]
  We are reforming the current regulatory arrangements for care homes and nursing homes for all client groups. The Care Standards Act 2000 establishes a new independent body, the National Care Standards Commission, which will regulate all care homes, whether in the private, voluntary or statutory sector, from April 2002. The commission will register and inspect homes according to national minimum standards. These standards will promote better quality of care and prevent abuse of all kinds by grounding practice on the principles of dignity, choice, privacy and respect.

  They will guarantee residents access to an effective complaints procedure and ensure that residents are cared for by trustworthy, competent and reliable staff, who have been properly trained for this difficult and sensitive job.

  National minimum standards for care homes for older people were published on 2 March 2001. We intend to publish standards for other client groups in homes soon.

  In addition, the Department launched guidance titled `No Secrets' on 20 March 2000, under Section 7 of the Local Authority Services Act 1970. 'No Secrets' deals with developing and implementing multi-agency policies and procedures to protect vulnerable adults from abuse.

  All prescribing for older people, including those in residential and nursing home care, should be undertaken and monitored carefully by the doctor responsible. The Department published advice in 1998 on prescribing in residential and nursing homes. The National Service Framework for Older People will contribute to improving the care of older people with dementia by setting national standards for health and social care services.

  British Fluoridation Society
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what purposes grants are paid to the British Fluoridation Society Ltd. [152905]
  243W
  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 20 March 2001]: Grants are paid to enable the British Fluoridation Society to provide information to health authorities, water undertakers and the general public on technical aspects of water fluoridation projects and the effects of fluoridation on levels of dental decay and overall health.

  Bed Blockers
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department collects weekly figures on the numbers of bed blockers; if he will publish the figures; and how many bed blockers there were on(a) 1 March 2001, (b) 1 February 2001, (c) 1 January 2001, (d) 1 December 2000 and (e) 1 November 2000. [153973]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available for the dates requested. The information on bed blockers is available through Quarterly Monitoring Returns, which are available in the Library.

  Variant Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about clusters of cases of Variant Creutzfeldt Jakob disease. [155227]

  Yvette Cooper
  Ninety-seven 'definite' and 'probable' cases of variant Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease (vCJD) have been identified to date. A number of geographically associated case groupings is under investigation, but only one such grouping has so far been identified by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) in July 2000 as being unlikely to have occurred by chance. That grouping of cases occurred in an area in Leicestershire near Queniborough. A subsequent investigation by Leicestershire health authority into these cases has been undertaken and the results are being announced in a report published today. A copy is being placed in the Library. The main conclusion from the investigation is that there is a strong association between these cases and cross-contamination of carcase meat with cattle brain material which occurred at a number of local butchers' premises during the 1980s.

  Controls on specified risk material (SRM) have, since 1989, required brains of cattle over six months old to be removed and disposed of under controlled conditions. It has been illegal since then for them to be used for human consumption. And, since 1996, it has been a legal requirement for the whole head of cattle over six months old to be disposed of in the slaughterhouse as SRM under the supervision of the Meat Hygiene Service.

  Scientific advisers and health experts, including SEAC, will be looking very carefully at the results of the study, to assess the implications for our wider understanding of vCJD.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues in(a) the Treasury and
  244W
  (b) the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions concerning the economic impact on the tourism industry of foot and mouth disease; [153744]

  (2) what discussions he has had with representatives of the tourism industry regarding the availability of compensation for loss of business resulting from foot and mouth disease; [153743]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the economic impact of foot and mouth disease on the tourism industry. [153745]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement I made in the House on 14 March 2001,Official Report, columns 1021–36 and to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on 20 March 2001, Official Report, columns 191–210.

  My hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting has met with industry representatives to discuss the economic difficulties facing the tourism industry on a number of occasions in the last few weeks; she also visited Devon on 14 March to hear firsthand from tourism businesses. I similarly visited Cumbria on 16 and 17 March, and have had a number of meetings with tourism representatives and with ministerial colleagues.

  Hinduja Brothers
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport who is responsible for making the VAT payment on the donation given by the Hinduja brothers to the Faith Zone of the Millennium Dome. [153733]

  Janet Anderson [holding answer 14 March 2001]
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC), having recently reviewed its papers on the Hinduja Foundation's contribution of £1 million to the Faith zone, concluded that VAT is chargeable in respect of that contribution. NMEC reached this conclusion on the basis that an allocation of free tickets to the Hinduja Foundation represented a benefit. The Company made a voluntary disclosure to HM Customs and Excise. NMEC has now brought this payment into account for VAT purposes and will make the appropriate payment when all related aspects are agreed with HM Customs and Excise. NMEC is satisfied that in respect of the earlier treatment of the Hinduja Foundation's contribution, and the latter allocation of tickets, there was no deliberate attempt by NMEC staff to avoid VAT. There was an innocent error which, having been identified, is now being corrected.

  Churches
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and. Sport what representations he has received on the grant to churches awarded in the recent Budget; how churches can apply; and if he will make a statement. [154567]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My Department has been charged by the Chancellor with taking forward the development of the new grant scheme for listed places of worship. The announcement has attracted considerable interest, and my officials have taken numerous inquiries since the 7 March. It is my intention that the scheme should be operational as early as possible and I will make a further announcement in due course.
  245W

  Underwater Archaeology
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what additional funding will be made available to English Heritage to take account of new responsibilities in relation to underwater archaeology. [154233]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]: English Heritage's overall grant in aid will be increased by £7 million in 2002–03, and £9 million in 2003–04, partly to take into account the transfer to English Heritage of functions relating to underwater archaeology. English Heritage will also receive £350,000 per year, which represents the sum currently spent by DCMS on underwater archaeology.

  Communications White Paper
  Ms Blears
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what response the Government have received to the White Paper "A New Future for Communications"; and if he will make a statement. [155263]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Some 250 organisations and individuals have submitted general responses to the White Paper which my right hon. Friend hon Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I announced on 12 December last year.

  The overall thrust of the White Paper was largely welcomed by respondents, and it was notable that the overwhelming majority expressed support for the creation of a new single regulator, an Office of Communications (OFCOM).

  More specific issues attracted a range of views. These responses are being placed on the Communications White Paper website (www. communications whitepaper.gov.uk), except where the respondent requested otherwise.

  In addition, some 6,500 letters and e-mail messages have been received specifically in support of Christian broadcasting and these are also being taken into account.

  A summary of these responses by independent consultants, David Graham & Associates, has also been published on the website and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will give details of the 2001—02 charging schemes for local air pollution control under Part 1 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and Local Authority-Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control under the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999. [154043]

  Mr. Hill
  Charges to cover the costs of local enforcing authorities in regulating processes which are subject to Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 were introduced in April 1991. Interim charges for processes which are subject to the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 were introduced in August 2000.
  246W
  With the approval of the Treasury, and following consultation with local authority associations and industry, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has made revised schemes for England in respect of Environmental Protection Act and England and Wales in respect of the Pollution Prevention and Control Act. The schemes specify the scale of fees and charges to take effect from 1 April 2001.

  The initial application fee will be unchanged and the annual subsistence fee will be increased by £1 for both schemes. For those processes transferring, in due course, to local authority control under the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 there will be an increase of £56 in subsistence charge to cover the production of new technical guidance.

  The Secretary of State was unable to justify an increase in the basic fees and charges from 1 April 2001 because not enough local authorities are undertaking cost accounting for their functions under Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and there is insufficient financial information.

  The schemes will be laid before both Houses and copies placed in the Libraries.

  Civil Servants (Accommodation)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the policy of his Department is towards providing accommodation for departmental civil servants in London. [153784]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 15 March 2001]: My Department does not provide living accommodation for staff working in London or anywhere else in the country. Where there is a business need for staff to work in London, and where this results in their having to move home, staff may be able to benefit from a range of allowances available. For example, financial assistance can be provided towards the costs of searching for new accommodation and towards the costs incurred in moving home. An exception to this involves "Duty Officers" who work a shift system and provide a DETR presence during the weekends and nights. These Duty Officers are not provided with a permanent residence but with temporary sleeping accommodation within one of our headquarter buildings.

  Dual-fuel Vehicles
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he has taken to encourage vehicle manufacturers to produce vehicles with dual-fuel tanks; and if he will make a statement. [154005]

  Mr. Hill
  My Department sponsors the Energy Saving Trust's Powershift programme that provides grants towards the cost of purchasing cleaner fuel vehicles. Thanks to Powershift and the low level of duty on gas fuels, more vehicle manufacturers and aftermarket converters now produce dual-fuel vehicles that can run on both LPG and petrol. My Department is also in close touch with vehicle manufacturers, encouraging them to introduce production-line dual-fuel vehicles. I am pleased to note that several vehicle manufacturers are considering doing so.
  247W

  RAM Scrap Incidents
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Health and Safety Executives database on RAM scrap incidents was established; and how many incidents of radioactively contaminated scrap metal have been recorded on the data base. [154227]

  Mr. Meacher
  In 1996 the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), HSE and the Environment Agency jointly established the Ionising Radiations Incident Database (IRID). This is essentially a voluntary notification scheme under which 'non nuclear' industries report, to NRPB, radiological incidents which could involve occupational or public exposure. IRID does not solely include information about scrap metal incidents. The database is operated by NRPB and HSE holds no separate database.

  The first IRID report, "IRID—Ionising Radiations Incident Database—First Review of Cases Reported and Operation of the Database", published by NRPB in 1999, ISBN 0 85951 436 6, recorded 10 incidents categorised as "recycling of materials".

  Coalmining Communities
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what specific support his Department has provided to coalmining communities since 1997 by(a) region and (b)local authority area. [154305]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Following the report of the Coalfields Task Force in 1997, the Department introduced a range of measures to provide specific support to the coalmining communities. £52 million was allocated to the Coalfields Regeneration Trust to support communities from the coalfield areas of England, Scotland and Wales, to which an additional £45 million has recently been agreed for the Trust in England over the three years to March 2005. In addition, English Partnerships and the Regional Development Agencies are delivering the National Coalfields Programme, for which the Department has provided a ringfenced budget of over £380 million, about £126 million of which has already been committed.

  In addition to these coalfield specific programmes, a range of national programmes directly benefit the coalmining communities, including the Single Regeneration Budget, The Housing Investment Programme and the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund.

  A detailed breakdown as requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Policies (Manchester, Gorton)
  Mr. Kaufman
  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 constituency, the effects on the Manchester, Gorton constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 17 November 2000. [154497]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The principal funding which this Department has provided to Manchester in 2000—01 is shown in the table. It includes grants and borrowings approvals for revenue and capital expenditure.
  248W
  It is not possible to determine how much money has been spent since November 2000 or how much has been spent in the Gorton constituency. It is for the local authority to decide where within its boundary these resources are applied.

  £ million

  Nature of funding

  2000—01

  Revenue Support Grant

  282.3

  Income from National Non-Domestic Rates

  119.6

  Housing Investment Programme

  49.0

  Transport Block Supplementary Credit Approval

  4.5

  Electrical Contractors
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to create a statutory UK system of registration for electrical contractors. [154307]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  None. The voluntary National Inspection Council for Electrical Installation Contracting already has wide coverage among electrical contractors. The Quality Mark and Constructionline, the Government schemes for assessment and approval of contractors in the domestic and non-domestic sectors, are also operated on a voluntary basis. This gives them the necessary flexibility to react to changing circumstances in their respective markets.

  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Trasport and the Regions what steps he is taking to promote the consistent use of the construction line system of registration for electrical contracting companies and to void duplication with the Health and Safety Executive's Contractors Health and Safety Assessment Scheme. [154388]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Constructionline, the Government's register of approved contractors and consultants, is developing co-operative arrangements with the local government-operated Contractors Health and Safety Assessment Scheme (CHAS). The aim is to encourage clients to make efficient links between Constructionline and the more detailed health and safety database on CHAS and to avoid duplication for contractors which are registering on the two schemes.

  Con cessionary Bus Fares
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will introduce a national scheme of concessionary bus fares for pensioners; and if he will make a statement. [154309]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 19 March 2001]: We have just introduced a national minimum standard for concessionary fares schemes, requiring all authorities to ensure at least half- fare reductions for elderly people on local buses. We have no immediate plans for further standardisation, although we continue to discuss issues of this kind with interested parties.
  249W

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact on rural policy of the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease. [153323]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government recognise the very serious impact that the outbreak of foot and mouth disease and the restrictions that are necessary to contain it are having on the rural economy generally. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has asked me to chair a task force to consider these impacts and to make recommendations on measures to help those caught up in the crisis and to kick start the rural economy once the outbreak has been eradicated. The Government's policies set out in the White Paper "Our countryside: the future (CM 4909)" published in December 2000, will set the framework for the well-being of our rural areas in the longer term.

  Hybrid Bills
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if it is his policy

  £ million

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Revenue Support Grant1

  6.7

  6.6

  6.6

  6.5

  7.0

  Income from National Non-Domestic Rates1

  4.3

  4.4

  4.7

  5.2

  5.2

  Revenue Support Grant2

  2.7

  2.6

  2.7

  2.6

  2.9

  Income from National Non-Domestic Rates2

  3.3

  3.3

  3.6

  4.0

  3.9

  Housing Investment Programme3

  1.8

  2.0

  2.3

  3.9

  4.3

  Capital Receipts Initiative3

  n/a

  1.0

  1.1

  n/a

  n/a

  Cash Incentive Scheme3

  0

  0

  0

  n/a

  n/a

  Housing Investment Programme4

  1.3

  1.1

  1.2

  1.5

  1.1

  Capital Receipts Initiative4

  n/a

  0.5

  0.5

  n/a

  n/a

  Cash Incentive Scheme4

  0

  0

  0

  n/a

  n/a

  ERDF Funding—Lancashire5

  0.8

  0.3

  1.7

  0

  0

  ERDF Funding—Lancaster

  0.05

  0.2

  0

  0

  0

  ERDF Funding—Wyre

  0

  0.02

  0

  0

  0

  Transport Supplementary Grant

  3.7

  1.7

  2.9

  0

  0

  Transport Annual Capital Guideline

  2.1

  1.6

  1.5

  0

  0

  Transport Block Supplementary Credit Approval6

  4.9

  3.1

  5.2

  611.0

  28.0

  1 Figures for Lancaster city council. These figures have not been adjusted to make year on year comparisons.

  2 Figures for Wyre borough council. These figures have not been adjusted to make year on year comparisons.

  3 Figures for Lancashire county council

  4 Figures of Wyre borough council

  5 Some of the Lancashire projects are county-wide and therefore some of the grant shown may have gone to Lancaster or Wyre.

  6 2000—01—This figure is from Lancashire county council's provisional Local Transport Plan settlement.

  Highways Agency
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Highways Agency will publish its annual report and accounts for 1999—2000. [154910]

  Mr. Hill
  The Highways Agency annual report and accounts 1999—2000 has been published today and copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Local Government Finance
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the 250W
  to ensure that (a) an environmental assessment and (b) an informal public inquiry are carried out in respect of hybrid Bills before they are introduced. [154679]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  My Department has not introduced a hybrid Bill during this Parliament. However, hybrid Bills are subject to the same pre-parliamentary processes as other Bills, which includes environmental assessments.

  Departmental Policies (Lancaster and Wyre)
  Mr. Dawson
  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 Lancaster and Wyre constituency, the effect on Lancaster and Wyre of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154684]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Lancaster and Wyre constituency has benefited from funding provided to Lancaster city council, Wyre borough council and Lancashire county council. It is for the local authorities to decide where within their areas these resources are invested.

  The principal funding which this Department has provided in 1997—98 to 2000—01 are shown in the table. These include grants and borrowings approvals for revenue and capital expenditure.

  Government plans to implement the proposed reform of the local authority capital finance system set out in the Green Paper, "Modernising Local government Finances"; and if he will make a statement. [155121]

  Ms Armstrong
  Consultees have overwhelmingly endorsed our proposals to abolish the present system of local authority capital controls and replace it with the prudential system described in the Green Paper. Legislation will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows. The new system will rely heavily on professional regulation and my Department has agreed to provide financial support to the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy who will draft the
  251W
  necessary professional Code. Work on that and on other detailed development of the system will be taken forward immediately.

  Under the new system local authorities will be free to invest in their communities without having to get permission each time from central Government. The consultation confirmed our view that the proposed safeguards in the system will ensure that authorities do not run up unsustainable levels of debt, and that the increased flexibility will allow them to deliver better value for money, including through partnership working.

  East Midlands (Planning)
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish his response to the recommendations of the independent panel that conducted the public examination of the draft regional planning guidance for the east Midlands; and if he will make a statement. [155260]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has today published for consultation proposed changes to the draft Regional Planning Guidance for the east Midlands. These are largely based on the recommendations of the independent panel that held a public examination into draft RPG last summer.

  In October 2000 my right hon. Friend published new guidance on regional planning in Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) Note 11. This followed the announcement of a new approach to planning for housing provision last March which was taken forward in more detail in revised Planning Policy Guidance Note 3. Important issues for the region to take forward are contained in the Urban and Rural White Papers issued last November. The proposed changes to the draft RPG for the east Midlands reflect the principles and priorities set out in these statements. They aim to support economic growth and regeneration while protecting and enhancing the region's environment.

  For housing, the regional allocation and those for each structure plan area are now expressed as annual averages to reflect the requirements in PPG3 and PPG11 for annual bench marks, rather than a fixed total. Adjustments can then be made regularly as required by the "plan monitor and manage" approach. The regional allocation of 13,900 a year should meet expected needs. We are proposing a small reduction for Lincolnshire of 200 a year over the draft to discourage long distance commuting across the regional boundary into East Anglia and reduce the pressure for developing greenfield sites.

  We agree with the panel's recommendation that 60 per cent. of housing completions should be on previously developed land by 2008. The regional planning body will be invited to develop sub regional targets to allow for variations in local circumstances while still aiming for 60 per cent. at the regional level. We propose to adopt the panel's recommended annual rate of 3,400 dwellings a year as an appropriate indicator for monitoring whether affordable housing need is being met.

  The panel considered that a new business park near to the East Midlands Airport and Junction 24 (M1) in addition to the existing commitments for business development there, could undermine regeneration of nearby urban areas, in particular Nottingham, Derby and
  252W
  Leicester. We agree with the panel, as we are not persuaded that sufficient limitations on occupation are possible through the planning system to avoid harmful displacement of economic activity from those urban areas.

  Draft RPG proposed designating two major investment sites (sites of at least 50has and capable of being safeguarded for a single user). We propose to adopt the panel recommendation that no new greenfield sites should be promoted for this purpose until a comprehensive analysis has been carried out of the quantity and quality of the existing supply of employment land.

  We make it clear that there should be no variation across the region in the systematic approach to selecting sites for development so as not to damage the credibility of the RPG and to maintain consistency with the sustainable development objectives of national policy. We agree that the coalfields are a priority for regeneration. The outcome of applying a systematic approach to the selection of sites might be that some greenfield development would occur, but only if that is the most sustainable option in the context of local circumstances and the priority for employment development.

  We agree with the panel that car parking standards should be consistent with those in Draft PPG13, and should be applied across the region to all new employment development but above certain thresholds.

  The consultation period on the proposed changes will be for 12 weeks ending on 15 June. Views are invited and should be made to the Government Office for the east Midlands. Copies of all the relevant documents have been placed in the House Library and made available to the region's MPs.

  Sports Planning
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what advice he has issued about planning for sport, open space and recreation. [155261]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I am today issuing a consultation paper which proposes new, more robust planning policies for sport, open space and recreation. The proposed revision of Planning Policy Guidance note 17 Sport and Recreation (PPG17) follows our commitment in the Urban and Rural White Papers to creating more sustainable communities that offer a better quality of life.

  The draft guidance contains key messages that planning authorities must take into account in preparing their plans and in making planning decisions. It advises authorities to:
  conduct assessments of the need for sport, open space and recreational provision in their areas;
  plan for additional sports and recreation facilities including playing fields, open spaces, parks, sports centres and stadia where there is an identified shortfall;
  protect the existing range of open air and built recreation facilities which are of value to local communities. Authorities should resist the development of open space unless it can be shown that it is not needed for outdoor recreation;
  253W

  ensure that new developments are provided with attractive, good quality sports and recreation facilities;
  locate facilities so that they are accessible by walking, cycling and public transport: and
  locate "intensive" recreation facilities such as indoor sports centres in or on the edge of town centres where possible so that they can lend vitality to them.

  It is essential to their quality of life that people have access to open space and a wide range of sporting and recreational facilities. We are proposing a systematic assessment procedure to assist local authorities in determining whether any shortfall in the provision of open space, sports or recreational facilities exists in their areas. This will help them in planning to remedy any deficiencies. The draft guidance reinforces current measures to safeguard existing open space and further protects playing fields, which are vital to the health and well being of our young people, as well as benefiting the wider community.

  Copies of the consultation draft of PPG17 have been placed in the Library and Vote Office. It will be sent to local planning authorities, developers, sporting organisations and other interested parties, and responses to the draft guidance are invited by Friday 15 June.

  Countryside Planning
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has, following publication of the white Paper "Our Countryside: the Future", to clarify planning policy guidance for the countryside; and if he will make a statement. [155262]

  Mr. Raynsford
  A competitive and sustainable agricultural industry is vital to the economic, social and environmental well-being of rural areas. The Prime Minister's Action "Plan for Farming" and the White Paper "Our Countryside: the Future" emphasised the Government's desire both for agriculture to be prosperous, forward-looking and sustainable, and to encourage diversification and enterprise. Reform of the European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is changing the direction of agriculture and the England Rural Development Programme provides a major switch of CAP funds to support the new approach.

  Planning policies for the countryside are set out in Planning Policy Guidance note 7, "The Countryside: Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development" (PPG7). That guidance is now four-years-old and needs to be clarified in respect of the Government's policy on farm diversification. I am therefore amending the text of the guidance to reflect the importance that the Government attach to effective planning for sustainable farm diversification projects and the re-use of redundant farm buildings.

  The first point in paragraph 2.8 of PPG7 is amended as follows:
  "encourage rural enterprise, including the diversification of farm businesses;"

  254W
  Paragraph 3.4 no longer adequately reflects the significant changes now shaping the agricultural industry. I am therefore deleting the current text and replacing it with the following:
  "3.4A—The Government's long term strategy for farming was set out in "A New Direction for Agriculture" published in December 1999 and was taken a step further with the launch of the "Action Plan for Farming" in March 2000. The England Rural Development Programme (ERDP) was launched in October 2000. Together, these are providing opportunities to help the industry become more competitive and diverse and to promote environmental aims. Farming continues to make a significant contribution to the economy of rural areas but increasingly diversification into non-agricultural activities is vital to the continuing viability of many farm businesses. Local planning authorities should set out in their development plans the criteria to be applied to planning applications for farm diversification projects. Local planning authorities should be supportive of well-conceived farm diversification schemes for business purposes that are consistent in their scale with their rural location.
  3.4B—The ERDP will, through the Rural Enterprise Scheme (RES) and the Processing and Marketing Grant (PMG), provide support for selected diversification proposals, subject to competition. Success in securing RES and PMG funding may depend upon obtaining prior planning permission for diversification proposals, but the potential availability of any grant funding is not a material consideration when determining a relevant planning application. Further guidance on development related to agriculture (other than that covered by permitted development rights) and to farm diversification is given in Annex C, which includes a non-exclusive list of examples of potential farm diversification. It is usually preferable for farm diversification schemes to re-use good quality existing buildings and put them to a new business use, rather than build new buildings in the countryside. New buildings, either to replace existing buildings or to accommodate expansion of enterprises, may also be acceptable provided that they satisfy sustainable development objectives and are of a design and scale appropriate to their rural surroundings."

  Planning guidance relating to the protection of England's best quality agricultural land is also contained in PPG7. The Rural White Paper signalled the Government's intention that decisions about the development or protection of best and most versatile agricultural land (BMV land) should rest with local authorities. Additionally, the Draft Soil Strategy for England, which we published for consultation on 6 March, sets out our wider proposals for protecting and managing our soil resources.

  Paragraphs 2.17 and 2.18 of PPG7 are therefore withdrawn and the following paragraphs should be substituted:
  "2.17—Development of greenfield land, including the best and most versatile agricultural land (defined as land in grades 1, 2, and 3a of the Agricultural Land Classification), should not be permitted unless opportunities have been assessed for accommodating development on previously-developed sites and on land within the boundaries of existing urban areas (see PPG3 in respect of housing development). Where development of agricultural land is unavoidable, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality, except where other sustainability considerations suggest otherwise. These might include, for example, its importance for biodiversity, the quality and character of the landscape, its amenity value or heritage interest, accessibility to infrastructure, workforce and markets, and the protection of natural resources, including soil quality. Some of these qualities

  255W
  may be recognised by a statutory wildlife, landscape, historic or archaeological designation, such as a National Park or Site of Special Scientific Interest.
  2.18—Local authorities planning to allow the development of greenfield land, where soil or agricultural quality is a consideration, should seek advice from MAFF and from other relevant bodies such as English Nature, the Countryside Agency, the Environment Agency or English Heritage as appropriate. They may also be required to consult one or more of these agencies of any intention to allow development under the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, and in respect of development plan proposals as described in Annex C to PPG12. The decision whether to utilise BMV land for development is for each local planning authority, having carefully weighed the options in the light of competent advice."

  MAFF will continue to provide technical advice to local planning authorities on agricultural land quality issues and other matters relating to agricultural development as described in Annex B to PPG7. My Department expects to issue good practice guidance on methodologies for integrating competing sustainability considerations later this year. In due course the Government expect to repeal the statutory right available to the Minister of Agriculture under section 18(3) and 44(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to require the Secretary of State to intervene in development plans to which MAFF have unresolved objections.

  My Department will be writing to every planning authority in England to inform them of the clarification of PPG7 set out in this statement and a version of PPG7 which consolidates these and other changes already announced will be posted on the Department's website at: www.planning.detr.gov.uk. Other planning policy guidance notes and mineral policy guidance notes that refer to PPG7 should be read in conjunction with this statement.

  Integrated Transport Planning
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to announce the designation of Centres of Excellence for Integrated Transport Planning. [154899]

  Mr. Hill
  We are today designating 14 Centres of Excellence for Integrated Transport Planning.

  The Centre of Excellence initiative is aimed at recognising the efforts of local authorities in taking forward the planning of integrated transport at the local level and reflects the importance of spreading good practice.

  invited bids from all transport authorities in England (outside London). Having assessed the bids received we have awarded the following local transport authorities or groups of authorities Centre of Excellence status for the period covered by their current local transport plans:

  Bristol city council

  Devon county council

  Hampshire county council

  Hertfordshire county council

  Nottingham city council

  Nottinghamshire county council

  256W

  Oxfordshire county council

  Surrey county council

  Warrington borough council

  City of York council

  Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority and the metropolitan district councils in the Greater Manchester area

  Merseyside Passenger Transport Authority and the metropolitan district councils in the Merseyside area

  South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority and the metropolitan district councils in the South Yorkshire area

  West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority and the metropolitan district councils in the West Yorkshire area.

  My Department has also today published "Transport 2010: Meeting the Local Transport Challenge" which sets out how the local transport settlement announced on 14 December 2000, Official Report, column 202W, contributes to the achievement of our local transport objectives established in "Transport 2010: The 10 Year Transport Plan".

  Copies of the document have been placed in the Library of both Houses and are available from the Vote Office.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Policies (Manchester, Gorton)
  Mr. Kaufman
  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 the Manchester, Gorton constituency of her Department's policies and actions since 6 November 2000. [154501]

  Jane Kennedy
  Generally the Lord Chancellor's Department is responsible for the administration of the courts and for legal services. Over the last four years 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. This is an ongoing process.

  In December 2000 a business case for a new Civil Justice Centre for Manchester was approved. Work will now be taken forward to provide the new facilities by 2004—05.

  The Manchester Community Legal Service Partnership (CLSP), which covers the Manchester, Gorton constituency, is one of 165 CLSPs throughout England and Wales.

  Throughout the Manchester, Gorton constituency, nine law firms and one Law Centre have been awarded contracts with the Legal Services Commission whose current value amounts to over £476,000. This represents a decrease in funding based on the figures for November 2000.

  The broad reason for the decrease is that clients are choosing to attend Not-for-Profit agencies for assistance with social welfare law issues. Consequently across the Greater Manchester area, the total value of contracts awarded to local Citizens' Advice Bureaux (CAB),

  257W
  including the two CABx in the Manchester, Gorton area and Shelter, has increased to £622.388. A portion of that money will therefore be spent in assisting Gorton constituents.

  Additionally, the Trustee Act 2000 same into force on 1 February this year. It sweeps away the restrictive default investment powers granted to trustees, including charitable trustees, by the Trustee Investments Act 1961. They are replaced by a much wider investment discretion for the trustees and the power to make use of modern investment practices. These new powers will continue to be exercisable as default powers by trusts and charities whose founding documents give no or no sufficient investment powers themselves, and contain no restrictions which forbid the taking of such powers. It is expected that older trusts and charities will be the most likely to benefit. There are three or four charities on the Register of Charities associated with Gorton by name, and no doubt many more trusts, charitable and otherwise associated with the area. It is not possible to say which of them might benefit, but the potential for benefit is there for all of them.

  Departmental Policies (Lancaster and Wyre)
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Lancaster and Wyre constituency, the effect on Lancaster and Wyre of her Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154680]

  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

  Performance indicator

  Target 2001—02 (%)

  KPI 1

  The quality of service provided to court users

  88

  KPI 2

  The percentage of administrative work in the civil courts processed within target time

  94

  KPI 3

  The percentage of Crown court defendants/appellants whose cases begin within target time

  78

  KPI 4

  Percentage of asylum appeals completed (through both tiers of IAA) within 4 months

  65

  KPI 5

  Percentage of value recovered of enforceable (correctly directed) warrants

  72

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Beef Prices
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what discussions he is having with abattoirs in respect of the cuts in price being paid to farmers for beef; [153186]

  (2) what steps he is taking to ensure that farmers receive a higher price for beef following the foot and mouth epidemic; [153183]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the price being paid by abattoirs for beef; [153184]

  (4) what help and assistance he can give to farmers to compensate for the collapse in the beef price at abattoirs. [153185]
  258W
  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 constituency of Lancaster and Wyre is part of the North-West Lancashire Community Legal Service Partnership. The partnership is recently formed and is in the process of agreeing its priorities for future funding.

  The current annual Legal Services Commission expenditure for the partnership on Civil Legal Help is £451,100.

  Also, the Trustee Act 2000 came into force on 1 February this year. It sweeps away the restrictive default investment powers granted to trustees, including charitable trustees, by the Trustee Investments Act 1961. They are replaced by a much wider investment discretion for the trustees and the power to make use of modern investment practices. These new powers will continue to be exercisable as default powers by trusts and charities whose founding documents give no, or no sufficient, investment powers themselves, and contain no restrictions which forbid the taking of such powers. It is expected that older trusts and charities will be the most likely to benefit. There are over 500 charities on the Register of Charities associated with Lancaster and Wyre by name, and no doubt many more trusts, charitable and otherwise associated with the area. It is not possible to say which of them might benefit, but the potential for benefit is there for all of them.

  Court Service
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the key performance targets are for the Court Service Executive Agency for 2001–02. [155346]

  Jane Kennedy
  The table illustrates the key performance targets that the Lord Chancellor has set the Court Service for 2001–02.

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]: MAFF officials are in regular contact with abattoir representatives over the new Licensing for Slaughter scheme and are monitoring prices regularly. Official deadweight price reporting for beef has now been re-established and beef prices have shown a slight decline of up to 3 per cent. It has to be borne in mind that abattoirs have additional costs and up to 50 per cent. reduced throughput to contend with under the new scheme. My right hon. Friend's first priority is to eradicate foot and mouth disease. The Licensing for Slaughter scheme is there to release pressure on producers and get meat supplies moving again. My right hon. Friend has already asked all in the supply chain to behave in a spirit of mutual commercial co-operation. The market situation is being kept under review.
  259W

  Sand Eels
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if industrial fishing for sand eels is prohibited in closed cod-spawning areas; and if he will make a statement. [154588]

  Mr. Morley
  A derogation is allowed for sand eel fishing in the spawning cod closed areas, subject to strict conditions on monitoring and control, but not for fishing for Norway pout, which involves a higher whitefish bycatch. The estimated bycatch of cod in the sand eel fishery is less than 2 per cent.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what commercial activities are prescribed by the voluntary agreement with the GM industry on GM crop trials. [144375]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Government and the industry body SCIMAC made a voluntary agreement in November 1999 on the conduct of the farm-scale evaluations of certain GM crops. Under the terms of this agreement:
  "There will be no widespread planting leading to general market access of GM crops grown in the UK until the farm-scale evaluations are complete.
  For the duration of the farm-scale evaluations, no direct commercial benefit will be sought from these plantings by the consent-holders."

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if the voluntary agreement with the GM industry on the conduct of crop trials in the United Kingdom(a) covers trials licensed under a Part C consent and (b) allows the harvesting and storage of GM seed from trial sites before the completion of the crop trials; [144371]

  (2) if fertile seed is being harvested from GM trial sites in the United Kingdom and stored. [144367]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Government and the industry body SCIMAC made a voluntary agreement in November 1999 on the conduct of the farm scale evaluations of certain GM crops.

  The agreement covers all GM crops including those with Part C consent under European directive 90/220. At present one of the crops involved in the evaluations, herbicide tolerant maize, has a Part C consent.

  The Part B consents permitting the oil seed rape, fodder beet and sugar beet to be grown in the farm scale evaluations require the crops to be destroyed on harvest. The maize in the evaluations, which has a Part C consent, is a forage variety which would be harvested for silage not seeds. The terms of the approval for herbicide use on the maize does not permit it to enter the food or feed chain and the crop is destroyed on harvest.

  The agreement does not permit any other field scale plantings of these crops without the approval of the Scientific Steering Committee who will take account of the relevance of the proposals to biodiversity.
  260W
  A number of Part B consents for small scale plantings of other GM crops are currently in force. Each specifies the fate of the crop at the end of the trial and some permit the saving of seed for further research or testing.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Higher Education
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the participation rate in higher education for 18 to 24-year-olds in each UK nation and Government office region in each of the last five years. [145254]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: Participation rates are not routinely collated below national level. The available figures for the four home countries, showing the proportion of under 21-year-olds who enter higher education for the first time, are given in the table. A higher proportion of young people from Scotland and Northern Ireland enter HE than from England and Wales. This is largely due to high levels of participation in Diplomas, Certificates and other similar undergraduate qualifications in these countries. There was an increase in the Great Britain index in 1997–98 related partly to changes in the funding arrangements for higher education, with students choosing to enter HE rather than wait until 1998–99. There was a corresponding reduction in 1998–99 before the entry rates started to increase again in 1999–2000. Between 1996–97 and 1999–2000, total students rose by 76,000 in England and by 89,000 in Great Britain.

  Age participation index (API)' by country

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–20002

  England

  n/a

  32

  29

  30

  Wales

  n/a

  32

  30

  29

  Scotland

  n/a

  46

  44

  43

  Northern Ireland

  n/a

  44

  40

  42

  Great Britain

  33

  33

  31

  32

  1The API is defined as the number of GB domiciled initial entrants to full-time and sandwich undergraduate HE aged under 21, expressed as a percentage of the average number of 18 and 19-year-olds in the population

  2Provisional

  Note:

  n/a = Not available

  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students were in higher education in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 2000–01. [154391]

  Mr. Wicks
  The available data are given in the table. Figures for 2000–01 will be available at the end of April.

  Higher education students in England1

  Thousand

  Academic year

  Number

  1996–97

  1,534

  1999–2000

  1,610

  1Full-time and part-time, undergraduate and postgraduate, home and overseas, including the Open University

  261W
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the average level of Government funding was per student in higher education in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 2000–01. [154392]

  Mr. Wicks
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Ms Kelly) on 6 March 2001,Official Report, columns 164–65W.

  University Salaries
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the average salary increase was for(a) university vice-chancellors and principals and (b) university academic and academic-related staff in (i) 2000–01, (ii) 1999–2000, (iii) 1998–99, (iv) 1997–98 and (v) 1996–97; and if he will make a statement. [149877]

  Mr. Wicks
  Available figures from the New Earnings Survey for the earnings increases of university teaching professionals, covering lecturers in both pre and post 1992 universities, are:

  Year

  Percentage

  1999–2000

  2.9

  1998–99

  2.0

  1998–98

  3.2

  1996–97

  5.6

  1995–96

  –0.1

  No data are held centrally on Vice-Chancellors' pay.

  New Deal (Wildcat)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 8 March 2001,Official Report, column 299W, on New Deal, (1) if he will list the companies which have been approached by (a) his Department's, (i) Ministers and (ii) officials and (b) New Deal Taskforce in order to solicit payments to fund Wildcat's services to his Department, indicating the date of each approach; [153686]

  (2) if he will list the payments which have been made to Wildcat by his Department, indicating the date of each payment; [153687]

  (3) if he will list the companies which have contributed funds to his Department for onward transmission to Wildcat, indicating the amount in each case and the date on which each payment was received. [153688]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 13 March 2001]: The following companies provided funds via the New Deal Taskforce to Wildcat Corporation.

  Company

  Amount(£)

  Date

  Microsoft

  35,000

  3 July 2000

  Credit Suisse First Boston

  20,000

  28 July 2000

  KPMG

  20,000

  3 August 2000

  Freshfields

  20,000

  3 August 2000

  The Rockefeller Foundation

  6,500

  September 2000

  Morgan Stanley Dean Witter

  20,000

  114 September 2000

  Prudential

  20,000

  12 October 2000

  Deloitte and Touche

  20,000

  17 October 2000

  HSBC

  20,000

  13 December 2000

  Salomon Brothers

  20.000

  15 March 2001

  1Sent directly to Wildcat

  New Deal
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) black and (b) Asian people have taken part in the New Deal employment scheme; what percentages of (i) black, (ii) Asian and (iii) white unemployed people have found employment through it in each borough of Shropshire; and if he will make a statement. [154507]

  Ms Jowell
  The New Deals have had a valuable impact on many local communities, tackling unemployment, and the long-lasting damage that it can cause, with a new and innovative approach. Latest figures, to the end of December 2000, for Shropshire show the following take-up of New Deal given in the tables:

  New Deal for young people statistics—to December 2000

  Great Britain

  Starts

  White

  465,10

  Black

  32,300

  Asian

  36,400

  Shropshire unit of delivery

  Starts

  Total jobs

  As a percentage of starts

  White

  2,679

  1.492

  56

  Black

  24

  11

  46

  Asian

  49

  32

  65

  New Deal 25+statistics—to December 2000

  Great Britain

  Starts

  White

  356,749

  Black

  21,338

  Asian

  11,938

  Shropshire unit of delivery

  Starts

  Total jobs

  As a percentage of starts

  White

  1,410

  214

  15

  Black

  17

  12

  —

  Asian

  110

  11

  —

  1Figures less than 10 make percentages unreliable.

  New Deal for lone parents statistics—to December 2000

  Great Britain

  Starts

  White

  129,506

  Black

  8,624

  Asian

  2,343

  Shropshire unit of delivery

  Starts

  Total jobs

  As a percentage of starts

  White

  1,172

  433

  37

  Black

  16

  18

  —

  Asian

  10

  12

  —

  1Figures less than 10 make percentages unreliable

  263W
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many young people in Shrewsbury and Atcham have benefited from the New Deal since last May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [154658]

  Ms Jowell
  In the period from the start of the New Deal for Young People, April 1998 to December 2000, there have been 478 starts to the programme in Shrewsbury and Atcham. Of these, 240 young people have gained employment from the programme.

  Nationally, in addition to the 274,000 young people recorded as gaining jobs, we estimate a further 83,000 young people gained jobs from New Deal.

  Performance-related Pay (Wales)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers in Wales have not handed in the application form for performance-related pay. [154553]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The final deadline for teachers in Wales to hand in their threshold application forms has not yet passed, so we do not currently know how many will, or will not, hand in application forms.

  Specialist Schools (Norfolk)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many specialist schools(a) have been and (b) are planned to be established in Norfolk. [154645]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  There are 10 specialist schools in Norfolk: six Technology Colleges, two Sports Colleges, one Arts College and one Sports College. So far as plans are concerned, it is for individual schools in Norfolk to decide whether it is appropriate to make a specialist school application.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what contingency arrangements he has made for(a) the conduct of public examinations and (b) the assessment of coursework (i) related to land use and (ii) of a more general nature, on account of the current foot and mouth disease situation. [154677]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Department is liaising closely with the awarding bodies on the impact of the foot and mouth emergency on public examinations. The awarding bodies have already announced that where students are unable to travel to their schools and colleges to complete assessments/examinations because of MAFF restrictions, special consideration arrangements will apply and candidates will be considered for aegrotat awards. The awarding bodies have also announced that they will agree to alternative arrangements where students are unable to complete fieldwork and coursework assignments because of restrictions on access to land. Both announcements have been placed on the awarding bodies' websites. We will continue to monitor the situation closely.

  Class Sizes (Shrewsbury and Atcham)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each primary
  264W
  school in Shrewsbury and Atcham the number of classes containing over 30 pupils on (a) 1 May 1997 and (b) the latest date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [15,1701]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Information on class sizes at individual schools is not normally published. However, in January 1997 20.1 per cent. of Key Stage 1 classes in Shrewsbury and Atcham had 31 or more pupils. By September 2000 the figure was zero. In January 1997 42 per cent. of the Key Stage 2 classes in the constituency had 31 or more pupils. By January 2000 the figure had dropped to 25.7 per cent. The size of the average Key Stage 2 class in the constituency fell over this period from 28.7 to 27.3.

  We are delivering our infant class size pledge, including in Shropshire. The local education authority has received £3.6 million to support the initiative, and had met the 30 limit in full as early as September 2000. At the same time, the size of the average Key Stage 2 class in the Authority fell from 29.1 in January 1997 to 28.3 in January 2000. Primary headteachers will receive an average £24,000 in direct funding in 2001–02 to spend as they choose—including on reducing class sizes further if that is a priority.

  Labour Statistics (Hendon)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many adult long-term unemployed there are in Hendon; and how many there were in May 1997 .[154733]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 20 March 2001]: As at 8 February 2001 there were 762 people in the constituency of Hendon, aged 18 or over, unemployed for six months or more and claiming Jobseeker's Allowance. The comparable figure as at May 1997 was 1792.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many long-term young unemployed there are in Hendon; how many there were in May 1997; how many have benefited from each of the New Deal options; and if he will make a statement. [154734]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 20 March 2001]: As at 8 February 2001 there were 84 people in the constituency of Hendon aged 18–24, unemployed for six months or more and claiming Jobseeker's Allowance. The comparable figure as at May 1997 was 309.

  Since the start of the New Deal for Young People in April 1998, 19 have started the employment option; 159 the Full Time Education and Training option; 32 the Voluntary Sector option; and 9 the Environment Taskforce option in Hendon as at the end of December 2000.

  Departmental Policies (Norwich, North)
  Dr. Gibson
  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 Norwich, North constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997 [151143]

  Mr. Wills
  Details of the effects of a range of the Department's policies on the Norwich. North constituency and on Norwich LEA have
  been placed in the Library.
  265W

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Insurance
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary.of State for Social Security what the cost of insurance incurred by his Department was to cover its buildings and employees in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01 in Scotland. [154443]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 20 March 2001]: On 1 April 1998 all of the Department's buildings in Scotland were transferred under the PRIME contract to the private sector consortium Trillium. The insurance cover of the buildings is now a matter for Trillium.

  Prior to 1 April 1998, the insurance charges for any sites the Department occupied under a lease would have been paid by landlords and where appropriate passed on to the Department via the service charge. Details of the cost of this to the Department in 1997–98 are not available. Additionally, all departmental buildings owned by the Department were covered by Crown Indemnity and the Department was not required to provide any insurance cover for these buildings.

  The principles of Crown Indemnity apply equally to all forms of compulsory insurance. The Department is therefore exempt from providing any insurance cover for its employees.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in Wales(a) have applied for and (b) receive the Minimum Income Guarantee. [154549]

  Mr. Rooker
  Between April 2000 and January 2001, 26,802 pensioners have applied for the Minimum Income Guarantee in Wales. There are approximately 97,000 pensioners receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee in Wales.

  Notes:

  1. The figure is based on a 5 per cent.sample and is therefore subject to a degree of sampling error.

  2. The figure is rounded to the nearest hundred and expressed in thousands.

  3. Pensioners are defined as benefit units where the claimant and/or partner are aged 60 and over.

  Sources:

  Management Information Statistics

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, November 2000

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in Wales are eligible for the Minimum Income Guarantee. [154550]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information we hold is as follows.

  There are approximately 97,000 pensioners receiving Minimum Income Guarantee (MEG) in Wales.

  Notes:

  1. The figure is based on a 5 per cent. sample and is therefore subject to a degree of sampling error.

  2. The figure is rounded to the nearest hundred and expressed in thousands.

  3. Pensioners are defined as benefit units where the claimant and/or partner are aged 60 and over.
  266W
  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, November 2000.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in London are(a) eligible for and (b) in receipt of the Minimum Income Guarantee. [154171]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information we hold is as follows.

  There are approximately 207,000 pensioners receiving Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) in London.

  Notes:

  1. Cases have been allocated to each London Government Office Region by matching the postcode against the 2000 version 2 of the Postcode Directory.

  2. The figure is based on a 5 per cent. sample and is therefore subject to a degree of sampling error.

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

  4. Pensioners are defined as benefit units where the claimant and/or partner are aged 60 and over.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, November 2000.

  Welfare Reform (Disabled People)
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the measures in his welfare reform programme which will assist disabled people to take up work. [154280]

  Mr. Bayley
  We have put a number of measures in place to remove barriers to work for disabled people. These include higher earnings disregards in the Independent Living Funds and improvements to the linking and therapeutic earnings rules in Incapacity Benefit. We are also piloting Capability Reports as part of the Personal Capability Assessment, which we introduced in April 2000.

  We have introduced the Disabled Person's Tax Credit (DPTC) to help make work pay. In the Budget my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced an increase in DPTC from June and this, combined with increases in the National Minimum Wage in October, will raise the guaranteed minimum income for a disabled person moving into work of 35 hours per week or more to £170 a week for a single person, and £257 a week for a couple with one child.

  Furthermore, we are extending the New Deal for Disabled People across Great Britain. From July 2001 a national network of Job Brokers will be set up jointly by the Department of Social Security and the Department for Education and Employment to offer people receiving incapacity benefits the support, guidance and preparation they need to find paid work and move off benefit dependence, continuing to test and assess what works best.

  Alongside the national extension, in early 2002 we will be starting New Deal for Disabled People Job Retention and Rehabilitation Pilots jointly with the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health. These pilots will test the relative effectiveness of different employment and health interventions in reducing the number of people forced to give up work through prolonged illness or disability.
  267W
  The national extension and Job Retention and Rehabilitation pilots draw on lessons learnt from the pilot phase of the New Deal for Disabled People which, by the end of January 2001, has helped over 6,500 people into work.

  Departmental policies (Sutton and Cheam)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Sutton and Cheam constituency, the effects on Sutton and Cheam of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154414]

  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 Sutton and Cheam 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 the income-related benefits, the minimum wage and tax changes.

  Child Benefit will be worth £15.50 a week for the eldest child and £10.35 a week for other children from April 2001: nationally about 7 million families receive Child Benefit, and in Sutton and Cheam 9,661 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 Jobseekers' Allowance nationally has reduced from 1,562,400 to 960,600; in Sutton and Cheam the number has reduced from 1,200 to 800. Since May 1997 the number of lone parents who claim Income Support has decreased from 1,013,500 to 894,100 nationally and in Sutton and Cheam from 700 to 500.

  Older people are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty. So we have introduced Winter Fuel Payments to help with their heaviest fuel bill. This winter, the payment is £200 for households who qualify. Around 16,400 older people in Sutton and Cheam have received a Winter Fuel Payment for this winter.
  268W
  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 Sutton and Cheam will benefit from the substantial increases in the basic State pension this April and next; this year's increase is £5 a week for single pensioners and £8 for couples. In addition we have introduced free TV licences for the over 75s of whom we estimate there are about 7,200 in Sutton and Cheam. 1,700 pensioner families in Sutton and Cheam 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.

  Better Government for Older People
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the response of the Government are to the recommendations of the "Better Government for Older People" report. [153305]

  Mr. Rooker
  We responded to the recommendations of the "Better Government for Older People" programme in "Building on Partnership", which was published on 30 January. A copy is in the Library.

  Benefit Fraud (Shrewsbury and Atcham)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of tackling benefit fraud in(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire since 1 May 1997. [154649]

  Mr. Rooker
  After years of neglect, we have implemented an effective strategy for dealing with Social Security fraud. Figures are not available for the areas requested but nationally we have already made a 6.7 per cent. reduction in the level of fraud and error in Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance. This is the first significant reduction.

  We are on course to meet our first target, of a 10 per cent. reduction in fraud and error, well ahead of the scheduled date in 2002.

SCOTLAND

  Barnett Formula
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions she has had with the Treasury about the operation of the Barnett Formula; and if she will make a statement. [145641]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Barnett formula continues to provide a fair deal for Scotland within the United Kingdom and we have no plans to change it. I have had no recent discussions with the Treasury.

  UK Youth Parliament
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will meet Scottish members of the UK Youth Parliament to discuss issues raised in the Parliament's manifesto. [152961]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I would be willing to meet Scottish members of the UK Youth Parliament to discuss issues raised in the Youth Parliament's manifesto.

  New Deal
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many young people in each constituency in Scotland have(a) participated in the New Deal and (b) found jobs as a result of the New Deal. [152464]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]: The table shows for each parliamentary constituency in Scotland the number of young people who have participated in, and found jobs through, the New Deal since its introduction in 1998.

  Parliamentary constituency

  Starters

  Jobs

  Aberdeen, Central

  706

  326

  Aberdeen, North

  459

  189

  Aberdeen, South

  394

  193

  Airdrie and Shotts

  1,311

  657

  Angus

  1,014

  531

  Argyll and Bute

  681

  361

  Ayr

  1,049

  503

  Banff and Buchan

  424

  224

  Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross

  598

  291

  arrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley

  1,272

  617

  Central Fife

  1,456

  696

  Clydebank and Milngavie

  1,002

  469

  Clydesdale

  1,108

  569

  Coatbridge and Chryston

  1,059

  528

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  845

  486

  Cunninghame, North

  1,178

  606

  Cunninghame, South

  1,394

  726

  Dumbarton

  1,344

  645

  Dumfries

  1,039

  497

  Dundee, East

  1,713

  823

  Dundee, West

  1,620

  775

  Dunfermline, East

  1,023

  506

  Dunfermline, West

  771

  380

  East Kilbride

  706

  381

  East Lothian

  436

  258

  Eastwood

  583

  296

  Edinburgh, Central

  646

  272

  Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh

  719

  311

  Edinburgh, North and Leith

  813

  366

  Edinburgh, Pentlands

  653

  310

  Edinburgh, South

  578

  297

  Edinburgh, West

  473

  246

  Falkirk, East

  934

  489

  Falkirk, West

  1,030

  545

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  766

  416

  Glasgow, Anniesland

  1,216

  493

  Glasgow, Baillieston

  1,450

  613

  Glasgow, Cathcart

  938

  414

  Glasgow, Govan

  1,179

  482

  Glasgow, Kelvin

  979

  347

  Glasgow, Maryhill

  1,511

  570

  Glasgow, Pollok

  1,206

  536

  Glasgow, Rutherglen

  914

  414

  Glasgow, Shettleston

  1,497

  618

  Glasgow, Springburn

  1,781

  749

  Gordon

  359

  186

  Greenock and Inverclyde

  830

  425

  Hamilton, North and Bellshill

  1,193

  634

  270W

  Parliamentary constituency

  Starters

  Jobs

  Hamilton, South

  1,046

  502

  Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber

  548

  287

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  1,375

  636

  Kirkcaldy

  1,328

  595

  Linlithgow

  725

  402

  ivingston

  917

  512

  Midlothian

  472

  265

  Moray

  641

  392

  Motherwell and Wishaw

  1,282

  618

  North-East Fife

  489

  220

  North Tayside

  663

  338

  Ochil

  1,056

  516

  Orkney and Shetland

  204

  122

  Paisley, North

  989

  505

  Paisley, South

  941

  485

  Perth

  655

  377

  Ross, Skye and Inverness, West

  650

  359

  Roxburgh and Berwickshire

  576

  303

  Stirling

  678

  315

  Strathkelvin and Bearsden

  660

  370

  Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale

  530

  291

  West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine

  281

  136

  West Renfrewshire

  550

  291

  Western Isles

  294

  165

  Total

  64.400

  31,268

  Salmon Farming
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of salmon farming undertakings in the UK were UK-owned in 1995; and if she will make a statement. [154143]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Details of the ultimate ownership of salmon farming businesses are not routinely collected.

  However, a study on the economic impact of the salmon farming industry, published in 1999 by the then Scottish Office, reported that a one-off survey of the Scottish industry had found that in 1996, 19 companies, representing at that time 47 per cent. of salmon production, were foreign-owned.

  Salmon farming is devolved and is now a matter for the Scottish Executive.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland Bill)
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Advocate-General for Scotland on what date she notified the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament that she did not intend to refer the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Bill to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. [147384]

  The Advocate-General
  My Legal Secretary wrote to the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament on 22 September 2000 to notify him that I did not intend to make a reference in respect of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Bill to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council under section 33(1) of the Scotland Act 1998.
  271W

WALES

  Poverty in Wales
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) people and (b) children were living in poverty in Wales in (i) 1997, (ii) 1998, (iii) 1999, (iv) 2000 and (v) 2001. [153166]

  Mr. Bayley
  I have been asked to reply.

  Poverty and social exclusion are complex multidimensional issues, affecting many aspects of people's lives—including income, health, housing, the quality of their environment and opportunities to learn. There is no single measure that can capture the complex problems that need to be overcome.

  However a number of these aspects have seen significant improvement in Wales since 1997. For example, the number of unemployed people in Wales has fallen by around 35,000 from nearly 90,000 in February 1997 to around 55,000 in February 2001. Between 1997 and 2000 the number of children in families in Wales in receipt of out of work benefits has fallen from 160,000 to around 145,000. The proportion of 11-year-olds in Wales achieving level 4 or above at Key Stage 2 has risen in English from 64 per cent. in 1997 to 74 per cent. in 2000 and in Mathematics from 64 per cent. in 1997 to 69 per cent. in 2000.

  The annual report, "Opportunity for all", available in the Library, sets out and monitors the UK Government's strategy for tackling poverty and social exclusion. The UK Government are working in partnership with the National Assembly for Wales to tackle poverty and social exclusion in Wales.

  Note:

  Unemployment figures based on claimant count information.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the(a) dates and (b) locations of his meetings with the Irish Prime Minister between 1 July and 31 December 1999. [154766]

  The Prime Minister
  I met the Taoiseach on the following occasions between 1 July and 31 December 1999:

  Date

  Location/Event

  1 July

  Meetings at Castle Buildings

  2 July

  Breakfast at Hillsborough and meetings at Castle Buildings

  20 July

  Meeting at No. 10

  6 September

  Meetings at No. 10

  14 October

  Bilateral talks, Finland

  9 December

  Bilateral talks, Helsinki

  17 December

  British/Irish Council at Lancaster Gate and press briefing at No. 10

  272W

  Social Exclusion
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Prime Minister what progress has been made on tackling social exclusion; and if he will make a statement. [155228]

  The Prime Minister
  The Social Exclusion Unit is today publishing a report, "Preventing Social Exclusion", which sets out the Government's approach to tackling social exclusion and the results that have been delivered so far in preventing social exclusion, reintegrating those who become excluded, and delivering basic minimum standards. It is a long-term approach, but clear results are now coming through:One million more people are in work, and claimant unemployment has fallen to below 1 million for the first time since 1975. Unemployment has fallen fastest in the most deprived areas;
  Educational achievement is improving—higher standards than ever before for 11-year-olds in English and maths with a 10 and 13 per cent. improvement in each subject respectively between 1998 and 2000;
  More than a million children have been lifted out of poverty;
  Overall crime is falling and burglary is down by a quarter since 1997.

  Clear results are also coming through on the specific topics tackled by the Social Exclusion Unit;
  A fall in the numbers of rough sleepers of over a third between June 1998 and June 2000;
  A drop in school exclusions of nearly a fifth between 1997 and 1999. A third of all local education authorities provided full-time education for excluded pupils in 2000 and two-thirds plan to do so in 2001;
  A fall of over 15 per cent. between 1998 and 1999 in the numbers of 16 to 18-year-olds not in education, employment and training;
  A clear downward trend in teenage conceptions and an increase in the proportion of teenage parents in training, education or employment from 16 per cent. in 1997 to 31 per cent. in 2000;
  Progress in reducing the national truancy rate has been disappointing. Although some local areas have reduced truancy rates the national rate has remained static since 1997. This is being urgently addressed;
  The National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal was finalised in January this year. This is an unashamedly long-term plan, laying the foundations to ensure that within 10 to 20 years, no-one should be seriously disadvantaged by where they live.

  The Social Exclusion Unit's future priorities are going to be: to complete the current project on reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners; to follow up initial work on young runaways, on which a background paper is being published today; and to start two new projects on the educational attainment of children in care, and transport and social exclusion.

  An overall strategy for working with children and young people is being developed by the Children and Young People's Unit. As a first step, they are today publishing "Tomorrow's Future: Building a Strategy for Children and Young People", which sets the Government's intent to work with children and young people and a wide range of stakeholders in developing the strategy.

  Copies of all three reports have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
  273W

  Sir Richard Evans
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions he has met Sir Richard Evans at No. 10 Downing street since 1 May 1997. [154336]

  The Prime Minister
  I have meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals. As with previous Administrations it is not my practice to provide details of all such meetings.

CABINET OFFICE

  Anti-drugs Strategy
  8. Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement about the Government's anti-drugs strategy. [153308]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator's Annual Report for 1999–2000 shows that we are making progress towards meeting the challenging targets we have set as part our 10-year anti-drugs strategy.

  Colleagues in Wales have launched "Tackling Substance Misuse in Wales: A Partnership approach". This reflects many of the key elements of the UK anti-drugs strategy but also covers the full range of substances misused in Wales, including alcohol.

  We announced significant additional investment for targeted action in England and in the Budget. Similar provision is being made in Wales. National Assembly plans for 2002–03 and 2003–04 also provide for increases of £1 million and £1.5 million respectively. This represents nearly 60 per cent. increase in direct expenditure by the Assembly to combat substance misuse.

  10. Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what recent meetings she has had with her counterparts in other countries on anti-drugs initiatives. [153310]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  One of the four key aims of the Government's drugs strategy is to reduce the availability of Class A drugs in the UK.

  Progress is being achieved through co-ordinated interdepartmental activity on agreed priorities, resulting in increased seizures of heroin and cocaine en-route to the UK and increased disruption of criminal groups involved in trafficking.

  The UK is also active in international forums, including the UN, G8 and EU, aimed at strengthening the global framework for tackling the illicit drugs trade.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the Government's anti-drugs policy. [153316]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator's Annual Report for 1999–2000 shows that we are making progress towards meeting the challenging targets we have set as part our 10-year anti-drugs strategy.

  We recognise the particular importance of tackling the problem at local level and that there is more to do. That is why we announced in the Budget significant additional investment for targeted action at local level.
  274W
  This will give the Wirral Drugs Action Team an opportunity to work with local Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships to help local communities disrupt local drug markets and tackle drug related crime and the anti-social behaviour so often associated with it.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what discussions she has had with the Government's Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator on trends in the number of deaths from class A drugs since the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. [153327]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I hold regular meetings with the Government's Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator to discuss all aspects of the Government's anti-drug strategy, including the changes in the deaths from Class A drugs.

  International Drugs Strategy
  9. Angela Smith
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on progress in tackling the international drugs trade. [153309]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  As part of my recent visits to Jamaica, Iran, the USA and Colombia, I have held meetings with Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General, Condi Rice, the US National Security Adviser, President Pastrana of Colombia and others, to help strengthen our working partnerships against the destructive international drugs trade and share information and ideas for future action.

  People's Panel
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what agricultural issues have been referred to the People's Panel for its views. [153311]

  Mr. Stringer
  No research has been conducted through the People's Panel on agricultural issues, though several food-related questions have been examined.

  Better Regulation Taskforce
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the work of the better regulation taskforce. [153313]

  Mr. Stringer
  The independent Better Regulation Task Force produced eight valuable reports last year, and is now studying the economic regulators, the impact of housing benefit on lone parents, regulations affecting small shopkeepers and issues around risk.

  Class A Drug Use (Young People)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what analysis she has made of changes in the level of use of(a) heroin and (b) cocaine by young people since 1997. [153314]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Figures from the British Crime Survey show that the use of heroin remained steady between 1996 and 1998 with fewer than 0.5 per cent. of 16 to 24-year-olds using it in the last year. However, for cocaine there was an increase from 1 per cent. in 1996 to 3 per cent. in 1998.

  For the 11–15 age group heroin use has also remained steady between 1998 and 1999 with fewer than 0.5 per cent. of young people using it in the last year.
  275W
  Cocaine use also remained steady between 1998 and 1999 with 1 per cent. of 11 to 15-year-olds using it in the last year.

  We have set challenging targets to halve the numbers of young people using illegal drugs by 2008 and have recently announced an extra £152 million package from April 2001 to March 2004 for spending on education, prevention and treatment services for young people.

  There is concern about young people's involvement with drugs, crack in particular. The Southwark DAT have commissioned further work, borough wide, to explore young people's drug use and their involvement in drug dealing in more depth to inform the future development of services.

  Rural Affairs
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the impact of the ministerial group on rural affairs. [153315]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Ministerial Group on Rural Affairs helps ensure a joined-up approach to rural issues. Although details of Cabinet Committee business are not disclosed, a good example of that approach in action is the Rural White Paper, published on 28 November.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what action she has taken to co-ordinate Government policy on rural affairs since the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. [153320]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I have been abroad on business during the outbreak of the disease.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture has been in the lead during this outbreak. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has kept a close eye on developments and has established a Rural Relief Task Force under my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment.

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the impact of the ministerial group on rural affairs. [153325]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The ministerial group on rural affairs helps ensure a joined-up approach to rural issues. Although details of Cabinet Committee business are not disclosed, a good example of that approach in action is the Rural White Paper, published on 28 November.

  Farming
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office in what way she will be involved in the reappraisal of the role of British farming. [R] [153317]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Ministerial Group on Rural Affairs co-ordinates the Government's policies affecting rural areas, including those relating to farming.

  Cannabis
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans she has to legalise cannabis. [153318]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Government have a clear and consistent policy towards all illicit drugs based on the evidence of the harm they cause.
  276W
  Cannabis is a controlled drug for scientific reasons. We are still learning about the health risks, including chronic health effects such as the risk of cancer. The Government will keep the evidence under review.

  As far as cannabis use for medicinal purposes is concerned, the UK is leading the world in research into the possible medical benefits of cannabis derivatives.

  The Government are supporting a major research project which will be concluded within the next two years. If the current clinical trials into cannabis are successful and lead to the development of an effective cannabis-based medicine which is granted a marketing authorisation by the Medicines Control Agency, the Government have made it clear that they would be willing to amend the misuse of drugs regulations to allow such a medicine to be prescribed by doctors.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps have been taken to monitor the performance of each Government Department in recruiting and promoting people with disabilities. [153319]

  Mr. Stringer
  All Departments report to Ministers annually on:

  (a) Progress to double the number of people with disabilities in the senior Civil Service

  (b) Performance against targets covering other staff in their organisation.

  Regulatory Reform Bill
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what measures of deregulation she plans to introduce in the next 12 months following the passing of regulatory reform legislation. [153322]

  Mr. Stringer
  On Monday 19 March, I placed a list of proposals that could be enacted under the Regulatory Reform Bill in the House Library.

  The Bill received its Second Reading the same day.

  Consultation documents issued this week on five measures from that list. These will:
  simplify, speed up and make fairer the procedures for renewing business leases;
  place local authority business tenants on the same footing with lease renewals as other business tenants;
  deregulate new year's eve licensing and the Queen's Golden Jubilee; and
  reform the grants and loans arrangements for the renewal of private sector housing; and
  allow people to use banknotes and smartcards when playing with gaming machines.

  The full list of 51 proposals currently stands as follows:

  1. Abolition of 20 partner limit (DTI)

  2. After-hours child care at schools (DfEE)

  3. Approving a LEA's curriculum complaints procedures (DfEE)

  4. Attachment of Earnings (LCD)

  5. Births and Deaths—Wales (ONS)

  6. Births and Deaths—errors on certificates (ONS/HMT)

  7. Bootleggers—Disclosure of names (HM Customs and Excise)

  277W

  8. Building Regulations (DETR)

  9. Business tenancies (DETR)

  10. Civil Registration Service Reform (ONS/HMT)

  11. Copyright and Patents (Patent Office)

  12. Dental services-provision by corporate bodies (DoH)

  13. Disclosure of information by MAFF to, HSE (MAFF)

  14. Disposal of land at less than best price (DETR)

  15. DVLA links with Benefit Agency (DVLA)

  16. DVLA/Passport Agency Data Links (DVLA)

  17. Environment Agency Legislative Review (DETR)

  18. Fire safety (Home Office)

  19. Gaming Machines (Home Office)

  20. Grants and loans for the renewal of private sector housing (DETR)

  21. Home Grown Cereals Authority: Approval by Ministers of pensions and gratuities and arrangements for maintaining pension schemes (MAFF)

  22. Home Grown Cereals Authority: Approval by the Treasury of remuneration for advisory committee members (MAFF)

  23. Home Grown Cereals Authority: Corn Returns (MAFF)

  24. Housing Transfers (DETR)

  25. Invalid Care Allowance (DSS)

  26. Landlord and Tenant Act s.57 (DETR)

  27. Legal Services Ombudsman—personal signature (LCD)

  28. Meat and Livestock Commission—extension of powers (MAFF)

  29. Medicine Licences (DoH)

  30. New Years Eve deregulation (Home Office)

  31. NHS Accounting for charitable funds (DoH)

  32. National Insurance Contributions (NICS)—Third party awards to employees (Inland Revenue)

  33. Orders removing exemptions from caravan site licensing (DETR)

  34. Public Health Legislation—comminunicable disease (DoH)

  35. Reform of charity law (Home Office Charity Commission)

  36. Reform of Gambling—Bingo (Home Office)

  37. Reform of Unsolicited Goods and Service Act (DTI)

  38. Rehabilitation of offenders—caution reprimands and final warnings (Home Office)

  39. Repeal of Trading Stamps Act (DTI)

  40. Restaurant licensing hours (Home Office)

  41. Road Traffic Regulation (DETR)

  42. Sexual Offences and access to victim material (Home Office)

  43. Solicitors Act 1974 (LCD)

  44. Street Trading (Home Office)

  45. Tree Preservation Order System (DETR)

  46. Unfair contract terms (DTI)

  47. Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme (DSS)

  48. Vehicle Crime Reduction—Seriously Damaged Vehicle Information Hot Line and Mandatory Mileage Recording (DVLA)

  49. Vexatious Litigants (LCD)

  50. Voluntary aided schools capital funding arrangements (DfEE)

  51. Weights and measures (DTI)

  Modernising Government Programme
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress has been made in the Modernising Government Programme to ensure that correspondence between hon. Members and Ministers can be electronic. [153324]
  278W
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Following the commitment given in the Modernising Government White Paper, all Departments now have a central email address to which hon. Members, and members of the public, can mail their correspondence. Details of Departments' email addresses can be found on each Department's website.

  E-signatures
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress has been made in implementing policy on the use of e-signatures. [153328]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Good progress has been made in implementing policy on the use of electronic signatures.

  The electronic signature registration process on the Government Gateway, which provides an authentication mechanism for citizens and businesses using Government services, went live early in February 2001.

  The Inland Revenue has introduced electronic filing of tax returns, and PAYE end of year returns, both certified by a form of electronic signature.

  Customs and Excise is introducing electronic filing of VAT returns, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is introducing an electronic Area Aid Application service for farmers. Both these services will be available in March 2001 and will use electronic signatures.

  Orders are planned under section 8 of the Electronic Communications Act 2000 to enable Departments to accept electronic signatures for various transactions. Examples are electronic conveyancing, the use of electronic signatures by general practitioners on electronic prescriptions and by Ministers on newly made Statutory Instruments transmitted electronically to HMSO.

  Civil Service Posts (Relocation)
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many Civil Service posts have been moved from London to the regions since May 1997. [153329]

  Mr. Stringer
  The information is not available in the form requested. In April 1997, there were 475,341 permanent Civil Service staff of whom 86,640 were working in London. By April 1999, of 460,039 permanent staff, 84,420 worked in London. The proportion of staff working in the capital has changed very little, from 18.2 per cent. to 18.4 per cent. over the same period.

  Ministerial Visit (Iran)
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement about her recent visit to Iran. [153330]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay).

  Knowledge Network
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what has been the cost to the Government of the new Knowledge Network system; and if she will make a statement. 1153404]
  279W
  Marjorie Mowlam
  The cost to the Government of the new Knowledge Network system has been £3.6 million (GBP) to date.

  Departmental Policies (Lincoln)
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Lincoln constituency, the effects on Lincoln of her Office's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [152984]

  Mr. Stringer
  The policy recommendations in Cabinet Office reports relate to England as a whole and it is therefore not possible to say what their specific impact is on a particular constituency. Additionally, any policy changes arising from Cabinet Office unit reports, such as the Social Exclusion Unit and the United Kingdom
  280W
  Anti-Drugs Co-ordination Unit, are implemented by the appropriate Government Department rather than by the Unit itself.

  Departmental Policies (Lancaster and Wyre)
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will set out, with statistical information relating as directly is possible to the Lancaster and Wyre constituency, the effects on Lancaster and Wyre of her Office's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154689]

  Mr. Stringer
  The policy recommendations in Cabinet Office reports relate to England as a whole and it is therefore not possible to say what their specific impact is on a particular constituency. Additionally, any policy changes arising from Cabinet Office unit reports, such as the Social Exclusion Unit and the United Kingdom Anti-Drugs Co-ordination Unit, are implemented by the appropriate Government Department rather than by the Unit itself.

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

Council of the Isles
Lord Wallace of Saltaireasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the development of the Council of the Isles is satisfactory.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, the British-Irish Council—as the Council of the Isles is more properly known—has met three times, once at summit level and twice in sectoral format. The council has agreed an initial programme of work to include: the environment, social inclusion, the knowledge economy and drugs. Drugs will be the main substantive item for discussion at the next summit, to be held in Dublin. The date of this meeting has been postponed, most recently to allow continuing political discussions on the implementation of the Good Friday agreement. In the meantime, work continues at official level.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that informative Answer. If it is simply to be the "British-Irish" Council, does that imply that the association with the council of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands is an entirely subordinate, third-level matter? Has the idea of a Council of the Isles on which the Scottish and Welsh, as well as the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, would be represented as part of a broader picture bringing together British and Irish interests in the wider constitutional context, now been left behind? Are we down simply to a British-Irish forum?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, my Lords; it was intended that the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man should also be included. I am happy to be able to say that officials will meet on the issue within the next few weeks in Jersey, to indicate the continuing importance of places such as the Channel Islands.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, of precisely what islands is the Council of the Isles the council? My understanding is that it was the council through which in the old days the Lord of the Isles governed his estate. If any of the Scottish islands are involved, is that not a devolved matter?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the places involved are: Scotland, England, Northern Ireland, Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, do the Government consider that the council could be a helpful context in which to carry on further implementation of the Belfast agreement?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the council is referred to in the Belfast agreement. It is intended to improve the totality of the relationships between all of these places.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, no one whom I have asked in the past week beyond the Palace of Westminster has known what the council is. Will the Minister undertake to make the workings and meetings of the British-Irish Council easily accessible to the public so that knowledge of it may increase?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not know to whom the noble Baroness talks on a regular basis, but the council was referred to specifically in relation to the Good Friday agreement. It is an important part of the agreement and the work that it does is important.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister consider that Scottish-English relations might usefully be discussed within the council? I have heard a number of leading Irish politicians talk about the utility of the Council of the Isles in future, particularly following any change of government at the English level, and about how they would be actively interested in mediating the peculiar triangle that is Scotland, England and Northern Ireland, which are quadrilateral with southern Ireland.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I think that improvement in the totality of all the relationships, which is the purpose of the Council of the Isles, would be helpful for all of the places involved.

Crown Immunity
2.40 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Wirralasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to remove Crown immunity under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, including the present immunity which extends to the Palace of Westminster.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government announced their intention to remove Crown immunity from the statutory enforcement of health and safety law in the Revitalising Health and Safety strategy statement which was published in June last year. In Parliament the situation is somewhat different. However, we have the agreement in principle of the House authorities to apply health and safety

1419
legislation to the Parliamentary Estate. Both of these measures are being considered for the safety Bill that the Government are currently drafting.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, will he accept that there is a degree of impatience about the issue because the same commitment was given by the previous government? So far as concerns the Palace of Westminster, the reason why it has not been possible to move as fast as some of us would have liked has been the lack of accommodation. The fact that the Minister's right honourable and honourable friends at Her Majesty's Treasury have authorised the expenditure of a substantial sum of public money on a property known as Portcullis House will mean the release of a substantial amount of accommodation within the Palace of Westminster. Will the Minister ensure a fair balance in terms of the use of accommodation between the House of Lords and the other place? Will he ensure not only that the changing and dining facilities for our staff are upgraded, but also that accommodation for Members of this House, for their staff and for others who work within the Palace of Westminster conforms to the necessary legislation?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I fear that it would not be proper to reply to the bulk of that supplementary question, as it is a matter for the House authorities, in terms of budgets and their relationship to another place, rather than for any government Minister. The Government have a commitment to legislate—indeed, reference was made in the Queen's Speech to pre-legislative scrutiny in relation to a safety Bill. We are currently drafting a Bill that will include provisions to remove Crown immunity from all Crown properties. As I say, the Parliamentary Estate is slightly different; however, the Bill will cover that as well and will ensure the direct application of health and safety legislation to the Palace of Westminster and the enforcement of that legislation.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is ironic that successive governments have legislated for all of us, especially for any wrongdoing, but have used Crown immunity to protect themselves and to exonerate themselves from any wrongdoing? Does my noble friend recall that in the Commons some years ago some of us managed to get Crown immunity lifted in relation to dirty and dangerous kitchens, which previously could not be inspected? We also managed to get Crown immunity lifted for service personnel who wanted to make claims for negligence during training but could not do so. I welcome my noble friend's historic announcement. It will strip government of their historic defence, and it is a genuine indication of open government. When will it be done?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I accept that this has been a problem in regard to health and safety legislation for many years and that it has become caught up with the legal and almost theological arguments about whether
1420
the Crown can sue itself at law. What is really important here is the protection of those who work on Crown properties and for Crown employers, as well as for those who pass through such premises. That is what our legislation will be designed to remedy. As I say, the safety Bill is currently being drafted. It was referred to in the Queen's Speech and will be enacted by this Government in this, or possibly the next, Session.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, can the Minister hold out any hope that, under this new regime, the temperature of this place will be kept at a reasonable level above freezing point?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, although I have deep sympathy with the noble Lord's predicament, again, it is hardly a matter for the Government; indeed, it is a matter for the House authorities. Should the noble Lord wish to address such a question to them, I have no doubt that he will receive a warm answer.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, will the Minister accept that many staff employed in this building work and live in conditions that would be totally unacceptable anywhere else in the country? Does the noble Lord further accept that there is no way that the Government, this House or Parliament itself can shelter behind anyone else's responsibility? If they wish to deal with the situation, nothing can stop them—or does the noble Lord believe that that is wrong?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the question is what law applies. The House authorities have committed themselves to following health and safety regulations as far as concerns this House and, indeed, another place. There is a House of Lords Safety Policy that meets the best requirements of health and safety practice. There are problems associated with operating it within this building, but the House authorities have addressed that. Therefore, I do not want any implication to be taken of criticism of the House authorities. However, how they take it further in terms of the health and safety regime is a matter for them rather than us. Our responsibility is to ensure that the law applies equally to all work places.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I should like clarification of my noble friend's reply to the first supplementary question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. When responding, my noble friend said that it is not for the Government to decide such matters. Can he confirm that neither is it a matter for the usual channels; it is matter for the House itself?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords. My noble friend is absolutely right: it is a matter for the House itself.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Refreshment Committee of your Lordships' House. Has the Minister had the privilege, as I have—the shocking privilege—of visiting the

1421
kitchens of your Lordships' House? In support of the noble Lords, Lord Ashley and Lord Marsh, I should tell the noble Lord that, if he did so, he would be horrified by the conditions that he would find. Will the noble Lord prevail upon his noble and right honourable friends, especially those in the Treasury, to release money to improve these appalling conditions?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as it happens, I have visited the kitchens on occasions, both many years ago when I was an officer of a union that used to represent staff within this building—indeed, I should perhaps have declared a past interest in that respect—and also more recently. I believe that things have improved, at least a bit. However, the purport of the noble Lord's question is probably to get me involved in matters that are primarily the duty of the House authorities. I shall, therefore, not fall into that trap.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, if my noble friend the Minister will not fall into that trap, will he at least join with all of us on both sides of the House in paying tribute to the staff of the Palace of Westminster, not least for their perennial patience towards us and their efficiency? Will he also ensure that an investigation is carried out into the reasons why so many of them quietly tell us of the difficulties that they endure in serving the Members of both Houses of Parliament? If, as my noble friend said, there is an agreement in principle that the conditions are to be raised to the same standards as exist elsewhere—not in Royal palaces—why should they not be subject to the same laws as apply elsewhere? Indeed, why should not the staff be protected by the same laws as everyone else? That would reflect our appreciation of them.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in terms of the first part of my noble friend's question, I wholeheartedly endorse his comments as regards the service and the dedication that we receive from staff in this building; and, indeed, that appreciation applies to our colleagues in another place. I recognise the often very difficult conditions under which they work. As to the middle part of my noble friend's intervention, I must again side step that question because that is primarily a matter for the House authorities. However, broadly speaking, I would agree with the last part of his intervention.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, on the question of safety and immunity, I am sure that some other noble Lords present today will remember the occasion in this Chamber when parts of the ceiling fell off and almost landed on the late Lord Shinwell; and, indeed, could have caused him, or any other Peer who happened to be sitting in the area below, quite considerable harm. Can the Minister tell us who is responsible if injury occurs to a Peer as a result of such a situation?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, one of my noble friends says "God". The legal situation is complex, but I am sure that the House authorities would observe their
1422
obligations in that respect had an injury—which thank goodness did not occur—been sustained by Lord Shinwell.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, how long will it take to change the light bulb on the right hand side of the Throne?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not think that I need consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that; I think that the House authorities have sufficient funds.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, do the mice in the Bishop's Bar and the Peers' Guestroom have Crown immunity, or can something be done about them?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, clearly that again is the responsibility of the House authorities. I may have a residual departmental responsibility in respect of biodiversity, but I think primarily it is someone else's responsibility. Clearly their appearance there is to he regretted, however much we might like them in other contexts.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, reminded us. previous governments have removed Crown immunity from hospitals and from members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces. If Crown immunity has been removed from them, why is it proving so impossible to do it in the Palace of Westminster?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I hope that we are reaching a situation where that is not impossible. Indeed, some movement in that direction was taken when we established the Food Standards Agency. The reason for the situation—I described it earlier as slightly theological—is that the Crown cannot sue itself, whereas since the establishment of trusts in the National Health Service there is a body to prosecute. Such a body does not exist as regards government departments, including MoD departments. However, the arrangements as regards the MoD differ according to the different locations of both civil and military personnel. We intend to clarify the whole situation so that the same laws can be enforced and applied to premises where people are employed by Crown bodies as apply to any other employer.

Bogus Marriages: Checks by Registrars
2.52 p.m.
Lord Williamson of Hortonasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the recent BBC exposure of the scale of bogus marriages for payment, they 'will take measures to reduce such practices; for example, by greater powers for registrars to check false

1423
addresses and better exchange of information about those who present themselves for unlawful or bogus marriages.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, following the implementation of the marriage aspects of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 on 1st January 2001, people are required to provide documentation as part of the procedures for dealing with the civil preliminaries to marriage. The Government are also undertaking a fundamental review of civil registration in England and Wales, the aims of which include an improvement in the quality of information that is collected, and better and wider use of technology.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. However, does he not agree that it is in the public interest and, indeed, possible to take practical steps to reduce or eliminate the current "rent a bride" racket which is not only intended to circumvent the immigration and residence rules but is indeed making a mockery of marriage?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is important to remember that we have to maintain a balance. We have to have marriage laws which are not discriminatory as between any part of our population. We have to make sure that it is not unnecessarily difficult for people who legitimately want to get married to do so. At the same time we have to make sure that our laws are the same for everyone. That means that sometimes there will be bigamous marriages, marriages which involve perjury or marriages of people who have entered this country illegally.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, has the registrar the legal obligation to report suspicious circumstances when they occur?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that formed part of the provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Not only is there a responsibility on registrars to make such reports, but there is now a specialist unit in the asylum and naturalisation division to which such a report can be made.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, what has been the effect of the new measures which started in January? Is it too soon to say how effective they are?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is rather too soon. Since the London Marriage Abuse Team was set up in the asylum and naturalisation division, there have been over 200 arrests, over 100 people have been charged or cautioned, and more than 40 people have been removed or deported. But that occurred over a period of two years. The 10 or 11 weeks that have elapsed since 1st January comprise too short a period for statistical comparison.

Tourism and Foot and Mouth Disease
2.55 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholmasked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of the encouragement given by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to tourists to continue to visit the British countryside, how this advice compares with the experience of the 1967 outbreak of foot and mouth disease.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government's Chief Veterinary Officer has issued advice to the public on countryside activities and visits based on the most up-to-date expert advice and evidence. The committee of inquiry into the 1967 outbreak made no recommendations relating to controlling visitors during an outbreak. As long as they follow the Chief Veterinary Officer's advice, people may safely continue to visit and enjoy the countryside.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer, and indeed I thank the Government for the Statement yesterday on the crisis in the countryside. I should declare an interest as one who is likely to lose his breeding flock under the cull scheme to be carried out next week.
Does the noble Lord agree that Dumfries and Galloway Council has made heroic efforts to contain the disease in that county? Does he believe that the Scottish Office and MAFF have sufficient resources, in terms of physical resources and facilities, to carry out the cull speedily in the country? Does he agree that few who read the 1967 report believe that we have reached a peak in the crisis and that the recommendations in that report should be implemented as soon as possible, particularly those relating to the disposal of carcasses and communications with the public?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper concerns tourism, which is why I am replying to it. In view of the extensive debate we had on the foot and mouth outbreak in this country, including nine hours of debate last week and a Statement yesterday, it is not desirable for me to put into other words comments that my colleagues from MAFF and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions have made in the House. I appreciate the tribute which the noble Lord paid to Dumfries and Galloway Council. He paid it last week and I am sure that it is well deserved. However, although I answer for the whole Government, I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to answer again on the other matters that he raises.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are throughout the countryside other interests as well as agriculture which we must of course treat as priorities? Does he agree that it is important to strike a balance between those other interests, including tourism—which in this

1425
country is a bigger foreign exchange earner than agriculture—and to make sure that there is a proper awareness throughout the country that much of the countryside is still available for enjoyment?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I very much agree. I do not know whether the noble Lord saw a report in The Times this morning which described how the village of Porlock in Somerset is deserted despite being 60 miles from the nearest outbreak of foot and mouth disease. The fact that struck me is that in that area 90 per cent of the land is in agricultural use but 90 per cent of the employment derives from tourism. That is often the case. Of course, there is no restriction on people visiting shops, museums, galleries, restaurants, pubs, theme parks and other attractions; what they must not do is walk in fields where there is livestock. There is a huge number of attractive places to visit, including countryside, in this country. The Minister for Tourism is in New York at the moment to spread that message.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the members of the Federation of Zoological Gardens of Great Britain—namely, the zoos and wildlife parks, which receive somewhere in the region of 13 million visits from tourists each year—will, according to that federation, be in a cash crisis by April of this year? Is the noble Lord also aware that 45 per cent of the members of that federation are charities and small businesses? How will the Government address those problems?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord refers to a problem which is more widespread than zoos. It applies to a large number of visitor attractions throughout the country. Clearly the measures in relation to tax, national insurance contributions, business rates and so on which my noble friend Lord Whitty announced yesterday on behalf of Michael Meacher go some way towards dealing with that. I have to repeat what my noble friend Lady Hayman said at the end of the debate last week. The Government cannot be the insurer of last resort for every financial consequence.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, will the Minister consider a national appeal based on the premise that we are in a national emergency? Would not that help those involved in tourism and activities around farming? If we were to declare forthwith a national emergency and issue a national appeal for the support of the rural economy, would not that be a unifying factor for the nation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it might be a two-edged weapon. If we were to declare a national emergency we might make the situation worse by discouraging tourists from coming to this country. I think that probably the same consideration applies to the suggestion of a national appeal.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the outbreak of foot and mouth disease has
1426
highlighted the economic importance to the United Kingdom of tourism? In the light of that, does he find it odd, as I do, that an entire Ministry is accorded to agriculture yet tourism does not feature even in the title of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, tourism does not feature in the title of the DCMS but it features in its activities. We have a very effective tourism Minister in Janet Anderson, who has been visiting, as has the Secretary of State, the affected areas of this country. My noble friend is right about the importance of tourism. It is a £64 billion industry, of which £12 billion is in the countryside. That importance cannot be overestimated.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, my question relates to the 1967 review. If I remember aright, the criticism after the 1967 review was that the rules had been relaxed too quickly. Many will welcome the Statement yesterday. However, does the Minister accept that there is a good deal of confusion? It was expressed in many newspapers today. On the one hand, we had yet more outbreaks yesterday; at the same time there is the proposed relaxation of access to footpaths. Will not people be confused in particular when they are told not to go into livestock areas? Will the noble Lord please tell me where I find an area which is not a livestock area? There are foxes in London. There are animals, wild or commercial, throughout the country. In those circumstances, how does one define those areas where people can move freely?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord was a distinguished member of the Duke of Northumberland's inquiry into the 1967 outbreak. His knowledge of it will inevitably be much better than mine. I was not familiar with the finding that the restrictions were relaxed too quickly.
I do not think that it is true to say that the restrictions are being relaxed. They are being explained more clearly. The fact that large parts of the country are free from the disease is being made clear to those who have exaggerated fears. Although the outbreaks still continue, two-thirds of the outbreaks yesterday were either in Cumbria or in Dumfries and Galloway. That confirms that for the sake of the wider rural economy it is important that we continue to emphasise the extent to which this country and its countryside can still be a valuable and important tourist attraction.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have today cancelled the opening of my garden in early April in aid of the Scotland's garden scheme? Although we are not in an affected area, we are surrounded by livestock and animals and I am worried about the infection spreading further.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness acted on proper local veterinary advice.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, do the Government understand the problems experienced by outdoor centre instructors and guides? Many are self-employed. Often 100 per cent of their business is based on taking people into open countryside, which is now closed, and is concentrated in Wales, Cumbria and Dartmoor, areas which are affected by the disease. Is the Government's task force paying attention to the need of this vital sector—in particular with regard to education—which runs the risk of being wiped out?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, yes. The recommendations of the task force were reported yesterday. They apply to all businesses and charities and cover outdoor centres of the kind the noble Lord describes. It is worth emphasising that this is not the final report. Work is continuing. If further action is necessary, it will be taken.

Devolution: England
3.6 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Durhamrose to call attention to the case for devolution to the English regions; and to move for Papers.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I must first declare an interest in devolution as I chair the North East Constitutional Convention. My intention in seeking this debate is not, however, to make a special case for one particular region but to give your Lordships the opportunity of expressing your views on political devolution in England and to seek a response from the Government about their future intentions in the programme of constitutional reform on which they are embarked.
The present Government have indeed been bold against the background of public disillusionment in the political processes. Low percentages of turn-out in elections indicate that voters have lost confidence in what they perceive to be an over-centralised and unresponsive political system. Within a year of the last general election the Prime Minister renewed his commitment to democratic renewal by emphasising the need for better education and the wider use of information technology so that citizens might be encouraged to participate in what he called,
"open, vibrant, democratic debate which is a laboratory for ideas about how we should meet social need".
I have become involved in this issue because I believe that it is only when people genuinely participate in the political process that real change in society will occur. We need to move from a dependency culture into one which enables all to influence the decisions which affect their lives and to take responsibility for them.
The past four years have seen significant steps towards fundamental changes in the way the constitution operates. The devolution in Scotland,
1428
Wales and London, the impact of the Human Rights Act, and the first stage of reform of your Lordships' House have, in the words of Professor David Marquand,
"heralded a reconstruction of the British State more fundamental than anything which had happened to it since the Act of Union of 1707".
Perhaps it is too much to expect more from one term of government but the programme of constitutional reform seems to have got stuck. Disillusionment is again beginning to show itself. Just four months ago one poll indicated that only 1 per cent of the populace thought the present system of government worked extremely well while 64 per cent thought that it could be improved. What, I wonder, will be the turn-out in the forthcoming local elections and a possible general election? Large numbers of absentees will indicate a serious state of affairs in our democracy. There is a strong argument that the devolution programme that has begun in Britain should continue to provide the stimulus for democratic participation and a recovery of confidence in the political process.
It is argued that devolution in England is inevitable after the start made in four parts of the union. Devolution to one part of the nation must affect all others. I am sure that your Lordships do not require me to spell that out. A situation could occur in which a government were dependent on the votes of Scottish MPs, for example, to press forward with their legislation, yet, because of devolution already enacted, the English could not equally influence similar policies in Scotland.
For some, the answer is an English parliament, but surely that has serious weaknesses, for it would effect the break-up of the United Kingdom into a number of federal states with England as the dominant partner and the reason for Scottish devolution would be undermined. Moreover, an English parliament would not address the over-centralisation of government and the disenchantment that many regions feel with the metropolitan outlook.
The recognition that the English regions need regionally rooted government to devise and deliver policy effectively began some time before devolution to Scotland and Wales. The previous government set up regional offices and a variety of quangos, but those structures did not address the overall need for cohesion in regional policies. There is already a tier of government at regional level with all its attendant bureaucracy, but it is still dominated by Whitehall departments. Regional assemblies with democratic accountability would create no extra bureaucracy and would provide a regional overview that the present fragmented organisation cannot handle.
While I applaud the work of the regional development agencies, not least in the North East, they work under considerable frustration because of fragmented funding streams from the Government and the fact that they have been tied to national programmes. All that has hampered the development of regional strategies. The Government have responded to those criticisms to some extent, but there are still many areas where overlap and confusion are

1429
the order of the day. The regional economic strategies are poorly integrated with the regional planning guidance. Furthermore, regional cultural strategies, the regional transport strategy and the sustainability frameworks all ought to be addressed in an integrated and joined-up manner. In other words, while regional government offices and RDAs have been a genuine step towards a regional approach, they do not provide the overall cohesion that is needed. Nor do they fill the democratic deficit and give the people of the region the responsibility for devising and fulfilling the overall strategy that affects them. The present arrangements also make sustainable development in the regions very difficult. In order to look long term at the future of a region it is necessary to bring together environmental, economic, social and cultural concerns.
That leads to immense frustration among local authorities. Even if democratic regional assemblies are introduced, local authorities will continue their important role in service delivery, but they need to work in partnership with each other rather than in competition, as often happens at the moment. The cooperation mechanisms between local authorities are wasteful of time and money and they are still unable to achieve the cohesive strategy that is desperately needed. They are a poor alternative to democratically elected regional government.
I am advocating a number of democratically elected regional assemblies in England, which would evolve according to government guidelines but not necessarily in precisely the same pattern or at the same time in every region. Their powers would focus on cohesive strategic planning, enabling them to be streamlined and non-bureaucratic. They would be largely serviced by the current provision made for Government Offices and non-departmental government bodies. They would not create another tier of bureaucracy, but would eliminate a good deal of the present confusion. They would provide a framework in which RDAs, learning and skills councils, regional planning guidance, Government Offices, the Countryside Agency, the Housing Corporation, regional sports and cultural bodies, tourist boards, environmental agencies and offices of the NHS Executive could work together in a complementary way to provide a long-term sustainable strategy that matched the particular needs of the region.
I do not pretend that this is an easy task. There are many factors that I do not have the time—and certainly not the knowledge—to address today. However, I believe that the question has become urgent. I am glad to hear that the Government are working on a Green Paper setting out plans for elected regional government. It is vital that they do not write it from an ivory tower. When a realistic document is published, there must be informed consultation on its contents, so that when the time comes for regional referendums on the subject people are well informed about the issues at stake. Those of us who are rooted in the regions can enable that process to take place. I very much hope that the Government will take the
1430
opportunity provided by this debate to begin that initiative and provide some hard promises about their policies for the regions.
I hope the Government agree that the existing tier of regional operation is fragmented and poorly coordinated, that too much public policy does not match local conditions, that there is insufficient democratic scrutiny and that English politics needs to recognise and accommodate the rich diversity and pluralism that our nation rejoices in.
I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I conclude on a more personal note. I am often asked why a Church leader has become so involved in an intensely political issue. In the first place, I believe that the issue of regional government should be above party political divides. I am not ashamed if that sounds a little naive to many of your Lordships who have given distinguished service to the nation through party politics. I am deeply concerned that the vast majority of the population feel marginalised from the political processes that affect their lives. I long to see the people of the North East, which is the region that I know best, take a full part in the decisions that will shape their destiny. For generations they have been oppressed and have often lived desperate lives, dependent on others who seem have all the power. They have been subject to a dehumanising system that has left them feeling marooned and helpless. Closer association with the comprehensive strategies that will shape their region will free them to be even more responsible citizens and significantly help them to contribute to the common good. In this context, I am grateful that provision has been made for this debate and I look forward to listening to your Lordships' contributions and to the response of the Government. I beg to move for Papers.
3.19 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I believe that we should all be grateful to the right reverend Prelate for having initiated this debate. However, I regret that I can find so little common ground with him. We are debating this matter at a time when the public are being rudely reminded that, as a result of the machinations of the Chancellor and the profligacy of local authorities, their local tax bills are increasing well beyond the rate of inflation. The one thing of which I am absolutely sure is that people in England, who are already suffering from a surfeit of politicians and bureaucrats, do not want yet another tier of local government. But that almost certainly is what we shall get.
There was a time when Labour said that elected regional authorities would come about only after the abolition of the county councils and the creation of unitary authorities. However, I remind the House that on 16th January this year Mr Prescott said:
"We remain committed to moving to directly elected regional government. In the meantime, there are no plans to reform the structure of local government".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/1/01: col. 184.]
On 17th January, his Under-Secretary of State was even more definite, saying that the creation of regional assemblies need not be preceded by another round of

1431
local government reform. So let the public beware. Elected regional bodies will mean another layer of local government and even higher local tax bills. Of that there can be no doubt whatever.
On 26th May last year, a No. 10 spokesman was reported in the Guardian as saying:
"We need this"—
that is, regional government—
"like a hole in the head".
I agree entirely with what then appears to have been the Prime Minister's opinion.
For a start, the regions which were invented for the purposes of the Regional Development Agencies Act were, with the possible exception of the north-east region, exactly that—inventions. They were artificial creations, with one part often sharing no common problems with another and rarely reflecting any community of interest or regional loyalty. There is certainly no community of interest between the people of Nelson in north-east Lancashire, which I once represented, and the citizens of Birkenhead, let alone between those who live in Merseyside and the farmers on the banks of the Solway. And there is no conceivable community of interest between the people of Cornwall and the people of Bath.
Therefore, when power is devolved not to existing local authorities but to regional bodies, for the most part it will not mean giving power to local people; it will mean taking power from them. It will not mean government which is closer to the people but, in most of the country and certainly throughout most of Lancashire, which I know quite well, it will mean precisely the reverse.
We must be clear about another matter. If regional government comes about, it will not, as some with amazing self-deception have suggested, be a sort of English answer to Scottish devolution. The West Lothian question will not be solved by regional government. Regional government is no response to the under-representation of England in the Parliament at Westminster. Regional government alone will certainly not stop England receiving, under the Barnett formula, a far smaller share of public spending than Scotland. I assert again with absolute confidence that the best way to help the burghers of Gateshead and Bootle is not to give them more councillors but to give them more money.
No. 10 was right: we need more government like a hole in the head. The last thing that we want is more bodies trying to justify their own inflated allowances. And mark my words: elected regional assemblies will start as costly talking shops, monitoring the work of the RDAs and pontificating about planning and transport. However, in no time at all, they will demand, as indeed some chambers have done already, a wider role involving the whole economic, social and environmental well-being of the region. In short, they will be costly millstones round the necks of the people.
Lastly, I want to say a word about the important European dimension. Hearing Mr Blair rubbish our history and Mr Straw ridicule our patriotism, and
1432
seeing Mr Blair quite happily surrender more and more of Westminster's authority to Brussels, I sometimes wonder whether he would mind very much if we simply ended up as a series of provinces in a "Europe of the regions". Of course, elected regional bodies, with a corresponding decline in the importance of Westminster, will be a big step in that direction.
There is no mystery as to how we would fit into a Europe of the regions. The European Commission published a map to illustrate its thinking—a map on which every country in the European Union was depicted except England. It was not a printer's error; it was a reflection of the fact that, looked at from Brussels, Scotland is one region which can be called Scotland and Wales is another region which can be called Wales, but there is not much point in attributing a group name to a part of the United Kingdom which is made up not of one region but nine.
If we allow it to happen, regional government will bring about what can best be described as the balkanisation of England and the side-lining of our Parliament at Westminster as the regional bodies, already busy setting up separate offices in Brussels, look more and more to Brussels for direction and funding. I cannot believe that nine English regions, each competing against the others for the biggest share of grant money, will do much for harmony in our country. It certainly will not help to maintain our national identity, and that, I believe, is something which is worth preserving.
3.26 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I very much welcome the debate but, even more, I welcome the role that the right reverend Prelate plays in his own region. He has a leading role in the North East, where I believe the cross-party, cross-sector support for regional development is most important. Regional government will be most successful in areas where there is a will for it. We need to follow that will.
In response to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, I believe that we should raise our eyes to the aspiration; that we should will what we believe is good. We should not be held back by criticism of mere administration and extra bureaucracy.
I do not make light of the apparent dislike of the electorate for elections, nor of the low turnouts that we experienced in the London referendum. I declare an interest as a member of the London Assembly, although my Mancunian roots are by no means cut off. However, in London, one of our prime objectives—and certainly one of mine; it was central to my decision to stand—was the engagement of the public in the political process. That applies to all regions. I believe that regional government could offer that type of engagement, and it is very much in tune with the comments made by the right reverend Prelate.
We have talked about Scotland and Wales. I do not overlook the fact that they are nations and have a very particular identity. However, I am also aware of the jealousy—I believe that that is probably the correct

1433
term—of those who border those nations. We know of the concerns that exist in the North East. I experienced similar concerns when I went to Oswestry a little while ago. I asked one of my colleagues here what I should know about Oswestry. He said, "You should know that they are concerned about the additional funding to the Welsh Development Agency just a few miles away across the Border". That is unhealthy. However, I believe that it can be turned round if we have a regional pattern of government.
Of course, I am aware of the DETR's recent consultation paper, Strengthening Regional Accountability. I hope that this afternoon the Minister will take the opportunity to confirm to the House that the Government are looking to do more than simply strengthen the scrutiny role of the regional chambers.
People have said to me, "We want regional government like London". They should not want regional government quite like London. I do not commend the model of a single-person executive, but I do commend the sphere of government which deals with strategic matters and which can consider issues on a cohesive, integrated basis.
Good government is about accountability and accessibility. Up and down the country are quangos and government offices which I believe should be replaced by regional government. In place of an inaccessible series of organisations should be those which can be properly in the public eye.
I also believe—and this is an issue that we have previously encountered in London—that regional government should have the right directly to question government Ministers. I know that that is a sensitive issue. However, I believe that, if we are truly to appreciate regional issues, the relationship between central government and regional government could well be reflected by that direct and public debate. I must make it clear that we on these Benches do not regard that as taking power from local government, which we support and will continue to support, but of bringing it down from central government and its army of quangos.
I wish that I had more time than the few minutes available today to outline a number of topical examples that have occurred to me where regional government would have a role to play. I shall mention a few. First, arts funding; we have recently heard of Arts Council proposals for centralisation. Secondly, I cannot believe that regional government would not have a role to play in the present foot and mouth disease crisis. Thirdly, it would have a role to play in the scrutiny of health services, which your Lordships debated yesterday in the context of the Health and Social Care Bill. Fourthly, there is the longer running issue of house building and planning. The UK planning framework is probably one of the most centralised in Europe. We have heard—and I support this—that Europe is a Europe of the regions, and I hope that we in this country can play our regional part.
1434
I believe that those of us who are passionate about good government, good governance and public service must support both the concept of regionalism and the accountability of government and the involvement of our communities and individuals.
3.31 p.m.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, my noble colleague from the North West, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, used to represent Nelson and I used to represent Birkenhead and the Wirral. The noble Lord said that there was no connection whatsoever, but perhaps he would like to know that Lady Hamilton was born on the Wirral! On a more serious note, I can tell him that it would have been very useful to have discussed at the time of the local government review the promotion of unitary authorities against a background of developing local government as well.
I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham for introducing this debate on the case for the English regions. It is a subject in which we have taken a renewed interest in the wake of the success of the Scottish, Wales and Northern Ireland executives. In the regions that are furthest from London, such as our North West, the North East of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, or the South West, many of us feel like piggy-in-the-middle between London and the peripheral nations of the United Kingdom; and we often feel left out. Recent expenditure on museums in the English regions compared with those in London is a good example. If we compare the spending of the tourist boards of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland with that of England, we find that we are in a severe minority.
Nevertheless, the Government acknowledge that some problems and opportunities are regional, not national, to which end they have set up RDAs and regional chambers. I would like us to go forward and develop regional government. My experience on the North West Tourist Board and North West Arts— sufficiently large entities to contrast and promote best practice when delivering services to people—convinces me that we can develop a sense of region.
I want to concentrate today on my experience of Europe and the developing relationship of the English regions with the European Union. My experience as an MEP led me to think that we were unclear in talking to Brussels, compared to other European Union states, notably the German Länder and the Spanish authorities. When I was an MEP trying to represent Cheshire and Wirral, I well remember taking local authorities to see Bruce Millan, the then regional Commissioner, whose jaw would drop when he saw yet another of the 28 North West local authorities coming to see him. On the other hand, when he was speaking to the Germans or the Spaniards, he was able to get a clear message through about what the regional authorities required in terms of help and advice from the European Commission.
That impressed itself on me most clearly when I visited Barcelona and saw the investment that had been made and the work that had been done to

1435
improve the port facilities there. The people of Barcelona said, "We are developing very quickly. We are going to draw off some of the traffic from your region of Liverpool, Birkenhead and Merseyside because we are able to develop". But the key to their success was their ability to work with the regional authorities in Catalan, who in turn worked well with Madrid, who in turn worked well with Brussels. We have not developed that pattern in a way that would be most effective for us in the future, and I believe that the development of the English regional government will help to promote that in the future.
I have very little time and shall conclude by saying that this debate provides an opportunity for the new government, when elected, to give a voice to English regions, which will be effective not only in counselling our own government here in London but in talking to and working with Brussels.
3.36 p.m.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham for enabling us today to examine what has happened to the notion of regionally elected assemblies, trailed in the Government's manifesto.
I say at the outset that I do not believe that regional bodies are intrinsically bad. During four years as a member of the Committee of the Regions of the European Union, I saw enough to appreciate that they can make very major contributions to their own areas. With great respect to my noble friend Lord Waddington, I do not believe that there is a diabolical plot on the part of Brussels to wipe out the United Kingdom by introducing regional government.
The truth of the matter is that the regions of the European Union vary enormously in their make-up. Some have legislative powers; some have taxing powers; they are of different sizes; they perform different functions. But they operate on the basis of what suits their particular communities and states. Spain has its autonomous regions, which have moved at a different pace. On the other hand, Scandinavia has structures that are much closer to ours.
It seems to me that we always face a difficulty in debating this matter. That is because we are never quite sure what we are seeking. Are we looking for some kind of local government body covering something that is described as a region, or are we looking for something with some kind of legislative function more akin to that which has been introduced in Scotland and Wales? I have no doubt that the latter is not realistic or desirable for the English regions, which we are considering today. I say nothing about Scotland or Wales, where different considerations apply.
I remind your Lordships that the Government's manifesto referred to a situation in which regional assemblies would exist in an area with a unitary system of local government. That would inevitably lead to larger unitary authorities—in this regard I agree with my noble friend Lord Waddington—taking local government further away from the people.
1436
One of the most obvious distinctions between Scotland and Wales and the regions of England is that there is no doubt about what comprises Scotland and what comprises Wales. I hope that I shall not be corrected about that, now that the question of Monmouthshire has been settled. But in England there are major difficulties in deciding which county goes into which region. Cornwall probably believes that it is a distinct region from the rest of the South West and should be considered in its own right. More controversially, is London a region on its own, or is it part of the South East?
There was great unhappiness at the time of the Regional Development Agencies Bill, when the Government insisted on working on the boundaries that had been set up to suit the administrative convenience of central government, rather than taking into account local views. The Government knew that that was the case because they resisted all attempts to write into the Bill a provision to review those boundaries.
We do not see any evidence of the demand for a further tier of government. Certainly, the new system of government in London did not bring people out in their droves. During the passage of that Bill, we asked time and time again whether the Government were trying to set up a regional authority or whether it was another tier of local government. We never got a straight answer. When local government structures are an addition, they tend to add cost, not value. I remember the very modest sums that the Greater London Authority was to cost council tax payers in London. That has now all been forgotten in the light of council tax increases which have caused consternation to political leaders of all political persuasions in boroughs across London.
The Greater London Authority has decided what it is for itself. I see in its advertisement for a head of media relations that:
"The GLA is unique. We're England's first regional government",
and, as such, it will have a head of media relations at £62,000 per annum, who will look after the mayor, and a deputy head of media relations at £45,000 a year to raise the profile of the assembly's individual members. All that money is spent despite the fact that outside the high profile areas of the capital, litter still abounds and so does the graffiti.
We are always in some difficulty in knowing whether we really support the devolution of functions, never mind power. Subsidiarity is a great battle cry between governments of the member states but it is never applied between national and local governments. Our legislation is full of guidelines and statutory guidance to control the local functions.
I recognise that local authorities need to think and act over areas wider than their own jurisdiction. But rather than constant reorganisation and adding tiers, we need to look at the mechanisms of co-operation which exist in other countries. As I have urged your Lordships' House on other occasions, if it would not be too bitter a pill for us to swallow, could we please

1437
examine the French structures of urban communities and districts which allow individual communes to own the structure and work together without creating a tier, and an additional tier, of cost?
3.42 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, we have a hopelessly lopsided constitution. We now have devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and, as we have heard, we have a curious half-way house in London.
As for the rest of England, the country is politically highly centralised. Local government has had its powers and responsibilities reduced in recent decades. The regions have become an increasingly significant layer of government decision-making, something of which the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, seems completely unaware. The Government Offices for the Regions are responsible for billions of pounds of expenditure. But the problem is that nobody in the regions, other than the civil servants who work in those offices, is responsible for those decisions. They are completely unaccountable.
During the course of this Parliament, we have had the creation of the regional development agencies. The one that I know best, Yorkshire Forward, has made considerable progress. It is doing a good job in bringing focus to economic development issues. It is bringing new energy to those areas of policy-making; and it is helping to strengthen the identity of the region, which is of considerable importance, not least when bidding for funding externally or for external investment. But the powers of the RDAs are limited and they certainly provide very little in terms of additional accountability.
While all that has been happening, there has been a great bubbling up of interest in and activity on the question of regional government in the regions themselves. The Campaign for the English Regions now has representatives from most of the regions, and the Campaign for the North-Eastern Assembly and the North East Constitutional Convention, in which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham has played such a major part, have developed a very substantial and workable scheme for devolution to the North East.
Equally, in Yorkshire and the Humber, a constitutional convention has been formed. It is quite interesting that at the first meeting of that body, one of the most telling speeches was made by a civil servant frustrated that in the health service, although the targets that he was given seemed relevant, when it came to the ethnic minority communities in Bradford in which he was working, the targets were a complete nonsense, and he had no flexibility to amend them.
I believe very strongly that the discussion which took place in Scotland and which led to the Scottish Parliament now needs to take place across the whole of England. It has begun in some regions and I hope that the publication of a Green Paper will help to take that forward.
From these Benches, and certainly from my own point of view, I have a relatively clear view of the model that I would seek. In answer to the noble Lord,
1438
Lord Bowness, I am not looking for something that will be described as a new tier of local government. I am looking for something which is clearly fully-fledged regional government which is more akin to the Welsh Assembly than a glorified county council.
Unless regional government has significant powers covering the big issues—health and education—and tax-raising powers, it will not be able to fulfil its potential and will run the risk of being little more than a regional talking shop.
We believe—I revert to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington—that the Barnett formula should be amended and should be a formula for funding at regional level based fairly on need. That is a necessary but not sufficient condition for this process.
We believe also that the process should be permissive. Some parts of the country at present are not convinced that regional government is for them. Others are very keen on it. The model that was adopted in Spain allowed those regions that wanted it to press ahead and achieve full-scale regional government. The others could then see what they thought and be allowed to come along as they thought fit. In my view, that is the best model. My guess is that when those regions which have a less clear identity at the moment saw regional government working successfully in the North East, the North West, Yorkshire, the Humber and the Midlands, they too would go for it.
Regional government offers the prospect of more coherent public policy-making at regional level, more efficient use of public money and greater public participation in the way that that money is spent. For those reasons, I believe that a Bill to allow elected regional government to be introduced where there is popular support for it should be a high priority for the next Parliament.
3.47 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, I add my gratitude to my noble friend the Bishop of Durham for securing this debate. In areas of West and South Yorkshire covered by the diocese of Wakefield, I have not detected a huge groundswell of public opinion urgently seeking political devolution. But as a Bishop in Yorkshire, I am left in no doubt about the strength of Yorkshire pride, even though, as a Lancastrian myself, I think it is sometimes overstated.
Yet it is that very strength of common identity which, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, has shown, makes our Yorkshire and Humberside region a good example of how devolution can build on natural foundations, and not many other regions have such a genuine sense of shared identity. Some will want regional government and, as the noble Lord, Lo rd Waddington, made clear, others will not. I do not think that matters. My noble friend the Bishop of Durham and the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, have indicated already that variation is healthy and it may well be the right way forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, rightly pointed to the seeming nonsense of the make-up of some of the English regions. But he failed to include in his

1439
recognition of a region that does make sense that region to which I am referring of Yorkshire and Humberside.
In Yorkshire and Humberside, our regional assembly was formed with all-party support. Our regional chamber has brought together for the first time partners from the business and voluntary sectors, including the churches and faith communities. Our regional economic strategy has provided for the first time a coherent framework for the work of the whole public sector and we have seen decision-making being opened up and brought closer to ordinary people.
The £130 million from the last round of the Single Regeneration Budget was allocated by Yorkshire Forward through a process that involves the regional chamber and community groups in setting the criteria and sharing the decisions.
It is our experience, certainly in my part of the North, that the absence of appropriate regional strategies in the past has often undermined the ability of some of our communities to work together. It has undoubtedly exacerbated the tendency to have to look to London and the South East.
In terms of economic regeneration in the former mining areas of my diocese, I have seen how, often despite good intentions, the complexities of the problems and the specific and sometimes unique local issues have not always been understood here in London. I believe that we must press for the principles of subsidiarity if we go forward with regional government. However, it must be a real devolution of power from central government to the assemblies rather than a scooping up from local authorities which, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, eloquently said, would leave us worse off with something like glorified county councils.
I particularly want to draw the attention of the Minister to the work of the churches and faith communities in some of the new regional institutions. I do not refer to Bishops chairing constitutional conventions, but, for example, to the work of the south-east and south-west regional faith forums, and to the fact that in Yorkshire and Humberside, the churches are full members of the chamber. We have seconded an officer to Yorkshire Forward to work on social inclusion. We have spearheaded the creation of benchmarks for community involvement in regeneration. That should not be surprising: churches or other faith communities are present in every part of every English region.
It is disappointing, therefore, that church and faith community involvement of that kind is not always welcomed. It is not only disappointing but perplexing that churches and faith communities are not part of the new Regional Cultural Consortia. That is odd, not least because of our obvious involvement in heritage, art and music. I should be grateful for a response from the Minister, either in this debate or afterwards, as to that strange occurrence.
1440
The Runneymede report acknowledges that faith has often been downplayed through ignorance or bias. It identifies faith as a key issue in social inclusion. Involving the churches and faith communities fully is not only sensible but essential if inclusion objectives are to be achieved. The Government's announcement of £5 million in support of regional chambers is welcome. However, I hope that some of it will be used to facilitate further church and faith community involvement.
Perhaps I may conclude by saying that discussion of elected assemblies is important, but not if it blinds us to what is already happening on the ground. We must realise that participation in regional government is about more than political parties and that devolution will be of value only if the process takes seriously the involvement of all major partners, not least among them the churches and the faith communities.
3.53 p.m.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, we are at an historical turning point in the economic development of the United Kingdom. Boom and bust have been replaced by stability, with unemployment and inflation at their lowest levels since the 1970s.
What better climate can there be for ultimately securing an assembly for Cornwall; provided, that is, that the county can satisfy Her Majesty's Government that its claims are valid. It has been suggested that a referendum, when it comes, should be conducted by both town and parish councils because much of Cornwall is rural. Perhaps I may quote from the declaration, compiled last year, to set up the Cornish constitutional convention. It states:
"Cornwall is a distinct region, defined by identity, geography, culture and history. It has a characteristic economic profile which sets it apart from the south-west. It enjoys unique opportunities to engage with other parts of the world, both through its cultural links with other Celtic regions and the Cornish diaspora".
The declaration adds—significantly to many Cornish people; to some a vital point:
"In all aspects it differs from the artificial construct known as the south-west".
I have never lived in the Royal Duchy but I have spent quite a lot of time there. Many members of my family come from Cornwall and many still live there. I know from them that, half seriously, half jokingly, the Cornish think of themselves as "not English". One of my cousins, at school in Truro, told me of the day when the headmaster announced to the assembled school that a certain member of staff would be leaving and taking a job on the other side of the Tamar, the river that divides Cornwall from Devon. "Mr So and So", he said, "will be leaving us, to our great regret, to take up a post in England".
That is a remark which might be made by a Scot, a citizen of Wales or someone from Northern Ireland but not, I think, by anyone living in any other region of the United Kingdom. It underlines Cornwall's peculiar and unique position. The Prince of Wales has referred to it not as a county but a country, for it has many distinct features which set it apart from the rest of Great Britain. It has, for example, its own language,

1441
a member of the Brythonic group of Celtic languages, most closely related to Breton. Although it has remained almost unspoken since the beginning of the 19th century, steps are being taken to revive it and works are being written in it.
Cornwall has the world's biggest shipping lane within three miles of the largest natural harbour in Europe, for the development of which Hayle has a multi-million pound plan. Its coastline is unrivalled for beauty and tourist attractions. Inland, it is distinguished for its fine gardens and now for Nicholas Grimshaw's Eden project, the largest geodesic domes housing tropical flora in the world.
A campaign to win home rule for Cornwall has so far gained the support of 20,000 people in an area whose population is under half a million. Campaigners particularly dislike the concept, if and when devolution comes, of their county being included in the area experimentally called the South West and extending from Scilly to Swindon. They feel a real need to resist being swallowed in a region encompassing such distant places as Bristol and Gloucester, with which, opinion is, they have little in common.
As regards the Cornish constitutional convention, a south-west regional assembly is acceptable—so long as it stops at the Tamar. One of the founders of the campaign, Councillor Bert Biscoe, stated:
"There are no ideas of breaking away from the United Kingdom. We are talking about Cornwall being a region, not necessarily English, but British. Emotionally, there is wide support for it in Cornwall".
Her Majesty's Government show great interest in Cornwall, designating it as a health action zone and sports action zone and, as such, along with the Scilly Isles, the only part of the South West eligible for Objective 1 funding, the aid that helps to improve the European Union's poorest regions. The county's plea for a degree of self-government is based partly on its distinctive culture and language but more than that on the county's economy. Much of its industry has declined over the past century and despite new jobs in tourism and manufacturing industries, it still suffers from unemployment and low wages.
Campaigners believe that an assembly would help to lift Cornwall's economy and change that, because so far no one has tried giving Cornwall a voice and an individual identity. If it wishes to change its status and achieve its aims of the establishment of an assembly on the lines of that which Wales now enjoys, it must convince government of its qualifications, its economic advance and its distinctive claims to semi-autonomy. Only a referendum would show how determined the Cornish are to stand alone or to submit to being part of a larger artificial and, in the opinion of some, unnaturally constructed region.
3.59 p.m.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, with the right reverend Prelate, I share knowledge of the north-east of England. I am a Northumbrian, and like everyone in the region which is called the North East, take great
1442
pride in the beautiful cathedral of Durham. Two of my children graduated at Durham University. So, one has an affection for that lovely place.
I should like to talk of the North East as a region. All the regions of this country have known problems in the past years, but few have known as many as the north-east of England. In the late 1950s I was elected to another place at a time when our three major industries, coal, shipbuilding and steel, were simultaneously in decline.
From then on, we experienced a remarkable problem with regard to employment. In attempting to deal with it, the region has always had some kind of development agency. I can go back to NEIDA— North East Industrial Development Association—a small body of leading industrialists, leading trade unionists and two MPs. I was one of them. That soon developed into a broader organisation called the North East Development Council which brought in local government. At present, we have One North East, a smaller but efficient body which is knowing great success.
Do we need another layer of government? I do not believe that we do. We tackled unemployment in a strong way and now, thanks to the work of One North East, there is an influx of new industry in the region. The region has experienced great environmental development. Since the late fifties, a period when both major parties subsequently were in office, the region has received considerable government support. Environmentally, the region is fantastically developed. We must have one of the best road systems in the country, built during the administrations of both major parties.
All our derelict sites have been cleared. The banks of our rivers are clean where they were once derelict. The quay side of Newcastle lives again and there are many examples of environmental improvements. Unemployment is still above the national average but not much. It is slightly higher than it was at the previous election. I believe that that is temporary because much is happening in the area which is good.
So do we need regional government? I do not believe that we do. Much of our new prosperity and improvement is due to having solid local government. I would greatly regret the abolition of Northumberland County Council in favour of a regional government. I never served on the council but my late father did for more than 40 years. I do not believe that we need anything other than the solid local government set-up that exists in the North East. The industrial situation is improving, as are educational facilities. Training opportunities are now available in the North East which did not exist when I became a Member of Parliament for Newcastle upon Tyne.
I believe that it is unnecessary to introduce regional government into England. It is a difficult proposition. I am against devolution; I have always contended that this is too small an island for federalism. I believe that it would be disastrous for people in England to have another layer of local government. The right reverend Prelate said that he deplored the fact that there was

1443
such apathy with regard to voting. There is, which is sad, but attempts have always been made to overcome it. Many years ago, I made my maiden speech on a Conservative local government Bill. I tried to support the idea of a block grant system in the hope that it would waken up individuals to the importance of valuing their local authorities. It did not do so and I doubt whether a regional government would do any better.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I feel a doctoral thesis topic coming on; namely, the role of the Anglican Church in pioneering devolution. It began with Canon Kenyon Wright who chaired the successful Scottish Constitutional Convention. I am pleased to see that his example is currently being followed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who chairs the North East Constitutional Convention, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool, who chairs the North West Constitutional Convention. As an Anglican, I am proud of that fact.
Before other parties lay claim to the concept of regionalism, perhaps I may point out that it is good intellectual Liberal policy. It was advocated at least 70 years ago by Professor Ramsay Muir.
I was slightly surprised to hear two noble Lords on the Conservative Benches speak of their enthusiasm for local government. They were MPs, one a Minister, of a Conservative administration under Mrs Thatcher which did more to denude local government of its powers and to accrete more power to the centre than at any time since the Tudors. Nevertheless, their conversion and devotion to local government are welcome.
It is fitting that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham should have initiated the debate, for which he is to be thanked, because the North East has a highly developed sense of its own regionalism. It has long had that strong regional identity, but that was recently strengthened by strong constitutional developments in Scotland which culminated in the restoration of the Scottish Parliament. As that Parliament increasingly asserts itself by formulating its own distinctive policies, so those English regions which border on Scotland become the first to appreciate the potentialities of regional devolution and democratically elected assemblies.
Although regional consciousness is most highly developed in the North East, the North West and in Yorkshire, there is a growing public opinion among the English that they are the most under-enfranchised nation of the four which comprise the UK. Northern Ireland and Wales now have their own elected Assemblies and Scotland has its own Parliament. Those three nations also have their own Secretary of State; there is no Cabinet Minister for England. The innovation of the London mayor apart, England and its regions are becoming increasingly aware of their democratic deficit relative to their Welsh, Northern Irish and Scots compatriots.
1444
An English Parliament, whether a separate institution or a sub-set of the House of Commons, is not the answer to the English question in general or to the West Lothian question in particular. It would be too large and would not effectively cater for the regions of England, many of which are larger in territory and population than the three nations benefiting from devolved democratic government. If it is accepted that Whitehall and Westminster do not always know best as far as concerns those powers that have been devolved to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, why is that not true also for the English regions?
Despite their failure to complete the system of voting reform by kicking the Jenkins report into the long grass, it is heartening to observe that Labour Ministers have not totally lost their enthusiasm for further constitutional reform. Recently, both the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer reaffirmed their belief in progressing the idea of democratically elected regional assemblies, with full devolved powers, for those English regions which vote for it.
Following the example of Scotland, the three most northerly regions will vote for devolution, to be followed by the South West. Cornwall will be an important element of that. The principle of subsidiarity will have been fully implemented. The model of the Scottish Constitutional Convention is now being followed elsewhere in England. Others are being formed in the Midlands and all are co-ordinated through the good offices of the Campaign for the English Regions. Here I declare an interest as a director of the Rowntree Reform Trust Limited, which financed much of the Scottish Constitutional Convention and will always assist with devolutionary innovations.
Let us unleash and celebrate the diversity of the regions of England.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Morgan: My Lords, we must be grateful to the right reverend Prelate not only for introducing the topic but for persuading us to take it seriously. All too often, English regionalism is treated in a frivolous or facetious way, with references to the Anglo-Saxon heptarchy or to English nationalism, manifested by supporters of West Ham United. This is a serious topic whose time is coming, if it has not already come.
It was observed, for example, by Dr Tony Wright, a Member of the other place, that the English regions "are silent and uninvited guests at the devolutionary feast". Things cannot continue like this. There is a growing interest in business and among the political parties, including the Liberal Party, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith, observed. However, I point out that in the days of Mr Asquith the Liberal government did not do anything about it.
I believe that the Conservative Party is much more enthusiastic at local level than expressions by its leaders might indicate. To my knowledge, the centralism of the Conservative Party nationally is not,

1445
for example, echoed by its members on Buckinghamshire County Council. I am sure that there are other examples of that. The Conservatives opposed devolution which has given them new life in Wales and Scotland. If the right reverend Prelate allows me to say so, that is perhaps an example of life after death. 'That applies even more so to the Labour Party which now takes a much stronger line. In addition to John Prescott, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Gordon Brown, made a very strong speech in Manchester in favour of devolution. He said:
"We are moving away from the old Britain … where people had to look upwards to a Whitehall bureaucracy … to a Britain of citizens where … we are ourselves in charge and it is up to us".
Perhaps I may speak briefly as a Labour Peer. The Labour Party is often wrongly associated simply with centralisation and the view that "the gentleman of Whitehall knows best". The intellectual roots of the Labour Party are much more varied than that. For a great part of its history the Labour Party was the party of decentralisation. The Fabians supported municipal socialism, the ILP supported local government and local accountability, and Keir Hardie supported the idea that the Red Dragon should be united with the Red Flag.
The great change in the Labour Party came about with the unemployment of the 1930s and the planning mechanisms of the war. That was the high noon of the Labour Party's commitment to centralisation—to an extreme of collectivism—which was at variance with much of its earlier history. There has been a considerable change since then, particularly under the present Government of Tony Blair, with the creation of the regional development agencies and their many limitations, fragmentation and inadequate powers. Nevertheless, they exist and provide a quite different perspective on the whole problem of the implementation of government. I believe that in England there are now signs of the beginning of a vibrant regional government to supply the same kind of stimulus that has taken place, for example, in Germany and Spain.
Other noble Lords have referred to the wider factors which give momentum to regional government. One of them is devolution, of which we have heard a great deal. It is simply not possible to sweep England aside when the question of devolution is discussed because the matter impacts on all parts of the United Kingdom. Other noble Lords have referred to Europe and the way in which it is becoming increasingly regional in nature. I believe that the general process of constitutional reform implies regional government at all levels—perhaps even the reconstitution of this House in due course. It has been said in this debate that the best way to answer the West Lothian question is not to ask it. If one had regional government which operated properly, that question would be redundant.
I believe that regional government would have various advantages. It would build on an existing and increasingly vibrant, if fragmented, regional structure with the RDAs and the other bodies to which reference has been made. It would promote genuine pluralism not only in our constitutional arrangements but in
1446
society; and it would also make financial transfers more transparent. Clearly, it should be adopted gradually because it is not compatible with the present form of unitary local government. We have asymmetrical devolution; perhaps we should also have asymmetrical regionalism.
I hope that the Government are sympathetic and extend joined-up government to the localities as well as the centre and release local energies. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have spoken in favour of more active, vibrant local government. To quote a famous poem, the people of England have not spoken yet, and perhaps they should be allowed to do so.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham for initiating the debate this afternoon. Several noble Lords have posed the question (which I do not believe anyone has answered), what is regional government? If one looks at the European Union, no single country has the same model. The Länder in Germany have almost the same powers as a good number of national governments, and yet the regions of France have very few at all. Perhaps when the Minister answers the debate this afternoon he will give his ideas on what regional government in England should look like.
As many noble Lords are aware, I am leader of Essex County Council. Several references have been made to glorified county councils. I should like to see them. The county of Essex comprises 1½ million people and is larger than most European regions. Essex is virtually surrounded by water, and one can almost canoe round it. Essex is also being put together with other areas in an Eastern region. As much as we like North Norfolk and the fens of Cambridgeshire, we have very little in common with them. We are larger than most European regions and have an historical base. When one looks at most European regions one sees that they are also historically based. Essex was a kingdom 1,000 years ago. For 200 years Essex had a king and London was a small village in Essex. Why should we not be a region on our own? I believe that it is pointless to try to put together artificial regions in England.
Obviously I am very much involved in local government. Whenever I hear people speak in favour of regionalism usually they come from the North East or North West. I do not hear many people in the South East, East or even the South West talking about regional government. Each of the great counties of Essex, Hampshire, Hertfordshire and Kent, comprise over 1 million people. Why can they not be the regions of the United Kingdom? Why can we not just develop our county councils in a way that gives them more power devolved from national government, as was historically the case in the United Kingdom? Why do we need to keep reinventing something that may not necessarily be satisfactory?
As to voting, even if we do not have a general election on the same day, the turn out for the county council elections in Essex will be just as great as for the

1447
London Assembly. There will not be many more people voting for regional government than vote at the moment.
I am vice-chairman of the Local Government Association. Last year a hearing chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, sat for many days to ascertain the desire for regional government in England. Evidence was given by people from all over the country and all political parties. That hearing resulted in a very good report, which I commend to noble Lords. The conclusion was that in England there was no national demand for local government. Demand varied considerably around the country. People did not want another tier of local government.
Clearly, if we have regional government we want to know what powers are to be devolved to it from national government. People have talked about regional offices taking a considerable number of decisions, but many of them are administrative in nature. I cannot see what decisions elected members will take from regional offices. Perhaps the Minister can also give an indication as to that. If we are to have any further developments in the North East and North West perhaps they should be based on the Spanish model. It may happen simply in that part of the world. Certainly, we have no desire for it in the East and South East. I do not believe that more than 10 per cent of people in Kent or Essex will vote for regional assemblies in the South East or East.
One of my particular roles as a member of the Committee of the Regions, of which my noble friend Lord Bowness and the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, were members some years ago, is to consider those countries which have applied to join the European Union. Several of those countries are very small. I was in Slovakia last week. A country of 5½ million people is considering between eight and 10 units of regional or perhaps county government. Therefore, I ask the Minister why, if we are going to have regional government in this country, we need to have such enormous units as the East and the South East.
We should not keep reorganising our local government or our structures in this country. We are unique as a country in wanting to keep looking at this matter. We think we shall improve our voting performance by so doing. We have these great counties. We should make the most of them and devolve powers from national government to the counties and surrounding regions. I rest my case on that point.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I, too, thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham for introducing the debate. I should like to declare my interests. First, I am a trustee of the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust. It has supported the Campaign for the English Regions and the campaign for Yorkshire. Secondly, I am still a serving municipal councillor in Calderdale, West Yorkshire. Thirdly, for the absence
1448
of any doubt, before I came here last May, my residence, life and being has always been in the county of Yorkshire.
The point has been made that the great northern regions are likely to be first in the queue in terms of being concerned and interested in devolution—the North East, the North West and Yorkshire. I am not surprised to hear from the previous speaker that there is less interest in Essex. Those of us with our lives and beings in the North believe that Essex is, perhaps, a few yards from London. I suspect that if there is regional devolution in England, even in Essex, its people will warm to the idea before too long.
First, what is this regionalism? We must make it very clear that we are talking, for a start, about the democratisation of existing regional structures. At the present time there is substantial administrative devolution. In our region, in Leeds, there is City House where the civil servants dispense that which central government has to offer. In the absence of such devolution, that has been the birthplace of the regional quango. The only reason that we have this multitude of regional quangos is because we do not have democratic regional devolution.
Secondly, we must consider what regionalism is not. It is not about hoovering up local government. That has been debilitated year after year for long enough. It must be made very clear—for example, to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington—that there is no question whatever of another tier of local government; it is entirely different. What vanishes are those many regional structures which could be, and should be, part of regional government.
Thirdly, in the past year or two we have seen the developments in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and in London. It is important that there is equality of opportunity when looking at regional devolution in England. In other words, we cannot have a structure— certainly noble Lords on these Benches would not warm to it—whereby there is, for example, in one part of Britain, a one-party state, and in another the possibility of a multi-party activity with genuine electoral systems.
Fourthly, it is important that there is the opportunity either to increase or decrease taxation, so that people can take a view on whether members of their regional authorities are operating properly. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, if people do not want the regional authorities, and this applies to London, to spend money on media relations people, at least they can despatch them, or endeavour so to do, at the ballot box. At the present time, that cannot be done with the quangos. Therefore, it is important that we look at the taxation angle.
My fifth point is that, with regional devolution in England, there may be an opportunity for your Lordships' House to be involved in looking at the constitutional boundaries. That is very different from regional boundaries. I refer to the rights, duties, responsibilities and opportunities of constitutional boundaries with regional government. That could be looked at perhaps in the same way as your Lordships' House looks at European matters.
4.25 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Bishop of Durham for introducing the debate. He is an enthusiastic and eloquent proponent of regional devolution. I entirely share his desire that this subject should be widely and comprehensively discussed. I do not share his enthusiasm, at least not until some questions, many of them posed today, are better answered than has been the case so far.
The fundamental question is this: do we have too much government or too little? It could be argued that we have quite enough layers of government, too much bureaucracy, too much room for political manoeuvring and for political delaying, and not enough able people willing to take on the responsibilities, with the huge demands on time and energy, that active participation in local or regional government requires. On the other hand, as my noble friend the Bishop of Durham said, there are many areas of life and of public expenditure where unaccountable quangos function without the benefit of democratic discernment and decision making. "Let's make these bodies properly accountable", goes the argument. A number of noble Lords have said that today.
My own personal involvement has been with the West Midlands where a constitutional convention is in place to look at these matters, chaired by my noble friend the Bishop of Birmingham. The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, can add another bishop to his bag. There are questions being debated in the West Midlands which need to be discussed more widely but in different ways in different regions.
I return to the fundamental question already asked: is there in England a sense of regional coherence and identity? Without that sense of coherence and identity a regional assembly cannot be made to work. I do not share the confidence of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that if it works in one place, other regions will want to follow. That sense exists in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, but in the English regions it is patchy. In the North East and Yorkshire, yes, that sense exists; in the North West, perhaps it does, although the distance between Cumbria and Manchester makes it very difficult for it to be a coherent region.
The question needs to be asked whether these regions, which are those covered by the regional development agencies and by the Government Offices, are the right regions? I remember the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, referred to this matter during a heated debate in your Lordships' Chamber when the regional development agencies were being created. One noble Lord thought that the eastern region should consist simply of Norfolk and Suffolk and was appalled to discover that it would also include Essex. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. Even worse was to come because he discovered that the regional office was to be situated in—Bedford. He spoke the name with an extraordinary sense of distaste and incredulity.
The West Midlands is a much more geographically compact and coherent area than some, but it is still 100 miles from the Staffordshire moorlands to the Black
1450
Mountains. There is a very great difference between central Birmingham with its Convention Centre and Symphony Hall, or the colourful cosmopolitan culture of Handsworth, and a sheep farm on the hills in south Shropshire overlooking Welshpool. The question remains: have we the right regions? Is there or could there be created a sense of regional identity in every part of England? At present I doubt it.
The Churches in the West Midlands, working ecumenically through the West Midlands Churches' Forum, understand the complementarity between urban and rural. We celebrate and affirm cultural diversity. We have acknowledged the urgent need that has arisen in recent years to deal with the Rover crisis and to press on with the regeneration of the Black Country and the Potteries. But we have tried in particular, and against the background of these pressing urban concerns, to keep before the regional development agencies the need for proper attention to social inclusion, the rural dimension, which will be even more important post-foot and mouth, and environmental sustainability, which is so often left out of account when business-driven planning is taking place.
The question is whether all these matters would be better handled and more effectively dealt with if we had an elected assembly and whether popular support exists for such an assembly. I am not entirely convinced. I believe that these areas of life have been well dealt with by the quangos—though they are quangos—and I am not convinced that an elected assembly would have done better, or that it would have been more focused, more purposeful and more effective.
I want to make one last and very important point. I am absolutely convinced that we must not contemplate yet another tier of government. We shall have that unless we make one proviso. If there is to be regional government—devolution and regional assemblies—it must be against a background of unitary authorities alongside empowered parish councils, as recommended in the rural White Paper. If there is not unitary authority government, we will simply be creating another tier, whatever anyone may say about it. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that if we were to go down the route of regional assemblies, the Government would change their mind and insist that we had only unitary authorities.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, this debate comes at an opportune moment. The regional gross domestic product figures, published at the end of last month, highlighted yet again not so much the North-South divide, although the North East has the lowest GDP of all the UK regions, as a divide between London, the south-east and eastern regions and the remainder which are all below the English average.
It is reported that the Government are considering a massive transfusion of funds to those regions to raise living standards and improve public services. I do not

1451
know whether that is true, but the basic governmental argument for devolution to the regions is that there must be suitable vehicles like the regional development agencies through which to channel expenditure and elected regional assemblies rather than chambers to which they will be accountable. As I understand it, that is the Government's position.
I bring a Welsh perspective and experience to this debate in the hope that it will be helpful. We have had a Secretary of State for Wales since 1964 and non-stop administrative devolution ever since. Under this Government, a National Assembly has replaced the Welsh Office. The Assembly is now in its second year. That it is too early to pass judgment on its performance is the kindliest verdict, but it is already clear that even a well-funded regional government of this kind, operating against the background of a prosperous British economy, is not the answer to all our problems.
On the economic front, which I regard as all important because people's living standards are related to it, GDP per head in Wales has fallen over the past decade from 84 per cent of the national average to 80.5 per cent. With the impending loss of 3,000 jobs in the steel industry, along with 8,000 actual job losses in manufacturing since 1997, the current plight of the rural areas and the possibility of a recession, I foresee deterioration rather than improvement in the years immediately ahead, despite the obtention of Objective 1 status for the Valleys and West Wales.
I am bound to point out that the proudest claim of the present Secretary of State for Wales at the most recent Welsh affairs debate in another place was the benefit brought to Wales by the national minimum wage, but that was a boon—if such it proves to be in the longer term—brought by national rather than regional government. Scotland has not fared much better as far as concerns GDP over the past decade. Growth, at 0.9 per cent, has been minimal. On the health and social services front in Wales, hospital waiting lists have gone up alarmingly since 1997.
What I am saying is that devolution, even when it is backed by considerable resources, does not necessarily provide the economic regeneration and better services that we all desire. Speaking of resources, it is well known that Scotland has done well under the Barnett formula and expenditure per head there is much higher than in England. Wales, I hasten to add, has not done too badly either. Scottish expenditure has very understandably excited envy in the North East where the demand for devolution appears to be most advanced. The question is whether all the English regions can be as well endowed per head as Scotland— I doubt it—but their assemblies, if they come about, will press ceaselessly for more and the prosperous regions will become increasingly discontented. What we shall certainly have in that event is an additional and costly tier of government.
Is the huge transfer of resources that devolution implies from the prosperous to the less prosperous regions the best wealth-creative use of those resources,
1452
or are we missing some other important ingredients of prosperity in our concentration on this new vehicle of government?
I travel a great deal along the M1 and the M6 these days. I am appalled by the delays, especially around Chester, Birmingham and other conurbations. I keep wondering how much those delays are costing our regional businesses. It is certainly a great deal of money. I am sure that the delays are also frightening off would-be investors. We desperately need better roads, but that is now an unfashionable cri de Coeur. Should we not be looking again at the relocation of offices away from the South East and at the possibility of developing clusters of mutually related industries in suitable localities? Work, productivity and jobs—well-paid jobs—mean so much in these areas of need outside London and the South East. The national lines of development that I have mentioned do not need a multiplicity of new bureaucracies to achieve results.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I begin by declaring a small intermittent interest as an occasional member of the North West Constitutional Convention. I join the long queue of noble Lords who must be boring the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham to death by thanking him for introducing the debate. Many of the speeches have certainly lifted my heart. I think in particular of the speeches from the Liberal Democrat Benches, the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield—I grew up in Wakefield—and the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, who brings a welcome historical perspective to the House and points out that these things take time; indeed, they do take time.
My first interest in regional democracy in the North West came into existence as a result of reading a pamphlet entitled North West Regional Government, which was published in 1965 by a group of Liberal candidates in the North West. I mention that because one of the leading members of the group was my noble friend Lord Tordoff, who has continued to inspire me ever since. In those days we felt that we were a small and weak voice—a voice in the wilderness. There were times when I had hopes of the Conservative Party. During the early 1970s I did my best to interest my then Member of Parliament in these matters. He is now the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. I have to say that I failed miserably, as your Lordships will have realised from listening to the noble Lord today.
In the 1980s, it was a source of great pleasure to many of us that the Labour Party in the North West was coming around to our point of view. I pay tribute to the Labour leadership of Lancashire County Council, of which I was a member at the time—I was not a member of the Labour leadership; the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, was a member of that leadership—for the lead they demonstrated to the Labour Party in the North West. I believe that we have all come to realise that these are battles which will not be won unless we are prepared to work together across

1453
political lines and with people outside politics. That is an important lesson to be learnt from Wales and, in particular, from Scotland.
To the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, I simply say this: do we have too much government in this country? The answer to that is probably "yes". However, to the question, "Do we have too much democracy in this country?", I believe that it is the view of many that there is a severe democratic deficit. It is that democratic deficit which elected democratic regional government would seek to redress.
I have been impressed by the speeches of the Yorkshiremen on the Benches in front of me, some of them real and some by adoption. As a native Yorkshiremen, I offer a Lancastrian viewpoint. The North West Regional Convention has done a great deal of work on this. However, many of us feel that it is now some what beached on the sand and that a new initiative will be needed after the general election, whenever it is held. Last June, Liberal Democrats in the North West put forward a submission to the convention in which we made three important points:
"The central principle should be that an elected North West authority and regional government should essentially take their powers from central government (including existing regional arms of central government and quango type bodies) and not from local government … Liberal Democrats will not be able to support any proposal where regional powers are substantially gathered from local government".
That is extremely important. Secondly, we went on to say that,
"The new regional authority must be 100% elected".
Thirdly, we said that the,
"new elected regional authority must be representative of the full range of both geographical and political differences in the region".
We were concerned that the report entitled New Way Forward, No Way Back—that could be a new Labour title, although that should not necessarily damn it—advocates a very small body. I am not optimistic that we would be able to persuade people in Cumbria, for example, to support a body in which Cumbria might have only one or two representatives as against far more for the great conurbations of Manchester and Liverpool, let alone gain the support of sub-regions such as the area of north-east Lancashire in which I live. If we are to have an elected body, it will need to be big enough to be representative of the entire region. Furthermore, it will need to be elected using an electoral system which provides both political and geographical plurality within the region. Without that, the Liberal Democrats would find it very difficult to support any final proposal.
We desperately want to support the right proposal. This is something for which we have been campaigning for at least 35 years. I look forward to taking part in elections—not necessarily as a candidate but as a voter and a political activist—to a North West regional assembly. I believe that the North West does exist and that within the region there is a strong sense of identity. There are also strong affinities: economically, socially and culturally. The time has now come for an idea in which many of us have believed for a long time. We
1454
have reached the point where this ought to be put into effect. I hope that the time for it to happen will be during the next Parliament.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I did not put my name down to speak in this debate, but having listened to the contributions, it may be helpful if I mention briefly the conclusions of the Royal Commission on the constitution which considered devolution between 1969 and 1973. I was appointed to the Commission in April 1971, when Mr Selwyn Lloyd became the Speaker. It was from then onwards that we considered thoroughly the possibility of devolution to the English regions.
Only three of the 11 members were in favour of it. However, eight members were in favour of regional coordinating and advisory councils, partly indirectly elected by local authorities and partly nominated by central government. I cannot go into any great detail, but I think that it would interest noble Lords to learn of some of the findings. I say that because circumstances have not changed greatly over the past 30 years. Indeed, having served in two Houses of Parliament for the past 55 years, I find that they have scarcely changed at all, even with regard to this matter.
When considering the expenses of such councils, the Commission suggested that they should be met by precepts on the local authorities in each region. Fair enough. The main responsibility of the councils is set out on page 356, in paragraph 1208 of the report. It states:
"The regional councils would meet the need. as represented to us by many witnesses, for machinery at the regional level for the co-ordination of local authority action and for the expression of regional views".
I think that we have heard many "expressions of regional views" during this interesting debate.
I must confess that, during the 30 years which have elapsed, I have kept an open mind on this matter. However, I think that the views expressed at the time of the vast majority of the members of the Commission—eight out of 11—are not far wrong today. I shall say no more.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I am sure that the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for reminding us of the report of the Kilbrandon Commission in 1973. It is true that the majority of its members recommended the establishment of co-ordinating and advisory councils, but a strong minority were in favour of elective devolution. Indeed, the Redcliffe-Maud Royal Commission which, if I remember aright, reported in 1969, was also in favour of setting up eight English provinces with indirectly elected councils. However, if we are to consider the progenitors of what we are discussing today, I should like to pay tribute to the late John Mackintosh, who was then a Labour Member of Parliament. His book on the devolution of power, published in 1968, was not only a significant

1455
contribution to what later took place in Scotland in particular, as well as in Wales, but also set out a blueprint of a kind for the form of English regionalism that we are discussing today.
In view of the strictures voiced by my noble friend Lord Greaves, I am reluctant to add to the praise which has been heaped on the head of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, but I hope that he feels, as I do, that he has given the House a great opportunity to discuss an important matter to which, on future occasions, we should return. I disagree with very little of what he said. History will record—I see no reason for not saying this today— that the present Government have been, in constitutional terms, a great reforming government. That is how they will be best remembered. However, they have stopped short of acting on the recommendations in the Jenkins report, which has already been mentioned from these Benches, and of making progress on regional devolution for England. I hope that this unfinished business will be a matter to which a new government will turn if they secure a second term.
We were not surprised when the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham reflected his particular interest in devolution for the North East. I have to say that I have a personal interest. Although I was born and brought up in Liverpool and am therefore familiar with the north-west region of this country, I also represented the North East constituency of Stockton-on-Tees for over 20 years. During that period, I was fully aware of the local feeling which developed into a considerable passion for devolution of one kind or another, and of the organisations and institutions, to which the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, referred, which helped to underpin that movement.
I say to those who worry about differences of opinion and traditional hostilities within other regions, "Do not think that putting together Tyne, Wear and Tees was easy; do not underestimate the difficulty of putting together urban and rural communities". Time and circumstances have made the North East a leader in the demand for devolution, and a similar growth is likely to occur elsewhere even if the passion does not exist now.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham was right to refer to the democratic deficit. This is the core of the difference between regionalism as proposed by the majority of the Kilbrandon Commission, for example, and regional government. Central government in the regions is not regional government. Decentralisation of administration—perhaps to quangos—by Westminster and Whitehall without democratic sanction is not devolution of power either. Regional government is distinct. Power lies within the region and accountability is to those who have been elected to serve in the government of that place.
There is a longish history of regionalism of one kind or another in England, but there has been none at all of regional government. Both the present Government, with some justification, and the previous Conservative government can point to
1456
modest progress in regionalism. The Conservative government—this was referred to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham—established integrated government offices in 1974 to co-ordinate the delivery of policy. All credit to them. The present Government have set up the regional development agencies, which we discussed at great length—I remember the major contribution of my noble friend Lady Hamwee at that time—prior to the 1998 Act. They have also set up what are now generally called regional assemblies.
We have been here once before, and perhaps I may be forgiven a personal odyssey. Some 35 years ago, I was a junior Minister in the Department of Economic Affairs under George Brown. In that capacity I was responsible for setting up the economic planning councils and the economic planning boards which played an important part in development for some years beyond that. The councils were made up of local authority members, businessmen, trade union representatives, voluntary bodies and representatives of the arts and tourism, although I am not sure whether there were representatives of faith communities. They were councils which, although unelected, nevertheless did a very considerable job in their time.
Equally, representatives of government departments were brought together in the economic planning boards under a civil servant of what was then known as under-secretary level. We had some difficulties. The Board of Trade had been responsible for distribution of industry policy; it was very reluctant indeed to come in to the boards. The Department of Housing and Local Government, as it was then called, was responsible for land use. I well remember the then Minister, Mr Richard Crossman, accompanied by the formidable Dame Evelyn Sharp, marching into the office of the Secretary of State, George Brown, and making it absolutely clear that only over their dead bodies would the new councils and boards be called "planning councils" and "planning boards"; the word "economic" had to be inserted.
I say this only to demonstrate that those planning councils and boards performed a function not too far different from what is now assigned to the agencies and the assemblies. While the Government have every right to claim credit for what they have done, to some extent they have been going back to where we were 35 years ago, with that kind of regionalism being substantially eroded in the interval.
The history of regionalism goes back even further. I was glad to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, said about the Labour Party's involvement in it. One could say that it began with the special areas Acts of 1934, which dealt with areas of high and persistent unemployment. It is certainly true that proximity to Scotland has had an impact on sentiment in the North East in favour of change, particularly in the period 1977–78, the first attempted devolution.
There has been a long history of industrial decline, which has not yet finished. Although, as the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, rightly said, the position is

1457
somewhat improved, the latest figures show that unemployment is 5 per cent in England, 3.2 per cent in the South East and 8.1 per cent in the North East. So the problem is not yet solved; the job is not wholly done.
I accept that new developments of regional government are bound to be asymmetrical. It would not be right to create a single blueprint and require the different regions to fall into line on the same time-scale. The regions will exist because the people of the regions want them to, and for no other reason. I hope very much that the Government will prepare a programme for what I call "rolling regionalism"— bearing in mind, perhaps, as an example, the way that candidate members are prepared for the European Union: when they have satisfied certain criteria, they will he admitted.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Newby that Wales is the right working model to follow—or, at least, it is the starting point—for the evolution of something better for the regions. I hope very much that the regions which already have a sense of identity and wish to see a rolling programme of the kind I have indicated will prepare not only a campaign—I think it has gone beyond that, certainly in the North East—but a blueprint, even a draft Bill, for what might happen.
It will be very important to satisfy those who share the feelings of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, and others. It would be right to show them that this will not take away from local government and add an unnecessary tier, but will lead genuinely to decisions in the regions being made by the regions in exercising powers which hitherto were the property of this Parliament and the Civil Service which serves it.
My noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton referred to "unleashing and celebrating regionalism in England". As I said, I hope that we shall make real progress in the next Parliament. This has been an excellent debate. Although we are not of a single mind, nevertheless this is a stage in the development of a significant constitutional change for this country.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, my welcome and gratitude to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham can be expressed in a slightly different way: welcome to the cold bath of politics.
We have had an interesting debate and it gives me great pleasure to note that we have covered most of the regions within the country. We have covered London; we have covered the North East very thoroughly, where demand is very strong; the North West was covered by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who said that the idea seems to be getting more sticky there; and the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, spoke for the West Country—for Cornwall, if I am correct—and illustrated in her remarks the problems of regionalism as we know it. My noble friend Lord Hanningfield spoke for Essex. I am an Essex nationalist at heart so I understood what he said. I even found some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank,
1458
because I was a member of what was in those days the South-East Economic Planning Council. So I recognise that body and I have some experience of regionalism at work in this country. It was a very good body. But it was an advisory body, without authority. In practical terms such bodies are not the most suitable form of government.
We should remind ourselves that we already have four layers of government—indeed we could say five, six or seven if we wanted to be sophisticated. We have national government, county government, district authorities and parish government. Added to hose, as a kind of sub-division, are the unitary authorities. We also have two other national types of government: the Welsh region—if the Principality will forgive that term—and the nascent nation state of Scotland. That might be deemed to be enough.
Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord has forgotten that there is European government. He is supposed to be telling us that he is against it. It would be dreadful if he forgot to do so, particularly in the run-up to an election.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful for that reminder. That takes the number of levels of government to eight. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, remarked that we have too much government and not enough democracy. That may well be the problem, but adding another level of government in an attempt to solve the question of democracy would present a problem in itself.
I return to the issue of devolution. That, rather than structure, is what the debate initially needs to be about. Devolution is not a stream of statutory regulations from central government of which local authorities are obliged to take note and with which they are obliged to comply. Over the years we have seen an endless succession of such regulations. I spent a long time in local government under—to my distaste—an increasingly centralist national government. It is distressing to find that trend continuing. Devolution is not about government Bills going through this wonderful Palace of Westminster telling local authorities exactly how they should structure their business for administrative purposes, dictating exactly how they should establish their administrative organisations.
Returning to the present, we need to note that devolution is not about the kinds of measures announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget. The Chancellor promised increased flexibility for the regional development authorities. He said that this increased flexibility would be matched by increased accountability through objectives and targets that would shortly be announced by the Deputy Prime Minister. I can already feel the steel bands of Whitehall's control closing round the RDAs.
I am afraid that man is ever restless. He always feels that things would be better if he were somewhere else, and he strives to get there; and usually, when he gets there, he is disappointed. Then he will strive for

1459
something else. I cannot help but feel that if we arrive at the promised land as regards the regions, we shall find that there is great dissatisfaction.
Let us consider the problems in context. It is worth noting that it is as far from Gretna Green to John o'Groats as it is from London to Land's End, or indeed from London to Newcastle—and Scotland is supposed to be one region. There is a particular history, but that specifically illustrates the problem. Considered on an international scale, the United Kingdom is smaller than California and many other states within the United States of America.
There are other types of problem which will not be tackled by structure or, indeed, by democratic representation. Again, they are perhaps best illustrated by contrasting Scotland and the North East of England. I am sorry that this is the case. I spoke on this matter during the passage of the Scotland Bill. The average GDP per head in the United Kingdom is £12,455, based on the 1998 figures, which are the latest that I could obtain from the Library. In Scotland, it is £11,902, which is 96 per cent. In the North East it is £9,819, which is 79 per cent. Despite that real disparity in worth and value for the people of Scotland, they enjoy the enormous privilege of over £1.20 per head for every pound of public expenditure in England. The people of the North East enjoy the enormous privilege of contributing, through the Barnett formula, to that privileged position. It is a matter which could and should be tackled within the Palace of Westminster, and successive governments have signally failed to do so—for reasons that have to do with politics and, dare one say, with the democratic deficit.
What is required if we are to make progress in government in this country is real devolution of authority and decision-taking to the local communities. There is no doubt that not least among the frustrations that ordinary people feel with government and the reason why there is too often a lack of interest in elections, is the feeling—which is correct—that the powers of decision-taking on matters that affect local communities are removed from them. It is no good saying that, because there is a power of decision granted by national government to the local community, matters are all right, if there is not with that power control over the money, or if control over the money remains with Whitehall.
I return to what can be put into statute. We have 150 pages of regulations relating to highways expenditure. They are so detailed and require such conformity that they empower Whitehall to have intimate control over the details of local expenditure on highways matters. That is why we feel strongly that the proper way forward is to begin with correct and proper devolution through the structure that we already have. If we can begin to get that right, then if there are subsequent failures in the system there will be justification in going for something else. But to experiment with something novel, out with the traditions of this country, when we cannot make our present system work is to take a gamble which might be rather less than fortunate.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Whiny: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by thanking the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham for raising the debate. Time was when Bishops of Durham were rather heavy representatives of top-down government, both from London and from Rome; and, indeed, on their own behalf. I am glad to see that the present incumbent is on the side of the people of the North East, and that we are here today discussing how we can bring greater democracy to that region, as well as to other British regions.
The title of the debate refers to "English regions", but obviously we have strayed somewhat wider into the settlement so far on the constitutional changes brought in by this Government—a great reforming government in relation to our constitution. Decentralisation and devolution have already been applied to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London. It is only right that we should now address the English regions. During the course of the debate we also addressed the role of Parliament, the role of Europe, and especially the role of local government.
The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, observed that it is important to retain English national identity. I do not disagree with that view. However, there is also a very important dimension of that identity; namely, regional and local identity. The North East does have an identity. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, pointed out, Yorkshire has a pretty clear identity. Many of the other regions have an identity that may not be always as clear. There is a South West identity, even though it may be differentiated among the various counties and duchies of the South West. Even where that identity is not strongly felt, what is strongly felt is that decisions need to be taken closer to the people and that there is too much power centralised in London. That applies just as much in Essex and Cornwall as it does in the North East.
We have already achieved devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We need to meet that sentiment in England. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, said, the very fact that devolution to Scotland and Wales has taken place makes the regions closest to it think most acutely about it. It has a rolling effect across the rest of England. There is a problem of differential prosperity between the regions of England. We recognise that there is a North-South divide, although it is not necessarily quite as simple as that. Obviously, there are significant disparities within regions between prosperous and less-prosperous areas and, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford said, between rural and urban areas within regions. However, there is a regional dimension to much of this. We want all regions to share Britain's prosperity.
I should point out to noble Lords that unemployment has fallen in every British region, but it remains much higher in regions like the North East than in the South East. Within the United Kingdom as a whole, although the North East income per head has increased in recent years—a welcome increase—it has

1461
done so more slowly than in other regions. As regards the North East, there is still a disparity regarding the UK average of £13,000 per head and the £15,000 per head that applies to the south-east of England.
There is nothing inevitable about regional inequalities. Similarly, there is nothing sacrosanct about regional equality. But, clearly, the widening gap is not appropriate when we wish to share prosperity among all our citizens. We can achieve a better spread of prosperity both between and within regions and nations of the United Kingdom. As the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, reminded us, many attempts were made to achieve that aim during his stint in the DEA. There were also earlier attempts, as well as subsequent attempts, to redress regional imbalances.
We have taken a very important step in the creation of the regional development agencies. In an otherwise not entirely favourable comment in relation to regional government, the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, mentioned the importance of one agency in the North East turning round the industrial infrastructure of that region. The development agencies were established in 1999, and subsequently thereafter in London, to drive forward measures to improve competitiveness, to decentralise decision making, and to bring the private sector and local government into development programmes for the regions.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield reminded us, those RDAs are working with local government and with the regional chambers; and, indeed, with the administrative devolution that we already have in Government Offices. The RDAs are only two years old. They have confounded the critics of their establishment and have succeeded. They receive enormous support from both business and the community in their regions. I regret that it seems to be the official policy of the Conservative Party to abolish both RDAs and Government Offices. That is an odd line to take for a party that I hope would wish, with us, to spread prosperity. We must have the instruments to do so.
Government Offices represent administrative devolution. There has been a substantial amount of administrative devolution over the past few years. It has been difficult, as was the case in an earlier era referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, to ensure that all government departments participate in the Government Office structure. But an increasing number are doing so, including—most recently— MAFF, which is incorporating its regional activity into Government Offices. That is most valuable. However, we need to go further.
Our first step has been to create the regional chambers. They are voluntary organisations, which bring together local government and other bodies within the region. They provide the main link between the RDA and regional representatives. With the increased flexibility and resources that we are giving to the RDAs, the role of these chambers has become more crucial than ever. That was why the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently announced an additional £5 million for those chambers to provide for the
1462
expanding scrutiny role that the new flexibility of the RDAs requires. They also have an important role in planning, development and transport plans for the regional level.
The regional chambers are, perhaps, not dramatically different from what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, referred to as arising from the Kilbrandon report of 30 years ago, in terms of his own viewpoint. The noble Lord said that nothing much has changed, but I do not believe that to be the case. We are all grateful that the noble Lord has not changed. However, the whole constitutional framework within which local government and regional development is operating has changed, both in relation to Scotland and Wales and in relation to the role of local government. That applies also to the number of decisions that we are now taking administratively in conjunction with local government at the regional level. I give way.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I was trying to make clear that nothing much has changed, as yet, in the regions.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not believe that that is true. With regional planning guidance, regional transport strategies and the creation of the RDAs, many economic, planning and strategic decisions are now dealt with at regional level. The point of going beyond the regional chambers is to democratise that process. The noble Lord would be right to say that nothing much has changed in terms of the democratic accountability of those decisions.
We want to go further than the regional chambers, but we only wish to do so when there is popular support for that move. We made a commitment in our manifesto to move towards directly-elected regional government where it was demonstrated—through referendums—that the people of the regions wanted it. I should make it clear today in this House that that commitment still holds. There is no blueprint for directly-elected regional assemblies, or a time-scale for their introduction. However, we are committed to that outcome.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, called this a programme of "rolling regionalism"; indeed, to some extent, that is what would happen. There is a greater enthusiasm in the northern regions than there is in the southern regions. Therefore, it is likely that the northern regions would be the first to adopt the structure. I should not compare that exactly with the process of accession to the European Union, where a number of criteria are set by the existing members for potential members. The key criterion in this case will be the will of the people of the region concerned, as expressed through a referendum and a democratic vote.
In the process of moving towards directly-elected regions, we shall need to study the structure of regional government and its scope and purpose. We shall also

1463
want to consider what can be achieved and what added value it can provide. Each region must be able to decide on the way and time-scale—
Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld: My Lords, that is very interesting. How does the Minister view the impact of that process on central government and on the democratic structure of central government? Will we reform the House of Lords further? What will we do in relation to the House of Commons? How will it "gel" with that? If we are to have democratic regional government, how will it impact on central government?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my noble friend takes me much further than this debate. Clearly, there is an impact on the role of Parliament if we devolve more decisions to the regional level. Like the right reverend Prelate, we are not in favour of an English parliament. We are, however, in favour of devolving some central government functions to the English regions. That, therefore, slightly alters the role of Parliament in overseeing the decentralisation of power within this country.
As to the structure of the House of Lords, I am not in a position to make pronouncements on such matters today. Your Lordships will know that there are proposals in the Wakeham committee's report for direct election to the House of Lords which would be based on a regional structure which, broadly speaking, as I understand it, would follow the structure of the devolved English regions.
Questions have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, and others about why, if we need regions—
Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld: My Lords, I hope that I may press my noble friend a little further. How many elected members do we have to have in the United Kingdom before we have a properly elected democracy?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure whether my noble friend's question relates to the number of elected Members in the House of Lords. I could not possibly make a pronouncement on that matter at this stage. However, if we are talking about elected persons throughout the United Kingdom, the numbers involved at regional level would reflect the powers at that regional level. The numbers would not be very different from the numbers who take part in the regional chambers at the moment.
I do not share the concern which the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and others expressed that we have far too many elected politicians in this country, or the concern of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford that we do not have the right quality of people coming forward. If there is a clear decision-making structure at regional level, appropriate people who are qualified and talented will come forward to fill democratically elected positions. At the moment the problem is that far too many decisions are taken which
1464
are not accountable to elected politicians at the right level. Therefore, we need to create a structure where such decisions can be taken.
The absolute number will depend on the propositions that arise region by region. It will also depend on the other issue which has been raised; that is, the reorganisation of local government. We have indicated that although in principle we are in favour of moving towards unitary local government structures, there is no presumption that all regions will have moved to unitary local government prior to the creation of elected regional government. It ill behoves the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, who was a member of a government who did not complete the reorganisation of English local government, to press us now to do that instantaneously. The reason we are not saying that it is a precondition for local government to have been reorganised before we introduce regional government concerns the central point about regional government, underlined by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, namely, that the power will not be taken away from local government but from central government. It is a devolvement of power, not a dragging upwards of local government—
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. In view of what he says, can he share with your Lordships how he envisages the regional assembly working? Does he see it as the London model, strictly constrained by government guidelines with policy approved by the Secretary of State, or does he see it in terms of a Welsh model, perhaps exercising the functions of secondary legislation?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord has a tidy mind and he wishes to see structures which are precisely the same across the whole of the United Kingdom, or at least within England and Wales. That is not the view of the Government. London is unique as a world city which virtually constitutes a region. It is not a model for anywhere else but it is an important structure for a city region.
We are now talking about a different structure within England, which is a national identity. Therefore, one is breaking up a national identity as compared with the situation in Wales. It is, however, clear that the scope of regional government is not as wide as the scope of the Welsh Assembly. We are talking about having a role in strategic matters, economic development, planning, transport and environmental assessment, not taking over the whole of what are currently national government responsibilities within the regions, and certainly not— I was making that point when the noble Lord intervened—taking powers away from the counties and the unitary authorities within the regions.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I am sorry to come back but the noble Lord will understand that the functions he has just set out are classically functions of local

1465
authorities which we have reorganised to make bigger and bigger so that they have the scope to deal with those matters.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I was just about to explain. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, asked why we needed bodies of this size. I mention the field that I know best. In the case of transport policy, it is not possible to deal with the M6 going through Staffordshire—a concern of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts—on a county basis. One needs to take a much wider approach. Similarly, as regards the development problems that he has encountered in the West Midlands—I assume, on his way home to North Wales—which cause additional pressures on the transport system, one cannot address those problems on a county by county, let alone district by district, basis. One can only tackle them on the basis of a larger, coherent economic region. That is what we are trying to establish and the powers I mentioned are the kind of powers we wish to devolve to regional level, subject to democratic accountability.
Lord Sheppard of Didgemere: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if devolution is to work central government must at some time let go? If we take as an example something which does not cross too many boundaries, what about the London Underground?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is precisely what I am saying. At the moment a substantial part of national government's regional responsibilities—operating to some extent through the Government Offices—is not subject to any degree of accountability at the regional level. We intend to pass those powers down to the regional level. Of course, standards and some regulations will be set at national level. However, the idea of democratising structures is not to give a new empty structure of local and regional government but to provide a real and effective devolution of power.
There has been some discussion on what the scope and the size of those regions should be. I believe that I have replied to that point in general terms. However, there will be queries about particular aspects concerning which county is within which region. Before the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, spoke, I had thought that Essex was already a glorified county council and—I hesitate to use the term—kingdom even, particularly in the light of his irredentist remarks about wishing to take back London. I recognise that there will be tensions within the regions. We believe that the Government Office boundaries that we have set are sensible and we have taken government decisions to consolidate those boundaries. However, in the course of the democratisation process, other options may arise.
My noble friend Lady Rendell referred to Cornwall. Cornwall is a special case. It is a special county and perhaps deserves special status and special respect. A degree of creativity is involved as regards the Cornish convention. almost as much as in the case of the North East. the Yorkshire. and the North West conventions. It is not, however, in the terms that I have described,
1466
a region which can on its own determine its economic, transport and planning infrastructure. Nevertheless some aspects of devolution will apply in relation to Cornwall.
I have no difficulty in defending the fact that there is an asymmetric development of devolution. It is asymmetric in two senses in that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have different kinds of powers. The English regions will have different powers from the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. The development is also asymmetric in terms of time-scale. Some English regions will take powers before others. We would not devolve those powers to those areas which were not subject to directly elected assemblies. There are other European examples of asymmetric devolution. Spain has been cited. If the north-east of England had the same degree of success in its devolution as the north-east of Spain, in the context of the Catalonion government and the City of Barcelona government, I am sure that the right reverend Prelate and his flock would be well pleased.
I believe that we are on the right track. It is not as tidy a track as some noble Lords might wish. Progress may not be as rapid as some people, particularly in the northern regions of England, would like. None the less, as the Deputy Prime Minister made clear in Glasgow recently, we are committed to bringing forward the opportunity for English regions directly to elect their regional governments. At that point, the responsibility for various aspects of economic, strategic and planning policies would fall to those regions. We would hope that all the English regions would eventually take up that option. However, the decision will be theirs and it will be facilitated by this Government. We intend within the next few months to bring forward a Green Paper on these issues: the scope, structure and nature of devolution; and the nature of the electoral process for the English regions.
I welcome the debate. I thank the right reverend Prelate and all noble Lords who participated in it. We have touched on a number of issues which are of great importance to the English regions, many of which will no doubt be discussed during the coming months and years as we debate, region by region, how fast and in what manner we shall go down the road of further democratisation of our hitherto somewhat centralised constitution.
5.32 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, first, perhaps I may thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for so clearly restating the Government's position. Of course, I wish that he could have gone further today because I am impatient as regards this issue, as are many people in some of our regions. I shall look out for its appearance in the Green Paper, in the party manifestos at the general election and, it is to be hoped, within the legislative programme of the next Parliament.
Secondly, I thank those noble Lords who supported the arguments I sought to put forward. They have enriched and enlarged them because of their wide

1467
experience, deeply embedded as it is in political history and events. There has also been a geographic spread. It is good that we have heard the experience of many different regions. I am deeply appreciative of the time given and for the expertise demonstrated in those speeches.
Finally, perhaps I may express thanks to those who disagreed with me. I do not think that I have ever been so courteously criticised in all my life. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, spoke of the cold bath. He should see the ice cubes in the baths into which I sometimes have to climb in some of the circles in which I move. I thank those noble Lords for being so generous and for leaving unscathed my central argument; namely, that the existing government presence in the regions is unaccountable, costly, fragmented and deeply frustrating to those of us who operate in the regions. I stand by that argument. I am grateful to all who contributed. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Universities
5.34 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louthrose to call attention to the case for reducing the burden of bureaucracy on universities; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I declare an interest as an academic and, indeed, as someone in a department shortly to undergo a subject review. I have thus been able to view the problem at first hand.
By the burden of bureaucracy on universities I refer to the administration now necessary to monitor, enforce and evaluate a raft of requirements imposed on universities. And it is a burden. Over the past seven years, about 10,000 people, mostly academics, have been engaged in inspecting universities and colleges. In 1999, the President of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, as it then was, declared that we now have the most scrutinised education system in the world. The General Secretary of the Association of University Teachers said,
"To make good the claim that all degrees are of equal quality, all institutions equivalent, we have imposed on institutions the most leaden control apparatus possible".
In a Starred Question on 20th February, my noble friend Lady Perry of Southwark—I am delighted to see her here—drew attention to the number of rules, codes of conduct and subject benchmarks that have been imposed, with more to come. These rules have been introduced ostensibly for the purpose of improving the efficiency and quality of teaching and research and for ensuring accountability. No one questions those aims. They are eminently desirable. Universities do not seek to achieve some insular existence free of evaluation by others. Any complacency on the part of universities disappeared following the cuts of 1981. Universities know that they have to be accountable; they know that they have to deliver high quality education. What I
1468
wish to question is whether the means devised to achieve those desirable goals are the best ways of achieving them. In my view they are not. indeed, for reasons that I shall develop, I believe that they are counter-productive.
The burden of bureaucracy takes two forms. One is quantitative. I referred to the fact that universities are subject to a mass of rules. Academics face a substantial, growing and unrelenting burden of paperwork. Data have to be compiled. Information has to be supplied—often the same information but in different forms. The method of reporting one year differs from that of the next. The most recent "diary exercise" undertaken by the Association of University Teachers found that 33 per cent of academics' time is spent on administration and bureaucracy.
The other form of the problem is qualitative. The sheer burden of complying with all these requirements would not matter so much if it constituted what I shall call productive administration: that is, if it could be shown to contribute directly and clearly to maintaining or enhancing the quality of teaching and research. It might even be acceptable if it could be shown that there was an indirect contribution that was other than marginal. Unfortunately, much of what academics are now required to do is predominantly unproductive and, as I shall argue, any indirect marginal contribution is far outweighed by the costs of the exercise.
Let me identify those costs. There are financial costs. Last year the Higher Education Funding Council for England Commissioned a survey by PA Consulting of current accountability arrangements in universities. In its report entitled Better Accountability for Higher Education it looked at measured costs (that is, attributed administration and academic time), administration costs (such as management support and enhanced information systems), unmeasured costs (such as unattributed staff time) and what it termed behavioural costs (such as planning uncertainties and staff stress). It was unable to quantify the behavioural costs. The measured costs it assessed as £45 million to £50 million, the administration costs £100 million, and the unmeasured costs £100 million. In short, the total cost was in the region of £250 million. That is the equivalent of 5 per cent of the budget of the Higher Education Funding Council for England. This £250 million might be a justified cost if it delivered value for money. However, it does not. I quote from the report:
"The overall accountability regime for English higher education emerges as a patchwork of legacy requirements from different stakeholders responding to different concerns at different times, with little overarching design, co-ordination or rationale. In consequence, the current regime represents poor value for money both for stakeholders and for institutions".
The exercise is thus expensive and inefficient.
Various university departments have attempted their own assessment of the cost in terms of staff hours of subject reviews undertaken under the auspices of the Quality Assurance Agency. Those estimates have ranged from £20,000 to £200,000. The figures may be

1469
disputed, but they point to a substantial burden on what in many cases are overstretched departments. There is clearly a major financial cost.
There is another cost that has not been emphasised enough, but which has fundamental implications for the future of the education system in this country. PA Consulting defined it as the behavioural cost of the accountability arrangements. The consultants could not put a cash sum on it, yet it is probably the biggest cost of all. I refer to stress and, most importantly, morale. The cost in staff morale is horrendous. That cost has to be put in a wider context. The growing burden of bureaucracy is but one of many pressures to which academics are now subject. Universities have been forced to rationalise over the past 20 years. Initial promises of a steady state regime soon disappeared. The student body has expanded, sometimes abruptly, with resources not expanding to keep pace with the growth. Universities are being asked to do more with less. They are subject to different regulatory regimes with demands descending on them from the Government and from regulatory and funding bodies. That results in uncertainty and low morale.
Academics are now under tremendous pressure. They work hard, yet they are under-resourced, undervalued and under-paid. A post in academia ceased some years ago to be a cushy number, regarded by insurance companies as a healthy job for actuarial purposes. It is now demanding and, for many, notably stressful. That has been borne out by survey data, including that on the effects of the 1992 research assessment exercise.
The consequences are pernicious and long term. The implications for recruitment and retention in universities are obvious. We are not retaining the brightest and the best to teach our young people. In some cases they are not entering the profession; others are leaving it.
The situation is critical. Given that, any accountability regime has to deliver notable benefits to offset the costs. There is little evidence that it is delivering substantial benefits. The limited studies of subject reviews that have been undertaken do not show the exercise delivering well on its stated criteria. One study, published in the Journal of Education for Teaching, found that it did not deliver well on its financial and public information purposes. On its enhancement purpose, it helped to bring about some changes at a departmental level, but was less effective at a generic—that is institutional—level. Furthermore, as the Association of University Teachers has argued, the bureaucracy is out of proportion to the issues that it is designed to address. In the assessment exercise, few departments are found to be seriously wanting.
As long as there is a juxtaposition of greater regulation with limited resources, there is the danger that the exercise will undermine rather than enhance the quality of teaching. Only those with spare capacity have the time to cope with the burden of increased bureaucracy. Those who already have full teaching and research commitments can cope with the growing burden only at the expense of their teaching and
1470
research. One cannot impose a greater regulatory burden without providing the resources necessary to cope with it.
The conclusion to be drawn is that the costs of the present regulatory regime massively outweigh any presumed benefits. We cannot continue as we are. The Government recognise that. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has conceded the need for a lighter touch and a reduction in the burden imposed on universities. A new regime for subject reviews is to be introduced later this year. In response to questions on 20th February, the Minister said that we needed to wait and see how well the new system worked.
The move towards a less burdensome system of subject review is very welcome, but I fear that the Minister's position does not go far enough. It is flawed in two respects. First, it confuses a lighter touch with a light touch. There is a world of difference between the two. A lighter touch may denote a shift from an extraordinarily heavy burden to a heavy burden. It is also essentially—certainly in this case—reactive. The Government recognise that there is a heavy burden and they are making some move away from it. With a light touch there is by definition an absence of a heavy load. It is also something that can be worked towards. It can constitute a clear future goal.
It is clear from the Minister's comments on 20th February that she embraces a lighter touch, but not a light one. When asked about the reduction in the burden on universities, she said that the number of individual subjects to be reviewed was to be reduced by one third and that the number of days that people spent undertaking the reviews would be reduced by about one fifth. Those constitute reductions, but it is obvious from the figures that they are not major reductions. The coverage of the QAA under the new system has been extended. I understand that Roger Brown, the former head of the Higher Education Quality Council, has described the new system as,
"almost certainly the most complex anywhere in the world".
And for what? Trials of three subject areas in 1999 failed to establish that there had been any significant reduction in the overall burden of external scrutiny.
Secondly, the problem cannot be seen in discrete terms. It has to be put in the context of the other pressures on the education system. Those pressures are several and come from different sources. By concentrating on slimming down subject reviews, albeit modestly, there is a danger of missing the much wider and more critical picture. That wider picture needs to be addressed quickly. Instead of slimming down the existing regime, or at least slimming down one particular regime, we should be looking at alternative ways of achieving the goals that I adumbrated in my opening remarks. There is too much duplication in the quality control system. Too much of it is unproductive. We need to look for leaner, fitter and less obtrusive methods of ensuring accountability and good quality education and research. Given the competition that universities now engage in, not least in recruiting students, one has to ask whether heavy external regimes are necessary.

1471
I end by putting some questions to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, who will reply to the debate. He has taught in higher education and chaired the Further Education Funding Council. I suspect that he will have empathised with many of my points. Does he accept the comment of Howard Newby in 1999 that we have,
"the most scrutinised education system in the world"?
Does he accept the argument of Universities UK that the £250 million spent on the accountability regime could be put to more effective use by being devoted to reversing deteriorating teaching facilities? Does he accept the need for a light touch in higher education? In each case, if not, why not? Finally and fundamentally, what are the Government doing, in conjunction with Universities UK and other bodies, to look holistically at the problems facing our universities and to find alternative ways of achieving the goals to which we all subscribe. I beg to move for Papers.
5.50 p.m.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, on introducing this debate on accountability. I certainly welcome it. It is a vital issue. In my capacity as chief executive of Universities UK—I declare that interest—I know that our universities would be the first to agree that they should be accountable for the public funds that they receive. After all, public funds account for a large proportion—some 62 per cent—of their money.
However, the systems by which our universities account for that public money certainly need to be reformed. There are questions about cost-effectiveness and whether those systems are all necessary. I am sure that we all want to relieve universities of unnecessary burdens because they are time-consuming and costly and they limit innovation. Universities are finding that the burden of red tape is reducing their scope for flexibility. Flexibility is vital if universities are to develop their students to the full.
Our universities will be able to do that if they can tailor their programmes to the interests of students. That is a particular strength of UK universities. However, I fear that the burden of too much red tape might force our universities into constructing more limited programmes. I cannot emphasise enough how important flexibility is in allowing our universities to carry out the research which is so important to the economy.
The present system places a cost on universities which they can ill afford. After decades of cuts, the last thing that they need is for the much-needed extra resources, hard won from the Government, to be siphoned off into dealing with red tape.
It is worth asking how much the present systems cost. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, mentioned PA Consulting Group—the independent consultants retained by HEFCE, the Higher Education Funding Council for England, to look into the burden of accountability, as we have all come to call it. PA
1472
Consulting said that the direct and indirect costs of the present systems—the noble Lord, Lord Norton, enumerated them in detail—stand at approximately £250 million each year. Not only is that equivalent to 5 per cent of the total budget of HEFCE but, according to my calculations, it is equivalent to the funding of about two universities.
The main areas of accountability which cause those costs are, as has already been mentioned, the work of the Quality Assurance Agency; the research assessment exercise; to my mind, the cost of bidding for the ever-increasing small pots of money for special initiative funding; and the inexorable increase and sheer cost of extracting more and more information about students, finances and staffing.
Therefore, I was very pleased today to read the announcement from the Department for Education and Employment about the reduction in the burden of higher education quality assessment—one area where we know that there is a substantial burden. I certainly welcome it as a significant step towards reducing that burden. I believe that it is a step towards fulfilment of the Minister's intention that the burden should be reduced, as she said in a response to the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, just a month ago.
I also welcome the further dialogue with the funding council and the Quality Assurance Agency that is intended to continue that process and to identify further measures to reduce the burden on universities. Of course—I believe that everyone will acknowledge this—at the same time, that must be consistent with the need to provide reliable public information for students and other stakeholders.
I also want to stress that the auditors and assessors of the Quality Assurance Agency do a good job. The problem rests with the system of accountability rather than with the people who carry it out. However, I agree that reform must be much more ambitious. The new "light touch" of the QAA may well save the sector money. However, the £250 million bill needs to be reduced drastically. To achieve that, a fundamental reform of the whole series of audit systems is needed. Wholesale reform might mirror more accurately, for example, the good practice, tried and tested, which is employed at present in industry and commerce. I believe that we have much to learn in that regard.
I said that PA Consulting estimates that red tape costs £250 million each year. It is important to put that figure into context. Many noble Lords will know that Universities UK's Funding Options Review Group, under the guidance of Sir William Taylor, issued its final report on university funding, New Directions for Higher Education Funding, only a few weeks ago.
That report identified a funding requirement in the university sector of at least £900 million each year which must be found by 2004–05. Universities need that extra money, among other things, to improve their deteriorating teaching facilities. Those are, of course, enormously important if universities are to provide the skills and knowledge which the economy needs. The extra money is also important in enabling universities fully to motivate their students. Without

1473
it, it becomes increasingly difficult to ensure that the UK's rate of student retention, which is almost the highest in the world, remains that way.
To my mind, if some of the resources which are now being used up in meeting the accountability burden were spent instead on improving the teaching infrastructure and other forms of student support, that would go some way to meeting the funding requirement set out in New Directions for Higher Education Funding.
Having said all that, I very much support the call by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, for attention to be given to this issue. I certainly also welcome the Government's intention of ensuring that that happens.
5.57 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, for introducing this debate, and for doing so with great elegance and great perception and in such a style that, like Clive, he is entitled to stand astonished at his own moderation.
I must, of course, declare an interest. I am a serving university teacher and although I am proud to belong to a party for which I do not have to apologise when I talk to colleagues, I speak for myself and for those with whom I was sitting in a departmental meeting five hours ago.
This is not a party matter and I hope that the Minister will not reply with any party points. We are facing a programme which is strictly, in the good old 18th century sense, that of the Court and Treasury Party. So far as I can see, the change of government has made absolutely no difference whatever. The last time I expressed that view in the Chamber, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, expressed some dismay at it. I decided to check it with my head of department. I asked him whether he had seen any difference in what came from Whitehall since the change of government. He looked at me as though I were half-witted and said, "Of course not". I do not make a party point, but that illustrates that all this has been going on for some time. We are now beginning to hear the ever louder sound of turning worms—it is like the mud flats when the tide goes out.
Recently, I talked to a young colleague, who is not in my department. He is the recent author of an extremely promising first book. He said to me, "I came into this job because I hoped to exercise academic judgment and because I hoped to be able to follow standards which I believe to be right. But if I am to be turned into a sort of lance-corporal, applying standards laid down from somewhere else, then I don't see why I shouldn't go into the City and make some money instead". That remark frightened me, and it is very far from an isolated case. If that mood becomes general, I believe that our survival, on a very wide scale, will be in doubt.
The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, used the word "burden"; that is a literal word. In my experience, departmental secretaries are some of the most dedicated people with whom it has been my privilege to work. One expects departmental
1474
secretaries to go home at half-past five. The day before we had to submit our papers for the teaching quality assessment, the departmental secretary was still at her desk at 4 o'clock in the morning. She was already in her 60s and was not in good health. That is not the sort of burden that one should place on departmental secretaries. If we do, we do not get good service.
We receive the most extraordinary things. I have here a letter, dated 23rd February, which I received from an organisation called Teaching Personnel, the UK's largest teaching agency organising supply teachers for schools throughout every area of England and Wales. The DfEE has recently recognised that FE and HE teachers provide a credible additional resource for supply positions where qualified mainstream teachers are not available. The circular asks:
"Would you be interested in taking temporary supply teaching assignments on your available day?"
I have heard many comments on that circular. This is a polite House; I shall not repeat them.
I should like to ask the Minister—I do not expect an immediate answer but I shall put it down for a Written Answer—what was the cost of this consultation exercise? How many university teachers have come forward to take up supply teaching positions? What was the cost to public funds per university teacher who did so? I shall be interested to see the answer.
A great many of the questions are completely irrelevant to what one does, incomprehensible in relation to one's own work, and therefore unanswerable. A couple of weeks ago I had to fill in an appraisal form. The first question that it asked about my teaching was what I had done to develop teaching material. I ask people to read books—I do not supply them with teaching material—and that is getting more difficult than it used to be. I could multiply those cases over and over again.
When I once served on the research assessment exercise, I was given a large amount of paper from the number-crunchers in Whitehall. I was only able to proceed once I had been solemnly assured by my chairman that I could ignore every word because none of it told me anything that I wanted to know about the quality of the people whom I was assessing.
Accountability is obviously a key issue. The change that became effective in 1988 was the disappearance of the University Grants Committee. In retrospect, it looks even more important than it did at the time. That is because we are now seeing an attempt to make the quality judgments, on which attempts to assess accountability are based, not in the old University Grants Committee, which was competent to do it, but inside Sanctuary Buildings themselves. That attempt is literally ultra vires; it is beyond their power; they are not competent to do it. That is especially so since one observes from all these questionnaires an immense inability to recognise the differences between subjects, as in the case of the length of a PhD. A PhD in history and a PhD in chemistry are not identical operations. Any attempt to control them by a uniform set of rules

1475
must risk mangling one of them. I have not taken on a PhD candidate since these rules came into force. I regret that.
There must, of course, be accountability. Whitehall is entitled to know that we spend money on the items for which we are granted it. But the body to which universities are properly accountable for judgment of quality, a body that is able to assess it, is the global higher education market. That is something real. Judging by the number of people coming in from places such as France, Germany and the Netherlands, we are not doing that badly. However, it does not really seem to impinge on Whitehall because of the obsession with irrelevant quantitative indicators.
The other point to be mentioned in this respect is that we have moved away from the semi-autonomy of the University Grants Committee towards a relationship very similar to that which exists between Whitehall and the boards of the private utilities, in which a technical private ownership is combined with a very detailed contract, enabling Whitehall to demand changes in practically everything from what Railtrack does with its rails to what sort of books we use for teaching. In neither case is Whitehall competent to take those decisions. So what we have is detailed control without responsibility. We know what sort of a prerogative power without responsibility is: and it is what this system provides us with. It is not doing us any good.
It causes the more anxiety because of the fact that all these measures came into force together with a passionate attempt from inside Whitehall to reduce unit costs. There is a suspicion, by no means unknown among my colleagues, that the whole atmosphere of quality control is a back-door attempt to reduce unit costs—a deliberate Whitehall attempt to reduce quality and then to blame the universities for the result. "Never" is a short time in politics. But in the case of Oxford's reaction to the case of Laura Spence and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "never" will be not quite as short a time as usual. It causes a very deep measure of anger, and that should not be ignored.
In terms of unit costs, matters have been getting worse ever since 1976. The mere mention of 1976 compels me to a recognition that some change in that direction had to happen. But a pendulum that goes on swinging in one direction for 24 years should be due to swing back again. I do not see much sign of it. That is from where we get the sense of turning worms among my colleagues; the sense of their being deliberately set up to fail and blamed when they do so. It is not confined to my own profession. Dr Bogle of the BMA has recently expressed very much the same sense. Any lawyers listening to the Home Secretary's criticisms a couple of weeks ago may well have made similar comments that I have not been privileged to hear. I guess that they have not been put into printable form! So there is a very strong feeling that unless this downward pressure on unit costs can be brought to a halt, and the whole attempt to make academic judgments inside Whitehall brought to a halt with it, if
1476
it were to end in there being no more universities in this country, it would not cause me nearly as much grief as I would wish.
6.08 p.m.
Lord Parekh: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, for introducing this extremely important debate.
Since the noble Lord, Lord Norton, the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, have spoken about the larger issues raised by the current bureaucratic regime that impinges on the universities, I should like to concentrate on one particular aspect—the Quality Assurance Agency and its operations. Universities are publicly funded and must obviously be accountable to the wider society. However, it is worth remembering that, since these days they are less dependent on public resources, they cannot have the degree and depth of accountability they used to.
Since universities compete for students at home and abroad, and since the country has a vital stake in their professional reputation, it is crucial that their quality of teaching and standard of degrees should enjoy public confidence here and abroad. Although academics are men of honour and commitment, they are fallible human beings, and some are inevitably tempted from time to time to cut corners. For those and other related reasons, there can be and should be no objection to some form of national quality assurance.
The current system, however, leaves much to be desired. That becomes strikingly evident when we consider three recent findings. First, we were told that the politics departments of Salford and De Montfort Universities are superior to that at the LSE in the quality of teaching and standard of exams. Salford and De Montfort are obviously good universities and I respect them, but I do not think that one would want to argue that they are in the same international league as the LSE, as the differences in their RAE results and international reputation clearly show. An exercise that finds those departments superior to that at the LSE is prima facie suspect.
Secondly, several departments have secured 24 out of the maximum of 24 points. That is odd as it implies that those departments are perfect and need no further improvement whatever. It is even odder that hardly any department seems to have secured less than 22 out of 24 points and that a score of 22 out of 24 is widely regarded as a sign of failure. There is certainly something worrying about a system which encourages such grade inflation and clusters almost all university departments around an extremely narrow band.
Thirdly, almost all university departments that have gone through the quality assurance exercise have been highly critical of it, including those which have obtained the highest number of points, such as the Department of Economics at the University of Warwick whose senior professors wrote a scathing piece in the Guardian only a few weeks ago.

1477
What then is wrong with the current system? First, it is crude. It judges university subjects and departments on the basis of six criteria which are not all of equal importance. The quality of teaching is at the heart of the pedagogical exercise and cannot be treated on a par with the supply of teaching materials, library resources, student support or even curriculum design.
Secondly, the Quality Assurance Agency largely concentrates on what I might call the externalities of teaching and cannot even remotely be said to assess the quality of teaching which it claims to assess. It looks at a department's paperwork and minutes of various committees. It talks to past and present students from the department, whom the department itself has chosen for the purpose. That is obviously an inadequate basis on which to pronounce judgment on the commitment, inspirational qualities, extra-curricula contacts with students and the scholarship of the teachers involved.
Thirdly, since so much importance is given to paperwork, departments are forced to spend huge amounts of time getting it right. In my own department, for example, two colleagues spent nearly four months of their precious time getting together the nearly 150 ring-binders required for the exercise. Other colleagues devoted only slightly less time to it. All that detracts from the time needed for research and teaching and brings the whole department to a virtual standstill for weeks on end.
Fourthly, the whole exercise, costing hundreds of thousands of pounds, seems to produce little benefit. The departments may learn to be a bit more efficient in their paperwork or in ensuring that recommended books are available in their libraries, but there is very little improvement in the substance and quality of teaching. An outsider sitting in on odd lecture or tutorial is hardly in a position to proffer sensible advice to the teacher concerned or to the students involved.
Fifthly, thanks to the way that the Quality Assurance Agency has operated, academic morale has suffered enormously. Academics feel that they are not trusted to do their jobs and that they are judged by matters which are external and incidental to the exercise of teaching for which they entered the academic profession in the first instance. Indeed, every student now appears to them not as a mind to be trained but as a symbol of so much paperwork—a burden to be avoided to the extent that one could and one would do so if only the student did not bring some money.
As several friends in the Academy of the Learned Societies of Social Sciences have pointed out to me, they would prefer to resign and be re-employed on a part-time basis to avoid the mindless paperwork and bureaucratic inspection to which they are subject.
I have argued so far that some external quality assurance is necessary. But I have argued also that the existing regime is deeply flawed. What then is the alternative? In the short time available to me, I shall end by making four suggestions.
1478
First, universities, by and large, consist of committed people who have enough professional integrity to take their pedagogical responsibilities seriously. Our universities also have, unlike their European and American counterparts, a fairly effective system of external examiners who not only ensure high standards of marking but also high standards of curriculum design and so on.
Since universities depend on students, they all have a vested interest in ensuring that they enjoy an excellent reputation. Therefore, I suggest that we should approach universities in a spirit of trust rather than suspicion and appeal to and modernise their professional integrity rather than their fears and vulnerabilities. We should rely on encouraging them to do yet better, rather than shaming and hounding them.
Secondly, we should urge, or perhaps even require, universities to devise their own mechanisms for inspecting and improving their quality of teaching and standard of degrees. Young lecturers benefit far more if their senior colleagues attend lectures, advise them on curriculum design and so on rather than having outsiders making negative comments on the basis of a two or three day visit to the university.
Thirdly, external quality assurance should be a device of last resort rather than a regular regime of inspection. Only when students complain or when the Quality Assurance Agency has reason to believe that the university department is failing in its duty should it send in an inspection team. Such inspections should not be routine but activated only when universities fail to be self-regulatory. And its concern should be to help to improve the quality of teaching, rather than to concentrate merely on what I have called the externalities of the pedagogical exercise.
Such inspection is likely to be beneficial only if it is led by senior scholars in the field whose judgment and impartiality are widely respected, rather than by those with no research record, no strong reputation as teachers or who have become disillusioned with academic life themselves.
Finally, we need to remember that different disciplines and subjects cannot all be judged in the same way. English literature is not statistics and both again are very different from history and economics. We need to appreciate those differences and evolve appropriate criteria of assessment.
I have one final thought. I am fairly confident that some of the greatest past teachers of our country— Isaiah Berlin, Karl Popper or Michael Oakeshott— would most certainly have failed to pass many of the bureaucratic tests set by the QAA. A system with such results most certainly needs a radical second look.
6.18 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I hope that the expert speakers and the great contemporary experts who have spoken already will forgive a Rip Van Winkle offering a few memories and reflections.
I had the honour to open the first ever debate held on universities in this House 45 or 46 years ago. I opened the first debate on polytechnics some years

1479
later. So my mind goes back a long way and I ask myself what has been the result of the initiatives taken on those occasions, not only by me, of course, because I was just a minor figure.
There was a nationwide demand among well-informed people that there should be a great expansion of university places; and that has duly taken place. There was an almost equal demand that polytechnics should receive university status; and that also has been achieved.
What has been the result? We have the debate today. Those complaints were never made in the old days because there were not the same difficulties. But now, with this vast number of students, the tendency to introduce bureaucracy is obviously overwhelming and so we have this debate.
I defer to the academic credentials of many Members of this House. When I last counted, some little while ago, there were some 15 professors. Now, I think there are a good many more, including four who are speaking today. The Minister, who will reply, is versed in higher education, as are other speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, is head of a college. Other noble Lords have been heads of colleges. We have here every kind of expertise. There are two Fellows of All Souls, neither of whom is in his place: the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham—we do not hear from him often enough these days—and the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, who we warmly welcome.
I speak merely as a college tutor at Oxford in the 1930s and for a short while in the 1950s. My first pupil later became owner of the Telegraph group of newspapers. My last pupil later became Chancellor of the Exchequer. So, I have had experience of academic life. All my seven surviving children graduated. Sixteen of my grandchildren have graduated, with others to come. I have, therefore, had contact with universities. I taught for the Workers' Educational Association and at the London School of Economics. I have my own credentials, even if they do not compare with some of those here.
My message can be delivered briefly. Everybody has, in their own mind, those special features of university life which mean most to them. Some think of the social life; which is not by any means to be despised. Some think of the wonderful, unforgettable lectures they have heard, and some think of the opportunities for research, which are much more pronounced than in my day. I think of the tutorial system. I shall ask the Minister whether the tutorial ideal is still preserved. It was carried much further in the old universities. The circumstances were much more favourable than throughout the polytechnics, for example. Nevertheless, is the tutorial system, carried out on a one-to-one-basis—occasionally two people have a tutorial at the same time—to be preserved as an ideal, or, under the new developments is it completely overlooked?
Much is said today about pressure. Does that interfere with the tutorial system and make it less likely that a tutor will have time to give to a pupil what tutors
1480
gave me in my time; namely, an hour a week throughout his time at university? Is that still possible or has that been rejected?
The tutorial system had its disadvantages. Some tutors frightened their pupils. Even the great and mighty Dick Crossman, later to become a famous Cabinet Minister, was somewhat intimidated by the philosopher HWB Joseph who kept asking his pupils, "What do you mean by that word?" The only man to defeat him was Professor Lindemann, later Lord Cherwell. He retaliated on one occasion in a seminar by asking, "What do you mean by the word 'mean'?" That left Joseph temporarily speechless.
Pupils did not always get on well with their tutors. I know of a gifted young woman who asked to be given a different tutor. A tutor had to be fetched from London to Cambridge to look after her. I owe everything to a tutor, an economic Scotsman, who was a rather awkward type. I said to him on one occasion, "I suppose I shall get a first?" He said, "I've no reason to think so". That made me settle down to work for the first time in my life. One can owe a lot to a tutor. Perhaps I may simply press the point to the Minister: is the tutorial system still any kind of ideal or will the new developments destroy it?
6.24 p.m.
Lord Morgan: My Lords, I hope that it is in order to speak. I spoke in the previous debate and hope that I am not taxing the tolerance of the House too much. The debates on English regional government and this debate on universities raise exactly the same themes. They both concern the impact of centralisation on the regions and, in this case, on free and supposedly autonomous institutions.
I listened with enormous interest to the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, a fellow member of the professoriate, and, indeed, a member of perhaps a smaller sub-group; namely, a former vice-chancellor. His speech and those of other speakers brought back many memories, many rather miserable. To hear some of those observations was rather like having a lunch appointment with Banquo's ghost.
We have heard much about the mechanics of the present situation. As an historian I am interested in origins. These matters did not originate with the government of Mr Blair but with the policies of the Conservative Party in the 1980s. I do not mean to be narrowly partisan, or at all, but as a matter of historical accuracy, the present situation began with a process of trying to change the direction of institutions and of using governments so to do.
In many ways, that process was necessary; I do not dispute that. Universities needed reform at that period. In some ways I found, as a vice-chancellor, that the impact could be liberating and by no means depressing. However, it was part of a process in which trying to roll back the force of state control led to more control. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, is a distinguished professor of politics. He will be familiar with the philosophy of Jean Jacques Rousseau, and the outstanding example of forcing men to be free, as

1481
Rousseau said. So it was with universities; with local government forced to be free of the "loony Left", and with hospitals and many other institutions at that time.
The process built on an even earlier tradition. In my opinion, the universities began to lose their esteem and their right to freedom, as popularly perceived, in the student troubles of the late 1960s, immediately after the Robbins report. The student rebellions of the 1960s had many positive features. They improved the governance of universities, and the way in which young people were dealt with in matters of discipline, and so forth.
However, the rebellions left a disastrous impression on the public mind: the view that universities were incapable of running themselves. Without intention, the student rebellions led to a feeling that universities were incompetent and had to be taken over. That chimed in with a later feeling, the so-called "taxpayers' revolts"; the feeling that students who behave in that way should not in any way be supported or funded by the taxpayer. That led to the interventionist reforms under the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, which were taken up by John Major and, I am sorry to say, have been continued without any great fundamental change by the present administration.
Many of the features of which we have heard chime in exactly with my own recollection as a vice-chancellor between 1989 and 1995. In some ways I believe that the procedures have got worse. We have heard a great deal about the funding document concerning administrative matters and regulation, which was Commissioned by HEFCE, the funding council for England. As the noble Lord, Lord Norton, explained, it went through the whole range of impacts, both direct and indirect, institutional and personal, and the enormous costs involved. All that was alarming. It related to England, but my information is that the process in Wales is by no means an improvement. Although I believe in devolution, I felt that the devolution procedures in higher education were not a great advertisement for that principle.
The worst of the problems has been alluded to. I refer to the quality assessment subject reviews which are enormously time consuming. A number of figures were quoted. Those in the hefty document related to the University of Leeds, which I know at first hand. That medium-sized university reckons that it costs £70,000 a year, much of it unnecessary in terms of duplication and excess of details. As has rightly been said, there is considerable pressure on university staff. We see in the public service the kind of demoralisation that we see among teachers and people in the NHS. That is part of a diminution of the esteem of the public service, despite the Government's best efforts. The situation is not improving and is perhaps worsening.
Perhaps less overwhelmingly expensive and complicated are the institutional audits of which I have had great experience. They are enormously detailed. It seems to me that the same unnecessary degree of pedantic detail is sought in all aspects of a university's operation and there is no "lightness of touch" in that direction.
1482
The research assessment exercise has in some ways shown an improvement in terms of its impact on universities but in some ways it has become worse. One twist that has been imposed is that the documentation which cannot be discovered by assessors in their own institutions, libraries and so forth must be found by the university under review. In other words, it is forced to carry the administrative costs which should properly be borne by those administering the system and by the funding council. Time and again we hear that this is a listening administration. We often hear of governments listening but sometimes I have my doubts because the listening process is not too evident.
Bids for new academic developments are needlessly complicated and heavy in their detail. In my experience as a vice-chancellor, it is easier to obtain resources and funding for new developments from Europe. For example, in Wales there was a simple procedure for obtaining funding for a new lecturer from the committee dealing with minority languages.
Finally, I turn to audits. Like all public institutions, universities need to be audited. In my experience, they were audited several times a year. It was perhaps a peculiarly Welsh experience because we had the disastrous case of the university in Cardiff, which my noble friend Lord Morris will know better than I. I in Aberystwyth felt that we were all tarred with the same brush and therefore audited to death because we could not be trusted with public money—could we?
I felt that all the audits were not so much auditing us as auditing each other. If one audit suggested 92 technical improvements, the next, as a matter of honour and pride, suggested 110. And so it would go on. The famous phrase, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" comes to mind—who guards the guardians? Who, I wondered, audited the auditors? It was not transparent to me.
As the hefty document makes clear, the right balance is not being struck between public assurance about universities and their private governance. This is harmful to their resources and to their role as precious centres of intellectual life. I say that with some sorrow because I believe that the Government have done many splendid things for education, including higher education. We have a new level of funding of more than £1 billion over the next three years. The unit of resource is going up rather than down. We have new money to improve staff retention and recruitment, although I agree with those who have said that staff stipends are at an extremely poor level.
The sheer pressure of costs and time seem to be working against those objectives and getting in the way of the universities' immediate role of research and teaching, and contributing more widely to the moral and knowledge economy of this country. That is seen most obviously in the operations, narrowly educational; but a new level has been alluded to; namely, the intervention of the Treasury. There is a new phenomenon which is interesting to historians and perhaps even more so to political scientists: the Treasury is concerned not only with controlling and vetting the expenditure of departments for their

1483
policies but also with laying down what those policies should be. That seemed an indicative feature of the melancholy story of Laura Spence with, it appeared, an attempt to dictate on, sadly, wrong information, what the admissions policy of an Oxford faculty should be.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Parekh that trust should be placed in universities. They have a high international reputation and a high and proven level of efficiency on all the indicative tests which are applied to a business. The costs imposed on universities are too frequently artificial regulatory burdens which could well be diminished. We have heard the kind of savings that could be made.
Labour governments have an honourable tradition in education. The Wilson and Callaghan governments took forward the great expansion following the Robbins report. The present Government are committed to the noble ideal of raising participation massively to more than 50 per cent in higher education and to the strategies of lifelong learning. Universities can, and should, be trusted to carry that policy through.
Finally, to misquote Rousseau again, universities were conceived as free but too often they are in chains. Even if the chains are paper chains, they ought to be removed.
6.37 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, for introducing an extremely important debate. We have touched on the subject in this House from time to time but never concentrated on the issue of bureaucracy in universities. I must declare an interest. For much of my life I have been an academic and remain attached to the University of Sussex on a part-time basis.
One must put the development of bureaucracy in universities within the context of the growth of mass higher education in this country. When I went to university in 1957, I was one of 7 per cent of the age cohort then going through to university. In the 1960s, under the Robbins expansion that 7 per cent increased to about 10 per cent. By the end of the 1970s we were taking in 14 per cent of the 18-year olds. The figure remained static at 14 per cent until about 1987. Then there was a big expansion. By 1993 the number had risen to 28 per cent and we are now touching 35 per cent. The aim is to have 50 per cent of the 18 year- olds going on to higher education.
When I went to Sussex in 1980, I took tutorial groups usually of four. It was the Sussex tradition to have tutorials rather than classes. It was not quite the Oxbridge tradition of two but it was a semi-Oxbridge tradition. It was good because although I had a relatively small room I could fit four students in it and take them for a tutorial. When I left in 1998 the tutorial group was typically 17 or 18 students.
1484
That illustrates the fact that it is necessary to have different teaching techniques. One gets to know four students personally very quickly. One knows their foibles and can cope very easily with four written pieces of work each week. One sets the written work and it comes back. If one has 18 students it is much more difficult. One does not like to go round a class and check the names, or pass round a piece of paper, but one must keep a note of the students who come in. However, to teach 18 students is a different matter.
When 7 to 10 per cent of the age cohort went into higher education, a student could be handed an essay and literally a few books that might be relevant. The student had to search out the information for himself or herself and learnt enormously as a result. One can use those methods only with the top decile, or perhaps a little more, of the intelligence quotient. When one has many more students one cannot rely on those methods.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness a question. Does the noble Baroness agree that in the case she mentioned the tutorial system has been abandoned?
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, it has not been completely abandoned. From time to time, as an academic, one gives tutorials to students who come to one's room and say they cannot understand. In Oxbridge the tutorial system continues, and that is one of the advantages of that sector. However, it also costs a lot more.
It was natural to look much more closely at teaching methods. Those changes took place simultaneously with other changes in the 1980s. It was a time when public expenditure was being squeezed enormously and the public and government demanded value for money. As the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and others explained, from that climate derived the two big exercises in accountability: teaching quality assessment and research assessment.
Other bureaucratic exercises have now crept in, many of which have come from this Government rather than the previous one. There is an increasing tendency to ring-fence money and ask for separate bids. That means that somebody must put together the bid. That can take a great deal of administrative and academic time. That is all extra time taken out. The question is whether all of these exercises are really necessary. Have they become unnecessarily bureaucratic?
Because I work in a research unit at the University of Sussex my experience has related largely to RAE which is slightly less bureaucratic than the teaching quality assessment exercises. At the end of the day, probably the unit puts in slightly more than a year's worth of top time to hone the RAE application. It is a five-year exercise. At the start, one has 30 researchers who publish research. One looks at what research is going on, tries to identify the researchers who are likely to produce good work and get them to submit articles to the premier journals to ensure that they publish their work early, and so on. One talks to them about

1485
the timetable. To some extent, one plots it and gradually builds it up. It is probable that half a dozen of the top people in the unit are involved in putting it together. Over the five years we spend a year's time putting the RAE together. That also has knock-on effects.
The other side of the bureaucracy, to which the noble Lord, Lord Norton, also referred, is the spillover: the effects on morale and so on. My impression is that TQA has a much worse record. I have not been involved in the detail. Based on the single lecture course in which I was involved—10 lectures and 10 classes which went with it—I was surprised by the amount of paper. I ended up producing about 200 pages of paper to justify what I did and everything that went with it. It took me about a week to put together. If one assumes that one department has about 120 courses like that, one begins to understand how the Warwick economists came to the conclusion that it would cost £120,000 for one subject review. I have checked with the University of Sussex and discovered that in the past year it has undertaken five reviews. Therefore, the expenditure on these subject reviews by a university is between £½ to £¾ million each year. PA Consulting found that it amounted to a great deal of money.
As the Warwick economists pointed out in their splendid article in the education section of the Guardian, one is batting against a flexible objective which changes all the time. One of the bad factors is the degree to which the rules change all the way along so one never quite knows at what one is looking. It does not give an objective standard of teaching quality or a good measure of changing quality over time. Therefore, it is not necessarily a good diagnostic tool to the department. There are always knock-on effects as one sits down to appraise oneself. Good things come out of it. One realises that there are shortcomings and that it is possible to do some things better, but overall the cost is great and the benefits, which could probably be secured by other much less costly means, relatively marginal.
The reason why these have become such demons within the university sector is that they come on top of what was already a very stressed situation. As various noble Lords have pointed out, during the 1980s the real increase in the resources of universities was not very great, and resources have not kept pace with the demands in terms of student numbers. We know that in 1988 the unit of resource was £7,000 plus; it is now £4,500 plus.
In most departments the average contact time for a teaching fellow is probably between 10 and 14 hours a week. On top of that, one has preparation and marking time. Because classes have become so much larger, marking takes more time. My daughter is currently downstairs with the University of Bradford group showing off what is being done in the environmental sciences department of that university. Just before I came into the Chamber for the debate, I gave tea to my daughter and some of her fellow lecturers. They were very interested in the debate and were sorry that they could not listen to it. I spoke to
1486
them about teaching loads. They said that, typically, the load was about 14 hours a week but it took three times as long to mark the work. On top of every essay was an assessment sheet. One of them said that it took almost half an hour to fill out the sheet.
I was a detailed marker of essays and I estimated that it took me half an hour to mark one. If I had 16 to do it took eight hours to mark them decently. The time taken to mark nowadays is very great. One has 14 hours of teaching and probably at least the same amount of time for preparation and marking, with five hours spent in committees. That takes up one's 35 hours a week and all one's research. Promotion conies from research. In view of the impact of the RAE the pressures on research are enormous. All of this must be done in the evenings and at weekends. The average working week of academics is now between 50 and 60 hours, and for the more senior staff it is often between 60 to 70 hours. Often 70 per cent of a department suffers stress.
This system of bureaucracy has been labelled by one of my academic colleagues at Leeds, Hugo Radice. as equivalent to the soviet system. I should like to quote briefly his words:
"The institutions we work in resemble more and more closely the Soviet form of enterprise. Our activities take place within a rigid hierarchy that runs up through the head of department to the school, faculty, the university as a whole, and thence to the Higher Education Funding Council for England, the functional equivalent of Gosplan, the high command of the Soviet planning system.
Our task is not to generate high quality of learning and teaching but to satisfy the current demands of the quality inspection system, which means producing a Potemkin village, paint scarcely dry on the walls, for the week of inspection by the Quality Assurance Agency".
The system resembles closely the system of Soviet bureaucracy. Many noble Lords have drawn attention to the effect that this regime has upon recruitment and retention of staff and the difficulty of continuing to attract the best and brightest brains into the profession. What they have not pointed out are the insidious effects that this command economy has created within the collegiate system of our universities. Instead of professionalism, there is increasing cynicism and emphasis on how best to get around the rules; in effect, to cheat against the rules and to be economical with the truth.
We all know how the Soviet system collapsed under the weight of its own inefficiencies. British universities have a long and very distinguished record of scholarship and invention, borne from a liberal regime of independence and autonomy. Noble Lords have not quarrelled with the need for accountability, but it is dangerous that we may let our universities fall under the weight of their own bureaucracy.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may assist her argument by pointing out to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that I last practised the tutorial system as recently as yesterday afternoon. If it is dead, I am a ghost and I have not noticed.
6.52 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Norton for the opportunity to have the debate and for his excellent speech. The noble Lord's theme was that universities are under-resourced, undervalued and underpaid.
The Government, on coming into office, set about, in their own words, "a modernising agenda". Indeed, in that respect, hardly any of our institutions has escaped the Whitehall tentacles. They set about this work with gusto. In just four years their most significant achievement has been to turn professional staff in our schools, further and higher education in colleges and universities into ciphers, paper pushers and collators of endless information demanded by the Government, the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education and the research assessment exercise.
The staff are enslaved by overburdensome bureaucracy and no value has been added to the quality of higher education by this additional work. One can add to that concerns about levels of central government interference through the various and unco-ordinated funding initiatives and of course concerns about the much discussed, but as yet unresolved, levels of pay for university lecturers which are affecting recruitment and retention. The level of bureaucracy is having a considerably adverse effect on the work of universities.
Accountability is important. However, the system of quality assurance has invalidated the aims of accountability by debilitating the energies of teachers and lecturers and by absorbing excessive costs.
The original "mission"—to use another government buzzword—for the QAA was,
"to promote public confidence that quality of provision of standards of awards in higher education are being safeguarded and enhanced".
I am afraid that rings very hollow. An industry of bureaucracy and time-consuming unnecessary work is having an impact on standards.
My noble friend Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, who cannot be with us today, commented on,
"the bureaucracy which now strangles the unfortunate teachers in the University sector … There are mountains of paperwork … The Government are creating a new profession—bureaucratic administration … The dead hand of bureaucracy is falling upon British Universities".—[Official Report, 14/6/00; cols. 1676–77.]
What is depressing is that the Government now accept that there is a problem. They have spent four years creating the burden of bureaucracy, only to focus now on reversing that problem. Earlier this year the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said:
"But I accept also that the burden, particularly for teaching quality assessment, has become rather bureaucratic. It is for those reasons that a new system is being introduced in the autumn. We need to wait and see how well that works".—[Official Report, 20/2/01; col. 595.]
1488
That is a tardy response to a problem identified back in 1998 and which has been the subject of regular comment by noble Lords from all Benches in this House. The late Lord Annan was right when he said:
"The more the bureaucrats in the department are fed, the hungrier they become".—[Official Report. 8/12/99; col. 1334.]
The PA report Commissioned by HEFCE was damning. The authors of the report found that higher education institutions incurred significant costs, both direct and indirect, which are generally not measured nor planned. The table on page 6 of the report calculated costs of £250 million, which does not include the cost to the quality of teaching in universities arising from—I quote—
"bidding 'game-playing",
and the planning uncertainties and staff stress. Those are points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick.
On page 7 of the report they also found that the overall accountability regime for English higher education emerges as a patchwork of legacy requirements from different stakeholders responding to different concerns at different times, with little overarching design, co-ordination or rationale. In consequence, the current regime represents poor value for money for both stakeholders and institutions.
The report goes on to say that there is a lack of defined relationships between stakeholders and higher education institutions and different agencies; there are inconsistencies between the key agencies and the accountability requirements; and information requirements are uncoordinated, duplicated and, in many cases, redundant. To wait until the autumn of this year before these issues are properly addressed suggests an indifference over the past four years to the concerns of our universities, all of which were predicted when the QAA system was put in place.
The issue of university lecturers' pay cannot be divorced from this issue. I shall not pretend today— nor did I in our debate last week on student poverty— that concerns about pay and conditions in universities and their funding started in May 1997. We are all culpable. But I must emphasise again that the Dearing report was established by the Conservative Government precisely to deal with these issues, including increased access for students. That report was Commissioned with the support of the Labour Party.
Recommendation 50 of the Dearing report advocated that an independent committee should be appointed by the employers to consider a framework for determining pay and conditions of service. As we all know, an independent report by the Bett committee published in June 1999 acknowledged the need to raise the salaries of university lecturers. The Bett report called for an extra £350 million from the Government. However, the Government have consistently avoided a direct response to the Bett report, arguing that it was Commissioned for the sole benefit of the university employers. The Guardian on 13th July 1999 reported

1489
that David Blunkett, the Secretary of State for Education, had been credited with dismissing the Bett proposals as,
"all in cloud cuckoo land".
Certainly, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has consistently argued that this is a matter for the employers and not for government.
In July 1999, in a debate on that report, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said that,
"the Dearing Committee recommended that there should be an independent review [of lecturers' pay]. That independent review has now taken place. It was clear that the Dearing Committee intended that it should be a review set up by and reporting to the employers. That is exactly what has happened. There is no case for the Government to interfere in and to respond to the Bett Committee at this point in time".—[Official Report, 12/7/99; co1.10.]
However, Recommendation 50 of the Dearing committee does not actually specify that the review committee should answer to the employers alone. Although the report recommends that higher education employers appoint the committee, it makes no mention of the intended recipients. The fact that the Government are allotted the task of choosing the chairman indicates that the Dearing committee envisaged government participation in the review. It implies that the Government would be expected to respond upon publication of the review committee's findings.
If Recommendation 50 is considered in context, it appears even more likely that a government response to the prospective review committee was anticipated. Paragraph 72, which precedes Recommendation 50, states:
"Whatever view may be taken of the various options, the issue of remuneration [of higher education employees]should not be looked at in isolation. Significant changes will be needed as higher education responds to changing needs and opportunities. To the extent that higher levels of remuneration may be justified, there is the question of how institutions can meet the cost".
This "question" is one that can be answered only by the Government, so the reply in the debate of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, would appear not to be absolutely accurate.
However, the noble Baroness has since slightly modified the Government's position, as the following exchange on 31st January 2000 demonstrates. I said:
"My Lords, in the past the Minister has been careful to say that the Bett report is not a matter for Government, but for higher education. Do the Government not realise that the key to the universities' ability to consider freely their response to the Bett report has a great deal to do with the way in which the Government fund higher education?".
The Minister replied:
"My Lords, I readily accept what the noble Baroness has just said; that university pay—not only of academics but of all staff in universities—is a large part of universities' expenditure and, of course, the overall level of university funding will have some impact on what is paid to staff. However, as I have already said, the Government have substantially increased the funding available to higher education institutions. They will be looking in the next spending review' at public expenditure in that area, as in many others. The Bett committee will be a factor in that spending review, but of course I cannot anticipate the outcome".—[Official Report, 31/1/00: cols. 3–4.]
1490
The spending review has come and gone and pay remains unresolved in the higher education sector.
Furthermore, the noble Baroness's assertion that,
"the Government have substantially increased the funding available to higher education institutions",
is not factually accurate if the Government's own preferred measure of spending as a proportion of GDP is used. The DfEE figures show that the Government would need to spend an extra £5.9 billion during the current Parliament simply to maintain the level of funding, as a percentage of GDP, set by the previous government.
The Government claim to have increased real terms funding to higher education by 11 per cent over the four years up to 2001–02. I take issue with that. Indeed, I believe that in another place the Liberal Democrats have done so too. Using the Government's preferred measurement of spending on higher education, including the science budget, as a proportion of GDP, and referring in particular to a parliamentary Written Answer, spending as a proportion of GDP between 1992 and 1997 was up 1.27 per cent. whereas between 1997 and 2000 it was up only 1.14 per cent. Furthermore, what modest increases there have been have been more than absorbed by the widening of access. So there is not much scope left for addressing the problems of university pay and conditions.
In a debate on 14th June 2000, my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking quoted Robert Stevens, then the Master of Pembroke College, Oxford. My noble friend went on to say that,
"the Government have received three reports. The latest is the one Commissioned earlier this year by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, the Higher Education Funding Council and the SCP. They all say the same thing; that the quality of education in our universities is declining because of their inability to recruit and retain staff. They say that the infrastructure of our research base is deteriorating. They say that more than one-third of academics in this country are over the age of 50. Young graduates are not being attracted into the profession in the numbers that are required".—[Official Report, 14/6/00; col. 1641.]
Low morale, poor recruitment and retention policies, excessive bureaucracy and too much interference by Ministers need to be addressed. I was impressed, as I always am, by the noble Lord, Lord Morgan. He was right to say that there are lessons to be learnt from history. In a confessional mode I would agree that members of the previous government as well as of the present Government need to learn those lessons. There is a way forward that would enhance academic freedom. Whatever criticisms are made of Conservative policies for universities, the truth is that the universities would welcome being set free— from control and interference, free from bureaucracy and free to manage their own affairs.
Endowment is a way forward and our plans for student finance together with the way in which tax relief will work mean that many students will pay less over time and they will not be obliged to start repayments until earnings are at £20,000 at current prices.
My noble friend Lord Norton should be congratulated. He is of the higher education sector and brings great experience and expertise to bear on our

1491
debates about higher education. I want to thank him most warmly for the opportunity to debate this important subject today.
I end with this comment. Academically free institutions will restore professionalism and morale. That is a very real challenge, but one worth the pursuit.
7.6 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in expressing thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Norton, for initiating this important debate. He identified the issues in a characteristically precise way and stayed very much within the framework of the subject, concentrating on the issue of the burden of bureaucracy on universities.
The noble Lord also asked some quite specific questions. I am not sure that I am entirely equipped to answer them, except to say, first, that I recognise the quote from the chairman of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, who said that our system is the most scrutinised in the advanced world. I would not worry about that epithet if scrutiny was reflected in terms of us also having a higher education system that produced best value for our people and was of a high standard as a whole.
I maintain that, despite some aspects of jeremiad identified in the debate, we have much to be proud of in our universities. We are still attracting students in very large numbers—from abroad, with their clear element of choice, and students from this country— and our position with regard to research is second only to the United States, with its vastly greater resources. Therefore, in a debate such as this, we must be careful not to produce a false perspective of just what is achieved in universities.
The noble Lord asked—it became slightly metaphysical as far as I was concerned—about when light would become lighter in terms of the touch of bureaucracy. During the course of my speech I hope to be able to identify to the noble Lord developments in the process whereby control over quality in higher education is to be exercised from now on. That will certainly be lighter—perhaps to the extent of 40 per cent in relation to the bureaucratic burdens in the assessment of teaching quality. I shall seek to identify the reforms that are being proposed to reach that objective. Whether that will be light enough for the noble Lord, I very much doubt as I recognise the position that he adopts. Nevertheless, I hope to indicate substantial progress and a recognition that one of the concerns of higher education has certainly been about the over-bureaucratic nature of the accountability exercise.
There has not been a speaker in the debate who has not recognised the importance of our higher education system being fully accountable to our people. But how do we achieve that in the best and most economic way? The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, welcomed aspects of the lighter touch that have been announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. He has today identified how that lighter touch is to be
1492
employed. I shall go into that in some detail in a moment. However, I want to reassure her that it is certainly the case that we do not expect the hard-won additional resources advanced for higher education to be lost in red tape. Perhaps I may say, first, that those hard-won resources are real, despite the rather disparaging comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, about the resources presently available. I hope that she will recognise and not contend the fact that sufficient resources have been identified. Indeed, for the first time in over a decade, the real unit of resource will be increased in higher education, irrespective of the number of students on roll. That reverses a process which previous administrations had set in train—indeed, had almost set in stone—over a substantial period of time. Indeed, for year after year, that was the case. For the first time, we shall see that position reversed.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he agree that I was referring to this Parliament? Resources will not be increased during the lifetime of this Parliament.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the first tranche will come into effect in the autumn of this year. I do not know whether that will take place in this Parliament or the next. I merely testify to the fact that all resources are hard won from the Treasury—my noble friend attested to that—but, nevertheless, they are now in place.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised a number of points, not least the fact that remuneration levels for teachers in higher education are such that it is possible that schools might raid higher education institutions for their qualified staff. I do not think that the noble Earl quoted from a government agency with regard to recruitment, but rather from a private agency. Of course we would not condone a situation in which schools raided universities if they were short of qualified staff. Nevertheless, we all recognise that a free market obtains. If a private organisation thinks that it can entice people away from the delights of higher education into the different delights of the school classroom, then that is for individuals to judge.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that the starting pay of a teacher in a primary school, after studying for a three-year degree and gaining postgraduate experience, is now higher than that of someone starting as a young, temporary lecturer in a university? Starting pay at the age of 26 or 27 is around £18,000 a year.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I do not think that I should enter a debate on relative levels of pay when we are debating the question of bureaucracy as it affects higher education. However, perhaps I may say that I would not in any way condemn the enhanced position of primary school teachers. I believe that that development is long overdue. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned, if we are going to discuss this matter in terms of the philosophy of Jean-Jacques

1493
Rousseau and his emphasis on education, then we should recall how my right honourable friend the Prime Minister stressed: "Education, education, education". I take that to mean that education is to be emphasised at the primary level, at secondary level and in further and higher education.
Of course we recognise that there is a problem in higher education pay. That is why specific resources have been identified to address the matter. However, that does not meet the contention put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch; namely, that the Government should in some way suspend the negotiating position of employers in higher education and implement £380 million in one year, a demand which I believe many would regard as, if not unrealistic, at least far beyond the bounds of the imagination of the previous administration. Our steps towards enhancing pay in higher education are admittedly limited, but they have identified specific sums of money—hard won from the Treasury, as I have said—in the public spending round, to be directed towards tackling this important issue.
However, that is not the issue primarily addressed in our debate. We are discussing the burden of bureaucracy in higher education. The Government are alive to the concerns over unnecessary bureaucracy being imposed on our universities. Following the publication of a report on the accountability burden in higher education by the English Funding Council in August 2000, a forum has been established to see how we can achieve a reduction in that bureaucracy. The forum's membership includes representatives of the relevant government departments, HE institutions, the Quality Assurance Agency, the funding councils and the research councils.
A number of practical methods and tools have been identified, such as enhanced arrangements for collecting and sharing student information, leading to an integrated student information system for the whole sector. The English Funding Council has already altered and streamlined its own bidding processes, using conditional grants. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, identified the issue of wasteful bidding. That point has been taken. The method of using conditional grants means that HE institutions will know where they stand as regards their funding and thus avoid bureaucratic and wasteful bidding arrangements. Those have been wasteful of both time and resources, as well as introducing a measure of unpredictability. Good practice guidance for all parties is being sponsored by the funding council with encouragement from the Treasury and from the National Audit Office, along with the support of the Better Regulation Unit in the Cabinet Office.
But the greatest concerns expressed in our debate have turned on the burden on universities and colleges of the reviews to be carried out by the Quality Assurance Agency on the standards of teaching. I understand the comments made by my noble friend Lord Longford as regards the value of the tutorial system. We know of its glories in the older universities. However, perhaps I may say to my noble friend that,
1494
while I would not begin to try to calculate when he attended one of the older universities, let me hazard the proposition that it is quite possible that we are now educating some 10 times the number of students at the higher education level in comparison with the time when he was a student.
In the course of her remarks, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, identified another matter in this regard, one that has occasioned significant change in the nature of the process of higher education. It is a fact that it would be extraordinarily short-sighted of us not to see the potential advantages of new technology in enhancing university education. Technology is already employed in a whole range of subjects because it offers opportunities to achieve more effective teaching. By that I do not intend to imply that I am concerned solely with the economics of teaching, but rather that resources saved in certain areas of teaching can then be made available to reinforce those areas which are perhaps more deserving of staff time.
I shall return to the matter of the Quality Assurance Agency. There is no doubt that the system in place during most of the 1990s was excessively bureaucratic. I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was generous enough to indicate that the system was not created in May 1997, but that it was inherited by the present administration. On taking office, we said that systems should be put in place to ensure a good standard of education for students, but with the minimum of bureaucracy. Over the past few years, the Quality Assurance Agency has consulted widely on a new, streamlined, single system of academic review. The system would rely heavily on self-evaluations by institutions and would draw on the documentation already in use by institutions for their own internal quality assurance processes. It would take account of the previous track record to determine the intensity of review activity, thus ensuring that intervention will be in inverse proportion to success. That is a principle to which I believe we should all subscribe.
The Quality Assurance Agency is determined to schedule reviews to coincide with the needs and preferences of institutions and of all the professional bodies which will be accrediting courses in universities. This has involved a substantial degree of consultation across the sector, a point to which my noble friend Lady Warwick referred.
The new method of assessment is in place; it began in Scotland last autumn. My noble friend the Minister of State made clear on a number of occasions that we would be watching closely how the new system developed in Scotland to ensure that the twin objectives that I mentioned earlier—robust assessment along with streamlined processes—come about.
There are already encouraging signs that the changes will reap the desired benefits. Much less information is required for the QAA reviewers to pore over. The use of e-mail and electronic documents is being encouraged and, because the time spent in institutions by reviewers is much less, the much parodied "base room", which has come in for so much

1495
criticism, is no longer needed. Perhaps that reflects the concept of the lighter touch to which the noble Lord referred.
We were aware, however, that there continued to be a major debate in the sector as to whether the burden, albeit lighter, was still too much. In the responses that we have had it has been quite clear that university departments—particularly those institutions which did not always have the highest status in the sector— may want the opportunity to demonstrate their excellence. Therefore, although the lighter touch enables departments which have reached the required standard not to be subject to the process, we are still leaving open the possibility that a new head—who perhaps wants to establish the worth of his department—may, if he or she so wishes, submit to the process.
Otherwise, we are reducing significantly the weight of work on individual departments. In other words, the Government have concluded that the arguments for a reduction in bureaucracy are compelling. That is why the Secretary of State invited the English Funding Council to discuss with the Quality Assurance Agency and the representative bodies of the universities ways of reducing the load still further. He has paid tribute to the work that has been done by the Quality Assurance Agency and he has ensured that change will take place.
The Government are setting out to make sure that in the future we can look forward to the average length of reviews being reduced by both the funding council and the QAA. The aim is to secure a reduction of 40 per cent or even more in the volume of review activity compared with existing arrangements. This was part of the announcement made today.
We believe that the new arrangements will ensure that high quality provision continues to be identified and that improvements are made while, at the same time, freeing departments of established high quality from the burden of assessment. This is not an elitist approach or one that will work only in the interests of certain universities. High quality departments exist throughout our diverse higher education system. They will all have the opportunity to benefit from the lighter touch where quality is already clearly identified and can be guaranteed.
We are confident that the invitation to the funding council, Universities UK and SCOP to pursue their discussions, coupled with the changes already in the pipeline, will result in significantly reducing the bureaucratic burden.
Lord Morgan: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. He has described very clearly the reduction in bureaucracy within individual reviews. Surely a greater reduction would come from fewer reviews. Another problem is that not only are there lots and lots of reviews but that the system is rather like ripping up a road for water, electricity and gas repairs at different times. Could the reviews not be synchronised.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is the purpose of the extended consultation between the bodies. There would be many merits in obtaining greater co-ordination in that respect. I take on board the point made by my noble friend.
My noble friend Lord Parekh asked whether departments which scored 24 out of 24 were displaying angelic qualities not likely to be found in higher education. I merely point out that the top mark is a product of six different elements of calculation. What we are really seeing is more the component concepts which lead up to an evaluation. It is similar to the situation of a student obtaining a degree. No one suggests that every "first" is of exactly the same quality, but it is a clear mark of excellence at a high level. In that sense, 24 out of 24 is not an indication of absolute perfection; it is more an indication of the excellence of the department concerned.
Comment has also been made today about the burden of the research assessment exercise. We are hoping to reduce the burden on institutions through a range of measures, including the enhanced use of IT for the making of returns, greater use of peer review panels, and greater consistency in the approach to assessment.
In conclusion, the Government believe strongly in ensuring that the quality of higher education, both in teaching and in research, is universally high. Of course we must always strive to get better; of course we all recognise the pressures upon the system from the wider population. The number of students coming forward into our universities is increasing and therefore we should expect increased pressure from outside. After all, universities play an increasingly significant role in relation to our economy and to the social life of our nation, and none of us should shy away from demands for proper accountability.
We want to see poor quality identified and addressed. We owe that to the students we seek to educate. That requires a robust system which focuses the greatest attention where there is the greatest need and the greatest failing. It also means removing unnecessary bureaucracy and burden which would distract hard-working academics and administrative staff from their main jobs.
However, I say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that we should not pray in aid those particular demands upon both academic and administrative staff at the point when the scrutiny is taking place. There is not a sector of our education system which cannot bear testimony to the inevitable strains placed upon already hard-working staff at the point when the inspection team is about to arrive. That is natural in the circumstances.
We have encouraged streamlined approaches which rely on sound internal quality assurance processes and a light touch wherever possible. The plans that we have announced this week will reduce further the burden of bureaucracy on universities while maintaining a robust and firm control over poor quality teaching and research. I may not have entirely convinced the noble

1497
Lord of the degree of the light touch. I am sure that he will recognise, however, that it is a substantial step forward.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to those who have taken part in the debate. I am conscious that, technically, it could go on for another half hour but I shall confine my comments to a few brief points. A very clear message has come across in the debate. There has been agreement among speakers on all sides of the House and I am grateful for their contributions.
I am grateful to the Minister for responding to the debate. I heard what he said. He has outlined the way in which the burden will be reduced and has stressed the lighter touch. I welcome that. However, I would make two brief points in response. Saying that a burden will be smaller does not stop it being a burden. That is especially a problem when the burden itself derives from a system which may be inherently flawed. One should be looking at alternative systems rather than simply seeking to slim down an existing one. My second point relates to that. The Minister did not quite answer my final, fundamental question of what are the Government doing to look holistically at the problems facing our universities and at alternative ways of achieving the goals to which we subscribe.
Throughout the debate it was clear that there was agreement as to the nature of the problem. The existing regime is burdensome; it is not cost effective; it is counter-productive. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, is right. We have a great deal to be proud of in higher education in this country. My fear is that we are jeopardising that by imposing too much on our universities.
As I said in my opening comments, the busier one is with teaching and research, the greater the burden that is imposed by the present regime. I speak with feeling as someone who teaches several courses. I have taught for 25 years in higher education, and I like to think that during that time my teaching has improved. I am still looking at ways to improve it, including through e-technology, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. But if it has got better, it is despite, not because of, the present accountability regime. The regime is burdensome. Most importantly, it is dispiriting; and it is taking a serious toll in the university world. We need to look at the regime in a different way, not simply slim it down.
The best judges of teaching quality are those who are being taught. The best judges of research are those who choose to read the books and the articles, not those who are told that they must do so. There are far more efficient ways of ensuring quality. We need to bring a fresh and novel approach to the subject. The present situation is not sustainable.
My Motion—of necessity—calls for Papers. It will be clear from what I have said that the last thing I want is more papers. This is not the first debate I have initiated in which I have said that. I was conscious when I tabled the Motion that I was calling for papers when the whole thrust of my intention was to get rid of
1498
a whole raft of them. I was also hoping that the Minister might throw away his papers and say what he actually thinks. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

House of Lords Financial Powers Bill [H.L.]
7.32 p.m.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
First, I should like to say what a privilege it is to have the opportunity to introduce this Bill into your Lordships' House. I express my gratitude to noble Lords for attending the debate. I should also like to thank the usual channels for giving time for this Second Reading debate.
I thank also many noble Lords on all sides of the House who have given my noble friend Lord Kingsland and I the benefit of their experience and wise counsel during our deliberations on the Bill. Although it is presented from the Opposition Front Bench, my noble friend and I have sought above all a cross-party approach, not a party political one.
The Bill's objective is simple. It seeks to improve the quality of financial legislation by applying greater parliamentary scrutiny to it, so that tax is simpler and more transparent. It seeks to do this by bringing about a redefinition of a money Bill for the purposes of the 1911 Parliament Act so that the present blanket disqualification on House of Lords involvement in public finance is partly lifted.
It may be helpful if I begin by explaining the need for the Bill and then describe the cure that it might provide. The Treasury Select Committee in another place explains in its latest report, published in January, that the passage of Finance Bills through Parliament affords insufficient opportunities for scrutiny of complex measures. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, told the Commons committee:
"The Finance Bill and the way it is examined by Parliament is totally inadequate, so you get very bad legislation on the statute book and there is no opportunity for the House of Lords or any Select Committee to look at it from a purely technical point of view".
The Select Committee concluded:
"We are dissatisfied with procedure on the Finance Bill, which lets badly drafted and insufficiently tested tax legislation onto the statute book every year".
The difficulty of giving a detailed Finance Bill proper scrutiny in Parliament is reflected in widespread concern about the complexity of the resulting tax system. The Institute of Chartered Accountants states:
"The Finance Act 2000 ran to a staggering 624 pages. Much of this legislation was barely debated in its progress through Parliament. Many of the provisions became law without either a thorough review or the time for second thoughts or worthwhile amendments".

1499
The ICA summed up with the statement:
"The tax system has spun out of democratic control".
No citizen, however intelligent, can match the massed ranks of No. 10, No. 11 and the Treasury: one man against the legions of Rome.
That is the need, but what is the cure? Someone needs to carry the torch for transparency, simplicity and openness in the tax system—but who? It should, of course, be Parliament, but one part of Parliament is disabled in this area; namely, your Lordships' House. As a result, the Bill that should receive the greatest parliamentary scrutiny actually receives the least. Let us consider the Finance Bill 2000, which has the official status of being the longest-ever Finance Bill. The length of debate in the House of Commons was 101 hours and 39 minutes over 93 days. Now let us consider the Finance Bill 2000 in this House. The length of debate was two hours and 29 minutes, on a Friday morning in July on the last day of the parliamentary Session.
Why is that the case? It stems from a decision by this House from which much of our political history takes its origin. If noble Lords will forgive me, perhaps I may briefly revisit the events of November 1909 when this House rejected Lloyd George's "People's Budget". The Government then secured the passage of the Parliament Act, the terms of which enabled the House of Commons to enact a money Bill within a month of its passage, notwithstanding any objections raised in this House.
Notable aspects of this history were recently addressed in this House in a splendid duet of speeches by two of the country's most distinguished Law Lords, the former Solicitor-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale—whom I am delighted to see in his place—and the former Master of the Rolls, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. They reminded us, first, that examination of the recitals to the 1911 Act show that it was intended only as an interim step. The Preamble states:
"Whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords, as it at present exists, a second chamber constituted on a popular instead of a hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation … It is expedient to make such provision as in this Act appears for restricting the existing powers of the House of Lords".
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, said that these recitals showed that the Parliament Act was,
"an interim measure … pending a constitutional change".
The 1911 Act, he says, contained,
"the agreed terms of an armistice".
The second relevant aspect of the history of the Parliament Act 1911 was the motivation behind it. The record seems to show that its raison d'être was the hereditary nature of the upper House. Commending the Parliament Bill to the House of Commons on its Second Reading, the then Liberal Prime Minister, Mr Asquith, said of the hereditary principle,
"Let it not be our master. So say we. It is because it has been our master … because it enslaves and fetters the free action of this House, that we have put these proposals before the House and we mean to carry them into law".
1500
Winston Churchill, campaigning for the Parliament Bill around the country, asked:
"Why should their children govern our children? Why should the sons and the grandsons and the great grandsons have legislative functions?".
He hoped that the Bill would be,
"fatal to the hereditary House of Lords".
But let us consider how much has changed since then. The House of Lords Act 1999 removed the hereditary Peers. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, the Leader of the House, said that this reformed House is now,
"more democratic, more legitimate. more authoritative".
Speaking during the passage of the House of Lords Bill, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, the Attorney-General, said that the reformed House of Lords would be,
"more democratic, more legitimate…and better equipped to do its proper job of scrutinising legislation and holding the executive to account".—[Official Report, 20/4/99; col. 1078.]
Membership of your Lordships' House now includes seven former Chancellors of the Exchequer, seven former Paymasters General and nine former Chief Secretaries to the Treasury, as well as many professors of economics, academics and men of business. Soon they may be joined by a number of elected Peers under the Royal Commission's recent proposals.
In its report Strengthening Parliament the Norton Commission, headed by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, said:
"We see no reason why the House of Lords, given the expertise of some of its Members, should not monitor the impact of Bills falling in the economic sector".
The Bill before the House this evening provides a simple mechanism to enable that to happen. It does so by making a distinction between the principles of taxation—properly the preserve of the House of Commons alone—and the mechanics of administration, on which the House of Lords would be allowed to express a view, subject always to the veto of the House of Commons. That is described in a memorandum on proposed parliamentary procedure, which I hope all speakers in tonight's debate have received from both my noble friend Lord Kingsland and myself.
It is important to say that the distinction described in the clauses of this short Bill is one that has been recommended by the Institute of Chartered Accountants, by two Select Committees of the House of Commons, and by my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon. Therefore, nothing in the Bill challenges the supremacy of the House of Commons. Nothing in it denies, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, says,
"that the vouchsafing of fiscal authority to the other place is a necessary conclusion".
Nothing in the Bill will delay by one day the process of revenue raising by the government of the day. However, it would allow Parliament—all of

1501
Parliament—to provide a much needed disincentive to tax complexity. and act as a spur to a simpler and more transparent tax system.
Your Lordships' House has often shown that it is a good, technical revising Chamber, sometimes asking the Government to think again and often getting better legislation as a result. Your Lordships' House has the expertise and the authority to help the House of Commons in the awesome task of holding governments to account on the public finances. What it lacks is the power—the power to help—which is what this Bill would provide.
Times have changed. So it is time to say, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said in the 1950s, "Change is our ally". I hope that the Minister will follow tonight the injunction expressed last week by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General:
"You are put in this life to question aren't you? You have to wonder why things should remain the same. Often there's no reason why they should".
I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Saatchi.)
7.43 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I rise to support the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Saatchi. I should say, first, that I am no expert on the constitution and can offer no insights there. I speak as a chartered accountant and, indeed, declare an interest as a member of the council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants.
Chartered accountants have had major concerns about the quality of tax legislation for some time. As we heard from my noble friend Lord Saatchi, the Institute of Chartered Accountants issued a Tax Manifesto last year which claimed that our tax system had spun out of democratic control. That may seem fanciful language, but it reflected a genuine belief that the existing parliamentary scrutiny processes are simply not effective enough in the face of the increasing volume and complexity of tax legislation.
Chartered accountants fully support the involvement of the House of Lords in tax legislation because they see this as a way of getting better tax law. Some cynics may claim that accountants have an interest in complex tax legislation in order to increase their usefulness, and hence their fees. However, I can assure noble Lords that chartered accountants have no interest whatever in badly drafted legislation, ineffective legislation, or legislation that has perverse consequences. Good, workable and effective legislation is at the heart of what this Bill is seeking to achieve. If we can also achieve a simpler tax system, that would be an added bonus. I believe that the involvement of your Lordships' House would help to turn the tide of complexity that successive Finance Bills have introduced.
In the year that I qualified as a chartered accountant, 1973, the Finance Act ran to 59 sections, 22 schedules, and took up 116 pages. I thought then that that was pretty onerous, so I opted for the easy life
1502
and chose not to specialise in taxation. Subsequent volumes of tax legislation vindicated that decision; for example, 10 years ago, the relatively modest Finance Act 1990 had 133 sections, 19 schedules and ran to 191 pages. As we heard, last year's monster effort ran to 624 pages, encompassing 157 sections and 40 schedules.
I do not believe that the time available for scrutiny in another place has kept pace with that volume, if it has increased at all. Indeed, I understand that the poor quality of draft tax legislation has contributed to the problem of scrutiny, with an increasing volume of technical amendments needed to make sense of the Bill taking up the time of the Committee stage in another place.
Bodies such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants spend a lot of time commenting on tax proposals, including the provisions of Finance Bills. The vast majority of those comments are designed to improve the effectiveness of the legislation and to reflect the practical concerns of taxpayers. Other professional bodies, and many trade associations, do the same. It is a source of increasing frustration to those bodies that their voices are not heard. The Government can, and do, ignore representations. They do not even need to reply to them. With little available time in the other place, these carefully thought out contributions often seem to vanish into the ether.
Perhaps I may illustrate the frustrations of the current process and the benefits that would follow from this Bill. Schedule 12 to the Finance Act 2000 contains eight pages entitled, "Provision of Services Through an Intermediary". Noble Lords may be more familiar with this as the infamous IR35 proposals—the attack on self-employed contractors sneaked in at the bottom of a huge pile of Inland Revenue press releases issued with the 1999 Budget. It was clear to many from the language of the press release that this was not a subject on which a lot of listening would happen. 'The Inland Revenue issued a Summary of Issues paper after the Budget. Although this was not billed as a consultation document, it did, nevertheless, result in a large volume of submissions from the Institute of Chartered Accountants and many other professional bodies, including the lead trade body on the issue, the Professional Contractors Group. There were indeed some changes made when revised proposals were issued later in 1999, reflecting some, but far from all, of those submissions. Further representations were then made.
Then the Finance Bill was published last year, containing what is now Schedule 12. There were still many problems perceived by those commenting on the provisions, but very little change was made during the Bill's passage. Some of those concerns related to the consistency of the proposed provisions with European legislation, but those points were not taken into consideration. As noble Lords may be aware, the Professional Contractors Group has been forced to take the very extreme step of seeking a judicial review

1503
of this legislation in order to get its views heard. As I understand it, that case is before the High Court this week.
If this Bill becomes law, your Lordships' House will have a great opportunity to make a positive contribution; for example, a Select Committee of this House could take evidence from many sources, including the Government. At the very least, that would give a proper forum for the views of professional bodies and trade bodies—the taxpayers' concerns would be heard. I have every confidence that such a committee could handle the complex tax issues, as well as those relating to European law. Such a committee could have helped to ensure that the intent behind IR35 resulted in effective legislation.
IR35 is a relatively simple example of how controversial tax legislation is pushed through. There are many much more complex examples, such as the ongoing saga of the Government's attempts to change the way in which double tax relief is applied, but I shall not weary noble Lords this evening with a detailed explanation of that. Suffice to say that the skills of dispassionate scrutiny in your Lordships' House that are much admired could be deployed to great effect in such cases in the interests of simple and effective tax legislation.
I am sure that all who deal with tax legislation outside the Government will heartily support the Bill. I hope that the Government may also reflect that it is in their interests also to harness the undoubted skills of this House in the cause of better and simpler tax legislation.
7.51 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness. I have only intermittently been concerned with the complexities and difficulties of our fiscal code and, intensively, only over a short time, whereas the noble Baroness has had to deal with it day in and day out.
I am glad to support the Bill which has been explained so clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi. Your Lordships will remember a famous inscription on the tomb of Sir Christopher Wren in St Paul's Cathedral. It is written in Latin but I know that your Lordships despise the way that lawyers pronounce Latin. Therefore, I shall translate it freely. It states, "If you seek my monument, look at what surrounds you".
Therefore, if we seek a reason for the Bill, we need not look far. Recently there have been two measures which throw great light on that. The first is the Capital Allowances Bill. That was the first measure of the rewrite of the fiscal code. It is massive and concerns only a small part of the income tax code. Indeed, the Explanatory Notes are barely susceptible of being lifted by someone of my age. We would not need the fiscal rewrite, which we owe primarily to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, if there had been proper scrutiny of the measures that are now rewritten.
1504
The second monument, which is almost as massive—in fact, it is more massive—is the most recent Finance Act, the Finance Act 2000. It has 613 pages and 157 sections. One might note that capital allowances occupy only 11 of those 157 sections. It has 40 schedules. If your Lordships think that that is a bit meagre, I hasten to add that many of the schedules contain a number of parts. Schedule 6, for example, contains no fewer than 14 parts. Schedule 14 contains no fewer than nine parts. I say in passing, as I shall come back to it, that that was a money Bill, as most of the recent Finance Acts have been.
As I say, we would not need a rewrite if the measures had been properly scrutinised in the first place. That is not only the job of the House of Commons, which in fact performs it quite indifferently, but also of your Lordships' House which has no fewer than five former Chancellors—if I have counted correctly, but I rather think that the noble Lord calculated that there were more so I probably have not thought of them all— three former Chief Secretaries to the Treasury and a former Permanent Secretary. Above all, your Lordships' House, as is generally agreed, has at least this primary duty; namely, to scrutinise legislation. If ever there was a case for scrutiny, it concerns the fiscal code. The noble Lord's Bill has done that skilfully. He has distinguished between, on the one hand, the type and incidence of the taxation, which is entirely a matter for the other place, and, on the other hand, what may be loosely called tax management and the minutiae of the fiscal code.
The fact that those were amalgamated goes back to the "People's Budget" of 1909 which contained so much more than purely fiscal measures. In particular, it was designed to pave the way for the taxation of land values and, ultimately, the nationalisation of land. I am afraid that I am old enough to remember the Liberal land song, "God gave the land to the people". It was that that prompted the skilful manoeuvring and tactical adroitness of Lloyd George who carried out what was more than a fiscal measure and dared the House of Lords to reject it, which, very stupidly, it did.
So much for tax management. But even there the Bill ultimately surrenders the last word to the other place—I think quite rightly. Nowhere does the Bill do more than entitle your Lordships to scrutinise. Any amendment is subject to the discretion of the other place. We must ask why there is that distinction between the incidence of tax and the type of tax which is a matter for the House of elected representatives and not primarily—not except by way of scrutiny and suggestion—a matter for the House of elite representatives. The reason is that through their representatives the people can influence the way that the Government's proposals for taxation shall be implemented; in other words, how much of their own money shall be taken in providing services to themselves. The elected representatives being closer to the electorate, although not very close in the latter part of a Parliament, they are the people to be influenced. One should not exaggerate that because of the

1505
executive dominance in another place and the many restrictions on the fiscal initiatives of private Members of another place.
I said that I would return to the Finance Act 2000. I wish to draw attention to Schedule 39. That schedule amends the Taxes Management Act 1970. That Act was not a money Bill. It was given a Second Reading in your Lordships' House and then went to the Joint Select Committee on Consolidation Bills. But the amendment was to the Finance Act 2000; it was a money Bill. I ask the Minister who will reply to the debate this question: why should not amendment of the 1970 Act be scrutinised in the way that the 1970 Act was itself scrutinised by your Lordships' House and the Joint Select Committee? That provision is now hidden away towards the end of a money Bill.
I hope that the Minister will respond to the debate and will not show himself to be one of the forces of conservatism.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to support my noble friend Lord Saatchi on this Second Reading, as on so many issues. I go further than my noble friend. The House would still have restricted powers with respect to some aspects of money Bills, rates and incidence of taxation on individuals. I see no reason to have any distinction or limitation.
My arguments come under two headings: practicalities; and constitutional issues. On the practicalities, the arguments have been expressed well by my noble friend Lord Saatchi and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. This House contains a wealth of talent. I shall not compete with them in counting the number of former Chancellors and Permanent Secretaries in this House. My noble friend mentioned academics; and there are many noble Lords, such as my noble friend Lady Noakes, with experience in accountancy and financial services. Many noble Lords have practical experience in business. I shall return to that point. So much of the tax legislation falls on the business community rather than on individuals. It is where the complexities and the need for scrutiny are most intense.
The point has also been made that another place has insufficient time to undertake adequate scrutiny. If this House were to be so engaged the time available for such scrutiny would be increased. It would also add to the quality of the scrutiny not only because of the experience of noble Lords but also because it would be possible for this House to do what it does so well: to bring in points of view from experts; and to consider amendments in a less party political atmosphere than in another place. Therefore there is opportunity for considered views from the accounting professions, the business community and others to be debated in a rational way in this Chamber in a manner that might not occur in another place.
1506
I have had the privilege of serving recently on the Joint Committee on tax simplification. The Joint Committee of both Houses worked well, albeit in a limited way. It provides one option for further involvement of this House although it is clearly not the only way. This House has opportunities for debates and has its own Committee stages of Bills.
One of the practical issues is the need to avoid delay. On other occasions, my noble friend Lord Saatchi has argued that there are many ways to avoid delay: for example, by having Sessions in parallel. Given the need to ensure that legislation is passed quickly, if this House has in all other respects full powers over financial legislation, I see no reason why we should not be prepared to concede that legislation in this area should not ping-pong backwards and forwards or be delayed from one Session to another. It would be reasonable to concede that amendments passed by this House might be overturned by another place without recourse to this House. The benefit of having such amendments tabled and considered would make it a worthwhile process even if we had no power, for obvious reasons, to delay Budget matters. The practical arguments come down clearly in favour of the benefits of engaging the expertise and the time of this House in that process.
I turn to the constitutional arguments. Many of those arguments—they relate to the 1911 Act—go back to the popular cry around the time of the American revolution of, "No tax without representation": that it was solely the people, through their representatives, who should levy taxes on themselves. But matters have moved on since those days. In recent years, the House of Lords has demonstrated that it can be the Chamber which defends minorities and minority interests against what some may say at times has become an elective dictatorship in another place. It is true that a government in another place has a mandate and its business must get through. However, one of the dangers of a large majority in another place is that the interests of minorities do not always receive proper attention. If they so choose, an autocratic government can use their majority to act in an autocratic fashion.
The notion of popular scrutiny by the representatives of the people which underlies the notion of no taxation without representation can no longer be applied to the way in which legislation often passes through the other place. The House of Lords can make the Government think again. In that sense, it can be a defender of minority interests, in particular with regard to financial matters—for example, when a government seek to impose taxes which appear to have no victims but which damage many individuals who are unaware of the impact of the laws and taxation. The legislation that imposed taxation on pensions is a good example of that and it has been cited many times in the House. Taxes have been imposed on many other occasions on groups that have not necessarily had a voice. As in so many other areas, this Chamber could act as a guardian to ensure that those minority interests were heard.

1507
I come back to the business community. Where is the representation for the business community, on which so much taxation falls? This House has more active representatives of the business community than the other place. They are aware of the implications of certain tax changes and can draw them to the attention of the House, the Government and the people at large. It is a valuable aspect of this House that, because it has more representatives of the business community, it can more properly hold the Government to account for the implications of some of the taxation levied on that community.
At the time that the slogan, "No taxation without representation" was coined, the idea of public companies or joint stock companies was still fairly vague and dim. Two hundred years ago, taxation on companies effectively meant taxation on individuals, because they were the holders of the shares. Now that the ownership of companies is dispersed, taxation on business does not fall so much on individuals, except indirectly on those who ultimately benefit through pensions. It is difficult to argue that the representatives of the people are the best qualified to understand the implications for wealth creation and employment of taxation on business. Even though the elected representatives must have the final say on tax policy, there is an increasing argument for allowing people who can bring to bear expertise from other areas to play a role in scrutiny and proposing amendments.
The House of Lords does not need to wait for a change in status before carrying out that role. Some may say that the proposals are all very well, but we should wait until we have a reconstituted House of Lords. As I have made clear in the past, I do not believe that the democratic legitimacy of a second Chamber depends on it being elected. Many of the benefits that this House brings stem from having the kind of representatives that we have now. The mix of skills brought in through the current system can be of most value on issues such as tax policy.
Finally, I do not understand why tax and money Bills should be distinguished from any other legislation on which this House plays a valuable role in scrutinising and proposing amendments. Why should a Bill to impose taxes be any more vital to the rights of individuals than legislation on many other issues: human rights, on which this House has an important role; criminal law; the large amount of legislation on benefits, which affects the pecuniary interests of individuals just as much as tax; or education, which is rightly a priority and a key element of the rights of individuals to access opportunities in society? Why is it right for this House to opine on those issues, but not on tax law, on which in many ways it has particular expertise? I do not see any practical or constitutional reasons why this House should have different powers or rights on tax or money legislation than on other legislation, except on the specific issue of ensuring that the timetable for the consideration of amendments is kept to a minimum so that legislation can be passed through both Houses in an appropriately short period.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Blackwell. Picking up on what he said, the underlying principle of the debate should be, "No taxation without proper scrutiny".
I welcome the Bill. In my brief comments I intend to focus on the intended consequences, as outlined by my noble friend Lord Saatchi. I have argued before that your Lordships' House should complement the first Chamber rather than compete with it. A complementary role ensures that the accountability of our present system, with the party in government being answerable to the electors, remains intact.
By virtue of its membership and its activity, this House fulfils a particularly valuable role in scrutinising legislation, policy proposals and the actions of the Government. The juxtaposition of membership and activity is important. This House enjoys legitimacy as a scrutinising Chamber, complementary to the first Chamber, but that legitimacy has to be earned. We cannot take it for granted. We have to work to prove our worth.
I believe that we have done so. Indeed, I believe that we presently do so more effectively than the other place. However, that fact constitutes no basis for complacency. As well as working hard to prove our worth, we have to find ways of reinforcing and extending the good work that we do. We need to build on what we have and what we do.
As my noble friend Lord Saatchi said, I had the honour to chair the Commission to Strengthen Parliament, set up by my party leader in 1999. The Commission reported in July last year. In our report, entitled Strengthening Parliament, we emphasised the valuable work done by this House and argued that it should play to its strengths. My noble friend has already touched on that. We stressed the committee work of your Lordships' House. We wanted more sessional committees. We noted that the House was especially well placed to address cross-cutting issues such as macro-economic policy. We also made the case for Bills to be referred for Select Committee scrutiny before their Committee stage on the Floor of the House.
I very much welcome the creation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Economic Affairs Committee and the Constitution Committee, which I chair. I welcome the appointment of ad hoc committees on stem cell research and scientific experimentation on animals. I would like the House to build on those developments. The Bill is a means of achieving that. It moves in the direction signalled in Strengthening Parliament. It plays to the strengths of this House without challenging the supremacy of the first Chamber. Far from challenging the first Chamber, my noble friend's proposals should be of considerable benefit to the other place.
The Bill creates the conditions for subjecting a Bill—in this case the Finance Bill—to Select Committee scrutiny. I would like that to be a precedent for how we deal with other Bills. In this case, the scrutiny by Select Committee would be advisory and confined to the

1509
technical issues of tax administration. Any amendment made to the Finance Bill could be struck out by the Commons.
As various noble Lords have said, your Lordships' House has the expertise to make a Select Committee on the Finance Bill highly authoritative. Like the other place, your Lordships' House has some former Chancellors and Treasury Ministers among its members, as well as a number of economists. Unlike the other place, this House also has former governors and directors of the Bank of England, former Treasury mandarins and those who have served in positions in the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. The noble Lord, Lord Roll of Ipsden, has combined virtually all those positions.
This House has a wealth of talent—detached talent that is independent of party and talent that can be deployed to effect. One has only to look at the membership of the Economic Affairs Committee to see the expertise that is available. That committee by no means exhausts the expertise and experience available in this House.
The appointment of the Economic Affairs Committee and, earlier, that on the monetary policy of the Bank of England, also confirms that this House is qualified to undertake reviews of such matters. The principle underpinning committee scrutiny by this House in this sector has, in effect, been conceded. Therefore, we are discussing not so much a matter of principle but rather how to give effect to it.
My noble friend outlined how the provisions of the Bill would enable such scrutiny to be undertaken. I have no quarrels with how he described it. I believe that the measure before us is excellent. As I said, it plays to the strengths of this House, and I see no reason why it cannot be considered on its merits—that is, as a free-standing measure, independent of any wider debate about your Lordships' House.
At this stage was intending to anticipate, as I have done on previous occasions, what the response of the Minister might be. However, on this occasion I shall leave him to develop his speech and shall see whether he makes the point that I had in mind. If he does, I shall intervene then.
I conclude by saying that I consider this to be a constructive and highly desirable measure. It fits squarely with the proposals advanced by the Commission to Strengthen Parliament. During the debate at Second Reading of the Finance Bill last July, the Commission report not only attracted praise from my noble friend Lord Saatchi and the noble Lord, Lord Barnett; it was also described as excellent by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I hope that he will see this Bill in the same light.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, together with all other noble Lords who have spoken, we are extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, for bringing forward the Bill at this stage and also for the cross-party approach that he has adopted. We agree with him that transparency, simplicity and openness should
1510
be hallmarks of the tax system and of the way in which it is amended. We agree that those are not hallmarks either of the current tax system or the current system for changing it.
However, I disagree with a number of noble Lords in relation to the degree of democracy and legitimacy of this House. I do not believe that we on these Benches are proposing to move away from the principle of no taxation without representation. We are not even suggesting that when, in the fullness of time, the House of Lords is a wholly elected body, it should necessarily have parity with the House of Commons in terms of taxation measures. I say that not least for the purely practical reason that, were anyone to make such a suggestion, it would guarantee that such a reform would never take place. No House of Commons would ever agree to it. If we are to make any change in this respect, I believe that we must accept that as a raw reality of politics.
However, as the Bill proposes, it should be possible to separate from the type and levels of taxation discussion on the detailed rules relating to its implementation. I am sure that the Treasury would argue that, finally, everything contained in a Finance Bill relates to the level and burden of taxation.. However, frankly, I do not consider that argument to be sustainable. I believe that in what currently forms the Finance Bill it is possible to separate the clauses which deal essentially with levels of taxation from the detailed clauses which deal with its implementation.
If there are problems at the margin in that respect, one should remember that the House of Commons can vote against any amendments passed in your Lordships' House and, thus, they retain the last word. Therefore, I hope that we shall not be invited to accept an argument that such a proposal is too intellectually complicated to achieve.
Obviously, we agree that expertise in this House could and should be brought to bear on taxation matters. I also believe that there is a willingness among at least some of those who have that expertise to spend time and effort examining the tax system. The two remaining questions are: how best can we do it and how can we move from the current situation to one in which Parliament has agreed that we can do it.
Two basic approaches can be adopted in relation to how we might carry out such a change. One option is to have a Finance Bill in which some parts but not others are debated by your Lordships' House. The other approach is to introduce separate taxes management Bills. I believe that, of the two, marginally I prefer the second, not least because it would allow the core of the Finance Bill to go through its Commons stages more quickly than it does at present.
I believe that it should be possible to introduce a Finance Bill in the Commons more quickly because one would not be worried about its drafting. Indeed, much of the drafting cycle could continue almost without reference to the Budget date. The point at which a taxes management Bill is introduced may vary somewhat from year to year. Therefore. on balance, I would prefer to see us follow that route.

1511
I believe that the key question which concerns the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, and those of us who are keen to see change is how we persuade Parliament that such a change should take place. Even if this Bill were to pass all its stages in this House before an election were called, I find it difficult to believe that our colleagues in another place would agree to it. Therefore, I suggest that the only realistic way in which we shall succeed in getting the change implemented is in the context of a broader discussion of the powers of the House of Lords. We were promised such a discussion early in the next Parliament under the remit of the Joint Committee of both Houses. It has been promised that that committee will consider the powers of your Lordships' House.
I believe that that would give us a legitimate basis and a legitimate forum in which to raise these issues and in which to obtain agreement. If we were successful, it would be much more difficult for the Government or our colleagues in another place, if they were so minded, to push this matter to one side.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. I want to put forward an idea that has been prompted by what he said. I believe that there is a way of meeting the problem without necessarily going fully down that route. The other place is used to separating out Finance Bills. They send the more technical details to a Standing Committee while the broader political issues are dealt with in the Chamber. One solution may be for this House to accept that it would look only at matters sent to the Standing Committee in the other place. That would leave the other place, in effect, to decide what would be considered here. Therefore, that might be acceptable and we may not necessarily have to go down the route suggested by the noble Lord.
Lord Newby: My Lords, that is an extremely interesting option. However, as this debate is taking place, we are having new ideas. That demonstrates the fact that the ideas are not completely formed and that there is no consensus. We must build a consensus within Parliament if the proposal is to take place.
As other noble Lords are aware, we on these Benches do not object to the overall level of taxation. That is not our problem. However, we despair about the complexity of tax legislation. In our view, letting the House of Lords loose on the detail of tax legislation offers an opportunity to simplify and clarify the tax system. It should be a high priority in the next Parliament.
8.28 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Saatchi, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, will agree that, although we have had few speeches from the Back Benches, they have been of the highest quality.
1512
I refer, of course, to my noble friend Lady Noakes, who has had such a distinguished career in her own profession in the City and whose observations on tax matters carry great weight in your Lordships' House; to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, whose characteristically invigorating and apposite remarks reminded us once again that he is simply the finest constitutional lawyer in your Lordships' House; to my noble friend Lord Blackwell, whose time in government brought him closer to the centre of power than many Cabinet Ministers; and, last but certainly not least, to the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, whose speeches so frequently remind us of his masterly grasp of our political institutions. We have benefited enormously from hearing the views of all four today.
I echo the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. It is not the intention of this Bill to usurp the rightful powers of another place. If your Lordships would care to glance once more at the two clauses of the Bill, your Lordships will see that it is made perfectly plain that the type, rate and incidence of tax on a person's transactions or properties remain exclusively a matter for another place. It is only in those other areas of taxation that my noble friend Lord Saatchi seeks to enhance the powers of your Lordships' House.
That is not to say that your Lordships' improved ability to deal with tax management issues will not in the long term influence the way in which future governments shape the taxes that they bring forward. I would like to think that the work of simplifying and rationalising tax management matters will happily infect the way in which governments plan their political approach to taxation, so that its incidence will be easier for us all to understand.
Perhaps I should, briefly, refer to the second clause of the Bill. The first clause will be extremely familiar to your Lordships, because most debates on constitutional matters dealing with finance tend to be cast in terms of money Bills. But, as many of your Lordships will be aware, in recent years Finance Bills, more often than not, have not been certified as money Bills by the Speaker of another place. That is because they contain measures that do not fall exclusively within the definition of money Bills.
Finance Bills that are not money Bills are dealt with in the context of another place's privileges to aids and supply. Those privileges have always prevented your Lordships amending such Bills. However, ever since the privileges were first enunciated as constitutional conventions, your Lordships have retained the right to vote against tax Bills. That happened on more than one occasion at the end of the 19th century. Indeed, under those same aids and privileges, your Lordships today still retain the right to reject tax Bills, but not to amend them. In the early 20th century the Government got round this embarrassment by creating the Finance Bill, which accumulated a large number of tax Bills under its umbrella, thereby making it practically impossible for your Lordships to assert your Lordships' constitutional rights. Under Clause 2,

1513
the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, seeks to reintroduce flexibility for your Lordships in those areas that are not politically sensitive or controversial.
A number of your Lordships have addressed the question of the appropriate procedures to be introduced once the Bill finds its way on to the statute book. The Opposition's proposal is that the Finance Bill should proceed through another place as usual; and that when it is published for consideration by another place, a new Select Committee of your Lordships' House, building on the successful Monetary Policy Committee, should be established to review the Bill.
That Select Committee would be a cross-party committee, empowered to take evidence. It would not consider the type, incidence or rate of tax, but would consider the technical issues of tax administration and whether the legislation could be clarified or simplified. It would publish a report on its findings and recommendations in time for the Second Reading of the Finance Bill in your Lordships' House.
Your Lordships' House would have power to amend the Finance Bill in order to incorporate any, or all, the recommendations of the Select Committee. After amendment, the Bill would return to another place, where your Lordships' amendments would be considered in the usual way. Should the other place disagree, we envisage that your Lordships would not insist on your amendments, and the Bill would progress to become law as another place had determined.
However, in the event of any disagreement over particular amendments, your Lordships' Select Committee would reconvene after the passage of the Finance Bill. Your Lordships' Select Committee would then prepare a supplementary report, again taking evidence as your Lordships saw fit, on matters that were unresolved by agreement and on which your Lordships believed that the Government should, none the less, think again. That supplementary report would be submitted to the right honourable gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and be published, simultaneously, before the beginning of the next Budget cycle. The supplementary report would be the subject of debate in your Lordships' House. It would be expected that the right honourable gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would publish a formal response to any supplementary report of the Select Committee.
That seems to us to be an appropriate response to the new powers of amendment that we seek. I see no reason at all why what is contained in this Bill should perturb, or, worse, frighten the Government. On the contrary, with their declared vision about the greater legitimacy of your Lordships' House, this Bill would represent an appropriate reflection of that admirable political philosophy.
8.37 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with his customary command of publicity, the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, has been preparing for this moment for
1514
two years, ever since he took over the Treasury portfolio on the Opposition Front Bench. On a number of occasions he has warned us— sometimes in more anguished terms than others—that something is terribly wrong with the way in which we enact our taxes, and that the House of Lords has an answer to this problem. Now we have the answer to the problem.
It has been fascinating to hear the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, has orchestrated the debate in your Lordships' House. Perhaps he has not. Perhaps it has all been entirely spontaneous, in the same way as a fascinating article previewing the provisions of the Bill appeared in The Times.
All those matters pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi's, command of his profession. I, too, join in paying tribute. Of course, it reached a peak most recently in the consideration of the Capital Allowances Bill on 26th February when many of the arguments that we have heard today were set out at some length. We therefore come to this matter not entirely unprepared.
I should make it clear, as is always my duty from this Dispatch Box, that the Government do not oppose Private Member's Bills in this House. We shall do nothing to impede the progress of the Bill through the House. However, I should also make it clear that if the Bill reaches the House of Commons, the Government will take such steps as are necessary to oppose it in the House of Commons. But is that needed? I really must ask the Opposition Front Bench whether this is official Opposition policy. I have been looking for evidence of support from the Conservative Front Bench in the House of Commons and all I find is silence. I may have missed the evidence of support but I have not seen it yet.
On the contrary, a number of ex-Conservative Front Benchers in the House of Commons have expressed themselves very firmly on the issue. I quoted some of them on the Capital Allowances Bill. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to do so again. Mr Eric Forth said:
"When I see the words 'tax' and 'Lords' mentioned together in one motion, I become suspicious and wonder why we have all suffered from collective amnesia on the history of this place and the relative roles of the Commons and the Lords, especially in respect of tax matters".
He went on to quote Erskine May in order to,
"illustrate the constancy and consistency of the attitude of the House of Commons over the centuries—that it is to this House alone that the raising of money and revenues, and the disposing of tax matters should rest".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/1/01; col. 54.]
Mr John Redwood, discussing the Joint Committee which examined the Capital Allowances Bill, said that increasing the numbers of Members in the House of Commons required for the Joint Committee to he quorate would,
"reinforce the message, which I am sure the Paymaster General wants to send, that the House of Commons is in charge of taxation matters".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/1/01; col. 72.]
Lord Rees-Mogg: My Lords, is the noble Lord putting to this House that Mr Eric Forth and Mr John Redwood are now the best representatives of government policy?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, indeed I am not. I am pointing to the fact that the silence from the present Conservative Front Bench in the other place is deafening on this subject. I should be fascinated to see—and in some ways, of course, selfishly politically delighted to see—Mr Portillo coming out in favour of this measure. That is the point that I want to make. It is clear that there would be formidable opponents from the Opposition Benches in the House of Commons if this Bill were to reach the House of Commons.
I appreciate the position of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, who was the chairman of his party's Commission on the constitution and who has given his support to the Bill this evening. But his report does not say anything which gives support to the Bill. What his report says—and he fairly quoted it—is that the House of Lords should have more say on macro-economic policy. Indeed, perhaps as a result of his report, I do not know, the House of Lords is setting up committees which have more say on macro-economic policy. But his report did not suggest amendments to the 1911 Parliament Act. Therefore, to that extent, I cannot be convinced that this Bill is official Conservative Opposition policy for the next election.
I turn now to the content of the Bill itself. It seems to me that there are three major fallacies which are inevitable in the Bill. The first is that the constitutional issues involved can be concentrated on the Parliament Act 1911. The second is the fallacy that in fiscal legislation it is possible to separate tax administration from the type and rate of tax and its incidence on persons, transactions or properties. The third is the fallacy that it is possible, using the procedures set down in this Bill, to have a reasonable and useful scrutiny within the inevitably restricted time period of the passage of a Finance Bill.
I start by dealing with the constitutional issues. I acknowledge, of course, that the Bill does not overturn the principal content of the Parliament Act 1911. It still leaves the one-month rule intact. But, of course, the Parliament Act 1911 is not the beginning of the story. The beginning of the story—and it may be even further back—certainly goes back to 1671 and 1678. In 1678, on 3rd July, the Commons resolved:
"That all aids and supplies, and aids to His Majesty in Parliament, are the sole gift of the Commons; and all bills for the granting of any such aids and supplies ought to begin with the Commons: and that it is the undoubted and sole right of the Commons to direct. limit and appoint in such bills the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of such grants which ought not to be changed or altered by the House of Lords".
We are going a good deal further back even than 90 years. It is not as though that were the only part of the story. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, rightly said that the right to reject Bills still exists. But the right to reject Bills was only effectively used until 1860 when
1516
Finance Bills became the norm and when, I think it was, the Paper Duties Repeal Bill led the Commons—and I quote Erskine May from page 805,
"to adopt the practice of including all the fiscal changes of each year in a general or composite Bill … Since that time, although the Commons still acknowledge the right of the Lords to reject such a Bill, its composite nature renders the exercise of that right a practical impossibility".
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I think I have said all that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord was claiming that there was still a right. I am saying that although there is still a right, it is a practical impossibility.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way again. I also accept that. Once the decision was made by another place to accumulate all the individual tax Bills into a compendium Finance Bill, it became practically impossible for your Lordships' House to reject it. I do not seek for that decision to be overturned.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Bill is seeking to provide for amendments to Finance Bills. That is what the Bill does. I will come onto the practicalities of the matter in a moment but the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has set out in detail the Select Committee procedure which he proposes would be adopted. I am grateful for having had an advance copy of that. But, of course, in the way he sets it out, it is a hybrid between the Select Committee procedure in this House and legislative consideration in this House. Some very serious issues are involved.
However, the point that I make is that what is at stake here is not simply Section 1(1) of the Parliament Act 1911 but over three centuries of relationships between this House and the House of Commons on financial matters. Those are not changed by the recent changes in the composition of the House, any more than they were by the much more significant introduction of life Peers in 1958 or, indeed, than they would be under the second phase of House of Lords reform.
I turn now to the second fallacy—the fallacy that there is such a thing as tax administration which can be distinguished from the type and rate of tax and its incidence on persons, transactions or properties. One only has to look at the Finance Act 2000 to realise that such a distinction cannot be made. I have looked at only a tiny part of it.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, surely it has already been made in 1970 by the Taxes Management Act which the most recent Finance Act itself amended.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall come onto the Taxes Management Act 1970 and the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. But perhaps he will allow me to make the point about the bulk of the Bill rather than Schedule 39 at the moment.

1517
Sections 68 and 69 and Schedules 19, 20 and 21 are all concerned with research and development tax credits. If one looks at those sections, which take up 14 pages in all, there is not a single point which could be described as tax administration which does not involve those matters which the Bill acknowledges would have to remain the sole responsibility of the House of Commons.
I acknowledge that Schedule 39, which amends the Taxes Management Act 1970, did so without Lords scrutiny when the 1970 Act was subject to the scrutiny. But that is precisely why the Finance Act 2000 was not a money Bill; that is, because matters were introduced which did not merit the Speaker's certificate. It would not be appropriate for specific individual clauses alone to be scrutinised by the House of Lords. If the Commons object to the inclusion of a measure in a Finance Bill that prevents its certification as a money Bill—which is the answer to the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon—it can bring an amendment and attempt to have that measure removed. We do not do so because of the holistic nature of Finance Bills and the view which the Commons takes of such matters.
I listened to the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, of a separate taxes management Act. That was raised by a Commons Select Committee as recently as 1993. However, I have to say that that would not work. We simply cannot separate the headline parts of taxation, the rate, type and incidence as the Bill attempts to do, from the detail. If we tried to do that, what would we do with anti-avoidance measures, for example, which take up a large part of Finance Bills? They affect who pays tax; therefore, they would be excluded from the noble Lord's Bill. That cannot be done.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. If he thinks all these highly politically sensitive matters would be excluded from my noble friend's Bill, why is so concerned about them?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am concerned that we should not act. I not concerned about it; the House can do what it likes with it. That is not my personal concern. However, it would be absurd for the House to pass legislation under a misapprehension. That does not mean that there is not a sound point which has been made by a number of speakers tonight about tax simplification in particular and about consultation and scrutiny outside the Standing Committee in the House of Commons. Those are valid points. That is why we were considering the Capital Allowances Bill in February. As we all agreed, that is a valuable extension of improvement of tax legislation.
I am a great supporter of the tax manifesto of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. I have said so in this House, and have agreed with virtually all its points. Despite the comments of the noble Baroness,
1518
Lady Noakes, I do not think the institute states 'in its manifesto that there should be increased scrutiny by the House of Lords on taxation matters.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I believe that it states that tax matters should be considered by a Joint Committee of both Houses. It fully recognises that there is a role for the House of Lords in scrutiny.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that is a matter which could be put forward, but which is not put forward in the Bill. In addition to what is being done about tax simplification, perhaps I may suggest to the House that in the introduction of a Pre-Budget Report we have taken an enormous step forward in the possibility and, indeed, practice of scrutiny. The Pre-Budget Report is produced in the autumn. There is then a period of up to six months before the Budget. In that period, a huge amount of consultation takes place on those matters which are identified for consultation. Such consultation takes place with the Institute of Chartered Accountants; the Chartered Institute of Taxation, the CBI, the Institute of Directors and many others, who I do not think would be pleased to see themselves, pace the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, as being replaced by business persons or ex-Treasury Ministers in this House. That is what they do. There is no reason why—it is not for me to say; it is for the House to say—the House of Lords should not set up a Select Committee to consider those matters which are out for consultation in the Pre-Budget Report and to report before the Budget. There is no reason why the House of Lords should not be involved in that way. To do that would not require legislation, and would not require the Bill.
Despite the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, I am certainly not part of the forces of conservatism. My mind is open to all sorts of ways in which we could make changes. However, the Bill does not do that because of the third fallacy, which I shall refer to briefly; the fallacy of process and timing.
The Finance Bill is published in the Commons after the Budget. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, set out the procedures he proposes. I refer to the proposed cross-party Select Committee. Presumably that would have to include all seven ex-Chancellors, seven ex-Chief Secretaries and six ex-Paymaster Generals, otherwise there is no point in making that argument. The committee would have to report to the House of Lords by July. But what would it report on? The Finance Bill is in Committee during that period. Amendments are being proposed by the Opposition; considered by the Government; and being made. By the time the committee came to report to this House it would be reporting on a different Bill from that which comes to this House. The differences between the Bill which is first introduced and the Bill that comes to this House are always great. That would be like shooting at a moving target and does not make sense.
Noble Lords have been good at keeping their remarks to a minimum; I have not. Frankly, the Bill does not work in any sense. It does not work because

1519
it does not respect the constitution of this country; it does not understand the nature of the legislative process on taxation, and does not understand the timescale and process in which tax legislation has to be considered. I wish it a happy process through this House and no further.
8.57 p.m.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate at this inconvenient hour, and to the Minister for his winding-up remarks. This debate follows a series of excellent debates in your Lordships' House about the changed nature of our constitutional arrangements, which were led by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Donaldson and Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, all of which I valued enormously and drew on greatly when working with my noble friend Lord Kingsland on the Bill.
Perhaps I may say how grateful I am to my noble friends Lady Noakes, Lord Norton and Lord Blackwell, for bringing their experience to bear on the Bill. I cannot think of three Members of your Lordships' House who know more about the theory and practice of government, the formulation of government policy, or finance and accounting.
I also give special thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for his support. As stated by the Leader of the Opposition, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, he is a unique constitutional voice. I am grateful to him for his support. I also thank, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for putting forward the Liberal Democrat support for the principles of the Bill and for the ideas he put forward this evening on how those principles could be achieved through Parliament.
Before sitting down, perhaps I may say that the only reason my name appears on the Bill and not that of my noble friend Lord Kingsland is because if he had a personal logo it would be, "A light under a bushel". I am grateful to him for creating this short Bill.
We have heard two views this evening. We have had the views of those I have just named, whose opinion can be summed up as "Something has changed; therefore it is time for a change". On the other hand, we had one different view which came from the Government. They take the view that we must deal with financial matters the way we always have because we have been doing it that way for centuries. The Minister went back to 1678 and was proud of the fact that the traditions of all those centuries were being upheld by his Government.
Is it not one of the ultimate ironies that this Government, who have so despised what the noble and learned Lord called the "forces of conservatism" should here tonight be enthralled to events of 100 years ago—or 300 years ago—to uphold history and tradition as the basis of their future policy?
I hope only that the debate has given the Government fresh food for thought. I also hope that I shall have the opportunity to respond to the views of
1520
your Lordships' House in Committee both on the definitions contained in the Bill and the procedure by which it might be put into practice. I am grateful for the time given and I commend the Bill to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order 46 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 20th March), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Postal Services Act 2000 (Determination of Turnover for Penalties) Order 2001
9.2 p.m.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this and the following order put in place the final planks of the new postal services legislation and complete our programme of Post Office reform. The Postal Services Act will change the nature of the Post Office by transforming it from a statutory authority into a plc owned by the Government. This will underline the greater commercial freedom we have given it to enable it to compete more effectively in a changing communications market, fulfilling the promise we made on coming into office four years ago.
The new Post Office company will be better able to provide the efficient postal services that we need to support the business and social life of the nation. At the same time, the current postal monopoly will be replaced with a licensed area, to be regulated by a new independent body. These changes fundamentally alter the postal services market in Britain and pave the way for greater competition and higher standards of service to consumers throughout the whole country.
The Post Office company will no longer receive its authority for the delivery of post from a statutory right but from a licence negotiated with an independent regulator. That regulator—the Postal Services Commission, or "Postcomm", as it calls itself—has a primary duty to ensure that the universal service obligation, the delivery of post to every address in the UK at a uniform tariff, is maintained.

1521
Postcomm also has the option to license other companies to operate in the licensed area. It could even designate other postal operators as providers of the universal service, or parts of the universal service, where currently the Post Office is the only designated universal service provider.
The Postal Services Act 2000 (Consequential Modifications No. 1) Order, though extensive and in parts highly technical, is based on a simple premise: updating old legislation to take account of the new regime established by the Postal Services Act 2000. The Post Office, its functions and services are referred to in many Acts and statutory instruments. This order makes changes in such legislation to the references to the Post Office and its services in order to reflect the change in the market and the creation of the new company.
In many cases, there is no longer any justification for limiting the provision of services, such as the delivery of documents, to the Post Office. Therefore, we propose that in those cases references to "the Post Office" are amended to become references to "a postal operator", which is defined in Section 125(1) of the Postal Services Act and includes all postal operators.
That introduces an element of choice in terms of the service provider. The Post Office is given special rights and privileges by legislation because of its provision of the universal postal service; for example, rights and privileges granted to statutory undertakings in relation to planning or the compulsory acquisition of land.
Under the new regime, it will be possible for Postcomm to designate other operators besides the Post Office to provide all or part of the universal service. Therefore, we propose to replace references to "the Post Office" where they relate to rights and privileges which affect the universal service obligation with references to "universal service providers" in connection with the provision of the universal postal service.
It would be only fair that any operator who is given the same social obligations as the new Post Office company will be given the same rights and privileges which would allow it to deliver a universal service. References to "the Post Office" which are no longer relevant to a plc or the services it provides have been repealed.
In a very few cases we propose that the term "Post Office company" be used to replace references to "the Post Office'. This type of amendment is used when the legislative provision in question relates to a specific service that only the new Post Office company will provide, such as postal orders. Some references to "the Post Office" have been retained. These are mainly historical references which confer rights that it is desirable to keep. For example, being a tenant of a public sector landlord can allow an individual to acquire certain rights. We would not wish to remove the time served as a tenant of the Post Office from counting towards the acquisition of such rights. Therefore, such references have not been amended in the order.
1522
The order also makes provision for references to "second-class post", which is a term specific to the Post Office, to be interpreted to generic references which could apply to the services of other operators. Existing and future references to "second-class post" in legislation will be deemed to be references to a postal service which seeks to deliver documents and other things no later than three working days after posting.
Similar deeming provisions in Schedule 9 paragraph 8 to the Postal Services Act amended other Post Office specific terms, such as "by post", "first-class post", "recorded delivery" and "registered post".
The order also makes the transitional, saving and supplementary provisions which are required to ensure that there is a smooth transition from the previous regime to the new one.
This order is a practical and necessary step towards the greater commercial freedom for the Post Office and the greater choice and service for the consumer that we all desire. It is essential to ensure that the existing body of legislation that refers to postal terms operates effectively under the new regime. I commend the order to the House.
I turn to the second order. It is important to remember that the creation of an independent regulator was one of the main features of the Postal Services Act 2000. The regulator (the Postal Services Commission, or Postcomm) is responsible for granting licences to operate in the licensed area and is able to include certain conditions in a licence. Where the Commission is satisfied that a licence-holder has contravened, or is contravening, any condition of his licence, the Commission may impose on the licence-holder a penalty of up to 10 per cent of its turnover. The order before us today specifies the way to determine the turnover of a licence-holder for the purposes of ascertaining the maximum penalty. It is an important step towards giving the Postal Services Commission teeth to police the new regime successfully.
I should stress that this order determines turnover for the purposes of calculating the maximum penalty. The actual penalty imposed would be determined by the Commission in the light of the circumstances of the contravention. The purpose of the Act was to create a strong and independent regulatory regime. That is why the Act was not prescriptive in relation to fines. However, the limitation was introduced in view of the support expressed strongly in this House last summer during the passage of the Postal Services Bill and the Utilities Bill for a stated limit on penalties.
The policy behind the order has been developed with the aim of fairness and not imposing an undue burden on licence-holders. A consultation document on the proposed approach was published and put on the DTI website on 19th December, and interested parties were notified simultaneously. The department is grateful for the three responses received.
The key matters covered in the order are the period to which the penalty should relate and the business to be covered. The period chosen is the financial year preceding the date on which the Commission gives

1523
notice of a proposed penalty. When there is no preceding financial year, the turnover of the current financial year, up to the date on which the Commission gives notice of a proposed penalty, will be annualised. The order also provides for multi-year penalties. If a contravention continues for more than one year, but less than two years, the relevant turnover will be the annual turnover multiplied by two. If the contravention continues for more than two years, the relevant turnover will be the annual turnover multiplied by three.
The business from which annual turnover is derived is the services which the licence authorises the holder to provide. A number of alternative definitions were considered but ruled out on the basis that they would introduce the possibility of unfair treatment or encourage artificial organisational structures. This is especially the case in the postal services market which is only partly regulated. For example, it was considered that it would not be appropriate to impose a penalty for breaches of a licence condition that is in proportion to the whole of a company's business as the company may have substantial postal business for which no licence is required, or indeed substantial non-postal business. We do not believe that it would be just if two licensees doing similar amounts of business faced vastly different penalties because one of them had substantial other business.
During the debate on Monday in Committee in the other place a question was raised in connection with article 2 of the order. The Liberal Democrat spokesman asked what would happen in the case of a breach of the licence which the Commission considered had lasted for exactly two years. He thought that that fell within neither paragraph (2), which deals with breaches lasting more than one year but less than two, nor paragraph (3), which deals with breaches lasting more than two years.
In reviewing the draft order in the light of those comments, we have concluded that there is a minor glitch in the text. As a result, a breach lasting exactly two years would fall to be dealt with under paragraph (1). That is not what is intended, and I apologise to the House for the error. But the situation that it deals with cannot occur until at least two years after the start of the licence regime, and we propose to introduce an amendment as soon as convenient to remedy this. Apart from that, I assure the House that we are satisfied that the order will operate perfectly effectively, so we propose to proceed with the draft order which enables the Postal Services Commission to make use of the powers to impose financial penalties, should the need arise, from the outset.
In conclusion, noble Lords have before them today an order which specifies the way to determine the turnover of a licence-holder for the purpose of ascertaining the maximum penalty in a fair and pragmatic way. I commend to the House both that order and the Postal Services Act 2000 (Consequential Modifications No. 1) Order 2001.
1524
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear explanation of the two orders. Last Wednesday the consequential modifications order was presented to me with the suggestion that it should be debated last Friday. The order is some 54 pages long. It amends an 111-page Act which contains 131 clauses and nine long schedules as well as diverse other Acts and regulations which I have not managed to count.
Therefore, I was most grateful to the Government Whips' Office staff for immediately agreeing to postpone our consideration of the provisions until today. Even so, I must confess that I have not had sufficient time to do a thorough job of examining and doing justice to the provisions. Perhaps the Minister is more than happy that I have not gone into the detail and crossed every "t" and dotted every "i".
The Government will recall from their long time in opposition that the Opposition do not have the same resources as the Government to cope with a torrent of legislation. I do not complain about that, except very mildly, because that is the way that it is. I trust that on future occasions the Government will do Parliament the courtesy of ensuring that far longer notice is given.
These orders amend an Act passed only nine months ago after extensive debates in both Houses. The Act contained powers for the Secretary of State to amend it and any other primary legislation by order. We warned Parliament that by legislating in this way enactments would not receive the full scrutiny that they would get if they were primary instead of secondary legislation. This instance where these orders have come before Parliament at very short notice is clear proof that happens. It is happening far more than it should if we are to do justice to these Acts.
The principles of the Act were supported by the Opposition. During the passage of the Act though Parliament, we sought only to make constructive amendments. I understand that the Minister in the other place told honourable Members that the amendments were drafting or consequential amendments. On first sight, that appears to be the case—for example, substituting "postal provider" or "universal postal provider" for the words "post office" in various Acts and regulations, as described by the Minister, when he presented the order just a few moments ago. We accept the good faith of the Government's description of the contents of these orders. We agree also that they are simply highly technical. In those circumstances, we shall not oppose the making of these orders.
I turn to the second order, which deals with the determination of turnover for penalties. Among the provisions that we supported during the welcome passage of the Act was the very important appointing of a regulator. To be able to perform his duties, the regulator needs strong powers. That in turn necessitates his having strong powers of enforcement.

1525
These orders provide power to impose fines. Those fines can be very severe. They are based on up to 10 per cent of the offending company's turnover, not its profits.
My honourable friend the Member for Hertfordshire South West, while discussing these same orders in the other place, described the penalty of 10 per cent of turnover as draconian. The Minister simply dismissed the matter by saying, "Well, it is in the Act". That is a little rich coming from the Government, given that the Bill, as presented, did not say "10 per cent" but "unlimited" penalties. The Minister will remember that I tried to curtail the "unlimited" element by proposing an amendment that followed the words in the Government's own Competition Act 1998, which would have capped the penalties at 10 per cent of turnover. As the Minister will recall, that was not accepted by this House, but I see that it now appears in Section 30(2) of the Postal Services Act. So draconian it may still be, but not as draconian as it might have been if the Government had not decided at a later stage to take my suggestion on board.
Considering the potential size of the business, the fines will possibly run into millions of pounds. If the offending company's profit is just a minimal percentage of turnover, such draconian fines could easily, to the extreme prejudice of not just itself but also its customers and suppliers, wipe it out.
I find the definition difficult to follow in two respects. I apologise to the Minister for that, because I know that he tried to explain the matter a few minutes ago. I am still not very clear. Therefore, I shall ask him to answer a couple of questions. The maximum fine is up to 10 per cent of turnover for a simple breach of the terms of the operator's licence. If the offence continues for two years it will be 10 per cent of two years' turnover. What is not clear is whether the 10 per cent includes the whole of the second year's turnover.
I have a second question. If the offence lasts for 364 days and the fine is 10 per cent, what would happen if a second year lasted for only a year and a day? Would the offender still be subject to a fine based on two years' turnover for an overrun of an extra two days? That would be double the penalty, possibly running into millions or tens of millions of pounds, for just two extra days. I should be grateful for an answer to that question. My honourable friend the Member for Hertfordshire South West asked a similar question in the other place. Unfortunately, he did not receive a clear answer. Therefore, can the Minister give me some clarification?
It also seems that the offender will have the right of appeal. However, will the Appeal Court interfere with the regulator's exercise of its discretion about the level of a line, or will it insist that it will deal only with issues of fact? I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify that point as I find it quite complicated.
I wish to raise one other matter. I had not intended to raise it but I shall do so now. The Minister referred to a glitch. Has an amendment been brought forward to put the matter right? I note that the Minister is
1526
shaking his head, which I imagine indicates a "no" rather than a "yes". Perhaps when he comes to reply he can say what the position is so that I can have it in Hansard.
Apart from those queries, we are not unhappy with the Act or with the provisions to enforce it. Therefore, we shall not oppose the making of the order.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness should actually have thanked me for not giving her the time to read all the consequential amendments, because exciting reading they are not! However, I take her point that even when amendments are rather technical and consequential, it is important that every noble Lord should have enough time to peruse them. It is perhaps unfortunate that the mistake occurred not in the 54 pages but in the two pages of the determination of turnover penalties.
The 10 per cent ceiling was suggested by the noble Baroness. While we did not immediately accept it, I accepted it at a later stage of the Bill's passage through the House. I shall explain how it works. For the first year, it applies to the turnover of one year. Between one year and up to two years—it was framed as "up to two years"—it is on the one year multiplied by two. That is done in order to make this as simple as possible and not have accounts for shorter periods. For up to two years it is double the first year, but for just the precise moment of two years, that is not included. We shall introduce an amendment—we have not yet done so—so that up to two and including two is doubled. Only if it goes over two years and above is there a possibility of it going to three times. I am afraid that it is quite complicated in that sense, but the way that we will be expressing it is the right way. In the very unlikely circumstance that it did fall on two, it operates to the advantage of the company, because it then reverts just to the turnover for one year.
The penalty is set by the Commission and the order provides a ceiling to it. The penalty set must be reasonable. Therefore, in the Appeal Court the reasonableness of the decision can be queried. So it is not simply a question of judicial review. No amendment has been put forward, but we shall do that to cover what is a very remote possibility, which, of course, could not happen for two years.
The two orders complete the new legislative and regulatory framework that we need for the modern Post Office company and the changing postal services market.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Postal Services Act 2000 (Consequential Modifications No. 1) Order 2001
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st March be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Jobseeker's Allowance (Amendment) Regulations 2001
9.25 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldhamrose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 28th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the regulations are purely technical and present amendments to two existing regulations only: Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations 1 and 11. Both amendments are consequential to the Learning and Skills Act 2000.
The core of the Act is the establishment of a new non-departmental public body, the Learning and Skills Council in England, which will be responsible for post-16 learning, other than higher education. Noble Lords will be aware that the Learning and Skills Council will assume responsibility from April 2001, and will take over functions performed by the Further Education Funding Council in England and the functions currently contracted by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to Training and Enterprise Councils. The Learning and Skills Council will operate through a network of 47 local councils.
Noble Lords will know that the Act also brings about changes in Wales. It creates a new National Council for Education and Training in Wales with broadly similar functions to the Learning and Skills Council in England, but with some variations to reflect Welsh circumstances. Responsibility for the delivery of training for unemployed people in England will transfer to the Employment Service.
The Act also enables the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to establish a new youth support service in England, to be known as the Connexions Service. The aim of the new service will be to work with young people of all abilities to give them advice, guidance and support to participate effectively in learning. In Wales, the Act empowers the National Assembly for Wales to enhance local youth support services for all 11 to 25 year-olds through local authorities, voluntary organisations or others.
The arrangements in both Scotland and Northern Ireland relating to the provision of post-16 education, training and support services for young people are devolved. In Northern Ireland, social security matters are also devolved. The Learning and Skills Act therefore does not affect either Scotland or Northern Ireland.
1528
Amendments are required to two of the jobseeker's allowance regulations. The first is Regulation 1 as it defines "full-time course of advanced education" and "full-time student". In both definitions, reference is made to courses funded or part-funded by the Further Education Funding Council as being subject to the 16-hour study rule. We propose to amend Regulation 1 to refer to the Learning and Skills Council, which will assume the functions of the Further Education Funding Council in England. Reference has also been made to the National Council for Education and Training, which will perform a parallel function in Wales. The amendment is technical and does not reflect any change in policy.
The second amendment is required to Regulation 11, where it defines "training" as that provided directly or indirectly by a Training and Enterprise Council pursuant to its arrangements with the Secretary of State. We propose to amend Regulation 11 to reflect the fact that the Learning and Skills Council in England and the National Council for Education and Training in Wales will assume the functions of Training and Enterprise Councils when the TEC contracts end on 25th March 2001. Once again, this amendment is purely technical and does not alter the policy intent of Regulation 11, which is concerned with the treatment of people studying part-time whilst on JSA.
There are other technical amendments to be made to the jobseeker's allowance and other income-related benefit regulations resulting from the Learning and Skills Act; however, those are subject to negative resolution and have been laid before the House as a separate set of regulations. But these two amendments are being presented to the House today because they are subject to affirmative resolution, as determined by Section 37 of the Jobseeker's Act 1995.
In conclusion, I repeat that these are purely technical amendments which are necessary to reflect the assumption of responsibility by the Learning and Skills Council. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 28th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his clear exposition of the meaning of these regulations. We certainly agree that they are both technical and necessary. We accept the regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at half past nine o'clock.

  Road Traffic Noise
  Road Traffic Noise
  Global Sustainable Development
  Global Sustainable Development
  Urban Rat and Fox Populations: Plastic Rubbish Bags
  Urban Rat and Fox Populations: Plastic Rubbish Bags
  Depleted Uranium
  Depleted Uranium
  Nuclear Power: Replacement Technologies
  Nuclear Power: Replacement Technologies
  Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill: Human Rights Convention Compatibility
  Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill: Human Rights Convention Compatibility
  Western Sahara
  Western Sahara
  Amsterdam Treaty: Enhanced Co-operation Measures
  Amsterdam Treaty: Enhanced Co-operation Measures
  Yugoslav War Crimes Tribunal: UK Participation
  Yugoslav War Crimes Tribunal: UK Participation
  Swaziland: Democracy
  Swaziland: Democracy
  Kosovo: Export Licence for Military Trailer Repair and Maintenance Components
  Kosovo: Export Licence for Military Trailer Repair and Maintenance Components
  Southern Serbia and Macedonia: Unrest
  Southern Serbia and Macedonia: Unrest
  Treaty of Nice: Text
  Treaty of Nice: Text
  Beef Imports from Germany
  Beef Imports from Germany
  Diagnostic Tests: Waiting Time
  Diagnostic Tests: Waiting Time
  Food Origin Labelling
  Food Origin Labelling
  Public Health Expenditure Comparisons
  Public Health Expenditure Comparisons
  Deep Vein Thrombosis
  Deep Vein Thrombosis
  Internet Service Providers and Tobacco Advertising
  Internet Service Providers and Tobacco Advertising
  Organic Foods: Authenticity
  Organic Foods: Authenticity
  Variant CJD
  Variant CJD
  Court Service: Key Performance Targets
  Court Service: Key Performance Targets