Sitting of 9 May 2001

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

    Organised Crime
    1. Mrs. Louise Ellman: If he will make a statement on further measures being taken to fight organised crime in Northern Ireland. [159615]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): The Government and the operational agencies in Northern Ireland are committed to tackling the problem of organised crime. Since September last year, I have led a multi-agency taskforce involving the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Customs and other Government agencies. Our remit is to confront the malign influence of organised crime wherever it raises its ugly head. The taskforce has already published an analysis of the problem and a strategy for tackling it. A copy of those documents can be found in the Library.
    Mrs. Ellman: Does my right hon. Friend consider that the new Criminal Assets Recovery Agency has sufficient power to fight organised crime? When does he expect it to show that it has made a difference?
    Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. The Government's proposals are set out in the recently published Proceeds of Crime Bill. When enacted, it will go a long way towards dealing with the twin evils of racketeering and drug pushing. As experience here, in the United States, the Republic of Ireland and elsewhere has shown, the seizure of illegal assets can help to destroy or to undermine the hold that organised crime has on many parts of society. The legislation will help to achieve all those objectives.
    Mr. Cecil Walker: The Minister must be aware that the RUC is now seriously under strength in terms of both experience and manpower. Given the high level of interest in the recruitment programme, will he consider increasing the number of people to be recruited, which is 240 at present?
    Mr. Ingram: That is an interesting point. Although I do not accept the premise on which the question is based, all of us have been surprised by the level of interest that
    98

    has been shown in the new Police Service of Northern Ireland—there have been just under 8,000 applicants to date, all of whom are being assessed. Clearly, we must look at ways in which we can, if it is possible and practical, improve policing numbers in Northern Ireland as a result of that recruitment. The initial tranche of 240 is being considered. Of course, that will be increased in subsequent years.
    Mr. John Hume: Does the Minister agree that there are organisations in Northern Ireland engaging in Mafia-style activity which want the absence of law and order to continue in order that they can develop their trade, particularly that in drugs, threatening our young people? Does not that underline the fact that all of us should do everything in our power as soon as possible after the elections to ensure that we have a police service on our streets that has the loyalty and support of all sections of our people in order to deal with such situations?
    Mr. Ingram: The point raised by my hon. Friend goes to the heart of the issue. Some of what we have to deal with is a consequence of moving out of a terrorist-driven society to, I hope, a more normalised society. The taskforce that I mentioned earlier has reported that there are 78 organised criminal gangs in Northern Ireland, involving about 400 individuals. The strategy that the Government have put in place with the RUC and other law-enforcement agencies will tackle that with great vigour, but they cannot do it on their own. As my hon. Friend has said, they need the support of the wider community. The best approach is when everyone joins the police service and the law-enforcement agencies, not only in tackling organised crime but in helping to bring in normalised policing in Northern Ireland. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House should consider that many hon. Members are here to listen to Northern Ireland questions.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: Does not the Minister agree that the fight against organised crime is hardly helped by the European Court of Human Rights awarding in favour of people who set out to blow up a police station? Is it not demoralising to our security forces?
    Mr. Ingram: I should have thought that even in their current state the Opposition would recognise that that was a judgment of a court of law, which the Government have to take into account and study very carefully. That is what we are doing. The case is not related to organised crime. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will help the Government to tackle that insidious and evil aspect of society in Northern Ireland.

    Good Friday Agreement
    2. Mr. Jeff Ennis: If he will make a statement on progress in implementing the Good Friday agreement. [159616]
    3. Ms Helen Southworth: If he will make a statement on progress of the peace process. [159617]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid): Over the past three years, the agreement has helped to improve overall the lives of the people of Northern Ireland. Further progress will depend on their continued active support for that agreement.
    Mr. Ennis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Good Friday agreement belongs not to the politicians or to the Government, but to the people of Northern Ireland? Is it not important that all sides involved in the agreement ensure that the will of the people prevails?
    Dr. Reid: I congratulate the politicians who have had the moral courage to support the agreement, sometimes in very difficult circumstances. I also agree with my hon. Friend that, ultimately, the beneficiaries and owners of the agreement are the people of Northern Ireland as a whole. It is they who would be the victims of the failure of the agreement. We are approaching a general election that will be very important for people in Northern Ireland, and they will make their choice in that election. However, I think that an overwhelming number of objective observers would recognise that, for all its difficulties, Northern Ireland today is a safer, fairer, better and more prosperous place than it was before the previous general election.
    Ms Southworth: My right hon. Friend knows that my constituents in Warrington have good reason to understand the desire of ordinary people in Northern Ireland to be free from terrorism, and that we have been working to support ordinary people in Northern Ireland in their struggle for peace. Does he believe that, in the coming weeks, it is the responsibility of every politician in every party to commit to the peace process and to work to ensure its success?
    Dr. Reid: I agree with every word that my hon. Friend said. Not only is the situation in Northern Ireland one of the longest-running problems in British history, but it is quite literally a matter of life and death for so many people. More than 3,600 families have tragically suffered a loss over the period of the troubles. I commend my hon. Friend on the role that she has played in Warrington following the tragic deaths there of Tim Parry and Jonathan Ball. as I do the centre that has been established. I think that we would all do well to emulate her example and those of many people in Northern Ireland who have overcome past enmities to build a better future.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: The Secretary of State will be aware that on 2 May, in reply to a question, the Minister of State said that the decommissioning body had issued a statement on 22 March, stating that it believed that there had been progress towards decommissioning. However, in that statement, the decommissioning body also set an eight-week deadline. We are now within that eight-week period, which gives us until the end of June to try to make up ground. Is the Secretary of State in a better position today to tell us whether there has been real movement, or whether we are still being fobbed off?
    Dr. Reid: I am afraid that 1 cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that I have received any further reports from General de Chastelain or his commission. Last year,
    100
    at Hillsborough, it was made plain by both Governments and by all the parties that we hoped and expected that we would be able to move towards substantial implementation of all aspects of the agreement by June. That remains our goal and our objective.
    I think that there should be a clear recognition not only by every Member in this place but by everyone outside it that, if we are to move forwards in this peace process, we all have to move forward together. Progress cannot be made by one side of another side attempting to win a victory. Defeat for one side means defeat for the process. We all have to move forwards together, or, quite frankly, we will all fall back into the abyss together.
    Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the Secretary of State accept that, although we talk about the progress of the peace process for the people of Northern Ireland, large sections of working-class people in public housing estates in Northern Ireland are daily subjected to paramilitary terror from paramilitaries who are inextricably linked to the parties within the agreement and alleged to be supporting that peace process?
    Dr. Reid: I utterly condemn any violence, whether it comes from individuals, organised crime or those who would inflict damage, violence and misery upon their neighbours under the greater name of some alleged cause on either side of the communities there. As regards the vast majority of people, including those in the working-class areas to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. I put it to him that, despite all the difficulties, the current situation is immeasurably better than it was a few years ago. He shakes his head, so perhaps he does not recognise that there has been a cut of almost 20 per cent. in unemployment and a 29 per cent. cut in long-term unemployment in Northern Ireland, and that we have had £2 billion in new investment. We have almost quadrupled our tourism, too, and we have a sense of security that, although imperfect, is far better than it was.
    I am the last to pretend that we have a perfect situation in Northern Ireland, but the choice is not between a perfect Northern Ireland and what we have; it is between what we have today and what we had a few short years ago. The situation now is a vast improvement for the vast majority of people.
    Mr. Eddie McGrady: I agree with the Secretary of State that there has been an enormous change in Northern Ireland over the past few years as a result of the Good Friday agreement and the peace process. Does he agree, however, that there are several major issues yet to be resolved—decommissioning to put weapons beyond use, policing and the review of the legal system? The most important of those is that weapons be seen to be beyond paramilitary use.
    Will the Secretary of State also join me in regretting the tendering, albeit provisional, of his resignation by the First Minister, from 1 July, predicated on that issue? Does he agree that the whole delicate edifice built up over the years is in danger of collapsing because of that action?
    Dr. Reid: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, despite the progress that we have made, there are some difficult and important issues that we still have to address.

    101
    Those include bridging the gap on policing to create a police service that is accepted by and participated in by both sides of the community, the full working of the institutions and the Executive, normalisation on the part of the Government, and decommissioning. I can think of no aspect of the agreement that would reassure the Unionist community more than some progress on decommissioning.
    As for the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the right hon. Gentleman has made his own decision. It is one for him to make, but I would regret it very much if he removed himself from the process at any stage. I believe that his contribution has been enormous, and that not only his personal contribution but that of the Executive of which he is First Minister are a central part of the progress that we have made.
    Dr. William McCrea: The Secretary of State will agree that the people of Northern Ireland will make a judgment on the Belfast agreement very shortly, and that this Government, like any other, will have to give heed to the will of the people. By way of guidance to the people of Northern Ireland in their consideration, can he inform the people of what was actually agreed at Hillsborough? Was it agreed that the decommissioning of terrorist arms would be concluded by June 2001, commenced by then, or just talked about by then? Mr. Ahern says that the British Government have now decided to give de Chastelain up to February 2002. What is the Government's position?
    Dr. Reid: I hope that I can help to clarify things for the hon. Gentleman, who seems slightly confused over two issues. One is the remit of General de Chastelain, which of course runs until February; the other is the agreement made at Hillsborough last year, which expressed the two Governments' belief and expectation that we could make substantial progress towards implementing all aspects of the agreement by June this year—and that remains our goal. I think that those were, almost literally, the words of the Hillsborough agreement.
    As for the premise on which the hon. Gentleman's question was based, it is true that we shall pay attention to the election results and the Assembly results, but it is also true that this process belongs not to the Westminster elections or the Assembly elections, but to the people of Northern Ireland, who agreed it and supported it in a referendum. That is an important point to make.
    Mr. Lembit Öpik: We have had many months of relative peace in Northern Ireland, thanks largely to the fact that individuals who were formerly adversaries are now willing to work together in non-violent ways. Would not this be a good time for those who have been sceptical, or even hostile, towards the Good Friday agreement to recognise that they should now accept that people are walking around today in Northern Ireland who would not have been alive had the agreement not progressed? Would not this also be a good time for those people who have tried to obstruct the agreement to play their part in ensuring a lasting peace?
    Dr. Reid: Yes. I do not underestimate the passions or the pain involved in the process for all sides of the community, including Members of Parliament. It is not
    102
    easy to put aside 30 years and the number of deaths there have been. It is not easy either to put aside the enmity and hostility that has stretched back generations. However, I genuinely believe that the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland and their politicians, including many Members of Parliament, have shown tremendous moral courage. I would encourage all Members to recognise, even at this late stage, that there is no alternative to the Good Friday agreement as a platform.
    In so doing, and with your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a sincere thank you on behalf of the House and the people of Northern Ireland to the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) and the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), who will leave us, at least in this forum. They have made a major contribution to the business of the House to the benefit of the people they represent, as well as all of the people of Northern Ireland. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Once again, I ask the Chamber to be silent while hon. Members are addressing the House.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does the Secretary of State accept that the Belfast agreement was rightly and inevitably a huge compromise on the part of those who took part and that it will take the peace process forward only if the undertakings given at Hillsborough are implemented in full?
    Dr. Reid: I entirely accept that. There can be no movement forward unless all the parties to the agreement carry out their part in it. There is much talk of rights in Northern Ireland, and we have met those demands for rights with the equality and human rights legislation and with a raft of other legislation and policies aimed at defending the individual and sections of the community. Along with those rights go responsibilities, and it is the responsibility of all of us involved in the agreement to play our part in ensuring full implementation.
    Mr. MacKay: So will the Secretary of State now accept that the only people who have failed to fulfil their obligations under the agreement are the paramilitaries, both so-called loyalists and republicans, who have failed to decommission one single gun or one ounce of Semtex? Is not it therefore inevitable that their political representatives cannot for much longer remain Ministers in the Executive? Will the Secretary of State join me in supporting the First Minister and the signing of his post-dated letter to Lord Alderdice as the right way forward?
    Dr. Reid: As far as the First Minister is concerned, I have made my view plain. However, I cannot agree with the sentiments of the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), because his argument has a flawed logic. First, it is a peace process, not a peace event, and it is therefore natural, in both historical and practical terms, that there will be movement on different issues at different times.
    Secondly, I have already said that all of us have responsibilities and not just rights, and it is neither useful nor sensible to point the finger at one group. Having said that, if the right hon. Gentleman's question was a coded message for the question, "Wouldn't it be helpful and useful to the Unionist community to have progress on

    103
    decommissioning?", the answer is yes. However, I also want to see progress on policing, with the two sides coming together. and on demilitarisation and normalisation. There are many better things that the British Army is needed for than patrolling alongside the police in south Armagh and I look forward to the day when that no longer happens. Yes, we want to see decommissioning, but not on its own because we want to see other things. We hope to achieve that goal by June, as the First Minister has made plain.

    Barnett Formula
    4. Mr. David Trimble: What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the Barnett formula. [159618]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): I regularly discuss a range of issues with ministerial colleagues. This issue was among a number raised with me recently by the right hon. Gentleman's colleague, the Minister for Finance and Personnel, Mark Durkan. The Government have no plans to change the Barnett formula.
    Mr. Trimble: With regard to—(Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. May I ask the House to come to order? The commotion is unfair to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Trimble: When the Minister next speaks to his ministerial colleague, who is noted more for the noise that he makes than the sense, will he point out that the Barnett formula is a purely mathematical formula that gives the regions the per capita increases that occur elsewhere? In England and Wales, average real-terms expenditure is expected to rise over the next three years by 6 per cent. in round figures. The equivalent figure in Scotland is 5 per cent.; in Wales it is 4 per cent. and in Northern Ireland 3 per cent. Will he point out that the formula does not operate very fairly?
    Mr. Howarth: As the right hon. Gentleman has just made clear, per capita spending in addition to baseline spending is apportioned by applying the Barnett formula. For Northern Ireland, that delivers a lower percentage increase on the existing baseline because Northern Ireland starts from a higher per capita basis than any other region in the United Kingdom.
    The Barnett formula and its operation are matters for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose officials are in regular contact with their counterparts in the devolved Administrations. At present, there are no plans to change Barnett, as I have already said, beyond updating it from time to time to take account of changes in the relative population in each part of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. John McFall: Does the Minister agree that the Barnett formula has indeed been good for Northern Ireland? Economic growth there is at 4 per cent., unemployment is at unprecedentedly low levels of below
    104
    6 per cent., and investment has risen by 75 per cent. over the past five years. Would not any tinkering with the Barnett formula need to be looked at very carefully? It is a sensitive issue. The formula has delivered in economic terms for Northern Ireland. and has served the peace process well.
    Mr. Howarth: In response to my hon. Friend's second question, I should say that there are no plans at all of the sort that he mentioned. I agree entirely that the peace process is delivering in terms of equality and in terms of a proper basis for human rights in Northern Ireland. It is also delivering the highest levels of economic growth anywhere in the UK. The peace process is a success.

    Paramilitary Prisoners
    5. Mr. Michael Connarty: What procedures he has put in place to monitor the activities of former paramilitary prisoners; and if he will make a statement. [159619]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): Arrangements are in place to ensure that the Northern Ireland Prison Service is advised if any former prisoner, including former paramilitary prisoners, who is subject to licence conditions comes to the attention of the police for adverse behaviour. It is then for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider whether such a prisoner has breached the terms of the licence, and to make a decision on recall to prison.
    Mr. Connarty: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does not he think that people in other parts of the UK might have more confidence in the Good Friday agreement if events such as have occurred in my constituency were not possible? A cowardly UVF murderer who killed innocent Protestants and Catholics is now threatening the people in my constituency. Would not it be better if the licence contained the simple wording that appears in the equivalent licence for Scottish prisoners, which enjoins prisoners that they
    "shall be of good behaviour and shall keep the peace"?
    Would not that give the police some leverage when it came to reporting misdemeanours?
    Mr. Ingram: I am aware that a former life sentence prisoner who was given early release under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 has been presenting problems for the social work services in Falkirk, and therefore for the community as well. Arrangements are in place to ensure that the Northern Ireland Prison Service is told of any former prisoner who is subject to licence coming to the attention of the police, whether in Great Britain or in Northern Ireland. The police in my hon. Friend's constituency have not as yet drawn this case to the attention of the Prison Service. If my hon. Friend cares to write to me with further details of the case, I will give it active consideration.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Philip Hammond: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 9 May.
    The Prime Minister: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Hammond: We now know that the Prime Minister's contact with the Hinduja brothers' was far greater than he has disclosed, including a stream of correspondence and at least two meetings. Can the Prime Minister explain why he did not tell Sir Anthony Hammond's inquiry that he attended a private dinner at the Hinduja brothers' London residence just six months before the Government granted a passport to G.P. Hinduja?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon Gentleman has any complaints about my propriety or anyone else's, he should make them to the proper authorities in the proper way. However, I think that that question says a lot about today's Conservative party. Conservative Members do not want to talk about the economy, the health service, schools or jobs, and that is because, on the serious issues of the day, they have nothing whatever to say.
    Dr. Desmond Turner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that even in my south-coast city of Brighton and Hove there are still thousands of people in social exclusion, still suffering from the after effects of 18 years of Tory rule? [Interruption.] Will he ensure that the next Labour Government continue the war on poverty and social exclusion, wherever they are found—north or south—into the next Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: From the reaction of Conservative Members, I think that they are suffering from 18 years of Conservative Government.
    The measures that we have taken on social exclusion, including the new deal, which has helped to cut youth unemployment by more than a half, the working families tax credit, which has given hope to more than 1 million families, and the extra investment going into our schools system, help every citizen in need in our country. The choice is between this party, which would keep those measures and build on them, and the Conservative party, which would get rid of them.
    Mr. William Hague: Will the Prime Minister join me in wishing well Members of all parties who have announced that they are leaving the House, including two who came here more than 50 years ago—my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who will certainly be missed on both sides of the House, and the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who will mainly be missed on our side of the House?
    106
    On other matters, at the last election the Prime Minister said that he loved the pound. Will he renew this worthless vow in this election?
    The Prime Minister: Let me join the right hon. Gentleman in what he said about the Father of the House and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield. Personally, 1 wish that they were both staying—for different reasons.
    On the pound we have set out our position many times. In principle, we are in favour of joining a single currency. In practice, the economic conditions have to be met. The difference between the two political parties is that, should we recommend that we join the single currency, we will give the final say to the British people in a referendum. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can explain how he can be against the single currency in principle, but only for five years?
    Mr. Hague: Two weeks before the last election, this article appeared:
    "Tony Blair last night declared for the first time that he loved the pound. He said,'I know exactly what the British people feel when they see the Queen's head on a ten-pound note. I feel it too. There are emotional issues involved in the single currency… it's about the sovereignty of Britain.'"
    Was not his emotional exploitation of the Queen's head before the last election just like his emotional exploitation of schoolchildren at this election? And why does he not come clean, be straight with people and admit that he wants to ditch the pound as soon as he can get away with it?
    The Prime Minister: We said before the last election that the test would be what was right for British jobs, British industry and British investment, and that is indeed the test. Should we recommend to people that we join the single currency, of course the people will have the final say in a referendum. What we should not do as a country is isolate and marginalise ourselves in Europe, when 3 million jobs in this country depend on Europe.
    As for schools, let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that it is this Government who have cut class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds, and who have put a huge investment into our schools. Thousands of schools up and down the country have had money under the new deal for schools. Again, the difference is that we would keep that money and build on it and the right hon. Gentleman would cut that money.
    Mr. Hague: Even the schoolgirls yesterday saw straight through the right hon. Gentleman. As we read in this morning's press:
    "One girl covered her head with her pullover as Mr. Blair rambled on about devolution. One wrinkled her nose and said, 'He's a big crook'"—
    No wonder they made it a beacon school.
    The right hon. Gentleman said in one of his famous memos:
    "On the euro we need to be…clearer. The truth is the politics is overwhelmingly in favour…and it would be far better to be open and upfront about this."

    107
    That was him, so let him now be open and upfront with the people of the country. Will he now come clean with the people of this country and say that he wants to ditch the pound at the earliest opportunity?
    The Prime Minister: First of all, in respect of the euro, let me repeat to the right hon. Gentleman, in principle we are in favour. In practice the economic conditions have to be met, and the difference is between our commitment to determine that according to what is good for British jobs, British industry and British investment and the right hon. Gentleman's determination that people should not even have the choice of joining the single currency, even if it is right for jobs and investment. Again he refuses to explain why, if he is against the single currency in principle, he is only against it for five years—a fatuous policy.
    As for the rest of what the right hon. Gentleman says, I think that that is an indication of how he intends fighting this campaign. Let me tell him how we intend fighting the campaign. First of all, we shall start with the economy, and let me spell out the difference between us. Under the Government of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member there were 3 million unemployed and interest rates of 15 per cent., and national debt doubled; this party has the lowest inflation in Europe, mortgage rates half of those in the Tories' years and a million more people in work. Now if the right hon. Gentleman wants a proper debate and campaign, let him get up and ask a question on the economy.
    Mr. Hague: The right hon. Gentleman briefed the newspapers yesterday that he wanted to take on the Tories over Europe, so come on, take on the Tories over Europe, instead of whining about it when we ask about Europe. In the last year I have asked the right hon. Gentleman 20 questions on health, and answers we have had zero; 23 on crime, answers zero; 38 on tax and the economy, answers zero. So now answer a question about Europe. The central deception before the last election was that the right hon. Gentleman claimed to love the pound and the moment it was over, he prepared for joining the euro. And is not the central deception at this election that he pretends to give people a choice while planning to bounce them into the euro? Does not that leave the only choice for people who want a straight and honest approach to Europe to support the Conservative party?
    The Prime Minister: In respect of the euro, it is important that we give the British people a choice. Should we recommend that we join the euro, they will have the final say in a referendum, and that is as it should be on a decision of that importance, but as we are debating Europe, let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that his policy is to oppose the treaty of Nice and, therefore, the enlargement of the European Union and to renegotiate Britain's essential terms of entry into the European Union. He has been unable, throughout the course of the last few years, to name one other country that supports those two positions, so perhaps if we have some quiet, we will now let Conservative Members shout out the name of one country that supports that position. There is none. He will therefore go into the election promising to renegotiate the essential terms of our entry into the European Union. That will put jobs at risk, investment at risk and industry at
    108
    risk, so I am happy to debate Europe with him, but I think it remarkable that he is unable to debate the economy, schools, hospitals and crime.
    Mr. Hague: Only one of today's party leaders has ever campaigned for withdrawal from the European Union, and it was not me and it was not the chap on his knees over there; it was the Prime Minister. His spin and broken promises on the euro are like his spin and broken promises on everything else; he said things could only get better, but secondary school class sizes are the highest for 25 years, hospital waiting lists are up, the asylum system is in chaos, the transport system is at a standstill, violent crime has soared and the rights and powers of our country are being given away Why does he need a second chance to be all spin and no delivery?
    The Prime Minister: Let us judge whether we have delivered on our promises by reference to a particular constituency—how about Richmond, Yorks for example? In Richmond, over 17,000 pensioners have benefited from the winter allowance of £200, and over 8,000 will benefit from the free TV licences. Since April 1997, long-term unemployment in Richmond is down 60 per cent. through the new deal. Waiting lists in the right hon. Gentleman's health authority are down 1,500, and there are 400 more nurses. At the present time as we speak, £600,000 is being spent on the Friarage hospital, Northallerton's accident and emergency department. The following schools have benefited from the new deal for schools: Applegarth primary, Brampton primary, Northallerton college, Richmond secondary school and Stokesley secondary school. In respect of class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds, the number in his constituency over 30 is now zero. In addition, in the past year, crime has fallen by 6 per cent. In addition, over 11,000 families have benefited from child benefit increases. So we will let the country judge whether the negative rant on his side or the specifics on mine arc more credible.
    Mr. Giles Radice: As a retiring Labour Member, may I wish my right hon. Friend, and hon. Friends, every success in the coming election? May I say that the Government have successfully combined economic competence with social justice and compassion and thoroughly deserve a second term, which will be vital for the future of tin country, especially in its relations with the European Union?
    The Prime Minister: That is, of course, right because if the Conservative party were elected and pursued the policy of opposing the treaty of Nice, which would wreck the enlargement process, and of renegotiating Britain's essential terms of entry into the European Union, the effect, since no other country in the entire European Union would support it, would be to face this country with a choice of either humiliation or exit from Europe, and neither is a very palatable choice to face. That is why I say that the right hon. Gentleman may make his jokes at the Dispatch Box, but during the campaign, he will have to answer those points on Europe, and he has no answers to them.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: In yesterday afternoon's homily, the Prime Minister acknowledged that his Government had failed to

    109
    deliver in certain specific key policy areas. Looking back over the course of this Parliament. what is the Prime Minister's greatest personal disappointment on policy?
    The Prime Minister: It is obviously the case that in the first two years, as a result of the need to get the deficit down—the doubled national debt and the high borrowing we inherited from the Conservatives—tough spending decisions were taken. However. we now have a stable economy; we have mortgage rates that are about half what they were during the Tory years; there is low inflation and there are more jobs in the economy. Investment is going into every area of our public services. Of course, it will take time to see that investment through, but the essential difference between ourselves and the Conservatives is that we want that investment to go in while they would cut it and take it out.
    Mr. Kennedy: The Prime Minister could have mentioned schools, where secondary class sizes have gone up. He could have mentioned hospitals, where out-patient waiting times have soared, or he could have mentioned crime, where there are fewer police. With hindsight, does he not regret sticking to the Tory spending plans during most of this Parliament? Did not he raise hopes so high for millions at the previous election that by this election millions are deeply disappointed in him?
    The Prime Minister: No, I do not regret the tough first two years because they were necessary. We wanted to avoid the situation that we got into during the early 1990s—the same policies that the Conservatives have at present. We would have ended up in the same position—boom and bust, high interest rates, high levels of unemployment, and with many people in the country in difficulty. So those first two years were necessary.

    In respect of the specifics, the right hon. Gentleman's comments are either wrong or incomplete. It is correct that out-patient numbers went up during the first two years; now they are falling. The in-patient waiting lists have fallen by more than 100,000, as we pledged. On secondary school class sizes, the number is 0.3 of a pupil—it was going up for years before we came into office. However, we said that the priority was to get class sizes down for five, six and seven-year-olds—that we have done.
    Police numbers were falling for years under the Conservatives. Because of tough spending limits, I agree that those numbers carried on falling during the first three years. During the past year, however, they have risen by 1,400 and during the next three years, if the country backs the investment going in, we shall have the largest-ever number of police in this country.
    Mr. Tony Benn: May I thank the Prime Minister for all his very hard work during the past four years and the Leader of the Opposition for the help that he has given during that time? May I also express the hope that on 7 June people realise that many thousands sacrificed their lives to give us the vote, and that if people do not use it they betray that inheritance? Finally, will he believe me when I say that this is not a coded request for
    110
    a peerage? I do not believe that in the second Chamber—however reformed—it would be possible to pursue an interest in democratic politics.
    The Prime Minister: I am not sure how to answer the last part of that question. I thank my right hon. Friend for his support in the coming election. Whatever disagreements we may have had in the Labour party, I think that most people in the country have a deep respect for his integrity and for his sense of devotion to the House.
    Mr. Andrew Rowe: This is my last ever Prime Minister's question; indeed, it is the first time that my name has appeared in this part of the Order Paper since February 1997—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Is the Prime Minister content with the state of higher education under his Government? Is he happy that even though research funds secured are now the only yardstick for judging university staff, the starting salary of a researcher in a London university is £4,000 less than the starting salary of an assistant lift attendant on the London underground? Is that really his commitment to "Education, education. education"?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the fact that we need more resources in further and higher education which is, of course, why we are putting that money in. However, our priority during the first few years was to get the money into nurseries and primary schools. In the second term, if we are elected, we also want to get money into secondary schools and universities. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that, whereas under the previous Conservative Government the funding of science fell very, very sharply, under the Labour Government we shall be making a larger investment in science than this country has seen since the 1960s. Of course, it is only because we have been able to reform the system of student finance that we are able to get the money that does go into further and higher education actually into the front line of university provision.
    Mr. Lawrie Quinn: After four years of steady progress in creating jobs in my constituency, does my right hon. Friend recognise the devastating impact of the closure of the Plaxton bus factory in my constituency, which is detailed in early-day motion 645? Will he endorse the progress made in the few days since last Thursday by our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in setting up a rapid reaction force to work for the people of Scarborough and North Yorkshire? Will the Prime Minister assure the House that he will do his best to make sure that bus building in Scarborough survives?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. I am aware of how important that industry is to his constituency and I welcome the progress made at recent meetings between my hon. Friend, the trade unions, the management, the Minister for Competitiveness, and other interested parties. Looking at all the options for sustaining a viable work force is the right way forward and we remain hopeful that, with the right spirit of

    111
    partnership, which has certainly been present there up to now, we shall be able to find a way forward for my hon. Friend's constituents and the industry.
    Q4. [159648] Sir Archie Hamilton: The Prime Minister knows that I always give him credit where it is due. I should like to congratulate him on a speech on welfare spending that he made in 1997, in which he said that the rate of spending on welfare in this country was unsustainable, the country could no longer afford it, and the money was going to all the wrong people. Why then, since he has been in power, has the welfare budget gone up by £20 billion, why is it consuming the same percentage of national resources as it was in 1997, and why by 2004 will the percentage of families receiving means-tested benefits have risen from 24 per cent. in 1999 to 40 per cent.?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman reminds me that I said that the money should go to the right people. That is precisely what is happening—it is going to right people. The money to which he refers includes pensions, the £200 winter fuel allowance, free television licences and extra pension money, as well as the working families tax credit, which is also important.
    What I actually said in 1997 was that we had to distinguish between the bills of economic and social failure under the Conservatives and the social security spending that we wanted to be increased, such as pensions and help for low-income families. That is what we have done. Measures such as the new deal combined with the strength of the economy have resulted in the bills of economic and social failure falling and in our having £5 billion extra to put into schools, hospitals, police and transport. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for reminding of what I said in 1997; I am pleased to say that we have done it.
    Q5. [159649] Mr. Michael Connarty: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the minimum wage, which was introduced by this radical Government in the teeth of opposition from the Tories and without even one Scottish National party Member of Parliament bothering to turn up to vote for it, is being undermined to a terrible extent in the catering and hospitality industry? When he forms his next radical Government in a few weeks, will he consider introducing legislation to stop rip-off bosses paying catering workers £2 an hour, then topping up wages to the minimum wage using credit card payments and tips given into restaurant kitties?
    The Prime Minister: I am aware of the problem. As my hon. Friend will know, the Low Pay Commission made some statements on it recently. The minimum wage has meant that hundreds of thousands of families have been able to get a decent income for the first time in their lives. It must be seen alongside the working families tax credit, because the combination of those two measures has resulted in many low-income families having a minimum income for the first time, and many people being willing to go out and get jobs because they are paid more to work than they used to be paid on benefits.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the Prime Minister recall that in 1998, when the people voted for the Belfast agreement, they rightly anticipated the
    112
    decommissioning of illegal firearms in Northern Ireland? I should like to place on record my appreciation of the work done by the Prime Minister and his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), on Northern Ireland issues: they have helped us greatly.
    However, does the Prime Minister recall that one year ago, in May, the IRA said that it would put its arms beyond use by June 2001? Does he agree that that appears not to be happening? Does he understand that the decommissioning of illegal firearms is tremendously important to the people of Northern Ireland if peace and democracy are to be sustained? I was glad to hear the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) say so earlier this afternoon. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that, if he remains Prime Minister after the election, he will ensure that it continues to be an obligation that the IRA decommissions its illegal arms in Northern Ireland?
    The Prime Minister: First, may I reciprocate by saying how much I value the work that the right hon. Gentleman has put into the peace process in Northern Ireland in the past few years? He has made an enormous contribution, and I thank him for that. In respect of decommissioning paramilitary weapons, of course that should happen. We are aware of the obligations under the Good Friday agreement, which must be honoured in full. I very much hope that we will be able to make progress on that and other outstanding issues, which we will do as quickly as possible if we are re-elected to form the Government of this country. The right hon. Gentleman will agree that, whatever the difficulties of the process, there is no doubt at all that for the people of Northern Ireland it offers the only sensible and secure way forward. That is why, whatever the problems, we shall certainly do everything that we can to ensure that the obligations of all parties under the agreement are fully honoured.
    Mr. Eric Clarke: This is my last contribution to the House because I, too, am retiring. I thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government for all they have done for the mining communities in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, especially with regard to emphysema, bronchitis, white finger and the money that has been given to the Coalfields Regeneration Trust to help those communities. However, one bit of business is not finished—my right hon. Friend is smiling because he knows what I am going to say. What are we going to do for the men who were sacked during the miners strike? Can we start by buying them back into the miners pension fund?
    To hon. Members on both sides of the House, and everyone who has been a friend, I say thank you—it is nice knowing you.
    The Prime Minister: In respect of the sacked miners, my hon. Friend knows of the discussions on that. It is a difficult issue, for reasons with which he is well familiar and that I have outlined to him personally. On the mining communities as a whole, I am glad he recognises the substantial investment that has been made in them. We have not merely tried to save the existing mines, but have ensured that those people who suffered—and there is considerable physical suffering as result of working down the mines—are properly compensated. I know that that has also taken time, because each case has to be

    113
    individually considered, but the commitment is there. As a result of the work done by the Deputy Prime Minister, an enormous amount of investment has gone into the coalfield communities to help them get back on their feet and have a decent standard of living for their people when the mining industry has finished in their area.
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: If the Prime Minister has influence over the agenda of the next Government, will he build on the achievements of this Parliament in reforming the two Houses of our legislature? Will he advance the process of democratisation and give the people of Britain an opportunity to vote for a fairer electoral system for the two Houses of Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: On the later question, I have nothing to add to what I said before in the House. On the former, I would not agree wholeheartedly with the right hon. Gentleman's agenda for reform of the House of Lords. It is important that we initiate a reform that makes it more representative, but which does not end up in gridlock or competition between the two Houses of Parliament. That we will endeavour to do.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend share the dismay of charities, churches and aid organisations that are appalled at the Opposition's decision to oppose the Internationa1 Development Bill, which is one of the finest pieces of legislation? Does he agree that if, at this eleventh hour, they do not change their mind, his new Government will make the commitment to the poorest people in the poorest countries a major aspect of his agenda?
    The Prime Minister: I hope very much that the Opposition would support the International Development Bill. It is an important Bill that indicates what I have to say is a clear and sharp division of values between the two sides of the House. One of the proudest achievements
    114
    of this Government over the past few years has been writing off large amounts of debt and increasing aid and development as a proportion of our national income. It is a tragedy that the Opposition remain opposed to those policies, which I believe are supported by the vast majority of people in the country.
    Mr. Andrew Stunell: This is the last question to the Prime Minister, so he can relax now.
    The Prime Minister spoke to children in a school in Southwark yesterday, so will he reflect on the fact that every child there receives support from the Government to the tune of £42,700? Will he also reflect on the fact that, had he chosen to hold that meeting in Stockport, every child there receives only £27,400? Does he believe that his boast of "Education, education, education," has been fulfilled when there are such gross inequities in the funding of schoolchildren in different parts of the United Kingdom?
    The Prime Minister: There are issues in respect of the funding of local authorities, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is the subject of a local government finance Green Paper that will be succeeded by a White Paper in October. However—whether in Stockport or any other part of the country—as a result of what the Government have done, there are huge amounts of additional investment going into education. There is the largest amount of money going into education over the next few years that this country has seen for a very long time, if not ever. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman, who is a Liberal Democrat, that we are putting in far more investment than his party ever sought at the previous general election. It is all part of the investment that is going into our schools, our hospitals, our transport and our police and we are doing that on the basis of a strong and stable economy. It is the combination of a stable economy and investment in public services that I believe will recommend itself to this country.

Personal Statement
3.32 pm
Sir Edward Heath: I was absolutely delighted, as I am sure was the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), by the glowing tribute that the Prime Minister paid to us at the beginning of his remarks. It was inspired, no doubt, by the first half of the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—the second half was not quite in the same vein. I should like to thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to make this personal statement as my final contribution to the proceedings in this Parliament. The fact that it is a final contribution explains why I am using a script for the first time since I ceased to be Prime Minister.
As a retiring Member, I am grateful to the electors of Bexley for returning me as their representative in 14 successive general elections. It has been an honour and a privilege as well as a pleasure to serve them. I should also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the staff of the House. These often forgotten people—Clerks, security staff, librarians, catering staff and others—ensure that this place runs so efficiently. As Father of the House, I feel a certain responsibility to ensure that we appreciate what they do and pay tribute to them.
You, Mr. Speaker, are also deserving of my thanks. In allowing the right hon. Member for Chesterfield and myself the freedom of the House, you have kindly allowed us to continue to use some of the facilities of this establishment.
It is more than 51 years since I became a Member of the House and I remember full well the impact that it made on me in those early days. In fact, I had been a Member only a few months when I was invited to become a Whip and a member of the Conservative Opposition. As a result, I spent my first 25 years here on the Front Bench, either in government or in opposition. After that, I spent the next 25 years—on the Front Bench—[Laughter]—below the Gangway. During that time, I learned a great deal, particularly when I was first a Whip—in fact, that was the reason why I became a Whip.
In those days, the Whips had a place at the Door and, if they wanted to, they kept Members in or let us pass. When our Whip asked one of our Members, "Have you got a pair?", he said, "No" and went on. The Whip said, "Well, you can't go out. Get a pair." "No, I haven't got a pair," replied the Member. Whereupon our enthusiastic Whip jumped up, gave him a hefty kick in one of the usual places, and the man fell flat on the floor. He had to be picked up and set on his feet; he went to the Chief Whip and complained. As a result, the Whip himself was changed; I was sent for and invited to take his place. The result was a notice in The Times the next day, to this effect:
"Colonel Walter Bromley Davenport, MP for Knutsford, majority 16,913. He has resigned in order to give greater attention to his constituents. His place is now being taken by Mr. Edward Heath, MP for Bexley, majority 133."
That is how I began my climb to fame. The next day, I was taken to see Churchill, who patted me on the shoulder and said, "Yes, of course you can be a Whip." I quote his words:
"It will mean much hard work and it will be unremunerated but so long as I am your leader it will never remain unthanked."
116
That was a guiding principle all the time. After that, I had all the work of a Whit, involving many different activities and different parts of the world. It also entailed the relationship between Parliament and the Executive—the Government themselves.
When I look back over my 51 years here, I cannot help but be saddened by the increasing impotence of the House and the decline in the esteem in which this place is held; I am speaking quite frankly. The powers of Parliament to hold the Executive to account have been declining for over a century under Governments of all political persuasions. I can only hope that the Parliament following this one will reassess and reassert its authority, and robustly hold the Executive to account.
I should like to say a word about standards in public life. The behaviour of us Members has also undermined public confidence in parliamentary democracy. As I noted during a debate when I entered the House in 1950, every Member of Parliament was seen as a person of integrity. Unfortunately, some reckless campaigning and an increasingly cynical media excessively focusing on a few examples of unparliamentary behaviour have led to a serious and worrying decline in the public perception of Members of Parliament. I hope that the new intake and existing Members will take note of the need to set an example in those spheres. I also hope that when the conduct of one or two Members falls below the required standards, the media will not try and tar all Members with the same brush.
Perhaps I may finally say a word about Europe. [Interruption.] Do I hear a rumbling? As the subject has already been extensively dealt with this afternoon by my leader, I have no doubts about continuing with it. It is most appropriate that I make the final points of my statement and my final remarks in the House about Europe. I have been a committed European since my Oxford days. My pro-European outlook was reinforced by my wartime experiences. In 1945, as both the victors and the vanquished surveyed the devastation wrought upon the continent, it became obvious that Europe could not afford another war.
Unfortunately, the case for British membership of the European Community was not recognised by British Governments of the 1950s, so this country lost the opportunity to be a founder member of the Community. However, its architects, Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman, correctly recognised that the European Community would not be complete without the United Kingdom.
My proudest achievement was to have successfully negotiated entry of the United Kingdom into the European Community. In January 1972, she fulfilled her destiny. The United Kingdom has always been a European country. We have a shared history and culture. In the modern world it is only right that we should share our sovereignty with our European neighbours, for the greater benefit of all.
In due course, for the second time in a quarter of a century, the British people will be asked to vote on whether the country can remain a committed player in Europe. I look forward to campaigning vigorously for a yes vote. I have no doubt whatever that a united Europe is here to stay. I believe that it is in British interests, and I believe that we should do everything that we can to help it and to help its people. We shall then be helping

117
ourselves as a people and as a country, and we shall be supporting our own continent. That will be for the good not only of Europe as a whole, but of the world. For those who will follow us in the House, I wish them all well.

Business Statement
3.43 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for tomorrow will be: consideration of Lords amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill. Then, if amendments are received from the other place, the House will also consider Lords amendments to the Criminal Justice and Police Bill. That will be followed by the remaining stages of the International Criminal Court Bill [Lords]. The House may also be asked to consider any other Lords amendments that may be received.
On Friday, if amendments are received from the other place, the business will be, consideration of Lords amendments to the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill, then the Armed Forces Bill and the Social Security Contributions (Share Options) Bill. The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages that may be received.
The House will not adjourn until Royal Assent has been received to all Acts. Parliament will be dissolved on Monday 14 May by proclamation.
In addition to the business in Westminster Hall, I remind the House that the Regional Affairs Committee will meet at 1.30 pm tomorrow.
Mrs. Angela Browning: I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement. Can she confirm that Treasury questions will be taken tomorrow?
I welcome the fact that later today there will be time to debate the Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Bill, a measure that has cross-party support and which is of particular help to people in rural areas, especially those who have suffered from the foot and mouth crisis.
It has been interesting to note which Bills have not been given high enough priority to progress to their final conclusion—reference was made to that during Prime Minister's Question Time. They include the homelessness legislation, the International Development Bill, which has yet to receive any scrutiny in the other place, and the Adoption and Children Bill, which for reasons we all understand is still at the Committee stage as it is complex and requires careful scrutiny. It is important that I put it on the record that, on coming to office, the Conservative party will almost certainly reintroduce the Adoption and Children Bill as a priority for a Conservative Government. Having had a Queen's Speech for this Session as late as December last year, it is regrettable that priority has been given to legislation on foxes rather than that on international development and the homeless.
The Leader of the House announced that in tomorrow's business we shall deal with the Health and Social Care Bill, which will abolish community health councils. CHCs contain people who have served their community well, and have been the champions of patients, holding health authorities and the medical profession to account. At this late stage, I plead with the Government to consider the valuable work that those people have done, and to drop that part of the Bill.
Mrs. Beckett: I confirm that there will be Treasury questions tomorrow, and that we anticipate that we shall

119
get through the Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Bill. As the hon. Lady rightly said, the Adoption and Children Bill is under discussion in Committee. It deals with a complex and important subject, and the whole House wants it to be dealt with thoroughly.
It is obviously a source of regret that other legislation may not proceed. I am surprised by the hon. Lady's remarks about the International Development Bill, as there was nothing to prevent the Conservative party from allowing it to reach the statute book if it chose to do so.
The issues raised by the Health and Social Care Bill will be discussed, but as I am sure the hon. Lady is aware, the Government believe that we need to put in place stronger arrangements for the representation of patients, which is what the Bill envisages.
Mr. Tony Clarke: Does the Leader of the House share my regret that this is the first Session of Parliament since the 1973–74 Session when no private Members' Bills have succeeded? On her return, will she ensure, while protecting Government business, that private Members' Bills are also protected, especially from individual vandalism and the wrecking techniques of Conservative Members?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. A feature of this Parliament—not just of this Session—is that it has been much more difficult than usual to get private Members' Bills on to the statute book, even those that were widely thought to be non controversial and that were welcomed by all parties. I accept that that is a matter for concern. My hon. Friend will know that the issue is much discussed.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that, should she still be chairing the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons, she will look favourably on the suggestion that the way in which we deal with private Members' legislation should be examined as a matter of urgency? I think that all Back Benchers would concur with that.
Does the right hon. Lady share my concern and astonishment that the Conservatives seem to want to blackball the International Development Bill, although it has been subject to much inquiry? Will she please do everything in her power to make them see reason? Does she accept that there is an element of stage-managed brinkmanship at the end of a Parliament, but this time it is extraordinary, given that we have all known for many weeks that this moment was coming?
Does she also accept that it is extraordinary that the Government are anxious to steamroller legislation through the House in this Parliament when presumably they are confident of re-election? On the other side, the Conservatives are desperate to extract the last ounce of compromise when presumably they believe that one day they will be elected to government again. The way in which we have to deal with these matters at the fag-end of a Parliament is extraordinary.
Mrs. Beckett: Few parliamentary ends were more evidence of that than the end of the last Parliament.
120
Although it ran until the last possible date, at the close of the Session it was necessary for the Government to deal with some 16 pieces of legislation—substantially more than we shall need to deal with this time.
It is, I fear, a feature of our system that it is always necessary to deal with things in this way. I reject the suggestion that we are attempting to steamroller legislation through —we are allowing time for proper consideration—although I share the hon. Gentleman's regret about the stonewalling of the International Development Bill, which I find wholly inexplicable.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: As my right hon. Friend will know, one of the private Members' Bills that have, sadly, been lost is my Christmas Day Trading Bill, which would have protected the interests of low-paid workers and secured their right to remain with their families on one of the most important days in the Christian calendar. May I commend the subject of the Bill to my right hon. Friend, and hope that Her Majesty's Government will look kindly on an important but quite straightforward measure which could be passed fairly quickly by an incoming Government and which would, I am sure, be welcomed by low-paid workers throughout tie United Kingdom?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend knows that I am not in a position to give advance commitments, but I understand the importance of the issue that she has raised and, as always, take her remarks seriously.
Sir Peter Emery: Will the right hon. Lady give me the last assurance that I shall ask of any Minister? Will she assure me that, whatever position she holds in the next Parliament, she will use her experience in the Modernisation Committee—especially in the context of its last report—to try to enable Members on both sides of the House to realise the concept of ensuring that all legislation i fully debated and all Opposition amendments properly considered? That was the intention of the Committee's report; it has not worked, but it requires the co-operation of both sides. Perhaps, in the next Parliament, I shall be able to look from afar and see that it really is working.
Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case, which I know he has pursued assiduously for many years. I have no hesitation in giving him, unequivocally, the assurance that he seeks.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: As my right hon. Friend knows, over the past couple of months I have pressed regulary for a debate on matters of standards and privileges. Can she assure us that there will be a debate early in the next Parliament, before any assessment of the case being made by the office of standards for an increase in its resources? May we have a debate first, and then consideration of resources?
Mrs. Beckett: First, may I say that we shall certainly miss my hon. Friend on the Labour Benches?
My hon. Friend says, correctly, that he has pressed me on this matter a number of times. He makes an important point, and I have taken his words on board; but I suspect that, although he will not be here to deal with the issues that he has raised, others will take them up.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: As I made clear earlier today, the Prime Minister has maintained a stream

121
of correspondence, and has held several meetings, with the Hindujas, which he did not disclose to Sir Anthony Hammond's inquiry. Parliament is the proper place in which to raise these issues. We now need a statement from the Prime Minister to clarify his position on two important points. First, why did the right hon. Gentleman ignore official advice, deepen his personal relations with the Hindujas and extend his Government's business with them, when he knew from January 1998 onwards that they were under investigation by the Indian Government? Secondly, why did he conceal his contacts and his meetings from Sir Anthony Hammond's inquiry?
Mrs. Beckett: None of that will arise in the business that we shall take during the next couple of days, and I think it a sad indication of the Conservative party's desperation that it seeks to raise those issues now.
Mr. David Winnick: On the points made by the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), the former Chairman of the Procedure Committee, does my right hon. Friend accept that, if programme motions are here to stay whoever forms the next Government, and I cannot see any change, it is important to try to reach agreement—it may not be possible—with the Opposition, so that we do not sit all through the night, which is not necessary and which the public do not appreciate, and that the Opposition have the opportunity to put their points of view which is the essence of our place of work and of parliamentary democracy? A compromise is possible if both sides wish it.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Indeed, there is growing evidence that people have begun to understand the opportunity and advantage that scheduling debate in that way can offer the Opposition. Let us hope that they will have many more years to make use of it.
Mr. Tom King: The right hon. Lady may be aware that, last weekend, we had the first serious outbreak of foot and mouth in west Somerset and that some 5,000 animals were culled, Which is the clearest possible reminder that the suggestion that the outbreak is under control and over could not be more inaccurate. In that connection, a very serious crisis is emerging not only for agriculture but for tourism in the area. May I plead with the right hon. Lady again to speak to her colleagues in government and to do the one thing that might help: to introduce interest-free loans for some businesses, which otherwise will simply collapse? It will cost the Government much more, if they are serious about tourism, to try to re-create them. May we have a statement from the chairman of the taskforce before Parliament is dissolved?
Mrs. Beckett: All I can say to the right hon. Gentleman, who I know is also leaving this place, is that it is inaccurate to suggest that anyone has said that the foot and mouth outbreak is over. What has clearly been taken on board is the fact that, mercifully, the number of cases is falling, but everyone is very conscious of the fact that it is by no means over. Indeed, both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have said repeatedly that we must expect some fluctuation in the position and perhaps even some increase on occasion in the number of cases.
122
The right hon. Gentleman makes the point about the assistance and support that should be made available. I cannot promise that there will be a statement in the next few days, but I shall draw his remarks to the attention of the Minister.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Some 43 days ago, I asked two questions of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which have still to receive a substantive answer. As questions are meant to be answered within a few working days, will the right hon. Lady confirm that all proper questions that are in order will be answered before the House rises?
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot confirm that off the cuff, but I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the relevant Department.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Walter Bagehot drew a distinction between the dignified and the efficient parts of the constitution. We have heard this week about the dignified parts: prorogation, the audience with the Queen and such like. What answer does the right hon. Lady have to the heartfelt plea by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) about the decline in the ability of this place to scrutinise the Executive? Is she aware that we are in danger of becoming a dignified part of the constitution? The only effective part will be the audience that the Prime Minister has with the head of the fourth estate, the editor of The Sun.
Mrs. Beckett: I point out to the hon. Gentleman, who I am sure was listening to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), that the right hon. Gentleman claimed that that trend had taken place over the past century, not over the past four years. Some of the changes that the Government have made have improved opportunities for scrutiny, not least the opportunity to scrutinise business from the European Union. There were substantial gaps in the ability of the House to cover that legislation, which have been remedied by the Government. Further opportunities have been provided in Westminster Hall, the establishment of which was opposed by many Conservatives Members. Other reforms are under way, including the reforms long advocated by the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), the former Chairman of the Procedure Committee. We believe that those reforms will facilitate improved scrutiny, should hon. Members use them to their full effect.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I echo and reinforce the call by the shadow Leader of the House for the Government to take the ready opportunity and the chance to save face, and not to scrap community health councils. The excellent CHCs of Cheshire Central, and Chester and Ellesmere Port need not be scrapped. There is a continuing sense of outrage about the scrapping of those excellent representative bodies. The Government have a chance to do the right thing. I urge the Leader of the House to encourage her colleagues to take that chance now.
Mrs. Beckett: Those matters have been extensively discussed in our consideration of the Bill, and no doubt they will be again.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Is the right hon. Lady aware that 1 tabled to the Agriculture Minister a

123
named-day question on whether he would make a statement on the price of inspection for small and medium-sized abattoirs? The question was due to be answered today, so why have I only been told today that it has been transferred to the Secretary of State for Health. Why has the question not been answered today?
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot tell the hon. Lady that, but I can certainly undertake to draw her concerns to the attention of my relevant colleagues.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: It might be helpful for the right hon. Lady to know that MAFF has told me in an answer that it has not been able to answer within the allotted time 98 per cent. of the questions that it has been asked in the past month. My question, however, is whether she will answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House about whether there will be Treasury questions tomorrow.
Mrs. Beckett: I did answer that, and there will be.
Mr. Graham Brady: Can the Leader of the House explain why No. 10 Downing street was yesterday able to issue a press release announcing that Dissolution will be on Monday, whereas she was clearly unable to answer that question when she was asked it in the Chamber? Why was it possible for that information to be made clear to the press before hon. Members were allowed to have it?
Mrs. Beckett: The press were informed first, but negotiations were continuing when I made my statement yesterday. That is why I was not able to give the House all the information that I gave it today.
Mr. Eric Forth: As it would appear from what the Leader has told us that most of the business in the next two days relates to amendments coming here from another place, and since presumably even the Leader cannot predict with great accuracy how many amendments there may be, may we have an undertaking from her that the Government will make no attempt to reduce, truncate or otherwise limit the time that we have properly to consider amendments from the other place and any other business that may be before us? I think that it would be very helpful, even at this stage of the Parliament, if we were given that reassurance and if the Government were prepared for once properly to be scrutinised and held to account in this place.
Mrs. Beckett: I can certainly assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall follow the precedents that have been followed by every Government at the rise of every Parliament.
Mr. John Bercow: Does the right hon. Lady recognise that the prospect of a number of items of business on Friday will give me an additional glint in my eye and spring in my step as it presumably means, does it not, that Friday's business will close with an Adjournment debate on treatment of diabetes sufferers, which it will be my privilege to introduce?
Mrs. Beckett: I must freely confess that I had not been studying that. However, the hon. Gentleman may well be correct.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the right hon. Lady ensure that, before Dissolution, we have an opportunity to discus s the two impending tube strikes in London and the other rail strikes across the country that have been called by the RMT union? Such a debate would give us an opportunity to discuss the extraordinary fact that not only the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, but his deputy, the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) are members of that union. Of course the Secretary of State also receives substantial benefits in kind from that union
Mrs. Beckett: I do not see any need for a further opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to make a point that he has already made on a number of occasions.
Mr. Owen Paterson: The reply that the Leader of the House gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgewater (Mr. King) shows that the Government still underestimate the desperate problems caused by foot and mouth to the rural economy. I have been on to the Agriculture Minister's private office for almost a week trying to sort out certain problems with licences, and we need his presence in this Chamber in the next two days to answer questions. We also need the presence of the Minister responsible for the taskforce. Although the Government have made some glossy PR announcements about the sums that are being handed down, people in the tourism industry cannot get hold of that money. They do not know who is distributing it or the criteria for applying for it. Members representing rural areas have only two more days to put those questions to the responsible Ministers. Can she please make a clear statement on why those two Ministers cannot find time in the next two days to come to the House to answer decent questions?
Mrs. Beckett: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that everyone in the Government takes the crisis in the rural economy extremely seriously. Additionally, as he will have observed, substantial sums have been made available, whether it is to agriculture or to tourism, and that will continue. I shall certainly draw the concerns expressed by hon. Members to the attention of my right. hon. and hon. Friends
As the hon. Gentleman will, I believe, be the last contributor, may I take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to thank you, and your predecessor, for the way in which you have presided over this mêlée? Indeed, I thank all those who have participated, not least the shadow Leader of the House and her predecessors. As Leader of the House, let me say—on behalf of the whole House, if I may—how deeply indebted we are to all those who facilitate our proceedings: the officers and officials of the House in every capacity.

BILL PRESENTED

  HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION (REGISTRATION SCHEME) BILL
  Mr. Alan Simpson presented a Bill to provide for a scheme for the registration and licensing of houses in multiple occupation; to require certain matters relating to

  125
  energy efficiency to be included in such a scheme; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 May, and to be printed [Bill 97].

  Age Discrimination
  4.5 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision in respect of age discrimination.
  You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that in the previous Parliament I also introduced a Bill to outlaw age discrimination. Shortly thereafter I rather hoped that I would not have to raise the matter in the House again, because before the last election the Labour party committed itself to legislate against age discrimination. Unfortunately, Labour went on to win the election, and I assumed in good faith that, as the party had made that commitment, that would form part of its legislative programme. I went on hoping, rather against hope, that there would be some way of pricking the Labour Government's conscience and persuading them to implement their pre-electoral promises.
  I was rather heartened on 2 December 1998, when I asked the Prime Minister whether he still stood by his commitment to legislate against age discrimination, and he answered:
  "Yes, we stand by it."—[Official Report, 2 December 1998; Vol. 321, c. 879.]
  I continued to wait in expectation, but, I have to say, with decreasing confidence that my expectations and those of millions of people affected by age discrimination would be met. Two weeks ago, as you will recall, Mr. Speaker, I again asked the Prime Minister at Question Time about his intentions in that regard, but all I got was the standard new Labour waffle.
  It is clear that the Labour Government have no intention whatever of dealing with the matter, and that their promise before the last election has proved to be yet another broken promise. Many Members—and not only Members, but people throughout the country—will be saying, "So what's new? Labour have broken all their other major promises—about tuition fees, tax, class sizes, and a referendum on electoral reform." I would not want electoral reform, but having a referendum was a clear manifesto promise. People will ask, "Why shouldn't they break their promise on age discrimination, too?" In the light of events, that is the only reasonable attitude to take, but it is sad that we have to come to such cynical conclusions about how democracy is conducted in this country, and how the electorate is treated by the new Labour publicity and spin machine. I trust that on 7 June a suitable punishment is in store for those who have treated the British electorate in that fashion.
  I, for one, will not forget about this issue—not in this Parliament, and not for as long as it takes—because it is extremely important. There are two aspects, both to the issue and to my Bill, and I shall deal with each in turn in the short time available.
  The Bill deals with age discrimination both in the job market and in the provision of public services. In the employment market, the issue is one of justice. That is where I start from: it is a matter of elementary justice, We must all have encountered people in our surgeries who say that they are looking for a job and have sent their CVs round to hundreds of employees, but although they appear to be perfectly well qualified, they keep being told,

  127
  "I'm sorry, you're too old." Sometimes those people are in their 50s; sometimes they are even in their 40s—yet they are still being told that they are too old.
  This is, first and foremost, a matter of elementary justice—the same issue as arises with race and sex discrimination. Human beings are not being considered on their merits as individuals, but are arbitrarily put into some Procrustean category, and condemned without their case having been considered at all. That is exactly the same issue as we encountered in race and sex discrimination before the House—rightly, in my view, but before I became a Member—legislated against those barbarities.
  Age discrimination is an issue of justice and humanity. We want to avoid people being made to feel that simply because they are older, which they can do nothing about, they will not be given a fair chance or, worse, they will face a series of humiliations as they pursue the elementary human right to seek work and a role in society and the community.
  The economic aspect of age discrimination will become increasingly important as the years go by. We all know that we face a rise in the dependency ratio, which is the number of people aged over 65—the notional standard retirement age—as a proportion of those aged between 20 and 65. The other member states of the European Union also face that problem, some of them to an even worse degree. The problem is worrying, because the number of people who are purely consumers as a proportion of those who are both producers and consumers will increase. That is problematic for the provision of public services and future consumption levels if people wish to increase their standard of living—as most hope to do when they are working and when they retire.
  Any pension system is a claim on the resources of the economy and if the output of the economy declines or does not match the expectations that people had when they took out their pension—whether their pension is provided via taxation, through savings or the accumulation of a portfolio of financial securities—their standard of living will decline and their range of choices in retirement will not be what they hoped.
  What can we do about the dependency ratio? We cannot, in a free society, alter the fertility rate through deliberate policies, and even if we could it would take, by definition, a generation or two before the position improved. One answer, which the United States has implemented to some extent, is immigration. Some 750,000 legal immigrants enter the US every year and, including illegal immigrants, the immigration figure is probably more than 1 million. There is a lesser degree of immigration into this country and the rest of the EU, and it is also associated with various social problems and
  128
  tensions that may be more difficult to handle in a country such as this, which is physically overcrowded. However, immigration will have a role to play in the future if we are to address the issue of the dependency ratio and ensure that we continue to have a work force who enable the economy to expand. If the supply of labour is limited, economic growth cannot be pursued indefinitely. Capital can substitute for labour to a large extent, but labour is still essential for an economy, especially in labour-intensive service sectors.
  Against that background, it is crazy to discard a resource that already exists—members of our community who are already here, already trained and already have experience. Some of those people want to work and have been told that they cannot. When they send in their CVs or ring up in answer to an advertisement, they are told, "Sorry, but we are not taking anybody over 40." Individual employers may feel that they can get away with that, because they can employ reasonable people below that age, but if the generality of the economy works on that basis, it will lose a precious resource.
  The second issue addressed in the Bill is discrimination in the provision of public services, especially the national health service. I have spoken about the issue before in health debates. Many Opposition Members have spoken about that. There is much anecdotal evidence that, in practice, many procedures, drugs and operations are being denied to patients in our health service because of their age. I now have documentary evidence of that disgraceful practice. In a letter to me dated 17 April, Mr. Richard Jeavons, the chief executive of Lincolnshire health authority, stated that multiple sclerosis sufferers aged over 50 will not qualify for receiving beta interferon on the national health service That is absolutely disgraceful.
  The letter makes it clear that it is a fact, not a matter of anecdotal rumour that age discrimination is being exercised in the NHS. I cannot believe that it is being exercised only against people in Lincolnshire, or only in the matter of beta interferon treatment for people with MS. The practice goes against every principle on which we like to think our society is based. My Bill is therefore more urgently needed than ever, and I trust that the House will give it a Second Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Quentin Davies, Mr. Tony Baldry, Mr. Christopher Fraser, Mr. Michael Jack, Mr. Robert Jackson, Mr. Robert Key, Mrs. Eleanor Laing, Mrs. Jacqui Lait, Sir David Madel, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mr. Richard Shepherd and Mr. Ian Taylor.

  AGE DISCRIMINATION
  Mr. Quentin Davies accordingly presented a Bill to make provision in respect of age discrimination: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 May, and to be printed [Bill 981.

  Business of the House
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That—

  (1) At the sitting on Friday 11th May, notwithstanding the provisions of the Order [23rd January] relating to Business of the House, Government business shall have precedence;

  (2) At the sittings on Thursday 10th and Friday 11th May, Government business may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour;

  (3) At this day's sitting. Thursday 10th and Friday 11th May, Standing Order No. 38 shall apply and the Order [7th November 2000] relating to Deferred divisions shall not apply if, after the time for the interruption of business, the opinion of the Speaker as to the decision on a question is challenged in respect of any question;

  (4) At this day's sitting, the requirements of paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.) shall be dispensed with in respect of the Motion relating to Estimates 2001–02;

  (5) At this day's sitting, any Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill ordered to be brought in and read the first time shall be proceeded with as if its Second Reading stood as an Order of the day, and Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills) shall apply;

  (6) At this day's sitting, Thursday 10th and Friday 11th May, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any messages from the Lords shall have been received;

  (7) At the sitting on Friday 11th May, the House shall not adjourn until the Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Act agreed upon by both Houses; and

  (8) At its rising on Friday 11th May, the House shall adjourn to Tuesday 15th May.—[Mr. Pope.]

  4.17 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: I am surprised that no Minister has sought to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, to explain this complicated and controversial motion. As has so often been the case, the House must now flounder around and guess the Government's intentions. We have had no guidance from the Government. Sadly, this Parliament will end in the way that it has proceeded—
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The right hon. Gentleman has spoken on business motions through most of the Session. Why is he surprised at today's motion, given that similar motions have been taken formally at this stage of the House's proceedings for the past 30 years?
  Mr. Forth: I can imagine that that happened because for most of that time, we had a lousy Opposition who did not do their job properly. In opposition, the right hon. Lady's party clearly neglected its parliamentary duties and let everything go through on the nod. Things have changed.
  Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman's concern is even more surprising because, in what is known as the wash-up period in the previous Parliament, some 16 pieces of legislation were put on the statute book. One of them was an education Bill, on which the right hon. Gentleman was leading for the then Government.
  Mr. Forth: I am delighted to say that I was able to conduct my business easily because there was no
  130
  opposition to it. As I said, times have changed. We may have different roles in the next Parliament, and we shall have to see how we get on.
  Mr. John Bercow: My right hon. Friend does not normally need defending, but the gravamen of the criticism from the Leader of the House on these occasions always seems to be that he was in the past an unquestioning, compliant, ambitious and possibly even sycophantic Member of Conservative Governments. Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that even if he did commit those sins, everything that he has done in this Parliament has completely made up for his errors of commission in the past?
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as ever. However, something of a metamorphosis often takes place among Members of Parliament, depending on whether they are in opposition or in government. I say in the most kindly way to the Leader of the House that the same might even be said to have happened to her.
  Whether or not we are in what the Leader of the House quaintly called a wash-up period, we are doing parliamentary business and we are legislating. It seems to have become fashionable, certainly on the Government Benches and, regrettably, among some of my colleagues as well, that legislation is a matter of formality. The idea is that we all operate, if possible, in a horrible consensual way, agree on what is generally good, but do not get around to good old-fashioned scrutiny or good old-fashioned opposition.
  I may be a lone voice in this matter, but as long as I am a Member of this House—which I will be until Monday—I will stick to the old-fashioned view that almost everything done by any Government should be viewed with the greatest suspicion, and that the job of the Opposition is to scrutinise, delay, harry and make a nuisance of themselves until they are satisfied that they have done everything they can to make legislation what it should be for the people of this country. It is a simple and unsophisticated view, but then, that is the sort of chap I am.
  I approach this motion in the same spirit of simple, unsophisticated criticism. First, however, I should like to welcome an aspect of the motion. Now there is a turn-up for the books, and I hope that it will make the right hon. Lady's day. Paragraph (2) of the motion says:
  "At the sittings on Thursday 10th and Friday 11th May, Government business may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour".
  That is a faint echo of the way things used to be. We are being given a proper opportunity for proper parliamentary scrutiny of Government business. I guarantee to the right hon. Lady that it will be opposed—at least, I hope that I can guarantee it. That is, after all, what we are here for. However, I find it encouraging that the business can be conducted until any hour. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front and Back Benches will welcome the measure and take every opportunity that it presents.
  That is my word of welcome to the Government and the Leader of the House for uncharacteristically generously allowing a proper amount of time for our proceedings. In a way, it answers the question that I put to the right hon. Lady a short while ago. Given the structure and flow of business that we anticipate over the next two

  131
  parliamentary days, and given that, as the right hon. Lady has indicated, we expect a number of amendments to come to us from another place but do not yet know the number, range and quality of those amendments, the motion, very wisely, allows us a proper amount of time in which to consider them. That is good news. However, it is probably the only good news that I can find in the motion.
  Paragraph (4) of the motion says:
  "the requirements of paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.) shall be dispensed with".
  I am always suspicious when I see such a provision. How do the Government expect us to react to it? When any Standing Order is dispensed with, we are entitled to be anxious. The point of Standing Orders is to provide the House with a structured way of proceeding with its business and to reassure all Members that their interests will be protected. Again, it is a matter of regret that no Minister—neither the Leader of the House nor anyone else—has sought to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, to explain why this rather casual dispensation with key elements of Standing Orders is being put before us, to which we are presumably expected to give our uncritical and admiring approval. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), the shadow Leader of the House, will have something to say about that.
  Paragraph (5) says:
  "At this day's sitting, any Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill ordered to be brought in and read the first time"—
  any such Bill, regardless of its contents, size, scale or substance—
  "shall be proceeded with as if its Second Reading stood as an Order of the day".
  That sounds very like our old friend "deemed", under a slightly different guise. The motion does not actually say "deemed" because, as you know, Mr. Speaker, that can be a bit of a red rag to some of us bulls—
  Mrs. Angela Browning: And heifers.
  Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend want that remark on the record?
  Mrs. Browning indicated dissent.
  Mr. Forth: She does not, but it will be now, I am afraid, because she will get a note from Hansard any minute.
  The motion may not say "deemed", but I read it as being rather similar.
  I want to clarify several points. First, am I to take that paragraph literally as it reads —that any Bill shall be brought in and read the First time and proceeded with as though we had had the Second Reading anyway? So now we are doing away with Second Readings. I thought that the Government had gone far enough already—they have done away with nearly everything else in the House. This must be the ultimate—the ultimate put-on, the ultimate sin, the ultimate act of arrogance. We shall not even have
  132
  Second Readings any more. We shall simply accept legislation, give it a quick nod through, and bob's your uncle.
  I suspect, if I know anything, and if I know the Government at all, that this could involve quite a large sum of money. In fact, if we turn the page, we can see that it probably does involve a large sum of money, not unadjacent to—it could not be £144 billion, could it, by any chance? We could not be being asked, could we, Mr. Speaker, to nod through £144 billion and loose change without even a Second Reading?
  I hope that the Treasury Ministers who are sitting in the Chamber looking very pleased with themselves at the moment will do the House the courtesy of seeking to catch your eye at some stage, Mr. Speaker, and explain why 144 billion quid of taxpayers' money should be nodded through without even a Second Reading.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Is my right hon. Friend aware of any precedents—apart from the deeming, which we debated at great length and with great consternation in this place? Are there precedents for dispensing with Second Readings, and if so, does my right hon. Friend believe that the judiciary might find that of some note when considering the interpretation of statute in due course?
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that very interesting and useful point. I hope that the motion does not create or provide a precedent, because I could just imagine that in some future Parliament, were there to be another Labour Government of this kind, they might well seek to introduce measure such as this and then quote this precedent and say, "But it was done before, and that was okay."
  Is not the sole point of a motion like this—which, I am glad to say, can be debated until any hour, which is very reassuring to me, at least—to bring out matters such as this and at least to place on the record the fact that some Members of Parliament are unhappy about this; that some Members of Parliament do care, even at this stage of this Session of this Parliament; and that nodding through £144 billion is not our idea of parliamentary scrutiny? There is something for my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench to think about. Perhaps they do not think that £144 billion is very much, but I do, so it is another question that we must answer for ourselves.
  Paragraph (6) of the motion says—I suppose that I should give this a slightly qualified welcome because it involves you, Mr. Speaker—
  "At this day's sitting, Thursday 10th and Friday 11th May, the Speaker shall not adjourn, the House until any messages from the Lords shall have been received:"
  so, quite properly, we are making provision for the House to be available properly to consider or to receive messages from another place.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Has my right hon. Friend given any consideration to what will happen if no such messages are received? Will we stay here, presumably for ever?
  Mr. Forth: That is a glorious thought, and one that I would very much welcome—whether the electorate would

  133
  welcome it, I do not know—but I do not read the motion in that way. I can see what my hon. Friend is getting at, but the motion says:
  "until any messages … shall have been received;"
  so, in the quaint but correct old grammar that we delight in here—I am pleased to say that we do—it is making proper provision for, but not necessarily tying us into, the receipt of such messages.
  The point is that, in paragraph (6), we are celebrating the fact that we have two Houses of Parliament, both of which have an important role to play, and that even in this wash-up—to use the quaint phrase of the Leader of House, which seems to be her attempt to say, "All this is very trivial and does not matter too much, so why are we bothering with it?"—both Houses of Parliament have a role to play, so we, properly, will be here, waiting to hear what those in the other place may say. I hope that they have a lot to say about some of the rather ghastly Bills that will be put through Parliament before Dissolution.
  Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend's interpretation of paragraph (6) might be unreasonably narrow. Given that the motion does not refer to a time limit—certainly not in relation to the receipt of Lords messages—will he reconsider and accept the possibility that our hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) is correct?
  Mr. Forth: Our hon. Friend may be correct, but the combination of paragraph (2)—which I welcome, as it states that Government business on 10 and 11 May can be proceeded with until any hour—and paragraph (6) offers some interesting possibilities. However, all this will, of course, depend on what Members of the other place decide to do to the pretty revolting Bills that are still washing about in the parliamentary system. I should also like to think that we could somehow prevent them from reaching the statute book. I should also like to think that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will resist them stoutly, but I have been a Member long enough not to be too optimistic about that.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I seek clarification from my right hon. Friend? The phrase,
  "any messages from the Lords shall have been received"
  is used in paragraph (6). Does he assume that the word "received" includes the term "considered", because I believe that both those words are important? Will he consider that point?
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, as the very respected, influential and extremely senior Chairman of the Procedure Committee, knows about such things better than almost anyone else. I had not thought of the point that he makes, but I wish to consider it immediately.

  My hon. Friend raises the intriguing possibility that we could not adjourn on 10 May until we had received a message, which we would then consider on 11 May, but what about those messages received on 11 May? Presumably, we should have to continue to sit while what we in the trade rather quaintly know as ping-pong takes place between the House and another place and until either everyone gets tired and goes away, which I hope will be the case, or the ghastly Bills involved receive
  134
  Royal Assent and finally come to rest on the statute book, which I hope will not be the case. One way or another, the motion offers some intriguing possibilities about what could happen during the open-ended, unlimited parliamentary days on 10 and 11 May.
  Of course, as my hon. Friend knows better than most, another peculiarity is that if the parliamentary day of 10 May were to continue until 9.30 the following morning. 11 May would not exist. So the intriguing possibility that arises, even as I speak, is that, as I understand our procedures, we may find ourselves with a lot of business on 10 May because another place had happily sought to amend those ghastly Bills considerably. If the Government wanted to resist that process and if, even with closure motions, we considered the business through the night on 10 May and past 9.30 the following morning, 11 May could not exist as a parliamentary day. That, in turn, raises some very intriguing possibilities, if we were to approve the motion. If the Government have committed themselves to Dissolution on Monday 14 May, we may well face the possibility of the Bills that they think they will obtain not being passed.
  Mr. David Wilshire: I find my right hon. Friend's train of thought extremely helpful. Will he extend it a little further? If the House were to continue sitting, not only might we lose the 11th, but we might also lose the 12th, the 13th and the 14th. Does he consider that, if the 14th did not exist because we were still sitting, it would be possible to dissolve Parliament on a day that did not exist?
  Mr. Forth: The Government are in trouble; the more we examine this possibility, the more matters spin delightfully out of control. I suspect that the people of Bromley and Chislehurst want the coming election like a hole in the head. I suspect that that is mainly because they are entirely satisfied with their existing representation in the House. However, were the election not to take place because of Government cock-ups, and it looks as though we are entering that territory—
  Mr. Winterton: Wash-ups!
  Mr. Forth: Wash-ups or cock-ups, I can tell my hon. Friend that no tears will be shed in Bromley and Chislehurst.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: May I take issue with my right hon. Friend? Is not what he says nonsense on stilts? The stilts are that he bases all his arguments on his belief that the Government will live and abide by traditional parliamentary practices, while the truth is that they will simply crush the Opposition, if necessary with guillotines, and will ensure that we depart when they want us to do so.
  Mr. Forth: I have never regarded my hon. Friend as crushable. He certainly does not look crushable to me. As long as some of my right hon. and hon. Friends are in this place, representing their constituents and taking their parliamentary duties seriously, crushing will not come into the question. Certainly, we are finding that, as we probe this ill-thought-out motion, it is defective and has not properly considered the possibilities that lie before us. I now realise, having reached this part of my analysis,

  135
  why Ministers did not try to introduce the motion in the normal way: either they were ashamed of it, or they realised that it was defective or, as is more likely—although I freely admit that that would be uncharacteristic of the Leader of the House—they did not want to submit themselves to parliamentary scrutiny. I exonerate the Leader of the House entirely from that accusation because she is fearless and would be more than prepared to face any criticism.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: The exchanges between my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) follow the train of thought that I was pondering while trying to interpret the rather difficult wording of the motion. Does it seem to my right hon. Friend that the drafting may have been in error? The rather arrogant assumption has been made that we are so used to programme motions and unused to holding debates until any hour that this technique has been used—completely forgetting that the parliamentary day may not be a calendar day, thus giving rise to potential confusion and great constitutional dilemma.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Although he has not been a Member of the House for as long as many—indeed most—his mastery of the intricacies of parliamentary procedure is most impressive. I congratulate him on that. The only fly in all that ointment is my tiny inkling of doubt as to how far my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench are determined to run the Government ragged during the next two parliamentary days.
  Mrs. Browning: I am hurt to the quick that my right hon. Friend should even suggest that there is any question that the official Opposition will not run the Government ragged whenever they get the chance. He knows that the allegation is most unjust. I must ask him to withdraw it.
  Mr. Forth: I do not want to be drawn too deeply into that analysis. Perhaps my hon. Friend and I can talk about it in the Tea Room—much later, when this debate has matured. We are only making our opening shots at present; indeed, so far I am the only speaker. As the debate is blessed—unusually—by being tabled for "any hour", I can say with some confidence that my hon. Friend's visit to the Tea Room with me will be delayed for a while longer.
  Mr. Bercow: I am now immensely perturbed by my right hon. Friend's comments—
  Mr. Winterton: Too mellifluous?
  Mr. Bercow: I do not think that they have been mellifluous. In fact, I find rather alarming the suggestion that if we lose Friday 11 May as a parliamentary day, paragraph (8) of the motion—with each word of which the Leader of the House will be familiar—will immediately fall and it will not, therefore, be possible to reconvene the House on 14 May. Would it not be rather unfortunate if my surmise were correct, given that, if we could return on 14 May to engage in the extremely important debates that remain to be had, those debates
  136
  could potentially be led by the Prime Minister, which would be most welcome because he would be present in the House and not hectoring and intimidating innocent south London schoolchildren?
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is not prone to flights of fancy, but the suggestion that the Prime Minister would appear in the House is one of them and I do not take his comment seriously as result.
  However, the worrying possibility arises that Her Majesty the Queen might be kept waiting in Buckingham Palace, without knowing what is to happen. I do not know whether Her Majesty has been told by the Government or by the Prime Minister during his extremely brief visit yesterday what he thinks will happen, but I hope that she has been warned that, as a result of the defective nature of the motion, she might be kept waiting longer than she anticipated to give Royal Assent, if any of the ghastly Bills proceeds in that direction, as I hope none will.
  Having explored the questions raised by paragraph (6), let us move on swiftly to paragraph (7), which rests on the assumption that there will be a sitting on Friday 11 May—a large question mark hangs over that one now, I grant. In the statement:
  "the House shall not adjourn until the Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Act agreed upon by both Houses",
  a rather large number of assumptions are implicit. The motion acknowledges, and we should remember, that both Houses are fully involved in the process. As for the reporting of Royal Assent, I assume that everyone—all 659 of us—will be present on that day, waiting for the Speaker to tell us whether or not Royal Assent has been granted. We should be in dereliction of our parliamentary duty were we not here, so I expect to see a full House on Friday 11 May, especially on the Government side—after all, a Government motion has said that the House shall be here, and it might even be thought disrespectful to Mr. Speaker if we were not here in our numbers to hear him report the Royal Assent to the Government's own Bills. I am not sure that the Opposition need to be here—I certainly do not want to hear that those ghastly Bills have received Royal I Assent. However, I am sure that Government Members will want to be present, enthusiastic, keen, eager and joyous to hear that the Bills have finally got Royal Assent.
  Leaving that question to one side, because it is not for me to delve too deeply into the extent to which Government Members welcome their Government's measures, we come to the most puzzling aspect of all. My question is largely technical in nature, but worth asking none the less. Paragraph (8) states
  "At its rising on Friday 11th May"—
  a day that is now in doubt—
  "the House shall adjourn to Tuesday 15th May."
  However, I distinctly heard the Leader of the House say earlier that Parliament would be dissolved on Monday 14 May. It might be another typographical error or an error of drafting—although I find that difficult to believe given the expertise of the Clerk and his colleagues—a cock-up or a piece of deception, self-deception or otherwise, but the question arises in my mind of how the House can adjourn to Tuesday 15 May when, as we have

  137
  already been told, it is to be dissolved on Monday 14 May. That strikes me as some form of parliamentary oddity of which some explanation is required.
  Mr. Winterton: I seek clarification on paragraph (2), which states:
  "At the sittings on Thursday 10th and Friday 11th May, Government business may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour".
  It does not specify what Government business. Hon. Members could have their own ideas about that. For example, we might want to include the borough of Macclesfield in the business rate relief scheme that has arisen from the foot and mouth outbreak. The constituency of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), which is covered by the scheme, is hardly agricultural and rural, whereas 90 per cent. of the geographical area of Macclesfield is Does my right hon. Friend believe that paragraph (2) allows such issues to be considered for debate?
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has been here since the beginning of the debate and it has taken him nearly half an hour to mention Macclesfield and its interests, which he has looked after for 30 years. That must be something of a record. Although I welcome paragraph (2), I appreciate his intervention because the extent to which Government business might include items other than those mentioned by the Leader of the House needs clarification. She verified that there will be Treasury questions tomorrow and gave a list of the business to be dealt with. It remains to be seen whether it is an exhaustive list, although it certainly sounds as though it might be exhausting. The key consideration is that we could have another business statement tomorrow to change or add to business on Friday 11 May, were that to exist as a parliamentary day.
  Although it is not for me to answer my hon. Friend—this is, after all, a Government motion—I shall do my best because I am the only person who has shown any interest in the debate, which I am also trying; to initiate. I believe that Macclesfield could find its way on to the Order Paper on Friday as part of a Government business motion. He has got from now until the rising of the House to persuade the Government to do that. That is the best advice—as if he needed it—that I can give.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way a third time, especially as I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who also represents the good county of Cheshire. I note that as the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) was fortuitously sitting behind the Treasury Minister, he was able to be briefed. With so many Ministers present on the Front Bench, we may well get an answer to my hon. Friend's query through the combination of our interventions.
  I want to drag my right hon. Friend—possibly kicking and screaming—back to paragraph (7). On Royal Assent, the Government's plan to scrap community health councils is close to my heart and those of my constituents. Cheshire has excellent examples of community health councils. The other place has also shown grave concern on patients' behalf about the proposals to scrap those august institutions. They are worried about how they will operate. Does my right hon. Friend think that we will have
  138
  an opportunity to understand the timetabling, in parliamentary day terms, and how the ping-pong will work? In the absence of any response from the Government, I have to seek answers from my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Forth: I shall do my best to oblige my hon. Friend. It is like the old days—I used to answer questions regularly at the Dispatch Box. It is with a sense of nostalgia that I find myself doing it today. I shall try to get myself back into that mood.
  The Health and Social Care Bill, which covers community health councils, was mentioned by the Leader of the House as part of tomorrow's business. That much we do know. So an opportunity—I suspect that it might be limited—will arise to deal with such matters. As Cheshire is so generously and magnificently represented today, I assume that the same will apply tomorrow and that it will be possible for hon. Members to raise such issues. Whether the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) will be in critical or obsequious mode tomorrow remains to be seen. Only time will tell. I have been dragged back reluctantly to considering paragraph (2)—I welcomed it earlier—but its wording suggests that the issue that my hon. Friend has mentioned will be covered because the Bill is Government business. We will certainly oppose the aspect of the Bill that he mentioned, and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton assured us that we shall oppose vigorously almost everything in sight. That is very welcome news, so I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) has grounds for optimism.
  Mr. Swayne rose—
  Mr. Forth: I am trying to conclude my remarks, but I will give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Swayne: My right hon. Friend will acknowledge that he rather skated over the provisions in paragraph (3). Having decoded the paragraph, my understanding is that it will allow us to have proper Divisions and that there will be no deferred Divisions. I hope that he will have a few words of welcome for that even though it clearly suggests that we might have to decide on any number of Government orders.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is quite right. In my anxiety to skip quickly through the motion and to give ample time for other hon. Members to speak, I probably did not do justice to paragraph (3). Like him I had some difficulty decoding it, but if it means that these ghastly, irrelevant nonsenses of deferred Divisions are to be put aside, I will very much welcome the provision. I do not take part in deferred Divisions as a point of high principle. They are an insult, an irrelevance and nonsense—I do not do them. I strongly recommend that approach to all my right hon. and hon. Friends. If we are given an opportunity to vote properly on matters that would normally be deferred, that will be a welcome step. Subject to clarification from Ministers—as opposed to me answering all the questions—we could give a rather generous welcome to paragraph (3).
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Mr. Forth: I shall give way, but probably for the last time. I shall try to conclude my remarks to allow my

  139
  hon. Friends to seek to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. I sense that there is a real enthusiasm for this debate, and I very much welcome that.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. His generosity of spirit invariably gets the better of him as the House is always aware. He will agree that our hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) has performed a signal service.
  Mr. Forth: As ever.
  Mr. Bercow: As ever, as my right hon. Friend poignantly observes. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West has performed a signal service in drawing attention to the tortuous wording of paragraph (3). Has my right hon. Friend noticed that that tortuous construction refers to a scenario in which the opinion of the Speaker is challenged? Surely such a scenario is positively unimaginable.
  Mr. Forth: I certainly take my hon. Friend's advice on that—he should know. I must admit that I thought that I would skip over that part of the motion because it raises certain sensitivities. We would probably be better to draw a veil over them and leave the Government to explain why they admit of the possibility of the Speaker being challenged. That is not a matter for my hon. Friend or myself; it is certainly a matter for the Government. I bet that someone will find himself on the carpet when the Speaker is apprised of the words in paragraph (3). We had better leave it as a matter for the Speaker and Government.
  Mr. Winterton: Order—[Laughter.] I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am used to listening intently from a different position.
  My right hon. Friend is a highly respected Member of the House and the utterances of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) are always fascinating and flowery, but the wording of paragraph (3) is entirely appropriate. When, at the end of the debate, the Speaker decides that the ayes have it, Members on the other side can say "No" and that means that there is a Division. I hope that my right hon. Friend will concede that the Division is the appropriate means by which the House should operate. I am seeking to be helpful.
  Mr. Forth: If I can find one other Member to be a Teller, I can virtually guarantee that that will happen.
  I am surprised that my hon. Friend thought that he was in Westminster Hall, over which he presides with such distinction, because I have never set foot in the ghastly place and never intend to; I would not darken its doors. I regard it as an excrescence and irrelevance, and the sooner that we do away with it, the better. However, I do not want to digress.
  I see that I am reaching the limit of your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker; I do not want to exhaust the patience of the House. I thought that I would skip lightly through some of the salient elements of the motion, and hope that I have interested the House and my hon. Friends enough for them to think that it is worth them asking
  140
  questions. Following my few words, I hope that Ministers will tell us something about those matters, as we have winkled out of the motion a few relevant, important and disturbing facts that require clarification.
  4.56 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Our debate has a serious kernel, and we are trying to deal with it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) should not get too excited about returning to the tradition of having a debate until any hour. I suspect that if our debate ran on, and even if perfectly serious points were made, the Government would move a closure motion at about 7.17 pm, three hours after we started at 4.17 pm.
  The Government are ruthless about getting their own way and would not allow a situation to develop in which the House of Commons could perform its traditional function at any length. Looking down the Order Paper, I see that the Finance Bill programme motion may continue for up to 45 minutes, as may the programme motion for the Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Bill. The Government always ensure that, whatever happens and whatever the Opposition say, we are sent home at the witching hour of 10 o'clock, as it is not considered right for us to be here trying to scrutinise the Government after that time.
  That is my first point. My second is the wider issue of how we are to proceed in the coming days. It is true that the business this Session has been an exceptionally light. It is also true that everybody has known the date of the general election for some time; there has been no mystery about it. Everybody knows that the Government would have liked to hold the election in May, but that was not possible because of the foot and mouth outbreak, so it was delayed.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the motion that we are discussing is the business of the House, not the date of the general election.
  Mr. Leigh: I appreciate that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am asking why, when everybody knows when Parliament is to be dissolved, it is not possible for more time to be allowed. After all, these are serious motions and Bills. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the House was given so little warning, and an impossible burden put on the Opposition. Most of the Bills that we will discuss in the next few days are popular and perfectly sensible, and the Opposition do not want to oppose them on principle—[Interruption] Well, some, but not all, of them.
  Mrs. Beckett: Before the hon. Gentleman gets any deeper into the hole that he is digging for himself, I remind him that in the Session of 1982 to 1983, Parliament dealt with 10 Bills; in 1986 to 1987, it dealt with 14; in 1991 to 1992, it dealt with 11; in 1996 to 1997, it dealt with 16 I simply say to him that, contrary to the pointless remarks made by him and his right hon. and hon. Friends, the more that Opposition Members go on, the more apparent they make it that they expect never to be in government again; I sincerely hope that they are right.
  Mr. Leigh: All that the right hon. Lady is saying is that we have not conducted our affairs very well in

  141
  the past; we sandwiched an enormous amount of consideration into a short period, which, presumably, did not result in the right sort of scrutiny, so we should carry on as before. I am sure that when our business was conducted as it was previously and the right hon. Lady was sitting on the Opposition Benches, she also objected and felt that her point of view was not taken sufficiently into account, because she was in a minority. Why do we not take legislation seriously? Why do we not have a procedure that ensures that Bills undergo proper consideration?
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. With the greatest respect to the Leader of the House—she knows that I respect her—I could not give a tinker's cuss about what happened in 1983, because at the time I was busily preoccupied with my university studies. Although we are not here to debate the date of the general election—as you poignantly reminded us, Madam Deputy Speaker—the fact that the Government propose to hold the election 327 days before it needs to be called is relevant to our consideration of the motion. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government want to cut and run, there is no reason why we should be accommodating in our attitude? Rather, to adapt the words of our noble Friend Lord Tebbit of Chingford, we should invite Ministers to get on their bicycles and pedal them.
  Mr. Leigh: The Government chose to prorogue Parliament earlier than they needed to. We on the Opposition Benches are perfectly entitled to insist that the remaining Bills are not rushed through and that there is proper scrutiny. I am sure that if the right hon. Lady were on these Benches, she would say exactly the same. Contrary to what she said, we have heard much from the Government about the need to modernise our procedures. Only today we heard from various quarters about the declining ability of the House to scrutinise the Executive. Why are we still dealing with our affairs in the same way as we did a few years ago, and not giving proper—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I once again remind the hon. Gentleman of the motion that we are discussing and how limited it is?
  Mr. Leigh: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. John Hayes: Discussion of the motion is not simply a matter of the esteem in which my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) may hold the Leader of the House or the Government. It is also a matter of the impression created by the motion outside the House and the pressures that it exerts on Parliament. People who are intimately associated with the measures that we are to debate over the next few days will not understand why the House is giving scant consideration to matters that they believe, with some justification, are of paramount importance. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) should not be intimidated by the right hon. Lady quoting historical facts and figures, which go way beyond the experience of the vast majority of hon. Members in the Chamber. I hope that my hon. Friend will continue to fight the cause of his constituents in Gainsborough, mine in South Holland and The Deepings, and the wider public.
  Mr. Leigh: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments.
  142
  My second point relates to the extinguishment of private Members' rights. Government business will take precedence over that of private Members. It is regrettable—I see my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst in his place—that it has proved impossible for private Members to enact their Bills during this Parliament. There is no point in Government Members complaining about Opposition Members who have sought to scrutinise such Bills; that is our right. My right hon. Friend is right to come here Friday after Friday, hold private Members to account and subject their Bills to scrutiny.
  Despite the fact that everybody knew when Parliament was to be prorogued—presumably the Government have known that for weeks—the Government have produced a business motion that will prevent any private Members' Bills from making progress. Some excellent private Members' Bills have been presented, such as the Christmas Day (Trading) Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), but the Government are entirely ruthless and kill off all such Bills.
  With all the notice that we have had, and with everyone knowing for weeks, if not months, when the general election would be held, would it not have been possible for the Government to introduce a business motion that ensured that the rights of private Members were not extinguished? Is that fair? Is that right? Is that the proper way for Parliament to proceed?
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. Is he aware that the vast majority of private Members' Bills are killed off by the Government Whip objecting to them? The Christmas Day (Trading) Bill, which would have been on the Order Paper for this Friday, is not supported and may even be opposed by the Government. That may explain what is going on.
  Mr. Leigh: Yes. Regrettably, we often conduct our affairs with a lack of honesty. The Government cried crocodile tears and said to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, "We're terribly sorry. It's an excellent and worthwhile Bill, but there wasn't time." Presumably the Government are delighted that it will be killed off—perhaps they have friends in big business who dropped them a word. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich should have been allowed to proceed with her Bill, which had broad support in the House. How could anyone want people to work on Christmas day? The Government are not being honest. Surely, with their majority, their authority and their ability to plan—they make the rules and control this place—they could have ensured that one of their own distinguished Members was given a chance to bring her private Member's Bill to a conclusion. Why this ruthless haste? Why has no consideration been given to the rights of private Members?
  I hope that when we next consider these matters—perhaps in the Modernisation Committee—it will not be beyond the wit of Parliament to devise a means that allows us to plan a little, work out how many Bills need to go through and ensure that there is not the unseemly rush that we have had this time and, I accept, on previous occasions. We should ensure proper consideration of legislation right up to the end of the Parliament. Why else are we timetabling Bills? Why else is the Leader of the House telling us that the conduct of affairs in the past has not been adequate?

  143
  It is true that Oppositions have used the weapon of time, but that is the only weapon available to us. Should we be criticised for that? Should a small minority be criticised for trying to hold the Government to account by using the weapon of time? Did not the Labour party do precisely that? The right hon. Lady said that times have changed.
  Mrs. Beckett: I want to correct the error that the hon. Gentleman is making. I do not criticise the Opposition for using time to discuss issues before the House. I would not do that, as that is their role. I criticise them for wasting time talking about how much time they are going to take.
  Mr. Leigh: That was a patronising remark from the Leader of the House, wielding as she does enormous authority over our affairs. This is crucial—it is not a little, quibbling, debating point. It is vital in a democracy that the Government decide on the business and on what gets passed, whereas the Opposition decide what gets debated. That is our right, and it is how Oppositions hold Governments to account.
  I accept the right hon. Lady's point that this is how we have always dealt with these matters in the past, but if she wants to go down in history as a modernising Leader of the House and to sweep away the nonsense of Oppositions filibustering and time wasting, and if she wants serious debate on the issues so that every amendment is reached, every part of every Bill is scrutinised and we provide our constituents with a proper service, she should introduce some worthwhile reform if she remains in her office.
  Mrs. Browning: I gently remind my hon. Friend that, after 7 June when we have a Conservative Government, there will be no such thing as a Modernisation Committee.
  Mr. Leigh: If the Conservative party is returned, as I sincerely hope it will be, it is vital that it reforms our procedures in the first six months. All Oppositions have good intentions—the Leader of the House had good intentions—but once that window of opportunity passes and a party has been in power for a few months, those good intentions about holding the Executive to account fall to pieces. How much progress have we made on reforming Select Committees and giving them real power? How much progress have we made on the matters that I have been discussing? Very little.
  Mr. Edward Davey: If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues reduced the amount of verbosity, we might have a chance later to debate motion 8 on estimates, which gives the Government permission to spend £149 billion. That is the sort of motion that the House should be debating, rather than spending too long discussing what is, as the Leader of the House has pointed out, a traditional motion.
  Mr. Leigh: That is an example of what Oppositions are told. We are told that it is all our fault that the House cannot debate—in this instance—motion 8, which involves a huge amount of money, because certain Members have done what they are paid to do, and held
  144
  the Government to account. But it is the Government who have stated on the Order Paper next to motion 8 that there will be no debate after 10 pm—no debate on a motion involving £149 billion. Does it not sum up the current Parliament that, if people do their job properly, it is perfectly possible for there to be no debate on the spending of £149 billion?
  Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend's erudition is matched only by his conscientious representation of the people of Gainsborough.
  Will my hon. Friend consider for a moment the deep irony contained in the intervention of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey)? He says that we should have more time in which to debate a matter that appears later on the Order Paper, yet makes no complaint about the way in which the current Parliament is being ended—about the fact that we are not being given more time over the next few days, perhaps weeks, to debate all these matters at greater length. If we were given more time, could we not engage in a fuller debate on both this motion and the matters that the hon. Gentleman seems so keen to discuss?
  Mr. Leigh: It is indeed ironic that a member of an Opposition party, and many of his colleagues, should take every opportunity not to do their duty, hold the Government to account and attack them in connection with this or any other motion, but to attack the official Opposition, as though we were responsible—as though it were all our fault, and we had drafted the Order Paper in this way. We had no control over the Order Paper: no one consulted us. The business is simply being rammed through Parliament.
  Mr. Davey: I was making a deeper point about the way in which we conduct our business. Under successive Governments of both blue and red persuasions, we have not debated public finance properly. We need to hold the Government to account, and the recommendations of the hon. Gentleman's party to the Norton Commission do not do that. That is why we should change the priorities of the House, so that we can scrutinise the way in which taxpayers' money is spent.
  Mr. Leigh: That is a serious point, which I am happy to take on board. I agree that the reason why we have this Parliament at all—the reason why we are here, and the reason why our authority has grown so much since the 17th century—is that the general public placed confidence in us, and our ability to scrutinise the Executive in regard to the spending of public money. It is extraordinary that this evening we shall spend so little time—conceivably, no time at all—performing our primary function, and holding the Government to account on motion 8, entitled "Estimates, 2001–02".
  I do not know whether hon. Members saw Simon Schama's programme about the civil war on BBC television last night. That was the origin of our House—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I please remind the hon. Gentleman once more of the narrowness of this debate?
  Mr. Leigh: It is indeed a narrow debate, but despite its narrowness it reveals enormously deep and important

  145
  issues that the House ignores at its peril if it is to continue to perform its primary function of holding the Government to account. That is what we have sought to do over the past four years; I am simply trying to protect the Labour party's position over the next four years, when Labour Members will be sitting on this side of the House.
  5.14 pm
  Mr. David Wilshire: Let me begin by commenting on the two interventions from the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). In his second intervention he said that the House does not scrutinise expenditure properly: I agree with him, and will deal with his point shortly.
  The hon. Gentleman's first intervention, however, provides a useful starting point for consideration of the issues arising from the narrow motion that we are discussing. He said that, if the official Opposition were to spend less time scrutinising what the Labour Government were trying to do with democracy in this House, it would be possible to reach item 8 sooner, but that is not correct. If my arithmetic is any good, it will not be possible, whatever happens this afternoon, to get to item 8 before 10 o'clock. That tells us a great deal about the contempt in which the Labour Government hold democracy and the way in which the House exercises it.
  If there had been no personal statement and no ten-minute Bill, we would have started with the statement for tomorrow's business and moved to this motion. Even if the motion had gone through on the nod, as the Leader of the House seemed to want, we would still have faced two programme motions of three quarters of an hour each: a total of an hour and a half. We would then have had a guillotined debate lasting three hours and another guillotined debate lasting two hours, which amounts to six and a half hours. If we had started on all that at half-past 3 and not had any of the debate that we have had this afternoon, and if there had been no Divisions—presumably, the Labour Government do not believe that we have a right to vote on anything any more; it is rather inconvenient for their view of democracy—it would have been 10 o'clock before we reached item 8. If we look at the programme motion, the Order Paper and the Standing Orders, we discover that we cannot debate any estimate matter after 10 o'clock, so the reality is not as the hon. Gentleman believed it to be.
  When the Government argue that if we had not debated this motion we could have reached the estimates debate, they are talking rubbish. We would not have got on to the debate on the estimates. We would have again been required to act as a rubber-stamp for a Labour dictatorship who have no regard for the House.
  Mr. Hayes: The point that I was trying to make in an earlier intervention, which I hope my hon. Friend will take on board, is that if all the business had not been crammed into today and we had continued to sit into next week, which would have been entirely possible, full debates on the matters that he has mentioned would have been possible, and perhaps a debate on the estimates as well, as requested by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey).
  Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He makes his point for himself and I can do no more than agree.
  146
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) again demonstrated what a generous and kind man he is. He estimated that the Government might decide to move a closure motion after three hours. My hon. Friend's generosity disguises a truth about the Labour Government: I cannot remember one occasion when they have allowed a debate to go on for three hours when they could bring it to a halt in half an hour, one hour, one and a half hours or two hours. My hon. Friend might be proved right, but I suspect that he will not be. His generosity leads him to be kind to the Government; perhaps I am not usually so charitable.
  During my hon. Friend's speech, there was an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton, I believe it is.
  Mr. Bercow: And Honiton.
  Mr. Wilshire: And Honiton. Long may she remain the hon. Member for both places. Her intervention has made this entire debate worth while. She pledged from the Front Bench that, on 8 June, we shall get rid of what the Labour party euphemistically calls the Modernisation Committee, which I believe to be the stifling of democracy Committee.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I again remind hon. Members just how narrow this debate is?
  Mr. Wilshire: I understand the point that you make, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  In two interventions on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, the Leader of the House made two very interesting points that are pertinent to the motion, the first of which was made after a large number of files were brought into the Chamber. That timing suggests not only that the Leader of the House was not willing to speak to the motion at the beginning of the debate and was simply hoping that it would be passed on the nod, but that she was ill-prepared to speak to it. It was only after the files arrived that we were given statistics that we could use to compare the Government's objective of ramming through certain Bills in the next two or three days with previous practice. I tried to write down her comments accurately, and I hope that I have understood her correctly. If I have not and she is listening, she will probably be able to correct me. I am not trying to misquote her in any way.
  My understanding is that 10 Bills were passed at the end of the 1983 Parliament; 14 Bills at the end of the 1987 Parliament; 11 Bills at the end of the 1992 Parliament; and 16 Bills at the end of the 1997 Parliament. Subsequently, we were invited to compare those figures with what she considers to be the modest amount of legislation that the House is being asked to consider in the next two or three days.
  Some of my hon. Friends take the view that what happened in the past was unfortunate, but I am not so sure about that. I accept that the party that wins the general election is entitled to legislate and is quite right to introduce as many Bills as it believes it can pass. I accept that train of thought, but the Leader of the House seems to be saying, "See how modest our list of Bills is", whereas I would say that the list is pathetically short. If the Government had anything worth doing—rather than

  147
  dithering, posturing, spinning and only seeming to be in control of this country—and were really trying to tackle problems, their list might stand better comparison with the figures that we have just been given.
  Mr. Forth: Would my hon. Friend accept an amendment to the words that he has just offered to the House, when he said that an elected Government are entitled to legislate? An elected Government are entitled to put legislation before the House of Commons and the House of Lords and to persuade the majority of those Houses to pass that legislation. That is an elected Government's entitlement; no more, no less.
  Mr. Wilshire: That is absolutely right. My right hon. Friend anticipates a point that I want to deal with in a moment or two.
  Although I believe that a Government are entitled to introduce Bills and that the Government perhaps stand condemned out of their own mouths for having no real substance to put to the House and to the country, I do not believe that the Government have any right to object to Opposition Members doing properly that which we are here to do, which is to stop them. I make no apologies for trying to frustrate by any means that are legitimately at my disposal a Government whom I consider to be dreadful and damaging to my country and whom I want to remove from office as quickly as I can.
  In her second intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, the Leader of the House seemed to say that it was up to her to say what Opposition Members should be saying. She complained about the way in which we are debating the motion and the points that we are making. There we have it: the Government are trying not only to destroy democracy and silence their own Back Benchers, but to write the Opposition's script in this place. I hope that, for those who listen to our debates, that demonstrates the contempt in which we are held by a Government whose time has come.
  I hope that the performance of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was broadcast live in Bromley. It is absolutely crucial that his electors understand what a brilliant representative they have in this place and how wise they would be to return him with an even bigger majority. It was a tour de force. I am quite glad that I was not called immediately after him, as it would have been a very difficult act to follow.
  I do not know whether you had the live feed on in your office before you entered the Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker. If you did, you would have witnessed a spectacle that the public should see more often. The House was asked to consider a motion, yet the Minister with responsibility for it did not even bother to stand up and explain it. When challenged as to why that was, the right hon. Lady said that it was because of a tradition that such motions went through on the nod—and that coming from a Government who praise the idea of a Modernisation Committee! It was suggested that all that we were doing was "washing up". My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said earlier that the Government were indeed all washed up; that much I agree with. However, I do not agree with the idea that we are just tidying up a few loose ends.
  148
  If the Leader of the House were consistent in her train of thought, she could not continue to say that the important thing is to modernise the House, because to appeal to tradition as a reason for not bothering to debate something makes nonsense of the modernisation to which she so often lays claim.
  "Times have changed," people keep telling me—but one thing that has not changed is Labour Members' unwillingness to bother to take part in debates—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. One thing that definitely has not changed is the business before the House, and the narrowness of that debate.
  Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful to you for making that point, Madam Deputy Speaker, because it brings me to the fact that it was suggested that there would be another business statement tomorrow. I therefore suggest that another such motion will come before us tomorrow, and that a number of my colleagues will want to make a range of points about it.
  May I move on to the motion before us in some detail? I am mystified as to why there is such a last-minute panic. Why have we been asked to consider all these ways of truncating debate and rubber-stamping the business before us? We have known since the last Queen's Speech that the election was coming—and I am sure that the Government knew, too. We have had so little business that it could have been finished long ago—yet now we are being asked to deal with it in such a great rush that we cannot debate it.
  In fact, we have had an eight-week delay, because the election was going to be in April, then in May, and now it is to be in June. That was another eight weeks in which we could have done all this, and there would have been no need for the motion before us.
  As the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, said, much of the motion concerns spending. We should consider the implications of that for a moment. The ability of this House to control expenditure and the raising of tax is one of the primary reasons why we are here. It is highly significant that those very areas are at risk because of the motion that we are considering.
  Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point. He made another one earlier, about the workings of Standing Order No. 55, and how dreadful it is that we are not allowed to discuss appropriation matters after 10 o'clock. Perhaps I could remind him, and the rest of the House, that although his description of that Standing Order is correct, it was last amended on 20 March 1997, not only under the Government whom he, like all Conservative Members, supported—and in which some of them served—but during what we are now on the record as calling the "wash-up" period of the previous Parliament. At that time, as the hon. Gentleman may recall, the House adjourned earlier than it needed to, and we had a very long election campaign right at the end of a full five-year Parliament.
  Mr. Wilshire: I find that an interesting comment. It suggests to me that some Opposition Members are prepared to reflect on the past and see whether we can improve on it, whereas the Government are perfectly happy to fall back, when it suits their convenience,

  149
  on what happened before. When that does not suit their convenience, they try to stifle democracy by doing other things. I hear what the right hon. Lady said, but that was no sort of a point: it simply left her Government exposed for what they are.
  Mr. Bercow: I hope and trust that my hon. Friend will not be deflected from the sound points that he is making. Does he agree that if the House had sat on more Fridays, and had not effectively played truant both in February and over Easter, there would be no need for the unseemly haste with which we are now considering matters?
  Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend is right, and I sincerely hope that I shall not be deflected by interventions from the Leader of the House.
  The motion addresses two fundamental matters that the House should be considering: taxation and expenditure. It took us many years to wrest those issues away from the monarch. In the end, it took a civil war before Parliament obtained the powers that it now has over expenditure.
  Mr. Edward Davey: While the hon. Gentleman considers the past and control over public expenditure, will he comment on the fact that not since 1919 has the House rejected an expenditure Question from the Executive?
  Mr. Wilshire: I was not here in 1919, so I do not know what debate took place then. If the hon. Gentleman was present, perhaps he will enlighten me later in the Tea Room as to what part he played in the debate.
  We are being asked to curtail powers that it took us all that time to get away from the monarch, and that is why we should take this motion seriously Paragraph (1) of the motion states
  "Government business shall have precedence".
  That means precedence over private Members' business, and that demonstrates the contempt in which the Government hold Back Benchers. Not a single private Member's Bill will have reached the statute book in this Session, despite the lack of Government legislation. Even at the last minute, when that mistake could be remedied, the Government intend to prevent further progress on private Members' Bills.
  Paragraph (2) states that the House may continue "until any hour". I raised my concern on that point with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, but he was not able to give me an answer. If the Leader of the House would be so kind as to listen to the debate, she might be able to help. My right hon. Friend made the point that the motion would allow us to continue debate on Thursday until any hour. If we continued until half-past nine the following morning, Friday would not exist. My point that if we were able, because of the substance of the debate, to continue beyond that point through Saturday and Sunday, we would arrive at half-past nine on Monday, at which point Monday would not exist. The Government have announced that the Queen has agreed to dissolve Parliament on Monday 14 May, but if the debate continues until 9.30 on Monday morning, that day will not exist. I would like the Leader of the House to tell us whether it is possible to dissolve a Parliament on a day that does not exist. If she cannot give us a satisfactory answer, the only conclusion can be that
  150
  we will have to have another business motion which we shall have to examine and consider. We might then also lose Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of next week.
  Paragraph (3) refers to deferred Divisions, which I considered an abomination when they were introduced. They turn this House into a chat shop, where decisions are not taken on the basis of what has been said in debate but at the convenience of the Government, using us as a rubber stamp. We were told that the introduction of deferred Divisions was part of modernisation, but when it suits the Government's purpose they want to forget all about them. Where is the justice, the fairness, the democracy and the respect for the procedures of the House when the Government say, "When we want to use the House as a rubber stamp by having afternoon Divisions, we will do so, but when it suits us we will forget all that and do things differently"? The Government have made a trap for themselves. Time and again in debates on modernisation, we have told them that they do not know what they are doing. Here is further proof that they do not have a clue what they are doing in the so-called modernisation of the House—and further proof, too, that the Government want the House to be a rubber stamp.
  Paragraph (4) refers to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 55, which deals with estimates, and states that the normal requirement of two days' notice is not needed at this stage in a Parliament. In fact, no notice is needed at all, and the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton is therefore relevant. Even two days' notice makes an informed debate about estimates almost impossible, so how much more stupid is the proposition facing us today? We are blithely asked—without advance notice, additional information or discussion—to rubber-stamp expenditure estimates of £149,381 billion and £144,305 billion, respectively. Sums so vast must cover a range of expenditure that all hon. Members would support, but the details are not available to the House and there is no chance for debate. Paragraph (4) simply makes worse the previous disgraceful actions in regard to estimates, as described by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton.
  Paragraph (5) deals with the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill provisions. Again, large sums of money are involved.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: The hon. Gentleman's argument might have had some credibility were it not for the motion passed by the previous Government and voted for by him, which was placed before the House on 12 March 1992. It set aside private Members' business, and stipulated that
  "Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion in the name of Mr. Francis Maude relating to Estimates".
  The hon. Gentleman should have made his argument in 1992. He is wasting the House's time today.
  Mr. Wilshire: It is extraordinary how long it took for that intervention to be made. I had moved on from that point, but the Government are so ill prepared for the debate that they have had to rummage in the files for something to say.
  Mr. Forth: Does not my hon. Friend consider it intriguing that a so-called modernising Government

  151
  constantly pray in aid what the previous Conservative Government did to legitimise their actions? Is that not evidence of a degree of schizophrenia? Either the Government are modernisers and should reject most of what happened in the past, or they should honour what happened in the past and stick to it. They seem to want it both ways.
  Mr. Wilshire: I agree absolutely. Certainly, I shall look at the Hansard record of this debate, and cut out and keep the interventions made by Government Members. From 8 June, those hon. Members will be sitting on the Opposition Benches, and their criticisms of today's debate will be quoted back to them.
  Mr. Miller: The hon. Gentleman criticised me for not intervening on him earlier. He has been speaking since 5.14 pm. It is my view, as a democrat, that everyone should be given an opportunity to make their point. However, the hon. Gentleman has been rabbiting on for so long that I thought it time to intervene on him.
  Mr. Wilshire: It was very kind of the hon. Gentleman; it gave me a chance to gather my wits about me and check my pages. However, the hon. Gentleman need not fret; this debate can go on until any hour, so I am not depriving him of an opportunity to speak for as long as he wishes if he has anything useful to say about the contempt with which the Government are treating the House.
  Mr. Bercow: I am anxious that a hitherto unresolved question should be resolved. My hon. Friend has made a game and stoical effort at penetrating the inner recesses of the mind of the Leader of the House, yet the question still has not been answered. Did the right hon. Lady refrain from proposing the business motion tabled in her name out of a misguided deference to tradition, as is being suggested, or was it because, at the start of the debate, the necessary papers had not been smuggled into the Chamber? Can my hon. Friend answer this important question about the right hon. Lady's motivation for not moving the motion? Was it deference to tradition, was it a free choice, or was it an unavoidable necessity? I would like to know—I am inquisitive and I want an answer.
  Mr. Wilshire: I am many things—a few of them good, lots of them bad—but I am not a mind reader. I am therefore unable to oblige my hon. Friend as to what was going on in the mind of the Leader of the House. I am perfectly happy to give way to her if she would like to explain to my hon. Friend something that I am unable to answer on her behalf.
  Mrs. Beckett: I do not know why I am bothering, except that anything is better than listening to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). I can assure him and the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) that I had ample briefing material with me. In fairness, perhaps I should enlighten the House: although I said that there was no precedent for this motion being debated in the past 30 years, as far as I am aware there is no precedent, full stop. Only the records for the past 30 years have been checked. As far as I am aware, no Opposition have
  152
  thought it a valuable se of their time to discuss how long we should discuss business that is of some concern to the people of this country at the winding-up of a Parliament.
  The unworthy thought did cross my mind that such a shambles is the Opposition that they might decide to waste the time of the House in this way, as no Opposition before them have seen fit to do. I hoped that I was wrong, but I can assure Conservative Members that I was quite prepared to take part in a debate, was it necessary. On the whole, I concluded that it would not be to the benefit of the House and that it was better to leave the shambles in the hands of those who are so practised at creating it.
  Mr. Wilshire: There we have it. The right hon. Lady began her intervention by saying that she did not know why she was bothering. That says everything that needs to be said about the Government's attitude to the House. Why bother? We are not even worthy, in the right hon. Lady's estimation, of an explanation.
  The right hon. Lady says that this has never happened before. To that I would say, "Methinks I hear modernisation." She should be congratulating us on that, not complaining about it. I make no apology for having a sensible, considered debate about the matters in this motion which are of such importance to democracy in this Chamber.
  Paragraph (5), which deals with the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, says much the same as paragraph (4). We will rush through the consolidation part of the Bill and not even bother, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, to have a Second Reading. It gets worse. The paragraph says that notwithstanding the fact that these changes are to be made, Standing Order No. 56, which bans the moving of a committal motion, will apply. So not only do the Government want to get rid of Second Reading and not only do they want us to rubber-stamp the Bill: they want to stop us from committing it to a Committee which might consider it sensibly. That is how much they care.
  Some of my colleagues—I forget exactly who—asked what would happen with Lords messages if, on the day, the debates were still continuing. I do not know why my hon. Friends get so excited because, even if we do receive some Lords messages, I have absolutely no doubt that debate on them will be banned by a guillotine motion.
  We have before us the type of motion that the House should oppose. The Government have had plenty of time, and they still have time, but we are witnessing a Government who are leaving office exactly as they arrived. They arrived with contempt for Parliament and disdain for democracy. In four years, absolutely nothing has changed. One of their very last acts is once again to try to make a mockery of the House of Commons, of this Parliament, and of the democracy of this country, which has been struggled for for so long. The Minister's refusal even to bother to explain what the motion was about was yet another demonstration of the Government's wish for this Parliament to be a rubber stamp for whatever they want.
  The Government's wish to stifle debate in the House should serve as an awful warning to the voters, because if we have another Labour Government we shall witness the completion of their project to turn this country into an elected dictatorship— a dictatorship that they can control at their whim, and in which the House has no part to play. It is a nightmare, and I hope that the electorate notice.
  5.46 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: This has been an entertaining debate in which your tolerance has certainly been stretched, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will endeavour not to stretch it further. My remarks will be brief and specific and will relate to the matter that I referred to in an intervention much earlier.
  I shall attach what I am about to say to paragraph (8) of the motion, which says:
  "At its rising on Friday 11th May, the House shall adjourn to Tuesday 15th May."
  I shall briefly say why the House should not adjourn, but first I wish to respond to something that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honi on (Mrs. Browning) said.
  My hon. Friend referred to an earlier intervention about the work of the Modernisation Committee, and said that a future Conservative Government would remove the Modernisation Committee. I would concede that and agree with that only if the work currently carried out by the Modernisation Committee was transferred to the Procedure Committee, which I chair. The Procedure Committee would be very competent and very able to deal with those matters, and such a transfer would remove a Select Committee currently chaired by a very distinguished and, if I may say so, very traditional leading member of the present Labour Government. I admire much of what the right hon. Lady has done, but I believe that much of the Committee's work has now been done, and that the remainder of the work could be transferred to the Procedure Committee. The fact that that Committee is of course chaired by a Back-Bench Member of the House might give its recommendations more status.
  Mrs. Browning: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Winterton: I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mrs. Browning: Of course I cannot make any commitment to my hon. Friend as to personalities who might be leading such Committees. I just wish to clarify for him that matters to do with cha ging the orders and procedures of the House are a matt r for the House, not matters in relation to which the Executive should be controlling events.
  Mr. Winterton rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps we can now get back to discussing the motion that is currently before us.
  Mr. Winterton: I shall also briefly mention an intervention by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), who spoke about the very inadequate way in which the House deals with estimates. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Procedure Committee has made recommendations as to how the House should deal with estimates. It has said that the House should devote more time to the granting of money to the Executive.
  However, my very brief and specific remarks will relate to the matter that I raised earlier: the non-eligibility of the borough of Macclesfield for the additional Government
  154
  assistance under the business rate relief scheme. I advance that case because the House should not adjourn until it has had the opportunity to discuss that matter. I speak not only for the borough of Macclesfield but for several other local authorities which hon. Members—I think they are both Opposition and Government Members—believe should be eligible under that scheme.
  I shall be extremely brief. More than 90 per cent. of the geographical area of the borough of Macclesfield, which I have had the honour to represent for almost 30 years, is rural and agricultural. Only 2.3 per cent. of the working population of that huge area work in agriculture. So the area meets the population sparsity criteria, which is an important part of the business rate relief scheme.
  Let me explain reason why I feel incensed and think it necessary to raise the issue in this debate. I have written to the Minister for Local Government and the Regions. I have written to and spoken to the Minister for the Environment, the chairman of the taskforce, with whom I have requested a meeting to discuss the matter because my borough has raised it with me. I believe that there should be a statement on the unfairness of the current position before Parliament is dissolved.
  I make a plea to the Government, and hope that a reply may be forthcoming from the Leader of the House. As I have said, I have a quiet but deep respect for much of what the right hon. Lady has sought to do. I see that I am angering my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), but I have worked very closely with the right hon. Lady, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). I have done so throughout this Parliament, since she took over from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who chaired the Modernisation Committee at the beginning of this Parliament. I believe that the Leader of the House understands the seriousness of this matter to me and to those whom I represent. If she will assure me that I shall receive a sensible answer as to why Macclesfield is excluded, I shall not press my opposition.
  Mrs. Beckett rose—
  Mr. Winterton: Before I give way to the right hon. Lady, may I say that I am all the more incensed, and the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) will know this, because the hon. Gentleman's constituency, which is heavily urban and does not have the sparse population of my huge rural area, is eligible for assistance under the scheme. There is an inequity, and I believe that the right hon. Lady believes in justice.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has more than made his point, very forcefully.
  Mr. Winterton: You have been extremely generous to me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall be happy to give way to the Leader of the House, and I hope that she can give me an answer.
  Mrs. Beckett: I cannot absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that he will receive an answer with which he will be content, but I can certainly undertake to ensure that he receives an answer.
  Mr. Winterton: I simply ask the right hon. Lady to explain why Ellesmere Port and Neston, the City of Chester and perhaps Crewe and Nantwich, which has huge urban areas—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been given considerable latitude and, indeed, a reply to his request.
  Mr. Winterton: You are indeed charming, Madam Deputy Speaker, and you have been extremely patient and very gracious. I have got my point across. May I say that I do not seek to abuse the rules and procedures of the House? Far be it from me, as Chairman of the Procedure Committee to do so, but all hon. Members, of whichever party, have a duty and responsibility to represent their constituents, which I have sought to do. I rest my case, but I hope that I receive an answer from whoever responds to the debate—and I shall be delighted if the Leader of the House does so.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 321,Noes 1.

  Division No.205]

  [5.54pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Chaytor, David

  Alexander, Douglas

  Chidgey, David

  Allan, Richard

  Clapham, Michael

  Allen, Graham

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  (Swansea E)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Austin, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Clelland, David

  Baker, Norman

  Clwyd, Ann

  Ballard, Jackie

  Coaker, Vernon

  Banks, Tony

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Barnes, Harry

  Cohen, Harry

  Barron, Kevin

  Connarty, Michael

  Battle, John

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cooper, Yvette

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Corbett, Robin

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Corston, Jean

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Cotter, Brian

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Cousins, Jim

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cox, Tom

  Benton, Joe

  Cranston, Ross

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Crausby, David

  Berry, Roger

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Betts, Clive

  Cummings, John

  Blackman, Liz

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  Blizzard, Bob

  (Copeland)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Darvill, Keith

  Brake, Tom

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Davidson, Ian

  Breed, Colin

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Browne, Desmond

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry

  Buck, Ms Karen

  (B'ham Hodge H)

  Burden, Richard

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Dobbin, Jim

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Doran, Frank

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Dowd, Jim

  (NE Fife)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Cann, Jamie

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Efford, Clive

  Caton, Martin

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  156

  Ennis, Jeff

  Khabra, Piara S

  Etherington, Bill

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Fearn, Ronnie

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Fisher, Mark

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lammy, David

  Flint, Caroline

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Follett, Barbara

  Laxton, Bob

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Lepper, David

  Fyfe, Maria

  Levitt, Tom

  Galbraith, Sam

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Gapes, Mike

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Linton, Martin

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Livsey, Richard

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Gidley, Sandra

  Lock, David

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McAllion, John

  Godsiff, Roger

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Goggins, Paul

  McCabe, Steve

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gorrie, Donald

  Macdonald, Calum

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McDonnell, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McFall, John

  Hain, Peter

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hancock, Mike

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Hanson, David

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Harris, Dr Evan

  McNamara, Kevin

  Harvey, Nick

  McNulty, Tony

  Healey, John

  MacShane, Denis

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hendrick, Mark

  McWilliam, John

  Heppell, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hill, Keith

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hinchliffe, David

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hope, Phil

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Martlew, Eric

  Howarth, George (Knowsle N)

  Maxton, John

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stre ford)

  Merron, Gillian

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Miller, Andrew

  Hutton, John

  Mitchell, Austin

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Moffatt, Laura

  Illsley, Eric

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Ham stead)

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Mudie, George

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Oaten, Mark

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  O'Neill, Martin

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pendry, Rt Hon Tom

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Pond, Chris

  Joyce, Eric

  Pope, Greg

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Pound, Stephen

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isl worth)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Keetch, Paul

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kemp, Fraser

  Purchase, Ken

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  157

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Stringer, Graham

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Rammell, Bill

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  (Dewsbury)

  Rendel, David

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Robertson, John

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rogers, Allan

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Timms, stephen

  Rooney, Terry

  Todd, Mark

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Touhig, Don

  Rowlands, Ted

  Trickett, Jon

  Roy, Frank

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Ruane, Chris

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Tyler, Paul

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Tynan, Bill

  Salter, Martin

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Ward, Ms Claire

  sedgemore, Brian

  Wareing Robert N

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Watts, David

  Sheerman, Barry

  Webb, Steve

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Williams Rt Hon Alan

  Skinner, Dennis

  (Swansea W)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Willis, Phil

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wilson, Brian

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

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

  Wood, Mike

  Soley, Clive

  Woodward, Shaun

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Worthington, Tony

  Spellar, John

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Wyatt, Derek

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Stevenson, George

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mr. Ian Pearson and

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Mr. Mike Hall.

  158

  NOES

  McCrea, Dr William

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mr. David Wilshire and

  Mr. Eric Forth.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That—

  (1) At the sitting on Friday 11th May, notwithstanding the provisions of the Order [23rd January] relating to Business of the House, Government business shall have precedence;

  (2) At the sittings on Thursday 10th and Friday 11th May, Government business may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour;

  (3) At this day's sitting, Thursday 10th and Friday 11th May, Standing Order No. 38 shall apply and the Order [7th November 2000] relating to Deferred divisions shall not apply if, after the time for the interruption of business, the opinion of the Speaker as to the decision on a question is challenged in respect of any question;

  (4) At this day's sitting, the requirements of paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.) shall be dispensed with in respect of the Motion relating to Estimates 2001–02;

  (5) At this day's sitting, any Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill ordered to be brought in and read the first time shall be proceeded with as if its Second Reading stood as an Order of the day, and Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills) shall apply;

  (6) At this day's sitting, Thursday 10th and Friday 11th May, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any messages from the Lords shall have been received;

  (7) At the sitting on Friday 11th May, the House shall not adjourn until the Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Act agreed upon by both Houses; and

  (8) At its rising on Friday 11th May, the House shall adjourn to Tuesday 15th May.

  Finance Bill Programme (No. 2)
  6.8 pm
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): I beg to move,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Finance Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 9th April:

  Consideration and Third Reading
  1. (1) Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order.
  (2) Any stage of the Bill may be proceeded with at the conclusion of the preceding stage, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the interval between stages of a Bill brought in on Ways and Means resolutions.

  Programming Committees
  2. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
  Consideration of the Finance Bill in the Standing Committee has been completed: 106 clauses and 300 pages. I am glad to tell the House that the Bill was successfully reprinted overnight, and I am sure that all of us have read it avidly—indeed, those of us who are members of the Standing Committee think of nothing else but reading the Finance Bill.
  On Report, we shall discuss new clauses—eight in total—one new schedule and three amendments, all tabled by Opposition parties. I hope that the House will agree to the motion so that we can turn to consideration of the matters that the Opposition want to debate.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: In the tradition of the events that we have just witnessed, it would fall to me to speak for 43 minutes; however, I offer those present consolation by saying that I intend to speak for about 43 seconds. We want to move on to the substance of the debate. I should not like to resume my seat without offering the Paymaster General my condolences: if she really has been thinking of nothing but the Finance Bill—especially this Financial Bill—hers is a sad fate.
  It is remarkable to be gathered here today having last spoken about the Bill at the tail end, as we thought, of our proceedings yesterday evening. I have no doubt that the items that we discuss today will be more interesting than many of those that it fell to the Standing Committee to discuss during the past couple of weeks.
  6.10 pm
  Mr. Edward Davey: The Liberal Democrats have no problem with the programme motion. 1 should just like to say that it is a tribute to all three main parties that a smooth consensus operated between them during the proceedings of the Standing Committee.
  Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day
  Finance Bill
  As amended in the Committee, considered.
  Finance Bill
    New Clause 1

      APPLICATION OF DEFINITIONS OF PRIVATE RESIDENCES AND JOB—RELATED ACCOMMODATION
      `Sections 222(1), (8) and (8A) of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (which define private residence and job—related accommodation for the purposes of relief) shall be applied by the Inland Revenue in the exercise of all of its functions.'.—[Mr. Letwin.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      6.11 pm
      Mr. Oliver Letwin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The new clause is short and simple. Its effect would be to render it necessary for the Inland Revenue to treat all second homes owned by those who, because of their occupation, live and are forced to live in tied accommodation as principal residences for the purposes of, among other things, the working families tax credit. I shall explain briefly why that is necessary.
      For many years, the Inland Revenue has treated second homes as principal residences for the purposes of capital gains tax if those second homes are owned by people in the position that have just described—held as investments or hedges, purchased by people who are forced by their occupation to live in tied accommodation. The rationale for that is clear and a matter of consensus between the political parties. If an individual buys a principal residence, he or she is exempt from capital gains tax on that residence. It is and always has been regarded as reasonable that the second home owned by an individual who is forced by his or her occupation to occupy tied accommodation—perhaps a tenant farmer or farm worker, a caretaker, a person who works for one of the utilities, or a carer —should be treated as exempt for capital gains purposes, as is the primary residence of other individuals.
      Were that not the treatment for capital gains purposes, an inequity would have arisen. A farm worker, for example, who was forced to live in tied accommodation would be exposed to one of two serious risks. If he chose to avoid the capital gains problem by not buying a second home, when he left his job or retired, and if in the meantime house prices had, as has been the case cyclically for decades now, risen significantly, he would find himself in serious financial difficulty and might be unable to buy a home or to rent one at a reasonable price. If, on the other hand, while living in tied accommodation he chose to buy the second home but to encounter capital gains tax on selling it, he could find himself at a huge disadvantage compared to those who live permanently in a primary residence, sell that and move elsewhere, and who do not pay capital gains tax. On those grounds, and as a matter of consensus, the Inland Revenue has for many years treated second homes owned by such individuals as principal homes. That is the purpose of section 222 subsections (1),(8) and (8A) of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992.

      161
      6.15 pm
      As I understand it—I am open to correction in narrating this history—when the Government introduced the working families tax credit as a substitute for family credit, the officials—I assume from the Department of Social Security—who handled family credit, or at least the rules and practices that guided those officials, transferred themselves to the Inland Revenue and began to administer the working families tax credit as part of the tax system, but according to principles that bore greater similarity to those that had applied in respect of family credit under the DSS. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) frequently alludes to a curious feature of our tax and social security systems, which is that our tax system largely treats individuals as individuals. It does not—or did not before the current Government took office—contain anything recognisable as a graduated means test, as opposed to thresholds of taxation. However, our social security system tends to look at families rather than individuals. It contains heavily graduated means-tested benefits—rather more, regrettably, under the current Government than hitherto. Above all, for the purpose of the current debate it contains a number of wealth tests, unknown in general to the tax system.
      For example, I cite the famous case of a person who seeks to enter long-term care. That person will be funded fully by the Government only if his or her wealth is less than £18,000—I believe that that is the correct figure. It was, presumably, on that principle that family credit was never treated as exempt from a wealth test and it is, presumably, also on that principle that the working families tax credit is treated as it is.
      The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's point serves his argument well. Let me try to assist him. The working families tax credit was indeed built on family credit, and the capital rules on family credit had been in place for 10 years under the previous Government. I do not think tat the issue of capital gains tax serves as a peg on which to hang the debate. The question is whether one has a capital rule and, if so, where the ceiling should be set; not whether, because it lies within the tax system, something should follow capital gains. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that capital rules should be abolished, he must explain why the Conservative Government, in 10 years of presiding over family credit, did not take the opportunity to abolish the capital limits.
      Mr. Letwin: The Paymaster General mistakes the character of my argument. I freely acknowledge that capital rules were in place for family credit, just as they are, rightly or wrongly, for other means-tested benefits. I am not accusing the Government of suddenly introducing those rules into the working families tax credit; nor is it our intention to suggest that the capital rules should be removed for the purposes of receiving that credit. I was merely sketching a history. As capital rules have been a feature of benefits rather than taxes, second homes have been treated as a piece of capital. If an individual who lives in tied accommodation obtains a second home, the Inland Revenue will treat him as having capital in that second home for the purposes of disqualification from
      162
      working families tax credit, although he would be exempt from capital gains tax were he to sell it. That was also the case with family credit.
      Dawn Primarolo: It will help the debate if we clarify the terms that we use when we refer to tied accommodation. What the hon. Gentleman calls the second home is not, in fact, the second home. I understand the issue that he raises and, clearly, capital gains tax does arise on a second home. Tax language is precise, and so must we be. I accept that it is not a question of removing capital gains on second homes. The Opposition are interested in whether there is a requirement to revise the interpretation of "household" in the working families tax credit, which recognises the existence of only one household—the place where people live. We should be clear on that.
      Mr. Letwin: The Minister is right; she has not mistaken our argument. I am sorry if the term "second home" caused confusion. It is, literally, a second dwelling that is treated for capital gains tax purposes as a principal dwelling. We believe that if such a house is owned by someone who lives elsewhere in tied accommodation, it should be treated as a principal dwelling—the dwelling—for the purposes of the working families tax credit. We do not want it to be treated as a piece of capital that leads to disqualification from that credit.
      I freely admit that we are not launching an attack on the Government. That would be dishonourable because they are merely continuing a practice that pertained in family credit. Our purpose is to spot a lacuna that it is now easy to cure because the Inland Revenue administers both measures. The definition is easily available from the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992, for the reasons that I identified—the records are in a single place and easily accessed. All we need is a simple change so that farm labourers and others who are in tied accommodation can obtain the working families tax credit to which their income would otherwise entitle them, notwithstanding the fact that they have purchased a house as a hedge against exposure to the property market because they live in tied accommodation. It appears that the Minister understands our concern. We wait to see whether she accepts the new clause.
      I do not know whether the way in which we have drafted the new clause and the mechanism that we have used are appropriate. The Minister has at her disposal the vast resources of the Treasury Solicitor and parliamentary counsel. No doubt she can highlight deficiencies in the drafting and, perhaps, in the mechanics, but the principle is clear and right. I have constituents who are, and have always been, in work and whose income is zero. That might strike people who are not from rural areas as strange, but that is the case for many tenant farmers who find themselves at the bottom of the heap. They are precluded from receiving the working families tax credit by virtue of owning a house, which in many cases is modest, as a hedge against the fact that their tenancy forces them to be in tied accommodation. People in the countryside believe that to be unjust, which it clearly is. I hope that the Minister will tell us that, no matter which party is in power after the election, it will be a matter of political consensus to change the system by an appropriate mechanism.
      Mr. Edward Davey: Today we have seen the House at its worst and best.

      163
      Time wasting and poor arguments in the debate on the business of the House motion were most unfortunate because that has prevented us from spending more time on this new clause.
      I am persuaded by the arguments of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). I wondered what the new clause was trying to achieve because it was not obvious, but his remarks and the Minister's helpful interventions allow mere mortals to get our brains around it. He seems to have hit on an interesting issue. He made it clear that he was not trying to make a party political point, but trying to assist the Government in the operation of their policy. The argument is not just about the capital rules, but about a particular aspect of them; nor is it simply about social justice, but about labour mobility and the efficient operation of the labour market, especially as it applies to rural areas where most tied accommodation is to be found. We know how problematic and severe the difficulties are in many of those areas.
      I doubt whether the Minister will accept the new clause. However, unless she has arguments to override the hon. Gentleman's case—I shall pay great attention to her comments—I hope that she will not dismiss the idea out of hand and that her response is in tone with the hon. Gentleman's remarks. We may well need to tackle the lacuna early in the next Parliament to ensure that there is social justice and efficiency in the operation of the labour market. This is a small but important issue.
      Dawn Primarolo: I hope that I will be able to help the House and that the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) will accept my reasons for not being able to accept the new clause, which relates to people in tied accommodation. He mentioned tenant farmers, but there is a long list of people who also live in such accommodation. The issue involves property that they might hold for their retirement or when they move occupations, when it will become their main residence. He fully appreciates that if the property were rented out and an income generated, the working families tax credit would probably not be triggered because the income from the property might take the family's income beyond its limits.
      6.30 pm
      When the Government designed and implemented the working families tax credit, we used family credit as a building block for reasons of speed. The working families tax credit became operational in about 18 months and it has been a huge success in providing help to working families. I think that the hon. Member for West Dorset acknowledged that fact when he said that a group of people should be entitled to the credit even though they do not receive it at present because of the way in which the rules operate.
      Neither during the design period of the working families tax credit nor during its operational period have we received representations that this issue might be a problem. Foot and mouth disease and the problems that it has caused in rural areas have probably put the spotlight on tenant farmers even though they are not the only people affected. Despite that fact, the issue is low key and it has hardly registered on our radar in terms of the
      164
      number of representations that have been made. None the less, the hon. Gentleman has highlighted the problem of tenant farmers. If they lived in the other house, there would be no question about their ability to claim the working families tax credit provided that they received no other income that would take them over the limit.
      Mr. Howard Flight: The problem is not just foot and mouth, but that of declining farm incomes. Since the working families tax credit was introduced, I have been surprised to find in my constituency that many tenant farmers, who do not own other houses, rely on the credit to survive. Foot and mouth is not the immediate issue.
      Dawn Primarolo: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman is so appreciative of the credit. I will not descend to making a partisan comment—although I am sorely tempted to do so—because he makes a reasonable point about the issues involved.
      I appreciate the comparison that the hon. Member for West Dorset made with capital gains tax, but the new clause will not necessarily produce the outcome that he seeks. It refers to all the functions covered by the Inland Revenue, and I cannot accept the mechanism that he suggests because there is a real risk that it could inadvertently change the application of the law in several other sectors. I am sure that he does not intend it to do that. For example, it could have implications when the Inland Revenue has to take a view on all sorts of tax issues relating to the status of a company, its shareholders, or employees when accommodation is provided. I am sure that he will accept that point.
      The phrase in the new clause "all of its functions" worried me to such an extent that I had to ask one of my Revenue officials to return from a day's holiday to help us with this issue. It happens to be his birthday and I am sure that the House is extremely sorry to have deprived him of the opportunity to celebrate it with his children. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh dear."] Even Revenue officials are entitled to a day off occasionally.
      The working families tax credit is governed by regulations, and regulations that come before the House are the appropriate means to implement such a change if the Government are persuaded that it is necessary. About 17,000 farmers and farm labourers already receive the working families tax credit, and it greatly assists them.
      I hope that the hon. Member for West Dorset will take my word that the new clause does not provide the solution and that it would create problems elsewhere. Therefore, I hope that he will not press it to a Division. If he does, I regret that I will have to ask my hon. Friends to oppose it. I need to consider the principle in more detail as there are other complications. For example, tenant farmers are self-employed and the rent for land, which may be subject to a low rate, may be offset in their profits and losses.
      This is not a huge issue People are not knocking down the doors of the Treasury or the Inland Revenue or even writing to us about it. However, after the return of the House, I will be prepared to reconsider the matter and I undertake to speak to the hon. Gentleman about how we can deal with the problem. We shall certainly have corrected the problem by the time that integrated child credit takes over in 2003, but he is pressing me to act a little more quickly. I am willing to consider the issue

      165
      in more detail and the secondary legislation route of regulations may be the best means of addressing the issue if the Government decide to act.
      The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot give him an absolute commitment, but I give him my word that I shall consider the issue closely and talk to him again, if necessary, about the details.
      Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the Paymaster General for her reply. I take her point that a statutory change of type suggested by the new clause may have unintended consequences. I am delighted to hear that it may be possible to resolve the problem in regulations. Therefore, it appears that, whoever is in government, we shall be able to find a solution, and that fact will be widely welcomed.
      The Paymaster General is right she will not have received many letters on this subject. The representations that have been made to me and to other Members representing rural constituencies are almost the result of happenstance and of talking to individual constituents. As she and my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) suggested, the decline in farm incomes, which has been compounded by foot and mouth, has brought the issue to light. However, I regret to say that most of the people most affected are not in a condition to write letters to Ministers. That is why urgent action is needed. Regulations might be an appropriate way forward and I take the hon. Lady's word that she will consider their introduction. That is what we will do if we find ourselves in her shoes after the election. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 2

      CHILDREN'S TAX CREDIT: CHILDREN UNDER FIVE YEARS OF AGE
      '(1) After section 257AA(2) of the axes Act 1988 (which specifies the amount by reference to whic the children's tax credit is calculated) insert—
      "(2AA) for a year of assessment during the whole or part of which is qualifying child under five years of age (or more than one) is resident with the claimant, subsection (2) above has effect as if the amount specified there were increased by £200."
      (2) After subsection (3) of that section (reduction of amount where claimant has income within the higher rate band) insert:
      "(3AA) Where subsection 12AA) above applies, the reference in subsection (3) above to the amount specified in subsection (2) above is to the higher amount applicable by virtue of subsection (2AA) above.".
      (3) After subsection (4) of that section (meaning of "qualifying child") insert:
      "(4AA) In this section 'qualifying child under five years of age', in relation to a year of assessment, means a qualifying child less than five years of age at the beginning of that tax year.".
      (4) In section 257C(1) and (3) of the Taxes Act 1988 (indexation) for "257AA(2)" substitute "257AA(2) and (2A) and (2AA)".
      (5) Schedule 13B to the Taxes Act 1988 (children's tax credit: Provisions applicable where child lives with more than one adult in a year of assessment) is amended in accordance with Schedule 11A to this Act.
      (6) Subsections (1) to (3) and (5) above have effect for the year 2003–04 and subsequent years of assessment.
      (7) Subsection (4) above has effect for the purposes of the application of section 257AA of the Taxes Act 1988 for the year 2004–05 and subsequent years of assessment.'.—[Mr. Ottaway.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Richard Ottaway: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss new schedule 1— `Children's Tax Credit: Children under five years of age: supplementary—

      Introduction
      1. Schedule 13B to the Taxes Act 1988 (children's tax credit: provisions applicable where child lives with more than one adult in a year of assessment) is amended as follows.

      Child living with married or unmarried couple
      2. After paragraph 3(2) (provisions applicable where neither partner has income above the basic rate limit entitlement where both partners claim in respect of a relevant child) insert—
      "(2AA) If a relevant child is a qualifying child under five years of age the reference in sub-paragraph (2)(b) above to the amount mentioned in section 257AA(2) is to the higher amount applicable by virtue of subsection (2A) of that section.".

      Child living with more than one adult: other cases
      3.—(1) Paragraph 6 (provisions applicable in case of child living with more than one adult) is amended as follows.
      (2) After sub-paragraph (4) (apportionment of entitlement) insert—
      "(4AA) If the child is a qualifying child under five years of age the reference in sub-paragraph (4) above to the amount mentioned in section 257AA(2) is to the higher amount applicable by virtue of subsection (2A) of that section".
      (3) After sub-paragraph (7) (claim by person with more than one allotted proportion) insert—
      "(7A) Where sub-paragraph (7) above applies in relation to a person, and any child in respect of which a proportion has been, or could have been, allotted to that person is a qualifying child under five years of age the reference in that sub-paragraph to the amount mentioned in section 257AA(2) is to the higher amount applicable by virtue of subsection (2A) of that section".

      Combined cases
      4. In paragraph 7 (provisions applicable where child lives with more than one couple or with one or more couples and one or more other adults), after sub-paragraph (2) insert—
      "(3) Where paragraph 6(4A) or (7A) above applies, the reference in sub-paragraph (2) above to the amount mentioned in section 257AA(2) is to the higher amount applicable by virtue of subsection (2A) of that section.".'.
      Mr. Ottaway: The new clause would give any parent with a child under the age of five and who is entitled to the children's tax credit an extra £4 a week or £200 a year. It is no secret that that proposal forms part of the Conservative party's manifesto and we look forward to introducing such a measure in the Finance Bill that will be presented after the election. We moved the new clause because we feel that the Labour party's support for children is inadequate.

      167
      Earlier today, the Chancellor set out several pledges that he hopes to fulfil in the next Parliament. If he finds himself in that position, we wish him more success than he has had in fulfilling his pledges in this Parliament. One of his pledges was to halve child poverty; I must tell the House that he would make a good start in achieving that objective by accepting our new clause, which would go a long way towards reducing child poverty.
      The Conservative party recognises the importance of the family as the basis of a free and ordered society and, in particular, believes that marriage plays an important role as the best environment in which to raise children. In general, children from two-parent families do better at school, have better chances in life and are less likely to end up ensnared in crime. Although the new clause focuses exclusively on the children's tax credit, which can be claimed regardless of someone's marital status, we submit that both matters are interrelated; I shall briefly dwell on that.
      A future Conservative Government will reintroduce the married couples allowance, in addition to the children's tax credit, which is the subject of our debate. We will do so because the two allowances go hand-in-hand to promote the welfare of children.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how much both those things will cost?
      Mr. Ottaway: The introduction of the married couples allowance will cost about £1 billion and, as I shall spell out shortly, this particular proposal will cost £300 million. They make up part of the £8 billion worth of tax cuts that we have announced.
      In his 1999 Budget, the Chancellor said:
      "we will replace the married couples allowance with a new family tax cut that will increase the amount that goes to help families with children. This children's tax credit will give more—not less—help to families at the time when they need it most—when they have their children and when their children are growing up."—[Official Report, 9 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 182.]
      That is a laudable objective and a clear statement of policy. However, I submit that is an inadequate and failed policy; what the Chancellor promised has not happened. The children's tax credit does not replace the married couples allowance; nearly 5 million people who were entitled to the allowance are excluded from claiming the tax credit. People have to have children to claim children's tax credit, but many married couples do not have children.
      Dawn Primarolo: Would the hon. Gentleman tell the House the exact conditions under which the Conservative party would reintroduce the married couples allowance? I thought that the allowance would be only for couples with children under 11. The Conservatives are not reintroducing the married couples allowance because, of course, lots of married couples have children over 11.
      Mr. Ottaway: The Minister makes my point for me; the children's tax credit does not benefit married people, either—[Interruption.] I shall come to the Minister's point. There is no limit to the aspirations of the
      168
      Conservative party. We have set out our aims and objective for 2003 to 2004. Unlike the Labour party, we generally believe that the concept of marriage is worth supporting and we will use our best endeavours to expand allowances wherever possible.
      Dawn Primarolo: Does the hon. Gentleman believe in marriage so much that he believes that couples will be committed to it only if we pay them?
      Mr. Ottaway: We believe in marriage, so the point of the policy is to encourage people to marry.
      Mr. Mark Hendrick: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the fact that a couple is, or is not, married does not necessarily affect the stability of their relationship? In fact, a married couple could be in an unstable relationship and an unmarried couple could be in a stable relationship. Why the necessity to pay people to get married?
      Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but research shows that children brought up by a married couple are more likely to do better at school and less likely to commit crime, as I said a few minutes ago.
      The hon. Gentleman's party believes in family life, and family life is enshrined in marriage, which is why we support it. One should take a hard look at ministerial statements and, indeed, the 1997 Labour manifesto, which states:
      "We will uphold family life as the most secure means of bringing up our children. Families are the core of our society."
      We believe that the concept of a married family is better than the concept of an unmarried family; that is the point of our policy.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Hendrick: Clearly, stability is important in any relationship. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously telling us that, given the fact that his party is committed to £16 billion worth of c>uts, it is prepared to pay £1.3 billion to encourage people to get married?
      Mr. Ottaway: First, I do not know where the hon. Gentleman got his figure of £16 billion. There will actually be £8 billion worth of tax cuts. Like the Prime Minister, the hon. Gentleman can pluck artificial figures from the air. We have made it quite clear that we are committed to £8 billion worth of public expenditure cuts and, as a result, will be able to deliver £8 billion worth of tax cuts.
      The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman with the exact source of the £16 billion. A Conservative press notice last July said that the Conservative party believed that the Government were overspending some £600 per head of population which, multiplied up, came to £16 billion. The Government did not produce that figure; the Conservative party itself released it.
      Mr. Ottaway: The spin machine in Millbank has got to try a bit harder than that. In the long term, we hope to give substantially more than £8 billion worth of tax cuts to the British people; that is where the Economic

      169
      Secretary got that convoluted concert. Unlike the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, we are precise and accurate about what we intend to do. Before the last election, the Prime Minister said that he had no plans for any tax increases at all but, in this Parliament alone, we have had something like 45 tax increases. When it comes to accuracy, the Economic Secretary had better put her own house in order before she starts criticising our party.
      As I said, the children's tax credit does not replace the married couples allowance; nearly 5 million people entitled to the MCA are excluded from claiming the CTC. I must tell the Paymaster General that I am raising that matter because the Chancellor said that the children's tax credit would replace the married couples allowance. Clearly, it does not and, as a result, millions are worse off. In truth, it is another Labour stealth tax.
      The children's tax credit did not replace the married couples allowance; it was introduced a year after the MCA lapsed. As a result, everybody had to pay higher taxes—yet another Labour stealth tax. The children's tax credit is not available to higher rate taxpayers, as it tapers out quite quickly once the threshold is reached. That is another stealth tax and another breach of the Chancellor's pledge to eliminate means testing. It is quite remarkable that the Chancellor, who said at his party conference that he was pledged to eliminate means testing from the welfare system, has presided over the biggest increase in means-testing in recent history.
      Fourthly, the credit discriminates against one-earner families. It contains a perverse anomaly that we raised during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill last year. A higher rate taxpayer earning £45.000 per annum will have lost all entitlement, yet a family with two earners on £30,000 each, making a household income of £60,000 a year, will get the credit. Thus, a family with £60,000 a year gets it, whereas a family with £45,000 a year does not. In the debate on the Finance Bill last year, the Government said that they would look into the anomaly, recognising the force of the Opposition's arguments, but they have taken no steps whatever to rectify the anomaly.
      Miss Johnson: Would the hon. Gentleman remove the right to independent taxation, which is the basis of our present tax system and allows a man and a woman in the same household to be taxed independently? He is criticising a much-prized feature of our tax system.
      Mr. Ottaway: I am not criticising that at all. Independent taxation was introduced by a Conservative Government, and we are proud of it. I was pointing out that the Government had made a pig's ear of the system as a result of their independent taxation. How anybody can design a credit which gives a benefit to the better off but not to the less well off is beyond me. I see that the Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond), is grinning at that proposition. I am happy to give way to him, but I see that he considers it appropriate to walk off, as he does not want to back up the Government's argument.
      I come to my fifth point. Because of the Government's incompetence, there is likely to be a low take-up of the credit. The complexity of the forms to claim the children's tax credit is proving to be too great for many people. It is believed that there are about 2 million eligible families who have not applied for it. The figure comes from a
      170
      written answer from the Treasury in February 2001. If Ministers want to bring the information up to date and tell us how many people are entitled to receive the credit but have not claimed it, I look forward to hearing from them.
      Miss Johnson: I intended to deal with that later when I replied, but I shall update the figures now for the hon. Gentleman. Some 3.5 million forms have already been returned by people claiming children's tax credit. That represents more than 85 per cent. of the eligible PAYE population. Claims are still coming in and we expect a steady flow throughout the year. People who claim later will not lose out, as their CTC will be backdated to the start of the tax year. We are delighted that the take-up rate is so high. The February figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman predate the start of the financial year and of the new tax credit. That may well account for the discrepancy, but it is a pity that he has come to the House without getting the figures updated.
      Mr. Ottaway: What a cheek for the Minister to tell us that hundreds of thousands of people entitled to claim the credit have not done so, and for her to claim that that is an achievement on the Government's part. It is a disgrace that hundreds of thousands of people are entitled to the credit but have not applied. It ill behoves the Minister to take that attitude.
      Mr. Hendrick: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He says that it is a disgrace that hundreds of thousands have not claimed CTC, yet his party criticises the Government for using publicity to the extent that they have.
      Mr. Ottaway: The reason why so many people have not claimed the credit is that the application forms are complex and hard to understand. That is why a simplified system under a future Conservative Government will be welcomed by all, particularly the hundreds of thousands of people who are entitled to claim but have not done so.
      Mr. Bennett: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and it is nice to witness his conversion to concern for the under-fives and their families. Can he explain why, for the 18 years of the previous Conservative Government, no attempt was made to use the child benefit provisions to pay different rates to children of different age groups?
      Mr. Ottaway: We gave the married couples allowance, which was a universal benefit. [Interruption.] We did not eliminate it. It was there—
      Miss Johnson rose—
      Mr. Ottaway: I have not given way to the hon. Lady. I am answering the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett).
      Mr. Bennett: We are not discussing the married couples allowance. We are dealing with a special benefit for families with children under five. I want to know why the Conservatives did not have that interest between 1979 and the last election. If they were so concerned, why did they not introduce a provision under the child benefit

      171
      regulations that allowed them to pay a higher rate to particular age groups of children? Why the conversion now? Is it because they are in opposition?
      Mr. Ottaway: It is because the Conservative party is prepared to look to the future. We do not intend to dwell on the past and drag out old recriminations about why we did not do this or that, or whether amendments were tabled to previous Finance Bills to provide extra benefits for the under-fives—maybe yes, maybe no. We are looking to the future. The new Conservative party is prepared to go forward on proposals such as those contained in the new clause. We recognise that the under-fives are a group of children who need special help. We are targeting the under-fives because we believe that they are most entitled to the benefit.
      Miss Johnson: Can the hon. Gentleman explain to me and my hon. Friends why child benefit was frozen for a period and was not increased over the term of the previous Government as it has been by this Government, who have put record increases into child benefit? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the previous Government cut the value of the married couples allowance?
      Mr. Ottaway: Yes, I confirm that the previous Government cut the value of the married couples allowance.
      Our argument is that the children's tax credit has not been designed as well as it could have been. It should be a simpler and a fairer structure. As it is currently designed, the tax credit is a duplication. As the Minister knows, the 10 per cent. band covers the first £1,500 of taxable income. The CTC merely duplicates the relief that would be available at 10 per cent., which is not available to those who are entitled to CTC. Indeed, when the working families tax credit is taken into account, the children's tax credit is a triplication. The credit does not give parents with younger children the level of support that they need and deserve. A discriminating, inadequate, poorly thought out measure incompetently introduced is not the way to support the nation's children.
      The next Conservative Government will increase the children's tax credit for parents with children under the age of five by £200 per annum by 2003–04. We will devote £300 million of our £8 billion capacity for tax cuts to reducing the income tax payable by parents with a child under the age of five. That, coupled with our pledges to restore the married couples allowance, to simplify the system, and to arrest the advance of means-testing with all its complexity, means that only the Conservative party recognises the problems of the family and is prepared to do something about them.
      Mr. Bennett: If it is so important to help the family, why should families have to wait so long for help?
      Mr. Ottaway: We have made it clear that we intend to phase the help in over the first three years of the next Parliament. The hon. Gentleman and the Minister know that we have accepted the Government's spending plans and tax plans for the first year of the next Parliament.
      172
      We will introduce ax cuts and achieve reductions in public expenditure in years two and three. The figure that I mentioned is for 2003–04.
      Dawn Primarolo: Did I hear the hon. Gentleman correctly? Did he confirm that if by some disaster his party were elected at the general election it would be committed to spending cuts and tax cuts, and it would expect the electorat to believe that everything would remain the same?
      7 pm
      Mr. Ottaway: The Paymaster General makes it seem like I have revealed some secret. We have made it perfectly clear in countless press conferences that by 2003–04 we will have reduced public expenditure by £8 billion on the figure announced in the Red Book and in the comprehensive spending review last November. That is well-documented. It is our policy, and the hon. Lady knows what public expenditure we are committed to maintaining and where our adjustments will be made.
      Mr. Hendrick: The Conservative party is willing to pay £1.6 billion to entice people into getting married. If those people decided to divorce, would it be willing to claw back all the benefits they received when they were married to prove that it was not a marriage of convenience?
      Mr. Ottaway: I am not quite sure what point the hon. Gentleman is making. If people were to divorce, they would not be entitled to the married couples allowance, because they would no longer be married.
      Mr. Hendrick: The Conservatives would spend £1.6 billion of taxpayers' money to give people an incentive to get married. If they decided to get divorced a few years later, would the Conservative party claw back that extra benefit to prove that it was not a marriage of convenience?
      Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman is getting his figures in a twist. We are not proposing to spend £1.6 billion on the married couples allowance: the figure is £1 billion. I am araid that the hon. Gentleman's point about clawing back the benefit is lost on me. Perhaps he would write to me about it, and I will give him an answer.
      Dr. William McCrea: Is not it strange to talk about £1.6 billion or £1 billion to encourage people to get married? Labour Members seem to be sneering at the basic morality of marriage. Why should we sneer about the fact that people get married?
      Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman is on to something. For the past 20 minutes, there has been nothing but criticism and sneering at the concept of marriage. I should like mildly to correct the hon. Gentleman on one point. Our proposal is not a reward for marriage: it is a recognition of marriage. The Conservative party believes in marriage, whereas it is becoming manifestly clear that the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) does not.
      Mr. Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Ottaway: This is a guillotined debate, and I have given way three or four times, so 1 shall not give way again.

      173
      Families have suffered a systematic increase in taxation over the past four years. How does it help our children if their parents are taxed up to the hilt? If people smoke, drink, drive a car, have a pension or are married, they have been subjected to 45 increases in taxation during this Parliament. Such regressive taxes hit those on lowest incomes hardest—the people in Labour's heartlands. The average family pays more than £600 a year more tax under Labour. The Conservative party will reverse the trend. We will take 1 million pensioners out of taxation. We will make income from savings tax free for millions. That is the way to help our children.
      The Conservative party is in tune with the British public. We will reduce taxation and will liberate the nation's creativity.
      Mr. Edward Davey: There may be a germ of a good idea in this new clause. The serious, wider policy debate is about the best way of providing support for families and children, whether couples are married or unmarried. The Government are gradually moving towards a coherent approach, and they may get there by hook or by crook. At the moment, the system is highly complicated, with child benefit, child care tax credit, working families tax credit and children's tax credits. Previously, we had the married couples allowance, which was available whether couples were married or not.
      This is a complex area, and the Finance Bill adds to that complexity by introducing the babies tax credit, which is available to families with children under the age of 1. Having created some of that complexity to meet their laudable objective of reducing child poverty, the Government are now trying to tidy things up. The Chancellor is working towards an integrated children's credit. As the Government move towards a more rational, streamlined approach to ensure that families have the resources they need to tackle child poverty, the question is whether it is a good idea to include families with children under the age of 5 in the proposals for an integrated children's credit.
      Mr. Bennett: Do the Liberal Democrats think that it is a good idea? My impression from listening to the arguments about child benefit was that, although one could identify loss of earnings as a problem for families with very small children, after the first year small children do not cost families anything like as much as young teenagers.
      Mr. Davey: I am grateful for that intervention, because I was just about to explain my party's position on this issue and the thinking behind it. We have some sympathy with the idea of rewarding families with children under the age of 5. That could be achieved through a premium on child benefit or through the mechanism in the new clause. The hon. Gentleman is right that children cost more in their first year. The Government were right to acknowledge that, although we believe that they could have gone about it differently—for example, through a maternity grant. Many of the costs in the first year are up-front and not spread through the year, as the proposal for a babies tax credit suggests.
      We understand that argument, but I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that there are not just costs but benefits in ensuring that a family has more money in those early years. It would give parents a real choice between staying at home to look after their children or going to work.
      174>
      The Government have continually tried to give the impression that they want new mothers to go back to work as soon as possible: that has been part of the rhetoric and, indeed, part of the Government's tax and benefits strategy. I fear that they may have gone too far in advocating an early return to work for new mothers, and it is in that context that I see the germ of a good idea in new clause 2.
      It may well be—and I believe some sociological studies suggest—that it is beneficial to young children for their parents to have more contact with them in their earlier years, before they go off to nursery school, playschool or primary school. There is a serious policy question to be asked: should the tax and benefits system make it easier for parents to remain at home during those first five years?
      I hope that, in response to today's debate and as they proceed with the debate on integrated children's credit over the next year or two—I say that assuming that Labour will be returned to office—the Government will consider the issue in some depth. The commissioning of research, and a wider public debate, may be required to establish whether it makes sense—in terms of effects on the labour market, and in terms of effects on the welfare of families and children—to ensure that the money that we are putting aside is targeted at the early years.
      In many ways, the whole debate is about where resources should be targeted. One of the aims of the children's tax credit was to augment the funds going to families, without augmenting only a universal benefit—child benefit. The Government considered taxing child benefit, as the Conservatives had done before them, but for various reasons they decided against it, and ended up with the children's tax credit. Again, they were trying to find the best way of targeting resources more effectively.
      The new clause raises the important question of whether we should target resources at children during those early years. I think that there is a strong argument for doing so, but 1 should like the Government to commission further research, and I think that we should engage in a wider public debate. Only when we see the results of research will we know the facts. Perhaps we should target even more resources at families with children under five than the new clause suggests; perhaps we should be much more ambitious. That might be the quickest, most tax-efficient and most expenditure-efficient way of meeting the Chancellor's objective of halving child poverty in 10 years.
      As I have said, there is a serious issue behind new clause 2. I hope that, rather than taking the partisan, political point-scoring route down which the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) seemed to be tempting Ministers, the Government will address themselves to what I consider to be the really serious policy issue.
      Miss Melanie Johnson: Let me begin by responding to the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). I think it useful for our policies to be based on evidence; indeed, work continues in the Treasury in an attempt to ensure that they reflect the real needs of society, in terms of child poverty, as much as is possible at any one time.
      The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) did not take into account the Government's introduction of a number of measures reflecting the extra costs incurred by the parent of a child under five. One way of

      175
      structuring such measures is to take account of the cost of children over lifetime— which has been done, in that there is £5 more child benefit for the first child, throughout its lifetime, than there is for second and subsequent children.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Ottaway: Does the Minister think that she is doing enough? Does she not think that more could be done for the under-fives?
      Miss Johnson: I intend to deal with that in much more detail. Let me say initially, however, that we have reduced the number of children in poverty by 1.2 million during the life of the current Parliament. That includes many children under five, as it includes many over five, and it represents a substantial improvement.
      The increase in maternity pay from £60.20 to £100, the extension of paid maternity leave from 18 to 26 weeks and the introduction of two weeks' paternity leave in 2003 will help the parents of under-fives. As the ex-parent, as it were, of three under-fives, including twins, I speak with personal experience of the substantial needs of those with young children in the house, in terms of both income and time.
      Mr. Davey: The Minister—who, I am sure, is not an ex-parent—mentioned maternity and paternity leave. Have the Government considered parental leave? Some countries give parents leave that they can take later in their children's lives, which is often limited to the first five years. That provides greater flexibility: it can be used, for example, when a child is ill.
      Miss Johnson: The idea has been suggested in a number of quarters, and is being discussed. Consultation is taking place. As I said at the outset, we are keen to give the best possible support to families with children in general, but to those with children under five in particular.
      The Opposition seem to want to increase children's tax credit by £200. Lest, by any quirk of fate, the Opposition might be in charge of a Finance Bill after a general election—unlikely as that may seem now—I should point out that, as drafted, the new clause would reduce it by £20. As the sum in question is 10 per cent. of an allowance, the figure should be £2,000.
      The Government will, in fact, increase children's tax credit by a further £520 in the year of the child's birth, and will do so from 2002 rather than 2003—which is what I understand the hon. Gentleman to propose, assuming that he is thinking in terms of £ 200 rather than £20. What we are already doing is far better than what the Opposition suggest. It is more, it is earlier, and it focuses resources on the time when parents are most in need.
      Mr. Ottaway: The Minister is right: we intend the amount to be increased by £200. We have taken into account the increases in the pipeline, and this is over and above those increases.
      Miss Johnson: Is it over and above the introduction of babies credit?
      Mr. Ottaway: Yes.
      Miss Johnson: That is interesting. I thank the hon. Gentleman. I will come to the £16 billion later.
      176
      The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton has urged other courses on me, but I cannot resist returning to some of the slightly wider political issues, on which we have been much tempted by the hon. Member for Croydon, South. First, I turn t the married couples allowance, on which he spent considerable time.
      The so-called reintroduction of the married couples allowance is probably a complete misnomer. For the Conservatives to say that the new clause would reintroduce the married couples allowance involves considerable spin. It would do nothing of the sort. It is a proposal for married couples to transfer their personal allowance between themselves. It does not benefit many married couples, or indeed many families with children. Eight out of 10 married couples would gain absolutely nothing from the proposal; eight out of 10 families with children would gain nothing from it. For example, single parents and married couples who were both in work would gain nothing, despite the fact that the hon. Gentleman claimed lie supported marriage and that the proposal was partly about that. Married couples with secondary school-aged children would gain nothing from it because of the cut-off at the age 11. I do not know what Conservative party policy is on helping children and families out of poverty where the children are aged over 11, because the new clause does not address their needs.
      This Government have been committed to helping families with children and have introduced the working families tax credit and the children's tax credit, and those policies will lift 1.2 million children out of poverty.
      Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that Conservative Members have never explained why they did nothing about this matter throughout all their years in government? The House debated the cost of children in 1976, when Baroness Castle introduced the child benefit legislation. The then Conservative Opposition said that they would like to do more for children in families, yet they did nothing for 18 years.
      Miss Johnson: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's recollection of a time when I was not an hon. Member, but I do remember that nothing was done. In proposing the new clause, the Lon. Member for Croydon, South did nothing to answer questions that my hon. Friend, I and other Labour Members put to him about why these issues, by which he apparently sets so much store now, were not addressed over those 18 years, when there was ample opportunity to do so.
      Mr. Flight: May I make two points? First, the proposal for married couples is additional to existing provision, so it is not a debate about taking something back, or whether to have A or B. Secondly, it is specifically targeted at married couples with children under 11, partly to offset some of the bias against mothers, or fathers for that matter, who wish to stay at home to look after children. In particular, it is designed to give mothers a little more flexibility. We can debate what was done in the past, but the Minister is wrong to seek to cast the proposal in a negative light. She may disagree with it, but it is specifically tailored to meet the needs of a group of people who wish to stay at home a little longer to look after their children while they are younger.
      Miss Johnson: Yes, but that is exactly why I said that calling it a reintroduction of the married couples

      177
      allowance was a very spun description. The hon. Gentleman accepts that it is a targeted measure and that it does not help many who are married, or, indeed, many who have children. As I said, eight out of 10 married couples and eight out of 10 families with children will gain nothing. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Croydon, South is burbling some further remark from a sedentary position. I did not catch exactly what it was and he may want to intervene again, but may I remind him that it is this Government who have increased child benefit to £15.50 a week for the first child and £10.35 a week for subsequent children? That is a 26 per cent. real-terms increase over the life of this Parliament.
      People will have to judge for themselves—they are getting the opportunity not only to make that judgment, but to act upon it—whether our record of increasing child benefit by record amounts stands up against the record of the Conservative Government, who promised tax cuts and hiked tax up, who promised to help people but put 3 million on the dole and who froze child benefit; they did not increase child benefit in line even with inflation at various periods. I am proud to stand in support of what the Government have done. Our record speaks for itself.
      Mr. Ottaway: I presume that the Minister is advancing an argument against the new clause She has to say why she does not believe that more can be done for families, and why £200 a year, or £4 a week, would not help children, rather than going on about the past.
      Miss Johnson: I have already said why I believe that it is better to take the action that we are taking through the various measures that we have introduced. which support families, and why increasing support for children in their first year of life, which we have just introduced, is a valuable support.
      Mr. Hendrick: Given that the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) has accepted that no such comparable measures were introduced in 18 years of Conservative government and that we should look forward to "a new Conservative Government", will my hon. Friend be willing to invite him to intervene in order for him to apologise for that omission over 18 years?
      Miss Johnson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion. I would be happy to take him up on it, but I appreciate, as he will, that the hon. Member for Croydon, South is well aware of the invitation that has just been extended to him and is not leaping to his feet. I think that we will all draw our own conclusions from that.
      The introduction of a new children's tax credit at £10 per week from April is worth £520 a year—more than twice the value of the married couples allowance that it replaces. From next April, the children's tax credit will be raised to £20 a week in the year of a child's birth, which will in effect double the allowance in the first year of a child's life.
      I was much amused by the remarks of the hon. Member for Croydon, South on the form that is required. It is easy to allege that forms are complicated, but that was an absolute load of nonsense. The form was thoroughly tested with the help of 1,000 volunteer taxpayers—indeed, I am told that the forms that the Inland Revenue has received have been completed to a very high standardand—
      178
      and it asks for the most basic information, such as the name, the date of birth of the child and the partner's national insurance number. It does not ask claimants to detail their income or to provide complicated details.
      7.30 pm
      Many people have completed the forms quite satisfactorily. As I said, 3.5 million claims have been made, encompassing 85 per cent. of the eligible PAYE population. The hon. Member for Croydon, South probably does not want me to remind him of the fact that, despite years of work in trying to improve take-up, family credit had a much lower take-up rate than the children's tax credit has had.
      The Government would like take-up to be even higher. As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said when commenting on publicity, the Government will do everything that we can to ensure that those who, for one reason or another, are not aware of the credit or have not yet claimed it do so. We are working on that, and the forms are continuing to come in.
      Mr. Ottaway: The Minister makes it sound as though complaints about the form's complexity are being made only by the Opposition. I was quoting the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, which presumably knows what it is talking about. It said that the application
      "form is very complex. For those not used to filling in tax forms, the task may prove to be too arduous and some will lose out on an allowance altogether."
      Miss Johnson: I am completely mystified by that statement, but I am sure that we could quite quickly find the hon. Gentleman a copy of the form. The details required could not be simpler or more basic, and it is unlikely that, in supplying them, taxpayers would have to do other than perhaps look up their national insurance number if they did not know it.
      Mr. Flight: The Minister made a similar point when I spoke about this issue in a previous debate. I think that the form that is being referred to—I remember receiving one myself—is the one sent out a year earlier to determine whether people would qualify for the credit. That form went to the heart of the problem about how much each partner earned and whether they would be ineligible for the credit because one partner was earning too much. It was extremely difficult to complete, and if one did not complete it correctly one did not receive the instant form. Half a million people, including several of my constituents, never got round to submitting their claim promptly in April because they had not completed the previous pre-qualification form.
      Miss Johnson: As I said, 85 per cent. of the eligible PAYE population have satisfactorily sent in their forms, we have had a very high response rate, and the forms are still coming in. The hon. Gentleman may be referring to another form, but the fact is that anyone claiming the children's tax credit has only to supply some very basic information. The tax office will take that information, assess the tax credit and make it available to claimants as a tax cut in their pay packet.
      The hon. Member for Croydon, South made the remarkable allegation that the Government have shown a lack of support in addressing the issue of child poverty.

      179
      I simply remind him that the previous Conservative Government not only cut the married couples allowance, but froze child benefit and increased taxes.
      The hon. Member for Croydon, South also talked about the £8 billion worth of "adjustments", which seems to be more Conservative spin for cuts, that a future Conservative Government would make to our spending plans. We do not accept the £8 billion figure simply because we are working from the figures given by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) in a press notice that he issued last summer. The notice described a cuts guarantee of £16 billion, which would entail a £25 million public expenditure reduction for every constituency in the country, massively hitting schools, hospitals and other services.
      Mr. Edward Davey: I am intervening to try to be helpful to the Minister. The mass unemployment of the 1980s over which the then Conservative Government presided caused the greatest damage to the fight against child poverty. If the Government have achieved only one thing by adopting the Liberal Democrats' policy of an independent central bank, thus ensuring stable economic growth, it has been to reduce unemployment by 1 million. That has constituted the Government's most effective attack on child poverty. I therefore congratulate them on being sensible enough to adopt Liberal Democrat policies.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the Minister responds to that, I point out that there is a grave danger of this debate developing into a general economics debate. Will the Minister and all other hon. Members please focus on new clause 2?
      Miss Johnson: I shall certainly do my best to do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      I believe that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton has made a valuable point about the Government's contribution in getting people into work and making work pay. Both of those achievements have made very valuable contributions. I am puzzled by Liberal Democrat Members' lack of support for the new deal, which has certainly played a crucial role in cutting unemployment and addressing the issue of child poverty.
      I should like finally to outline the Government's record on those issues. Families with children will be on average £1,000 a year better off from all the measures introduced in this Parliament. A family with two children now faces the lowest tax burden since 1972. A single-earner family on average earnings of £25,000 a year with two young children will be £520 a year better off, and a single-earner family on half average earnings of £12,700 a year with two young children will be £3,000 a year better off. A family on income support with two young children will be £1,670 a year better off.
      We have addressed the issue of child poverty in all those ways. We have also, as I said, focused some of those resources specifically on under-fives. We must not forget what we have done to address the issue, including introducing the working families tax credit — which, on average, compared with the previous family credit system, is worth £35 a week more. By such measures, we have succeeded in lifting 1.2 million children out of poverty.
      180
      The policies being advocated by the hon. Member for Croydon, South are set within the context of an absence of a fiscal framework and fiscal rules. He does not answer the question of where the spending cuts that are necessary to fund tax cuts will fall or address the issue of continuing economic stability. We are able to support families and children because of economic stability and the fact that we have so many more people in work and have cut unemployment to its lowest levels for many years.
      I therefore urge the House to reject new clause 2.
      Mr. Ottaway: In her final remarks, the Minister said that new clause 2 was set outside any framework and any rules, but it is set within the context of the Government's own framework and rules. As I said at the beginning of the debate, the new clause is part of an £8 billion tax reduction package. There has been much childish merriment among Labour Members about the nature of that £8 billion, but I make it clear that the Government's plans as outlined in the Red Book are to increase public expenditure by £72 billion by 2003–04. A future Conservative Government would increase spending by £64 billion by 2003–04, thereby creating the £8 billion difference.
      To prevent the Minister from continually repeating the mistaken figure of £16 billion over the next four weeks, after the debate I shall give her the precise figures supporting the £8 billion figure. That is what we stand on, and that is what we intend to do. There is no need for her to repeat the figure of £16 billion again, because that figure is wrong.
      The most important thing that has happened today is that the Minister has singularly failed to say why this proposal, designed to help the children most in need of assistance, the under- fives, should not be accepted. She says that she stands on her record, and that the Government are doing what they can to help that group of children. That is complacent, inadequate and unacceptable. If we were not working to a timetable motion I would seek to divide the House. but time is short and there are other new clauses to be debated. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 3

      EXEMPTION FROM CAPITAL GAINS TAX
      '—. In section 271(1) of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (concerning exemption from CGT) after subsection (j) insert—
      "(k) any gain accruing to a UK resident company, or to a non-resident company chargeable to UK corporation tax under section 10 of this Act, in respect of the disposal of a substantial shareholding in a trading company or a member of a trading group. For the purposes of this subsection a substantial shareholding is a shareholding of 20% or more held for a period of a year or more.".'.—[Mr. Flight.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Flight: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take new clause 4—Substantial shareholdings: deferral of capital gains tax—
      `—In section 155 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (concerning classes of assets for roll-over relief) Class 9, after Head B, insert new subsection.
      Substantial shareholdings in trading companies or members of a trading group. For the purposes of this section, a substantial shareholding is a shareholding of 20 per cent. or more held for a period of a year or more.".'.
      Mr. Flight: The two new clauses would provide alternative measures to complete the correction of the major mistake in the Government's original Budget proposals last year. The House will remember that the Chancellor came to the House with proposals to tax the offshore mixing companies used by multinationals based in Britain.
      The original proposals would have made Britain one of the most unattractive places for multinationals to be based, whereas it has been, after Holland and the United States, one of the most attractive. They would have led, in due course, to companies setting up elsewhere and moving abroad, causing jobs and tax revenue to be lost.
      Fortunately, after many—not only the Opposition but businesses and accountants—had spoken out against the proposals, the Government were forced to accept the objections and change their proposals. Last year's Finance Act corrected the error by introducing the practical and sensible arrangements for onshore pooling.
      Dawn Primarolo: Did the hon. Gentleman agree with the mechanism of offshore pooling and the mixer companies that were used as holding companies to avoid tax in this country?
      Mr. Flight: The Paymaster General is well aware that international businesses have been in discussion with the Inland Revenue for more than a year—quite sensibly, if that is what they thought they had achieved—to bring about onshore pooling arrangements. because they did not like having to use offshore mixers to achieve fair tax rates on their international earnings.
      It was the need for onshore pooling arrangements, which did not then exist, that led to the use of offshore mixers. That usage was established and well known by the Revenue. It was a pity that when the issue was moving towards being satisfactorily resolved, the original Budget proposals did not pick up on that, but tried to be clever. Fortunately, the Government were eventually persuaded to see the light and change their line.
      Dawn Primarolo: That was not the question that I asked the hon. Gentleman; I asked whether he was in favour of the use of mixer companies for offshore pooling. His party was in power for 18 years, and did nothing about it. Which does he favour: offshore mixing, which his Government presided over, or onshore mixing, which this Government have introduced?
      Mr. Flight: The Paymaster General, who has played her role in this Government extremely competently, must surely accept that they have now been in power for four years, that we are coming up to another general election,
      182
      and that what happened in the past is out of date. My answer is that probably, provided that the Government accept new clause 3 or 4, onshore pooling in its entirety is more desirable, because it is overt and within the control of the UK Government and tax authorities.
      7.45 pm
      The question of how to deal with the tax position of multinational companies has emerged over the years. There were far fewer multinational companies 20 years ago, and the idea of Britain being an important base for multinational companies has developed dramatically over the past 10 or 20 years.
      Dawn Primarolo rose—
      Mr. Flight: If the hon. Lady is going to ask me why the Conservative Government did not introduce onshore pooling as an alternative to offshore mixers, my answer is that first, I personally was not a Member of the House at that time. and secondly, that we are now dealing with the present, not the past.
      Dawn Primarolo: I entirely accept that Opposition Members were not brought up, as I was, to believe that we are all responsible for our past as well as for our present—[Interruption.] I am perfectly prepared to say that; it would appear that my past is scrutinised quite a lot by hon. Gentlemen.
      The hon. Gentleman has Made the Government's for us, because he has just said that in more than 18 years, the previous Government failed to see or act on the development of the new economy, and so did nothing about offshore pooling, which became an ever increasing problem. They did nothing about deferral or exemption, either. Perhaps he will tell us why.
      Mr. Flight: The Paymaster General is being unnecessarily and rather ineffectively aggressive, in comparison with her normal behaviour. The issue is simple. The practice of using offshore mixers developed with the knowledge—indeed, to some extent with the collaboration—of the Inland Revenue over the past 10 years or so. However, its time had come: it was time to make a change and bring the arrangements onshore.
      The fruits of the offshore mixers were beneficial to the United Kingdom, because they enabled us to collar much of the multinational capital business. They therefore acted in the national interest. However, the time had come to move the activity onshore. The two new clauses would complete that process fairly, and along the lines that, as I am sure the Paymaster General would be forced to agree, the Government undertook to follow during the debates on the Finance Bill last year.
      Indeed, the hon. Lady herself has admitted that the Government have been consulting on the issue that the two new clauses address almost since that Finance Bill became the Finance Act last summer. I repeat that if they wish to achieve both fairness and a continuing competitive environment for multinational holding companies in the UK, the Government need choose only one of the two new clauses. The provisions are needed because holding companies will have to reshape themselves into a flatter structure than has typically prevailed under the old offshore mixer arrangements.

      183
      They will be moving from what was in effect a double tax relief regime to the new onshore pooling arrangements, under which the relevant holding company in the UK will be required to hold the international subsidiaries directly. New clause 3 would provide the route of exemption from capital gains tax when such a UK-based holding company reorganises its subsidiaries. In essence, it would make what had been a subsidiary of a subsidiary a direct subsidiary of the holding company. That probably represents the simplest and fairest solution to the problem, but we have also put forward an alternative in new clause 4, which would provide roll-over relief.
      The amelioration of the tax position resulting from the Government's required restructuring from offshore to onshore pooling was promised by the Government as part of their package on double tax relief and controlled foreign companies. The Paymaster General herself has advised that the Government continue to consult on the matter. I suggest that it is now time to act, because the Government have had a year to consult on that important technical matter in the national interest. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) raised the issue in discussing clause 79 in Committee and she, while not promising to act, said:
      "The Government are consulting on changes to the tax on gains made by companies and disposals of substantial share holdings with a view to introducing either a deferral or an exemption."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 8 May 2001; c. 160.]
      The new clauses modestly request that the Paymaster General make a decision and tidy up the loose ends in the national interest and to complete the new arrangements for multinationals. If she chooses not to accept either new clause, I hope that she will give a firm undertaking that the issue will be addressed. A year's consultation is surely sufficient.
      Dawn Primarolo: I am afraid that I must disappoint the hon. Gentleman. It will not surprise him to learn that should he press his new clauses to a Division, I shall ask my hon. Friends to oppose them. In all truth, he knows why that is a reasonable position in what is a complex area of taxation. I am sure that he will also accept that the Government, having set such a splendid record in the past four years in consultation on, and reform of, those complex areas, are aware that the question of whether deferral or exemption should be used is of considerable interest to business. We must ensure that our proposals are relevant to businesses today and will stand the test of time in a competitive and important sector of the economy.
      I gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that his Government failed to address any of the issues before us. Organisations such as the Confederation of British Industry pressed for changes to be considered, but the previous Government failed to act. I understand their reluctance to act on a highly complicated area of taxation, but it is simply not true that this Government have failed to deal with the issue. Nor was it reasonable to expect that the Government should deal with it at the same time as the changes to double taxation relief. The hon. Gentleman was a member of the Finance Bill Committee last year as he was this, and he will know well that the double taxation relief changes were enormously complex and challenging,
      184
      not only for Inland Revenue officials and businesses advising them, but for Members of Parliament. I cannot accept that at the same time as dealing with that highly complex legislation. we should have discussed a pick-and-mix choice between deferral and exemption.
      Matters have moved on, to the considerable benefit of business, since the two issues of double taxation and deferral were linked in May 2000. In June 2000, the Government announced the double taxation rules allowing the onshore pooling that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The pre-Budget report raised the possibility of an exemption as an alternative to a deferral of capital gains tax on the disposal of substantial share holdings. Businesses are very interested in that alternative, but they wish to see more work done on it.
      The Government have made it clear, as I said on Second Reading, that we will introduce the changes in the 2002 Finance Bill. That is not that long to wait.
      Mr. Flight: On a technical matter, will that timetable of dealing with the outstanding issue in the 2002 Finance Bill fit with the period required for restructuring to onshore pooling? If it does, and companies will not be left for a year in no man's land, that will be a satisfactory solution.
      Dawn Primarolo: I rely on representations made to the Government in the consultation, but I am not aware that any company has claimed that its transactions will be affected and that the issue needs to be dealt with immediately. Businesses are saying that they want further consultation. Technical notes are being discussed in considerable detail. and the pre-Budget report made it clear that we are considering deferral or something better. The benefits of deferral have not been doubted.
      The new clauses would encourage the Government to make legislation in haste. The hon. Gentleman wants us to pick one of his options, say, "That'll do", and add it to the Bill. I know that if we did, next year he would criticise the Government for poor drafting, even if it was his drafting. The matter is proceeding and we want to legislate in 2002, but we also want to ensure, through consultation with business, that our proposals will be a good fit now and help companies as well as standing the test of time. He will agree that our proposals must ensure, for example, that intellectual property rights are held here in the UK and that this is the most competitive place for businesses to be located, with the best environment for them to develop. If the hon. Gentleman agrees with those objectives, he should withdraw the new clause and await the outcome of consultation with business—something that he frequently implores the Government to do. In that way, we will achieve an agreed way forward, rather than a quick fix this year that will not work.
      8pm
      Mr. Flight: I briefly take issue with two things that the Paymaster General said at the beginning of her remarks. First, she boasted of the Government's splendid record of consultation with business on this matter, but I remind her of the outrage felt by business when the original proposals were introduced by the Chancellor. They caused business's love affair with the Labour party to fall apart. As I commented earlier, it is fortunate for the good of the country that the Government have changed their mind.

      185
      Secondly, the Paymaster General is not taking the point that, in the past, offshore mixers worked. They enabled the UK to do extremely well in the multinational headquarters business. The time had come for something better, but it was not the case that a nagging problem had not been addressed.
      However, I was glad to hear the Paymaster General's response. I may have missed something in one of the earlier debates on this matter, but the seemed to say a little more than she did in Committee She did not respond completely to my main point—that businesses will have to restructure to move from offshore mixers to onshore pooling and that they must not be put in a void for a year while they wait for the issue to be resolved—but she went some way towards providing an answer to it.
      The next Conservative Government will get on and deal with the matter. If that does not happen, the Paymaster General has promised that it will be dealt with in next year's Finance Bill. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 5

      ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REBATES SCHEME
      '(1) The Treasury may by order made by statutory instrument introduce a scheme of rebates to those persons charged with the aggregates levy and who have employed environmental protection measures in the process of commercial exploitation of aggregate;
      (2) Environmental protection measures in this part are those measures which the Secretary of State shall by order determine to be in the interests of protecting or enhancing the environment;
      (3) No rebate under this scheme shall be made unless the environmental protection measures:
      (a) relate directly to the process of commercial exploitation of aggregate; and
      (b) shall have been verified and certified by an external body prescribed for that purpose by the Secretary of State;
      (4) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section shall not be made without prior consultation with those persons appearing to the Secretary of State to be representative of those having an interest in:
      (i) the commercial exploitation of aggregate;
      (ii) the protection of the natural environment;
      (iii) the local communities affected.
      (5) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section shall be laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of the House of Commons.'.—[Mr. David Heath.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. David Heath: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 1, in clause 16, page 12, leave out from line 18 to end of line 8 on page 41.
      No. 3, in page 12, line 37, at end insert—
      '(7) The provisions of this section shall cease to have effect on 5 April 2004 unless the Treasury makes provision by order made by statutory instrument for its continuation.
      (8) The Treasury shall not make an order under subsection (7) above unless a draft of the order has bean laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of the House of Commons.'.
      186
      No. 2, in schedule 4, page 102, leave out from line 18 to end of line 17 on page 143.
      Mr. Heath: Returning to the aggregates tax seems like revisiting an old friend. The Financial Secretary will recall that I tabled an amendment and the new clause in Committee. They were connected: the amendment would have required the Government not to introduce the aggregates tax until they had introduced a rebate scheme, while the new clause would permit the Government to apply that rebate scheme to companies subject to the levy.
      I shall not waste the House's time going over the arguments that I adduced in Committee. To my mind, they still hold true. I still believe that there is a serious design fault in the Government's proposals that will do enormous damage to the quarrying sector and to related industries, such as the concrete industry. Firms in my constituency, for example, will not benefit from the proposals.
      The question before the House today is whether there should be a rebate scheme at all. What is the purpose behind the Government's proposed aggregates levy? We have heard the Government's justifications for it. The Budget 2000 statement said that the tax would generate
      "reductions in noise, dust, visual intrusion, damage to wildlife habitats and other environmental impacts."
      Elsewhere, the Treasury stated in evidence that
      "the encouragement of recycling is the main tax purpose."
      We have heard also that the tax would reflect the environmental cost of quarrying.
      If the tax did that, it would be fine. However, I live in a quarrying area on the edge of the Mendips, and I know that it is far from obvious that the tax will bring with it any of the predicted benefits. It is also hard to see how it will improve the local environment.
      The tax could easily improve local environments if there were a direct link between the performance of the quarrying companies in terms of what they do to protect or enhance the local environment and the protection of environmental amenities enjoyed by local residents. At present, residents suffer from all the ills that the Government cite as factors behind the introduction of the tax. The new clause would provide the appropriate mechanism to make the tax work. It would institute a system of rebate against the aggregates levy for companies prepared to take the necessary steps with regard to their processes, or to the infrastructure by which they quarry stone or transport it away. The new clause would reward that endeavour.
      The Government's problem is that, without a rebate system, the tax will not achieve its stated objectives. That point has been made many times, in the House and outside it. Industry representatives and independent commentators share an opinion on this matter. The classic quotation is from Professor David Pearce, who is something of a guru when it comes to environmental taxes. I remember discussing his proposals in connection with the original Environmental Protection Act 1990. Mr. Chris Patten was Secretary of State for the Environment in the then Conservative Government, and he toyed with many of David Pearce's ideas, but did not bring many of them to fruition.
      In July 1999, Professor Pearce conducted the only independent research into the proposal, and said that
      "we conclude that an aggregates tax is an extremely inefficient way to try and secure an environmental target."

      187
      That was his verdict, but it is not the end of the story. A rebate scheme would deal directly with the problems. New clause 5 covers the salient points. It provides that the Treasury could bring forward a statutory instrument to introduce the rebate scheme, but does not prescribe the exact form of that order. If the process turns out to be difficult, as the Financial Secretary has claimed, the new clause would permit time for the task to be accomplished. In Committee, I argued that the matter was urgent, but the urgency argument is not relevant to the new clause.
      The new clause does not suggest that there should be a blank cheque for the companies involved; instead, it provides that the Secretary of State would determine the environmental measures to be taken. In other words, the Secretary of State would compile the tariff list of suggested measures that could and should be put in place, which would then be set against an audit of what had been done.
      The new clause would link environmental protection measures to the process of commercial exploitation of aggregates, and tie them to the location of the quarrying. A criticism strongly voiced in my part of Somerset, and repeated in Leicestershire, Derbyshire and the other main quarrying areas, is that people do not see how they would benefit if an aggregates tax were introduced. They fear that the benefit would apply a lot further away, and not locally.
      The new clause would also require that any benefit
      "should be verified and certified by an external body prescribed for that purpose"
      by the Secretary of State. Again, it would not allow companies merely to claim to have done something: any action would have to be proved before the rebate came into effect.
      That seems a sensible way forward. I cannot see that the Government would wish to produce any argument against that proposition, other than that it does not use their wording. If they intend to introduce a rebate scheme in the future—I sincerely hope that they do, and there is evidence that at least one other Department is keen on it—the new clause would provide them with a legal basis for doing so without bringing back to the House further primary legislation in the form of provisions included in a Finance Act or a separate Bill which would delay the process and make matters more difficult.
      Even if the Government are not prepared to accept the words that I suggest, I hope that they will at least give a clear indication that they are committed to doing what they said they wanted to do and what they know they have to do to make the aggregates levy a genuine environmental tax rather than an imposition on the industry which has no direct environmental benefit and is to the detriment of the industry's commercial interests and competitiveness. The quarrying industry and those who are concerned about the local environment in the areas where quarrying takes place are waiting to hear from the Government a clear commitment that they intend to introduce this scheme and that it is being done as a matter of urgency. It would be absurd to introduce the aggregates levy without the only element that provides for local environmental benefit.
      Mr. Letwin: First, let me say a few words first about the proposition of the hon. Member for Somerton and
      188
      Frome (Mr. Heath). For reasons that I will come to, I am not—as the hon. Gentleman and others may know from the Committee stage and Second Reading—a great fan of this tax. However the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument is difficult to dispute.
      The Financial Secretary has said on numerous occasions that he will continue discussions with the industry about the possibility of introducing an exemption scheme. If he is so minded, it must be true, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said, that it would be convenient to avoid tile necessity for subsequent primary legislation. Indeed, it may be more than merely convenient—it may be necessary for the survival of large parts of the industry that it be possible to introduce the exemption scheme without the need for the laborious process of primary legislation.
      We ought to hear today—although I harbour a doubt that we will—that the Financial Secretary has at last capitulated to the demands for at the very least an enabling clause of the kind proposed by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. The Financial Secretary said in Committee not a day or two ago that an enabling clause did not commit the Government to very much. That is true. The resistance that the Government have so far displayed towards an enabling clause, however, suggests that they are not so convinced as they make out and that they will eventually introduce an exemption scheme. That would be lamentable I hope that the expectations that I have voiced will be shown to be false and that the Financial Secretary will accept the hon. Gentleman's new clause.
      As we have said repeatedly during the passage of the Bill and those parts of it relating to the aggregates levy, even with the exemption scheme, we strongly oppose the introduction of this new stealth tax. That is why we have tabled amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 2. At this point, I should declare an interest the nature of which has always eluded me, but which might exist.
      8.15 pm
      I am clear that there is a deficiency in the tax, even in the rational version of it entailing the hon. Gentleman's proposed exemption clause and regulations that provide for exemption. That version is rational because it might at least achieve the environmental effects that the tax purportedly seeks to achieve. In that, I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
      Our objection is to the triadic rhythm, which runs like this: the Government announce a tax, in the nature of a fine, for a particular segment of British industry. The second step is that the Government announce that people who behave well will not be subject to the fine. The third step is that the Government institute officials, in a more or less arbitrary fashion, to negotiate with particular parties in the industry sector about whether they are sufficiently good boys not to pay the fine.
      That is not how to govern the country. We do not believe that there should be pre-ordained fines or that officials should be put in the position of judges, seeking to determine whether particular firms have behaved sufficiently like good boys or girls to avoid such fines. I grant that it may be effective—in that, I agree with the hon. Gentleman—but I do not think that it is proper. It is not the right way in which to go about achieving the aim.

      189
      If the aim is essentially regulatory, let the device be essentially regulatory. If the aim is to create a market or charging system, let the device be a charging system of tradeable permits or the like. If the aim is to create an economic incentive, let it be an incentive and not a penalty. None of those devices is the same as a fine, which people can avoid if they behave well in the judgment of some official. That is a route, not to immediate disaster, but gradually, by degrees, to an arbitrariness in government which I think even Labour Members will come to regret.
      The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): I am listening to the hon. Gentleman's discourse with interest. Would he include in the list of avenues that might be considered the price mechanism, which applies in this case? I should have thought that, on reflection, he would agree that there could be an important role for the price mechanism in achieving environmentally beneficial results.
      Mr. Letwin: I do not wish to prolong the debate, but I should like briefly to address the really interesting issue raised by the Financial Secretary. I suspect that all three parties are at one in believing that economic incentives, including pricing mechanisms, are in some circumstances appropriate for achieving desirable environmental effects. The problem about this tax, and particularly in relation to the way in which it is being implemented, is that it is not a pricing mechanism, because the elasticity at the other end—the supply elasticity—does not exist.
      The tax will not reduce the propensity of people who are building buildings to use less that is made with aggregates, because that cannot be done. If there were a serious elasticity of building, the tax would slightly reduce the amount of building in the United Kingdom. I judge the effect to be minimal, however. The Financial Secretary has never brought forward an elasticity study suggesting anything to the contrary. Cross-elasticities, on the other hand, may be considerable, and I shall come to that.
      The problem about the tax is that what elasticity effect it has is at the wrong end. It will drive out domestic aggregates production in favour of imported aggregates production, in the form of asphalt arid pre-cast concrete. It will destroy British jobs, and in that, it will indeed be a price signal. However, that is not the price signal that the Financial Secretary wants to send, and the tax, in its present form, will have no other serious effect. So although we agree with the hon. Gentleman about the principle, he has unfortunately not translated that principle into practice in this instance.
      That leads me directly to the essential point that I want to make tonight. I do not want to rehearse at length all the arguments that we made on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House about this tax; that would be tedious. I do want to place on the record and put in the mind of the Financial Secretary, who has exhibited a tendency to think about these things and to reach conclusions after debates, a series of answers to his response to a point that I made in the Committee of the whole House.
      I argued in the Committee, as l had on Second Reading, that the effect of the tax would be seriously to displace employment from this country to southern Ireland and the
      190
      northern continental shelf. The Financial Secretary said—I know from experience that when he says these things, he means them—that he did not believe that proposition. He said that he did not believe that the £1.60 a tonne of tax, even with the differential that it created with the zero tax rate in southern Ireland or the 5p tax rate in France, would be sufficient to offset the transport cost disadvantage of displacing production to those locations outside the United Kingdom.
      To be absolutely fair to the Financial Secretary, because this is no party political game and I want to try to get this straight, I believe that he made that argument particularly about northern Europe—the northern continent. He was less firm about southern Ireland. I believe that he did take on board the issue in relation to southern and Northern Ireland.
      I stress here that, essentially, we are dealing with the commodities that are made of aggregates, as opposed to the aggregates themselves. The aggregates themselves are correctly subject to tax if imported, just as if produced domestically.
      I have looked into that assertion by the Financial Secretary since those debates in the Committee of the whole House, and I have consulted the industry. To say that I have done so widely would be hyperbole. I have consulted a number of people in the industry—among the small producers and the larger producers—who are very well informed, to try to get a sense of whether there is a serious problem of differentials. I want to try to identify briefly why I believe that there is a very serious problem of differentials.
      Eight tenths of this argument depends on understanding that the £1.60 is not the end of the story. The first part of that part of the argument stems from the fact that £ 1.60 a tonne is a true assessment of the average cost of the tax to the producer, but, as we have had occasion to note in our rather lengthy debates about this matter—although not, alas, sufficiently lengthy in some cases—the production of aggregates is a highly complex business in the sense that many things are being produced simultaneously, some of which are the intended product and some of which are by-products. The Financial Secretary is as familiar with that reality as we are.
      It is impossible to sell by-products and low-grade waste—in Committee, we had a long disquisition about dust—at full price. They cannot be sold at much above the price at which they are currently sold. That is what I am told by both sides of the industry—the aggregate producers and the construction industry. As a result, the average cost of production of the high-grade material will go up by more than £1.60 a tonne, because a hefty part of the tax, which would otherwise be borne by the by-products and will be chargeable to the by-products, will have to be loaded on to the price of the primary products. That, I suspect, is an inescapable conclusion.
      Mr. David Heath indicated assent.
      Mr. Letwin: I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman, who knows a great deal about the industry—much more than I do—gives his assent to that proposition. I shall be very surprised if the Financial Secretary can produce any evidence that those assertions, which I believe to have been given to me in good faith by both sides of the industry, are false. The estimates that I have been given vary, but they

      191
      centred around a 50 per cent. uplift. I believe that the effective rate of tax on the primary products will be not £1.60 but about £2.40.
      Next we have to add the increased costs of administration. I do not want to exaggerate the case, because I want to make a genuinely robust case rather than a political statement. I do not know the increased cost of administration, but I am sure that the Financial Secretary will acknowledge that it will be more than zero. Dealing with a new tax and keeping the records required for it, especially in the case of—if I may be permitted a pun— the disaggregations required to deal with an aggregates tax that is to be levied on a series of commodities, some of which are exempt and some of which are not, with some that are exempt being produced at the same time as some that are non-exempt, making it difficult to disentangle one from another, is bound to occasion a significant increase in administrative costs for producers.
      I have been given various estimates, and I do not know how reliable they are. I am inclined to think that 10p to 20p a tonne is a reasonable estimate of additional administrative costs. If I take the lower end of that scale, at about 10p, that takes us up to about £2.50 a tonne—£1.80 plus the uplift of 80p for the primary products, plus the 10p.
      Taxes are collected by Customs and Excise with unvarying efficiency. [Interruption.] I say that with a degree of irony, in the sense that it is not always the case that Customs and Excise collects the right amount and it is not always the case that all our constituents feel that they are properly treated, but taxes are collected with unvarying efficiency in the sense that Customs and Excise always swoops early. This is not a party political point, although the Chancellor has certainly taken policy steps to advance tax receipts in many respects, including corporation tax. This is a point about administration under all Governments.
      Customs and Excise quite properly sees it as its duty to protect the Revenue, so it swoops early. It looks for the money as soon as possible. That has a cash-flow effect on the firms that produce the goods, because the goods are not always sold quickly, and the definitions of commercial exploitation in the relevant sections of the Bill are, as we have had reason to note in lengthy discussion, such that one need not have sold the item to be liable to the tax. There will be a cash-flow effect. I do not know what it will be. I have taken estimates, and it sounds as though about 10p a tonne would not be an unreasonable estimate. That gets us to £2.60.
      Undoubtedly, the administrative burden and the price increase will together conspire to accelerate the process of consolidation in the industry. To some degree that may be a good thing; for many producers it will be a bad thing. It is clear that it will tend to concentrate production in fewer locations. The Financial Secretary might argue that the tax is thereby having an effect, but one thing is sure: that that will tend to raise internal transport costs. I do not know the amount, but it has been suggested to me that it might be as high as 75p or as low as 50p. I will take the lower estimate and add 50p. We now have the following: £1.60 plus 80p equals £2.40; £2.40 plus 10p equals £2.50; £2.50 plus 1Op equals £2.60; £2.60 plus 50p equals £3.10.
      192
      I am told that a differential of £3.10 is vastly greater than the transport cost differential implied by importing pre-cast concrete from northern Europe. If the Financial Secretary has figures to the contrary, we shall be most interested to hear them. Such a differential will clearly hugely exceed the transport costs from southern Ireland. If that were not the case, my estimate of the transport costs increase owing to consolidation in the industry would, clearly, also be too low, but I am told that moving pre-cast concrete by ship is an efficient method of transport—not, of course, one that would be applicable to the use of such concrete deep in Wiltshire, but perfectly applicable on the south coast and, indeed, through the London docks, in London.
      8.30 pm
      In other words, a large part of the construction industry in the United Kingdom could be serviced by pre-cast concrete from the northem ports of Europe at a far lower transport cost than would be involved because of the more than £3 differential that has been identified. That is a serious problem, but we have yet to hear from the Financial Secretary any set of equivalent figures, or disputations of those figures, that would allay our fears. We have not invented those fears; they have been expressed by the industry, which has, in principle, no reason to invent them If it were true that the displacement of jobs and business would not occur, why should the industry care about the tax; it would merely pass it on to a virtually inelastic buyer—the construction industry? House occupiers and people trying to build business premises might object, but I have not the slightest idea why the industry would invent those figures, so there must be some truth in them.
      Given all the arguments of principle that we have discussed at length and rehearsed again today and given the problems of implementation and the way in which the aggregates tax has been proposed in the Bill—for example, the failure to produce an exemption clause such as that suggested by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome—I am driven to the conclusion that there is a failure in the Government's factual analysis; they have not recognised that the differential will have a serious effect on thousands of jobs in the United Kingdom, and that needs to be addressed urgently.
      Mr. Timms: I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman's points in detail in a moment, but before he completes his speech, will he confirm that it would be the intention of an incoming Conservative Government not to introduce the 0.1 percentage point reduction in employers' national insurance contributions that balances the revenue that we expect to receive from the aggregates levy?
      Mr. Letwin: Yes, that is absolutely correct. The intention of an incoming Conservative Administration will be not to introduce the entire package, but to seek to negotiate with the industry the very kinds of environmental improvement that were so near to completion when some siren voice got at the Prime Minister and managed to reverse the trend of Government thinking, pushing them back into introducing an aggregates tax. We want to have a serious and adult discussion with the industry about how

      193
      the environmental improvements can be achieved without this tax, which, of course, implies without the NIC reductions.
      Mr. David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman's analysis of the projected extra costs is admirably rigorous, but does he accept that those figures are, by their very nature, tentative? The British Aggregates Association has come up with a figure of £ 4.35, whereas his is £3 or so. Is it not equally possible that the Government's approach, with the figure being very much at the low end of the spectrum, is likely to represent the eventual outcome? If it did not, could not a future Government respond by regulation?
      Mr. Letwin: Well, that is possible. Of course there is room for uncertainty. I have also received the British Aggregates Association figures. I have consciously chosen the lower end of the estimates that we have received so that I cannot be accused of inventing figures for effect. Neither the hon. Gentleman nor I—and nor, and this is my problem, the Financial Secretary—knows what the exact figure is. If it is anything like any of the figures discussed by the industry, it is sufficient to outweigh the transport costs. That is the problem.
      I may be wrong, but I do not understand how that problem can be cured within the structure of the tax. If that cannot be done and we all wait up three, four or five years from now and 5,000, 7,500 or 10,000 jobs—the estimates vary—have disappeared as a result, it will be too late; it will be impossible to re-create those jobs in the United Kingdom for years to Come. We have a serious problem: the Government do not have the factual basis on which to be confident that the tax will not have those dire effects. That is why the House should accept the amendments tabled by Conservative Members.
      Mr. Timms: As we have heard, under new clause 5, moved by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), a rebate would be allowed from the aggregates levy for so-called green quarries, and the rebate would be introduced by secondary legislation. We debated a very similar new clause in Committee yesterday. It was moved by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), who is well able to look after himself on such occasions, but he withdrew it on the basis of the assurances that I was able to give Him. Of course, I am happy to repeat those assurances today. I hope that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome agrees that his hon. Friend the Member for Gordon was right to withdraw his new clause after yesterday's debate in Committee.
      I remind the House that the aggregates levy as set out in the Bill will have important and significant environmental benefits. It will do so by ensuring that the price of aggregates reflects the environmental cost of obtaining them—using a straightforward price mechanism for an environmentally beneficial end. That is a mechanism that the Liberal Democrat party well understands; it would thus be mistaken for the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome to suggest that the price mechanism will have no effect. There certainly will be an effect. I stress that point, because it is at the heart of the environmental benefit that we expect from the introduction of the aggregates levy.
      Moreover, the package also includes the £35 million sustainability fund that will be available to be applied directly in communities that are affected by quarrying, to
      194
      help to deal with some of the environmental problems caused by quarrying. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there was no direct environmental benefit from the package is mistaken. In those two specific respects, there will be clear environmental benefits from the levy. I again draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the sustainability fund. That important measure will benefit communities that are affected by quarrying, such as the one in which he lives.
      We announced in the Budget that we are attracted to the idea of differential rates of aggregates levy for green quarries. We are exploring with a variety of interested parties options on how that might be achieved, but as I have pointed out several times, significant practical problems remain—not least the definition of a green quarry. We need to know how those issues can be overcome in a practicable and workable way before we introduce legislation to give effect to that idea. When we have a workable scheme, we shall legislate.
      The new clause is guesswork. I suggest to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that the scheme would need to take into account factors that are not referred to in the new clause, which is couched in terms of environmental protection measures being taken. However, other considerations might need to be taken into account. It is possible, for example, that the location of a quarry might have an impact on the extent of its environmental friendliness. I should certainly not want to exclude that possibility, as the new clause does. As I think that the hon. Member for Gordon acknowledged yesterday, during our debate in Committee on exactly the same proposal, nothing is to be gained in the meantime by introducing legislation that may well turn out not to be quite right when we have resolved the way forward—[Interruption.]
      I give way to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin).
      Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for giving way, although I was actually chuntering from a sedentary position. However, I will ask him a question. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should listen to a tape recording of his own remarks. Is he aware of just how "Yes, Ministerish" he sounds? If I had been the official charged with inventing every reason that I could think of—including reasons that I could barely think of—for rejecting the new clause, I could certainly not have come up with a better list than the one he has provided.
      Mr. Timms: It would be classic "Yes, Minister" to introduce a new clause to do something when we do not quite know what we are trying to achieve. That would be a serious mistake and I could not support such a proposal. As I pointed out in yesterday's debate, the new clause sets out three groups which should be consulted. I can again assure hon. Members that we shall indeed consult representatives from all three of those groups.
      Mr. Edward Davey: I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for giving way, especially as I was unable to be in the Chamber for all of the debate on the new clause. Will he confirm that the sustainability fund, which will produce the environmental improvements referred to in the new clause, is an intrinsic part of the levy? If he can

      195
      confirm that, will he explain why he is going ahead with the levy even though he has not sorted out the sustainability fund?
      Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman is confused. The sustainability levy is part of the package as it stands. It will have an initial value of £35 million and we are consulting on precisely how the fund will be applied and to what categories of use it will be put. The hon. Gentleman is mistaken: the fund will be in place from the introduction of the levy in April next year and does not depend on any of the mechanisms mentioned in the new clause.
      Mr. David Taylor: Will my hon. Friend confirm whether he is to consult the British Precast Concrete Federation, which makes a very powerful case in favour of the pre-cast concrete industry being treated in same way as the clay, silica sand and cement industries, all of which will not be covered by the aggregates tax?
      Mr. Timms: I confirm that I have in the past week met representatives of the British Precast Concrete Federation. We had a useful discussion. We are consulting widely on the measures, as we always do.
      Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 propose abolition of the levy. The Committee of the whole House considered that matter at the start of Committee stage and took a clear view that the aggregates levy should be in the Bill. I have no doubt that that view will, rightly, be repeated today. The levy is being introduced to address the significant environmental costs associated with quarrying and it will bring about environmental benefits, as I have described. The introduction of the levy and the associated cut in employers national insurance contributions will contribute to the Government's strategy, consistently applied, of shifting the burden of taxation from good things, such as employment, to bad things, such as environmental damage. That was the intention we set out in our 1997 statement of intent on environmental taxation and it is the approach that we have taken.
      I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Dorset for confirming that a Conservative Government would not proceed with the reduction in employers national insurance contributions. We have also heard that the Conservatives would reverse the reduction in employers national insurance contributions associated with the climate change levy—0.3 per cent. in that case. In addition, the hon. Gentleman has made more clear the Conservatives' intentions regarding the 0.2 per cent. reduction in employers national insurance contributions associated with the landfill tax. I do not know precisely why the Conservatives want to pile up taxation on employment, but I am certain that our approach of shifting the burden of taxation away from employment is the right one. We shall continue to pursue it.
      The levy will be revenue neutral for the Exchequer because all of the proceeds will be recycled through the reduction in employers national insurance contributions and the £35 million sustainability fund that will help to develop alternatives to primary aggregates extraction and help to redress the local impact of quarrying in communities that are affected by it.
      Mr. Letwin: Will the Financial Secretary give now the undertaking that he refused to give earlier: that if his
      196
      Government are fortunate enough to be re-elected, each and any subsequent increase in the aggregates levy will be accompanied by an equal and opposite reduction in national insurance contributions or some other tax?
      Mr. Timms: I do not want to discomfit the hon. Gentleman, but in our enjoyable debate on the subject in the Standing Committee yesterday, he made a lengthy case against the landfill tax, saying that we were giving out more in the reduction in employers national insurance contributions than we were taking in through the landfill tax. He was simply wrong about that: the revenue from the landfill tax is s significantly less than—in fact, it is equivalent to about two thirds of—the revenue forgone through the reduction in employers national insurance contributions. The hon. Gentleman was mistaken in yesterday's debate and it is unwise of him to pursue that line of argument further today.
      Mr. Letwin rose—
      Mr. Timms: No, I want make some progress—a couple of other points need to be made to complete the picture. It is possible to make greater use of recycled aggregates, as we discussed in earlier debates. They will be more attractive because the price of primary aggregates will include an additional cost that will not apply to them, and that will be beneficial.
      8.45 pm
      In my response to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicester shire (Mr. Taylor), I mentioned my discussions with manufacturers of pre-cast concrete blocks. The hon. Member for West Dorset made something of that. I do not believe that the prospect of significant imports from across the sea of pre-cast concrete blocks will be a serious problem. The industry did not suggest that. However, I accepted in an earlier debate that Northern Ireland might be a different case, and today I met the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and two representatives of the quarrying industry from Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Executive is also considering the problem, which we will continue to explore. The land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic means that the situation there is different.
      As for concrete blocks from Norway or elsewhere in continental Europe, tile cost of transport is a sufficiently high hurdle for the 1 per cent. of pre-cast blocks that are imported not to change. Those are specialist products and they do not reflect the bulk of what is produced in the United Kingdom.
      Dr. McCrea: Having listened to those representations, when will the Government determine what action to take to alleviate the problem faced by businesses in Northern Ireland?
      Mr. Timms: I can only repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Foyle this morning: we will work with the Northern Ireland Executive and, if there is a strong case for us to act, we will do so. I cannot, however, say precisely when that will be.
      I hope that the Horse will hold to its clear view on the issue and reject the amendment. It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for West Dorset say that the

      197
      Conservative party would not implement the measure and, instead, would try to achieve a negotiated agreement with the industry. The Quarry Products Association and the Government invested much work in examining the prospects of a negotiated voluntary agreement. For several reasons, those discussions were not successful and the package that the QPA put to us for the Budget last year contained serious difficulties, not least the likelihood of falling foul of European law.
      However, another reason for that lack of success was the great hostility of the British Aggregates Association, to which my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire referred. I think I am right in saying that the BAA came into existence when a group of small quarries came together to object to the big quarrying companies formulating an agreement that did not benefit them. The hon. Member for West Dorset needs to be cautious before believing that a negotiated solution is possible.
      The real question facing hon. Members is whether we face up to the need to address the environmental costs of quarrying. if the House decides—as I believe it will— that that is necessary, our proposal is the right way to proceed.
      Mr. David Taylor: My hon. Friend is right to say that Leicestershire has a significant mineral extraction industry. Many small firms operate there. Does he believe that the implementation of the levy risks accelerating the industry trend towards a smaller number of larger quarries, with the extra haulage costs: and other problems that are associated with that?
      Mr. Timms:I have not seen any evidence of that, and none that I am aware of has been forthcoming. The way in which the industry responds to the levy is a matter for the industry.
      Amendment No. 3 at least has the merit that the House has not already rejected it, but the environmental costs of aggregates extraction will not cease in April 2004. Therefore, there is no justification for limiting the life of the levy to that date.
      For the reasons that I have set out, I hope that the House will reject the new clause and the amendments.
      Mr. David Heath: I listened with incredulity to the Financial Secretary's response. His arguments became steadily more preposterous as he vent on. That might suggest that we have been right all along and that the impost has been cobbled together at short notice and is half thought through. That is why justifications for the levy are so lacking.
      Mr. Timms: I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman say that. Will he at least acknowledge—as he did not in his opening remarks—that the sustainability fund and the £35 million that will be available will provide an opportunity to tackle some of the local quarrying issues that he referred to earlier?
      Mr. Heath: I would do that if we knew what the sustainability fund will do. One of the arguments that the Financial Secretary adduced for not accepting the new clause was the fact that he did not yet know the precise detail of the environmental measures that it might encompass. Nevertheless, he is prepared to go ahead with
      198
      imposing a tax on the industry without knowing the precise details—indeed, any details—of the sustainability fund. That is extraordinary.
      The only lacuna that the hon. Gentleman could identify in my remarks related to some sort of concept of a retrospective planning permission being applied by tax rebate, so that those quarries that happened to be in the wrong place would be taxed out of the market in favour of those that happened to be in the right place. It would be interesting to know the exact mechanism that he had in mind and how it would play in terms of European competition law and the Human Rights Act 1998.
      The Government have been very clear about what they consider to be the principles of good environmental taxation. They include the fact that an economic instrument must deliver environmental gains cost effectively and must not threaten the competitiveness of UK business. All of us accept that there is an imbalance between the needs of the quarrying industry—the motive for which is to build our infrastructure—and the environmental effects of quarrying. Those of us who represent the areas involved and who have been involved in discussions for more years than we care to remember know that there is a difficult balance to reach. We certainly do not turn our face against the need to provide for economic and environmental instruments to achieve the best balance possible.
      We simply say that a tax mechanism that fails to differentiate between environmentally sound and environmentally unsound operations is not such an instrument. Because the Government are going ahead without knowing what they will do, we can conclude only that the most important thing for them is appearing to be doing something that is of environmental benefit rather than actually doing something that is of environmental benefit to quarrying areas.
      The most sensible thing that the Financial Secretary could have said was that he would take the tax away and return with it next year, when it has been properly designed and is in a correct form with a rebate system. We could then all agree that we had an economically and environmentally sound scheme. Instead, we have something which, frankly, is nonsense.
      We are keen to discuss other groups of amendments in the limited time available—so, for that reason alone, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 6

      EXTENSION OF CARRY BACK OF TRADING LOSSES
      '(1) Section 393A Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (set-off of trading losses against profits of previous three years) shall be amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3) below.
      (2) In subsection (2), after "(2A)", and before "below", insert the words "and (2D)".
      (3) After subsection (2C), insert the following new subsection—
      quote"(2D) this subsection shall have effect in relation to any loss incurred by a company which is not large (as defined by SI 1998/3175 as subsequently amended)—

      (a) as if in subsection (2) above, the words 'three years' were substituted for the words 'twelve months': and

      199

      (b) which is incurred in any accounting periods ending in the period beginning on 1 April 2000 and ending on or before 31 March 2003.".'.—[Mr. David Heath.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. David Heath: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 7—Extension of carry back of excess interest costs—
      '(1) Chapter II of Part IV of the Finance Act 1996 (loan relationships) shall be amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3) below.
      (2) In paragraph 3(7) of Schedule 8 (permitted period of twelve months for carry-back of deficits), after "means" and before "the period" insert "subject to paragraph 3(7A) below".
      (3) After paragraph 3(7) of Schedule 8, insert the following new paragraph—
      "3(7A) This paragraph shall have effect in relation to a deficit, incurred by a company which is not large (as defined by SI 1998/3175 as subsequently amended)—

      (a) as if in paragraph 3(7) above, the words 'three years' were substituted for each case of the words 'twelve months'; and

      (b) which is incurred in any accounting periods ending in the period beginning on 1 April 2000 and ending on or before 31 March 2003.".'.

      New clause 8—Relief for furnished holiday lettings—
      '(1) Section 504 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (Letting of furnished holiday accommodation treated as a trade, supplementary provisions) shall be amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3) below.
      (2) In subsection (3)(6) the figure "70" shall be replaced by the figure "30".
      (3) This section shall only apply for accounting periods ending in the period beginning on 1 April 2001 and ending on or before 31 March 2002.'.
      Mr. Heath: These new clauses allow the House, should it wish—even at this late stage of this Parliament—to do something effective for businesses seriously affected by the foot and mouth crisis. Businesses in my constituency and in many rural constituencies throughout the country that have been affected by the crippling economic consequences of the disease simply do not understand why the Government are deaf to their need to survive this year.
      The epidemic has been awful for the livestock industry. However if—and it is a big "if' because, in my own county of Somerset, new cases are being reported every day, so we are by no means sure that the epidemic is over—we are drawing to the end of the animal disease epidemic, I assure hon. Members that we are entering an epidemic of business failures in rural areas. Businesses in rural parts of Britain such as the south-west all say that they have suffered an extraordinary reduction in turnover in the past few months. I am sure that that also applies to the north-west and the north-east, where foot and mouth has done its worst, and even areas passed over by the epidemic, which have suffered in the same way from the downturn in economic circumstances and tourism. It is not just businesses directly associated with agriculture or
      200
      tourism that have suffered; a huge spectrum of businesses in every sector in every town and village throughout rural Britain has been affected.
      Mr. Paul Tyler: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although a devastating tragedy has hit many livestock farms, particularly smaller family farms, at least they have some cash flow coming through? Businesses that are indirectly affected, however, are the hidden victims of this terrible scourge and have no prospect of any cash flow improvement in the coming months. They are having a desperate time in making a good case to their bank managers to keep going.
      Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend is right. The consequential losses, which no one could have expected, are quite extraordinary, and a range of businesses are involved. I have mentioned in the House before a garden centre in my constituency whose takings are down by 80 per cent. A dealer in lawnmowers and similar equipment has had his takings reduced by two thirds. A marquee manufacturer in my constituency has as its principal clients the major agricultural shows, all of which have been cancelled; the Royal Bath and West show, for example, is not happening. The firm is having to lay off workers because it no longer has any orders. Another such firm is a laundry whose trade is mainly with the hotel industry. It must now shut up shop. I even have in my constituency an animal incinerator which must close its doors because no one can bring animals to be burned, because of the foot and mouth restrictions. These are serious matters which are affecting the rural economy in a big way. What is so disappointing is the paucity of ideas and the lack of urgency on the part of Government in dealing with these issues.
      Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Every hon. Member of whatever party who represents a rural constituency would agree with him. Does he agree that we probably face an increase in the problems to which he alluded as we come to the summer months? That is the time on which many of our tourism-related industries in rural areas depend for the great bulk of their income, and that is when we shall see the crisis magnified, long after, as we all hope, the disease has virtually disappeared.
      Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is right. He knows and I know that a crisis taskforce was set up. It goes away and ponders, and that is all it does. The Minister for the Environment who chairs the taskforce gave a preliminary report, which was the last that the House heard about what it intended to do to deal with the crisis. We have a so-called Rural Affairs Cabinet Committee. What has it done during the crisis Nothing, as far as anyone can see.
      I exclude from these strictures the Minister of Agriculture, who has reported frequently to the House about what he has been doing, but of course his purview is limited to the agricultural aspects. One of the problems to which we have repeatedly drawn attention is the fact that we do not have a Department of Rural Affairs, which might have taken wider view and recognised the fact that there is a crisis for the rural economy, not simply for the agricultural industry.
      We are failing in our duty because the Government have not allowed the House the opportunity to give proper scrutiny to measures that could have been introduced over

      201
      the past few weeks. Now we face the extraordinary prospect that the House will dissolve at the beginning of next week without our having the opportunity properly to discuss in Government time the proposals that they might have introduced to deal with the crisis.
      Miss Melanie Johnson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that so far 7,000 businesses have been helped, and £40 million worth in tax has been deferred by Customs and Exercise and the Inland Revenue to help businesses affected by foot and mouth?
      Mr. Heath: Does the hon. Lady not understand that that is a drop in the ocean compared with magnitude of the crisis in our rural areas? Deferment of tax simply puts off the evil day when the bailiffs come in. That is the problem that the Government do not seem to understand.
      The measures proposed in the new clauses are not the only steps that the Government should take, but they are at least an attempt to deal with issues such as restoring cash flow to many small businesses, in rural areas and elsewhere, and giving them an immediate benefit through the tax system. The carry-back of trading losses and excess interest costs could be made against previous years' accounts, which would provide immediate benefit and help them get through the present crisis, rather than offering help at some indeterminate stage in the future.
      Miss Johnson rose—
      Mr. Heath: The hon. Lady wants to intervene, but she knows that we have limited time for the debate.
      Miss Johnson: I am anxious that the hon. Gentleman will not allow me any time at all to respond to the debate. In four minutes the time will be up. Is he aware of the non-tax measures that have been taken, which will assist all the businesses affected by foot and mouth? Those measures include providing temporary relief for business rates, whereby authorities can offer hardship relief to small businesses with a rateable value of £12,000 or less, in the knowledge that central Government will reimburse 95 per cent. of the cost. There is an extension of the small loans guarantee. There is a Phoenix fund aimed at helping small business in the most distressed communities. There are regional venture capital funds as well. A further £18 million is being made available to help promote Britain as a tourist destination. Additional measures include a £15 million package—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady cannot reply to the debate in an intervention.
      Mr. Heath: I hope that the hon. Lady is not castigating me for what her business managers consider to be the appropriate time for debating this important matter, for which not one minute of Government time has been given. It is an outrage that we are being told that we must hurry our comments on this crucial problem facing the country, especially rural areas, prior to the coming general election. We are told that there is lot time to discuss it. That tells us all we need to know about the Government's attitude to rural areas.
      I will place a bet with the hon. Lady that more businesses will go out of business in rural areas over the next few months. She clearly considers her measures to
      202
      be magnanimous, generous and adequate. People in rural areas do not think so. The people who came to lobby the House from Powys in mid-Wales and from Cumbria were desperately seeking something from the Government and the House to keep their businesses going over this summer. The proposals in the new clause would be a start, and would certainly be more adequate than anything that the Government have come up with so far. If the Government cannot accept it, they must answer to the people in rural areas who will lose their businesses in the next few weeks. They must tell those people why they sat by and did nothing while a disaster for the rural economy unfolded.
      Mr. Letwin: I do not want to detain the House for long. We thoroughly agree with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), and we would have liked other measures to have been introduced. We have been arguing for months for measures such as the £500 million interest-free loan scheme. The proposals in these new clauses would be beneficial.
      By her tone of voice, the Economic Secretary showed the Government's neglect and misunderstanding of rural areas. Contrary to the tone in which some of the rational debates of the past three hours have been conducted, the tone in which the Economic Secretary replied to the hon. Gentleman was demonstrative of a total lack of understanding of the scale of the disaster that is and will be faced by rural business in the tourism-related sector as we approach the summer months. What has already—
      It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Programme motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 129, Noes 259.

      Division No.206]

      [9.8 pm

      AYES

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Ernery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Baldry, Tony

      Fabricant, Michael

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Flight, Howard

      Bercow, John

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Blunt, Crispin

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Boswell, Tim

      Fraser, Christopher

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Gale, Roger

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Garnier, Edward

      Brady, Graham

      Gill, Christopher

      Brazier, Julian

      Gillen, Mrs Cheryl

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Gorrie, Donald

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Gray, James

      Burns, Simon

      Green, Damian

      Butterfill, John

      Greenway, John

      Cash, William

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Hammond, Philip

      (Chipping Barnet)

      Harvey, Nick

      Chope, Christopher

      Hayes, John

      Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

      Heald, Oliver

      Collins, Tim

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Horam, John

      Cotter, Brian

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Cran, James

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Day, Stephen

      Key, Robert

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      king, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      203

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Leigh, Edward

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Letwin, Oliver

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Lidington, David

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Livsey, Richard

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Streeter, Gary

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Swayne, Desmond

      Loughton, Tim

      Syms, Robert

      Luff, Peter

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      McCrea, Dr William

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Thompson, William

      Madel, Sir David

      Tredinnick, David

      Malins, Humfrey

      Trend, Michael

      Maples, John

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Mates, Michael

      Viggers, Peter

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Wallace, Rt Hon James

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Walter, Robert

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Waterson, Nigel

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Wells, Bowen

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Moss, Malcolm

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Whittingdale, John

      Öpik, Lembit

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Ottaway, Richard

      Willetts, David

      Paice, James

      Wilshire, David

      Paterson, Owen

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Randall, John

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Yeo, Tim

      Rendel, David

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Robathan, Andrew

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Mr. Paul Tyler and

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Mr. Edward Davey.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Chaytor, David

      Ainger, Nick

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Clapham, Michael

      Allen, Graham

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      (Swansea E)

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Ashton, Joe

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Austin, John

      Clelland, David

      Bailey, Adrian

      Clwyd, Ann

      Banks, Tony

      Coaker, Vernon

      Barnes, Harry

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Barron, Kevin

      Cohen, Harry

      Battle, John

      Connarty, Michael

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cooper, Yvette

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Corbett, Robin

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Cousins, Jim

      Benton, Joe

      Cox, Tom

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Cranston, Ross

      Berry, Roger

      Crausby, David

      Betts, Clive

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cummings, John

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Davidson, Ian

      Browne, Desmond

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Davis, Rt Hon Terry

      Burden, Richard

      (B'ham Hodge H)

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Cann, Jamie

      Doran, Frank

      Caplin, Ivor

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Caton, Martin

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Efforts, Clive

      204

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      McAllion, John

      Ennis, Jeff

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Etherington, Bill

      McCabe, Steve

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Macdonald, Calum

      Fisher, Mark

      McFall, John

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      McIsaac, Shona

      Flint, Caroline

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Flynn, Paul

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Follett, Barbara

      McNamara, Kevin

      Fyfe, Maria

      McNulty, Tony

      Galbraith, Sam

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Gapes, Mike

      McWalter, Tony

      Gardiner, Barry

      McWilliam, John

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Gerrard, Neil

      Mallaber, Judy

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Goggins, Paul

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Martlew, Eric

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Maxton, John

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Gunnell, John

      Merron, Gillian

      Hain, Peter

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Miller, Andrew

      Hanson, David

      Mitchell, Austin

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Moffatt, Laura

      Healey, John

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hendrick, Mark

      Mudie, George

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Mullin, Chris

      Heppell, John

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Hill, Keith

      O"Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Olner, Bill

      Hoey, Kate

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hope, Phil

      Pearson, Ian

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Pendry, Rt Hon Tom

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Pike, Peter L

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Pond, Chris

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stre ford)

      Pope, Greg

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Pound, Stephen

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Hutton, John

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Illsley, Eric

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Jamieson, David

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Jenkins, Brian

      Rammell, Bill

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Robertson, John

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Jones, Ms Jenny

      Rogers, Allan

      (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Rooney, Terry

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Rowlands, Ted

      Joyce, Eric

      Roy, Frank

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Ruddock, Joan

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Khabra, Piara S

      Sheerman, Barry

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Lammy, David

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Lepper, David

      Skinner, Dennis

      Levitt, Tom

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Lock, David

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Question accordingly negatived.
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 264, Noes 121.

      Division No.206]

      [9.8 pm

      AYES

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Ernery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Baldry, Tony

      Fabricant, Michael

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Flight, Howard

      Bercow, John

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Blunt, Crispin

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Boswell, Tim

      Fraser, Christopher

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Gale, Roger

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Garnier, Edward

      Brady, Graham

      Gill, Christopher

      Brazier, Julian

      Gillen, Mrs Cheryl

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Gorrie, Donald

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Gray, James

      Burns, Simon

      Green, Damian

      Butterfill, John

      Greenway, John

      Cash, William

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Hammond, Philip

      (Chipping Barnet)

      Harvey, Nick

      Chope, Christopher

      Hayes, John

      Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

      Heald, Oliver

      Collins, Tim

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Horam, John

      Cotter, Brian

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Cran, James

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Day, Stephen

      Key, Robert

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      king, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      203

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Leigh, Edward

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Letwin, Oliver

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Lidington, David

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Livsey, Richard

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Streeter, Gary

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Swayne, Desmond

      Loughton, Tim

      Syms, Robert

      Luff, Peter

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      McCrea, Dr William

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Thompson, William

      Madel, Sir David

      Tredinnick, David

      Malins, Humfrey

      Trend, Michael

      Maples, John

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Mates, Michael

      Viggers, Peter

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Wallace, Rt Hon James

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Walter, Robert

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Waterson, Nigel

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Wells, Bowen

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Moss, Malcolm

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Whittingdale, John

      Öpik, Lembit

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Ottaway, Richard

      Willetts, David

      Paice, James

      Wilshire, David

      Paterson, Owen

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Randall, John

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Yeo, Tim

      Rendel, David

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Robathan, Andrew

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Mr. Paul Tyler and

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Mr. Edward Davey.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Chaytor, David

      Ainger, Nick

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Clapham, Michael

      Allen, Graham

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      (Swansea E)

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Ashton, Joe

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Austin, John

      Clelland, David

      Bailey, Adrian

      Clwyd, Ann

      Banks, Tony

      Coaker, Vernon

      Barnes, Harry

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Barron, Kevin

      Cohen, Harry

      Battle, John

      Connarty, Michael

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cooper, Yvette

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Corbett, Robin

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Cousins, Jim

      Benton, Joe

      Cox, Tom

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Cranston, Ross

      Berry, Roger

      Crausby, David

      Betts, Clive

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cummings, John

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Davidson, Ian

      Browne, Desmond

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Davis, Rt Hon Terry

      Burden, Richard

      (B'ham Hodge H)

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Cann, Jamie

      Doran, Frank

      Caplin, Ivor

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Caton, Martin

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Efforts, Clive

      204

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      McAllion, John

      Ennis, Jeff

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Etherington, Bill

      McCabe, Steve

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Macdonald, Calum

      Fisher, Mark

      McFall, John

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      McIsaac, Shona

      Flint, Caroline

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Flynn, Paul

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Follett, Barbara

      McNamara, Kevin

      Fyfe, Maria

      McNulty, Tony

      Galbraith, Sam

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Gapes, Mike

      McWalter, Tony

      Gardiner, Barry

      McWilliam, John

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Gerrard, Neil

      Mallaber, Judy

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Goggins, Paul

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Martlew, Eric

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Maxton, John

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Gunnell, John

      Merron, Gillian

      Hain, Peter

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Miller, Andrew

      Hanson, David

      Mitchell, Austin

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Moffatt, Laura

      Healey, John

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hendrick, Mark

      Mudie, George

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Mullin, Chris

      Heppell, John

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Hill, Keith

      O"Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Olner, Bill

      Hoey, Kate

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hope, Phil

      Pearson, Ian

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Pendry, Rt Hon Tom

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Pike, Peter L

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Pond, Chris

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stre ford)

      Pope, Greg

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Pound, Stephen

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Hutton, John

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Illsley, Eric

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Jamieson, David

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Jenkins, Brian

      Rammell, Bill

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Robertson, John

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Jones, Ms Jenny

      Rogers, Allan

      (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Rooney, Terry

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Rowlands, Ted

      Joyce, Eric

      Roy, Frank

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Ruddock, Joan

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Khabra, Piara S

      Sheerman, Barry

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Lammy, David

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Lepper, David

      Skinner, Dennis

      Levitt, Tom

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Lock, David

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Soley, Clive

      Tynan, Bill

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Spellar, John

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Wareing, Robert N

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Watts, David

      Stevenson, George

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Stringer, Graham

      (Swansea W)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

      Wills, Michael

      (Dewsbury)

      Winnick, David

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Wood, Mike

      Timms, Stephen

      Worthington, Tony

      Tipping, Paddy

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Todd, Mark

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Touhig, Don

      Wyatt, Derek

      Trickett, Jon

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Mr. Jim Dowd and

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Mrs. Anne McGuire.

      Division No. 207]

      [9.24 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Clapham, Michael

      Ainger, Nick

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      (Swansea E)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Ashton, Joe

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clelland, David

      Austin, John

      Clwyd, Ann

      Bailey, Adrian

      Coaker, Vernon

      Banks, Tony

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Barnes, Harry

      Cohen, Harry

      Barron, Kevin

      Connar y, Michael

      Battle, John

      Cooper Yvette

      Bayley, Hugh

      Corbett Robin

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Corbyn Jeremy

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Cousins Jim

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Cox, Tom

      Benton, Joe

      Cranston, Ross

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Crausby, David

      Berry, Roger

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Betts, Clive

      Cummings, John

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Davidson, Ian

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Davies Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Davis, Rt Hon Terry

      Browne, Desmond

      (B'ham Hodge H)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Burden, Richard

      Dobbin, Jim

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Doran, Frank

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Cann, Jamie

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Efford, Clive

      Caton, Martin

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Chaytor, David

      Etherington, Bill

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Ewing Mrs Margaret

      206

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      McAllion, John

      Fisher, Mark

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      McCabe, Steve

      Flint, Caroline

      Macdonald, Calum

      Flynn, Paul

      McFall, John

      Follett, Barbara

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      McIsaac, Shona

      Fyfe, Maria

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Galbraith, Sam

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Gapes, Mike

      McNamara, Kevin

      Gardiner, Barry

      McNulty, Tony

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Gerrard, Neil

      McWalter, Tony

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McWilliam, John

      Godsiff, Roger

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Goggins, Paul

      Mallaber, Judy

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Gunnell, John

      Martlew, Eric

      Hain, Peter

      Maxton, John

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Merron, Gillian

      Hanson, David

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

      Healey, John

      Miller, Andrew

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hendrick, Mark

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Heppell, John

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Mudie, George

      Hill, Keith

      Mullin, Chris

      Hinchliffe, David

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hoey, Kate

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Hope, Phil

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Olner, Bill

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Pearson, Ian

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Pike, Peter L

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Pond, Chris

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Pope, Greg

      Hutton, John

      Pound, Stephen

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Illsley, Eric

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Jamieson, David

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Jenkins, Brian

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Rammell, Bill

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Robertson, John

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Jones, Ms Jenny

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Rogers, Allan

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Sally Oak)

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Rooney, Terry

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Joyce, Eric

      Rowlands, Ted

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Roy, Frank

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Ruddock, Joan

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Khabra, Piara S

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Sheerman, Barry

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Lammy, David

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Lepper, David

      Skinner, Dennis

      Levitt, Tom

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Soley, Clive

      Lock, David

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      207

      Spellar, John

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wareing, Robert N

      Stevenson, George

      Watts, David

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Stringer, Graham

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

      williams, Rt Hon Alan

      (Dewsbury)

      (Swansea W)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Wills, Michael

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Winnick, David

      Timms, Stephen

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Wood, Mike

      Todd, Mark

      Worthington, Tony

      Touhig, Don

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Trickett, Jon

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Mr. Graham Allen and

      Tynan, Bill

      Mr. Jim Dowd.

      NOES

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Collins, Tim

      Baldry, Tony

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Beth, Rt Hon A J

      Cotter, Brian

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Cran, James

      Bercow, John

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Boswell, Tim

      Day, Stephen

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Brady, Graham

      Fabricant, Michael

      Brazier, Julian

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Flight, Howard

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Bums, Simon

      Fraser, Christopher

      Butterfill, John

      Gale, Roger

      Cash, William

      Garnier, Edward

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Gill, Christopher

      (Chipping Barnet)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Chope, Christopher

      Gorrie, Donald

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Gray, James

      208

      Green, Damian

      Randall, John

      Greenway, John

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Rendel, David

      Hammond, Philip

      Robathan, Andrew

      Harvey, Nick

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewkb'ry)

      Hayes, John

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Heald, Oliver

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Horam, John

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Key, Robert

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Swayne, Desmond

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Syms, Robert

      Leigh, Edward

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Letwin, Oliver

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Lidington, David

      Thompson, William

      Livsey, Richard

      Tredinnick, David

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Trend, Michael

      Loughton, Tim

      Tyler, Paul

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Tyrie, Andrew

      McCrea, Dr William

      Viggers, Peter

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Wallace, Rt Hon James

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Walter, Robert

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Waterson, Nigel

      Madel, Sir David

      Wells, Bowen

      Matins, Humfrey

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Maples, John

      Whittingdale, John

      Mates, Michael

      Wilkinson, John

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Willetts, David

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Wilshire, David

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Yeo, Tim

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Öpik, Lembit

      Ottaway, Richard

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Paice, James

      Mr. Peter Atkinson and

      Paterson, Owen

      Mr. Peter Luff.

      Question accordingly a greed to.
      Bill read the Third Time, and passed.

    Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Bill Programme (No. 2)
    9.36 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Robert Ainsworth): I beg to move,
    That the Order of 30th April 2001(Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Bill (Programme)) shall be varied as follows:—

    Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Bill Programme (No. 2)

      Consideration and Third Reading
      1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order shall be omitted.
      2. Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order.
      The motion gives the House two hours to complete consideration of this small but important Bill. It was considered in Committee yesterday morning, and the Committee completed its line-by-line consideration in just under two and a half hours. This evening, the House has only one group of amendments to consider. I hope that all hon. Members will agree that two hours will allow sufficient time for a full debate of the issues before the Bill is sent on to another place.
      I urge hon. Members to agree the motion, so that we can begin consideration of the amendments.
      9.37 pm
      Mr. James Paice: Few Bills, other than those covering genuine emergencies, can have had so little time devoted to them in Committee or on the Floor of the House as has been devoted to this measure. I remind the House that the Prime Minister promised this Bill on 30 March 2000). It did not have a Second Reading until a week ago, so we have already suffered a long delay because of the Government's incompetence in turning the Prime Minister's promise into a Bill.
      As the Minister said, the Committee yesterday had only two and a half hours—
      Mr. Ainsworth: We had all day but did not need it.
      Mr. Paice: The Minister says from a sedentary position that the Committee had all day but did not need it, but, if he were to be frank, he would acknowledge that some matters received extremely cursory attention because of the pressure to make progress, as shall describe in a moment.
      Mr. Jim Dowd (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): The hon. Gentleman was not there.
      Mr. Paice: I may not have been in the Committee, but I am perfectly able to read the Hansard report of the sitting. I have done so, but I suspect l hat the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) has not.
      The Opposition have supported the principle behind the Bill, as we made clear on Second Reading—indeed, I called for this measure three years ago—but the Government are again confusing support for a principle with support for the detail of a measure.
      210
      Many matters arise from the Bill with which the Opposition do not agree, some of which were considered yesterday, such as the definition of rural areas and rural businesses and the level of rateable value. In respect of the latter, the Government advanced rather obscure arguments in favour of the figure of £6,000, but a figure of £9,000 for pubs and petrol stations appeared in secondary legislation only two or three weeks ago. Considerable concern has been expressed about how a shop should be defined. That is the subject of the amendments that we shall debate shortly, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) will move. There was much discussion on Second Reading about the definition of a shop, the fact that takeaway food and confectionery were excluded and what percentage of the business those items could account for if the exclusion was to have effect.
      There is also the issue of the Bill's impact on existing businesses. The equestrian sector —riding schools, livery stables, stud farms and many other equestrian activities —will be greatly affected.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is debating the Bill, but we are on the programme motion.
      Mr. Paice: I am endeavouring to explain why I do not believe that there is sufficient time under the motion, Mr. Speaker, but of course I heed your admonition.
      The equestrian sector of rural industry will be seriously affected, yet when the Bill was in Committee yesterday, that sector was debated for only 10 minutes. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) moved an amendment and, almost in the same breath, was persuaded to withdraw it, without any substantial debate having taken place. Yet it has been said on Second Reading and in Committee that the Bill will affect equestrian businesses because the existing businesses, which receive no rate relief other than the traditional stud farm relief—introduced by the previous Government, I am pleased to say—will be competing with new equestrian businesses that will secure the rate relief under the Bill. Nothing in the Bill as it stands corrects that unfair situation. No one could contend that the 10 minutes of debate that this subject received in Committee yesterday was adequate to deal with what everyone accepts is a substantial rural business—indeed, it is the second largest rural business after farming.
      Mr. James Gray: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about equestrian businesses. In retrospect, I regret that I was weak enough to accept the rough looks that I was receiving across the Floor. Labour Members had heard that the Prime Minister had gone to Buckingham palace and were so excited by this momentous event that they were determined that the Committee's proceedings would end by lunchtime. In retrospect, I wish that we had given the subject much more time during the afternoon. Not only are these immensely important issues for the countryside, but the rates charged for equestrian businesses are extremely complicated and would have benefited from detailed examination.
      Mr. Paice: 1 am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he knows, I have taken a close interest in the industry ever

      211
      since I have been a Member of this House because of my constituency involvement with the racing industry. It is a very important sector of the rural economy.
      My hon. Friend was persuaded to curtail debate yesterday to some 10 minutes, which he now regrets.
      Mr. Edward Leigh: I was talking only today to someone who runs an equestrian centre. The industry is suffering hugely because of the foot and mouth crisis, with bridleways being closed. The lady to whom I spoke is going out of business.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is talking about the Bill, not the progyarnme motion.
      Mr. Leigh: I was just going to say—
      Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was just going to say anything.
      Mr. Paice: I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) will seek to catch your eye later, Mr. Speaker, and may be able to debate the Bill in more detail. A lot of points will need to be made on Third Reading.
      The programme motion deals not only with amendments but with the time allocated for Third Reading. My hon. Friends the Members for North Wiltshire and for Gainsborough, who obviously have cogent and important points to make on Third Reading, may be prevented from doing so by the timetable motion.
      Mr. Robert Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman has, among other things, suggested that there was not sufficient time to debate the Bill in Committee. He said that he has read Hansard, despite not being in the Committee. I refer him to the point in the Committee's proceedings when the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) said that there was cross-party consensus that no more time was needed beyond 10 pm. I remind the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) that the Committee finished before 1 pm.
      Mr. Paice: The Minister falls into his own trap. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire said that there was consensus that there was no need to go beyond 10 pm, yet the business was curtailed at 12.55 pm, which shows that he was right that those matters should have been debated in Committee until 10 pm last night, but were not.
      Mr. John Bercow: Is not the Minister making the error, which Ministers habitually make on these occasions, of supposing that the adequacy of consideration in Committee is synonymous with adequacy of consideration on the Floor of the House? I did not have the good fortune to serve on the Committee. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need adequate time to justify our inclusive approach in relation to these matters, compared with the rather narrow, undesirable, priggish exclusivity of the Government?
      Mr. Paice: The only aspect of my hon. Friend's intervention to which I would take exception is the
      212
      generality with which he used the word Minister. I would say "Ministers of this Government" because, although my hon. Friend was not in the House at the time, I can assure him that Ministers in the previous Government did not adopt that approach.
      Miss Anne McIntosh: Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow),I did have the honour to serve on the Committee. Does my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) agree that, in tune with what the Father of the House said earlier this afternoon, the true scrutiny role of the House should be performed on the Floor of the House rather than in Committee on an upper corridor?
      Mr. Paice: That is one of the points on which I did agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) in his farewell statement to the House, although of course I did not agree with everything that he said.
      In conclusion, I want to raise a point about abattoirs, which are directly affected by the Bill.
      Mr. Bercow: Put a few Ministers in them!
      Mr. Paice: I am sure that there will be a long queue for them if my hon. Friend's desire is met, but the serious point—Third Reading would allow the opportunity to expand on it—is that part of the reason for the foot and mouth crisis and the rapid spread of the disease was the absence of abattoirs.
      Mr. Andrew Miller: You closed them all.
      Mr. Paice: I can assure the hon. Gentleman, who shouts from a sedentary position, that the rate of closure under his party's Government is substantially higher than it was under the previous Government.
      The crucial point is that the Bill will affect abattoirs, partly because it is the farmers and the farm business premises that may be currently consigning animals to abattoirs, but also because many farmers may wish to use the provisions of the Bill to gain—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has dispensed with the programme motion and is talking about the Bill, but we can talk only about the programme motion at the moment.
      Mr. Paice: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker.
      I contend that the programme motion does not provide adequate time to cover all the points that should be made, both in ways—
      Mr. Michael Jack: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Paice: I will just finish the point.
      The motion does not provide adequate time to debate the amendments, which my right hon. Friend will deal with, or to debate all the arguments that should he debated on Third Reading, which are beginning to come in a flurry from my right hon. and hon. Friends.
      Mr. Jack: Does my hon. Friend agree that the very fact that we have amendments to debate, and indeed a Third

      213
      Reading to consider, offers us the opportunity for mature reflection on arguments that were put, albeit inadequately, in Committee, hence the fact that this evening we are now faced with further amendments to the Bill, justifying a greater amount of time than the two hours offered by the Government?
      Mr. Paice: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. In Committee, the Minister promised to take away some items and consider them further, and I do not believe that the two hours that we have been allocated is adequate, particularly in view of the fact that Ministers have only had from yesterday morning until today to consider those items. We are under pressure to pass the Bill before dissolution. Tomorrow, the Bill will go to another place and is expected to pass through all its stages in order to receive Royal Assent before Dissolution. Therefore, we shall lose the opportunity that is norm ally allowed for any legislation, which may not be given proper scrutiny in the House, to go to the other place for more in-depth scrutiny, using the expertise that we all know exists there.
      Mr. Jack: Has my hon. Friend considered the fact that the Minister may have a rather restricted view on the amount of time needed by virtue of his former incarnation as a Government Whip? As we all know, the Government Whips' objective is to get business through the House at any cost.
      Mr. Paice: My right hon. Friend's experience of those matters tells in such debates. Not all hon. Members necessarily share his cynicism, but I can vouchsafe that I do, having been a Member as long as he has and having seen the machinations of the dark corners of the Whips Office. I understand that the business takes precedence, rather than any propriety in scrutinising legislation.
      The Bill is important in itself. We welcome it in principle, but believe that it should be given greater scrutiny on Report, on Third Reading and in the other place. I regret very much that the Government have seen fit to introduce a two-hour timetable. Given that we are still at a very early stage of the night's proceedings compared with what we were used to only a few years ago, there could have easily been time to give the Bill the far greater scrutiny that it will not now be given. That is a great shame, but there are many points that my hon. Friends and I wish to make in debating the amendments and on Third Reading, and we shall demonstrate the validity of the arguments that I have adduced against the motion.
      9.52 pm
      Mr. David Heath: This is, by common consent on both sides of Me House, a modest Bill. It is limited in scope, flawed in detail, late in formulation and even more dilatory in execution, but with all its manifest inadequacies, it is important and should reach the statute book before Parliament is dissolved. I do not believe that we should take up the time that our constituents properly expect us to spend debating what is—or is not —in the Bill with a sterile argument on process. I urge the House to move on to the debate on the Bill itself. Let us pass it into law at the earliest opportunity because, however inadequate, it is better than nothing.
      9.53 pm
      Mr. James Gray: I rise to contribute briefly to the programme motion debate on this modest Bill, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) rightly describes it, for two reasons. First, as I said a moment ago, in retrospect, I am sorry that yesterday's debates in Committee were so sharply curtailed. Hon. Members will remember that there was an atmosphere of excitement as the helicopters hovered overhead and the Prime Minister made his stately way down the Mall to visit Her Majesty the Queen to request the Dissolution of Parliament. There was a general feeling in Committee that sitting around for an afternoon discussing such matters was not the right thing to do. 1 regret that I gave in to that feeling and allowed my remarks on important matters connected with the horse industry to be limited to only 10 minutes.
      Perhaps I should declare an interest: I am the chairman of the horse and pony taxation committee—an informal committee of the House, established by my noble Friend Lord Cope of Berkeley, who will wish to take a close interest in the Bill's equestrian provisions when it is debated in the other House tomorrow. Furthermore, I am an unpaid consultant to the British Horse Industry Confederation, a body that brings together all the interests of the horse industry throughout the nation. The Bill's provisions will have a significant effect on that industry; we have been debating such matters in the committee and the confederation for many years. As long ago as 1987, we nearly brought in an amendment to the Finance Bill that would have changed the status of the horse on farms to that of an agricultural animal, thereby removing business rates from all buildings in which horses were accommodated. These are complex matters and we in the horse industry are concerned about elements of the Bill that will help the industry in some respects but that may be worrying in others.
      Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: What does that have to do with the programme motion?
      Mr. Gray: Although programme motions have only recently been invented, I am surprised that after his many years in this place, the hon. Gentleman does not understand the relevance of my comments. The answer is that the amendment that we tabled on equestrian matters has not been selected. That means that the only detailed discussions took place yesterday when, sadly —in retrospect, I regret it—I curtailed my remarks on that complex subject. I thus seek extensive time on Third Reading to discuss those matters. Unfortunately, only two hours to discuss everything—the programme motion, amendments and Third Reading — is not enough to discuss extraordinarily complex matters.
      I do not think that the hon. Gentleman knows anything about the business rate regime in so far as it affects horse matters on farms. It is extraordinarily difficult, delicate and complex. Broadly speaking, it achieves cross-party consensus. We are talking about riding schools throughout the nation. We are not talking about something grand but about something very ordinary: horse matters in all our constituencies.
      It is thus a matter of great regret that neither in Committee yesterday nor, because of the programme motion in the House today, shall we have any time to

      215
      discuss such complex matters as how riding schools have declined in recent years. Every year, 200 riding schools disappear because of the tax and rating system that we shall debate later.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: What has that got to do with the programme motion?
      Mr. Gray: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not understand by now but I shall try again. It is important that I should explain how complex such matters are so that it should be clearly understood that we do not have enough time to discuss them. If they were small and simple, we could discuss them in a few seconds, but because they are difficult, and because he does not have the faintest idea of them, I must explain that we do not have enough time.
      Mr. Leigh: What my hon. Friend's comments have to do with time is this: as riding stables go out of business every day of the week and as the industry is in crisis, the House should be given time to debate these matters to bring them to the attention of Ministers and to try to put pressure on them. The industry accounts for 6 per cent. of the total work force. There is minimal—indeed, no—compensation. We need time to discuss that. Again and again, the Government ram through programme motions—two hours here, one hour there. That is not good enough. People are not being properly represented.
      Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point well. In this country, 2.4 million people ride horses; 1 million horses are kept. The equestrian industry is the second largest in the countryside. We are talking about—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait until we discuss the Bill before he tells us how many equestrian exercises are going on throughout the country.
      Mr. Gray: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I will happily do so.
      The business rate regime covering equestrian businesses in the countryside is badly flawed; there are peculiar anomalies. For example, if a private stable is next door to one's house—attached by a wall—it is exempt from business rates in the countryside. If, however, the private stable is at some distance from the house, it is not exempt and one has to pay business rates on it even though it is an entirely private—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I point out again to the hon. Gentleman that that has nothing to do with the programme motion. He must wait until we move on to the Bill to tell us those interesting facts.
      Mr. Gray: I understand, Mr. Speaker.
      The point that I was making—albeit inadequately as I am inexperienced in such matters-is that the two hours available to deal with the whole process, including amendments on village shops and Third Reading, are wildly inadequate for covering the complex detail of the rating regime as it affects equestrian businesses in the
      216
      countryside. However, I think that we have had an opportunity to make that reasonably clear. That brings us back to the process—
      It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions relating to Estimates which he was directed to put at that hour, pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.) and Order [this day].

      ESTIMATES, 2001–02
      Resolved,
      That further resources, not exceeding £149,381,539,000 be authorised for use for defence and civil services for the year ending on 31st March 2002, and that a further sum, not exceeding £144,305,891,000. be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to meet the costs of defence and civil services for the year ending on 31st March 2002, as set out in HC 345, 346. 347 and 348.—[Mr. Timms.]
      Ordered,
      That a Bill be brought in on the foregoing resolution; And that the Chairman of Ways at d Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Andrew Smith, Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Stephen Timms and Miss Melanie Johnson do prepare and bring it in.—[Mr. Timms.]

      CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
      Mr. Stephen Timms accordingly presented a Bill to appropriate the supply authorised in this Session of Parliament: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time this day, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 96].

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
    Order for Second Reading Read.
    Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith, pursuant to Order [this day] and Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read a Second time.
    Question, That the Bill be now read a Third time, put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

    RATING (FORMER AGRICULTURAL PREMISES A ND RURAL SHOPS) BILL PROGRAMME (NO. 2)
    Question again proposed.
    Mr. Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I feel that it should be plat ed on record that we, the House of Commons, have just approved estimates for £149 billion in 55 seconds—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me reply. We have acted in accordance with long-standing Standing Orders, and these matters are, of course, properly recorded.
    Mr. Allan Rogers: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not true that it took only 55 seconds because the Conservative party did not want to vote against it?
    Mr. Speaker: I cannot comment on those matters.
    Mr. Leigh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. No debate is allowed so that was a completely duff point of order.
    Mr. Speaker: I have a nicer way of putting things than the hon. Gentleman Mr. Gray.
    Mr. Gray: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

    217
    It puts the little matter that we are discussing into context to think that, according to the explanatory notes, if the Bill becomes law, up to £16 million will be spent over five years, which translates as roughly £3 million a year. When I compare that with the £149,381,539,000 that we agreed in a matter of seconds, Perhaps I should be grateful for the fact that we have two hours in which to discuss a mere £16 million.
    However, in the countryside, post-foot and mouth disease, the £16 million is crucial to the farms that the Bill will allow to diversify. That diversification will be crucial to the riding schools and other equestrian businesses throughout the nation that are going out of business. The matter is of great importance, which is why I believe that the time allocated to it in wildly inadequate.
    The Programming Sub-Committee met yesterday morning at 10 o'clock. I made the point that it is absurd to have a Committee in which no record is taken. There is no purpose in the Opposition and the Government debating the programming proposed by the Government if there is no one present to take note of those points. Members of the Programming Sub-Committee then have to repeat in Standing Committee the valuable points that they made so that they are put on tilt record. I hope that the Modernisation Committee, or whatever abstruse organisation is responsible for such matters, will take that into account and consider keeping an official record of Programming Sub-Committees so that our powerful points on whether enough time is available are recorded and perhaps referred to when subsequent programming motions are discussed.
    Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend ma es a powerful point about the absence of a verbatim record or even of a minute of the proceedings of the Programming Sub-Committee that considers the terms of a programme motion. That concern has been raised before, not least in relation to other Bills. Does he accept that one reason why that is problematic is that the absence of a record tends inevitably to lead to argument about who said what in the Committee, when they said it, or whether they said it at all?
    Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend makes a good point. He has participated in many Programming Sub-Committees and knows their shortcomings. I believe that you, Mr. Speaker, are considering whether a Hansard reporter should be present to produce a formal record of what happens in them. That would be an eminently sensible innovation for the new Parliament to consider.
    There is another absurdity to take into account. As the Minister said, the Programming Sub-Committee was reasonably agreeable towards the Bill's timetable. That was because the Bill has broad cross-party support and we thought that it was sensible to sit until 10 o'clock last night. I shudder to mention it in Public, but the usual channels had duly considered that factor well in advance of the sitting of the Programming Sub-Committee. Therefore, its meeting was absurd and a waste of time. That highlights the nonsense that has come about as a result of the Government's so-called programming ideas. Either both sides of the House agree on a suitable programme for discussion of such matters, or they do not. By and large, we have agreed since time immemorial; rarely have we disagreed on how much time should be given to discuss a Bill or other business.
    218
    However, if we disagree, there is no Hansard reporter to take a note of that fact and the reasons for it, which means that we have to repeat our arguments in Standing Committee. The system makes no sense. The programme motion for this Bill was relatively generous and the Bill could, theoretically, have been discussed in Standing Committee until 10 o'clock last night. Both sides of the House agreed to that. None the less, two Ministers, two Whips and half a dozen Back Benchers had to spend five or 10 minutes yesterday morning meeting in a Committee to agree something that had already been approved. I hope that those points will be noted when the future of programming is considered in the next Parliament. It has not worked. Well established and acceptable procedures have managed to achieve the same results.
    In that context, allowing us only two hours today to discuss the Bill's remaining stages perhaps reflects the fact that we did not make use of the full time allocated to us last night. That was because of the great excitement buzzing around the Committee Room as a result of the Prime Minister's announcement. However, that was before we saw his nauseating performance in the school in Southwark, which made the nation call for the sick bag.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is certainly straying from the programme motion.
    Mr. Gray: You are, of course, right. Mr. Speaker. I apologise, but I was so overcome by the horror of what I saw on the news last night that I deviated from the motion.
    The truth is that the Bill deals with difficult and important matters. The issue is complicated and important to hon. Members who represent rural constituencies. I hope that the Government will see sense and, even at this late hour, allow us more time to have a proper discussion of village shops and the diversification of farms. I am particularly concerned about the equestrian industry. Either they should give us more time tonight or, at the very least, the Minister should assure us that they have listened carefully to our concerns. They are reasonably aware of the problems facing the equestrian industry. In the unlikely event that they form a Government after 7 June, I hope that they will say that they will consider these points. The Conservative party has said that, when we are in government, we will impose zero business rates on equestrian industries and other businesses in the countryside.
    10.10 pm
    Mr. Edward Leigh: The point made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) needs to be answered, because it is one that Liberal Democrat Members regularly make in these debates. They say that these are important matters and that we should not spend time debating the programme motion because that takes up some of the time that we have available to discuss the Bill. We only have two hours to discuss the remaining stages of the Bill, so the pressure is on us to shut up. Every minute that we take on the programme motion means that less time is available for consideration of the Bill. That is a sort of kowtow version of politics, whereby the Opposition have to give way to Government blackmail and the way in which they ram legislation through Parliament.
    Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend has generously complimented the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome

    219
    (Mr. Heath) on his remarks on the programme motion, but the said hon. Gentleman does not even have the courtesy to listen to the compliment that is being paid to him.
    Mr. Leigh: I do not want to get involved in that debate because the hon. Gentleman is having an important discussion elsewhere. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Brian Cotter: It is disgraceful of Conservative Members to make such comments when my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is talking to Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Leigh: It does not matter who the hon. Gentleman is speaking to. The fact is that he made a point and I was seeking to reply to it. We cannot let that point pass. The Opposition cannot be put under moral pressure not to do what Oppositions have traditionally done, which is to debate programme motions properly. We have a perfect right to do that.
    Each time we debate a programme motion, the Government look back through history and quote all the times that Conservative Governments introduced guillotine motions. It is true that, on occasion, Conservative Governments have had to introduce guillotine motions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Yes, I accept that we did that. The then Opposition sought, quite rightly from their point of view, to prolong debate because that weapon was available to them. When Labour Members were in opposition, they did that extremely well. I sat through many Standing Committees in which they spoke at length. They were not filibustering and were not out of order, and sometimes we spent many hours in Committee.
    The sittings of the Committee on which I served and that considered the Bill that led to the privatisation of British Telecom went on for more than 100 hours, and we considered hardly any of the clauses. It was on occasions such as those that Conservative Governments introduced programme motions. We then had a great set-piece debate on the Floor of the House, which lasted for three hours. Important Front Benchers made speeches and the argument went to and fro across the Floor. It was a big occasion. Now, as a matter of course, the Government introduce programme motions for everything. I know that some Members argue that that is the right way to proceed, but, surely, programme motions should be introduced on the basis of consensus and the House should not be treated with contempt. The Government should not say that matters that are important—they affect the livelihoods of those who run equestrian centres and village shops—will receive only two hours of debate.
    The Government say, "If you want to talk about the programme motion, you'll get even less time, mate. It's up to you. Just take it and be stuffed." That is what they are saying and it is simply not good enough. When programme motions are introduced, we shall argue again and again the point that the House must have more time.
    I do not understand what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said. In his first breath, he said that this was a modest Bill that had much to be modest about, but in his second sentence he said that it was a very important Bill. He is a Liberal. Is it an important Bill or
    220
    a modest one? Is it complex Bill or one that does not need much debating? Does it affect people's real lives? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can enlighten us.
    Mr. David HeathI am grateful—
    Miss McIntosh: The hon. Gentleman is back.
    Mr. Heath: The hon. Lady intervenes on my intervention to say that I am back. She knows perfectly well that I got no further than the Speaker's Chair.
    The hon. Gentleman asked how the Bill can simultaneously be important and modest. It is important because it provides some relief, however modest, to the businesses that we represent in rural areas, which desperately need it. t is modest because it does not go nearly far enough, as I made clear in my contributions on Second Reading and in Committee.
    Mr. Leigh: That is a fair point; the hon. Gentleman has now explained himself to the House. He has told us why this is an important area of debate and why we need to look at it in depth. There is tremendous suffering and part of the tourism industry, which employs large numbers of people, is not receiving adequate help. The hon. Gentleman made the important point that the measure is too modest, so presumably we could have all sorts of arguments and debates about how to improve the Bill and achieve proper scrutiny to ensure that we deliver more targeted help to businesses that need it.
    I have a sneaking suspicion that, although the Bill has modest aims, it deals wit a complex and difficult area. It is hard to target help in the right way; it is virtually impossible for the House of Commons to have a serious debate in under two hours and achieve proper scrutiny to ensure that help is properly targeted. We rely on the other place. We have to do so again and again because the Lords do not have a savage guillotine procedure. In this case, however, we I know that enormous moral pressure will be put on the there place; Ministers will tell their colleagues in the Lords that the issue is important and the industry is suffering; they will discuss what will happen if they delay the Bill too long and if certain matters are debated. They will say that the Lords have got the expertise, but the Bill could fall.
    I do not doubt that, for once, the Bill will be rushed through the other place Normally, the Lords are good, as they are not bound by party or partisan politics; they are prepared to look at things in a careful and considered way. However, there is a danger that, having received inadequate—indeed, derisory—scrutiny in the Commons tonight, this important Bill will go to the other place and, despite the Lords' best efforts, emerge as flawed legislation.
    We must ask ourselves why, when we had so much warning about what was going to be announced this week, it was necessary for the Government to behave as they have. Why do they always have to use their enormous majority as a bathering ram and deploy arrogant, overbearing and overweening power to destroy any attempt by the Opposition to debate such matters? All that we are asking for is serious discussion. The Government will get their way today and, in a very short time, the Bill will leave the House of Commons. However, the House will have done itself no credit in the way in which it has discussed those matters.
    10.17 pm
    Mr. Allan Rogers: I should like to congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill to alleviate some of the problems affecting our rural constituencies. I have been in the House long enough to remember when our industrial communities were ravaged by the previous Conservative Government, of whom the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) was a member. There was no sympathy at all for the communities that my hon. Friends ad I represented.
    The Government have responded to issues concerning the nation at large. They have not introduced sectarian or politically vindictive legislation, but something positive. It is a sad tragedy—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is retiring soon but, for the sake of even-handedness, I must tell him that he is going beyond the scope of the programme motion. Those are matters on which, perhaps, he can speak when we get to the Bill itself.
    Mr. Rogers: You are perfectly right, Mr. Speaker. I was going on to say that I was grateful that time was being made available. The Opposition complained that the Government were not making time available but, the fact is, we need to have a programme motion so that the Bill can benefit rural constituencies. The Opposition are trying to hold up a Bill that will benefit people in rural constituencies.
    Mr. Damian Green: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Rogers: No, the hon. Gentleman has had plenty of time to participate and I am sure that he can do so again later. It is no good the Opposition bleating about the fact that a Labour Government are introducing legislation. We need a programme motion to get that legislation through. If we do not, people in rural constituencies will suffer and those who run stables, shops and small businesses in rural areas will not be able to get any help. It is important that we support the Government's programme motion and congratulate them on what they are doing.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That the Order of 30th April 2001 (Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Bill (Programme)) shall be varied as follows:—

    RATING (FORMER AGRICULTURAL PREMISES A ND RURAL SHOPS) BILL PROGRAMME (NO. 2)

      Consideration and Third Reading
      1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order shall be omitted.
      2. Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order.

    Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Bill
    Not amended, considered.
    Clause 3

      RATE RELIEF FOR RURAL FOOD SHOPS
      10.20 pm
      Mr. Damian Green: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 3, leave out "food".
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 3, in page 3, line 6, leave out "food".
      No. 4, in page 3, line 7, leave out from "consisting" to end of line 20 and insert—
      'of the provision of essential goods or services to the community in which it is located, such goods or services to be prescribed by the Secretary of State by order'.
      No. 5, in title, line 3, leave out "food".
      Mr. Green: The purpose of the amendments is consistent with the aim of the Opposition throughout the proceedings on the Bill, which has been to improve it. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) who, sadly, is no longer in his place, and who has not taken part in any of the previous debates on the Bill, was wrong to say that the Conservative party was seeking to delay the Bill. We have said that we support it in principle. We did not oppose it on Second Reading. We have discussed the efficacy of the Committee stage. Nothing could be more inaccurate than the statement that the Opposition were trying to delay the progress of the Bill.
      At every stage through which the House has passed extremely quickly this week, we have consistently sought to improve the Bill. Earlier we heard an interesting debate about whether the Bill was modest or important or both. The truth is that it is both. It is important that some relief goes to businesses, whether farm diversification businesses or village shops, that are suffering as never before under the Government's policies. Equally, it is apparent, not just to those of us on the Opposition Benches, but to the many organisations that represent the bodies that will benefit from the small help given by the Bill, that it goes nothing like far enough. The amendments seek to do what we have sought to do at every stage of the Bill: to give it teeth and to add to the generosity of the benefits that will be given to businesses under the Bill.
      Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: How much?
      Mr. Green: The hon. Gentleman, too, has not taken part in any of the previous debates on the Bill. If he will contain himself, he will see what benefits would accrue from the amendments.
      Mr. Michael Jack: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he believe that he was right to use the word "generosity"? Would not the word "necessity" have been more appropriate?
      Mr. Green: I was trying, as ever, with generosity of spirit to be kind to the Government. They may think that

      223
      they are being generous to the rural businesses that are suffering so much, but of course that is not the case. They have introduced this rather inadequate Bill and, as we heard, there was a huge delay between First and Second Reading, which is why we are having to go through the various stages of the Bill with indecent haste.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: How much?
      Mr. Green: The amendments are designed to improve clause 3 by making it less restrictive. Throughout our proceedings on the Bill, we have tried to improve the parts relating to farm businesses that wish to diversify, and we have tried to extend the Government's restrictive definition of the village shops that will benefit from the small amount of rate relief.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: How much?
      Mr. Green: The hon. Gentleman keeps shouting, "How much?" from a sedentary position. If he bothered to read the amendments, he would realise that I am seeking to extend the number and type of shops that would benefit. I am sure that, with his characteristic diligence, he has read the notes from the Library. The Government's proposals entail advantage to the various businesses of £16 million over five years. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) has already observed, that adds up to just over £3 million a year. I am sure that the hon. Member for Workington has assiduously read the Hansard of the Second Reading debate, so he will know that the Government's agencies for the countryside say that the tourism industry alone has lost something like £2 billion during the foot and mouth crisis. Indeed, his own constituents have suffered as much as anyone during this dreadful outbreak.
      The amendment would remove the unnecessary restrictions imposed by the Government on the type of village store that can receive this modest rate relief. The essential purpose of all four amendments is to widen the definition of "a qualifying food store." Under clause 3, the only stores that can benefit from the rate relief provided in this Bill and in the Local Government Finance Act 1988 which it amends are narrowly defined food stores. The Government have explained why they believe the definition should be so narrow and confined to a store that is "wholly or mainly" involved in selling food. I genuinely believe that they are being unnecessarily restrictive. Without the amendments, the ultimate purpose of the Bill will be partially negated.
      It is not a matter of controversy across the House that the underlying point of the Bill and the legislation that it amends, which was passed by the previous Conservative Government, is to help those shops that provide an essential service to village communities, as far too many village shops and services have closed. Successive Governments have sought ways to mitigate the many problems that face such stores, and to find practical solutions that will enable them to carry on in business.
      With the amendments, I want to draw back the veil that the Government have placed over this issue. They define these essential services as predominantly food shops. They have said that the underlying purpose of the Bill is
      224
      to ensure that all the essential services that contribute towards a decent, coherent, civilised society should be as available to those who live in small, rural communities as they are to those who live in large, urban communities. That is a wholly admirable aim. My complaint about the Bill and the reason for these amendments is that, as currently drafted, the Government's definition of a shop does not serve that admirable aim.
      The Minister and his right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions have said that they want to avoid loopholes and to prevent shops from slipping in at the edge. They rejected previous amendments in which we sought to replace the word "mainly" with "in part". The Government regarded as ineligible a food shop with 40 per cent. of its turnover from food sales, because they thought that that would be exploiting a loophole.
      On Second Reading, and in Committee, the Government made it clear that, for reasons which escape me, they have a particular horror of antique shops being included in the definition. It is clear that either the Minister or his right hon. Friend has had a bad experience in an antique shop, because they have a wholly unjustified dislike of them. Regardless of their slightly odd personal prejudices, that is not an adequate basis for policy making by a responsible Government. Much of clause 3 is a characteristically ingenious attempt to plug the various loopholes that the Government say they are extremely anxious to avoid. In Committee, both we and the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter) pointed out that a large part of clause 3 was devoted to preventing a shop from installing a microwave oven in which people could heat up meat pies. It seemed to De that, without my amendments, clause 3 was almost more designed to be restrictive than to be permissive. That struck me as being the wrong emphasis in a Bill that sought to help businesses.
      Mr. James Gray: Does not one of the most peculiar aspects of the clause feature in the proposed new subsection (6CA) in subsection (3)? Line 8 contains the words "excluding confectionery". If there were two sweet shop in the same village, they would not be able to claim rate relief. That strikes me as bizarre, but in villages such as Lacock in my constituency it might well happen.
      Mr. Green: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to a point raised in another of our Committee debates. As he knows, we engaged in an extensive discussion about why the Government were so anxious to exclude any shop with a microwave oven that could heat up meat pies. We also discussed whether the exclusion of confectionery shops was in any way sensible. The definition of confectionery is not available—I have looked at the original legislation, and it is not there—so the Government will be excluding some shops that may well provide essential services in villages.
      I think the Government will regret their action. I think that, if they leave the Bill as it stands, they will not receive even the meagre credit that they perhaps deserve for finally introducing the Bill. There will be villages in which the shop that people regard as their essential store—the shop that they want to keep open, and consider to be a valuable part-of village life—cannot stay open, precisely because of the unnecessary restrictions that the Government have included in various parts of clause 3.

      225
      Those people will say "Hang on: didn't this Government pass legislation that was supposed to help village stores by allowing them rate relief? Now we find that our village store does not qualify." I cannot believe that that is one of the Minister's purposes; I am sure that he wants the Bill to be as wide-ranging as possible.
      The amendments seek to help the Minister achieve what I imagine to be his aim by sweeping away the loopholes—and the restrictions—that the Government have, with unnecessary ingenuity, sought to introduce. They remove the restrictive definition, of a food store, and redefine an essential shop, in ways that I shall discuss later. In fact, they serve various purposes. First, and perhaps most important, they are deregulatory. I am sure that those running small village shops and suffering an ever-increasing burden of red tape would welcome a deregulatory alteration in the Bill. Perhaps even more relevant, however, is amendment No. 4, which seeks to be forward-looking in the definition of an essential service.
      At present, the Government are stuck in an unfortunate backward-looking mindset. According to clause 3, the only essential village shop is a food shop. No doubt historically food was ultimately the one thing that people looked for in village shops, but, as the Minister will know, what can be provided in local shops, and what needs to be provided as a local service, is changing more rapidly than ever before. My amendments seek to enable the Government to modernise. I use that word deliberately to entice the Minister.
      The Minister will know as well as I do that food is an essential service. No one would deny that quality of life in any village is enormously improved by the existence of a food store, but there are many other essential services. In the House and outside, we have had many intense discussions about benefit payments, particularly through electronic means, and how to preserve village post offices. Other members of the Government are, rightly, deeply concerned that those who may not be well enough off to afford a computer, or who may not have easy access to a large town where there are internet cafés or libraries, should have internet access. Those are examples of services that will be as essential as the provision of food. The full range of civilising opportunities that are available to those who live in urban areas should be available to those who live in rural areas. That is at the heart of amendment No. 4.
      Of course, that small list cannot be regarded as exhaustive because, in the years ahead, other services will be regarded as being essential to preserving commercial activities in a village. The chief merit of amendment No. 4 is that it does not seek to be prescriptive—to lay down what is an essential service in village shop. It says that a shop will be eligible if it provides
      "essential goods or services to the community in which it is located, such goods or services to be prescribed by the Secretary of State by order".
      The framing of the amendment is deliberate. It is flexible enough to accommodate changing and developing priorities as time goes on. It has been drafted in that way to allow the next Government, who will be elected shortly, the freedom to help to keep a village shop that is offering whatever are the essential services of the day going.
      In the past 10 years, all hon. Members have seen enough changes in retailing and enough expansion in the services that we regard as essential to know that it is
      226
      foolish for the House to set down what those essential services will be. If we have the opportunity to introduce flexibility in legislation, it is sensible to do so. That is why I believe that the amendments that Mr. Speaker has kindly selected improve the Bill.
      None of us can know what is the key to keeping people spending money in small rural communities. I make no apology for returning to that point because we are seeking to maintain a commercial infrastructure in small rural communities. We do not know what people in those communities will want to spend money on in future. With the amendment, we do not need to. The House can afford a modest level of extra protection to those village shops without attempting to second-guess the future.
      Throughout the stages of the Bill, which has been rushed through so expeditiously, we have attempted to make it more generous. This is the last group of the amendments that the House will discuss. I very much regret that the Government have rejected all our previous suggested improvements, albeit with one or two hints from the Minister that they will consider some of our exceptionally sensible suggestions. Nevertheless, despite the Government's consistent rejection of our proposals, Opposition Members are generous at heart and will continue to rehearse the arguments about how the House can make better laws—a skill that we shall soon be practising full-time.
      In that spirit, I commend the amendment to the Minister and the House.
      Mr. Gray: I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) on such a comprehensive review of the necessity for the amendments, especially as, from the sound of his voice, he seemed to be suffering just a bit towards the end of his remarks. To carry on in those circumstances seems to be noble beyond the call of duty, and I congratulate him.
      I am glad that the amendments in this group have been selected because they go to the heart of what is wrong with the Bill. I do not say that in an unfriendly or ungracious manner. Although the Bill is, as we have said on many occasions, a small and inadequate measure compared with the size of the problem currently facing rural areas, hon. Members representing rural constituencies such as mine very much support the broad thrust of its objectives. Therefore, when I attack the Bill, I do not mean it in an ungenerous sense. I make it plain that we support its broad thrust.
      Including the word "food" in clause 3, which deals with village shops and stores, cuts the heart out of what could otherwise be very useful provisions. We are talking about rural villages with fewer than 3,000 people but with more than one non-food store. I thought that, in considering amendment No. 2, it might be useful to consider some precise case studies which I conducted recently in my constituency in the aftermath of the foot and mouth crisis.
      My constituency has three or four largeish towns, but about 60 villages that are precisely like those described in the Bill and which have been very severely affected by the crisis. [Interruption.] I am sure that the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) knows the Cotswolds and perhaps even those 60 villages very well from her time at Cheltenham Ladies college. Then again, perhaps Cheltenham Ladies college does not give its students sufficient away days to discover the area. It is a

      227
      very expensive boarding school and may keep its students in all the time. However, if she had gone for a little trip down the road to my constituency, she would easily have discovered that we have 60 villages across the constituency. However, she must forgive me. If she had not sedentarily doubted my word in that way, I would not have raised the politically embarrassing background that she constantly tries to live down.
      As I said, we have 60 villages across my constituency, and they are precisely the type of place that has been affected by the foot and mouth crisis in tourism, especially because of the cancellation of Badminton and all the rest of it. They are precisely the types of places that would benefit from the Bill's provisions.
      Immediately after the crisis began, I went round to those villages, taking with me 2,000 copies of a survey asking them exactly how bad they had fared in the aftermath of the foot and mouth crisis. I dished out the survey to pubs, cafes, garages and tourist shops in villages such as Castle Combe, which hon. Members may remember is the very famous village where they filmed "Dr. Doolittle", and Lacock, which is a very picturesque village. They are small villages with only two or three shops, some of which admittedly are antique shops. I have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford that the Government seem to have it in a bit for antique shops.
      Although some of the shops sell antiques, most tend primarily to be a combination of the small tourist shop and the classic village shop. Confectionery is very important in that context, as people who go to Lacock, Castle Combe and Corsham like ice creams, for example. I should be interested to hear from the Minister whether ice cream is included in his definition of the word confectionery, which is excluded from the Bill. It seems sad to me that those confectionery shops, into which the tourists flock in Lacock to get their ice creams and sweeties to eat, will be excluded. If the village shop has the temerity to have a microwave to heat up the Cornish pasties so beloved of the tourists, it will be excluded, and that seems wrong to me.
      10.45 pm
      Before we move on to the detail of the amendments, I shall share with the House the early results of my survey. So far I have only had 200 or 300 returned, but they are from exactly the sort of businesses that we are talking about. The people who replied say that year on year, their income has declined. In four consecutive weeks, first two, then another two, then four, then six, said that their income had declined by 100 per cent. compared with this time last year. Out of perhaps 100 returns so far, the income of about 10 per cent. of the shops had declined by 100 per cent. Others declare varying rates of decline.
      A few comments from the survey might be useful. For example, Mr. and Mrs. Pask from the County Stores wrote:
      "Reduction on rates would help".
      Mr. Poole of the Wilts Printing Works wrote:
      "Reduced wages for all employees. Closure possible".
      228
      Mrs. Tubb, of Tubbjoys Antiques in Wootton Bassett—I am sorry to be awkward by bringing an antique shop into the debate—wrote:
      "Cut back hours … Lost one member of staff"
      and Mr. Ivory of the Old Dairy Saddlery in Tockenham wrote that he had laid off two people already. Kate Short, of the Blue Door Art Gallery—art galleries would not be covered, either—wrote:
      "Virtually no tourists; no American visitors. The Easter week was particularly terrible."
      Richard Bridge described
      "Severe cash flow problems … a threat to the survival of the business."
      Those are a small sample of many such comments from all over the constituency. I shall ensure that the Minister has sight of the full results of the survey if he is interested, when I have them all in and have collated them. I fear that that may be after the election—so it may well be my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford to whom I will send those results, rather than the present Minister.
      The exercise was a fascinating survey of precisely the kind of businesses that would benefit from the Bill. Specifically excluding stores other than food stores rips the whole heart out of the Bill. I am talking about sweet shops and antique shops of all kinds. People drop in and buy a few things, such as a present to take home with them. That sort of purchase is essential in places such as Wootton Bassett, Chippenham, Corsham and Lacock. People pass by, go and see the local tourist site, and then drop into a shop to buy something. That sort of purchase is essential to the people who are really suffering.
      Those people were suffering even before the foot and mouth crisis, partly because of the cost of living in that part of the world. Now they are suffering terribly. We are not seeing the Americans, or the other passing tourists. The three big horse events in the area—the Badminton horse trials, which 250,000 people attend every year, the Cheltenham festival, and the Bath and West show—have all been cancelled. Hundreds of thousands of people who would normally have come into my area at about this time of year are not there. The little shops are suffering as a result.
      That is why I welcomed the general thrust and purpose of the Bill, and liked the sound of its title when I first heard about it. It is only when one looks at it in more detail—it is a shame that we had less time than we should have had to consider it in Committee yesterday—that one finds that it excludes anything that is not a qualifying food store, and anything that sells confectionery or supplies food in the course of catering. Those seem to me major exceptions that wreck what would otherwise be a perfectly sensible Bill.
      The Bill will go to the other place for further consideration tomorrow, and I know that many of the Members there will have stores such as those that I have described very much in mind. I therefore hope that by the time the Bill gets there tomorrow, the Minister will have listened carefully to those considerations and will think carefully about the amendments that my hon. Friends have tabled to clause 3. I hope that he will bear in mind the fact that the proposals in the consultation paper were made before foot and mouth, and although they may well have been reasonable at that time, things were not as bad in those days as they are now.

      229
      In the light of the foot and mouth crisis, and the kind of catastrophe that is affecting businesses such as those that I have described in my constituency, I hope that—late as the hour is tonight, and early as it will be tomorrow in the other place—the Minister may yet consider expanding the terms of the Bill so that all the businesses that have been so badly affected by the foot and mouth crisis can be helped by the provision as of this otherwise perfectly reasonable Bill.
      Mr. Brian Cotter: I also support the important amendments tabled by he hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green). It is difficult, in the light of the crisis in the countryside, to see why the rate relief assistance should be confined to food shops. The hon. Gentleman asked who are we to decide what sort of business will be important in the future or which areas may require certain types of business to be viable. For example, a small village by a canal may require a shop selling equipment for boating or fishing. Many villages need a chemist or hardware shop, because those goods are not always available in food shops. Information will be important in the future, and villages will require internet centres. Many other services could be vital. Jobs are also important: for example, a local potter or craftsman may wish to sell his products in a small shop in a village.
      I hope that the Minister will seriously consider the amendments, because it seems unnecessary—in view of the small amount of relief that will be provided—to confine the relief to food shops. My village has a shop that sells small items of pine furniture and little items of an antique nature, and that is important to people locally and it keeps jobs in the rural community. I especially support amendment No. 4 and look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on it.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Robert Ainsworth): These four amendments concern the definition of food shops, to which the Bill will extend mandatory rate relief. Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 5 would delete references to "food" in clause 3 and in the title of the Bill. On their own, they would have no practical effect, because a qualifying store would still be defined by reference to the sale of food. However, that would be altered by amendment No. 4, which would replace the definition of a food shop with a new order-making power to allow mandatory relief to any shop providing essential goods and services, as defined by the Secretary of State by order. That would have the effect of making the introduction of the Bill more complicated.
      An order would still be required under the new power to extend mandatory relief to food shops other than the sole general store. As for other essential goods and services, mandatory relief can already be extended to them under the existing order-making powers, which we used recently to cover pubs and petrol stations. The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) said that the purpose of his amendments was to improve the Bill but, as with other amendments he tabled in Committee, they would widen the scope of the proposals. The Bill is not intended to provide rate relief to all small businesses. It is intended as a measure to provide relief for shops providing essential food in small rural villages.
      The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) said that there were 60 villages in his constituency. For one tantalising moment, I thought that he was going to give
      230
      an example of one for which the provisions of the Bill would need to be extended. However, he went on to talk about shops serving the tourist trade, and about antique shops and sweet shops. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter) spoke about internet services, potters and craft shops.
      The Government aim to introduce measures to amend rates for all small businesses, and those matters remain to be discussed. Last year's rural White Paper dealt with the matters covered in the Bill, and commitments were made. The Bill allows us to address problems that we know exist in those small villages where the sole general store gets mandatory rate relief. Councils in rural areas feel obliged to extend concessionary rate relief to other food stores in those villages, and the Bill deals with that. It does not extend to non-essential small businesses, no matter how desirable they are.
      If the Opposition believe that the Bill should extend wider, they must say how they would pay for that, given that they are committed to a programme of massive public spending cuts. Moreover, the previous Conservative Government introduced the national non-domestic rates system in 1990. Small businesses in rural communities have experienced crises for a long time, but the previous Government did absolutely nothing to help. They did not introduce a measure along the lines of the Bill, or any measure to deal with the problems encountered by solé general stores, pubs and petrol stations. The Conservatives believe the Bill to be inadequate, so why did they do nothing when they were in government?
      Mr. Gray: I shall try to ignore the party political polemic into which the Minister has allowed himself to slip. The previous Government did not act in the way that he suggested for the simple reason that there was no foot and mouth disease outbreak during our period in office.
      The Minister said that he thought that I had not mentioned any essential store in the countryside that would not be covered by clause 3. It may sound a little foreign to someone representing Coventry, North-East, but the horse industry is essential in my area. I mentioned Mr. Ivory's saddlery in the village of Tockenham, and I could have spoken about a horse supplier in Malmsbury for whom the cancellation of the various events that I mentioned earlier has caused great difficulty. The closure of paths has meant that no hunting is taking place, so businesses in the horse sector are in severe crisis. The Bill does not help them at all.
      Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman's prejudices extend far and wide, from my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) to Coventry. They know no bounds.
      The hon. Gentleman suggests that the only reason that the previous Government did nothing was because they did not have a foot and mouth outbreak. What about the numbers of village schools, post offices and essential village shops that closed when the previous Government were in power, during which time they did nothing?
      The Bill is not about foot and mouth. The Government have introduced other measures to deal with the problems of foot and mouth, such as hardship rate relief, deferred rate payments and reductions in rateable value to reflect temporary reductions in property values. This measure seeks to underpin essential services for people living in

      231
      small rural communities, and I should have thought that it was in the interests of the Opposition to give it their support and allow it to pass through. To do so, they should withdraw these unnecessary amendments.
      11 pm
      Mr. Green: The Minister's speech was extraordinary. He started by ignoring the fact that everyone on the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Benches thought that this was a sensible group of amendments. As he ploughed through his speech, he realised that that was an unprofitable road to go down, so he went on to say that the Government did not want to accept the amendment because it was not part of the Bill's original intention. That is fair enough. Of course it was not—that is why the Bill needs to be amended and improved. That is the purpose of amendments.
      We are not arguing about why it might be better, as the Minister said, to leave the Bill as it was. The Minister simply referred to the original intention of the Bill and to what was promised in the rural White Paper, but he will recognise that circumstances have changed and worsened radically over the past 12 months since the White Paper's publication. A more generous response may be needed now, even if the Government thought, in good faith, that their response was adequate when they published that White Paper. So that argument was not particularly convincing.
      Least convincing of all was the early statement in the Minister's speech, which he returned to at the end, about the purpose of clause 3 and about the reliefs being introduced to help shops that provide essential goods or services. Those are precisely the words used in amendment No. 4. I took them from the phrase that the hon. Gentleman and the Minister for Local Government and the Regions used repeatedly on Second Reading and in Committee. They said that the underlying purpose of the rate reliefs proposed in clause 3 was to help preserve the provision of essential goods and services in rural areas. It seemed to me not incompatible with the Government's aims to insert an amendment that would make that explicit, thus making the scope of the Bill's provisions wider and more generous.
      Mr. Leigh: Traditional food shops in small villages have had to diversify. They cannot remain in business simply by selling food. We are really talking about gesture politics. How many village shops in rural areas and small villages will the Bill help? It will not provide the means by which village shops can be saved, because they have already had to diversify.
      Mr. Green: My hon. Friend makes the powerful point that sensible and forward-looking village shops are already diversifying. The purpose of the amendments is to highlight that future generations of village shops may he very different animals, providing a different range of essential goods and services—to use the phrase that the Minister used several times.
      The provision of essential services should be at the root of what we are trying to do. The purpose of the modest amendments is to enable the Government to achieve what they say are their own ends, but clearly they reject
      232
      that idea. I sensed that, with characteristic honesty, the Minister accepted that his arguments were not going well because he resorted to cheap, party political polemic, which had been notably absent from our discussions of the Bill at every stage. I took it as a compliment on the standard of the arguments that have been made from those on the Opposition Benches that the Minister could not make any points in argument against what Conservative Members and the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter) have said, and had to resort to party political insults.
      I very much regret the tone and content of the Minister's response, but we are seeking to make progress with the Bill, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      11.5 pm
      Mr. Robert Ainsworth: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      This is a short but useful Bill. We have had an opportunity to debate its two substantial measures, and the wider issues that they raise, at Second Reading last week, in Committee yesterday, and again today. I am grateful to hon. Members for their co-operation in ensuring the Bill's rapid passage. We all want the benefits that it will bring to rural businesses to be in place as soon as possible.
      The Bill will provide help to farmers who wish to diversify, and to village food shops and the communities that they serve. In both cases, it will reduce their costs by cutting their rate bills by at least 50 per cent.
      These measures must not be viewed in isolation. They are part of our wider policies to support farming and rural communities. They arise from last year's action plan for farming and the rural White Paper, which are delivering further support to those communities.
      The measures in the Bill were originally proposed last year. They are not specifically in response to the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, but the assistance that they will provide to farmers and to village food shops will now be even more welcome to those rural businesses. I commend the Bill to the House.
      11.7 pm
      Mr. Green: I am grateful for the Minister's generous words about Opposition Members' co-operation during the Bill's rapid passage through the House. Of course we have co-operated with the measure, because the Conservative party is the party that represents the British countryside and those who live and seek to have their livelihood within it If there were any last scintilla of doubt attending on that proposition, I would merely point out to the House that throughout this Parliament there has been a group called the Labour rural group of MPs, which claims to be 168 strong, and of those 168 champions of rural Britain, none, as far as my memory serves me, has contributed to our debate over the past couple of hours. That tells us all that we need to know about the attitude of those Labour Members who seek to represent rural constituencies.
      As we reach the Bill's final stage in the House, Opposition Members have continued to make what we genuinely believe are constructive suggestions to make

      233
      the Bill more generous and practical and to widen the scope of its provisions. It would then provide more assistance than the modest amount of help it currently offers.
      Given that, in Committee, the Minister and his colleague the Minister for Local Government and the Regions said that several of the suggestions that Conservative Members had made were in principle worth looking at, it is genuinely disappointing that we have not seen a single Government amendment during the course of this week. The Government are aware of the pressure points that we have identified and the improvements that could be made to the Bill.
      We in the Opposition have worked very hard. Despite the very fast passage of the Bill—its stages have been taken on successive days—we have tabled amendments at every stage. Given the resources available to the Government, I cannot believe that it would have been beyond their ken to do the same and make some of the improvements that, I suspect, they will realise need to be made. I am not speaking exclusively about the amendments tabled by Conservative Members. We voted in favour of one amendment that was tabled in Committee by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). Sadly, he is no longer in his place, which is a shame because I wish to pay him tribute for moving that extremely sensible amendment. I wish to do so not least because I suspect that it would be a valedictory tribute given that we do not expect him to grace our debates after the general election.
      Mr. Gray: When my hon. Friend mistakenly referred to the fact that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) was no longer in his place earlier this evening, the hon. Gentleman reacted with anger and bitterness, saying that my hon. Friend's comments were disgraceful and that he had been here, but was speaking to Mr. Speaker. We now find that the hon. Gentleman has gone home to bed. Is that not disgraceful?
      Mr. Green: My hon. Friend makes his point. I have no desire to criticise the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Cotter rose—
      Mr. Green: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. We are getting slightly off the subject, so perhaps it is as well to remind the House that, on Third Reading, we should discuss what is in the Bill, not what is not in it.
      Mr. Green: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that guidance. The Bill would have been improved if the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome had been accepted in Committee. I shall happily give way if the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter) still wishes to intervene, but I am making no personal criticism of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome; I am simply saying that he will lose his seat to his Conservative opponent.
      This small and modest Bill will do some important things, but everyone admits that it is relatively insignificant compared with the scale of the problem that
      234
      faces those who seek to make and preserve their livelihoods in rural Britain today. As we know, the Bill will introduce 50 per cent. mandatory rate relief for five years for land and buildings that had previously been used for agricultural purposes. The relief will be limited to properties with rateable values of less than £6,000. The Bill will extend the 50 per cent. mandatory rate relief on sole rural shops and post offices, which was introduced by the previous Government, contrary to the slightly wild statements that the Minister made previously. Again, it states that those shops must have a rateable value of not more than £6,000.
      I repeat that we support the Bill in principle because it will provide some small help, but there are many problems and criticisms, the bulk of which relate to the Bill's basic details. First, as has been said several times during the debates, the limit on the rateable value of less than £6,000 is inconsistent with the Government's view of small businesses in other parts of the economy.
      The Minister made the point in an earlier debate that the relief was supposed not to be general, but targeted on small businesses. Yet it is targeted on businesses with a rateable value of less than £6,000, whereas small businesses are defined in the most recent Green Paper on the subject from the Department of Trade and Industry as those with a rateable value of less than £8,000. Four years on, we are still not being treated to the joined-up government that we were promised.
      The DTI and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions evidently take a fundamentally different view of what constitutes a small business. Regrettably, when dealing with the small business sector that faces the worst crisis of any of the crises faced by small businesses—those attempting to survive in rural areas—those in the DETR have chosen a less generous definition of such businesses than their colleagues in the DTI. The Minister will be aware that that is inadequate.
      Mr. Tony McWalter: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government are responding, in part, to representations made by the Council for the Protection of Rural England that to give such relief to substantial businesses could have deleterious consequences for the environment that we are trying to protect?
      Mr. Green: I do not think that is quite what the CPRE said, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point. If he is saying that businesses with a rateable value of £8,000 are big fat cats who do not deserve help, I suspect that he and I would be as one in thinking that view was wrong. Indeed, even if he and I disagreed on that point, he may agree with his colleagues in the DTI who appear to accept it as a definition of a small business. I am happy to take the Government's definition of what constitutes a small business. In Committee, I tabled an amendment that would have substituted £8,000 for £6,000, but it was rejected by Ministers. I was merely trying to make the Government's position more coherent.
      Mr. Gray: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) is missing the point? The potentially damaging effects on the environment of bigger businesses in the countryside would be covered by the stringent and rigorous planning regime. Even if one wanted to set up an environmentally

      235
      deleterious business in a converted farm building, one could not do so. The size of the rateable value is thus irrelevant in environmental terms.
      Mr. Green: My hon. Friend is right; environmental considerations should always be at the forefront of our mind when considering business development in rural areas. However, Bills dealing with rate relief, such as this one, should not be the lever for ensuring that appropriate environmental protection is imposed. Such protection is extremely important, but that is why there are planning regulations.
      I hope that the Government will take on board the strictures of the National Farmers Union. It made a small number of sensible suggestions for improvements to the Bill—none of which the Government have chosen to take up or even to address. I cannot believe that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions did not receive the same NFU briefing, so he will be aware that the union is worried about the discretionary element which could lead to "competitive distortion" between local authorities. That is not because one local authority is more generous than another, but because some local authorities have more money available. The problem is genuine and although the means to address it are not necessarily obvious, the Government may well need to do so.
      Another problem outlined by the NFU and for which it offered the Minister a solution is the fact that rate relief will be restricted to a maximum of five years, but will start only from the fixed date. Thus, someone who wanted to diversify a farm business three or four years after the commencement order under the Bill will not gain the full rate relief. Such a person might take business decisions based on the amount of rate relief that might theoretically be available, rather than on sensible business criteria. There was widespread agreement that that part of the Bill should be improved as it is likely to lead to problems.
      We have held extensive discussions as to whether third parties who rent diversified agricultural land and buildings would benefit—another of the points raised by various of the bodies that have carefully considered the Bill. The Minister for Local Government and the Regions told us firmly that the definition of hereditaments that my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) had obtained from the Library was out of date, and that there was an extant, agreed legal definition—such that third parties who rented out buildings would be eligible for rate relief. We are, of course, happy to accept the Minister's assurance—we are sure that she is extremely well briefed. I only hope that she is right, not least for the sake of the Government's legal bills in years to come.
      Also serious is the potential unfairness to existing riding schools. If things go wrong, the Bill might have a genuinely perverse impact on this country's equestrian sector. The Minister for Local Government and the Regions assured my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire that she took on board many of his points about the inadequacy of the Bill as drafted in terms of its effect on the equestrian sector. My fear is that it might damage businesses that are already under pressure. I am sure that everyone on both sides of the House hopes that that will not happen, but it is regrettable that in our proceedings on the Bill we have not improved it so that it can cope with that problem.
      236
      The final specific point about the Bill as it stands from which problems might arise is the starting date. The Under-Secretary accepts that the problem of the delays that are inevitable in obtaining planning permission for diversification of farm buildings means that an early commencement date will result in the value of the early months of the rate relief being nugatory for most, if not all businesses, because no one will be able to enjoy the benefits when the delays in planning permission have prevented the businesses from getting started.
      The Bill ought to be a lot better than it is, but its contents are better than nothing—extremely lukewarm praise. In terms of effectiveness, the Bill is probably in the top 20 per cent. of Bills introduced by the outgoing Government in that it is, at least, not wholly destructive. On that, I congratulate the Minister. I assure him and the House that when we get the chance, we will introduce our own comprehensive and radical measures that will give better, genuine and more widespread help to farms and other rural businesses.
      11.22 pm
      Mr. Cotter: It has been said that the Bill is not sufficiently extensive either in its scope or in terms of the rateable value that it covers. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and I Frome (Mr. Heath) said, rightly, that the measures it proposes are modest. I am quite sure that he will be in his place in the next Parliament.
      As the Minister pointed out, in 18 years the Conservatives did little to support small businesses. Nowadays, they speak at length about small businesses, claim that they are the friends of small businesses and outline all the things that they will do for small businesses given the chance. None the less, the fact remains that although they had 18 years to work for small businesses, they failed to do so. We witnessed numerous bankruptcies and the problems that businesses experienced during the various recessions that they had to endure.
      Mr. Green: The Bill amends an Act that was passed in 1988. Who does the hon. Gentleman think was in power when that Act, which introduced rate relief for businesses, was passed?
      Mr. Cotter: The hon. Gentleman goes on about how much more should be done, but the Tories had a long time in which they could have done far better.
      The Liberal Democrats have a clear scheme: relief for all businesses of less than £25,000 rateable value; and for the first £1,500 of rateable value, small businesses would be entirely let off, which would assist them greatly.
      I am worried about the rateable values. The Association of Convenience Stores is clear that the £6,000 threshold is not enough. It believes that the threshold will help only a small number of shops because just a few will be eligible. Although the £9,000 rate for pubs is little higher, it has to take into account the fact that they often have living accommodation. Therefore, the same consideration applies. The organisation representing pub owners has made it clear that a business of that rateable value is almost unviable. There are concerns about the detail.
      A little work through the House of Commons Library exposed the fact that the Bill's provisions amount to a modest relief of only £3 million. If the Minister disagrees with that figure, I shall be glad to hear his comments.
      Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman is right: the Library estimates that £3 million a year and £16 million in total

      237
      will be spent. How much would the scheme cost if it applied to the rateable value of £25,000, as proposed by the Liberal Democrats?
      Mr. Cotter: The total amount spent would greatly relieve small businesses, which is the main consideration. The bill would be met in a neat fashion by adjusting the rates that the bigger concerns pay, which are out of kilter with what the smaller firms pay. Our proposal would cost the Exchequer nothing because we would play one off against the other.
      In the spirit of tonight's end-of-term atmosphere, we are, at least, making a step in the right direction, and I hope that more will be taken. The Government said in Committee that, if they have a chance, they will suggest other proposals. We were especially concerned about the five-year limit that has been placed on providing assistance to business, which is a short time. We have to accept—or at least hope—that the Government will address the problem more broadly to cover rateable values for all businesses. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments.
      11.28 pm
      Mr. Gray: I want to reiterate a point that has been made, and shall be brief. Although we welcome the ability of farmers to diversify and the provision of help to some village stores, one sector might be badly damaged. We have been losing about 200 to 250 riding schools a year because of the business rates that bear down heavily on them. The Bill allows a farm to diversify. It could decide to run a livery yard, a pony trekking business or a riding stables. That would put the existing riding school at the end of the drive into an unfortunate competitive position. According to the British Horse Society and the Association of British Riding Schools, that could spell disaster for riding schools.
      Instead of the 50 per cent. rating outlined in the Bill, all equestrian businesses should be zero rated. Any new or existing horse business should be exempted from business rates. The easiest way to do that is to redefine the horse as an agricultural animal. If a farmer uses a shed for heavy horses, those animals count as agricultural animals and he pays no business rates on the property, but if he uses that shed for breeding any other horse, including a racehorse, he pays business rates. That is absurd.
      The Government might also consider exempting new and existing horse businesses from business rates. Only by doing so can they possibly have a hope of saving these businesses. In the United Kingdom, 2.4 million people enjoy riding horses, so it is a very important industry. If the Bill goes through as it stands, it poses the real risk of wrecking those businesses. At the very last moment, on behalf of the horse industry and the people who enjoy riding, I appeal to the Minister to think again about what can be done to correct the Bill so that the industry can be saved.
      11.30 pm
      Mr. Robert Ainsworth: With the leave of the House, I shall respond briefly to some of the points that have been made.
      The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) was right to say that, despite some of the comments that have been made tonight, the Bill's Committee stage was fairly
      238
      constructive. Plenty of time was available and the debates were not curtailed. We agreed to consider some of the issues that had been raised, and we can do that without delaying the Bill's passage through the House. By allowing it to reach the statute book, we will be able to provide the useful reliefs that are contained in it.
      I told the hon. Gentleman that I would consider the issue of commencement, and he also said that he was concerned about the discretionary element of the Bill. It will introduce mandatory relief for small shops in rural villages, and I hope that he is not suggesting that he wants to remove local authorities' ability to provide discretionary relief over and above that provided for by the Bill.
      Mr. Green indicated dissent.
      Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman suggests that he does not want to do that.
      My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions gave the hon. Gentleman clear definitions of hereditament, and I assure him that they are correct. He need have no worry about their application.
      The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter) and others have tried to suggest that the measures in the Bill are modest. I think that there is wide consensus in the House on the need to encourage, when appropriate, farms businesses to diversify into other sectors. There is a psychological barrier on agricultural businesses crossing the threshold that means that they are subject to rates for the first time. However, the estimates of the cost of the measures in the Bill to help farms to diversify are between £16 million and £96 million, depending on take-up. It is estimated that the measures apply to 3,000 food shops that are not in rural villages with a population of fewer than 3,000, so our proposals are not as modest as some Opposition Members would have us believe.
      The hon. Member for Ashford said that, given the opportunity, the Conservatives would introduce comprehensive and radical measures to help small businesses. Although Liberal Democrat Members accused me of engaging in party political polemic when I made the point that talk is cheap, we have read the book about the 18 years that the Conservatives were in office. They will, therefore, have to explain why what they now say about assistance to small businesses is different from what they practised when they were in power. They also have to explain how they would square the circle. When we debate our proposals in the House, they say that they do not go far enough and that more should be spent on this or that sector. However, they are committed to a massive programme of cuts. Their proposals do not add up.
      On the small businesses that are not covered by the measures in the Bill, the Green Paper on local government finance proposed rate relief for all small businesses. It is targeted at those with a rateable value of above £6,000, and a taper goes up to a rateable value of £8,000. The Government are committed to considering the issue and legislation will be forthcoming on another occasion.
      On this occasion, however, we have the opportunity to pass two useful measures that will help our rural communities and will assist farming businesses to

      239
      diversify into other sectors. I commend the Bill to the House, and I hope that it receives the support of hon. Members.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

    PETITION

      Genetically Modified Crops
      11.35 pm
      Mr. Tony McWalter: It is my pleasure to submit to the House a petition from 7,059 residents of west Hertfordshire. The petition states:
      The Petition of residents of West Hertfordshire
      Declares that the testing of genetically modified crops in farm-scale trials at Wood Farm, Piccotts End, Hemel Hempstead:
      —has not been approved in any local consultation
      —will have irreversible effects on the local ecology
      —poses potential threats to husbandry and human health.
      The Petitioners (7059) therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Minister of State for the Environment to halt these trials and ensure the destruction and safe disposal of these crops.
      To lie upon the Table.

    Abuse of Planning Controls
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pearson.]
    11.36 pm
    Mr. Charles Wardle: I have applied for this Adjournment debate to draw the attention of the House to the alleged abuse of planning controls at Rother district council in my constituency. I wish to make it clear from the outset that the irregularities to which I shall refer do not arise from any obvious deficiency in planning legislation nor, so far as I can tell, are they the result of maladministration or neglect by council planning staff. The problems that I shall highlight are, allegedly, the result of collusion between so-called property developers and councillors, involving bribery and senior council members having undue influence over their colleagues. I shall argue that those matters should be thoroughly investigated.
    This is not the first time in this Parliament that I have shared with the House the results of my research into controversial issues on which it has become clear to me that answers, explanations and action are needed. I am pleased that, as a result of those earlier debates, positive steps were taken in each instance although, in some cases, more still needs to be done. I can at least claim with some confidence that the topics that I aired in that way were not trivial; I investigated them carefully before referring them to the House.
    My most recent attempt to elicit open answers to several related questions was on 30 March, when I introduced the Second Reading of my Bill requiring freemasons elected to public office to register their interest. My speech that day was restricted to a mere 25 minutes or so because of a determined effort by some hon. Members to talk out the preceding business, for whatever motive. In the limited time available, I did not have an opportunity to speak about past links between various London criminals, including the Brinks-Mat bullion gang—Kenneth Noye and his solicitor are both freemasons—and freemasons in East Sussex. Those matters, made known to me by a retired head of the Metropolitan police crime squad, Mr. Brian Boyce, would, I believe, have illuminated my arguments in favour of masonic councillors registering their interests as freemasons.
    There is a direct connection between my call for openness on masonic interests and the subject of this debate, as allegatios of planning abuse and councillors' impropriety were first raised with me by an elderly freemason, Mr. Eric Johnson, who, for many years, was a distinguished councillor. He advised me that a few fellow freemasons, including one or two councillors, were complicit in a property scam to take advantage of a woman landowner, who is now about 80.
    Mr. Johnson alleged that there had been embezzlement, tax fraud, planning abuse and bribery concerning the purchase and sale of land for development at artificial prices. He spoke of inducements paid to a councillor to influence the granting or withholding of planning consent, and allegations of covert payment to a representative of a building firm, Fairelough Homes, by means of which a pension fund of at least £80,000 had secretly been provided.

    241
    I then spoke to the elderly landowner, Mrs. Pamela Ward-Jones, who reinforced the allegations. She referred me to her professional advisers, including a solicitor, Mr. Patrick Battersby, a banker, Mr. Graham Carn, and a distinguished chartered surveyor in East Sussex, Mr. Clifford Dann. All these people told me that they had carefully examined a number of property transactions involving on the one hand, Mrs. Ward-Jones, and on the other, a Mr. Ken Jolly and a Mr. Barry Eades.
    I understand from reliable professional sources that Mr. Eades is a fugitive from this country, following disputes with the Inland Revenue and also, apparently, with dubious sources of property finance in south London. Mr. Johnson advised me—and other Bexhill residents confirmed—that Jolly and Eades are both freemasons. So was a local councillor alleged in statements given to Mrs. Ward-Jones's solicitors by other constituents to have been paid by Jolly to influence planning decisions. I shall not name this councillor in the House because he would not be able to answer for himself, as he died abroad, I am sorry to say, not long after my inquiries into these matters were made known to the local authority chief executive, the Serious Fraud Office and the inland Revenue.
    Mr. Battersby told me that his client, Mrs. Ward-Jones, claims that Jolly and Eades tried to bankrupt her by procuring that her bank manager refused her credit when she could show adequate means of raising finance. He added the suggestion that Jolly and Eades acted with other parties through whom improper dealings were procured through contacts that they made as freemasons, but he rightly insisted that there was no suggestion that any masonic lodge itself was involved in impropriety. The allegation was merely that individuals involved in the alleged wrongdoing had been drawn together by their common membership of freemasonry.
    Among the property sites in which Jolly and Eades became involved improperly, according to Mrs. Ward-Jones, were Willow Way, Top Acre and Curles Farm, but the most controversial planning history seems to relate to land off Spindlewood drive, Cooden, and at Old Harrier kennels, Maple walk, Cooden. That included some eight acres of land that Mrs. Ward-Jonas had provisionally agreed to sell to Bovis Homes for development.
    Although the land was not earmarked in a rather outdated local development plan, it was at first approved by council members, and then, after local elections, the approval was reversed, against the recommendation of planning officers. Mrs. Ward-Jones appealed against refusal. Some months later, her appeal was dismissed on the grounds that a much-delayed deposit draft local plan was not in place, and it was then fore not technically possible to earmark fresh areas for development beyond the limits of the old plan.
    According to Mr. Clifford Dann, the significance of the Maple walk and Spindlewood drive sites was that when Mrs. Ward-Jones appealed against refusal, a local firm, Freshfield Properties Ltd., acting in concert with Mr. Jolly's company, Buxton Homes, wrote to her suggesting that the elected members of the council who had just refused her permission could be persuaded to do an immediate volte-face.
    Mr. Peter Gooch of Freshfield Properties wrote:
    "We believe that a revised planning application to Rother District Council may now be more favourably recived…To achieve this we need to employ the services of Buxton Homes—
    242
    that is, Mr. Jolly—
    "who have persuaded us in their belief that they can achieve the desired goal … in the next few weeks."
    Mr. Gooch went on:
    "We would like to proceed with a purchase"—
    from Mrs. Ward-Jones—
    "before the date of any appeal hearing… The reasons why this planning opportunity has arisen are complicated… You do have opponents to your sites on the committee and a fresh approach may be a way of overcoming these difficulties."
    On a plan attached to the letter was a note to the effect that the plan would be submitted to the council on the advice of the late councillor who died abroad earlier this year. Mr. Dann asked how it could possibly be in Mrs. Ward-Jones's best interests to sell the land to Mr. Gooch and Mr. Jolly, and challenged them to explain why they believed members of the council would so swiftly contradict the beliefs that had resulted in the recent refusals. No answer was given, and the offer was not taken up by Mrs. Ward-Jones.
    As I have already said, I referred these matters to the Serious Fraud Office and the Inland Revenue. The latter has yet to respond to me, but Ms Helen Garlick, a senior advisory lawyer at the SFO, has done so. She said that the SFO tends to deal with cases involving at least £1 million. She doubted whether witnesses could now be found who would be capable of giving admissible evidence of corrupt conduct in a criminal trial. In her opinion, the case was more suitable for determination in a civil court.
    Civil proceedings are a matter for Mrs. Ward-Jones and her solicitor to decide on. For the Minister and for the elected members of Rother district council, there is much to review and to investigate further.
    The council's planning committee has been chaired since the last election by Councillor Brian Kentfield, a past master of a masonic lodge in Battle and a close colleague of the recently deceased councillor who was the subject of many of the allegations to which I have alluded. If integrity is to be seen to be preserved, it is for Councillor Kentfield to take the initiative and to seek an independent review by someone completely free of connections with freemasonry. Other members of the planning committee have spoken freely of heavy-handed lobbying by senior colleagues over planning decisions put before them. For the sake of Mrs. Ward-Jones, and for the council's good name, these matters should be examined impartially and without further delay.
    When Mr. Johnson first drew my attention to these allegations of planning abuse, and the collusion against Mrs. Ward-Jones by what he regarded as a few unscrupulous fellow freemasons, I wrote to Councillor Kentfield and to the local Conservative association, many of whose most senior officers are also councillors, but no explanations were forthcoming. There was only a veil of undisguised animosity at the notion that a wider audience within the party, let alone the public at large, should be made aware of what a few masonic members were doing.
    The role of the recently deceased councillor in the local party has now been filled by that councillor's solicitor, who is himself a senior freemason. However, the grand master of Sussex freemasons has written to me assuring me that he will investigate any allegations of wrongdoing among his members. I take him at his word, which I trust he will honour.

    243
    It is time that the stables were mucked out. It is time for openness and accountability in the public interest. After 18 years in the House, and particularly in light of the recent withdrawal of the Opposition Whip with all the absurdity and hypocrisy that that has implied, I trust that it can be said that I have been my own man and that I have spoken out in what I believe to be the interests of my constituents whenever I have judged it necessary. I hope that in doing so, I have fulfilled my duty in this place.
    11.48 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) has made serious allegations. When we saw that he had succeeded in getting an Adjournment debate on the abuse of planning controls, we tried to speak to his office to see what it was he wanted to raise.
    Mr. Wardle: I did not get that message, and apologise for that. It has always been my practice to help when I can, and I am sorry that there was no reply to the Minister's communication. I saw her sitting on the Front Bench before the debate started, and I wondered whether I should nip over and give her an outline of my concerns. I apologise that she has not had one.
    Ms Hughes: No, I have not had one, but I was not criticising the hon. Gentleman. Having heard what he had to say, I wondered whether he deliberately did not want to inform anyone in advance, as the nature of his allegations was very serious. I have some speaking notes about enforcement of planning decisions, planning conditions, section 108 and all the rest of it, none of which is relevant to the points that he has raised. I shall, however, try to make some helpful responses.
    The hon. Gentleman made serious allegations about planning abuse and councillors' impropriety. As I think he will agree, he was talking less about abuse of planning controls than about alleged criminal activity, bribes and corruption. He gave details of the circumstances of the allegations, and, indeed, named individuals. I know that, given his experience of raising such matters over many years, he will understand why I cannot comment on such allegations on the Floor of the House.
    The hon. Gentleman said that he had talked to the Serious Fraud Office and had been told that for various reasons this was not an appropriate case for the SFO to consider. The complainant has been directed to the civil court. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman seemed to be saying: that does not appear to be a terribly appropriate remedy for someone in such circumstances. The hon. Gentleman did not say whether the allegations had been forwarded to the police, or whether the police had commented. He suggested an independent review by the council. Someone outside the allegations would have to
    244
    initiate such a move: DETR has no powers or resources to investigate the matter, because the allegations are of criminal activity, corruption and so on, and a Government Department cannot undertake investigations of that nature. I can think of no avenues to explore on the spur of the moment, but if I think of any that have not occurred to the hon. Gentleman, I shall reply to him.
    As the hon. Gentleman may know, the Local Government Act 2000 introduced a new ethical framework for local government, setting out a series of principles relating to issues of the kind that concern him—honesty, integrity, propriety, responsibility and so on. Developed from that set of principles is a code of conduct put together by the Government, the Local Government Association and other interested parties. It includes both the code applying to local councillors and the parallel code applying to officers. The code will require councillors to declare membership of organisations, and freemasons are listed as one such organisation. Under the Act, every council will also be required to have a standards committee It will not be an investigatory committee, but it will be required to ensure that the council concerned has a robust ethical framework; that it is applying, if not the model code of conduct that the Government recommend, its own code based on that model; and that that code is enforced.
    There will also be a national standards board, appointments to which I have just completed. The board will be chaired by Anthony Holland, the former chair of the Northern Ireland Parades Commission, who has a robust reputation in he context of such matters. It will have a body of inquiry officers who will undertake investigations of matters such as this—any matters concerning alleged impropriety, dishonesty, wrongdoing or bringing the reputations of councillors or local government into disrepute. It will have power to investigate, to adjudicate and to impose sanctions.
    I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman—and the Government strongly agree with him—that this is a time for openness in public life, and for transparency. The vast majority of councillors—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares this sentiment—do an excellent job in a spirit of strong public service, and are honest and decent. The minority who behave wrongly and corruptly do a great disservice to the vast majority of upstanding people on our councils. That is why we introduced that framework: not because local government is riddled with corruption—far from it—but to provide a transparent and robust mechanism to protect the representations of the vast majority of decent councillors.
    I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter. I will see whether other avenues are open to the people concerned. I know that the hon. Gentleman is standing down at the forthcoming election and that he is held in high regard for his efforts to bring serious matters to the attention of hon. Members. On behalf of the House, I wish him well for the future.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Twelve o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

People's Peers
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
9.30 am
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise the issue of the so-called people's peers and the future of the House of Lords. Some of the usual suspects are in attendance and I extend a welcome to them, especially to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan). They are in their final days in the House of Commons and have consistently promoted a democratic Parliament in the United Kingdom, a democratic Parliament that is denied to the people of our country. I look forward to their contributions to the debate.
I want to focus my remarks on the absolute absurdity—the nonsense, the charade—that surrounded the announcement a little more than a week ago of the so-called people's peers. Prophetically, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) said that it would again open up the debate about the future of the House of Lords—and how right he was. I hope that this morning's debate will be a further nail in the coffin of that wholly illegitimate Chamber.
Having said that, it is with some pride that I show visitors around the building. I take them to the House of Lords and say how improper that Chamber is, but I then pause and say, "However, its functions are extremely important." One of the great challenges to us in the United Kingdom when trying to argue for constitutional change is to build in ratchets against arbitrary government. Lord Hailsham referred to our constitution as facilitating parliamentary dictatorship. All too often, we have seen how both Conservative and Labour Governments railroad through legislation without its having received sufficient scrutiny. The statute at the end of sausage machine is flawed. It is bad law. We have inadequate opportunities to check and probe the Executive, so much of whose work is done without a mandate from Parliament, but under the royal prerogative.
I am someone who unashamedly believes in bicameralism. There is an important function to be fulfilled in the Chamber that is currently occupied by the House of Lords. Its membership is "unlawful" and I look forward to the day when a totally elected democratic Chamber, with legitimate Members who have individual mandates, replaces it. I chose to be on the left of politics. I am a socialist. The history of our party has been one of trying to do away with that Chamber, yet I find it deeply disappointing, as do Labour party activists throughout the country, that we have failed to abolish the House of Lords and, as far as I am aware, it is not our intention to do away with it, or
72WH
even to replace it with an elected Chamber called the House of Lords. The position is to sustain the illicit situation in which the House is filled by a substantial number of hereditary peers and those who are appointed by the patronage of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Liberal Democrats and the fig leaf of nonsense of so-called people's peers.
I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what our stance will be over the next four weeks on the House of Lords, which will be interesting. I remind him of our stance four years ago. We made it abundantly clear—it was unequivocal, not conditional—that
"A committee of both Houses of Parliament will be appointed to undertake a wide-ranging review of possible further change"—
to the House of Lords—
"and then to bring forward proposals for reform."
We did not fulfil that commitment. We reneged on it and appointed a royal commission instead. No mention was made in our manifesto of a royal commission. Royal commissions involve the great and good and the glitterati—the safe hands who constitute that cosy magic circle that runs the country whether the Government is Conservative or Labour. We fell into the chasm of merely doing what others have done, which I find deeply disappointing.
Mr. Dominic Grieve: The suggestion that I feel part of the current establishment is far removed from reality. Watching the Prime Minister on television yesterday, as he went to his school in Bermondsey, I realised that I was living on a completely different planet from him.
Mr. Mackinlay: I am talking about the House of Lords. If someone wants to divert to a completely different subject, so be it. I hope that it has not escaped the hon. Gentleman's attention that, although the debate may be adversarial, it is between a Labour Member and a Labour Minister. In a sense, the hon. Gentleman is trespassing on a matter that is none of his business, as we are in government and it looks as though we shall be there for a long time to come. Such diversions are irrelevant. The hon. Gentleman should focus on arguing for a change in the culture in this country—the magic circle in a class-ridden society, that narrow group that runs and takes all the decisions in this country, especially in relation to the House of Lords, which is the subject of this morning's debate. We have reinforced the hereditary element in the House for Lords for decades to come, and we have reinforced the system of prime ministerial patronage. I find that entirely unacceptable.
I invite the House to consider, human nature being what it is, what Prime Minister or leader of the Conservative or Liberal party would appoint to the House of Lords someone who is bloody-minded, an irritant or a nuisance or who takes a different view from himself. I shall not name the person involved, but I have often heard people with a different view from that of a particular important person referred to as neanderthal. People who will ruffle feathers are never, and will never be, nominated.

73WH
The system is flawed. I look forward to hearing from the representative of the Liberal Democrats, as I understand—I acknowledge some credit—that the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), who leads the party, and the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Paddy Ashdown) have at least created in their party machine a quasi-democratic system whereby the membership can throw up nominees whom the leader of the party might consider nominating for appointment to the House of Lords. If that is so, it is something. That certainly does not happen in the Labour party. I oppose appointment by the Prime Minister or the leader of the Labour party, but, so long as it exists, I should have thought that, within the Labour party and, for that matter, the principal opposition party, there should be some facility for panels nominated from the grass roots of the party, from whom the leader might select people for ennoblement. However, there is not. The matter of who is preferred is left exclusively in the hands of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. That is entirely unacceptable.
Each of us has been privileged to go abroad to represent Parliament and, perhaps, to lecture students or other parliamentarians in the fragile or emerging democracies of the world about parliamentary democracy. What arrogance we have, when we cannot see the beam in our own eye—when half our Parliament is unelected and illegitimate and has no mandate. We have the audacity to go abroad and talk about parliamentary democracy. Can my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary not see how absurd that is? It is time to mobilise the next Labour parliamentary party, with some vigour, to demand of the next Labour Government radical change in our parliamentary arrangements—to rid ourselves of this House of Lords by sweeping it away with a democratically elected second Chamber.
The nonsense of the people's peers has prompted this debate. Did you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that applicants were vetted by PricewaterhouseCoopers? We could avoid the next four weeks by sending our applications to that company. If the machinery for gauging what is representative or what may constitute a microcosm of the nation is so sophisticated, we could save a lot of time and effort. That is what happened, and that lovely company drew up the shortlist with Lord Stevenson and his Appointments Commission. Lord Stevenson has done a great service to the cause by showing his enormous snobbery, abysmal ignorance and insensitivity and by demonstrating that he is totally disqualified from selecting anyone. His utterance is no matter for levity; it is important. When examined about the absurdity of the 15 nominees that his commission had thrown up, he said:
"You haven't got your hairdresser in this list, but if you go back to our criteria one of them is that the human being will be comfortable operating in the House of Lords."
I find that amazing, and, of course, deeply insulting to the overwhelming majority in this country, some of whom fell for the lie that somehow, if they put in a reasoned application, they might be considered for membership of the House of Lords.
74WH
I am opposed to the lottery, and I counsel people never to buy a ticket because I see so many people seduced by the dream that somehow they might come up trumps. This is the middle class equivalent. I am sure that all hon. Members knew people who asked, "Will you give me a reference, because I am applying to the House of Lords Appointments Commission?" I told them, "Don't bother. It's an absurdity. It isn't going to happen. You're not going to get a look in." Those people are immensely able and would be capable of serving the House of Commons with distinction, but I knew that the appointments would be a farce and that they would not get a look in. However, they dreamed that they might get in, and they are deeply angry and hurt by the process and by Lord Stevenson's comments.
Let us look at the people who have been thrown up by the appointments process. The general view is that, under the existing process, many could have got to the House of Lords, and were probably already anointed to go there. They applied, and I am most unhappy about some of them, looking at their individual qualities. They signed up to get into the political arena. Politics is not a kid-gloved affair. It is deeply worrying that Sir Paul Condon, who was, to say the least, a very unsuccessful Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, should be nominated, especially as one of the criteria for selection was that applicants should have been very successful in their professional life and in the contribution that they had made.
If we examine Private Eye this week—and it is always useful to have a copy on these occasions—we see an important column relating to Valerie Howarth, who has been nominated to be a people's peer. The article tells us that she is the chief executive of the telephone charity Childline, and goes on to say:
"There was a time when Ms Howarth's dreams of being admitted to the ranks of the great and good seemed to have been dashed for once and for all. In 1984 she was director of social services in the London borough of Brent when a four-year-old girl in the council's care, Jasmine Beckford, was battered to death by her stepfather. Although she was cleared by the subsequent inquiry she was disciplined by Brent council, and given a written warning for not taking greater personal responsibility in the case.
The following year, Miss Howarth applied for and secured the post of social services director at Cambridgeshire county council. but omitted to mention the Beckford case in her interview. When it came to light the job offer was withdrawn."
Will the Minister tell us whether that matter was revealed in the application made by Valerie Howarth? If it were, I should have thought that she would be disqualified, because demonstrably she was not an outstanding person in terms of her career. If the matter was not disclosed, the application was flawed. What is the mechanism for disqualifying people who have not made their application for the job in question—as with any job—with appropriate candour, and disclosed facts material to an appointment? Parliament should be told.
Frankly, Lord Stevenson of Coddenham should revisit the appointment. I assume that, over the next 12 months, it is unlikely that Royal Assent will be given to a Bill that I would like and that would abolish the House of Lords or, perhaps, abandon the absurd experiment and silly idea of people's peers. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary should tell us this morning that the business of the Appointments Commission, which I understand was dealt with by the Cabinet Office or Prime Minister, will be revisited in

75WH
time for next year. Alternatively, I should like my hon. Friend to say that the experiment will be abandoned—he may not use that word, but I will take a nod and a wink from him that the matter will be quietly forgotten and lost. We cannot go through the procedure again because it is offensive to applicants, a snub to the people of the United Kingdom and acutely embarrassing to the Labour party and the Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is a great man, for whom I have great and deep affection. However, the people's peers was not his best idea.
I am being unfair to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, because I think that the people's peers were not his idea, but that of some people whose names we know not, who are in 10 Downing street or policy think tanks, and who are unaccountable to this place. I hope that my right hon. Friend will learn from this episode that the focus group to which he should listen is the parliamentary Labour party, which—I suspect, like my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary—does not believe in such nonsense in its heart of hearts.
Is it true that when my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and I were parliamentary candidates, and during his long time in the Labour party, he rightly expressed scorn for the House of Lords? Did he not believe in doing away with that House altogether, or replacing it with a democratically elected House? It would be interesting to know that, because we would then know that in the heart of Government we have somebody who is advocating the view that will be reflected this morning.
I have said that it is wholly unacceptable that membership of the House of Lords should be subject to the patronage of the leaders of the principal political parties. People who are appointed have no mandate. There are some very good people, some of whom I am very fond of and who, contrary to their better judgment, have some regard for me. However, their membership of that House is not legitimate.
There are other serious problems that should be addressed with expedition. When a person is appointed as a life peer, he or she may well be able in body and in mind, and may be so for the next 10, 20, or 25 years. However, in that job there is no exit, other than going to the great parliamentary chamber on high, and seeing the great general secretary up there; such people must continue.
The matter is serious, but sensitive, and not uttered here because it is sensitive. I wish to deal with it with utmost delicacy. Some of the peers are past it, and some who are at such a stage are desperate to give up. However, the party Whips in the House of Lords scurry around putting leverage on them to come; they put leverage on the loved ones of those in the House of Lords to persuade them to come—in body, if not, in some cases, in mind. That is absurd. I have seen American tourists come down from the House of Lords Gallery in a state of total bewilderment. They cannot believe that it is a parliamentary Chamber—they have seen Gilbert and Sullivan.
How long can we go on like this? The least that should be done in a short Bill is to allow members of the House of Lords to abandon that House while perhaps keeping their titles. A credit may remain with the political party so that the arithmetic that is apparently so important is
76WH
maintained. I know that there is a system through which one can decline to apply for a writ, but that is not adequate. People should be given the opportunity to say, "No further."
The red chamber in Canada has a cut-off point in the mid-70s for its members. That is correct, so long as the House is unelected; when there are direct elections, it will be for the people to decide. I have always said that. There is a senator in the United States who is pushing 100—and so be it, as the people of his state are comfortable with that. I am not ageist in that I do not think that an age limit should be set on a democratic Parliament but, so long as the House is unelected, there should be a cut-off point or an exit for those people. In many cases, their families would like them to retire with some dignity—and I use that word deliberately. There are some sad members in the House of Lords who are losing their dignity but are being abused by the party political system and the Whips.
The rapid appointment of a large number of peers debases that parliamentary Chamber even more, and makes it an absurdity. It is far too large. My hope is that we might have a relatively small democratically elected Chamber, numbering perhaps 150, elected on a regional proportional representation list. There should not be big bang elections; there should be a fixed term, so that no opportunity exists for premature dissolution. A third of the members should retire in rotation.
People who oppose my idea say, "Mackinlay, we must not create anything that challenges the House of Commons." That is nonsense, because when we reorganise our constitution we can write in bold letters in the statute and paint on everyone's eyelids that the House of Commons is supreme and its view will prevail. The statute may also reiterate that the House of Lords has no responsibility for supply, so we do not have the problems that bedevilled Gough Whitlam. in Australia in 1975. That Chamber should fulfil the existing functions of scrutiny and frustration—it should frustrate sometimes by delay. It should also do the important job of review.
The House of Lords should be elected, however. If it were elected on a fixed-term basis, with a third retiring every so often, every member would have legitimacy, but the Chamber as a whole would not have a mandate to frustrate the democratically elected will of the people's popular House. which would remain the House of Commons. That is the sensible way forward. We also need to get rid of the Cross Benchers, bishops and Law Lords. Under the electoral system that I propose, it would be possible for independents to get elected. That would put the political parties on their mettle. There would be a level playing field.
Under the system that I propose, the people who had no mandate to represent anyone but themselves would be gone. The absurdity of one particular denomination being represented in a parliamentary Chamber would be gone, but not added to by designating a number of seats for the Roman Catholics, the Methodists, the Pentecostals or whatever. We should be a secular Parliament. To use the biblical phrase, "Render unto Caesar all that is Caesar's and unto God all that is God's." Christ was clear about that division of responsibility. He prophesied our ideal constitutional arrangements 2,000 years ago. There should be a cut-off point. People who represent religions should not be

77WH
given seats in the parliamentary Chamber: they may be religious, but they should not be in Parliament for that reason.
Yesterday, I tackled the Minister about another matter that could be expeditiously resolved. It is nonsense that senior Ministers can sit in the House of Lords while legislation for which they are responsible is piloted through the House of Commons. Questions about their Bills are answered at the Dispatch Box by junior Ministers who, in some cases, do not know the subject. They will pretend that they know about the matter by working from a brief, but they have no mandate to reassure hon. Members who make valid points and try to improve the legislation.
That situation is a charade, and it also increasingly happens the other way around. There are delightful people in the other place called Lords-in-waiting who play the role of jobbing Ministers by merely working from briefs: they are utility players who perform a variety of duties and pretend that they know what they are talking about when they do not. It is nonsense.
A modest reform could be expeditiously introduced. Ministers who are the architects and pilots of particular pieces of legislation should promote and defend them in both Houses. Other Westminster-style constitutions allow that to happen. I would invite Ministers who sit in the House of Lords to take a seat on the Treasury Front Bench. However, if hon. Members feel sensitive about the matter, a little Dispatch Box could be erected at the Bar of the House, because it would make sense for such Ministers to be able to speak in both Houses.
Recent Conservative Governments have included two distinguished and able Ministers who sat in the House of Lords: Baroness Chalker held the overseas aid portfolio, and Lord Young was a Trade Minister in one of Margaret Thatcher's Administrations. It frustrates the House of Commons when Ministers sit in the House of Lords. There is a rumour that Lord Macdonald might be promoted to the Cabinet when the next Labour Government is appointed on 8 June 2001. He cannot stand for election because he is unable to quit being a Lord. There would be one hell of a row if a Labour Government were to appoint Members of the House of Lords to the Cabinet as Ministers with important portfolios. The House of Commons is the people's Chamber, but its elected Members would not be able to have direct access to those Ministers at Question Time or when legislation for which they were responsible was debated. If a Labour Government were to do that, it would stand on its head the party's criticism of Margaret Thatcher's appointment of Lord Young as a Minister.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary must address that issue. I hope that he agrees with my view about the implications if Lord Macdonald is awarded a senior portfolio. I also hope that he recognises that the reform that I have proposed is sensible and modest and that further great changes are necessary.
I apologise for detaining this Chamber, but I have now got something off my chest, and I feel better for it. If the Government wish to endure by winning a third term in office, they must fulfil the expectations of the Labour party activists who have struggled for real—
78WH
rather than cosmetic—change in our institutions, who want to get rid of the class divisions that bedevil our society and who still occasionally sing the words
"It suits today the weak and base,
Whose minds are fixed on pelf and place;
To cringe beneath the rich man's frown,
And haul that sacred emblem down."
There are people in the Labour party who believe in change, and who might refer to themselves as socialists. There is also a larger body of people, spanning all political parties, who believe that the Parliament of which we are, in some ways, proud is also an anachronism, and they look to the next Labour Government to be radical and to reform the institution after the general election.
9.59 am
Mr. Martin Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who is a true friend, for raising the issue, especially as, at such a time, there are two categories of retiring Members of Parliament—those who know that they are retiring and those who have yet to find out. I hope that by 8 June I shall be in neither category, but this is an excellent moment to be debating the issue.
I suppose that, of all Members of Parliament, I should welcome the appointment of people's peers because they are Cross Benchers and will sit as independents. In a limited sense, therefore, I do welcome such appointments. However, I do not delight in the spectacle of the establishment selecting its own. I would like just one of those 15—or even two or three—to be somebody of whom I have never heard.
All hon. Members know many people of great and quiet distinction in their constituencies. Such people would, and could, have served admirably in the House of Lords. I find the suggestion that such people would not be comfortable in such elevated company absurd. It is a little bit like Army officers of the old school who objected to promotion through the ranks because a sergeant or warrant officer would not be comfortable in the officers' mess. That is nothing but arrant snobbery.
I should have thought that, of all Members of Parliament, the one least likely to accept a peerage if offered would be the hon. Member for Thurrock, and I think that I know why. Like me, he is a democrat, and he would not wish to be a member of an assembly that is so indiscriminate that one can buy one's way into it. The number of life peers as a percentage of the population is, I guess, 0.0000001 per cent. In terms of contributors to party funds in the coming election, however, I guess that at least 25 per cent. of them happen to be peers—in the case of the Conservative party, the percentage is probably even more. It is undeniable that that opens the door to corruption.
During one Prime Minister's Question Time, I made the point that peerages are bought and sold in this country on a greater scale than at any time since the days of Lloyd George. In doing so, I managed to offend the Government and the Opposition, and I drew the reproach of the Liberal Democrat leader, who did not like the disparagement of his great predecessor. It is clear, however, that we must find a different system, in which elevation cannot be bought. In this case, the

79WH
House of Lords reminds me a little of space travel—one can buy one's way up there. I am convinced that that should not be so.
I once voted for an amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews)—another real democrat who would never accept the golden shilling—which suggested bricking up the entrance of the House of Lords. It seemed to me that, if what we have is the best that we can do, we are probably better off without it. Patronage has been the curse of the British political system for 200 years, and it still is. However, we are now on the threshold of a general election and the almost certain re-election of the Labour party in vast numbers. Clearly, the House of Commons needs a different form of democracy—the Executive cannot continue to be as unchecked as they are. The House of Lords, for all its faults, provides some kind of a check. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Thurrock that the time has come to democratise the other place.
We are governed by a Government of unfinished business, and no business is more unfinished that that of the reform of the House of Lords. When I joined this Chamber, rather accidentally, four years ago, I thought that I was joining the free Parliament of a free people, but it has some dismaying elements of a rubber-stamp assembly. In the next Parliament, we can and must do better, in the House of Lords and in this House.
10.3 am
Mr. Tony Benn: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on raising the subject and on his speech. Not many Members take an interest in constitutional matters, but he has done so from the beginning. He has knowledge, commitment and passion. It is appropriate to discuss the subject now, because we are about to go into a general election—not, of course, for our Parliament, but for half our Parliament. Every hon. Member present, except me, will be seeking support on polling day. However, those who have just been appointed will be in the other place for life.
I shall address a point that is not often made: the establishment has a deep hostility towards democracy. It took me a long time to realise that the establishment and the powers that be—including the Prime Ministers of the day, whoever they may be—do not want a democratic challenge. That is maintained in a skilful way, which includes the use of the royal family for political purposes. The Queen depends on the Prime Minister for her popularity, and the Prime Minister depends on the Crown for his power. That said, the establishment is not so committed to individual monarchs that it is not prepared to sacrifice one to save the Crown, as it did with Edward VIII in 1936. The Crown is the core of the system.
People say that this country does not have a written constitution, but of course we do. Without wishing to bore hon. Members, I can recite the whole constitution:
"I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors, according to law".
Every Member of the House, peer, Anglican minister and judge swears that oath. Privy Councillors swear an even worse one: they pledge to protect the Crown from
80WH
foreign prelates, potentates and powers. Indeed, when the Privy Councillor's oath was read to me, I said that I had said nothing and agreed to nothing, but I was told that the oath had been administered. Until that moment, I did not realise that the administration of an oath was an injection.
Under the constitution, the Prime Minister of the day has enormous power. Every Prime Minister—I am not making this personal—uses that power for political purposes. They used to appoint hereditary peers, but now appoint life peers. The idea of people's peers was proposed, which involves a sort of extended patronage. A committee is appointed to appoint people who are described as people's peers, but the purpose is to maintain political power.
Another important theme is the corruption of the word "representative", which has two meanings. Every Member is a representative of his or her constituency. When we are in our constituencies, the bus drivers, street sweepers, home helps and policemen are our employers. The other meaning is statistically representative. People talk about so many men, so many women, so many blacks and so many gays. The idea that we can have statistical representation and entrust to those people the right to pass laws, which we are expected to obey, is an abuse of what we boast is democracy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock said.
I am not much of an academic historian, but I have studied a few things in my life in order to understand where we are. On Second Reading of the Reform Act 1832, rioters shot two redcoats in Wales. Speeches in the House of Commons warned that extending the franchise would undermine parliamentary democracy. Later, when women campaigned for the vote. Mr. Asquith, the great Liberal leader, said that, if they got it. parliamentary democracy would be undermined.
Our system is designed to brainwash us into believing that some people are better than us. Every country has people who think that they are better than anyone else, but we must be the only country where everyone accepts that that is the case. The cultural aspect of the peerage is that we are trained from birth to bow and scrape to someone else. Mister bows to the knight, who bows to the baronet, who bows to the baron, who bows to the viscount, who bows to the earl, who bows to the marquess, who bows to the duke, who bows to the royal duke. They all bow to the Queen. That is deeply corrupting of the democratic spirit. The system is not only absurd, as has been said, but absolutely contrary to our boast that we are a self-governing country. When there are riots in the streets of London, the Prime Minister always says that we live in a democracy, but we do not.
We are now being trained for a new group of managers. According to Gerhard Schröder, Mr. Prodi is to be the Prime Minister of Europe, but he is not elected by anyone. The head of the World Trade Organisation is not elected. If a peer is better than us, perhaps the head of the WTO is also better than us. Perhaps we are so inferior that we are not fit to govern ourselves. That coded message comes through all our political and civic systems, our education and so on.
If we are to tackle the problem, which I have no doubt we will—I hope that it does not take 700 years, as it did to make the House of Commons democratic—we must

81WH
recognise that it involves a challenge to power. There is no other way of describing it. We must say, quite openly, that we will not accept laws that are made by people we did not vote for.
I am not an advocate of violent action; I am a non-violent man. However, Governments only listen when there is trouble. I hate to say it but, for example, the pensioners would not have received that little bit more without the Labour conference last year. Possibly, handguns would not have been banned if there had not been a big demand in Scotland after Hamilton killed those children at Dunblane. Truthfully, the environmental movement would not have made much progress if Swampy had not been rather difficult. He will be the next people's peer, no doubt; we shall hear about that in the answer. My experience of progress is that it begins outside and, through the democratic process, permeates inside. Parliament historically is the last place to get the message.
I welcome the debate. It is a much more dangerous debate than perhaps the House might realise, because it challenges power. People in power do not want to be challenged. The Prime Minister did not want to lose the right to appoint people. As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister will, in a sense, appoint Members of the House of Commons. Some MPs will decide to retire at the last minute—they will get peerages—and, under the rules of the Labour party, it can appoint the successors. There could be circumstances in which Members of Parliament would have to apply to Lord Stevenson and prove that they would be comfortable in the House of Commons. Indeed, I can imagine that, if market forces reach much further, parliamentary seats might be put out to tender. I am sure that Bob Maxwell could have put in a better bid for my constituency than I could have. Perhaps even the Prime Minister's job should be subject to some external bid under the best value principle.
However one looks at it, the question must be tackled. My limited experience is that capitalism, communism and feudalism have one thing in common: the management can be changed, but the system cannot be discussed. Someone who discusses the system is a threat.
I had already made my last speech; I am afraid that I have done it again. My grandfather was the Member of Parliament for Govan, and was known as the poet laureate of the House of Commons. I will finish with some words that he wrote:
"Though politicians dream of fame and hope to win a deathless name,
Time strews upon them when they've gone, the poppy of oblivion."
10.12 am
Mr. Gordon Prentice: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on his perspicacity and timing in securing the debate on people's peers. With a general election four weeks away, I must be slightly measured in my comments. However, we are going into an election with a Labour manifesto that calls for something that I, as a Labour MP, repudiate. The manifesto agrees with the royal commission on the reform of the House of Lords, chaired by Lord Wakeham, which calls for a second
82WH
Chamber that is largely appointed, with a small elected element. That is simply not my view, nor was it the Prime Minister's View in 1996, when he said that Labour's policy was for a directly elected upper Chamber. Things have changed in that four-year period, and we now find ourselves, as the Government party, going into an election promising that one part of Parliament will be appointed rather than elected.
I believe that legitimacy only comes with election. Appointment fails on many counts, but what Wakeham proposed is absurd with a capital A. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, I believe in secular politics. What we will be asked to endorse—in the next Parliament, presumably—is not a secular second Chamber but a Chamber with people who have been appointed because of their religion. The Bishops Bench will be reduced from 26 to 16, I believe, but we will then have Buddhists, Baptists, Jains and Jews legislating on the laws of the land. I do not believe that that is right. More than that, I do not believe that members of the Labour party believe that that is right.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) talked about the patronage peers and how corrupting that is. Amazingly, over the next few days some of my colleagues in the House will decide that they do not want to stand for election to the new Parliament. They will be rewarded with peerages. That is deeply corrupting, not just for the people going into the House of Lords after the next election, but for those in the House of Commons, and I do not disparage my colleagues, who perhaps aspire to a peerage. It is corrupting and it should not be allowed.
Under the new system, we have the prospect of life peers serving well into the 21st century. I tabled an early-day motion in February 2000. The statisticians in the Library did some number crunching and told me that 49 per cent. of the present House of Lords will die by 2011. The average ages are 70 for male life peers and 64 for female life peers. About half of them will be dead by 2001; 90 per cent. will be dead by 2029, but 10 per cent. of those currently serving as life peers will still be serving in 30 years' time. We need a small, directly-elected second Chamber of no more than 100 to do a job of work. We do not need a bloated, elephantine monstrosity of 1,300, which is what we had before we got rid of most of the hereditary peers.
Will that happen? We had the ridiculous situation a week ago of people being discounted from consideration by Lord Stevenson because they would not feel comfortable in the second Chamber. He said that hairdressers could not cut it. That is a man who is a self-confessed intellectual snob. He should never have been given the job of chair of the Appointments Commission. In recent months, I have tabled many questions about that commission and I just about fell off my chair in January when I got an envelope with a little House of Lords stamp on the back. Inside was a letter from Dennis Stevenson, the noble Lord Stevenson. He wrote saying that over the Christmas period he had been looking at the questions that had been tabled about the work of the Appointments Commission. He noted that I had been very energetic and had tabled many questions and suggested that we talk about it.

83WH
I went to see Dennis Stevenson. He is a mover and shaker. He is chair of both the Pearson group, which owns the Financial Times, and the Halifax. That takes up a lot of his time, which probably explains why in the two years since he was appointed to the House of Lords he has spoken only twice. On both occasions he confessed to a feeling of nervousness.
Mr. Tony Benn: He was not comfortable.
Mr. Prentice: That is the man who says that hairdressers cannot cut it. I described all that as a sick joke. I am receiving lots of application forms from people out there who applied to Lord Stevenson saying that they wanted to be a people's peer. They tell me that they read in the paper that I think the whole process is a sick joke and that they agree with me. The whole system was designed to exclude 99.9 per cent. recurring of the British population. They never got a look in. We had that big con trick—not only the word from the spinmeisters in Downing street that we were going to have people's peers, but the farce of last year's four regional roadshows. They went from London to all four points of the compass with the message that new Labour would bring government back to the people. They said, "You, too, can become a people's peer; just fill in that application form, we'll check it against the criteria and you can join us in the House of Lords." It was never going to be like that. I will make a prediction for my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. There will be no regional roadshows this year because, if the House of Lords Appointments Commission embarks on them again, there will be few members of the public, but many members of the media, finding out exactly what happens.
When I visited Lord Stevenson's lair in Tufton street, which is just round the corner from Smith square, it was incredible and like something out of "Smiley's People". The front door had no sign of who was behind it, and that office is separate from the main office of the House of Lords Appointments Commission, which is just around the corner in Great Smith street. I was ushered into the noble presence and, within about three minutes, we were almost at blows—he accused me of being political. I told him, "I am a Member of Parliament," but he said that I was there only to be political. I was interested in the process of how people would be plucked from obscurity to be put into the nobility. I wanted to know who would do the sifting, what criteria would be used and whether people would be interviewed.
Most important, I wanted to know whether people who were rejected would be told the reasons for that. I asked Dennis whether that would happen, because it is good employment practice. There was a pause, so I asked him whether it was ministerial policy not to tell anyone. There was a longer pause, and then I twigged. There was no ministerial policy on the subject; it is a Dennis Stevenson policy not to tell people why they were rejected. Now we know why people were not told the reasons for their rejection. Only a tiny percentage of the 3,200 people who applied were ever going to be seriously considered. That is pretty corrupt.
84WH
Something else is corrupt. Who appointed the noble Lord Dennis Stevenson, the snob? I tabled a question to the Leader of the House about the criteria and qualities expected in the chairman of the Appointments Commission. She replied:
"The advertisement for the Chairman specified that the Government were looking for someone who is committed to making the House of Lords a body that is fully representative of all aspects of UK society and culture".
Well, blow me. If we are having 15 people's peers, half should be women, but that did not happen. There are seven knights, three professors and only a handful of women. On the chairman's qualities, she then said that the person should
"demonstrate excellent communication skills, including managing the media".—[Official Report, 8 May 2001: Vol. 368. c. 64W.]
Can hon. Members believe that, after the farce of the announcement of the people's peers
Who selected Dennis? The answer is a panel chaired by the Cabinet Secretary, assisted by Lord Fellowes, who sounds a good lad, and some other worthies, including a then independent assessor who is now a people's peer—incredible. I mean Cross Benchers, so I am not making party political points. I am talking about the process, the system, openness and transparency. We should be told about these matters rather than having to table parliamentary questions about them. Sir Herman Ousely, now Lord Ousely, was on the panel that selected Dennis Stevenson to become chairman of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. So there we are.
We must revisit the whole issue. When I said that the process was a sick joke, I meant it. I also meant it when I said that I hoped to re-ignite a debate on the future of the second Chamber. It saddens me to say it, but the Labour party has lost its way on this issue. The official policy cannot and does not reflect the views of the mainstream of Labour party members. No one in my constituency Labour party believes that the Government's policy is a good idea.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock on providing us with an opportunity to air this matter. It may appear a little arcane and an issue for the constitutional nerds, but it has a wider salience.
10.26 am
Mr. Robert Maclennan: I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay)—who has a longstanding interest in constitutional matters—on initiating the debate. He has debated the issues with verve, commitment and analytical skill. I am hopeful that his arguments will be carried forward into the next Parliament.
In common with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), I am retiring from the House of Commons. I am disappointed that the present Parliament has not carried the process of constitutional reform further. I acknowledge that considerable and important changes have been introduced over the past four years. They represent the British way of effecting change; step by step, rather than as a consequence of a carefully thought out blueprint for democratic modernisation.

85WH
Prior to the last general election, I had the satisfaction of meeting the current Foreign Secretary to discuss the possibility of a joint platform of constitutional reform— including changes to the House of Lords—that our two parties could endorse in our manifestos. If the electorate voted for a Government who could act on those recommendations, there would be a degree of legitimacy for a much wider reform of our institutions and more cross-party support than in the past. Earlier attempts to reform the House of Lords in the 1960s—including in the first Parliament in which I had the honour to serve—came unstuck because of the absence of any such agreement. The parties were divided about the direction of reform.
I felt that we had started the process of reforming the House of Lords quite well. We recognised the need to give priority to the removal of hereditary peers. No case was made for their participation in debates—and, ultimately, the enactment of legislation—when we were deciding what sort of upper House should replace one stripped of its hereditaries. It seemed that we might have some broad support for that proposition, but—partly because there were not enough Members like the hon. Member for Thurrock—for a long time, even among reformers, there was no consensus about what should take the place of the second Chamber. The whole thing seemed so anomalous that many in the Labour party thought that it should be swept away and that we should not have a second Chamber.
I have always favoured a second Chamber. The distribution of power, provided that it is accountable and democratic, is desirable; that is why I favour the devolution of power and want at the centre separate Chambers, performing somewhat different functions. It seemed right that that process should be kick-started after the last election. Unfortunately, our recommendations were not acted upon in the way that we recommended. We advocated the establishment of a Joint Committee of both Houses to introduce detailed proposals on structure and functions for the later stages of reform within a limited period. That body should produce recommendations for a democratic and representative second Chamber.
I take to heart what the right hon. Member for Chesterfield said about the two meanings of "representative", and I agree with him. The trouble is that the Government latched on to the notion of a second Chamber constructed—not elected—of people drawn from different walks of society on the wrong basis of belief that what we wanted in a second Chamber were people with experience of different activities, who could speak with the authority drawn from that experience. However, what we want are people drawn from our society by those who choose them to exercise their judgment based on their experience and the evidence before them. They should not be elected merely to speak for themselves or appointed merely to speak about medicine, for example, because they have served as the president of the Royal Society of Medicine.
We require people of weight and judgment, chosen by the electors; something that the appointment of the people's peers failed to achieve. An exercise in which people were appointed following consultation with PricewaterhouseCoopers and others was bound to fail
86WH
There are always hopeful people who will apply for opportunities to give public service. As one of those who launched the SDP. I received hundreds of letters from people offering their services who thought they would be suitable to be Prime Minister.
There is a deep failure to grasp the importance of democracy within the Government and within Parliament. In the White Paper on reforming the House of Lords in January 1999, the Government stated:
"But the House of Lords and the work it carries out suffer from its lack of legitimacy, because the presence of the hereditary peers creates a permanent, inbuilt majority for a single party. For its functions to be properly performed, the House of Lords needs a degree of legitimacy which it does not now enjoy."
Candidly, a House of Commons and a House of Lords are either legitimate or they are not. It is not sensible to aspire to a degree of legitimacy.
Mr. Tony Benn: A hereditary peer would not get in on the basis of a degree of legitimacy.
Mr. Maclennan: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point.
We must aspire to legitimacy and that means democracy. If that word is missing from future dispositions, White Papers and other indicators of Government intention—what will appear in the manifestos of the various parties on that subject is also a litmus test—we must regard the entire process as suspect. We can expect that the House of Lords, in whatever form it is devised, will lose popular support and ineluctably wither away as an effective part of our constitution. As someone who believes in the distribution of power, I believe that that would be a pity.
10.35 am
Mr. Dominic Grieve: This has been a most enjoyable debate and I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on introducing it. I took issue only with his suggestion that my position as a Conservative spokesman made me part of the establishment. Over the past four years I have felt increasingly marginalised; indeed, I have begun to feel that I no longer exist in a country in which government is carried out. That feeling reached a climax yesterday when, with an overwhelming sense of nausea, I watched the performance of the new establishment launching its election campaign by hijacking a school assembly service in London for political purposes. It was disgusting, if typical of the general drift of politics over the past few years. It was an interesting example of how a Government can come into office full of commitments to democratise the political process but, four years later, can produce absolutely nothing in that regard except the introduction of some features of establishment life which, as a Conservative, I find even more objectionable than the ones that pre-existed them.
The hon. Member for Thurrock made some good points. The so-called people's peers are nothing of the kind, although I confess that I mildly participated in the process. A radical human rights lawyer asked me whether I would support his nomination; I did not quite draw the hairdresser analogy in thinking that he might bring a bit of spark into the institution or that he might make a particular contribution in the wake of the

87WH

Human Rights Act 1998, but I supported his nomination. I thought—thinking politically for a moment—that he was the sort of person on the borderline who might be nominated However, it did not happen. Instead we had the appointment of the great and the good, with the usual dilution caused by the shifting position of the establishment. As has been said, it was a con trick. I am sure that it will not be repeated in terms of the regional bandwagons, from which point of view it is completely irrelevant. The system of people's peers was designed to cloak the fact that the Government, having made a commitment to reform the House of Lords, failed completely to carry through any sort of rational strategy or policy.
As a Conservative, if I were asked to choose between what we have now and what we had before we abolished hereditary peers, I would have to say that I see no benefit whatever in the present system. The previous House of Lords was archaic and indefensible on any rational or practical basis, but I had a greater affection for it than for what we have now. The question is what direction we should go in. Several pertinent points were made on that subject. Speaking not as a party spokesman but from a personal view, I believe that the trend of history lies in the direction set out by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield and the hon. Member for Thurrock. I believe that we will eventually end up with an elected second Chamber. There are drawbacks to that, about which I remain anxious.
The point about preserving an independent element was also made; the independent element in the present upper House is important. However, I am concerned whether we shall be able to preserve that element by that method. I realise that forms of proportional representation may make that possible, but I have my doubts.
The place will be dominated by placemen of parties. The difficulty is that if the second Chamber is to remain subordinate—I am sure that it must within our constitutional framework—I am sure that the hon. Member for Thurrock will agree that the problem is who will be attracted to do that particular form of work. Are we not in danger of ending up with the second tier of rejects from those who failed to get on selection lists for their political parties? Those are real issues that must be considered carefully before we embark down that road. Although the end product is logical in terms of democracy—as stated so eloquently by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield—and logic, it may not work as well in practice as it does on paper.
The second thing, which could be done at once, is to end the Prime Minister's powers of patronage over appointments to the House of Lords. Having seen the performance of Lord Stevenson in relation to people's peers, I, like the hon. Member for Thurrock, am worried about an appointments commission. However, if this House put its creative mind to the matter, we could set a statutory framework and guidelines and find suitable appointments commissioners to do the job. Beyond that, there is no earthly reason why the Prime Minister should have powers of patronage over appointments to the House of Lords. That could be got rid of quickly. When the Conservative party gets back into government, which I believe and trust will be soon, I hope that that is one of the first things that we shall do.
88WH
We have ended up with a hybrid. The Prime Minister says, "Of course, I am setting up the Appointments Commission. Various people will be appointed by it and I shall not interfere with the Leader of the Opposition's rights of nomination." That is nice, but the Prime Minister has kept the power to appoint such peers as he wishes. As long as that is the situation, the system will remain inherently corrupt.
The Liberal Democrats were angry about the criticism of Lloyd George by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell). Lloyd George was extremely corrupt; it is as simple as that. He was extremely corrupt in the way in which he used his powers. As a matter of absolutes, one thing that I should like to see in politics is the diminution of the ability of politicians to be corrupted by their office or to corrupt others in the process of discharging their office, which is always a great challenge in democracies.
To return to a point made by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, we must remember that, however clear-cut and perfect a structure we set up, it is still possible to corrupt it. I come from a half-French background. The constitution of the French Republic, as set up, is supposed to reflect democracy. If one examines the way in which it operates in practice, it is riddled with corrupt practices of one kind or another, despite its democratic credentials and its adherence to the rights of man. We should not get too carried away with the principle; we should examine the practice.
I want to leave a great deal of time so that the Minister has a leisurely opportunity to reply to the debate; I intend to speak for only a few more moments. I disagreed with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield when he said that the only constitution that we have in this country is the oath that we, as Members, take to the Sovereign. The only constitution that we have in this country is the oath that the sovereign takes at her coronation, which is worth examining because it forms a fairly reasonable framework—which can always be altered—for the way in which government should be conducted, if we remove the references to the established Church.
We have a flexible constitution that has served this country well and there is an essential role for an upper House. We need a revising Chamber that is relatively and reasonably detached from the cut and thrust of the political process, so it can take an independent view. That is what we should set out to achieve, and not gimmicks such as people's peers. The process by which the old constitution of this country has been gradually turned on its head has produced not the democracy that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield wants but a substitute for the sort of country that Napoleon III set about creating; a populist autocracy, in which the Prime Minister is Napoleon III writ small.
10.44 am
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) has introduced the debate in his usual challenging and robust way; I congratulate him on that, and on securing the debate. Many of his remarks concerned the suitability of the so-called people's peers. I confess that it is a phrase that I personally never use. However, I think of my hon.

89WH
Friend as a people's champion. Whatever the events of the next few weeks bring him, I will always think of him as the thane of Thurrock.
If the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) and the hon. Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and for Tatton (Mr. Bell) will forgive me, the early part of the debate seemed to concern the parliamentary Labour party. I am conscious of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) that the matter has not only been pursued historically but will be pursued in future.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) may not have the opportunity to pursue the argument in this place, but I know that he will do so vigorously elsewhere. I will not say that he made a farewell speech; I have said that before, and he may be tempted once more. However, I want to put on record an important and influential comment that he made, which was that we should not lose sight of the fact that the mood for change comes from outside the House. A strong Government and Parliament should turn outwards, listen to the voices, reflect on them and introduce change. My right hon. Friend mentioned the environmental movement. If we do not listen to its concerns and projections, there will be serious environmental consequences.
The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross and the hon. Member for Tatton acknowledged that things had changed. The message that I took from them was that change was not happening quickly enough and that we were not making enough progress on the matter. I look forward to hearing the views of the hon. Member for Tatton, perhaps in a debate of a different title, after 8 June. We will sorely miss the statesmanlike comments and perceptions that the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross has provided over many years.
It has been suggested that the list of names announced by the Appointments Commission proves that the idea of opening up the process of appointment to the House of Lords is a farce. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock went further and said that it was an absurdity, a nonsense and a charade. Supported by other hon. Members, he argued that, in effect, the usual suspects had been appointed, so nothing had been gained from the establishment of an independent commission on appointments. I do not believe that to be the case. In the past, the process by which peers were chosen was shrouded in mystery. For non-political, non-working peers, a list of names was published twice a year, but how the names emerged was known to few in government, and even fewer outside. It was not clear to the recipient, or anyone else, whether it was simply an honour or a recognition of past achievement for which nothing was required in return, or whether the main intention was that the individual would bring experience to the Lords and contribute to a revising Chamber.
Mr. Mackinlay: So what has changed?
Mr. Tipping: A great deal. First, the Prime Minister no longer controls the names. I know that there has been
90WH
argument about the 15 names and the quality of the chairmanship of the Appointments Commission, but it has brought forward the names, not the Government. The obscure process by which the names were selected has been opened up, although perhaps not far enough for some of my hon. Friends. Instead of relying on soundings in Departments or the random recommendations of those outside who have some knowledge of how the system works, we now have, by the instincts of the Prime Minister, a more open and transparent system. We know who is responsible; the Appointments Commission is recommending the names.
Mr. Mackinlay: If there is greater transparency, can my hon. Friend the Minister tell us whether it was news to him, as it was to me, that someone on the body appointing the Appointments Commission was actually a beneficiary of it; a nominee after it was set up? My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) revealed that. It is wholly corrupt. Is the Minister going to address the question of Valerie Howarth who was clearly deficient in her application in terms of the criteria laid down by the Commission? Did that woman disclose in her application that she had failed in her application to become director of social services for Cambridgeshire?
Mr. Tipping: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will come to those points in a second.
We clearly know who is making appointments and how that is being done. The important thing about the independent Appointments Commission is that it has set out criteria, which my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle has examined. He might not like them, but they are there for him to examine. The Appointments Commission has checked the names against those criteria. He mentioned the roadshows. Whether they continue in the regions next year is a matter for the commission. It is an independent body, which does not belong to me.
As an avid reader of the Appointments Commission's website, I am confident in the knowledge that it approached more than 10,000 organisations, asking for suitable candidates to apply. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield supported one such candidate. Its report is on the record. That contrasts with what went before. More than 3,000 people applied; that is a big step forward. Of those, 15 have been recommended for appointment. All have made it clear that they are willing to serve and expect to be hard-working, committed peers.
I shall labour the point; the Appointments Commission was set up to be totally independent. It has a remit, which I believe that it has fulfilled. My hon. Friends do not agree with the remit and that is the basis of their argument. Within the remit, however, the Appointments Commission has done its job. It is the commission that must take responsibility for individual names. The Prime Minister has committed himself not to become involved in those appointments and not to block names unless major issues, such as national security, arise.
It is not for me to comment on individual names and I will not comment in depth about the people who have been recommended. If we look at our careers—I say this

91WH
to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock in an open-handed way—we have all made mistakes in the past. The important thing is to come through those mistakes. My hon. Friend asked whether it was news to me that Herman Ouseley, a member of the committee that appointed the Appointments Commission, was recommended. It was not news to me. The Appointments Commission will be issuing a press release today, setting out its views on that matter. It believes that the process was carried out properly and transparently. My hon. Friend might not accept those assurances, but those are the views of the commission, taken after careful consideration.
I would like to make some general comments about the people appointed. The individuals nominated—my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock has given names—have without exception, in their differing ways, given outstanding public service over many years and have exceptional records of achievement. As hon. Members have said, in comparison to the traditional composition of the House of Lords, the new peers come from more varied ethnic backgrounds, include more women and are, on average, younger. We have had a discussion about death. I wish these peers a long and active life in the House of Lords. We are making important steps in the right direction.
Mr. Grieve: I certainly do not consider that the people who have been appointed are unsuitable to serve in the House of Lords. However, does not the Minister agree that the list of names suggests precisely the sort of people that one might have expected to be sent to the House of Lords under the old system? The whole thrust of the idea of people's peers was to reach out to other or further sections of the community that had not previously succeeded in securing representatives. Is that not the key failure of the appointment process?
Mr. Tipping: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. The success of the Appointments Commission has been greater than he acknowledges. A young man from the black and Afro-Caribbean community—who has been the chief executive of a voluntary organisation and has now been offered a peerage—is very different from the current kind of peer. The Appointments Commission has widened the range.
In the few minutes that remain I want to talk about the wider issues involved in the future of the House of Lords. Change has occurred, although my hon. Friend the member for Thurrock and others do not think that
92WH
it has been sufficient. After a century of trying, phase 1 of House of Lords reform has taken place and the vast majority of hereditary peers have gone. We need to move from the past arguments to the future arguments. I am committed, as are the Government, to a way forward that builds on the work of the royal commission. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock grimaces at that, but the Government have made it clear that the basic premise of the commission's report is correct.
The argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, which is supported by several hon. Members, is that the correct way forward is to disestablish the present system and put in place a democratically elected second Chamber. However, there are real dangers involved in creating a void and putting a new structure in place. In fairness to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, he recognised some of those dangers. He acknowledged that the second Chamber's primary role should be that of a revising and delaying Chamber; a Chamber for the exchange of ideas. I am worried that we might set up a Chamber that is in opposition to the House of Commons. I believe in the paramount position of the House of Commons. In terms of the scales of balance, it is fundamentally important that that is where the real power and democratic structure of Parliament should reside. Any change to the second Chamber will have profound consequences for the House of Commons.
I am not arguing that we should not have change in the House of Commons; indeed, there is a compelling case for more modernisation. However, to create a democratically elected second Chamber comprising 100 peers elected by proportional representation, or whatever it may be, would have real consequences for the House of Commons. That requires careful thinking through, and I counsel my hon. Friends and colleagues within the party to take a cautious approach.
I want to make a couple of final points. I was asked what had happened on the question of the Joint Committee. Let me be blunt about that. We were unable to reach agreement on the Joint Committee's terms of reference, but the Government are committed to ensuring that all parties have a say in the way forward and the mechanics of changes to the procedures.
In conclusion, there has been vigorous debate in Westminster Hall today, and it is absolutely clear that there are different views. The debate will continue and I look forward to the publication of the election manifestos.

Police Manpower (London)
11 am
Dr. Vincent Cable: I welcome the opportunity to introduce one of the last Westminster Hall Adjournment debates of this Parliament—[Interruption.]
Mr. Andrew Welsh (in the Chair): Order. I ask those who are leaving to do so quietly.
Dr. Cable: It concerns a subject that is of considerable concern to my constituents and, I suspect, to many others across the capital. It is important to begin by acknowledging that matters have moved on since the initiation of regular debates in this Chamber on the London police, who are now the responsibility of the Metropolitan Police Authority. None the less, the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) has important residual responsibilities, particularly in respect of funding and of senior appointments. Indeed, much of what I say today will be relevant to him, rather than simply an indirect reference to the work of the MPA.
Many of my later remarks will seem critical or express concern, so I shall begin on a positive note. Good things are happening in the Metropolitan police. Many of my constituents reacted very favourably to the way in which the Metropolitan police handled the recent major demonstrations against globalisation, and I unreservedly support the work of the police in containing those demonstrations in a highly effective and professional way. As one of my constituents said, that is what we pay our taxes for.
After many years of decline, there is some—albeit short-term—evidence that recruitment figures are stabilising and possibly improving. The Government's crime fighting fund and the top-up from the mayor and the Greater London Authority have provided funding at least to stabilise, and perhaps to increase, police numbers. I gather that sufficient recruits passed through the training school at Hendon in the past few months to enable the targets to be met, and we hope that those figures, which demonstrate the positive element in the picture, are sustainable.
My colleagues who are here today represent the many different aspects of London. Like me, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) represents suburban Twickenham. My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), however, represents a rather different aspect of London and London policing.
Although I want to speak on a London-wide basis, I begin from the perspective of my own constituency, where there is a paradoxical situation. One might wonder why someone from Twickenham wants to raise crime as an issue. All surveys show that the police in Twickenham are extremely popular. The local police division survey showed that they are highly respected, very popular and the subject of little criticism. Senior officers work extremely well with the local community. In terms of key indicators such as burglary and street crime, all statistics demonstrate that ours is an exceptionally safe borough with very low rates of
94WH
recorded crime. Moreover, there is considerable evidence to suggest that performance targets are being met.
However, that picture contrasts with the perceptions of constituents of all political persuasions, who often express serious fears. A contingent of constituents who visited my surgery last week were literally shaking with anger at the lack of order in their suburb. They said heatedly that it was the south Bronx of London, but I cannot imagine anything less like the south Bronx. The following day, I looked round the area and at first sight I was reassured. The street was placid, tree-lined and attractive, but a closer look revealed that every bus shelter had been smashed, every white wall had been daubed with graffiti, there was broken glass in the road and every car seemed to have been damaged. I was told that, the night before, 20 or 30 youths had gathered on the street corner drinking heavy spirits, smashing bottles and abusing residents. The police were called, but said that they could not come because they had no resources. There was a tremendous feeling of frustration.
I have raised the paradox of fear of crime and the apparent objective reality of very little crime. I am often told by the police that the problem is one of perception and I am beginning to worry about the concept of fear of crime. We are told that residents are suffering from a paranoid delusion and fear something that does not exist, but it does exist. The objective reality underlying the fear of crime is that in many parts of London, and certainly in mine, policing levels are low. In my division there are around 250 police officers and the number in Kingston is similar, which are by far the lowest numbers in London, at around one third of the level in a comparable population such as Lambeth. Lambeth has special problems, but are they three times more serious? Many of the crimes in my constituency about which people care passionately, such as widespread criminal damage, do not fall within the key indicators that are measured and monitored by the Metropolitan police, and much of the frustration arises from the fact that the problem is not treated as seriously as the main crime indicators.
Much crime is unreported. After another night of violence, I spoke to residents in Hampton and it seems that around 50 orders were placed with a local glazing company to replace broken car windows. However, only 15 incidents were reported to the police and when I asked some of the residents why they had not reported them, they shrugged their shoulders and said, "Why bother? There is no follow-up and nothing happens. Why should we report them?" They say that it is difficult to get anyone to come out from the police station and one wag on the police telephone said, "Why don't you call your MP?" The frustration is real.
There is a potential backlash in constituencies such as mine. We pay disproportionately more for London policing because of the precept on council tax. My constituency is an area of high council tax because of the way in which the mechanism of local government funding works and people pay disproportionately more and received disproportionately less in return. Of the 1,000 new police officers promised by the Metropolitan police authority, we shall have 14. That is very welcome and will bring the division up to its theoretical full strength, but it is a very small number and does not even begin to address the concerns that I am describing.

95WH
My concern is not parochial. I read the previous debate on the Metropolitan police and many of the same concerns were expressed by my colleagues in south-west London, by Conservatives in Uxbridge and Bexley, and by Labour Members in Croydon and Upminster. They were concerned about crime, much of it unreported and much of it not in high priority areas—for example, criminal damage and graffiti. The problem is not being tackled.
I have outlined the context in which I launch the debate, but I shall now concentrate on police numbers and recruitment. As the Minister knows, the context is one in which police numbers have declined steadily, year on year, without interruption since 1990. If blame is to be attached, it is widespread, although police numbers were much lower in the 1960s and 1970s.
Mr. Oliver Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that during the years of Conservative government, the number of police officers in London rose by 4,500, but under the present Labour Government, the number in London has fallen by 3 per cent. and crime has risen by 3 per cent. in the past year? That cannot be a coincidence.
Dr. Cable: It depends on which years we use as our base. In 1990, police numbers were 28,300. Since 1997, they have fallen to 26,675. Why the Conservative Government changed their priorities and started cutting police numbers is something that the hon. Gentleman will no doubt explain later.
There has been a transformation in the funding arrangements. The combination of the fighting fund and the GLA has created a more optimistic environment. I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I shall run through the arithmetic. Over the two years from March 2000 to March 2002, the base case from which the police and the Home Office will have been working is the expected decline in police numbers of about 2,700 because of wastage and retirement. Usual recruitment will bring in another 1,070, leaving a deficit of 1,600, as a result of which the rate of decline in police numbers will have accelerated.
Since its introduction, the crime fighting fund has funded 1,200 posts over two years, but that still leaves a deficit of 400 to 500. The extra precept contribution from the GLA now means that a positive balance has been achieved over that two-year period. That is welcome, but given that the crime fighting fund and the precept increase are politically difficult accomplishments, how does the Minister see such stabilisation being sustained for years in light of the fact that there will be a high level of attrition from the police through retirement? There will be a substantial bulge within the next few years.
As for recruitment policy, everyone welcomes the fact that London allowances have been increased substantially, thereby nullifying the negative effect of the withdrawal of housing allowances by the former Home Secretary under the Conservative Administration. That is a welcome change. However, I find certain aspects of the recruitment problem mystifying and inconsistent. When helping a police officer who had left the force prematurely and was living in police housing, I discovered that his house was
96WH
in the process of being auctioned and that police houses throughout my constituency were being sold off at private auction, with no end use by the police service.
Common sense suggests that that is utterly perverse. We have an enormous police recruitment problem. There are police officers in my constituency who commute from Portsmouth and round the M25 from St. Albans because they cannot afford housing in the area. Yet, police property is being sold off. Substantial amounts of it have been sold over the years, most recently under the MPA, but previously under Home Office guidance. Will the Minister clarify matters? The only explanation that I have been given is that there is a mismatch between the accommodation that is available, which is mainly family, and that which is wanted by young recruits who are often single men and women.
However, even a moderately imaginative landlord could find a way in which to convert a three-bedroom house into bedsits with shared communal facilities. A little imagination by the Metropolitan police property department would solve the problem, which relates to the wider issue of affordable housing, our access to which is shrinking. In many areas such as my constituency, there is no land on which to build new houses. The stock of housing that can be afforded by young professionals, including police officers, is diminishing, yet an asset is being sold for no obvious reason. There is a distinct lack of joined-up thinking. I hope that the Minister will bring that problem to the attention of the Metropolitan police.
As for recruitment, we recognise that it is not only a matter of numbers. There must be quality and balance among the recruits, the most obvious being the ethnic mix. We know that the police are making big efforts. I pay tribute to Mr. Grieve and the impact that he has had in making the Metropolitan police a friendlier environment for ethnic minorities, both as members of the public and recruits. The culture is changing in a welcome way. Recruitment numbers are beginning to reflect that, but are still hopelessly inadequate in terms of the 25 per cent. target that has been set.
The problem is not simply one of ethnic minorities. Many types of people could make a useful contribution to the police service, but were discouraged in the past by unimaginative forms of recruitment. The Home Office has been examining recruitment criteria and perhaps the Minister would report on that. About a year ago, I brought to his attention the case of a young man who had a large gap in his teeth. Under a 1920's regulation he was debarred on medical grounds. That case was investigated and solved, but it was the tip of a large iceberg.
The problem is not only one of full-time police officers. One of the points emphasised by my colleagues is the need to examine a much more varied portfolio of police careers, especially the role of specials, the numbers of whom have declined astronomically in London and elsewhere under the Government. There are many unnecessary financial impediments such as lack of compensation or reimbursement for court time spent by specials. An unnecessary regulation has been brought to my attention whereby special police officers cannot stand for Parliament. One of my political colleagues, Jonathan Simpson who is a special police officer in Hampstead and Highgate, has had to choose

97WH
between a political career and one as a special police officer. There is no obvious reason why such a regulation should continue to exist.
Similarly, there is broad consensus among police thinkers of the need to use volunteers creatively—to man the police station for example, not go round with baseball bats late at night.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I seek a point of clarification on the interesting question of the political responsibilities of police. A similar issue arises in relation to being a parish council member. Is it the view of the hon. Gentleman's party that all special constables should be able to serve in Parliament and take part in voluntary activities such as being a councillor for any political party? Does he believe that to be the case both for special constables and police officers in general? It is a genuine inquiry.
Dr. Cable: We have made the proposal in respect of special constables. As a result of the transfer of responsibility, police officers are no longer—even indirectly—civil servants. Metropolitan police officers work for a London authority rather than for the Government, so the potential conflict of interest that might have arisen as a result of a police officer being a Member of Parliament does not arise. We are putting forward the proposal for specials, but the Minister may wish to respond to the fact that the logic applies to the wider recruitment problem.
Mr. Heald: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously saying that the reason for the decline in the number of specials is that councillors cannot join? Does he agree with the special constable who said in Police magazine in February that the reason was that the service was a:
"thoroughly demoralised and over criticised, under-resourced"
organisation whose
"members work anti-social hours and often find themselves in…danger"?
Dr. Cable: The hon. Gentleman widens the discussion unnecessarily. The Minister asked a precise and helpful follow-up and the hon. Gentleman's intervention was propaganda.
I noticed many specials in the lines of police officers manning the anti-globalisation protests. Therefore, they share in the credit attracted to the force as a whole, with all the improvements in morale that follow.
Clearly, the question of police manpower is not simply a numbers game, important though the number of officers is. It is also an issue of the usefulness of police time. I know that the Minister has devoted a lot of thought as to how much of the frankly absurd form-filling requirements of the police can be dealt with. I have seen studies that suggest that progress has been made on that problem, but much needs to be done.
In terms of the allocation of time, a question that concerns many of us is why police time cannot be spent more productively on the street. A recent survey conducted in north London showed that approximately 10 per cent. of operational police time was spent on the street, while 40 per cent. was spent administratively.
98WH
Police officers often cite the little bit of received wisdom that the chance of a police officer on patrol encountering a criminal committing a crime is about as likely as being hit by an asteroid. That little bit of wisdom has acquired a dangerous life of its own. A little reflection suggests that, if beat policing is done more flexibly and thoughtfully, and if, for example, police walk on opposite sides of the street rather than together, or go on a car patrol and fan out from the car, many of the things that our constituents want to see, such as a visible police presence on foot outside their homes, could be achieved with an economy of manpower. I should be interested to hear from the Minister responsible for police how far thinking has developed in the police in terms of that old controversy.
On the use of time, I recognise that, as an economist would put it, substituting capital for labour can often be an intelligent way of managing resources. One way of substituting capital for labour is replacing people with cameras, or, at least, cameras that are watched.
I end with a little whinge to the Minister about cameras. I have tried for some years to support the local police and council in their efforts to introduce a CCTV system. He may recall my asking at Home Office questions why Treasury rules did not allow us to have a system because of the difficulties of funding recurrent costs. He wrote me a nice, sympathetic letter encouraging my local council and police to apply under his funding. They spent 18 months putting together a package and finding revenue streams that would enable them to cover recurrent costs, which they put forward a few months ago. A few weeks ago, they were told that they had been rejected because by then all the money had been spent. I hope that he will give a morale boost to my area by suggesting that the relevant fund will have a fresh look at that application. That is an example of the wider point that we are dealing not merely with numbers but with good use and deployment of resources.
Discussion about police numbers and police time relates to input rat her than output. Eventually, we want to know whether crime is being reduced, as that is the name of the game. I do not want to enter into a sterile debate about whether crime is rising or falling. I simply make the point that there are big disparities in the way in which crime is measured, as we know from recorded crime and crime surveys.
A particular anxiety for my area is that many of the crimes that matter most to people are simply never recorded. If every graffiti tag were recorded, the crime figures would be astronomical and disastrous, which they are not. I ask the Minister—we are entering a general election in which crime reduction will be a key theme—to bear it in mind that in many areas such as mine there is still very deep apprehension about crime and the lack of policing, however it is measured.
11.22 am
Mr. Edward Davey: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on having secured this important debate, albeit on the eve of the election. It helps us, before we leave this place, to focus on some of the real issues.
Police numbers have been a political issue for many years. If we were to read debates in the House from the 1960s and 1970s, we would see that similar arguments

99WH
were being rehearsed. We have not learned from past mistakes in dealing with police levels, and I shall broadly enter that domain before making some more detailed points.
My hon. Friend rightly discussed the importance of performance as well as numbers. In the past, some Governments, in particular Mrs. Thatcher's first Government, decided that all that they needed to do was throw money at the police, and they wasted a lot of resources. Later Tory Governments decided that that was not the thing to do and slashed police numbers.
Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the number of police constables—officers on the front line—increased every year under the Conservatives?
Mr. Davey: I do not accept that. In some periods, the number of Metropolitan police officers doing real jobs involving catching crime, whether on the street or in the office detecting criminals, fell. Police numbers in the Metropolitan police fell for 10 years, which included a long period of Conservative rule. The Conservatives seemed to take the position that the issue was not police numbers but performance. We need to stop thinking along the lines of the issue being numbers in one period and performance in the next—we need to tie both together and raise our ambitions about police performance levels.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham is right to say that the key issue is outcomes, not just in terms of reducing crime but in respect of making our neighbourhoods, homes and communities feel safer. My constituents in Kingston and Surbiton are similar to my hon. Friend's constituents in that they perceive a great deal of crime, some of which is graffiti and vandalism. That is often called "low-level crime" in the jargon, but for our constituents it is serious; they see it as they come out of their doors and it makes them feel unsafe. We have an ageing population and many pensioners feel unsafe to go out on the streets. That is a public cost; it is a disadvantage to a society.
Some outcomes that we should be measuring are intangible. The issue is not simply whether car crime or burglaries have fallen or risen; we need to consider outcomes that are difficult to measure. If we put them high on the list, up there with such serious crimes as rape and street robbery, the need for extra police would be far more evident. We need to measure police performance rigorously to ensure that there is proper output for the input from the taxpayer. Let us ensure that those outputs and outcomes reflect the real desires of our constituents, rather than those that are easy to measure for Ministers and their officials. That is not what the game should be about: the outcomes and outputs should be those that matter to our constituents, and they are sometimes not as measurable as we in our technocratic world might like.
Having made that general point, I want to discuss some of the challenges that we face in respect of police numbers in London. The long period of decline is flattening out and things seem to taking an upturn; our challenge is to make up the police numbers that we have lost, so that we can raise levels of performance. At the same time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham said, from 2002 for about three or four
100WH
years there will be a bulge, as a lot of officers will retire. We must keep recruitment going to make up for past losses and to prepare ourselves for the huge bulge of retiring officers. That is an enormous challenge for the Government and the Metropolitan Police Authority.
We must recruit thousands of officers, year on year, for a long period, especially if we want the police to meet the wider objectives to which my hon. Friend and I have referred. In Kingston, burglary and car crime are falling, but street robbery is increasing, as are a lot of minor crimes that are not measured, such as vandalism and disorder from gangs of youths resulting mainly from intoxication. if we want to crack down on such crimes, areas such as Kingston will need a substantial rise in police numbers.
We also need a strategy to persuade the media to report crime properly. In the past week or so, the local police in Kingston published the latest figures, which showed some reductions in crime. The local paper, however, decided to pick on one figure that showed an increase from a relatively small basis and make a splash headline out of it that totally misrepresented the crime statistics. That is not helpful in the fight against crime or in explaining to communities or individuals what is happening.
Mr. Charles Clarke: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman but, to be honest, I have thought about the matter a lot, and other than by spending a lot on positive PR, I am not sure of the approach that we should take to achieve what he wants. Does the hon. Gentleman have any proposals on how to achieve the aim that he sets out?
Mr. Davey: I, too, have thought about the problem, which is difficult. With a free press, if a journalist gets it into his or her head that there will be a scare story, there is nothing that one can do to stop it. I would not want it any other way. However, in the Kingston division the retired chief superintendent Alan Given and his successor, Geoff Braithwaite—who is very welcome—have taken a very proactive approach to dealing with the media. They have managed to get positive stories in the local papers for a considerable period. It is all about borough commanders and senior police officers taking a proactive response, rather than just responding to stories. It is similar to the way in which Millbank operates its spinning.
Mr. Clarke: Is the hon. Gentleman recommending that we should apply Millbank techniques to the police force in Britain?
Mr. Davey: I would not want to go in that direction. For example, I would not want to see Sir John Stevens visiting a school and singing a hymn at the launch of his campaign to get more money—that would not go down terribly well.
I shall discuss positive aspects of what is being done to meet the challenge that I have outlined. The recruitment exercise referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham is going well, and I have joined in that in two ways in Kingston. I joined chief superintendent Braithwaite and his officers at a recruitment fair in the Bentalls centre, which is the main shopping centre.

101WH
It pulled in not only potential recruits but young children who may be recruits in future. We watched actors performing an arrest. Some actors played drunken youths, and we saw how a police officer dealt with that situation sensitively. That demonstration of policing in town centres is a pro-active method of encouraging more people to join the police force.
Chief Superintendent Alan Given, who was head of Kingston police, was appointed by Sir John Stevens to head the recruitment task force at 26 Aybrook street, where the headquarters for recruitment is based. I went there a month or two ago to discuss how the recruitment exercise was going. what problems had been encountered and how they were dealt with. The first thing that was impressive was the management information database. Previously, the police did not know what was happening to applications or people coming through Hendon. Currently, there is careful monitoring and recruitment performance is assessed from the data. Surprisingly, that results in some of the flaws of previous practices being exposed, and new innovative methods of getting people to apply to and join the police.
A table of sources of inquiries breaks down where inquiries from potential applicants come from, such as from answerphone, billboard, career centre, Home Office, internet, jobcentre, magazines, newspapers and so on. A brief perusal of that table shows how, in July 2000, most requests were made by applicants leaving their name and address on the answerphone. I am pleased to say that that is no longer the main source of inquiry for an application, and more inquiries now come from responses to newspapers, magazines, proactive work by the police, and, interestingly, via the internet. In July 2000, 69 inquiries were received from the internet, while in February, 1,001 such inquiries were received. The Metropolitan police are moving into the 21st century and using the internet as a method of getting people to apply for jobs. That is welcome, and I pay tribute to Chief Superintendent Alan Given and Sir John Stevens for the work that the task force is doing. I could go through many other tables, but I feel that I may try your patience, Mr. Welsh.
Information is now being made available, and it is significantly influencing recruitment methods. Old practices are being abandoned. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham has alluded to some of them, and I want to describe one more. An applicant was told that he was too young and that he should go away and get some experience of life. He backpacked round the world for two years, but when he returned, he was told that he could not apply to join the force as he had not been resident in the UK for the past two years. There are far too many examples of the Metropolitan police acting in arcane ways and setting up obstacles, so it is not surprising that the tearing down of old practices has led to a large increase in recruitment.
A key question is whether institutions such as Hendon should be expanded. Can it currently accommodate enough recruits for us to realise our ambition of policing the capital as thoroughly as Londoners would wish? If the numbers of recruits passing through Hendon are kept up over the next few years, would that be sufficient
102WH
to meet the challenge that we are facing? The Minister should examine that issue with the Metropolitan Police Authority.
I have a couple of minor criticisms of the Government. I am delighted that they restored the housing allowance. The Tories cut it and that was a disastrous policy: recruitment fell dramatically, which set back policing in the capital by several years. However, the Government failed to restore it quickly enough. My party had to harry them for three years before they eventually got round to reintroducing it, but even then they did not do it properly. There are several anomalies, and I wish to draw one of them to the Minister's attention. Prior to 1994, single officers received half the housing allowance. In 1994, that allowance was frozen: if such officers subsequently married, they still received the single person's housing allowance. However, those officers, who have been serving for several years, might now be working alongside new recruits who receive the full London housing allowance, regardless of whether they are single or married. Experienced officers receive less housing allowance, even though they have remained in the police, merely because they happened to be single prior to 1994. What message does that send to them? It cannot be right. I hope that the Minister will tackle such anomalies.
The Government are addressing another important issue because my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) brought it to their attention in the House several months ago: the need to encourage officers to stay in the force longer. I hope that the Minister can report some progress on that. Although it is important to encourage new recruits, it is also necessary to address the issues of quality and experience, as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham said. We must ensure that the cadre of police officers comprises not only new and inexperienced recruits but a broad range of officers, some with 30 or 40 years' experience, others with 20 years, and 10 years, and five years. Veterans and new recruits learn from each other, and they offer different skills and attributes to help meet the challenge of policing in London. It is therefore essential that the Government swiftly produce concrete proposals to encourage officers who are approaching their 30-year period of service to remain in the police.
I have spoken to several officers about the matter, and it is apparent that the key issue is their lump sum payment after 30 years' service. They want to be allowed to stay on when they take the money, rather than also be required to take their pension, and to be penalised by the tax system. Although that change might require primary legislation, the Government must facilitate officers to stay on by addressing that financial matter. That would provide a massive incentive, and make a considerable contribution to the recruitment challenge and to helping to ensure that we get the correct mix of officers within the London force.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: Before my hon. Friend concludes, will he comment on another annoying feature of the police force nowadays, whereby an officer who has become familiar with an area, has built up contacts among the general population and knows the children and the head teachers of the schools is then

103WH
moved somewhere else? I appreciate that there are reasons for doing that, such as avoiding corruption, but I cannot believe that it is good practice. It is damaging not only for the officer's family but for children who grow up in the community and elderly people. It is important for them to know their police and to see them regularly in the area, but the current practice militates against that.
Mr. Davey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. She is absolutely right. The policy of tenure under the former Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis is gradually and diplomatically being phased out by the new commissioner, and not before time. I hope that it will tackle the sorts of problems to which my hon. Friend referred. She and I share a wonderful area called New Malden, which crosses the boundaries of our two constituencies. It happens to have the largest population of Koreans in the UK, for the historical reason that the Korean embassy was situated nearby. A few years ago, the local beat officer went to the trouble of learning Korean. That shows the degree of commitment of some of our wonderful officers. Having learned Korean, however, he was moved away to an area where there was no Korean population, supposedly in the interests of his career. That was bad policing—the officer did not want to move, but he was required to do so. That is an example of how absurd bureaucratic practices can diminish good policing.
I want to make two other points, one of which is a constituency lobbying point in respect of technology, and, specifically, cameras. I know that the Minister is still in office, and Parliament is not dissolved, so I am sure that he can answer positively. Kingston council applied for funding for CCTV on Tolworth Broadway. I wrote to the Minister on the matter when the Home Office turned the application down. I was disappointed because there has been a spate of vandalism and attacks on individuals going about their business on Tolworth Broadway. Shopkeepers and the local community feel that if they had CCTV, they could protect the area far more effectively. The police believe that such IT investment could be used to good effect, and that criminals who are vandalising property and attacking law-abiding citizens could be caught. I hope that, in the last few days of this Parliament, the Minister will review that decision and consider making a grant to Kingston council, to enable CCTV to be installed in Tolworth Broadway.
My final point is a general one about the allocation of police resources—the famous resource allocation formula, which I am sure that hon. Members have considered. I am delighted that my noble Friend Lord Tope, who is chairman of the finance committee of the Metropolitan Police Authority, is considering reform of the resource allocation formula in London. It must be reformed. because it does not reward success. If crime is reduced through effective policing, resources are taken away, which is the most perverse incentive that I can think of for tackling crime. If local police reduce one or two of the headline crime statistics, there are many other services that they would like to provide to their community. Such a resource formula will not increase service or performance levels, because the incentives are wrong.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham on representing his constituents on this issue with a tenacity and ability that is probably
104WH
unequalled by any other Member of Parliament. He has done a sterling job, and has raised an important issue, which Liberal Democrat Members have a great ambition to resolve through major investment in London's police.
11.44 am
Mr. Simon Hughes: I, too, am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words. I am grateful for the persistence of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) in seeking Adjournment debates. I have not counted but, at the end of this Parliament, he is surely near the top of the Adjournment debate league. He does it not because he loves speaking in such debates but because he is keen to ensure that issues are brought to the Minister's attention and that progress is made, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said.
I should explain that the red box in front of me is not here because of some new arrogance or delusions of grandeur on my part. The reason is simply that my office prepared my papers for today and put them in this box. I have never before appeared in the House with a red box, although in a few weeks' time, I and all my hon. Friends will have red boxes.
The issue is important, and I am grateful that we are debating it again, less than a week before the dissolution of Parliament. The blunt fact is that police numbers have gone down significantly during this Parliament. That is not something for Labour to be proud of, and the public will be reminded of it regularly before the election. The decrease in numbers was not necessary. It was obvious that that would happen if the Government did not alter their spending limits. The Home Secretary epitomised the Government's belated awareness by appearing at Hendon the other day, surrounded by police recruits. The Minister was aware of the need for publicity campaigns and more money before he became a Minister at the Home Office, and it is something that some of us have been urging on the Government throughout the term of the Parliament.
Police numbers have gone down across London and in individual boroughs. In my borough of Southwark, we have a larger police establishment than in outer London boroughs, but we are not up to strength. People such as the borough commander, to whom I pay tribute. say that they would be able to do more if they had the full complement of police officers. Clearly, adequate resources are needed to deal with tragedies such as the death of Damilola Taylor and the investigations that followed it.
Another unsatisfactory situation is the decrease in special constables in London and the rest of the country. That problem is less obviously the fault of the Government, and they have shown a belated interest in it. I was privileged to chair the special constables awards in Portcullis house the other day in the presence of the mayor of London, the commissioner and others. It was a splendid event, which honoured excellence in special constable work. The winner this year is a special constable who looks after Deptford market in the London borough of Lewisham. Police and special constable numbers must increase in the London boroughs.
Mr. Heald: When we pressed the Government to keep recruitment up and to increase police numbers, their

105WH
reaction was that our argument was sterile and simplistic. That is what the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) said. Only recently have the Government woken up to their duty to have a recruitment campaign and put some officers on the street.
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right. It is bizarre that, in the first half of the Parliament, the Government said that they could not do anything about police numbers, which were entirely a matter for chief constables. The Government said that they would allocate money, but they stayed within their spending limits. The second half started with the famous Bournemouth speech; the Home Secretary got into a bit of a pickle, and suddenly the Government started allocating money. That money effectively became ring-fenced and allowed police numbers to increase.
I shall not be overly political, but my hon. Friends have pointed out the weakness in the point made by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). After a good record on police numbers from 1979 to 1992, for some inexplicable reason the previous Tory Administration suddenly took their eyes off the ball and started the decline in police numbers that the Labour Government continued. In London, neither Labour nor the Conservatives come to the election with a history of having done well in their last term of office. They have done badly with respect to police numbers and safety for Londoners.
Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman knows that the number of police constables rose every year under the Conservatives. Why will he not accept that point?
Mr. Hughes: The uninitiated may not be aware of this debate. It is about police officers. I do not want to get stuck in the statistics groove, but the crude facts are that the numbers of police officers—people drawing their salary and putting on the uniform—decreased between 1992 and 1997. The numbers had risen before then. I pay tribute to those officers. Of course it matters whether they are out on the streets or behind a desk. I agree that we need them more out on the streets.
Mr. Charles Clarke: For the sake of accuracy, police numbers went down from 1990, not from 1992. That is two years more than the hon. Gentleman stated.
Mr. Hughes: I am aware of that. I was not seeking to hide it. I was seeking to take each Administration separately. I was comparing the previous Tory Administration with this one.
The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire is about to speak on behalf of the Tories, yet surprisingly not one single Tory or Labour Member representing London is here. In a one and a half hour debate the speakers will include the person who moves the debate, the Minister who responds and probably the spokespeople from the three parties. It is unusual for the other parties not to have at least one representative. I cannot believe that all the people who are not here will also be absent this afternoon. I wager that many
106WH
London Members, Tory and Labour, are in the House today. They are just not at this debate on policing in London.
Mr. Andrew Welsh (in the Chair): Order. I know that hon. Members are keen to fight the general election, but I hope that they will stay in order and on the subject.
Mr. Clarke: Just for information, there is a meeting, as there is every week at 11.30 am, of the parliamentary Labour party, which my colleagues are attending. The Prime Minister is speaking at it and that is why they are not here today.
Mr. Hughes: That is quite a good, although not a completely good reason. Surely one representative of the London Labour MPs could have attended the debate, but if the Prime Minister is upstairs reading from the hymn book and singing at the troops I am sure that it will all be lovely.
Mr. Clarke: Hear, hear.
Mr. Hughes: The Minister is bound to say that.
My colleagues and I are much strengthened in our case. We six Liberal Democrat Members have had police manpower in London at the top of our agenda in this Parliament and are therefore pleased—I pay tribute to the Government for this—that responsibility has now been transferred from the Government to the Greater London Authority and the Metropolitan Police Authority. I pay tribute to those authorities and to the mayor for the way in which they have started their work. The mayor made it clear that he wanted significant numbers of extra police in London and the GLA therefore raised the precept to start that process. That was a good decision, which we gratefully supported.
Mr. Davey: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Conservatives on the GLA wanted to cut the police budget by £48 million, which would have undermined the policing in London?
Mr. Hughes: It was extraordinary that when the parties on the GLA put forward their budget proposals, the Tory proposal was significantly lower than that of the mayor, the Liberal Democrats and Labour members. The blunt truth is that people have choices. I am sure that my hon. Friend will not cease to remind his electorate of that in the next few weeks, and rightly so. At the end of the day, political parties are teams and we are collectively accountable for our decisions.
One matter that the GLA and the MPA have taken over has particular interest for my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge). The Carriage Office, which regulates taxis in London, has been given the long overdue job of dealing with minicabs. That is indirectly related to police manpower because the more people who are working, the quicker the job can be done. I therefore wonder whether we will soon have a change in regulations about numbers of taxis generally, which is a concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton. Will we get on with licensing

107WH
minicabs so that the safety issues, on which my hon. Friend has been a pre-eminent campaigner, can be addressed?
Dr. Tonge: Is my hon. Friend aware that only last week in my constituency a young woman was raped by a bogus minicab driver? That was not the first such incident; it happens far too often in London. Is he aware that it is two and a half years since the Bill was enacted, but we are only just beginning to license minicab firms, let alone drivers and their vehicles? Is that not a disgrace?
Mr. Hughes: It is a disgrace. I was not aware of that case, but we would all express revulsion at it. I hope that my hon. Friend's comments, although brief, will be noted and that the Commissioner, his force, the Carriage Office, the GLA, the MPA and others will get on with the job. Every day that that does not happen, people's safety is at risk. I am sure that, like the rest of us, my hon. Friend will keep up the pressure.
Like Sir Paul Condon, Sir John Stevens is seized of the need for more police officers in London. I pay tribute to them, to Trevor Pearman, my local borough commander who recently moved on, and to Rod Jarman, the current borough commander. They have made the case for more officers at every opportunity.
Demand is such that provision is stretched. For obvious reasons, there are many more pressures on policing in London than that in other parts of the country. Events such as the anti-globalisation protest focus on London, because it is the capital city. Normally, it has national sporting events. I say "normally" because, although Twickenham carries on and Millwall football club is even more pre-eminent than before—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton does not agree, even though Millwall has just been promoted, winning its final match on Saturday 5-0. We have lost Wembley temporarily, although perhaps for slightly longer than we had bargained for. None the less, there are huge extra demands on London, and we pay tribute to the police for dealing with them.
Yesterday, there was a big protest outside the Home Office. People were protesting, rightly, about antiterrorism legislation that the Government got wrong. It is not wrong to have such legislation, but they got the detail wrong. Sadly, the police were also required at some cost for two National Front marches in my constituency on recent weekends, and there will be a third this weekend. The good news is that the marches attract little support. The bad news is that they are extremely demanding of police resources, manpower and time. I wish that the National Front would realise that its prejudiced view is not nearly as appealing as it thinks.
Although such demands exist, we should not say that marches and protests should not take place. They are in the nature of political life in any democracy, so we must bear their cost. The public understand that there must be policing of the May day activities on one hand and of the National Front on the other. I dissent from the view floated the other day by Lord Harris of Haringey, the chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority, that the National Front should be a proscribed organisation.
108WH
I am keen for us to re-examine the public order legislation, but once we start to ban people from expressing views completely, we get into trouble.
Mr. Charles Clarke: Let me say for the record that Lord Harris was speaking for himself on that occasion, not for the Labour party.
Mr. Hughes: I understand that. I did not mean to misrepresent the position and I hope that I did not. My understanding is that the Home Secretary's view is similar to mine and shared by Ministers. There are powers to ban marches in certain cases, but they require the police to come to the view that they cannot manage the public order implications.
My party believes that there should be an increase in overall numbers and that there should be minimum numbers. We have put a proposal to the Government, to which they have not yet signed up, that there should be a standing conference on policing to keep both sets of numbers under review and to make objective recommendations on what they should be. My hon. Friends and I approach the debate in the belief that there is a case for London to have police numbers comparable, in proportion to population, with those of New York and Paris. That would mean a significant number of extra officers, which the public want and are willing to pay for.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham and others that the problem is not a shortage of interest. Yesterday, I went with our party leader to English Martyrs Roman Catholic primary school in my constituency to start our election campaign. When we asked the youngsters what they wanted to do in the future, a little lad of 11—he happened to be a black lad—said, "I want to be a police officer." Many people spot that career option, but we are not very good at responding to it. Will the Minister say whether the Government are urging the MPA and London police authorities to consider two different ideas: a cadet system and a sponsorship system? A police cadet system would get people interested and police authorities that opted into a sponsorship system, rolled out nationally or in London, would be able to tell potential recruits, "If you are aged 16 or 17 and willing to join the police, we will pay for you to go through college. If you sign on for five or 10 years we will look after you in the early years, as the armed forces do and as many City firms have done in the past." That would increase recruitment and I am keen for the Government to support it.
Secondly, I want to underline the points that have been made about housing needs. Many more people would be police officers in London if they had local housing; they do not all want to travel for 50 or 100 miles to work. There is a case to be made for what used to be called section houses for police officers when they join the force, usually at an age when they are not yet married. It is like going to college or university the new officers are with their peer group and are usually happy to be housed in student-type accommodation and to be with their mates. It is a good experience before settling down and living in their own place. I want section housing to be brought back and key worker housing to be developed.

109WH
Can the Minister say whether any police force has carried out a needs assessment of the kind of housing that the police want so that that profile can be matched to what is provided? We should consider making part of the salary, or perhaps a bonus, portable and able to be transferred from one property to another.
Thirdly, I support the proposition mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton that we should break with the idea of police signing on automatically for 30 years. Police officers should be allowed to sign on for 10, 20 or 30 years, starting at the age of 18, 28 or 38, and then be allowed to carry on beyond the age of 48 or at the end of a 30-year period if they wish to do so. A more flexible system would attract many more people, some of whom, at about the age of 40, may be fed up with their job and want a life change. They would be happy to do police and community service. I cannot understand why it has taken so long to respond to such suggestions.
Fifthly, may we please have part-time police officers? That would allow many people with family commitments to join the police force. We should also get rid of the nonsense that prevents people becoming specials; for example, in order to be the Liberal Democrat prospective parliamentary candidate in Hampstead and Highgate, Jonathan Simpson has had to resign his special commission. There may be few people in that category, but no one should be precluded from doing public service because he or she has a political career. A Member of Parliament should be able to be a special constable.
Sixthly, may we have a community safety force to supplement the police? Seventhly, may we encourage the police to recruit more volunteers? Front desks do not need to be staffed by uniformed police officers. It is frustrating to have to wait in a queue because no officer is available; someone has to be there when people ask at the desk for police assistance, and a volunteer would perform that job adequately.
My penultimate question to the Minister is please can we stop tying up so much police time in replicating work done by others? Every police sector does its own crime statistics. Surely, a few people in the service could compile the crime statistics for the whole of the Metropolitan police and relieve officers on the beat of that task.
Lastly, there is a danger that police are now into partnership policing and that is all very good, Mr. Winterton—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): I hesitate to intervene on an hon. Member who is so experienced in this place, but the one thing that I have gained in 30 years here is the title additional Deputy Speaker. At this stage in a Parliament I would love to be so called.
Mr. Hughes: I bow deferentially to your status, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are one of the few people who have been here even longer than I have.
The police are keen that they do not have to attend more and more meetings that replicate the same work.
110WH
I end on a key point. The funding formula needs to be altered because unless we recognise and reward success, we penalise it. The Minister has told me two or three times in debates that the Government are examining how to do that. It is difficult, and I do not know whether talks have taken place to reach an agreement. It must be a priority for whoever is at the Home Office after the election that police success—not just in London, but everywhere—does not result in a financial penalty to the service. I hope that we have made a strong and practical case for ways in which we can increase police numbers; we need more and the public want us to provide more. This was the last opportunity to make that case in this place before the general election.
12.5 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald: Yesterday, the Prime Minister visited the constituency of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who came here today with a red box. I wondered whether that was a sign that the third way was back on track.
We have had a good debate, and it is pleasing to have the opportunity to pay tribute to the officers of the Metropolitan police—and the City police, because we are debating policing in London. The police do a magnificent job, often in difficult circumstances. I also congratulate Sir John Stevens on his leadership of the Metropolitan police. The London public were dreading May day this year because last year's scenes were dreadful. Some of our most important national monuments were desecrated and there was widespread violence, but police planning and performance kept us safe this year.
If the Minister is prepared to comment, what does he think about some of the protestors' comments that they may now complain under the Human Rights Act 1998 and seek damages for the way in which the protest was policed? It is the job of the police to secure the peace. Does the Minister not agree that that Act should not deflect the police from that duty? Does he accept that it is odd for protestors to complain after the peace has been kept and, if he feels that the Act, which his party introduced, will lead to such nonsense, should he not put forward proposals to change the situation?
Mr. Charles Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm whether his party intends to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 if it is elected at the next general election?
Mr. Heald: It is no secret that we have not suggested repealing the Act, but we would be grateful if the Minister, with all the advice, assistance and legal help that he receives, told us the legal position on the protestors' complaints. The Government introduced the legislation and, if there is a problem, all parties will want to examine it.
Between March 1979 and March 1997, police strength in the Metropolitan police increased by 4,500. This Government came to power promising to put more officers back on the beat but, almost from the start, their

111WH
philosophy was that increasing police numbers was not vital and a sterile argument. Indeed, the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) said on 4 February 1999 that
"we must move way from sterile and simplistic arguments about police numbers."—[Official Report, 4 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 1099.]
As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said, Opposition Members, in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who was shadow Home Secretary at the time, argued that we must keep police numbers up and continue recruiting. To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he did too. We are constantly told, "Oh no, we are not debating that today; we must assess efficiency." The Government have badly lost their way.
The Conservative years witnessed rising police numbers, with more constables appointed every year. The number of civilians employed was also increased by 50,000, releasing many officers to work on the front line. No one would say that it was perfect, but rising police numbers and their greater presence on the streets was better than what followed under the Labour Government. Police numbers declined rapidly against a background of retention problems, so crime rose. It is inexplicable why the Government took that line.
In London, police numbers fell from 26,677 in March 1997 to the latest figure of 24.861—a fall of 1,816 officers. As a result of boundary changes, it might be fairer to reduce the figure to about 1,500. The City of London police have experienced a fall of 148 officers. Overall in London, 1,600 or more officers—3 per cent.—are no longer policing our streets. At the same time, the number of special constables—volunteers who give their time to police our streets—fell nationally by a third.
What has been the effect of the decline in police numbers? Sir Paul Condon, the highly respected former Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, said:
"It means that we cannot devote the resources to murder inquiries that other forces do. It means we have fewer bobbies on the beat that we, or the public would like… The time for fudge and prevarication is over."
Others followed up the same theme of rising crime. In the year to September 2000, 6,000 more violent crimes were committed in London than in the previous 12 months—a rise of 3 per cent. We have thus seen a fall of 3 per cent. in police numbers and a 3 per cent. rise in crime over the past year. It is no coincidence or surprise: fewer officers doing the job will lead to a rise in street crime, so the Government should take responsibility for it.
In December last year, Sir John Stevens announced that the Metropolitan police was in crisis. He spoke about the ability to fight crime being "stretched" and pointed to rises in street robbery and violence and increased use of guns. He also emphasised the difficulties of recruitment:
"People are saying, 'Do we want to join the service'"
A few weeks ago, the Home Secretary announced that the number of police recruits was increasing, with a 27 per cent. rise in the numbers sent to Hendon, but in the last financial year, the Metropolitan police lost 199 officers.
112WH
It is instructive to hear the comments of the chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, Glenn Smyth. The Minister laughs, of course, because he will not like the following quote:
"It may be good news for other parts of the country, but it is certainly not good news for the Met… Only 3 per cent. of application forms sent result in a recruit at training school."
That certainly does not constitute a success. He continued:
"The Met is a ticking time bomb… unless there is a huge upturn in recruitment and more importantly retention the Met will be a third smaller in 2005-06. If there is a light at the end of the tunnel it certainly hasn't been turned on yet!"
I recognise the truth in that.
The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) referred to the bulge in imminent retirements. We may have had a one-off boost in recruitment, but at the cost of a huge national advertising campaign and the Metropolitan police deciding that people whom they had previously rejected for various reasons could join the force after all. It is not a sustained improvement for the future. If the Minister is serious about the police service, he will have to tackle some of the serious morale problems that it faces.
The fact that police stations in London are closing is of concern to London residents. The force is being stretched out, with 1,600 fewer officers and no special constables to fill the gaps; police stations cannot be manned. The Minister will confirm that around 40 police stations have closed during the Labour years. Chief Superintendent Jarrett, talking last year about the closure of Pinner, Edgware and Wealdstone stations, said:
"I share people's concern. I'm a resident here. I know what it's like not to have a police station nearby when, for example, you want to report you'll be away from your house for a few weeks. It's very difficult."
Morale in London is hit when the ordinary officer on the beat who wants to do a good job, as the public want him to do, has to say, "Well, I'm sorry, your police station is closed. We do not have the men or the women to police your area in the way that we would like." It is sad that on a day such as May day we have officers everywhere and see what a fantastic job the police can do; they can have high visibility and provide us with policing in the capital of the sort that people want—yet that is not the case year round.
The Government say that when we were in government we had years of putting extra money into the police and rising police numbers, but still did not get on top of crime—however, that shows how long it takes and what a sustained effort is needed to reduce crime and change the culture so that people believe that police officers will catch them if they commit crime. Once we let the situation slip—as the Government have done—and start saying that police numbers do not matter, that the debate is sterile and let numbers fall, youngsters thinking of committing crime start doing so because they can get away with it. The word goes round that the police are not out there. One ends up with a culture in which violence on the street is more prevalent.
The country will pay the penalty for those years of neglect under Labour. It is no good saying just before an election, "Oh well, we've realised we were wrong and have put extra resources in and got a few police officers. We are sorry—give us a second chance." Damage will be done to London for many years. I hope that all the

113WH
proposed new recruits come forward and I welcome the fact that there are more, as do all Conservative Members. However, a young officer on the beat for the first time is no substitute for those seasoned officers who have left the force. All officers of experience say that it is officers who have been doing the job for a period who do the best work for the police. I welcome the volunteers.
In conclusion, we need to restore police numbers and morale. We must be fair and not over-criticise. We must get rid of red tape and review police functions so that police officers do the job that they should do. It is about ending the insult of the early release scheme whereby officers who have been assaulted see the early release of the more than 200 criminals who carried out the assaults. It is about cadet schemes, part-time police officers, and specials and retirees working for a few more years and allowing officers to work for less than 30 years. Above all, we must restore police morale, which requires a change of Government.
12.19 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): We have heard some excellent speeches during the debate—they did not all consist of political tub-thumping—and a wide range of important points were made. I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr.Cable) for initiating the debate. The tone with which he and his Liberal Democrat colleagues spoke was correct. They tried to identify the problems, but suggested that there had been progress in some areas and identified that straightforwardly. I appreciate that, because when such matters are reported in the media, it is important that they are dealt with soberly. I acknowledge that some matters still need to be rectified and I shall speak about those, but the story is more positive than it has been for a long time.
I want to emphasise this momentous period for the Metropolitan police. The Metropolitan Police Authority was established last April and many people had campaigned for that important development for a long time. It changes many of the relationships significantly. The relatively new leadership of Sir John Stevens and the deputy commissioner, Ian Blair, is driving through a major and important programme of reform in the Met. The boundaries of the Met have been redrawn so that they are coterminous around Greater London and, even more significantly, within Greater London the establishment of borough commands, which are coterminous with the local authorities, gives a massive drive to all the work that needs to be done on development of crime reduction partnerships.
I pay tribute to the work being done by borough commanders throughout London. I have visited many parts of London during the past six to nine months, for a variety of reasons, and the quality of the borough commanders whom I met has been outstanding. The work being done by the force to decentralise decisions to the borough commands to enable that partnership to develop is important, but difficult for reasons that we know.
We have made changes in numbers and resources and I want to make a couple of party political points. It is important to record that police numbers in London
114WH
were in decline from 1990 onwards. When we came to power in 1997, there were fewer police officers in London than at any time during the 15 years since 1985. We decided to accept the Conservative spending limits for the first two years and there was plenty of argument about that and our decisions on how to deal with our appalling economic inheritance, particularly public spending, which we had to get under control. We took that decision first and we have seen the result in low interest rates, high employment and strong growth. There are party political arguments among Liberal Democrats and in my party on whether those decisions were right, but they were taken and the proof of the pudding has been in the eating because they allowed the strong increase in funding that we have seen in the past couple of years, which has been projected through the comprehensive spending review to the future.
From 30 September 2000 to 31 January 2001, there has been an increase of 160 officers in the Met, which is the first significant increase for more than a decade. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) referred to police stations and it is worth bearing it in mind that during the past year, 2000-2001, for the first time in 10 years, no police stations were closed and four were opened. There was an increase in the number of police stations in London last year.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the difficulty of attracting recruits, but interest in joining the Met is currently at unprecedented levels, with more than 250 inquiries every day and more than 6,000 information packs being sent out to prospective applicants during March. That is not a picture of a force finding difficulty in recruiting people. I shall not go through the arithmetic of the extra resources that we have put into London, including the important increases in pay and the establishment of the rail companies operating system with the welcome assistance of my hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Indeed, I am delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Hill), in his place to commend that tremendous and important achievement.
I shall not go in detail through the figures on the increase in spending on the Metropolitan police grant because there is insufficient time. At this time of change, we have extra numbers and resources going into the police and the situation is starting to move forward, which is something that it is important to place on record. At the same time, as part of that substantial process of change, we have a renewed commitment by the leadership of the police in London to high-visibility policing, because the issues raised by the hon. Members for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and for Twickenham about the fear and importance of crime—even in their relatively crime-free constituencies—are correct. It is right to say that we must establish a presence because people are concerned about crime. It is necessary to deal with it in a direct way, which is why the police are taking many initiatives in that area.
There was publicity in today's papers about a decision, of which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will be aware, in the London borough of Southwark to locate police officers in schools in that part of the city. It has been advertised as the first such scheme in Britain, although it is not

115WH
actually the first. Last week I was in Clapton, where the police have opened an office in a secondary school in the middle of a low-crime area, which means that they will be circulating around that school. A series of similar initiatives are being developed up and down the country, but I pay tribute to what the Metropolitan force is doing in that area.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I thoroughly support that initiative. It is hugely important that young people going to, and at, school can feel that it is a place of safety and that they are not under threat from other pupils or those outside. If we have to do it; we have to do it—for as long as is necessary.
Mr. Clarke: That is absolutely right. It is not only schools; police are being located in libraries, housing offices and so on because we acknowledge that to have police located around the community is an important means of building strength and support for the kind of partnerships we need.
Not least in the litany of change, which includes the establishment of the MPA, the new leadership of the deputy commissioner, the change of boundaries, the establishment of borough commands, the increased resources and the development of the focus on visibility, is the diversity agenda, to which the hon. Members for Kingston and Surbiton and for Twickenham referred. It is important and it is beginning to change the situation. Specials are being recruited and we have set a target to increase their numbers significantly because I agree with the important criticisms that have been made in that area, not least those that concern the need to seek recruits from ethnic minority communities.
There is an enormous agenda with a difficult history. The important task of reforming the human resources and finance functions of the Met in order to establish basic information about what is happening will not be easy. However, the leadership of the force is driving such changes through, which is something that I welcome and congratulate. The recruitment standards issue and form
116WH
filling for expenses are classic examples of their kind, where things that have gone on for years are now being steadily changed. Indeed, the tenure system is another excellent example and it is being reviewed for the exact reasons that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) mentioned in her interventions. We must get community-experienced police officers staying in posts so that they can influence and strengthen communities. Changing that enormous service is not easy. It requires a great deal of commitment by both the police and Government, but it is something that we are offering and seeking to implement.
Manpower, the specific subject of this debate, is an important element, but it is not the only element because nobody believes that the issue is sterile. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who is a colleague of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire, told me in discussion on national television—he probably was not watching because it would have been boring for him as he knows the subject so well—that she concedes that the policing issue involves not simply numbers but the quality of policing and how it operates.
I shall conclude by correcting the hon. Gentleman on crime. The Commissioner has made it clear that the total number of notifiable offences in the 12 months to 31 March 2000 decreased by 2.2 per cent. Crime in London has fallen. Burglary is down by 9.5 per cent. Vehicle crime is down by 0.2 per cent. and in Richmond, I gather that it is down by 9.9 per cent. Street crime has increased, and we are focusing on that in the various initiatives that we are introducing, but crime is going down. That is the way in which our policies have been working. They are making a difference. I am the first to acknowledge that there is a great deal more to be done, but we will do it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I congratulate hon. Members on a well-informed and constructive debate, but we must now move to the next debate, on an alternative route for crossrail.

Crossrail
12.30 pm
Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: I am grateful to have secured this important Adjournment debate. I would not be so foolish as to expect the Minister to be able to give a definitive response to the points that I will raise, notwithstanding the respect that I have for him and for his ability to grasp important and complex issues. I hope, however, that he and his Department will accept that I, and those putting forward the same point of view, have a strong case, worthy of consideration.
That case is to argue that the new crossrail link's eastern end should run further south than the route originally proposed: south of Stratford, running through Canary wharf, the royal docks, Barking and Dagenham and on to Purfleet. I have no pecuniary interest to declare, but I should point out that I am chair of the Thames gateway all-party parliamentary group. That is the area affected by the proposition under discussion.
I seek to address the question of how to deal with London's prospective growth. That question has not really been asked for decades—it has not had to be. However, London is now growing again, gaining jobs and facing tremendous pressure on housing. It needs a transport infrastructure to service it. The problem of accommodation for key workers is an essential element of the housing stress and must also be solved.
We must combine spatial and economic development with a workable transport plan, bringing the key issues together. The decision that I am discussing today is the most important since the end of the second world war. It is about access: not just to places but to jobs, opportunities and homes.
The Minister responsible for regeneration at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has constantly argued that we need a key to access all the deprived areas of the Thames gateway. The plan that I shall put forward for consideration does that by serving south London and north Kent as well as docklands, east London and Essex. It addresses the areas of greatest deprivation, therefore providing the greatest opportunities. The main spine for east London is the A13 trunk road, but it will not be able to carry the volume of traffic expected in years ahead. The route that I propose is only a mile from the original study.
At present, the east end of crossrail—I shall deal only with its eastern end—is proposed to go from Liverpool Street to Stratford and on to Shenfield. The plan has been around for some 15 years and was first promoted when Stratford was expected to become the regeneration and employment hub of east London. The plan has been gathering dust while east London has been gathering momentum. Stratford is, and will continue to be, an important centre, not least because of the proposed channel tunnel rail link. It has, however, become neither the regeneration nor the employment hub.
It is to the Government's credit that they have grasped the nettle that crossrail will happen. We must maximise the advantages that crossrail will bring to the capital. However, the reality of what has happened in
118WH
east London has been different from the expectations of 15 years ago. I shall refer to specific figures later. The real regeneration and employment hub has not been Stratford. Canary wharf, Exel, London City airport, the university complex and Norton Pharmaceuticals have joined Tate and Lyle and others. It is docklands that is the real hub. Stratford, which the Docklands light railway and Jubilee line termini have already enhanced, is still an important area. However, at present more than 60 trains an hour pass through it during rush hour, and I wonder whether it can cope with additional capacity.
I ask the Minister to look at the figures for potential development. According to consultants' calculations, the total development for the southern route through Canary wharf, the royal docks, Beckton, Barking Reach, Dagenham dock and Purfleet could exceed 40 million sq ft, if I may be forgiven for using the imperial measurement. However, development for the Stratford to Shenfield line could be as little as 10 million sq ft. Housing developments such as that at Barking Reach are very much in line with London's Mayor Livingstone's announcement on Monday that east London can provide the brownfield sites necessary to accommodate London's increasing population.
The London Mayor and the Government agree that, if London's population does grow to the latest estimate of about 8 million, and if we are to protect the green belt, we need more housing on brownfield sites. They also agree—thankfully, they seem to agree on quite a lot at the moment—that east London has the necessary sites, but we must ask how those sites will be accessed. That is a particularly important question to answer if we are to build for the densities that are being discussed.
According to the study by the Centre for Economics and Business Research that was commissioned by Canary Wharf Ltd. some two years ago, we can expect docklands to generate between 110,000 and 165,000 jobs in the next 10 to 15 years. However, the Jubilee line and the Docklands light railway cannot take the strain that that will impose, and nor, as I have said, can the A13. We need not only to ensure the public transport infrastructure necessary to service commercial developments but to attract more inward investment for brownfield sites. We know that work is under way further to develop the Greenwich peninsula, but standing as it does in the shadow of Canary wharf, it could well suffer from a lack of transport infrastructure, which could deter further investment.
Equally, the development potential of the riverside areas of Barking and Dagenham will not be realised without further public transport investment. The connection with the channel tunnel rail link at Purfleet will relieve pressure on the European link to St. Pancras, create additional capacity and provide alternative routes to London. It will also provide fast access to London and the City from the east.
Challenges have been made to the suggestion of a more southerly route. For example, it has been said that extra costs could be involved, but they could be vastly outweighed by the extra benefits. The estimated cost of the entire project is about £7 billion, and the construction of a southerly route might add only £800 million to that figure. It is also argued that a southerly route would not address the potential of the Lee valley and the opening of the route to Stansted, but nor, I would argue, would the Shenfield route. Stansted

119WH
is important to the development of east London, and it is clear that the various arguments must be explored. However, we must recognise that, whichever route is chosen, certain options will not be covered.
Whether it proceeds along the original route or the more southerly one that I am proposing, crossrail needs to built within the anticipated time scale of 10 years. However, I would argue that both routes are possible, even if there is a change in favour of the more southerly route.
I thank Mr. Robert John, of Canary Wharf Ltd., for bringing the matter to my attention. I also thank Mr. Chris Glaister, of Glaister's, and Mr. Peter Twelftree, of Steer Davies Gleave, for their briefings, and Mr. John Biggs, our hard-working member of the London Assembly, for his thoughts on the matter, which, as always, proved helpful. Historically, east London has been the poor relation of this great capital city, but that has been changing for more than 20 years. We need river crossings—that case has been well argued, and I am sure that the Minister is familiar with it—and improved transport links, of which crossrail should be one of the most important.
The Mayor of London has put forward his 15-year plan, and the Government have their long-term plans to eliminate social exclusion and child poverty and to create more opportunities. They argue for economic competency with social compassion, stability without boom and bust and a head and heart approach. East London has a pivotal role to play in ensuring the success of both the Mayor's and the Government's strategies. It was the vision of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and others that docklands and the Thames gateway could play their full parts.
Crossrail will be important to the success of any strategy—the question is whether we want it to be central. There are already capacity problems on the docklands rail and public transport network, which must be addressed if we are to fulfil sustainable regeneration potential. Failure to do so would be a failure to match the expectations about the new gateway area as a motor of economic growth for London and the south-east—and, for that matter, the United Kingdom—and could even stifle that important growth.
As I said earlier, this could be the most important decision since the war. My request is that those responsible for making it give the southern routes full and fair consideration.
12.40 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) on securing the debate and providing the Chamber with an opportunity to discuss the proposals for cross-London rail links. This is indeed an opportune time for such a debate. Last Thursday, the Government announced key strategic decisions, showing their determination to provide London with the major new passenger rail capacity that the capital needs over the next decade or so. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's warm welcome for that announcement. He is absolutely right—it is an historic decision.
It is important for me to start by reiterating the details of the announcement, which was made after my hon. Friend secured the debate. Work will start immediately
120WH
on the project definition and design development of a central cross-London rail link, the tunnel section of which could follow the alignment of the crossrail scheme. The work will look at alternative service patterns and will lead to a recommendation on the option to be taken forward. For the purposes of my speech, I shall call the scheme crossrail—since everybody else does—but it is not necessarily identical to the old crossrail scheme that was proposed some 10 years ago.
The work will be taken forward jointly by the Strategic Rail Authority and Transport for London. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that that, along with the decision to undertake a feasibility study into the south-west to north-east route, is a clear demonstration of the Government's commitment to the development of rail schemes in London. It is a first step, and there is much work to be done to identify the best options, but Thursday's announcement represents real progress towards providing London with a world-class rail network.
It will be helpful if I set the work in the context of the Strategic Rail Authority's report. In December 1999, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister asked the SRA to carry out a review of the issues relating to rail travel on an east-west axis across London. The report concludes that London is near to capacity in terms of the current national rail network, the central termini and the underground. That infrastructure, even supplemented by committed schemes, will not deliver the capacity to meet expected growth in passenger and freight demand over the next decade or so. The report recommends the consideration of a package of schemes of varying sizes and impacts to overcome those problems and to create a railway network that is appropriate to London's status as a world city.
In producing the report, the SRA took as a priority the identification of schemes that provide significant additional capacity in the central area to reduce congestion, to improve access and network capacity in key regeneration areas, to support the development of a network of strategic interchanges, to provide effective routes and operating conditions for freight and to provide fast and effective access to and from Heathrow. The report shows that there is little opportunity to provide the significant increase in capacity required to support the forecast growth by upgrading the existing system. Schemes for upgrading existing routes by lengthening platforms, increasing frequencies and building additional track were all considered, as were plans to link the Circle line to the national network. None of those could deliver sufficient new capacity. The report concludes that new cross-London links are required, probably along the protected corridors of the crossrail from Paddington to Liverpool Street and the Chelsea-Hackney line.
Since the beginning of the year, the Government, with the mayor and the SRA, have been considering the SRA report. Apart from the report, a large number of national schemes are being progressed or proposed in the London area. They range from relatively minor track improvements to major schemes such as the Thameslink 2000 scheme and the crossrail proposal. None of the schemes stands alone; they all have interfaces with one another. In most cases, they interface

121WH
with the London Underground or bus routes and interchanges. They need to be taken forward in a coordinated manner.
While recognising the statutory powers and responsibilities that fall to the Mayor and the SRA, my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Transport set up a high level group to ensure clarity on objectives and priorities. The group aims for the development of a co-ordinated strategic approach to London rail projects in general, and to oversee programme co-ordination for work on the projects. It has a formal tripartite structure and is chaired by my right hon. and noble Friend with the Mayor and the chairman of the SRA. The announcement on Thursday followed the group's consideration of the further appraisal of the SRA report.
The purpose of the project definition work is to identify the precise scheme to be taken forward. There are a number of potential routes for the central tunnel, and more particularly for national rail destinations. There are also a number of chain service patterns that need to be examined more thoroughly before we decide on the optimum scheme. In the east, that will include an examination of options to serve the Thames gateway, the Lee valley and other destinations in east London. The approach used to assess options on destinations served will be based on a wide range of parameters, including costs and various benefits such as regeneration, accessibility, environmental benefits, relief of overcrowding, journey time improvements and fare box revenue. Extensive consultation will take place with local authorities, regional development agencies and other interested parties before any decision is made. I can assure my hon. Friend—I know that he will welcome this—that plenty of opportunities will arise for alternative routes to be considered as part of the project definition work. That work will lead to a recommendation from the SRA, TFL and the high-level group.
The heart of the project, which will now be developd, is the construction of a new tunnelled route through the centre of London. Although that alignment could be similar to the crossrail proposal, with new stations at Liverpool Street, Farringdon, Tottenham Court Road, Bond Street and Paddington, the position of the portals and the design of the stations are very likely to be different. The current designs for the central area section of crossrail are held by London Underground, which is responsible for safeguarding the alignment. Existing suburban rail services could be linked across London using the tunnel, perhaps with services to Romford and Shenfield in the east, and to Ealing and Reading in the west.
Mr. Fitzpatrick: My hon. Friend said that there would be full opportunity for representations to be made during the project definition work. Forgive my ignorance, because this may have been included in last week's announcement, but will those suggestions be called for or will they have to be volunteered, and is there a time frame for that opportunity?
Mr. Hill: Now that I have made it clear that there will be a consultation stage, it will certainly take place.
122WH
I reassure my hon. Friend that that was always the intention. I shall write to him providing the details about the time scale and how the opportunity will develop, so that he, other hon. Members and other interested parties in his constituency and in the docklands area can take advantage of it.
I was speaking about the opportunities that will arise for existing suburban rail services. The proposals that we are now considering would allow the Great Western main line and Chiltern line to connect to the Great Eastern main line and the London, Tilbury and Southend line, now known as the C2C. Crossrail could also serve Heathrow airport. However, all that is to be confirmed in the project definition work. The Government have allocated £150 million to fund the costs of crossrail project definition and design work.
The SRA believes that a crossrail link would have the highest proportion of travellers who would benefit from fewer interchanges; that it would be likely to generate the least short-term disruption to established travel patterns; that it would be best at supporting regeneration, given its penetration of west London, and that it could be brought into operation more quickly and with the least risk. A crossrail link would provide a major boost to the development of London's integrated transport network by providing a substantial increase in rail capacity in central London. It would improve access to and across the central area from many parts of east and west London. It would serve both the west end and the City, giving direct access for business, social and leisure travel within a wide area of Greater London.
A crossrail link would provide interchange at nine underground stations and at many stations on the national rail network. By removing the need to change from rail to underground at Paddington and Liverpool Street, a crossrail link would provide new opportunities for journeys to and through central London. It would also reduce crowding on several underground lines and busy stations. It would complement Thames Link 2000 services, if approved, with an interchange at Farringdon, thereby giving access to the north and the south and an interchange with the possible Hackney south-west line, which would be provided if the scheme were to be pursued.
Journey times would be 30 minutes from Slough to the City, 11 minutes from Paddington to Liverpool Street and 20 minutes from Ilford to Bond Street. Such a link would also benefit many road users whose journeys would be improved because of the more attractive rail services. It would provide a high quality of service both on trains and at the new stations and bring wider economic benefits to London. The route would also serve a significant number of regeneration development sites, including the Park Royal area, Paddington, the lower Lea valley at Stratford and the Thames gateway. Stratford, in particular, would be a key interchange station for the regeneration of the Thames gateway.
The construction of completely new infrastructure would allow features such as full access for mobility impaired people to be included as an integrated part of the design. The project definition and design development work will take about 14 months and will lead to a recommendation on the option to be taken forward. It is a major project and no decisions have yet been taken about the most appropriate process for seeking powers. At such an early stage, it is difficult to

123WH
estimate when the construction of a crossrail link, if approved, may begin, but it is unlikely to be before 2005-06. The aim is for the link to be operational by the end of the year 2010, but it might be later depending on how long it takes to obtain the necessary powers and planning consents.
Increased capacity and the provision of new services are essential if we are to meet our targets for passenger growth and keep London and Londoners moving. I am delighted that the SRA, TFL, Railtrack and London Underground are working together to deliver the transport system that is fit for our capital in the 21st century. I hope that the vision that I have set out today for improved services will become a reality at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): The debate has ended a few minutes early. I regret that, in the absence of the Minister who is to reply to the next debate, I shall have to suspend the silting until 1 o'clock.
12.53 pm
Sitting suspended.

Anglo-Irish Relations (Official Documents)
1 pm
Mr. Roy Beggs: I am privileged to have the opportunity to speak on the issue. Documents released during the past two years and, indeed, this year in the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom under the 30-year rule have intensified suspicion of the involvement of the Republic of Ireland in assisting the formation of the Provisional IRA and supplying it with arms.
It will be noted that I refer to an intensifying of suspicion. I do so because contemporary opinion was highly suspicious of the activities of the Republic's Government, and justifiably too, when one casts one's mind back to speeches such as Jack Lynch's on 13 August 1969. He strongly implied that his Government would no longer be in a position to continue in the role of a mere spectator of events in Northern Ireland. There was also the movement of troops to the border areas. Such moves by that Government fuelled the disturbances in Northern Ireland and entrenched a residual suspicion that has never been dissipated. The 1970 arms trial in Dublin and subsequent hearings of the public accounts committee there not only failed to create the desired transparency in the events of that time but further clouded the amassed knowledge of the dealings and transactions that took place. There is an obvious need for transparency and an obvious requirement for accountability.
Victims of a generation of Provisional IRA violence in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, as well as the citizens of the Irish Republic, have the right to know precisely the involvement of Ministers of the Fianna Fáil Government in the formation of the equipment of the Provisional IRA. That right to know is regardless of the motive of any of the Ministers involved. Whether an internal power struggle took place in Fianna Fáil or the policy was a means of containing the unrest within Northern Ireland is a secondary issue. The primary issue is the actions and level of participation of those involved. Anglo-Irish relations continue to be damaged because of this issue. The current Irish Government can never hope to win the trust of British citizens in Northern Ireland without transparency and closure on this issue and others, such as Garda collusion.
Good relations north-south and east-west require a level of confidence in the Irish Republic's Government that can be achieved only by their adopting a more reflective, mature approach. They must pursue the twin goals of transparency and accountability rather than the regressive goal of damage limitation. Unless such actions are taken, the current Fianna Fáil Government may find itself viewed with the same justifiable suspicion as its 1970 predecessor. We must have detailed knowledge of the precise roles played by Charles Haughey, the then Finance Minister, Neil Blaney, the Minister of Agriculture, and military intelligence through Colonel Hefferon and Captain Kelly, in creating and equipping the Provisional IRA. We must be in a position in which to gauge the level of knowledge of Minister of Defence Gibbons, Minister of Justice O'Morain and the Taoiseach Jack Lynch in initially acquiescing to the arms operations and then the manipulating of their political show trial.

125WH
We know that the Government sub-committee on Northern Ireland policy headed by Blaney and Haughey disbursed vast sums that reached those who were to become the Provisional IRA in Belfast. We know that military intelligence agitated for a split in the republican movement and there is no doubt that assurances of financing and aid encouraged and facilitated the decision to split from the IRA command structure.
Regrettably however, the involvement of particular individuals in Government is less accurately documented and those involved have not been held to account. Official Government papers released in the United Kingdom have strongly indicated the opinion of the UK Government to the goings on in Dublin. The letter written by the British ambassador in the Irish Republic to the then Foreign Secretary, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, is but one example. In reference to the arms trial, the ambassador wrote:
"Whatever the verdict, if Mr. Haughey was not part of a conspiracy, he was at any rate up to the neck in a scheme to import arms illegally".
Mr. David Trimble: The passage quoted by my hon. Friend should be underlined. Like me, he would want to congratulate the ambassador on having had such a precise and accurate picture of what was going on. Is he not somewhat disturbed at current media comments in the Irish Republic. where some journalists and others are trying to cast aspersions on Prime Minister Lynch's colleagues, who clearly broke with the Haughey faction? Is it not good to have this statement which clearly states Haughey's position? Does he agree that some Dublin journalists are trying to blacken Gibbons and Lynch to exculpate the Haughey faction, and that such a form of historical re-writing is to be deprecated?
Mr. Beggs: I thank my right hon. Friend for that constructive intervention. He knows that I want to focus attention on those on whom responsibility lies for much of the trouble that we have all endured. It is not my intention to afford an opportunity for journalists to divert attention elsewhere, away from those who are culpable and guilty.
In the Irish Republic, the documenting of secret sessions of the public accounts committee reportedly has coded references to those who had control over the bank accounts used to distribute the £100,000 of so-called aid—a considerable sum in 1970. The Government papers that have been released strongly indicate the authorised omission of evidence by Minister of Justice, Dessie O'Malley, and his Department's apparent tampering with the witness statement of Colonel Hefferon. That deleted evidence implicates the then Minister of Defence, James Gibbons, much more than the mere "vestigial knowledge" that he admitted at the trial.
Of course, it was necessary for Gibbons to be adjudged clean with regards to the scandal—as Minister of Defence, he could have rendered importation of arms legal by mere involvement. Coupled with the release of the Berry papers, conflicting with the evidence given by the secretary to the Minister for Justice at trial, these
126WH
documents create not so much a whiff as a stench of cover-up—that is cover-up, not stitch-up. It seems that many of those currently in the Republic who take an interest in this undoubted crisis both then and now for Fianna Fáil Governments, do so with a view to vindicating Haughey, Blaney and others by the persecution of Lynch, Gibbons and O'Malley, to whom my right hon. Friend referred. Those new sources give weight to a theory that a selective prosecution of individuals was necessary to mask the deep-seated rot in Government policy and involvement with Northern Ireland with an irresponsible pandering to an ideological notion of nationalism.
What we all must remember, and what may have greatest impact on Anglo-Irish relations, is that even if Mr. Haughey and those who can only be termed his co-conspirators were wrongly prosecuted—possibly, persecuted, as some have suggested—it does not prove an absence of participation on their part. The wrongful aspect was that all those involved were not put on the stand with them, or that the policy was not illegal as it was sanctioned from top to bottom, and that the Fianna Fail Government of the time had institutionalised enthusiasm for creating and arming the Provisional IRA.
In the interests of progress and the improvement of Anglo-Irish relations, it is essential that new information relating to the arms crisis of 1970 be fully examined and evaluated and that such examination be carried out by a broad independent public inquiry in the Republic of Ireland. That inquiry must not only narrowly assess the dubious circumstances of the prosecution of Haughey, both Kellys and Albert Lyukx. It must he an inquiry into the wider scandal—scandal is the correct term.
The inquiry must investigate the actions of Fianna Fáil Ministers who, if they did not act as mother to the Provisional IRA, acted as a midwife at the birth of the organisation by funding northern republicans through links forged by Captain Kelly with his namesake in Belfast and by transferring moneys through the Irish Red Cross Society.
The inquiry must also focus on the actions of individuals such as Blaney and on whether his cross-departmental control over Kelly and instruction of Gibbons was a sanctioned delegated power. It must consider the extent to which Blaney and Haughey's joint dictation of policy on Northern Ireland was implicitly approved throughout the Cabinet.
The 1970 arms trial verdict can be dismissed as easily as the jury in that trial accepted the republican rhetoric that was used to defend those who were clearly engaged in importation.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Beggs: I would prefer not to do so.
There has never been accountability or transparency on this issue. More than 3,000 victims in over a quarter of a century deserve better. It is impossible to predict what would have happened had encouragement and support not been given to the then potential Provisionals. However, the inability to make concrete

127WH
predictions does not negate the duty of the British Government to secure transparency and accountability on behalf of murdered and maimed citizens.
It is on that basis that I urge the Minister to make representations to the Government of the Irish Republic requesting an independent inquiry on this arms issue in order to ensure that Anglo-Irish relations—east-west and especially north-south relations—are not further harmed by lack of closure. If relations are to progress and not regress, the southern Irish state must come clean, and the circumstances of the 1970s arms scandal and trial must no longer be denied and concealed.
1.15 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) on securing the debate. I welcome the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government, and I listened with real interest to what he said. I share the belief that in order to comprehend the present or mould the future, it is first necessary to understand the past. Therefore, in the Irish context, it is important that these papers have been released and are being studied. They form an important part of the backdrop to subsequent events.
However, I contend that the prime significance of the papers lies in the fact they have been published, without delay beyond the norm, and that they are now available to inform public debate. The evidence for that is here, because they form the basis of today's debate. The hon. Gentleman would agree that it is a sign of the maturity of the bilateral relationship between Britain and Ireland that both countries are willing to confront history, and learn from it.
The papers tell us about events that happened 30 years ago. It is right that those events should be known and discussed, and I understand why they provoke such a strong interest and response from the hon. Gentleman, his colleagues and many people in the island of Ireland. However, it is important to make the distinction between history and current events, and nothing that we learn from the papers detracts, or should be allowed to detract, from the progress that has been made.
The hon. Gentleman called for an inquiry. If new information emerges about events that occurred in the United Kingdom jurisdiction, the possibility of further inquiry is kept under review, as a general rule. However, it appears that the events to which the hon. Gentleman referred took place, or allegedly took place, under Irish jurisdiction and, therefore, are matters for the Irish Government.
Mr. John D. Taylor: I follow the point that the Minister makes, but he will recall that there are public inquiries in Northern Ireland, which is in the United Kingdom, that were requested by the Dublin Government. Therefore, it is consistent for the United Kingdom Government to request the Dublin Government to hold a public inquiry into the matters under discussion today.
Mr. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman makes his own point. Whether to hold inquiries on any matter under the United Kingdom's jurisdiction is a matter for the
128WH
United Kingdom Government. Similarly, any inquiry into matters under the Irish jurisdiction is a matter for the Irish Government. I am sure that the remarks of the hon. Member for East Antrim will have been heard in Dublin and elsewhere.
Mr. Maginnis: Further to that point, I would not want the Minister to avoid the issue, but will he tell us whether he will make representations to the Irish Government so that even-handedness can be seen? I shall not go into the fact that our own Government of the day must have had some information about what was going on, but the Government of today have the same responsibility to their citizens of Northern Ireland as to their citizens elsewhere throughout the United Kingdom.
Mr. Wilson: I strongly endorse the hon. Gentleman's last point. Obviously, exactly the same rules for jurisdiction would apply to citizens anywhere in the United Kingdom, as I am outlining in the example. The British Government have fulfilled the responsibilities that hon. Members would expect of them by ensuring that the papers were released under the 30-year rule, and are stimulating public debate such as is occurring today, which has flowed from the publication of the papers. Equally obviously, the Government of Ireland are aware of that debate and will arrive at their own decisions on where to take it.
It is important to put Anglo-Irish relations—for obvious reasons, I prefer "British-Irish" relations, but we shall not quibble about the semantics—in context. I understand the specific nature of the debate to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but it is important to recognise what is going on at present. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland recently said, Northern Ireland is a better and more prosperous place in which to live than it was three years ago, never mind 30 years ago.
In a debate at this time, it is incumbent on me, as a representative of the Government, to emphasise that now is the time to complete the Good Friday project, which means people pushing politicians to complete the job that they asked us to do three years ago. The great progress that has been made in recent years in resolving outstanding issues relating to Northern Ireland has allowed the United Kingdom and Ireland to develop a wider and deeper relationship so that we no longer constantly view each other through the single dimension of Northern Ireland. In a way, the significance of the documents that we are discussing is to remind us what happens to such relationships without that co-operation between the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. That is not merely of historical significance but is a relevant reminder in the present-day context.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the Minister's distinction between British-Irish and Anglo-Irish, but the reality is that we seem to be dealing with an Anglo-Irish agreement. In that context, he may remember what he said about learning from history. History repeats itself. That same Dublin Government today has arms dumps and an army operating in the Republic, contrary to their own constitution. I ask again whether the Government will make representations to the Dublin Government for an inquiry.
Mr. Wilson: The debate relates to a specific subject and I do not want to widen it out. There is excellent security co-operation between the United Kingdom authorities and the Irish authorities, and I have no reason to suppose that the Irish Government countenance illegality on the part of an element that would threaten the democratic stability of Ireland just as it would threaten that of Northern Ireland. I do not believe that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman would say that that is true of the present Irish Government, whatever happened in the past.
On making representations, I believe that the documents stand alone; they are in the public domain. The British Government have fulfilled their responsibility and have not evaded it any more than the Irish Government have. When documents emerge, or are published by Governments, that inform public debate and tell people what happened or shed light on events that happened 30 years ago, an inquiry into them should not be automatic. At some point we must move forward rather than always relying on history.
Mr. John D. Taylor: I return to the basic point. The Dublin Government made representations to the present UK Government about a public inquiry into the Bloody Sunday episode in Londonderry city. The Government complied with that request. Why can that not work in reverse? Why can the present Government not make representations to the Dublin Government about a public inquiry into the funding of the Provisional IRA by Haughey and others?
Mr. Wilson: Mr. Winterton—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. One title that I have in this place after 30 years is that of Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Wilson: I unreservedly apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The distinction that the right hon. Gentleman draws is wrong. A Government can make representations to another Government on any subject. However, the implication that the Bloody Sunday inquiry was held because of representations by the Government of Ireland is not a logical extension of that principle. Representations can also be made within a jurisdiction.
I will not move from that position. The debate is taking place, and light is being shed on the matter, because of the maturity of the relationship between Britain and Ireland. That is also the reason why the documents could be published. Older documents concerning the relationship between Britain and Ireland have never been published, but that is a separate matter. It is an important advance in the relationship between the two countries, and especially in their willingness to face up to past events and to the causes of their differences, that documents that are historic in terms of the 30-year rule, but contemporary in terms of the interest that they provoke and the emotions that they arouse, have been published without any delay after 30 years. I hope that that will continue to be standard practice.
Mr. Beggs: I recognise the benefit that is accruing from the release of such information. However, will the Minister state that he shares my concern that there might be good reason to believe that evidence was tampered with, and that there are serious omissions in the information that is being released? Or is he so worried about damaging the good relations that are proclaimed between our Government and the Irish Government that he is incapable of confidently expressing to the Irish Administration that the time has come to clear the matter up and to bring the truth into the open so that what happened can be fully exposed?
Mr. Wilson: As the alleged events took place within the jurisdiction of the Irish Government, and they have serious potential implications for the Irish state, it is for them to determine whether another inquiry is required. I will make no further comment, except to state that the matter has been investigated in the past, and that it is up to a British Government to determine whether events that occurred within their jurisdiction require investigation.
Mr. John D. Taylor: I agree with the Minister. The Dublin Government should make the decision on the matter. That is not under challenge. However, the Dublin Government successfully requested that the British Government establish a public inquiry into the events of Bloody Sunday and apologise for the potato famine. Therefore, we want the Minister to ask the Dublin Government to set up a public inquiry into the dreadful affair that caused so much unhappiness, bloodshed and death in Northern Ireland for 30 years.
Mr. Wilson: It is absolutely certain that famine does not discriminate in terms of class or creed—or, at least, certainly not in terms of creed. The potato famine affected every part of Ireland, so political jurisdiction is not an issue with regard to that.
I am not prepared to allow the premise to be established that the Bloody Sunday inquiry was established at the behest of the Irish Government. There were good reasons within the United Kingdom for that inquiry to take place, and it is going ahead on that basis. Although they are being a little ungenerous, I understand the motivations of the hon. Members who are focusing on demanding that representations be made to the Irish Government, rather than on acknowledging the achievement of the British and Irish Governments in releasing information without which the debate would not be taking place. That is an important advance, both in terms of informing legitimate debate on such topics and events that have resonance down to the present day, but it is also a demonstration of the confidence and maturity of the relationship between the British and Irish Governments that that step can be taken. On that basis, we should be learning from the past. We should be interested in such events and the lessons that we can learn from them.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have run out of time and must move to the next debate, on Northwood and Pinner community hospital.

Northwood and Pinner Community Hospital
1.30 pm
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I am grateful for the opportunity to slip under the wire and raise an issue that is important to my constituents in what, I am told, is the last debate initiated by a Back Bencher in Westminster Hall before the dissolution.
Northwood and Pinner community hospital is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who is in his place today, but it is of considerable importance to my constituents. It is potentially a key location for new, extra intermediate care provision, which could benefit not only my constituents but people in the north of Hillingdon. From meetings that I have chaired, attended by Hillingdon health authority, local residents' associations from Harrow and Harrow West primary care group, I know that Hillingdon health authority is in sympathy with that idea.
I seek from today's debate and from the Minister recognition of the need for ministerial pressure on the London region of the national health service and on Hillingdon health authority to translate that sympathy into detailed planning and the subsequent modernisation of Northwood and Pinner community hospital.
A key finding of the national beds inquiry, published in February 2000, was that
"at least two of every 10 days spent by people aged over 65 in acute hospital beds could be better provided in alternative facilities such as intermediate care beds".
The NHS plan published in July 2000 took forward some of the inquiry's conclusions, outlining what intermediate care might include. It promised an additional 5,000 intermediate care beds with an extra £900 million of investment by 2003-04
"in new intermediate and related services",
precisely
"to promote independence and improve quality of care for older people."
I do not want all of those 5,000 intermediate care beds at Northwood and Pinner, just a small number.
The Department of Health, in a circular in January this year, said that
"intermediate care should form an integrated part of a seamless continuum of services linking health promotion, preventative services, primary care, community health services, social care, support for carers and acute hospital care."
It went on to say that intermediate care services, if not provided in a patient's own home, should be provided in "community-based settings" and, crucially, should be "discrete, step-down facilities" in comparison with the services largely provided by acute hospitals.
Intermediate care is good not only in itself but for the wider modernisation of services in the NHS. It could, for example, help Northwick Park hospital to continue to end problems that it has had with bed blocking. That would help to speed up services for those who most need acute hospital care there as well as providing better care for those who no longer need an acute hospital bed.
132WH
I want to set out some of the context surrounding Northwood and Pinner community hospital. Three key developments in the past six years now impact on some of the issues that affect it. Mount Vernon hospital, some one and a half miles from Northwood and Pinner community hospital—a district general hospital until 1995—lost its accident and emergency unit and its paediatric beds under the previous Government. I and other Harrow Labour councillors vigorously opposed those moves before the 1997 election.
In 1998, perhaps not surprisingly, given the attitude of the royal colleges to specialist services being provided at hospitals that are no longer district general hospitals, Hillingdon health authority proposed to move burns and plastics specialist services from Mount Vernon hospital to Chelsea and Westminster hospital. Following considerable public opposition to the proposal, although the move of burns and plastics services from Mount Vernon has been confirmed, they will instead move to Northwick Park hospital, the main district general hospital serving my constituents. I am pleased that the move will keep excellent clinical teams together.
An almost unnoticed feature of that debate was Hillingdon health authority's offer of new community hospital facilities in north Hillingdon to augment existing provision, which Harrow residents were assured would also be available to them and their GPs.
Another key element of the background picture is that the Government's health reforms were being implemented at about that time. They enabled individual high-quality GP practices to band together to form a primary care group and have much greater input into and say about the structure of local health services.
In addition, following the merger with Central Middlesex hospital, the new management team at Northwick Park is beginning to change the culture of a hospital that has always offered generally excellent care once people are under the surgeon's knife, but has not always been known for the quality of its basic administration, the openness of its management or its customer care. I am referring to the part between the GP saying, "You need an operation", and its taking place. That was coupled with an infrastructure that was starved of resources. For example, the accident and emergency unit, which had needed modernisation for at least the past 10 years, helped to give Northwick Park a reputation that few would envy.
Now, however, there is a sense of things changing. The Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), opened a completely refurbished accident and emergency unit several weeks ago. New intensive care beds have been provided, and maternity is next in line. Crucially, the strong new management team is much more willing to engage with the concerns of local GPs and residents and, more relevant to this debate, to contemplate providing specialist clinics closer to patients.
In my constituency, a high-quality primary care group is keen to develop intermediate care facilities and take advantage of the promise of modern expanded community hospital provision. Ideally, it can access high-quality clinician support from a changing and modernising Northwick Park hospital. Where better to

133WH
begin the process of developing intermediate care options than at Northwood and Pinner community hospital, which is no more than 500 yd from my constituency and has considerable local public support?
Northwood and Pinner community hospital was opened on 2 December 1924. It was built on land donated by a local family on the condition that it was used for a community hospital or retirement home. The hospital was built with money given by local people, much of it by weekly subscription. Many of their descendants still live in the area and take an active interest in the development of the hospital, which they rightly regard as partly theirs.
Back in September 1983, Hillingdon health authority decided to close the hospital to compensate for a £1 million overspend. As we can imagine, there was a massive outcry from the local community about a decision that was condemned by the entire hospital staff. They were joined by local business and community groups, local churches, all local residents associations and Brunel university medical group. On 26 October 1983, recognising the considerable support for Northwood and Pinner community hospital, those groups occupied it. They locked the front and back doors and excluded all non-medical management staff. The hospital continued to treat patients but under the management of clinicians and the local community. It was occupied 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with pickets outside protesting at the planned closure and the Conservative Government's running of the national health service.
The occupation had the support of almost the entire community. Local businesses sent food, milk, money and equipment. A carol service, which was led by a local councillor after the hospital's chaplain had refused to take part, attracted 200 people, including the writer and actress Mollie Weir, who had lived in Pinner and knew the community hospital well. I was told that she made a special point of travelling across London to give her support. The protesters eventually took Hillingdon health authority to court after it insisted on the closure, and the High Court found in favour of the protestors. Lord Chief Justice Woolf said that the health authority's actions had been wrong and awarded costs against it.
I pay tribute to the leadership of Councillor Keith Toms, who is now deputy leader of Harrow council, who organised a highly successful campaign. Mike Turner, who now chairs a local health watchdog, Community Voice, described it as one of the few cases in the 1980s when a community forced a health authority to keep a hospital open. I continue, rightly, to be pressed by local residents, general practitioners and councillors—not least Keith Toms, but also Councillor Gillian Travers, who I am delighted is challenging the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood at the coming election.
There have been various attempts since 1983 to move forward with other developments at the Northwood and Pinner community hospital. Six years ago, the London region allocated £300,000 to build a new two-storey building on the site, but, in its wisdom, Hillingdon health authority decided to build those new premises in south Ruislip instead. Despite such setbacks, the
134WH
community continues to support Northwood and Pinner community hospital through a friends of the hospital group. It has continued to give many thousands of pounds to purchase special beds and baths, and other important patient facilities. The community hospital, working closely with the health centre next door, provides 10 respite care beds, four of which are used by Harrow GPs, 13 elderly care beds, GP admission beds, physiotherapy, occupational therapy and chiropody.
Those facilities, together with the Northwood health centre, are provided in buildings that are:
"overcrowded, poorly organised and in need of major refurbishment".
Those were the words of a feasibility study published on 10 April 2000, which was in a report that was prepared for Hillingdon primary care group and Harrow and Hillingdon Healthcare NHS trust. Since then, preliminary costings have emerged in media reports, with talk of a refurbishment programme costing upwards of £8 million. That figure has not surprised local people, GPs or horrified health authority experts. To the frustration of local people, particularly GPs in the north of my constituency, and despite that excellent original feasibility study, the detailed planning for a refurbished Northwood and Pinner community hospital has not taken place.
The hospital offers an excellent opportunity for my constituents to see their GPs delivering intermediate health services that are neither purely primary care nor best delivered in a district general hospital setting. It is local, accessible and strongly supported by the community. Harrow GPs already have access to beds, but they want to see more short stay beds in order to help more Harrow people move from acute hospital back home. In addition to clinician support from Northwick Park hospital, they see no reason why there should not be outpatient clinics for endoscopy, low-tech dermatology, or ear, nose and throat. Why not expanded physiotherapy and chiropody services too? They also want the opportunity for local GPs with specialist skills to deploy and develop those talents further by providing clinics at Northwood and Pinner community hospital.
The refurbishment plans for Northwood and Pinner seem to have had a lengthy gestation period. That is due in part to a wider review of Hillingdon's health economy and the detailed work that the health authority is doing on the implications of the national beds inquiry for intermediate care in its area. I have excellent individual GPs. They want a refurbished and modernised Northwood and Pinner community hospital to provide the intermediate care options alongside a virtuous circle of a strong primary care group and a slowly improving Northwick Park hospital, the local district general hospital.
That vision is supported in my constituency by most of the health care fraternity and local residents. I look now to my hon. Friend the Minister to provide some much needed push to the London region and to Hillingdon health authority to get on with the detailed planning for the modernisation of this important community asset.
1.45 pm
The Minister for Public Health (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) on securing this debate, especially as it is the last Back-Bench initiated debate in Westminster Hall this Parliament. It is also gives us an opportunity to discuss the future of a local community facility that is greatly valued by the people who use it. My hon. Friend made a strong speech in support of the local community hospital, but also gave a powerful description of the views of local people. The views of the GPs in the area will clearly be important in the future direction of local services, particularly when the primary care trust will have such an important role.
Northwood and Pinner community hospital has 34 in-patient beds and is located in the London borough of Hillingdon. Although that is close to the border of my hon. Friend's constituency, it is actually in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who is also present today. Ten beds are provided for respite care and 13 beds are supervised by a local consultant physician for patients who may require rehabilitation and physiotherapy following an acute illness, and may be awaiting residential or nursing home placemmt. Seven beds are provided for Hillingdon GP access and four for Harrow, West GPs. The average length of stay for patients is 28 days.
The ownership of the Northwood and Pinner community hospital transferred to the Hillingdon Primary Care NHS trust when the PCT was established on 1 April 2000. Hillingdon PCT was a first wave trust, one of only two established at that time in London. It is therefore at the forefront of developing the new models of care for the 21st century NHS. The services at Northwood and Pinner community hospital continue to be managed for the present by Harrow and Hillingdon Healthcare NHS trust, but they are being progressively integrated with those run by the PCT. That is why we feel that the views of local GPs will be so important in determining the future direction of services.
The NHS in Hillingdon, in partnership with social services, is keen to implement an inclusive approach involving local community groups to review all its services, to develop new models of service, along with patient care pathways, which will be utilised to deliver the NHS plan. Proposals are being drawn up jointly between all partners, including an estates strategy for providing suitable premises and infrastructure for the services. The Northwood and Pinner community hospital site is an important part of the NHS facilities in the borough and is already providing some intermediate care services.
The PCT is working closely with health and social care partners in north Hillingdon and the local community to determine the future configuration of local services. I know that my hon. Friend will understand that Ministers cannot pre-empt the outcome of local discussions, but I can reassure hon. Members that any proposals for change will be discussed with the local community and, should changes to services be planned, they will be the subject of full consultation. I shall ensure that the points made so powerfully by my hon. Friend about the need for progress and direction are heard by Hillingdon health authority and by the other partners to the local debate. I reassure my hon.
136WH
Friend that the Government are committed to making appropriate and effective use of community hospitals and see an important role for them in delivering local health care and in the future development of intermediate care. I shall follow discussions in the area with interest; we shall wait for local discussions and consultations to take place on the direction that the local community wants to take.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Before I call the hon. Gentleman, I tell the House that, typically and courteously, the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) sought the permission of the initiator of the debate, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), of the Minister and of the Chair for his intervention.
Mr. Wilkinson: I should tell the Minister how much local people on both sides of the borough boundary appreciate any interest in a facility of high quality such as the Northwood, Pinner and district cottage hospital. Will the hon. Lady bear in mind the need for balance between the facility at Northwood and Pinner and existing facilities at Mount Vernon and at Northwick Park and Watford? There is hope that there may be opportunities at Mount Vernon for some community services.
Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the future of services at Mount Vernon. It is important to take them into account and to ensure that there is proper local community discussion and support for their future direction. I undertake to ensure that the points made by the hon. Gentleman are heard by the local health authority and by partners to the debate locally.
The Government recognise the strength of feeling that people have for their local community hospitals, which include Northwood and Pinner, and the value of those hospitals as part of the community that they serve. In the NHS plan. we pledged that, as well as additional money, by 2004 there would be some 5,000 extra intermediate care beds, some in community hospitals, some in existing facilities, and some in new developments. As my hon. Friend made clear, community hospitals are not just about beds; they could be developed for ambulatory care services and as bases for local access to consultant outpatient advice and treatment. Too often in the past, such hospitals have been sidelined and their potential ignored. Now, with a new emphasis on intermediate care and on delivering care closer to home, there is an opportunity to breathe new life into community hospitals.
As hon. Members know, the national service framework for older people was published in March. That tasked the NHS and its partners to work together to develop modern services to meet the special needs of the older population. I understand that in Hillingdon, and in Brent and Harrow, that approach has been adopted in all service areas, including those for older people.
The Government, and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West, want further developments to proceed as quickly as possible. The modernisation of

137WH
local services is in the interests of my hon. Friend's constituents. Local people expect and deserve a modern health care service in their area. It is important to get the right services agreed in the right place to meet the needs of local people. Thorough assessments are being made of local needs. It is also important to ensure that there is proper public consultation about changes, which should not be driven merely by the NHS in detachment from the local community. Members of the local community should have a proper opportunity to comment on any proposed changes. As hon. Members will know, the NHS plan made available £405 million of additional funds annually by 2003-04 compared to 1999-2000 for the NHS component of new intermediate care services to promote independence and improve the quality of care for older people.
The Government have already invested additional funds in excess of £100 million in the NHS in the past financial year to provide intermediate care services, in part to ease the pressures on acute care over the winter. Between them, Brent and Harrow and Hillingdon health authorities received extra investment of £1.3 million, which helped to ensure that long waits for admission at both Hillingdon and Northwick Park hospitals were kept to a minimum over the winter months. Those sums are part of an overall increase of more than £30 million, almost 9 per cent., for Brent and Harrow health authority and £15.7 million, or 9.35 per cent., for Hillingdon health authority for use in the current financial year. Indeed, in its plans submitted for the
138WH
current financial year, Hillingdon health authority has indicated expenditure of £1.7 million on intermediate care services.
It is clear that there is support for expanding intermediate care services. My hon. Friend made a strong argument for the development of intermediate care services at his local community hospital, and we will follow that debate with interest and ensure that his comments are properly taken on board. We support the determination of hon. Members to obtain patient-centred services in modernised facilities for their constituents and to take advantage of all the opportunities that the NHS plan provides.
I look forward to a successful partnership between the statutory and voluntary agencies in the Hillingdon and Harrow, West areas to develop the future for intermediate care and other facilities, so that we can ensure that every patient—elderly patients and patients across the board—gets access to the modern, high-quality care that they deserve from the NHS.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I move the Adjournment. may I say to the Minister that I wish her well, whenever her happy event takes place.
I believe that Westminster Hall has proved of immense benefit, particularly to Back Benchers. Although I am showing a bias, I hope that the experiment of Westminster Hall will be continued in the new Parliament.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Two o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Missile Defence Systems
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Prime Minister what his policy is on United States' plans to develop a ballistic missile shield and to seek changes to the ABM treaty. [160633]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answers I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) and to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) in the House on 2 May 2001,Official Report, columns 844–46.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  IRA Arms Dumps
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions IRA arms dumps have been inspected by the international inspectors since 6 May 2000; and if he will make a statement. [159620]

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions IRA arms dumps have been inspected by the international inspectors since 6 May 2000; and if he will make a statement. [159627]

  Dr. Reid
  The two arms inspectors, Martti Ahtisaari and Cyril Ramaphosa, have issued two separate reports on their inspections of IRA arms dumps. On both occasions they reported the dumps held a substantial amount of military material, including explosives and weapons. They remain confident that these weapons and explosives cannot be used without their being aware of it.

  Paramilitary Threats
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the threat posed by dissident paramilitary organisations to security in(a) Northern Ireland and (b) Great Britain. [159621]

  Mr. Ingram
  While we believe the main paramilitary groups are maintaining their cease fires there remains a threat from dissidents as evidenced by the recent disruption to the Northern Ireland railway network and the bomb attack on the BBC in London. The security forces are conscious of the threat posed by dissident republicans, and continue to take steps to thwart their attacks.

  Security Situation
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland. [159622]
  160W
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland. [159626]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government believe on balance that the main cease fires are holding. There remains however, a threat from republican dissidents who are opposed to the Good Friday Agreement as evidenced by recent attacks on the railway network in Northern Ireland and the discovery of a Mark 15 barrack buster bomb near Omagh. The security forces are conscious of the threat posed by these groups, and continue to take steps to thwart their attacks.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the requirement for police service and Army force levels in the present security situation. [159630]

  Mr. Ingram
  Operational security measures are a matter for the Chief Constable and he keeps security at a level appropriate to his assessment of the prevailing threat. As the level of threat changes, this will be reflected in changes to the security force profile.

  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further steps he is taking to create a normal security environment in Northern Ireland. [159632]

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further steps he is taking to create a normal security environment in Northern Ireland. [159641]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Chief Constable recently announced a number of further normalisation measures including the demolition of the six Fermanagh patrol bases, the closure and demolition of Long Kesh army base and the closure of Strand Road Holding Centre. In the longer term, the number of army bases will reduce to no more than 20. Currently the police routinely patrol without military assistance in 28 of the 29 District Command Units. However, on a number of occasions military support has been utilised for specific purposes. Further measures will very much depend on the removal of the threat from dissident republicans and continued progress towards a normal civil society.

  Police (Northern Ireland) Act
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about progress in implementing the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. [159623]

  Mr. Ingram
  A number of the provisions in the Police Act have been commenced, some as recently as 30 March. Implementation is being taken forward where possible, including the provisions enabling 50:50 recruitment and those relating to the Oversight Commissioner.

  Commencement of a number of the sections and schedules in the Act, however, is dependent on the creation of the Policing Board. The Government want to see a Board established as soon as possible so that the comprehensive programme of change envisaged by the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland can be fully progressed.

  Peace Process
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the peace process in Northern Ireland. [159625]

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress in implementing the Good Friday agreement. [159628]

  Mrs. McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the peace process in Northern Ireland. [159644]

  Dr. Reid
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington, South (Ms Southworth) and Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis),Official Report, column 99.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions his Department has had with the US Administration concerning their continued role in the peace process. [159635]

  Dr. Reid
  I met the President's National Security Adviser Dr. Rice and Secretary of State Powell when I was in Washington in March. My officials also keep in touch with the Administration, including through the US Embassy in London to keep them abreast of the current political situation.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his assessment is of the impact of a stable economy on the peace process in Northern Ireland. [159636]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Northern Ireland now has the fastest growing economy in the United Kingdom and this economic success is directly related to the Belfast Agreement. Seeing and experiencing such tangible benefits helps to maintain support from the business community and the public at large for our continuing efforts to implement the Agreement in full.

  Criminal Justice
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in the review of criminal justice in Northern Ireland. [159629]

  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress on the review of criminal justice in Northern Ireland. [159643]

  Dr. Reid
  I refer my hon. Friends to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on 26 April 2001,Official Report, column 342W.

  Decommissioning
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has held with the Taoiseach and the Irish Foreign Minister on matters relating to decommissioning and demilitarisation. [159631]

  Dr. Reid
  I regularly discuss the security situation, including the decommissioning and normalisation issues in Northern Ireland with the Taoiseach and the Irish Foreign Minister. I last met the Taoiseach on 31 January 2001 and the Irish Foreign Minister on 3 May 2001.
  162W
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent developments there have been towards arms decommissioning; and if he will make a statement. [159637]

  Mr. Ingram
  I welcomed the report issued in March by the Decommissioning Commission announcing its re-engagement with the IRA, and look forward to early positive reports from the Commission that progress is being made.

  It is vital that all the paramilitary groups on ceasefire fully and actively engage with the Commission so that the issue of illegally held arms can be resolved and decommissioning can occur as soon as possible.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the prospects for achieving arms decommissioning by the June deadline. [159640]

  Dr. Reid
  I would like to see decommissioning begin as soon as possible and I was encouraged by the report issued by the Decommissioning Commission in March in which it announced its re-engagement with the IRA. Like the Commission, I hope that it will be possible to make substantial progress by the June target date.

  Disability Rights Commission
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects to meet the Disability Rights Commission to discuss disability rights in Northern Ireland [159634]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Disability Rights Commission's remit does not extend to Northern Ireland and anti-discrimination legislation there is the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland deals with disability and other equality issues in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State met with members of the Equality Commission on 24 April to discuss their work on the statutory equality duty set out in section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

  Victims of Violence
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps his Department is taking to support the victims of violence in Northern Ireland. [159638]

  Mr. Ingram
  In 1998 the Victims Liaison Unit was established to implement measures to support victims of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. To date over £18.25 million has been allocated to support victims, and measures including the establishment of a Family Trauma Centre, the Northern Ireland Memorial Fund, a review of Criminal Injuries Compensation, and funding for groups working with victims have been introduced. Further measures will be announced in the coming months.

  RUC Reforms
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress made in the reforms of the RUC. [159639]
  163W
  Mr. Ingram
  The Government are committed to the implementation of the recommendations of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland. The Government and the police are pressing on with a wide range of changes to improve the effectiveness of the service and bring it ever closer to the vision set out in the Commission's report.

  A representative Policing Board is a key component of the report's proposals and the Government want to see such a board established as soon as possible so that the changes dependent upon its creation can also be progressed.

  Drug Trafficking
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many RUC officers in each of the last three years have been assigned to combating drug trafficking in Northern Ireland. [159642]

  Mr. Ingram
  All officers in the Royal Ulster Constabulary are drugs aware and capable of combating drugs trafficking. However, there are dedicated units in the Drugs Squad and in District Command Units, previously in Sub-Divisions.

  While figures are not readily available for the number of officers assigned to duties outside the Drugs Squad, over the last three years it has had an approved complement of 44. It is headed by a Detective Superintendent who reports to the Assistant Chief Constable, Crime Department.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have(a) been lost and (b) disappeared from the system since the introduction of the national dispersal and integration policy. [158801]

  Mrs. Roche
  If an asylum seeker who is supported by the National Asylum Support Service is found to have left their accommodation, support is withdrawn. We do not, however, keep statistics on the number of such cases.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are located in Essex while awaiting determination of their application or appeal; and what estimate he has made of their total cost to(a) central Government and (b) local government funds. [159952]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 1 May 2001]: The available information comes from the National Asylum Support Service (NASS), which began supporting destitute asylum seekers entering the United Kingdom on or after 3 April 2000. NASS records information on the location of NASS supported asylum seekers by region and cluster area but not by county. Statistics from NASS, for the end of February 2001, show that for asylum seekers located in the east of England (which includes Essex) 40 asylum seekers (including dependants) had been allocated accommodation and 810 asylum seekers (including dependants) had been allocated voucher only support.
  164W
  These figures may include some asylum seeker families who have received a final negative decision because families of asylum seekers are eligible to remain supported by NASS until removal.

  Information is not available centrally on the location of asylum seekers not supported by NASS. Asylum seekers who entered the United Kingdom before 3 April 2000 are supported by local authorities.

  Estimated expenditure on asylum support, including unaccompanied asylum seeking minors, in 2000–01 was £751 million (estimated final outturn)

  Notes:

  1. Information on the costs of supporting asylum seekers in specific areas of the United Kingdom are not available.

  2. Figures rounded to the nearest 10.

  3. Costs rounded to the nearest £1 million.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact on local authority housing services of the maximum 14 day notice period within which people housed under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 must leave their accommodation after they receive a positive decision on their asylum claims; what discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues about the Audit Commission's recommendation that this period should be reviewed; and if he will make a statement. [160663]

  Mrs. Roche
  No ministerial discussions have taken place about the 14 day period laid down in the Asylum Support Regulations 2000 during which asylum seekers remain eligible for National Asylum Support Service (NASS) support. This period was discussed and agreed with the Benefits Agency prior to the implementation of the legislation. However talks are currently taking place between NASS officials, the Benefits Agency and interested voluntary bodies about this period.

  Mr. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment his Department has made of the effect asylum seekers opting for support by voucher only are having on the housing shortage in London. [160794]

  Mrs. Roche
  No assessment of this sort has been made since where an asylum seeker applies for voucher only support he should already have accommodation, possibly with family or friends, available to him.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers whose applications have been rejected cannot be traced; and if he will make a statement.[159442]

  Mrs. Roche
  This information has never been collected centrally on a systematic basis, and could be obtained only by a special exercise to examine individual case files at a disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional financial provision is made for(a) health service provision, (b) education provision and (c) local government services in areas designated as cluster areas for asylum seekers. [159748]

  Mrs. Roche
  Health authority baseline allocations are intended to cover the health costs of local populations and these include asylum seekers coming into an area. For England, £600 million of additional funding was
  165W
  announced on 28 March 2000, which meant health authorities received average increases of 8.9 per cent. for the financial year 2000–01 (the minimum increase was 8.2 per cent). Separate arrangements apply for Scotland and Wales which each receive a consequential share of funding.

  On 30 June 2000 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced that additional funding, up to £500 per pupil, would be available in the financial year 2000–01 to support the educational needs of children of asylum seekers in receipt of support from the National Asylum Support Service who have been dispersed to cluster areas. In 2000–01 a total of £1.3 million was allocated to schools who have received children of asylum seekers.

  The grant in England is distributed to local authorities through standard spending assessments which take account of factors such as the size of the population and the number of children needing school places. The grant to a particular local authority will reflect an increase in the size of the population due to asylum seekers moving into that area.

  Community Police Officers
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evaluation his Department has made of the impact of community police officers on the number of anti-social behaviour offences. [160294]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 8 May 2001]: Anti-social behaviour offences are not recorded as a separate category, so an evaluation of the effect on them of any specific policing strategy is not possible.

  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many community police officers there are in each police area of Greater Manchester; and how many are(a) full-time and (b) part-time; [160292]

  (2) what measures are in place to increase the number of community police officers in the UK; and what impact they have had on the Greater Manchester area. [160293]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 8 May 2001]: The information requested for Greater Manchester has been provided by the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester police and is set out in the table.

  Greater Manchester police—Community police officers by division

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  A Division (North Manchester)

  52

  0

  52

  C Division (South Manchester)1

  94

  2

  96

  F Division (Salford)

  71

  0

  71

  G Division (Tameside)

  38

  0

  38

  J Division (Stockport)

  44

  2

  46

  K Division (Bolton)

  57

  0

  57

  L Division (Wigan)

  59

  2

  61

  M Division (Trafford)

  34

  2

  36

  N Division (Bury)

  34

  2

  36

  P Division (Rochdale)1

  34

  4

  38

  Q Division (Oldham)

  44

  0

  44

  Total

  561

  14

  575

  1 South Manchester and Rochdale Divisions are considering increasing their numbers of Community Police Officers by two and one respectively

  166W
  There is no single definition for community policing and many officers carry out some sort of community policing function. The term can cover the assignment of named officers to patrol neighbourhoods, community beat officers and community liaison officers. They are at the forefront of delivering many of our crime reduction policies on the ground, campaigning to reduce burglary and vehicle crime, and gathering intelligence at street level. All these provide visible reassurance and improve the quality of life in the area, not least through reducing the fear of crime among the most vulnerable members of society.

  All Chief Constables have agreed that from this year they will report to their constituencies the measures they are taking to increase visibility and accessibility in every ward and parish in their police authority area.

  The precise deployment and number of officers for community policing is a matter for the chief officers to decide in accordance with the nature of the areas policed.

  I understand from the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester police that Community Police Officers form a key part of the force's operational policing strategy. They are specifically expected to build effective working relationships with key community members through group meetings such as Police Community Consultative Groups and to provide reassurance through high profile foot patrol. Community based police officers should not under ordinary circumstances be diverted away from their normal duties.

  Horserace Betting Levy Board
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy that the Horserace Betting Levy Board will not be abolished until alternative funding arrangements are agreed by both the racing industry and the betting industry. [160673]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Our stated intention is to abolish the statutory levy on horserace betting, on the basis that commercial agreements between horseracing and other industries, including bookmaking, are capable of producing sufficient income for racing to flourish as a national sport without the need for such a levy. We would expect to see discussions on future funding arrangements make progress, but introduction of the necessary legislation is not conditional on the conclusion of commercial agreements.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding threats to deprive horserace tracks of payments made from Horserace Betting Levy Board money if such tracks sign media rights agreements not agreed by the British Horseracing Board. [160675]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I am told we have received no representations on this matter.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if payments to horserace tracks from Horserace Betting Levy Board money can be withdrawn other than by breach of the conditions of these payments. [160674]
  167W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The allocation of funds from the levy is a matter for the Horserace Betting Levy Board. However, I understand that the board has not given any consideration to withdrawing payments that have already been agreed.

  Tibetans
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department(a) when Tibetans were first classed as Chinese nationals for asylum purposes in the UK, (b) by which Government Department the decision was taken and (c) if Tibetans are classified as Chinese nationals by other EU member states; and if he will make a statement. [160504]

  Mrs. Roche
  The 1951 Refugee Convention requires that, unless stateless, a person's claim to refugee status be assessed in relation to the country of which they are a national. The United Kingdom does not recognise China's claims of sovereignty over Tibet, but recognises that Tibet is not independent, and Tibetans hold Chinese nationality. This has been the position argued y the Foreign and Commonwealth Office since the 1951 annexation of Tibet by China. Further, an individual may claim asylum on the basis of persecution by the Chinese authorities because of their Tibetan ethnicity, but at the time and place of their claimed persecution they are held to be Chinese nationals.

  Therefore, the classification of Tibetan in the context of nationality is independent of the consideration of individual asylum claims. This has been the approach adopted in all available United Kingdom asylum statistics. No other European member state classes Tibetans as a separate nationality for asylum purposes.

  Police Complaints System
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he will take to ensure that the development of a new police complaints system takes account of the lessons to be learned from Operation Lancet. [160870]

  Mr. Straw
  We published the Government's proposed framework for a new police complaints system in December 2000. In developing the new arrangements we

  Name

  Start Date

  Previous Position

  David Petch

  5 March 2001

  Ministry of Defence, with attachments to Northern Ireland Office and Cabinet Office

  Diane Hughes

  2 April 2001

  Senior Lecturer in law at Manchester University

  Deborah Glass

  2 April 2001

  Chief Executive of the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation

  Susan Swindell

  2 April 2001

  Senior Crown Prosecutor

  Lionel Pilkington

  2 April 2001

  Senior Crown Prosecutor

  Child Protection
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the aims and objectives are of the new task force on child protection on the internet; and if he will make a statement. [160688]

  Mr. Straw
  I met representatives from the industry involved in providing internet services in the United Kingdom, children's charities, law enforcement agencies
  168W
  want to ensure that they are able to deal effectively and robustly with all cases including those where the investigation may be complex and wide-ranging. I have therefore asked Sir John Hoddinott, former Chief Constable of Hampshire, to carry out a review with the following terms of reference.

  On behalf of the Home Secretary to conduct a review:
  To consider the functioning of the statutory constitutional arrangements for the investigation of corruption and other serious complaints against the police, including the roles of the Police Complaints Authority and the Crown Prosecution Service;
  To consider Operation Lancet as a case study of the way such an investigation is managed strategically and operationally, including as part of the study the process by which decisions were taken during that investigation, and the extent of resources and time used; and
  To make recommendations for the future investigation of police complaints.

  The review will consider the issues arising from the conduct and management of the investigation and will not re-consider any of the matters of substance which were the subject of the investigation. The review will not consider issues relating to the substance of allegations of misconduct about individuals or any such new allegations.

  Sir John Hoddinott will begin work this month.

  Police Complaints Authority
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what appointments to the Police Complaints Authority have been made since 1 March. [160871]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have recently appointed Mr. Ian Bynoe to the second position of Deputy Chairman of the authority. His appointment is for two years with effect from 1 May 2001.

  Ian Bynoe has served as a member of the authority since 1998, both reviewing investigations and disciplinary proceedings and supervising investigations. He comes from a legal background and, prior to joining the authority, he was a self-employed policy researcher and legal trainer.

  Also, I have appointed five new full-time members to the Police Complaints Authority. Their appointments will be for three years. The five new members are:

  and others on 28 March 2001, where it was agreed to form a Task Force on Child Protection on the Internet.

  The task force is a partnership of representatives from: internet service providers (ISP); retailers and manufacturers; children's charities; representatives from the main opposition parties; law enforcement agencies; and academics. It has the following aims and objectives:

  Aims:
  To make the United Kingdom the best and safest place in the world for children to use the internet; and to help protect children the world over from abuse fuelled by criminal misuse of new technologies.
  169W
  Objectives:
  Building on current good practice, for industry involved in providing internet services in the United Kingdom to promote ethical business standards across the industry;
  Building on existing co-operation, for law enforcement agencies and industry involved in providing internet services in the United Kingdom to work together to develop effective procedures to prevent, detect and investigate crime on the Internet;
  For the Government to ensure that the law properly covers criminal activity on the internet; and to consider in co-operation with the industry involved in providing internet services in the United Kingdom, the structure of co-regulation for the industry and whether it needs to be strengthened;
  Building on the recommendations of the Internet Crime Forum in their report 'Chatwise Streetwise' for the industry involved in providing internet services in the United Kingdom to offer services with effective safeguards for children.

  The work will be underpinned by a new public awareness campaign later this year and by Government and industry leadership in international initiatives in the European Union and more widely.

  I have today placed a copy of the full aims and objectives and list of organisations represented on the task force in the Library.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Sudan
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will apply greater pressure on the authorities in Khartoum to improve their human rights record. [160243]

  Mr. Wilson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on 23 April 2001,Official Report, column 126W.

  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received of the arrest of Christians in Khartoum on 10 April and their treatment by riot police; and if he will make a statement. [160145]

  Mr. Wilson
  We received a number of reports of the events on 10 April from our Embassy in Khartoum and Church organisations both within and outside Sudan. Our Ambassador in Khartoum has expressed our concerns to the Government of Sudan. We shall follow the Government's actions on the events in Green Square and at the Episcopal Cathedral, and on freedom of religious expression in general.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Pakistani Government concerning the persecution of members of the Ahmadiyya Islamic Movement. [160625]

  Mr. Wilson
  On 3 April, the Under-Secretary, my noble Friend Baroness Scotland, met the Pakistani Attorney General and Minister of Law, Justice and Human Rights, Ms Shahida Jamil, and reiterated our concerns about the position of the Ahmadi communities in Pakistan and allegations of their persecution under Pakistan's blasphemy laws.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Trainee Teachers
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of trainee teachers left before completing their course in each year from 1992–93 to 1999–2000; and i he will make a statement. [157514]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: Information about the proportion of trainee teachers who leave a teacher training course before completing is not collected centrally.

  Vocational A-levels
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the failure rate by those taking vocational A-level assessments. [158247]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holing answer 23 April 2001]: We are committed to ensuring that the new vocational A-level is as rigorous as the GCE A-level. However, responsibility for assessing the standards of qualifications rests with the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and with the awarding body. QCA is meeting with all awarding bodies to review the outcome of the assessments and consider whether there are lessons to be learned.

  Education and Youth European Council
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the issues raised at the 9 November Education and Youth European Council, pertaining to(a) the Social Agenda, (b) the Blois seminar, Learn the History of Europe, (c) Young People and Europe, (d) the Youth Programme, (e) Social Inclusion of Young People and (f) measures to combat racism in the young; and if he will list the documents concerned and place them in the Library. [158751]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 24 April 2001]: The outcome of the Education and Youth Council was reported in the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills) on 14 November 2000, Official Report, column 601W. In respect of the particular issues the hon. Member raises, further information is as follows:

  a) The Social Agenda: the Council adopted an opinion on "the Social Policy Agenda" to forward to the Employment and Social Policy Council. This opinion welcomed, inter alia, that the Social Policy Agenda accepted the role of education and lifelong learning in the preparation and adaptation of the labour market. An Explanatory Memorandum on the European Social Agenda was deposited in the Library on 19 December 2000;

  b) The Blois seminar: this item was included on the agenda as an information point. The Council was informed by the Presidency of the outcome of the seminar held in Blois from 13 to 15 October 2000 on the topic "learning the history of Europe". No discussion took place;

  c) Young People and Europe: an open debate, as part of the Commission's consultation process to develop a White Paper on the future youth policy. The Council agreed the importance of involving young people at European level and the need to create opportunities to consult with young people at national and European level;

  171W

  d) The Youth Programme: the Commission informed the Council of the adoption and implementation of the Youth Programme to run for seven years from 2000 to 2006. The Council Decision establishing the Youth Community Action Programme was recorded in the Official Journal of the European Communities, L117, of 18 May 2000;

  e) Social Inclusion of Young People: the Council adopted a resolution that recognised the distinctive position of young people. It encouraged member states to develop young people's social inclusion and to improve their social and economic situation. The Council Resolution was recorded in the Official Journal of the European Communities, C374, of the 28 December 2000;

  f) Measures to combat racism in the young: the Council took note of a German statement on the need to tackle the problem of racism and xenophobia among young People.

  Depositable papers were not available for those items without listed documents.

  Schools (Ministerial Communications)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) consultation documents, (b) regulations, (c) revised and corrected regulations,(d) guidance notes, (e) requests for statistical information and (f) letters from Ministers have been sent to schools by his Department since May 1997. [158920]

  Jacqui Smith
  In my reply to the hon. Member on 19 April 2001,Official Report, column 563W, I gave the number of mailings for the years 1996 to mid 2000. The tables cover mailings to primary schools and mailings to secondary schools in the whole of the year 2000 and in the year 2001 up to 2 May. Since September 2000, we have had a presumption against sending materials direct to schools. Instead most information is available on request.

  Primary schools

  Topic

  2000

  2001 to 2 May 2001

  Consultation Papers1

  School Finance

  1

  0

  School Standards

  0

  1

  Guidance

  Early Years

  1

  0

  Literacy and Numeracy

  6

  3

  School Curriculum

  11

  1

  School Discipline

  1

  1

  School Finance

  2

  1

  School Governance

  2

  2

  School Health and Safety

  3

  1

  School Organisation

  1

  2

  School Premises

  1

  0

  School Standards

  1

  1

  Special Education

  3

  0

  Teaching Profession

  22

  2

  Data collection

  Early Years

  3

  1

  Class size

  2

  1

  School Discipline

  2

  2

  School Finance

  0

  2

  School Standards

  9

  9

  Special education

  1

  1

  Teaching Profession

  1

  1

  Letters from Ministers

  To primary schools

  7

  2

  1 In general DfEE now only consults a sample of schools, usually 10 per cent.

  172W

  Secondary schools

  Topic

  2000

  2001 to 2 May 2001

  Consultation Papers1

  School Finance

  1

  0

  School Standards

  0

  1

  Guidance

  Literacy and Numeracy

  1

  3

  School Curriculum

  14

  1

  School Discipline

  1

  1

  School Finance

  2

  1

  School Governance

  2

  2

  School Health and Safety

  3

  1

  School Organisation

  1

  2

  School Premises

  1

  0

  School Standards

  1

  1

  Special Education

  3

  0

  Teaching Profession

  22

  2

  Data collection

  Class size

  1

  1

  School Discipline

  2

  2

  School Finance

  0

  2

  School Standards

  9

  9

  Special education

  1

  1

  Teaching Profession

  1

  1

  Letters from Ministers

  To secondary schools

  6

  3

  1 In general DfEE now only consults a sample of schools, usually 10 per cent.

  Note:

  Regulations are not sent to schools

  Advertising
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the amount his Department has spent on advertising(a) between December 2000 to May 2001 and (b) between May to October 1997. [158998]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 26 April 2001]: The role of advertising is to make the general public aware of the opportunities available to them for example in employment, training or education, to enable them to fulfil their potential.

  During the period May to October 1997 the DfEE spend on advertising was nil. During this period the Department was developing its policies.

  During the period December 2000 to May 2001 the total DfEE spend on advertising was £14,755,321. This reflects the DfEE's need to communicate to a diverse and broad range of target audiences what the Department's policies mean to them.

  The campaigns include:
  Individual Learning Accounts—To encourage people to take up Individual Learning Accounts to improve their career prospects (£568,777).
  Childcare—A successful campaign to recruit more childcare workers and inform parents of local childcare provision (£1,775,475).
  Disability—Raising disability awareness (including getting small business to take practical steps to help disabled customers) (£1,899,447).

  173W
  Fast Track Teachers—To inform potential recruits about the fast-track teachers scheme (£1,400,009).
  Science Year—To encourage more interest in science among young people (£1,509,643).
  Training and Jobs—To promote a range of training and jobs programmes, including apprenticeships for young people and jobs for the over 50s (£694,532).
  UK online centres—Encouraging adults to gain computer skills (£3,238,739).
  Millennium Volunteers—To raise awareness among young people about the benefits of volunteering in the community and stimulate recruitment (£615,341).
  Learning Journey—Campaign to get parents more involved in their children's education (£1,700,000).
  Widening Access to Higher Education—Letting young people know about university opportunities (£1,314,403).

  Medical Schools
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many places in English medical schools were allocated to overseas students in each of the last three years; and what percentage of the total this represents. [157905]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 26 April 2001]: The available data are shown in the table.

  Intake numbers of pre-clinical medical students in Higher Education Institutions in England by domicile (Thousands)

  UK

  Overseas

  Total

  1997–98

  Number

  3,438

  311

  3,749

  Percentage

  91.7

  8.3

  100.0

  1998–99

  Number

  3,389

  346

  3,735

  Percentage

  90.7

  9.3

  100.00

  1999–2000

  Number

  3,650

  322

  3,972

  Percentage

  91.8

  8.1

  100.0

  Tuition Fees
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of higher education students are not paying tuition fees in(a) London and (b) English universities and higher education establishments. [159613]

  Mr. Wicks
  In England and Wales, students on undergraduate courses and their families are expected to make a contribution towards their tuition fees only if they can afford to do so.

  In academic year 1999–2000, the latest year for which data are available, for students who are normally domiciled in London as a whole (studying in the UK), the proportion of students who are liable for fees under the Education (Student Support) Regulations and who do not
  174W
  have to pay a contribution towards their fees is estimated to be 58 per cent. For students normally domiciled in England (studying in the UK) this figure is estimated to be 45 per cent.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to increase the amount of funding available for training through individual learning accounts.[160304]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 8 May 2001]: Spending plans for individual learning accounts for the next three years show a marked increase from the £42 million in financial year 2000–01. The figures are as follows: £46.6 million (2001–02) £72 million (2002–03) and £71.2 million in 2003–04.

  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people have(a) applied for and (b) used an individual learning account, broken down by (i) gender, (ii) occupation and (iii) the nature of learning scheme taken up. [160303]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 8 May 2001]: Latest figures are that over one million people have opened individual learning accounts (ILAs) in the UK. This is a remarkable achievement and means that our manifesto commitment to open one million accounts across the UK by March 2002 has been met almost 12 months early. The one million figure includes over 200,000 opened during the pilot phase which preceded the introduction of the national framework to administer ILAs.

  Since the launch of the national framework to administer ILAs in June 2000, almost one million people have inquired about ILA membership in England, 785,379 people have opened an account and 346,559 (44 per cent.) have already made use of their ILA to support a course of learning.

  Of the 785,379 who have opened an account, 459,782 are women and 322,674 are men. Of the 346,559 who have already made use of their account, 203,124 are women and 142,177 are men.

  Over half of the learning is IT related with Computer Literacy and Information Technology (CLAIT) and European Computer Driving Licence being the most popular courses. A wide variety of non-IT, non-recreational learning makes up the balance. A breakdown of the accounts opened arid accounts used by occupation is given in the following table:

  Accounts opened by occupation

  Occupation

  ILAs

  Housewife/Homemaker

  67,290

  Manual/Factory Worker

  41,745

  Manager (own business less than 250 staff)

  27,170

  Office/Retail Worker

  145,795

  Senior Manager/Professional

  79,576

  Skilled Worker/Tradesperson

  62,000

  Teaching/Lecturer

  37,087

  Data not supplied

  173,403

  Other

  151,313

  Total

  785,379

  175W

  Accounts used by occupation

  Occupation

  ILAs

  Housewife/Homemaker

  33,730

  Manual/Factory Worker

  19,233

  Manager (own business less than 250 staff)

  12,149

  Office/Retail Worker

  65,234

  Senior Manager/Professional

  33,330

  Skilled Worker/Tradesperson

  27,943

  Teaching/Lecturer

  15,253

  Data not supplied

  70,626

  Other

  69,061

  Total

  346,559

  Day Care for Childminding
  Mr. Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will publish the national standards for day care and childminding following the consultation on draft standards last year. [160944]

  Ms Hodge
  The national standards for under eights day care and childminding are being published today, and I am placing copies in the Library.

  Work-focused Interviews
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has to extend the use of work-focused interviews for working-age claimants to benefits. [160874]

  Mr. Blunkett
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security and I are establishing, later this year, Jobcentre Plus, an Agency for people of working age. This will bring together labour market and benefit services for people of working age and enable us to provide a more integrated approach for our customers.

  As we announced on 14 March this year, as a first stage in the launch of Jobcentre Plus, we will be introducing around 50 Pathfinder offices. Additionally, we will be introducing work-focused interviews for everyone of working age making a claim to benefit in around a further 40 offices to the same time scale. A provisional list of the locations in which these offices are based is set out in the table. People of working age making a claim for benefit in these offices will be required to participate in a work-focused interview as an integral part of the benefit claims process and will be offered specialist support to help them into work. My right hon. Friend will shortly be laying regulations under the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 for this purpose.

  Jobcentre Plus work focused interview sites (city/town):

  City of Aberdeen

  Livingston

  Bridgend

  Telford

  Wallasey

  Manchester Openshaw

  City of Derby

  Gateshead

  Essex.

  GCSEs (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the pass rates for GCSE examinations for pupils in Shropshire for each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [160519]

  Mr. Wicks
  The pass rates for GCSE examinations for pupils in Shropshire who gained at least one GCSE (or GNVQ equivalent) at grade G or above since 1997 are shown in the table.

  Percentage

  1997–98

  97.5

  1998–99

  97.3

  1999–2000

  97.0

  Sure Start (Shrewsbury and Atcham)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the Sure Start Programme in Shrewsbury and Atcham. [160516]

  Yvette Cooper
  There are no Sure Start programmes operating in the Shrewsbury and Atcham constituency.

  Our aim is to establish 500 programmes in areas of disadvantage by 2003–04. To date, 260 programmes have been announced. Further programmes will be announced later this year.

  Districts are invited to submit plans for a Sure Start programme because collectively they have high levels of need and disadvantage, according to the DETR Index of Multiple Deprivation, and give a good spread between different types of area around the country.

  We will also be looking at ways that Sure Start can reach young children in areas with smaller pockets of deprivation.

  Education Spending (Reading, West)
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much the Government spent on education in the Reading, West constituency in each of the financial years from 1995–96 to 2000–01, indicating the specific areas on which the funding has been spent. [159614]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Most funding provided by the Department is distributed via local education authorities. Total Devolved Formula Capital allocations for schools in the Reading, West constituency amounted to £708,500 in 2000–01. Allocations between the years 1997–98 and 2000–01 under the New Deal for Schools scheme are set out in the table. The Department does not hold information on other support provided to Reading, West constituency schools since 1995–96. The Secretary of State wrote to my hon. Friend on 16 February setting out the total funding for his local education authorities (Reading and West Berkshire) for the years 1998–99 to 2001–02. Due to local government reorganisation, figures are not available for earlier years.
  177W

  New Deal for Schools (NDS): Allocations to schools in the Reading, West constituency

  School

  Project details

  Grant awarded (£)

  1997–98

  LEA wide package including:

  English Martyrs RC Primary

  Urgent health and safety work

  1761,000

  Downsway Primary

  St. Edward's School

  Birch Copse

  1998–99

  Thamesbridge College (formerly Ashmead School)

  Replacement of unusable teaching accommodation

  2,279,825

  LEA wide package involving 12 schools

  Plumbing work

  2136,700

  LEA wide package involving 16 schools

  Repairs to roofs

  2252,900

  1999–2000

  Little Heath School

  Roof Covering Replacement

  107,030

  The Holy Brook School

  Window Replacement

  24,310

  2000–01

  Brookfields Special School

  Replacement of temporary classroom

  60,000

  Upcroft Primary School

  Reorganising and extending school building

  272,550

  Included within a 15 school package:

  Kennett Valley Primary

  Fire alarms/means of escape

  3273,216

  Calcot Infant and Nursery

  Included within a 3 school package:

  Kennett Valley Primary

  Internal remodelling

  3217,925

  1 Local education authorities (LEAs) were not required to specify individual project costs for phase 1 of the NDS programme, so the amount shown is the total allocation in that year to the former Berkshire LEA. Reading LEA (English Martyrs RC Primary and St. Edward's School) and West Berkshire LEA (Downsway Primary and Birch Copse) hold project level information.

  2 Denotes LEA wide package; details of specific schools within the package are not available. West Berkshire local education authority will be able to advise if schools from the Reading, West constituency benefited.

  3 Denotes total allocation made to package projects covering more than one school. West Berkshire local education authority will be able to advise the value of projects at schools which have benefited from these allocations.

  Between 1992–93 and 1997–98, average recurrent funding per pupil fell nationally by £120 in real terms from £2,830 to £2,710. Since then, it has risen by an average of £540 in real terms to £3,250 this year. By 2003–04, it will have increased by around £750 in real terms since 1997–98.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Work-focused Interviews
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to extend the use of work-focused interviews for working age claimants to benefits. [160873]

  Mr. Darling
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and I are establishing, later this year, Jobcentre Plus, an Agency for people of working age. This will bring together labour market and benefit services for people of working age and enable us to provide a more integrated approach for our customers.

  As we announced on 14 March this year, as the first stage in the launch of Jobcentre Plus, we will be introducing around 50 Pathfinder offices. Additionally, we will be introducing work-focused interviews for everyone of working age making a claim to benefit in around a further 40 offices to the same time scale. A provisional list of the locations in which these offices are based is set out in the table. People of working age making a claim for benefit in these offices will be required
  178W
  to participate in a work-focused interview as an integral part of the benefit claims process and will be offered specialist support to help them into work. I will shortly by laying regulations under the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 for this purpose.

  Jobcentre Plus Work focused Interview Sites

  City of Aberdeen

  Livingston

  Bridgend

  Telford

  Wallasey

  Manchester Openshaw

  City of Derby

  Gateshead

  Essex.

  Pensioners
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his written answer to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on 15 March 2001,Official Report, column 716W, if he will update his estimates of the number of pensioner units with an income of (a) under £50, (b) £50 to £99, (c) £100 to £149, (d) £150 to £199, (e) £200 to £210, (f) £211 to £221 and (g) £221 and above who are in receipt of (i) Housing Benefit, (ii) Council Tax Benefit, (iii) Council Tax Benefit and Housing Benefit and (iv) one or more of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. [160872]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the tables.
  179W

  Pensioners in Great Britain in receipt of Housing Benefit and/or Council Tax Benefit by amount of income (excluding Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit amounts)—May 1999

  Total income

  Housing Benefit for Great Britain

  Council Tax Benefit for Great Britain

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit for Great Britain

  Housing Benefit and/or Council Tax Benefit for Great Britain

  All Cases

  1,769,000

  2,542,000

  1,640,000

  2,670,000

  Under £50

  162,000

  204,000

  150,000

  220,000

  £50–£99

  720,000

  1,042,000

  690,000

  1,070,000

  £100–£149

  628,000

  895,000

  570,000

  960,000

  £150–£199

  187,000

  288,000

  170,000

  300,000

  £200–£210

  19,000

  30,000

  20,000

  30,000

  £211–£220

  12,000

  21,000

  10,000

  20,000

  £221 and above

  40,000

  62,000

  40,000

  70,000

  Pensioners in Great Britain in receipt of Housing Benefit and/or Council Tax Benefit by amount of income (including Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit amounts)—May 1999

  Total income

  Housing Benefit for Great Britain

  Council Tax Benefit for Great Britain

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit for Great Britain

  Housing Benefit and/or Council Tax Benefit for Great Britain

  All cases

  1,769,000

  2,542,000

  1,640,000

  2,670,000

  Under £50

  36,000

  79,000

  30,000

  90,000

  £50–£99

  130,000

  438,000

  120,000

  450,000

  £100–£149

  821,000

  1,097,000

  760,000

  1,150,000

  £150–£199

  536,000

  642,000

  500,000

  680,000

  £200–£210

  61,000

  69,000

  60,000

  70,000

  £211–£220

  42,000

  50,000

  40,000

  50,000

  £221 and above

  142,000

  167,000

  130,000

  180,000

  Notes:

  1. All income that has been used is the income prior to any subtraction of disregards, except for earned income, which is all net income.

  2. The data refer to benefit units, which may be a single person or a couple.

  3. The figures for cases in receipt of Housing Benefit or Council Tax Benefit have been rounded to the nearest thousand, however due to the estimation procedure to produce the figures for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, or Housing Benefit and/or Council Tax Benefit, these figures need to be rounded to the nearest ten thousand due to the collection procedures in Scotland.

  4. Pensioners have been identified by either the claimant or the partner being aged 60 and over.

  5. In the first table, the bands of income have been reached by looking at the total income excluding any housing benefit or council tax benefit but including income assumed from any savings.

  6. In the second table, the bands of income have been reached by looking at the total income including any housing benefit or council tax benefit as well as any income assumed from any savings.

  7. The totals may not sum due to rounding.

  Source:
  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System, Annual 1 per cent. sample, taken in May 1999.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much additional expenditure on pensioners there has been since May 1997 over and above the cost of annually uprating the state pension in line with prices. [160640]

  Mr. Rooker
  Including forecast expenditure for the current year, the Government will have spent an additional £8.9 billion on new measures over and above inflation increases in the state pension since April 1997.

  Roland Riggs
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the hon. Member for Putney will receive a reply to his letter of 17 April about the reclaiming of benefit from the war disablement pension of his constituent, Mr. Roland Riggs. [160527]

  Mr. Bayley
  An initial reply was sent on 8 May 2001 to my hon. Friend's letter of 17 April 2001, on behalf of Mr. Roland Riggs, and I expect to follow this up with a full reply as soon as possible.

  Mrs. Mary McCreadie Harrison
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will reply to the letter of 29 March, from Mrs. Mary McCreadie Harrison, a constituent, concerning her pension entitlement. [160789]

  Mr. Rooker
  A reply was issued on 4 May 2001.

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the(a) earliest and (b) latest date is on which the new CSA rules will be applied to existing CSA cases; and if he will make a statement on how the new CSA arrangements will be phased in for existing cases. [160683]

  Angela Eagle
  The new child support scheme will be introduced for new cases by April 2002. Existing cases will be moved on to the new scheme when it is seen to be working well and maintenance is being paid regularly and reliably to new cases.

  To give parents who have existing child support assessments time to adjust to the new amounts, child support liability will be phased over a period of five years and in stages of £2.50, £5 or £10, depending on the non-resident parent's net weekly income.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  GM Crops
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what consultations were held with(a) the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park, (b) the Wild Life Trust West Wales, (c) Pembrokeshire county council and (d) the National Assembly for Wales on environmental sensitivity, prior to a decision being made to allow genetically modified farm scale trials to go ahead at Mathry, Pembrokeshire. [157570]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: No consultations on environmental sensitivity were held with the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park, the Wild Life Trust West Wales, Pembrokeshire county council or the National Assembly for Wales, prior to a decision being made to propose genetically modified farm scale evaluations at Mathry, Pembrokeshire.

  The genetically modified (GM) maize to be grown at Mathry has European Union wide approval for unrestricted cultivation. The fields at Mathry were offered by Aventis CropScience on behalf of the industry body SCIMAC and selected by the research consortium

  181W
  undertaking the evaluations in accordance with the criteria set by the independent committee of scientists overseeing the Farm Scale Evaluations. It is not a decision Ministers take. As soon as DETR officials were notified of the site locations by SCIMAC they informed National Assembly officials about the three sites in Wales. DETR issued a press release on 3 April listing the proposed sites and on the same day also wrote to Pembrokeshire county council and the local community council to inform them of the sites and to provide information about the Farm Scale Evaluation programme. This received extensive local and Welsh media coverage. DETR officials and experts were then available to discuss any environmental concerns arising from the proposed evaluation in Mathry.

  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what environmental impact assessments have been carried out on the proposed genetically modified farm scale trial sites at Mathry, Pembrokeshire, before the decision to grant a licence was made. [157568]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: The genetically modified (GM) maize to be grown in the Farm Scale Evaluations at Mathry has been subject to detailed risk assessments as part of the requirement for its authorisation under EU Directive 90–220, which controls releases of GM organisms. These risk assessments showed that it could safely be cultivated anywhere within the EU. Accordingly it was granted consent for commercial cultivation in 1998. This consent applies throughout the European Union. Directive 90–220 requires that the use of GM crops with commercial approval may not be prohibited or impeded except on sound scientific grounds, in particular, risks to human health or the environment. Any such action would need to be agreed by other Member States. This is in keeping with such crops having passed a robust risk assessment at EU level and being assessed as safe for use. No additional environmental impact assessment is therefore required under EU legislation. Equally there is nothing to prevent such an assessment being carried out, though none in practice has.

  Green Belt/greenfield Development
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the locations of each development on(a) green belt land and (b) non-green belt greenfield land that he has given planning permission for since 1 May 1997. [158709]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: The locations of the 119 sites where the Secretary of State has approved development in the green belt are set out in a table which has been placed in the Libraries of the House. Sixty six per cent. of these sites involved the use of previously developed land and the conversion of existing buildings. The total area of the sites on which approval was given equates to 0.08 per cent. of the total area of green belt in England. In the same period, the Secretary of State refused development on 132 sites in the green belt.

  Information on non-green belt greenfield sites is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Foot and Mouth (Financial Assistance)
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much money central Government had paid out by 26 April under the matched funding scheme for public donations to foot and mouth relief. [159939]

  Mr. Meacher
  Up until the 26 April, the Countryside Agency, which is implementing the Government's commitment to match donations from the public to help alleviate hardship as a result of the foot and mouth disease, had made payment of one grant worth £52,000 to the Hadfield Trust in Cumbria.

  On Friday 4 May the Countryside Agency announced details of three further charities that had been awarded funding worth almost £1.5 million under the scheme. The ARC-Addington Fund will receive match funding of £1 million, the Rural Stress Information Network will receive £332,000 and the Cumbrian Community Foundation will receive £91,843.

  The Countryside Agency continues to receive applications for match funding which it aims to turn around as quickly as possible.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the relaxation of pollution control regulations in relation to(a) open burning of slaughtered livestock carcases and (b) tyres used to aid combustion; and if he will make a statement. [159854]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 2 May 2001]: There is a continuing dialogue between various Government Departments, and with the Environment Agency, about options for the disposal of carcases.

  In order to expedite the burning of animal carcases resulting from the foot and mouth crisis, we have made regulations—The Pollution Prevention and Control (Foot-and-Mouth Disease) (Air Curtain Incinerators) (England and Wales) Regulations 2001, SI 2001–1623)—which came into force on Tuesday 1 May 2001, allowing the permitting of air curtain incinerators for this purpose, which can be preferable to the use of pyres.

  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would not generally sanction the use of tyres to aid combustion, and has made no representations to my Department on this matter.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research he has commissioned on the technical modifications necessary to the Sellafield MOX plant to enable the plant to process plutonium for immobilisation. [159781]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 8 May 2001]: My Department has not commissioned any research on this subject. We are aware of the recent report by Fred Barker and Mike Sadnicki, "The Disposition of Civil Plutonium

  183W
  in the UK", which, among other things, identifies some modifications which could enable the plant to dispose of plutonium through a process of immobilisation.

  Railtrack
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the(a) allocated and (b) forecast level of public funding to Railtrack is in each of the next three years. [160297]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 8 May 2001]: Railtrack will receive network grants from the Strategic Rail Authority. While the precise amounts will depend on future movements in the retail prices index, payments are expected to be as follows:

  £ million

  2001–02

  505

  2002–03

  900

  2003–04

  2,005

  In addition, Railtrack will receive some £2 billion each year in revenue from passenger train operators, the large majority of whom receive subsidy from the Strategic Rail Authority and passenger transport executives.

  Additionally, in 2003–04 network grants to Railtrack will be increased by an adjustment for freight access income. This will consist of one third of the difference between the total amount of freight income allowed for in the second regulatory control period in the Regulator's final conclusions on passenger access charges and that to emerge from the Regulator's freight charging review.

  Wild Birds
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he is taking to ensure that the Government comply with Article 9.1(c) of Council Directive (79/409/EEC) on the conservation of wild birds with respect to the possession of live and dead birds; and what measures are taken to differentiate between those birds of captive origin and those which are not. [160631]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which implements Council Directive (79/409/EEC) in Great Britain, protects all wild birds. Captive-bred birds are not covered by the provisions of the Directive, although they are covered by certain provisions of the 1981 Act. It is an offence under section 1 of the Act to possess any live or dead wild bird, or derivative of such a bird. Section 1 also includes a defence if the possessor of such a bird can show that it had either been legally taken from the wild or that it was captive bred. Ultimately, only the courts can definitively interpret the legislation and decide whether defence is met in any individual case.

  Section 16 of the 1981 Act implements Article 9 of the Directive and provides for licences to be issued derogating from the protection afforded to birds for certain purposes.

  Transport White Paper
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance 184W
  he has issued on the selection of options in multi-model shares and their consistency with the Transport White Paper, "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone". [160526]

  Mr. Hill
  I assume my hon. Friend is referring to multi-modal studies. My Department issued Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies (GOMMMS) in March 2000. This develops the new approach to appraisal that was introduced in the White Paper into a fully multi-modal appraisal framework.

  The framework covers the identification and assessment of problems, the identification of options, and the assessment of those options against the five objectives of environment, safety, economy, accessibility and integration which were set out in the Transport White Paper, "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone".

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the number of homeless acceptances resulting from the termination of support by NASS following a positive decision on claims for asylum; what future plans he has to monitor the number of households who are accepted as homeless in these circumstances; and if he will make a statement. [160660]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  These figures are not recorded and we have no current plans to do so.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the support needs of homeless refugees and those given exceptional leave to remain in the UK once they have been given a positive decision on their asylum claims; what guidance will be given to local authorities in this area under the proposed new duty on local housing authorities to produce homelessness strategies set out in the Homes Bill; and if he will make a statement. [160662]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Local authorities must consider the support needs of all homeless client groups, including refugees.

  Guidance on strategies will encourage local authorities to consider the support needs of all homeless client groups, including refugees.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance is available to local authorities about the needs of refugees who are(a) victims of rape or torture and (b) suffering from post-traumatic stress; what plans he has to ensure that local housing authorities consider such needs in assessing whether a person is in priority need under the homelessness legislation; and if he will make a statement. [160661]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The Code of Guidance on Parts 6 and 7 of the Housing Act 1996 requires local authorities to consider whether eligible applicants for social housing are vulnerable as a result of having suffered harassment or violence. Where this is the case, the applicant will have a priority need for accommodation, regardless of his or her background.

  Capital Projects (Shrewsbury and Atcham)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list capital projects in Shrewsbury and Atcham since 1997 aimed at improving the environment; and if he will make a statement. [160520]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The table sets out figures for funding provided by DETR to Shrewsbury and Atcham council since 1997, both for all capital purposes, which could include environmental expenditure, as well as for specific capital projects for improving the environment. Returns to the Department also indicate that, between 1997–98 and 1999–2000, Shrewsbury and Atcham council raised around £3 million of usable capital receipts from the sale of assets, which they would have been able to use for any capital purpose, including environmental expenditure, depending on local needs and priorities.

  £000

  Basic Credit Approvals1

  1996–97

  649

  1997–98

  342

  1998–99

  276

  1999–2000

  431

  2000–01

  2,052

  2001–02

  518

  Supplementary Credit Approvals2 for contaminated land

  1996–97

  Spring Gardens, Shrewsbury

  26

  Capital grant

  2000–03

  Renovation of Flaxmill and former malt kiln

  2,800

  1 Basic Credit Approvals are issued annually to all local authorities in England and may be used for any kind of capital expenditure.

  2 Supplementary Credit Approvals are normally issued for specific types of expenditure.

  Flood Emergency Works
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy to review the Bellwin rates to allow local authorities to claim for increased expenditure on flood emergency works. [160513]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Following the floods that were experienced between October and December 2000 my Department is reviewing the operation of the Bellwin scheme in co-operation with the Local Government Association.

  A "Bellwin" scheme of emergency financial assistance may be activated to help a local authority with uninsurable clear-up costs following a disaster or emergency that involves destruction of, or danger to, life or property. Grant is normally paid at a rate of 85 per cent. of an authority's qualifying expenditure above a threshold. The threshold is the provision that a prudent authority might reasonably be expected to make for contingencies and emergencies (approximately 0.2 per cent. of its revenue budget).
  186W
  For the flooding Bellwin scheme grant was paid at a rate of 100 per cent. above the threshold to take into account the exceptional nature of the emergency. Bellwin grant is paid only in respect of current expenditure; capital expenditure is not eligible for grant.

  Issues such as future funding will be considered as part of the review. There is also a separate review of flood defence funding.

  Aerodromes (Security)
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if his Department will incorporate the text of paragraph 9 to the annexe to Circular 2/92 in the final wording of the paper "Safeguarding Aerodromes, Technical Sites and Military Explosives Storage Areas"; and if he will make a statement; [160710]

  (2) what measures his Department proposes to take to ensure the continued protection of (a) gliding sites and (b) other unlicensed aerodromes provided for in paragraph 9 of the annexe to Circular 2/92; and if he will make a statement; [160709]

  (3) what plans his Department has to change its policy on the unofficial safeguarding of gliding sites; and if he will make a statement. [160708]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  My Department is currently conducting a public consultation on a proposal to revise Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions Circular 292 on the safeguarding of aerodromes, technical sites and military explosives storage areas. The existing circular is concerned mainly with the role of local planning authorities in official safeguarding, but it also recommends a form of unofficial safeguarding to operators of other aerodromes and of gliding sites. No change of policy is proposed on the unofficial safeguarding of these other aerodromes or of gliding sites. But we envisage that instead of this brief reference in a departmental circular there will be a specific safeguarding publication to be issued by the Civil Aviation Authority. This will be addressed in particular to aerodromes licensed by the authority, but the advice will also be relevant to the operators of unlicensed aerodromes and of gliding sites. We will consider, in our further work on the revision of the circular, whether we should complement the Authority's advice with a recommendation to local planning authorities.

  Commercial Property Leasing
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will make an announcement on the action he will take on the voluntary code of practice on commercial property leasing. [160619]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) on 23 April 2001,Official Report, columns 5–6W.

  National Bus Company
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the distribution of the National Bus Company pensions settlement. [160869]
  187W
  Mr. Hill
  I am very pleased to say that I have been informed by the National Bus Company pension trustees that the representative beneficiaries have now reached an agreement which will enable the trustees to formulate their proposals for the final distribution of the settlement. This agreement removes a major impediment to further early progress.

  Court approval will be necessary for the representative beneficiaries' agreement and for the trustees' proposals. I understand that beneficiaries will be given an opportunity to express their views prior to this approval being sought. The trustees and the representative beneficiaries will be issuing an information bulletin in this regard very shortly.

  The trustees' aim is to obtain the court's approval this summer which should mean that the distribution will be very largely completed this autumn.

  I urge all the parties involved to ensure that this latest very positive progress is continued over the next few months and we will remain in close touch with developments.

  Rights of Way
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will make regulations under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 in relation to access land, rights of way and local access forums. [160946]

  Mr. Meacher
  We have issued a consultation paper on proposals for regulations under section 11 of the Act to enable the Countryside Agency to prepare draft maps of open country and registered common land. The closing date for comments is 20 June and we expect to lay regulations before the summer recess. At that time we would expect to consult on a framework for regulations under section 94 of the Act relating to the establishment of local access forums with a view to laying regulations in the autumn. Before the end of the year we propose to consult on regulations relating to the issue of provisional maps of open country and appeals against them with a view to laying regulations early in 2002. We shall also be consulting on regulations relating to exclusions and restrictions under Chapter II of the Act and dedication of land for access under section 16. We would hope to lay such regulations in the first half of 2002. Consultations on the remaining regulations under Part I will follow.

  Certain of the rights of way provisions in Part II of the Act are already in force, for example the power to order removal of an obstruction under section 64. However the provisions of Part II are complex and there is much work to be done in producing the required regulations. We shall wish to consult before making many of the regulations, which adds to difficulty in providing specific timings. We are committed to improving the rights of way network as soon as possible and are focusing on a number of key issues to achieve this. Guidance on rights of way improvement plans and further provisions to aid the speedy removal of obstructions will he dealt with as a priority and we would hope to have these in force before the end of this year. Other aspects of Part II will be dealt with as quickly as possible over the next two years.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Listed Buildings
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list those Grade I listed buildings whose façade has had to be compromised by reason of the requirements of the Health and Safety Executive; what procedures are followed by way of consultation between the HSE and conservation bodies to resolve such issues; and if he will make a statement. [R] [159577]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  This information is not available. Any such issues would need to be considered on a case by case basis, taking account of the statutory requirement to obtain listed building consent for any works which would affect the character of the building concerned. English Heritage is a statutory consultee in this process.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what criteria are used when deciding whether to list a building. [160307]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 8 May 2001]: When deciding whether to list buildings, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has regard to the statutory criteria set out in section 1 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1979, and to the criteria contained in section 6 of the Government's Planning Policy Guidance Note 15: Planning and the Historic Environment.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received concerning listing buildings in Redbridge. [160308]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 8 May 2001]: My right hon. Friend is currently considering requests to list two buildings in the Redbridge area—the Odeon Cinema, Gants Hill and Wanstead Police Station. He has asked English Heritage, his statutory adviser on the historic environment, to assess these buildings and will carefully consider its advice and any other available evidence before making his decisions. Since 1994, the Department has been asked to consider 19 buildings in the Redbridge area for inclusion on the statutory list, and of these nine have been listed.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received concerning listed status for the Odeon Cinema, Gants Hill. [160309]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 8 May 2001]: My right hon. Friend has received a request to consider this cinema for inclusion in the statutory list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest. He has asked English Heritage, his statutory adviser on these matters, to assess the building and will carefully consider its advice and any other available evidence before making his decision.

  Community Fund Grants
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the average length of time is for a decision to be made on applications from organisations in the Greater Manchester area for funding from the Community Fund. [160300]
  189W
  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 8 May 2001]This information is not available for Greater Manchester. For the United Kingdom, the average time for a decision to be made depends on which grant programme an applicant applies to. For the Awards for All programme, for grants up to £5,000, it takes an average of two months and a maximum of three months. For the main grants programme, the average is approximately three months for a decision with a maximum of five months. The longer time scale is needed for more complex projects.

  Manpower
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture. Media and Sport if he will list the dates of the meetings between his Department and the recruitment company, Manpower(a) prior to June 1999 and (b) after June 1999 and the matters discussed at them. [160656]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Prior to June 1999 my officials had contract review meetings with the recruitment company, Manpower on 5 July 1994, 11 October 1994, 24 April 1995 and 27 April 1995. The matters discussed included pricing, invoicing, typing services questionnaire, security clearance of staff, replacement staff, statistical data, appraisals, evaluation and the Department's procedural manual.

  The contract agreement terminated in 1996.

  Royal Parks Agency
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he will publish the report on the five-year review of the Royal Parks Agency; and if he will make a statement. [160943]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The report was published today and I have placed copies in the Libraries of both Houses. The report is also available on the DCMS website (www.culture.gov.uk).

  The report's main conclusion and recommendation is that responsibility for the Royal Parks should remain with central Government and that the Royal Parks Agency (RPA) should continue to manage them although the Department should work towards establishing the Royal Parks as a non-departmental public body. The Government welcome the report and will respond in due course.

  I am pleased to note the report's recognition of the essential role of the Royal Parks Advisory Board in helping the effective management of the Royal Parks by their advice to Ministers and to the Chief Executive. I am grateful for their contribution which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I very much value. We welcome the initiative the board has taken over the past year in extending their role by providing independent advice on a wider range of the agency's plans, performance and longer-term strategy.

  Digital Television
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make it his policy to require all new television sets sold after 2004 to have digital receivers built into them. [160200]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.
  190W
  The Government wish all viewers to enjoy the benefits of digital broadcasting. When purchasing a new television set, it is important that consumers are aware that any set which does not include a digital decoder will not be able to receive television broadcasts without the use of a separate digital decoder once analogue transmissions cease. We have set out the criteria to be achieved before analogue terrestrial transmissions are switched off, and also have said that we expect that the criteria will be met in the period 2006–10. Both satellite and cable broadcasters are expected to cease analogue transmissions by that time. Given that most sets purchased now will still be in use at that time, we are encouraging television set manufacturers to produce generally affordable integrated digital televisions. We would like to see sales of analogue-only sets diminish rapidly in favour of televisions including a digital decoder for at least one of the three main platforms (terrestrial, satellite and cable). The UK cannot prohibit the sale of analogue-only sets that meet EU standards, but we will work with the Commission and with business on ways to encourage or require that all new televisions include a digital decoder as soon as practicable.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Everything but Arms Initiative
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what analysis the Government have undertaken of the impact of the Everything But Arms initiative on the Caribbean. [160942]

  Clare Short
  We have carefully considered the impact of the Everything but Arms initiative on all stakeholders. This includes Caribbean countries that are concerned about the possible impact that it might have on their preferential access to EU markets, particularly for sugar, rice and bananas. A summary of our analysis will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The analysis shows that none of the Caribbean's sugar industries is expected to suffer a significant deterioration in its financial performance due to EBA. For bananas, the impact will be negligible and for rice, the transition arrangements under EBA will mean that changes in market forces will be phased in gradually and the overall impact will not be very great.

  World Summit on Sustainable Development
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to assist the preparations for the Rio † 10 conference; what contributions she intends to make at the conference; and if she will make a statement. [159783]

  Clare Short
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, on 8 May 2001,Official Report, column 38W. DFID is working closely with DETR and other Government Departments to ensure an effective UK contribution to the World Summit on Sustainable Development.

  My Department plans to spend some £1.5 million to support the process. The largest contribution will go to the Government of South Africa to help them meet the costs of organising and hosting the Summit. The Department is also assisting the UN Secretariat to prepare for the Summit and

  191W
  to support developing country participation. A DFID-funded expert meeting on strategies for sustainable development is expected to provide recommendations for the preparatory process. My Department will also be a principal supporter of the UN Development Programme/ European Community Poverty and Environment Initiative which is designed to demonstrate the poverty reducing potential of environmental interventions in the run-up to the Summit.

  Both the Prime Minister and I spoke at the 6 March World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) conference on the Summit and I am placing a copy of my speech in the Library of the House.

  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her policy towards improving water storage and distribution networks in sub-Saharan Africa. [160670]

  Clare Short
  We place a high priority on improving access to potable water supplies and sanitation facilities for the world's poorest people. Sub-Saharan Africa currently has the lowest coverage, with almost half of the population not having access to safe drinking water or sanitation facilities. My Department works with Government and non-government agencies to improve the management of existing water supply schemes and to construct new, affordable schemes. This support includes water storage and distribution networks where locally appropriate. We currently have major water projects in Ghana, Nigeria, Mozambique and South Africa.

  Our policy on improving water (and sanitation) services is set out in the recently published strategy paper "Addressing the Water Crisis". I Will send the hon. Member a copy and place a copy in the House Library. This details how we will work towards the target for water supply agreed at the UN Millennium Summit last September—to halve by 2015 the proportion of people unable to reach, or afford, safe drinking water.

  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the share of world trade of each of the most indebted countries(a) in 1980 and (b) in the latest year for which figures are available. [159762]

  Clare Short
  In 1980 Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) held a share in world merchandise and services trade of 0.87 per cent. The figure in 1998 was 0.57 per cent. Over this period the volume of exports in merchandise and services rose from $21 billion to $38 billion. There are 41 HIPC countries. Figures for 1980 were not available in 11 of these countries. Figures for 1998 were not available in seven.

DEFENCE

  Defence Estates Agency
  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Defence Estates Agency for 2001–02. [160862]
  192W
  Dr. Moonie
  As detailed in the Defence Estates Corporate Plan 2001–06, the following key targets have been set for the Agency:

  Key Target 1:
  Customer service—to achieve 90 per cent. of project deliverables on time and to budget.

  Key Target 2:
  Customer satisfaction—to achieve an overall customer satisfaction rating of 67 per cent. or more, as measured by the 2001–02 Customer Satisfaction survey.

  Key Target 3:
  Annual Stewardship Report—to have the report for 2000–01 ready for publication by 31 December.

  Key Target 4:
  Disposal Receipts—to achieve gross receipts of £550 million in FY 2001–02 to 2005–06.

  Key Target 5:
  Prime Contracting—to continue with the implementation of the regional prime contracting programme during the corporate plan period.

  Key Target 6:
  IIP re-accreditation—by 31 July.

  Copies of the new Defence Estates Corporate Plan have been placed in the Library of the House.

  British Forces Post Office Agency
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the British Forces Post Office Agency for financial year 2001–02. [160863]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Chief Executive of the British Forces Post Office Agency has set the following Key Targets for 2001–02.

  Key Target 1a
  To meet the customers' requirements as negotiated and agreed in Customer Supplier Agreements.

  Key Target 1b
  To achieve an increased level of customer satisfaction.

  Key Target 2
  To achieve an overall 3 per cent. increase in efficiency.

  Key Target 3
  To reduce the level of customer compensation attributable to BFPO by 3 per cent.

  Defence Transport and Movements Agency
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Defence Transport and Movements Agency for financial year 2001–02. [160864]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Chief Executive of the Defence Transport and Movements Agency has been set the following Key Targets for 2001–02:

  Key Target 1
  To meet the customers' requirements as negotiated and agreed in Customer Supplier Agreements.

  Key Target la
  94 per cent. or more of Agency transactions and services provided under call-off contracts to be within agreed performance criteria.
  193W
  Key Target 1b
  No individual Agency service or call-off contract to be less than 90 per cent. of agreed performance criteria.

  Key Target 2
  To achieve an overall 3 per cent. increase in efficiency.

  Key Target 3
  To demonstrate improved net added value.

  Key Target 4
  To achieve at least a satisfactory rating in the provision operational transport and movements support.

  Meteorological Office
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Meteorological Office for 2001–02. [160865]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Chief Executive of the Met Office is responsible for providing meteorological and related environmental services, including climate change prediction, to a wide range of customers, including the armed forces, Government, civil aviation, shipping, emergency services, media, commerce, industry and the general public. It also undertakes research related to meteorology and climate. This year, the Met Office will be set the following challenging targets:

  Key Target 1:
  To increase the value of the Numerical Weather Prediction Index by at least 2.0 points from the level achieved on 31 March 2001, by 31 March 2002;

  Key Target 2:
  To achieve a value for the Service Quality Index of at least 107.8 on 31 March 2002, from a baseline of 100.0 on 31 March 1997, in line with customer requirements;

  Key Target 3:
  To achieve a value for the Efficiency Index of at least 111.6 by 31 March 2003, from a baseline of 100.0 on 31 March 2000, and to achieve an increase of at least 1.4 Index points during 2001–02;

  Key Target 4:
  To achieve a positive return on capital employed in 2001–02, while returning an operating profit of at least £14.4 million before strategic investments;

  Key Target 5:
  To achieve strategic investments in 2001–02 of £15.9 million ±£1.5 million;

  Key Target 6:
  To achieve a total contribution from commercial activities in 2001–02 of at least £4.4 million;

  Key Target 7:
  To achieve a value for the Staff Skills Index of at least 107.5 by 31 March 2004, from a baseline of 100.0 as at 31 March 2001.

  Defence Storage and Distribution Agency
  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Defence Storage and Distribution Agency for financial year 2001–02. [160866]
  194W
  Mr. Spellar
  The Chief Executive of the Defence Storage and Distribution Agency has been set the following Key Targets for 2001–02:

  Key Target 1:
  To meet the customers' requirements as negotiated and agreed in Customer Supplier Agreements.

  Key Target 1a:
  95 per cent. of all issues to consumers to meet Supply Chain Pipeline Times.

  Key Target 1b
  98 per cent. of all receipts to be processed within agreed time limits.

  Key Target 2:
  To demonstrate continuous improvement in efficiency.

  Key Target 2a:
  To achieve an overall 5 per cent. reduction in the unit cost of output.

  Key Target 2b:
  To establish an accurate baseline cost of process output to be used as measurement in financial year 2002–03.

  Key Target 3:
  The value of inventory written off to be less than agreed levels.

  United Kingdom Hydrographic Office
  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office for the financial year 2001–02. [160867]

  Dr. Moonie
  The key targets set for the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office in 2001–02 are as follows:

  1. Publish 100 per cent. of priority safety information within the stated time scales from the receipt of the original data.

  2. Deliver defence specific outputs as defined in the Tasking Authorisation Forms. All agreed outputs delivered to time and quality.

  3. Improve completeness and delivery of commercial orders. 95 per cent. of orders shipped to schedule and 98 per cent. line completeness at first pick by March 2002.

  4. Design, build and populate the UKHO's hydrographic data management infrastructure. Data population to start by 2002.

  5. Break even taking one year with another and achieve an average return on capital employed during the plan period of 7.5 per cent.

  6. Achieve efficiency measure of 5 per cent. growth in "value added" per member of staff (based on financial year 2000–01) by financial yew 2005–06.

  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the quinquennial review of the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office will take place. [160868]

  Dr. Moonie
  The quinquennial review (QQR) of the UK Hydrographic Office (UKHO) will begin this month. The aim of the review is to make recommendations on the future means of delivery of the functions, products and services provided by the UKHO, assessing both the business environment and the strategic capability of the
  195W
  organisation and how the UKHO can best exploit its position in the future. In doing this, phase 1 of the review, which is expected to be completed by mid July, will:
  conduct a challenging examination of current arrangements, taking into account the requirements and views of customers, staff and other stakeholders;
  identify organisational and structural options for future product and service provision and provide costed options for change where this is considered appropriate in order to ensure responsive, coherent and cost-effective product and service delivery.

  Following consultation, phase 2 of the review will go on to develop more detailed proposals for the targeting of improvements in performance and service delivery. The precise programme of work will be dependent on the finding of phase 1, but it is currently expected that it will be completed by November 2001.

  The review will be carried out by a small team which will consult closely with the UKHO and with major stakeholders, and liaise with organisations within and outside of Government that could contribute to the review or be affected by it. The Ministry of Defence is also keen to hear the views of other organisations or individuals with an interest. These can be sent to: UKHO QQR Team, UK Hydrographic Office, Admiralty Way, Taunton, Somerset TA1 2DN. (e-mail: peterhobson@ukho.gov.uk). There will also be an opportunity for feedback on the UKHO website at www.ukho.gov.uk.

  Service Pensions
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will make an announcement in respect of his review of armed forces pensions. [160475]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Secretary of State for Defence on 16 March 2001,Official Report, column 756W.

  War Widows Pensions
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of(a) the number of people affected and (b) the cost to the Exchequer of re-instating Army widow pensions to those widows who lost their pension on remarriage, prior to the change of policy. [160528]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave on 27 November 2000,Official Report, columns 422–23W and 7 February 2001, Official Report, columns 524–25W to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis).

  Livestock (Armed Forces)
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what livestock the armed forces own other than for ceremonial purposes; and where they are kept. [159823]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 1 May 2001]: Records are not held centrally of any livestock held by the armed forces.

  Research Contracts
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was spent by his Department on research contracts, broken down by region, for the most recent financial year for which figures are available. [149566]
  196W
  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 8 February 2001]: Net expenditure outturn for my Department's major customers' research budgets in the Appropriation Accounts for financial year 1999–2000, published on 24 January, was £457.812 million. This sum includes research work placed with DERA but excludes technology demonstrator programmes, and loans and grants to DERA. It is not possible to provide a regional breakdown of research expenditure from available data.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many films made by the Chemical Defence and Biological Establishment, Porton Down have been transferred to the Imperial War Museum since 1990; if he will place in the Library a list of the titles of each such film; what progress is being made in transferring further films from Porton Down to the Imperial War Museum; and if he will make a statement. [160493]

  Dr. Moonie
  It is believed that at least 70 films have been transferred to the Imperial War Museum (IWM) from the Chemical and Biological Defence Sector of DERA at Porton Down since 1990. Responsibility for producing a catalogue of acquisitions rests with the IWM. The Ministry of Defence continues to maintain dialogue with the IWM and staff at the Public Record Office and Porton Down about the suitability of other films for permanent preservation.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff since 21 November 2000 have been taken on at the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down to deal with issues relating to Porton Down volunteers who took part in experiments at the Chemical Defence Establishment. [160489]

  Dr. Moonie
  None. Since 21 November 2000, 12 members of staff have been re-assigned from other duties at the Chemical Defence Establishment at Porton Down, to deal with issues relating to the Porton Down Volunteer Programme on a full or part-time basis.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if service volunteers who took part in experiments at the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down are entitled to receive a copy of technical reports which describe the experiments in which they participated. [160491]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Chemical and Biological Defence Sector of DERA at Porton Down respond to all inquiries from ex-Porton Down volunteers and these responses include an invitation to visit Porton Down to view the original record books and discuss any details with current members of staff.

  Volunteers who visit CBD are given copies of records that refer to them personally and copies of other documentation, including technical reports, where they add relevant information to that already located in the volunteer records books. This is decided on a case-to-case basis.

  Technical reports do not usually include names or personal detail and it is often not possible to relate reports to studies in which individual volunteers took part.
  197W
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library copies of the technical reports which were compiled by the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down to record the results of an experiment in 1989 in which Service personnel were exposed to Sarin nerve gas. [160490]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Chemical and Biological Defence Sector of DERA at Porton Down has published one technical report on the research undertaken with Sarin in 1989 which involved Service volunteers. This is Technical Paper No. 571 entitled "The Effects on the Eye of Prolonged Exposure to a Low Concentration of GB Vapour". I will make arrangements for a copy of this publication to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many films made by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down are held in the archives of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down; and if he will place in the Library a list of the titles and dates of each film which is currently held in these archives. [160492]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment archives at Porton Down contain references to over 1,200 films. The titles have not been catalogued and in many cases are not very informative. It would require disproportionate cost to produce a meaningful list.

  Appointments (Political Affiliations)
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many appointments he has made since May 1997 in accordance with the Nolan criteria; how many appointees were aged over 60 years at the time of appointment; and how many declared a political affiliation for(a) the Conservative party, (b) the Labour party and (c) the Liberal Democrats. [160630]

  Dr. Moonie
  Since May 1997 there have been 361 public appointments to non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Ministry of Defence, made in accordance with the Nolan criteria under guidelines issued by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. Of these, 206 were re-appointments of individuals already serving on the relevant body.

  Of the 361, 93 were aged over 60, 12 declared a political affiliation for the Conservative party, three for the Labour party and none for the Liberal Democrats at the time of appointment and/or re-appointment.

  Deep Vein Thrombosis
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) RAF pilots and aircrew, (b) Army flying personnel and (c) Royal Naval pilots and personnel have suffered from (i) deep vein thrombosis and (ii) pulmonary embolisms in the last five years; and how many were known by his Department to have suffered within 14 days of flying activities. [147192]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 29 January 2001]: Central records maintained by my Department do not identify illness where it has not resulted in medical downgrading for a significant period. They may, therefore, not record cases of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolisms. In fact, these records show one case of a pulmonary embolism from 1999. The individual
  198W
  concerned was also suffering from a serious illness, which may have been the cause of the pulmonary embolism. Neither the Royal Navy nor the RAF maintain additional collated records, and further information on their personnel could be obtained only by checking medical records individually. A collated Army record is, however, maintained. This shows two Army aircrew who have suffered deep vein thrombosis within the last five years, one of whom also suffered a pulmonary embolism. Neither had been engaged in military flying duties within the previous 14 days, but both had been passengers on a commercial aircraft within that period.

HEALTH

  Meat Inspection Charges
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on meat inspection charges in smaller abattoirs. [R] [150872]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: The Government's response to the report of the Meat Inspection Charges Task Force was published in the Rural White Paper on 28 November 2000 when, inter alia, we announced the provision of new, additional aid (worth £8.7 million in 2001–02) to help secure the future of small and medium-sized abattoirs.

  As a result of this additional funding the Food Standards Agency was able to implement, from 2 April 2001, the recommendations of the Task Force to base meat inspection charges on the standard headage charges laid down in the EU Charges Directive or on actual inspection costs where these are lower.

  General Practitioners
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent consultations have taken place with GPs over policy changes that will affect the way they work. [156735]

  Mr. Denham
  Officials in the Department meet the General Practitioners Committee of the British Medical Association regularly to discuss these matters. Officials also meet other primary care organisations regularly to discuss wider primary care issues.

  Macular Degenerative Disease
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assistance his Department is giving to sufferers from macular degenerative disease. [158337]

  Mr. Denham
  We fund research into vision-related conditions through the Medical Research Council. They are currently funding several major research projects into macular degeneration, including a clinical trial at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Belfast: "Radiotherapy in the treatment of subfoveal neovascular membranes (CNVM) in age-related macular degeneration of the eye" for which a grant was provided of £61,571. They have also provided a £1.5 million grant to look at "Genetic Susceptibility to Age Related Macular Degeneration."

  We are also collaborating with the voluntary sector in developing low vision services for people who have lost vision as a result of eye diseases including macular

  199W
  degeneration. This entails improving co-ordination between the hospital eye service where patients are diagnosed, community opticians who are capable of supplying low vision aids, social services departments who can help with aids to independent living and mobility, and voluntary organisations who can provide talking books, guide dogs. Nothing can do more to improve the quality of life for people with visual handicaps than prompt, effective collaboration between these agencies.

  Hearing Aids
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average length of time patients waited to receive(a) digital and (b) other hearing aids was (i) in the United Kingdom and (ii) in Gloucestershire in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [158880]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 26 April 2001]: The Department does not collect information on waiting times for hearing aids as it collects data only on consultant-led specialities, and waiting for an appointment for a hearing aid to be fitted is not always consultant-led. Information is available for audiology which covers other things within that speciality. Data are collected for ear, nose and throat and audiological medicine, but this is not specific to hearing aids. These are shown in the table.

  Average (median) out-patient waiting times in weeks for ENT and audiological medicine

  Specialty

  Quarter

  ENT

  Audiological medicine

  Data for England

  March 2000

  10.00

  11.44

  June 2000

  8.83

  10.91

  September 2000

  9.49

  11.67

  December 2000

  9.33

  11.29

  Data for Gloucestershire HA (QDY)

  March 2000

  8.15

  1—

  June 2000

  7.77

  1—

  September 2000

  8.15

  1—

  December 2000

  7.69

  1—

  1 No data

  Note:

  The out-patient average should he treated as an approximation only. This is because it is calculated from data split into four timebands. It is calculated as the median waiting time (in weeks) of those seen for a first out-patient appointment during the quarter following a GP referral.

  Source:

  QMO8R quarterly waiting times return

  Audiology Services
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what recent representations he has received about funding for audiology services; [160071]

  (2) what his policy is on funding audiology services. [160070]

  Mr. Hutton
  Health authorities have received an average 6.2 per cent. real-terms increase for 2001–02. Funding for national health service audiology services is 200W
  part of the normal responsibility of health authorities and trusts and audiology services should benefit from this very significant increase.

  In addition, substantial extra funds have been provided for the "Modernising NHS hearing aid services" project, which is evaluating leading edge digital hearing aids for NHS patients, together with the evaluation of associated service delivery changes. An extra £10.75 million has been made available for the 20 NHS hearing aid departments involved in the project. If the project is successful, we anticipate by 2003–04 that an extra £25 million will be invested in NHS hearing aid services.

  National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidance about the steps audiology departments should be taking to make sure patients get the hearing aid they need was issued in July 2000.

  Representations on NHS audiology services have been received from a wide range of individuals and organisations, including the Royal National Institute for Deaf People.

  Hip Replacements
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the waiting list was for those waiting for hip replacement operations on the NHS in the north-west in each of the years from 1997 to date; [160086]

  (2) what the cost of a hip replacement operation in the north-west was in each of the years from 1997 to date. [160085]

  Mr. Denham
  We do not collect procedure specific waiting list information.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many abattoirs there were in the north-west in each of the years from 1997 to date. [160079]

  Ms Stuart
  Between 1997 and March 2001, there were 50 licensed red meat abattoirs and 16 licensed white meat abattoirs in the north-west (Cheshire, Cumbria, Greater Manchester, Lancashire and Merseyside). The number of licensed red meat abattoirs fell to 47 in late March, when three abattoirs surrendered their licences in order to take part in the cull schemes introduced by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food during the foot and mouth disease outbreak.

  Currently, licensed abattoirs are also subject to additional approval arrangements under the Foot and Mouth Disease Order as amended. Thirty-eight abattoirs in the north-west are approved to operate under these arrangements.

  Skin and Respiratory Illnesses
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the estimated cost was to the NHS of treating of(a) asthma and (b) hay fever in the last year for which figures are available. [160130]
  201W
  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available in the format required.

  National schedule of reference costs: average unit cost data by healthcare resource group (HRG)—1999 to 2000

  HRG code

  HRG narrative

  Admission type

  Number of FCES

  Mean average £

  Total cost£

  D21

  Asthma more than 49 years or with complications and comorbidities

  Day case

  253

  209

  52,877

  D21

  Asthma more than 49 years or with complications and comorbidities

  Elective in-patient

  1,193

  1,742

  2,078,206

  D21

  Asthma more than 49 years or with complications and comorbidities

  Non-elective in patient

  82,503

  1,043

  86,050,629

  D22

  Asthma less than 50 years or without complications and comorbidities

  Day case

  197

  240

  47,280

  D22

  Asthma less than 50 years or Without complications comorbidities

  Elective in-patient

  466

  1,260

  587,160

  D22

  Asthma less than 50 years or without complications and comorbidities

  Non-elective in-patient

  36,147

  529

  19,121,763

  PO1

  Asthma or recurrent Wheeze

  Day case

  170

  339

  57,630

  PO1

  Asthma or recurrent Wheeze

  Elective in-patient

  697

  711

  495,567

  PO1

  Asthma or recurrent Wheeze

  Non-elective in-patient

  23,191

  498

  11,549,118

  Total

  120,040,230

  The aggregate (total) figures have been produced using average cost figures only, and do not reflect specific costs in individual organisations. Activity data are based on fast-track data and need to be verified against final HES data where available, to ensure that "total" costs are not understated.

  It should be stressed that these are "calculated" total cost figures and should be quoted in round terms, rather than assuming robust accuracy; for example, £120 million in 1999 –2000. The costs of primary care treatment of these conditions are not included in reference costs and would need to be added to these figures to give total costs.

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the annual drugs bill for asthma was in each of the last five years. [160135]

  Ms Stuart
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  The costs of national health service prescription items for drugs used in the management of asthma and dispensed in the community in England from 1995 to 2000 (January to September) are shown in the table. Information on prescriptions dispensed in NHS hospitals is not available.

  Number of prescription items and the associated net ingredient cost of drugs dispensed in the community for the management of asthma, 1995 to 1999, and 2000 (January to September), England

  Year

  Prescription items(Thousand)

  Net ingredient cost(£000)

  1995

  33,936

  410,899

  1996

  34,500

  438,266

  1997

  35,512

  466,229

  1998

  36,468

  498,037

  1999

  36,639

  519,755

  20001

  27,044

  388,215

  1 January to September

  Notes:

  1. The prescription information is from the Prescription Cost Analysis (PCA) system and is based on a full analysis of all prescriptions dispensed in the community, i.e. by community
  202W
  The table lists figures which relate to hospital-based admissions for asthma or recurrent wheeze which can include hay fever.

  pharmacists and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered in England. Also included are prescriptions written in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man but dispensed in England. The data do not cover drugs dispensed in hospital or private prescriptions.

  2. The net ingredient cost is the basic cost of a drug. This cost does not take account of discounts, dispensing costs, fees or prescription charges income.

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to prevent(a) eczema, (b) hay fever and (c) asthma. [160132]

  Mr. Denham
  We recognise that asthma is the commonest chronic illness in England and policy emphasises that preventive action is of great importance. Hay fever and other allergic diseases, while not having the same symptoms as asthma, must also be avoided where possible and Government-funded research is ongoing into the benefits of allergen avoidance and immunotherapy for such conditions.

  We fund research through the Medical Research Council. The MRC's work includes basic research into the causes of asthma and allergies, with particular effort at present on analysing the genetic factors that predispose some individuals and families to asthma and eczema. The MRC is also conducting controlled trials of methods for managing and preventing asthma. The total MRC spend on allergy and asthma in 1999–2000 was £4 million.

  Included in this total are three projects looking at the causes of hay fever (among other allergies) and exploring possible ways of curing the condition; the spend on these was £200,000 in 1999–2000.

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the estimated cost to the NHS of treating of eczema was to the NHS in each of the last five years. [160150]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department does not centrally collect final total information on the cost of eczema to the national health service. However, information is available
  203W
  on both the costs of NHS prescription items for drugs used in treating eczema and also costs relating to hospital based admissions for the condition.

  The costs of NHS prescription items for drugs used in the treatment of asthma and dispensed in the community in England from 1995 to 2000 (January to September) are as follows: for 1995 the net ingredient cost was approximately £6.7 million; in 1996 £6.8 million; 1997 £6.6 million; 1998 £6.4 million; 1999 £6.3 million; and for the January to September 2000 period the net ingredient cost was approximately £4.5 million. Information on prescriptions dispensed in NHS hospitals is not available.

  In respect of hospital-based admissions for eczema, aggregate (total cost) figures have been produced using average cost figures. For 1997–98 the total cost was approximately £10.2 million, for 1998–99 the total cost was approximately £29.4 million, and for 1999–2000 the total cost was approximately £30.1 million. Figures are not available for published reference costs prior to the 1997–98 financial year. The figures do not include the cost of primary care treatment of these conditions.

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are diagnosed as sufferers from(a) eczema and (b) hay fever. [160134]

  Mr. Denham
  It is not possible to state the number of people who have been diagnosed as suffering from allergies which include eczema and hay fever. This is due to the fact that many people diagnose themselves, and buy remedies at their local pharmacy, or are diagnosed by their general practitioners or appropriate clinic such as chest clinics or dermatology units. It is however estimated that at least 15 per cent. of the population is affected by allergy.

  However, there were 8,000 admissions to national health service hospitals for 1999–2000 where the primary diagnosis could be described as asthma and 200 cases where the primary diagnosis could be described as hay fever (allergic rhinitus due to pollen).

  Hospital Sites Development
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is his policy to seek to encourage private developers who have purchased former hospital sites and land to provide low-cost housing in developments that they may undertake. [160272]

  Mr. Denham
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions is responsible for setting the national policy guidance in respect of the provision of low-cost housing. Local authorities include policies in their development plans that reflect this guidance. It is for them to ensure that their policies are adhered to when considering proposals for redevelopment of former hospitals

  Local Social Services
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with each of the London borough councils on the growth in their spending on the provision of local social services for the present financial year. [160269]
  204W
  Mr. Hutton
  Ministerial colleagues and I meet frequently with representatives of local councils, including London authorities to discuss growth. which will increase by 10.7 per cent. in real terms from 2000–01 to 2003–04.

  Day Centres (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on day centre provision for people with learning disabilities in Shropshire. [160376]

  Mr. Hutton
  Shropshire has 12 day centres for people with learning disabilities. These provide a range of opportunities including employment, leisure, therapeutic help and access to education. Some of the centres provide extra support or activities for people who have severe disabilities.

  Most of these centres are small, but the two centres based in Shrewsbury are large centres each catering for between 70 to 90 people. As part of a three-year county-wide improvement plan, social services have increased the learning disability budget by 18 per cent. to modernise the service and to provide users in Shrewsbury with small local provision, which will be consistent with the type of provision available in the rest of the county.

  A Joint Investment Plan for Learning Disability in Shropshire has been submitted for formal evaluation to the Department. This, together with the action plan drawn up in response to the recent Joint Review report, gives details of an overall strategy to improve and integrate health and social services provision and make it more responsive to service users needs.

  Learning Disabilities (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people with learning disabilities have been supported for each year since 1992 by Shropshire county council's social services; and if he will make a statement. [160363]

  Mr. Hutton
  Numbers of residents with learning disabilities supported by Shropshire social services for each year since 1992 are given in the table.

  Year

  Residents

  Residential care

  Nursing care

  1992

  159

  159

  —

  1993

  164

  164

  —

  1994

  181

  179

  2

  1995

  172

  171

  1

  1996

  284

  280

  4

  1997

  277

  264

  13

  1998

  312

  304

  8

  1999

  300

  288

  12

  2000

  234

  216

  18

  Source:

  DH forms RA6 and SRI

  Telford and Wrekin became a unitary authority in 1998. The data for the new unitary have been added to those for Shropshire for 1999 and 2000 for proper comparison with the earlier years.

  These figures include people resettled from hospital and funded by the health authority. These represent 66 out of 234 people for 2000.
  205W
  The council also supports 481 people with a learning disability, at home. This figure is taken from the Personal Social Services Personal Indicator's for 1999–2000. Shropshire was placed at band 5 for this indicator, reflecting very good performance in this area. Shropshire was one of the first local authorities to complete the resettlement of people with learning disabilities from long stay hospitals.

  Medical Specialities
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has given to health authorities on their allocation of resources to individual medical specialties. [160263]

  Mr. Denham
  To enable health authorities to manage flexibly the totality of resources available to them, there is limited earmarking of funds within allocations. For 2001–02 the national health service plan implementation programme identified the following sums included in allocations with an intention that they be spent on the purpose for which they were allocated:

  Priority

  £million

  Cancer and coronary heart disease

  450

  Waiting times and access

  423

  Intermediate care and community equipment

  188

  Information management and technology

  113

  These sums reflect national estimates of investment needed to deliver targets and milestones in implementing the NHS plan. They are intended as a guide for local health communities in ensuring that their own plans will meet these targets and milestones.

  A copy of the NHS plan implementation programme will be placed in the Library.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the high-level targets for the Medicines Control Agency for 2001–02. [160938]

  Yvette Cooper
  The high-level targets for the Medicines Control Agency are included in its annual business plan, copies of which have been placed in the Library today.

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has approved the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's fifth code of practice. [160939]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's revised code of practice has been approved and was laid before the House today. Copies of the code have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has approved the publication of the second quinquennial review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. [160940]

  Yvette Cooper
  The report of the second quinquennial review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has been approved and copies have been placed in the Library today. This was a thorough review of the 206W
  authority and its work which included wide consultation with the public, service users and providers. The report acknowledges the value of the authority's role in this highly sensitive area.

  The report makes important recommendations. Work on introducing improved quality assurance systems is in hand and we are Working with the authority to agree an implementation plan for the other recommendations.

  Strokes
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to address the incidence of stroke in ethnic minority groups, to identify and raise awareness among those at greatest risk and to provide accessible, culturally sensitive and appropriate prevention information. [160539]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department is taking action to address the incidence of stroke in minority ethnic groups through the National Service Frameworks (NSFs) for coronary heart disease and older people.

  Given the higher prevalence of stroke in some minority ethnic communities, the NSFs recognise the need to ensure that integrated stroke services and stroke prevention advice should take into account the need for advocacy support, especially for those patients and carers for whom English is not their first language.

  The Department is currently funding the Stroke Association to produce information packs on high blood pressure, effects of diet, risks from smoking and alcohol and the importance of exercise. The packs will specifically target Afro-Caribbean people and will be publicised and distributed through local community, church and health groups by the end of 2001.

  As part of the Department's tobacco education campaign, a dedicated campaign focused on ethnic minority populations is being developed. The campaign will start in summer of this year and will be supported by a specialist Asian language helpline.

  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made towards the target set in "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation" of reducing stroke in those under 75 years. [160537]

  Yvette Cooper
  The target set in the White Paper "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation" was not solely for stroke, but was for all circulatory diseases combined:"To reduce the death rate from coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke and related diseases in people aged under 75 by at least two fifths (40 per cent.) by 2010".
  It is not yet possible to assess progress towards the target, since the latest available data (for the years 1997–99 combined) overlap with the start of the "Our Healthier Nation" strategy, which was published in July 1999. The last two years' data do demonstrate some movement towards the target, but there are still insufficient data points to establish a trend.

  The table shows directly standardised mortality rates in England (based on three-year rolling averages) from stroke, CHD and for all circulatory diseases (the target group), among people aged under 75.
  207W

  Stroke

  CHD

  All circulatory diseases

  1996 (1995–97)

  24.5

  88.9

  139.6

  1997 (1996–98)

  23.8

  84.3

  133.8

  1998 (1997–99)

  22.8

  79.2

  127.0

  Percentage change 1996–98

  —6.6

  —11.0

  —9.0

  Source

  Office for National Statistics

  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he will be issuing on the development of stroke registers to identify those at greater risk of stroke; and when that guidance can be expected. [160538]

  Yvette Cooper
  Advice on constructing and populating stroke registers will be contained in the Information Strategy for Older People which will be published shortly.

  The National Service Framework for Older People requires that individuals at particular risk of stroke should be identified and offered advice and support to make lifestyle changes. General Practitioner practices should build on registers being developed for the prevention of coronary heart disease as described in the Coronary Heart Disease National Service Framework Standards 3 and 4) and put in place models of care. The milestone for the registers is April 2004.

  Blood Pressure Screening
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will investigate the effectiveness of introducing blood pressure screening programmes. [160540]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Service Frameworks for Coronary Heart Disease and Older People give clear guidance on the control of blood pressure.

  The National Service Framework for Coronary Heart Disease sets out a requirement for people at risk of cardiovascular disease to be offered advice and treatment on a range of risk factors, including maintaining healthy blood pressure levels. By April 2003, clinical audit data no more than 12 months old will be available on the use of this and other interventions.

  The National Service Framework for Older People stresses the importance of maintaining a healthy blood pressure. By April 2004, primary care groups and trusts will have ensured that every general practice, using protocols agreed with local specialist services, can identify and treat patients identified as being at risk of stroke because of high blood pressure, atrial fibrillation or other risk factors.

  The United Kingdom National Screening Committee is awaiting the publication of the next health technology assessment report on blood pressure and will consider any wider screening issues on receipt of that report.

  Kidney Failure
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the timetable is for the development of a national service framework for patients with kidney failure. [160628]
  208W
  Mr. Denham
  The Renal National Service Framework will be published in 2002. It will set out a national programme for the development of renal services, including specific standards and milestones, with implementation beginning in 2003.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for West Chelmsford will receive a reply to his letter of 3 January concerning Mr. Clive Mortimore; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for the delay in replying. [160632]

  Mr. Denham
  A reply to the hon. Member's letter was sent on the 8 May 2001.

  I am sorry that the hon. Member did not receive an earlier reply. The Department's Permanent Secretary/ Chief Executive has written to the hon. Member separately to apologise for the unacceptable delay in replying. The letter of 3 January could not be traced and a copy of the correspondence had to be requested. The Department has now implemented a number of measures to prevent this type of delay from happening again.

  Eating Disorders
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of spending on mental health services in the NHS was allocated to eating disorders in the last financial year. [160785]

  Mr. Hutton
  It is not possible to identify the percentage of spending on mental health services allocated to the treatment of eating disorders in the last financial year because costs are not broken down by condition. However, we have drawn attention to the importance for people with eating disorders of being able to access effective treatment in the mental health National Service Framework. In addition, we have commissioned the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to develop a guideline on the treatment of eating disorders.

  Body Piercing
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to regulate the piercing of body parts other than ears; and if he will make a statement. [160666]

  Yvette Cooper
  Local authorities in London already have powers to regulate cosmetic body piercing businesses. We believe that there should be primary legislation introduced to give local authorities outside London powers to regulate the hygiene and cleanliness of cosmetic body piercing businesses, when parliamentary time allows.

  Shelton Hospital, Shrewsbury
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the capital projects for Shelton hospital, Shrewsbury agreed since 1 May 1997 and their value; and if he will make a statement. [160510]

  Yvette Cooper
  The regional office has approved one capital scheme for Shelton hospital since 1 May 1997. This was in respect of a low security unit (Wroxeter ward) which cost £1.6 million.
  209W
  Shropshire's Community and Mental Health Service National Health Service Trust has also invested additional capital funding on the Shelton hospital site through various minor works upgradings on the site.

  NHS Vacancies
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS vacancies there were for(a) doctors, (b) nurses, (c) midwives, (d) health visitors, (e) professions allied to medicine and (f) management and administration staff for each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; how many posts in each category have been vacant for longer than three months; and if he will make a statement. [157323]

  Mr. Denham
  [pursuant to his reply, 9 May 2001, c. 453–54W]: The Department has collected data on the number of posts that have been vacant for three months or more as at 31 March in 1999 and 2000. The information is in the table.
  210W

  Department of Health vacancies survey 3 month vacancy figures 1 in England as at 31 March for each year

  1999

  2000

  Consultants

  470

  590

  Qualified nurses

  7,150

  9,870

  Of which:

  Midwives

  370

  490

  Health visitors

  100

  190

  Professions allied to Medicine2

  860

  1,510

  Administration and Estates3

  640

  1,740

  1 Posts that had been vacant for 3 months or more at 31 March each year.

  2 Professions allied to Medicine staff include the following occupation groups: Chiropody, Dietetics, Occupational therapy, Orthoptics/optics, Physiotherapy, Diagnostic radiography, Therapeutic radiology, Art/ Music/Drama therapy.

  3 Management and Administration staff are part of Administration and Estates Staff group, and can not be separately identified.

  Note:

  Figures are whole-time equivalents rounded to the nearest 10.

  Source:

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Coal Mineshafts
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the report by Herriot Watt university on the impact of coal mineshafts in Stoke-on-Trent will be published. [160979]

  Mr. Hain
  I have today placed copies of the report in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament. I am also writing to those individual hon. Members whom I know to have a keen interest in the report to send them a copy.

  I know how householders have been blighted by concerns over mineshafts and I want to look at how we can help. The report shows the problems of blight are real but have many causes. Government will work with many others—the Law Society, the Coal Authority, mortgage lenders, valuers, local authorities etc.—to produce the right package of solutions. As a first step to identifying those solutions, we want to hear the views of those groups and others in the local community with an interest.

  The report is being sent to relevant representative and professional bodies as well as to central and local government. It will be available on my Department's website at www.dti.gov.uk/consultations. I would be pleased to have views by 10 August 2001 on the report's findings, together with suggestions of action that individuals and organisations could take in response to the report. My Department will be seeking discussions with a number of relevant organisations. These discussions will also need to take account of the recent High Court case which the Coal Authority have accepted as finding that the information given by British Coal in mining reports prior to 1991 could in some cases be seen to have been incomplete.

  Employment Agencies
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many companies which offer temporary to permanent products his Department met to discuss the effect of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations on temporary to permanent contracts(a) before and (b) after the final draft was published; [160652]

  (2) if he will list the recruitment companies other than REC he met to discuss regulations 8 and 9 prior to the final draft of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations being published; [160658]

  (3) what discussions he held with (a) recruitment companies and (b) REC relating to the impact of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations on work experience to permanent products before the final draft was published. [160653]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Before the final draft of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2001 was published, I had meetings with Manpower, Adecco, Blue Arrow, Brook Street, NES International and Hewett Recruitment. I also met the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, the Agents Association and the Local Employment Agencies 212W
  Forum. A number of issues were discussed during those meetings, including the impact of the draft Regulations on the private recruitment industry's operation.

  My officials have had regular meetings with agencies and their associations to discuss the effect of the draft Regulations. It is estimated that around 100 such meetings have taken place over the past two years. However, it is not possible to break this down by date.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 3 April 2001,Official Report, column 103W, what discussions he has had with (a) women's groups, (b) representatives of ethnic minority groups and (c) student groups regarding the implications of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations. [160649]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I am always willing to meet representative bodies to discuss the implications of the draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2001, provided, of course, a mutually convenient time can be arranged. To date I have had no such meetings with groups representing women, ethnic minorities or students.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 3 April 2001,Official Report, column 103W, what assessment he has made of the impact of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations on recruitment bureaux products. [160650]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Regulatory Impact Assessment issued with the draft Regulations concluded that the net result of the proposed changes should be a more effective recruitment industry able to offer a better and speedier service, helping to create a more efficient and flexible labour market. The proposals should not affect those who have appropriate systems in place.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment he has made of the impact of regulations 8 and 9 of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations on those recruitment companies who operate with a dual role as agency and business; [160659]

  (2) what assessment he made of the impact of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations on work experience to permanent products before the final draft was published. [160654]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 27 April 2001,Official Report, column 417W.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many meetings(a) he and (b) his officials have held with Keith Faulkner to discuss the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations; and on what dates; [160648]
  213W
  (2) how many meetings his officials held with Manpower (a) before and (b) after the publication of the consultation document on the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations; and on what dates; [160646]

  (3) how many meetings Ministers held with Manpower relating to the consultation document on the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations; and on what dates; [160647]

  (4) what discussions (a) he and (b) his officials have held with Manpower regarding the changes to temporary to permanent contracts contained in the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations. [160651]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I met Keith Faulkner of Manpower three times, on 9 September 1999, 10 January 2000 and 6 December 2000, to discuss the draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations but I have not met him since the final draft Regulations were published on 1 February 2001. My officials met Mr. Faulkner on 23 August 2000. These discussions covered the various provisions of the draft Regulations, including the changes to temporary to permanent contracts.

  Corus Plc
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will ask Corus plc for a written assessment of the proposals submitted by the ISTC to restructure steel production at each plant in England and Wales. [160704]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Regrettably, Corus has taken its decision to proceed with the redundancies it outlined on 1 February and I do not think there is much to be gained from further contesting that decision. Our priority now is to put into place measures that will help redundant workers, their families and the communities in which they live as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced in this House on 3 May 2001,Official Report, column 962–66.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made by the Government on the recommendation made by the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones, chaired by Professor Sir William Stewart, on developing and maintaining a national database on base stations and their emissions. [160941]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have asked the Radio communications Agency (RA) to develop and maintain a public database giving details on all operating cellular base stations and their emissions, in response to the recommendations of the Independent Experts Group on Mobile Phones report chaired by Professor Sir William Stewart.

  The RA has been making steady progress in implementing this recommendation. It is developing an internet based solution known as "Sitefinder". Sitefinder will employ a map-based facility indicating the location of cellular phone base stations. More information on a particular base station will be available by simply clicking on the position indicator for the base station in question.
  214W
  The mobile phone companies have been consulted during the development of this resource and have voluntarily agreed to disclose information on their respective base stations. RA have been formatting the data received from the cellular operators to make it compatible with the database software.

  "Sitefinder" is currently undergoing strenuous system and user acceptance testing. It is hoped that "Sitefinder" should be made publicly available via the RA's website later this summer.

  Redundancy Legislation
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to complete his Department's review of collective redundancy legislation. [160317]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 8 May 2001]The Review will be completed as soon as possible, consistent with the need to carry out a thorough analysis of the facts and to involve a wide range of interested parties.

  World Trade Organisation
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the Government's objectives with regards to environmentally friendly farming at the World Trade Organisation negotiations. [160449]

  Mr. Caborn
  EU Agriculture Ministers have adopted unanimous conclusions on the position of agriculture in WTO negotiations. These recognise the importance of further agricultural trade liberalisation as a contribution to economic growth.

  They also emphasise the multifunctional character of agriculture, including its role in preserving the rural environment and in contributing to the viability of rural areas.

  The Government recognise that agricultural trade liberalisation can have both positive and negative environmental effects, and to produce an effective solution it must be accompanied by environmental policies which are targeted on the delivery of environmental objectives. So, in pressing for further reductions in production-related support, the Government have consistently emphasised the importance of accompanying, targeted measures to conserve and enhance the rural environment and promote the rural economy.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what aims the United Kingdom Government have in the current round of World Trade Organisation negotiations; and if he will make a statement. [160448]

  Mr. Caborn
  Following the failure to launch a new round of trade talks at the Third Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organisation in Seattle in December 1999, it was agreed at the WTO General Council meeting on 7–8 February 2000 that the mandated negotiations on agriculture and services would take place in the Agriculture and Services Council respectively.

  The UK's aims in the agriculture negotiations are to achieve further liberalisation of agricultural trade in line with our objectives for reform of the Common Agricultural Policy to reduce the costs to consumers and

  215W
  taxpayers; to encourage the development of a viable and sustainable farming industry which is capable of competing without ongoing production support; and to conserve and enhance the rural environment and promote the rural economy through targeted measures.

  In the current negotiations on services, the UK seeks further progressive liberalisation in line with the objectives of the General Agreement on Trade in Services. The UK, as the world's second largest exporter of services, has a major export interest in opening services markets around the world. We also support services liberalisation for the benefits it can bring to developing countries. These are reflected in the negotiating guidelines recently agreed by WTO Members which also recognise the right of WTO Members to regulate for national policy objectives. As the Government have made clear before, we will not be making any commitments that would call into question the public provision of health and education services in the UK.

  The UK and EU remain committed to the launch of a new round of trade negotiations with a broad, inclusive agenda. Our position is the same as set out ahead of Seattle in the General Affairs Council (GAC) Conclusions of 26 October 1999. The next WTO Ministerial Conference to be held in Doha, Qatar from 9–13 November 2001 is seen as the earliest opportunity at which a new Round may be launched.

  Generators
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the terms of reference of the review of the impact of NETA on small generators. [160250]

  Mr. Hain
  Draft Terms of Reference (ToR) for the review of the initial impact of NETA on smaller generators were published for consultation by the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem) on 9 April. Ofgem has received responses from 21 companies and representative organisations. These are currently being assessed by Ofgem who intend to submit revised ToR for my approval shortly. The final ToR will then be published by Ofgem along with a conclusions document summarising the responses and Ofgem's analysis of them. I want Ofgem to ensure that small generators including CHP, prosper under NETA.

  Stop Now Orders
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what impact he expects the Stop Now Orders (Injunctions Directive) Regulations 2001 will have on the self-regulatory system in advertising; [160617]

  (2) what discussions he has had with advertising regulators with regard to the Stop Now Orders (Injunctions Directive) Regulations 2001; and if he will place copies of all relevant correspondence in the Library. [160616]

  Dr. Howells
  It has always been the Government's policy to implement the EC Injunctions Directive (98/27/EC) in such a way as to preserve the self-regulatory system in advertising successfully established through the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry wrote to Lord Borrie, Chairman of the ASA, on 216W
  5 April to reassure him that, while remaining consistent with the requirements of the directive, the Stop Now Orders (EC Directive) Regulations 2001 contain a number of controls to achieve this.

  First, one of the criteria which must be met by private consumer organisations seeking to be named is a readiness and willingness to co-operate with other authorities, bodies and persons having responsibility for regulation of matters covered by the regulations, including advertising. This includes the ASA. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would be obliged to refuse to name a private body seeking a designation to include advertising if it did not show that it was willing to co-operate with the ASA. If, having been designated, a named private qualified entity failed to co-operate with the ASA and so ceased to meet the criteria then my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would be required to strike it off the list of designated bodies.

  In addition, both public and private qualified entities must first consult the Director General of Fair Trading before bringing any proceedings. If more than one of the Director General and any public or private UK qualified entity are contemplating bringing proceedings the Director General may, in any particular case, direct which of these entities is to bring such proceedings, or that only he may do so. Where the Director General directs that only he may bring such proceedings the regulations expressly provide that he may take into account in reaching that decision whether the infringement could be stopped by other means (for example, by the ASA) in deciding whether or not to bring court proceedings. I am confident from discussions with the OFT that the Director General will use this provision to stop both public and private UK bodies from bypassing the ASA's system of self-regulation.

  With these safeguards in place, and with formal memoranda of understanding between the Director General and enforcement bodies, including the ASA, I am confident that the ASA's self-regulatory regime will be preserved and strengthened.

  I am placing a copy of the Secretary of State's letter and Lord Borrie's reply in the Library of the House.

  BNFL
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has received the draft of the new BNFL corporate plan referred to in evidence by his officials to the Trade and Industry Select Committee, published in its Ninth report, Session 1999–2000; and if he will place copies of the most recent draft he has received in the Library. [160543]

  Mr. Hain
  My officials have recently received a copy of BNFL's latest Corporate Plan 2001–02 to 2005–06, which they will be discussing further with the company. The plan contains commercially confidential information and, under exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, will not be made public.

  Newspapers
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the competitiveness of the newspaper wholesale supply marketplace. [160265]

  Dr. Howells
  DTI works closely with businesses across the newspaper sector. In particular, I am aware of the agreement by those involved in both newspapers and magazines to enter into a process to re-examine distribution issues and we are following developments in those discussions.

  Post Office Closures
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) rural and (b) non-rural post offices closed in (i) the last 12 months for which figures are available and (ii) 2000. [159447]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: I am informed by the Post Office that, subject to final verification, a net total of 112 urban offices and 435 rural offices closed in year ending 26 March 20011. Of the closures in the year, only four are permanent.

  The primary reason for temporary closures is the retirement of sub-postmasters.

  In addition, 123 rural and 46 urban offices reopened in the year. Also, subject to final verification, net closures in the final quarter of the year ending 26 March 2001 were 113.

  This indicates a significant downward trend in post office closures compared with the third quarter when net closures were 135 and the first half of the year when closures were running at a rate of 150 per quarter.

  This means that during the period April 2000 to March 2001, in the first half of the year net closures were running at 300 whereas in the final half of the year closures were 17 per cent. lower at 248.

  Figures for the calendar year 2000 are not available. The Post Office is currently finalising with the Postal Services Commission a process and format for reporting information on the post office network on a quarterly basis with effect from the current financial year.

  1 Based on the Post Office's traditional definition of rural offices as those serving communities with under 6,300 residents.

  Miners' Compensation
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many former coal miners suffering from(a) emphysema, (b) chronic bronchitis and (c) asthma, or their widows, have outstanding claims for compensation and have received no payment to date; and how many such cases have been paid (i) in full and (ii) in part at the most recent available date. [160611]

  Mr. Hain
  To date, IRISC, the Department's claims handlers, have received over 145,000 claims in respect of respiratory disease; 1,000 new claims continue to be initiated each week. Of these, almost 95,000 are from live claimants and the remaining 50,000 claims are pursued by the claimants' estate.
  218W
  Until claims are assessed, the type and level of injury cannot be identified into the categories above.

  The Department has made 28,363 interim payments and 8,135 payments in full and final settlement. Together, £142.2 million has been paid in total compensation for respiratory disease to date.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many medical assessment procedures were conducted each week since 1 January 2000 in the miners' compensation claim for chest disease. [160497]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 13 March 2001,Official Report, columns 548–49W.

  The individual weekly totals from 11 March 2001 to date are as follows:

  Week ending

  Number of MAPs

  11 March

  659

  18 March

  565

  25 March

  570

  1 April

  537

  8 April

  694

  15 April

  541

  22 April

  507

  29 April

  757

  The total number of MAPs undertaken to date is 18,048.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money has been spent(a) to date and (b) during the last 12 months, under the provisions of the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979. [160535]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply as Minister responsible for the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979.

  Since the Act came into force in 1980 and up until April 2001, the total amount paid out has been £84.5 million. The total amount paid in the last complete financial year 2000–01 was £11,885,000.

CABINET OFFICE

  Government Business
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what guidance is issued to Government Departments on the conduct of Government business once an election is announced. [160945]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Prime Minister has written to ministerial colleagues about Government business during the election. Guidance for civil servants covering their conduct was also issued to Departments, and specific guidance has been issued to special advisers. Copies of all three documents have been placed in the Libraries of the House, as well as guidance on the use of the Knowledge Network system.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Fines
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what percentage of court fines were collected in each year since 1971. [160474]

  Jane Kennedy
  Figures for court fines alone are not available. In the year 1999–2000, the magistrates courts received payment of 58.1 per cent. of the value of new impositions and orders made in that period in criminal matters (including fines, compensation orders, confiscation orders and contributions to legal aid) although some receipts were in relation to amounts imposed in earlier years. In the period April 2000 to December 2000, the figure was 54.9 per cent. Data collection of this sort started in April 1999, and figures for earlier periods are not available.

  Public Records
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, if he will list those public organisations which are responsible for the maintenance of their own public records and exempt from supervision by the Public Record Office; and what powers he has to ensure that such bodies keep proper records to the standards applied by the Public Record Office. [160542]

  Mr. Lock
  Under the Public Records Act 1958 s.3(1–2), all bodies holding public records are responsible for their maintenance, and do so under the guidance, supervision and co-ordination of the Keeper of Public Records. No public records body is exempt from the supervision of the Public Record Office.

  All public authorities will be subject to the Lord Chancellor's Code of Practice for records management under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Work is ongoing with the Information Commissioner to establish the division of responsibility for the supervision of records management in public authorities.

  The Public Records Act 1958 allows for selected public records of enduring historical value to be held in places outside the Public Record Office by deposit under s.4(1) of the Act. The Keeper of Public Records may withdraw place of deposit status from an office if appropriate standards of public records storage and access are not maintained.

TREASURY

  National Minimum Wage
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his Department's estimates are of the number of people who have benefited from the national minimum wage in(a) Plymouth, Sutton constituency, (b) Plymouth, Devonport constituency, (c) South-West Devon constituency and (d) Plymouth unitary authority area. [160242]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
  220W
  Letter from Len Cook to Mrs. Linda Gilroy, dated 9 May 2001 As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of people in who have benefited from the national minimum wage (NMW) in (a) Plymouth, Sutton constituency, (b) Plymouth, Devonport constituency, (c) South West Devon constituency and (d) Plymouth unitary authority area (160242).
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has published estimates of the number of jobs paid at less than NMW rates for 1998, 1999, and 2000. These estimates are based on an improved methodology using data from the New Earnings Survey (NES) and Labour Force Survey (LFS). This methodology provides the best estimates for the number of jobs in the UK paid below low hourly rate thresholds and was developed to overcome the deficiencies inherent in using the NES and LFS separately for measuring low pay.
  Estimates for the United Kingdom and Government Office Regions are posted on the National Statistics website at: www.statistics.gov.uk/nsbase/themes/labour_market/nmw_lowpay_tables.asp
  Estimates for Parliamentary Constituencies and Unitary Authorities of numbers of jobs paid below NMW rates are not available on the basis of the methodology applied for producing the national and regional level figures.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give, in cash and real terms, the expenditure in(a) Scotland and (b) England on (i) education, (ii) health and personal social services, (iii) roads and transport, (iv) housing, (v) law, order and protective services, (vi) trade, industry, energy and employment, (vii) agriculture, fisheries, food and forestry and (viii) total expenditure in the form set out in Chapter 8 of Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (Cm 5101) in each year from 1979–80 to 1999–2000. [160629]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Information on expenditure by function and country, in cash terms and per head, is set out in chapter 8 of Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (PESA) 2001–02 (Cm 5101), from 1995–96 up to 1999–2000. Real terms expenditure can be derived using the latest GDP deflator series, updated on 24 March 2001, available in the Commons Library.

  Similar information for earlier years (back to 1985–86) has been published in previous editions of PESA. But there have been significant definitional, classification and coverage changes that mean data are not fully comparable between successive editions of PESA. A consistent and comparable time series for expenditure by function and country for the years prior to 1995–96 is not available.

  Barnett Formula
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the level of funding apportioned per head of population by the Government under the Barnett formula in Scotland and in the north-west of England, broken down by spending on(a) transport, (b) education, (c) health and social services, (d) trade and industry and (e) tourism. [160626]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Barnett formula is used to allocate funding to the devolved Administrations. It is for the devolved Administrations to decide how to allocate their budgets reflecting their own priorities. The Barnett formula is not used to determine spending allocations
  221W
  within England. Information on identifiable total managed expenditure per head by country and region and function is published in Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses.

  Financial Services
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to commence powers making the Financial Services Authority the single financial services regulator under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. [160978]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I am pleased to announce that the Government will be commencing, with effect from 18 June 2001, provisions of the Act which make the Financial Services Authority the single financial services regulator, and give it rule-making powers. These provisions will enable the FSA to make the key provisions of its rule-book no later than end July 2001 so that the financial services industry can train and prepare for the commencement of the main provisions of the Act no later than end November 2001.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Hills Task Force
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will publish the report of the Hills Task Force. [160947]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I published the report today. The task force has achieved a great deal in three months and I am grateful to its members, particularly the farmers, who have had enormous personal worries due to foot and mouth disease.

  I asked the task force to undertake a scoping study, and it has made a thorough one. It has made a number of recommendations, which we will need to examine carefully—to test the evidence and the value for money, to consider compliance with EU rules, and to hear the views of interested organisations including the other Government Departments which are affected. Some recommendations are for the longer term. Others might be more immediately useful in helping the industry, and particularly the hills sector, to recover from foot and mouth disease, and we shall need to look at these ones much more quickly.

  The report is available in the House Libraries and on the MAFF website.

  Inputs Task Force
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will publish the report of the Inputs Task Force. [160949]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I published the report today. The task force found that across the board, UK farmers do not pay more for their inputs than their competitors in Europe, but competitive trade can be frustrated by a lack of transparency in the market, commercial arrangements and differing regulatory requirements for some inputs across EU member states. They also found that there was a wide range of efficiency of input use and substantial scope for improvement.
  222W
  The report contains a number of recommendations for action by both Government and industry to reduce input costs and optimise input use. The Government will consider these carefully and publish a full response as soon as possible.

  The report is available in the House Libraries and on the MAFF website.

  RAF Lyneham
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reason the practice of renting out grassland on RAF Lyneham for grass keep has been discontinued. [159262]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: I have been asked to reply.

  We have been unable to find any records concerning the renting of grassland for the purpose of grass keep at RAF Lyneham.

  Integrated Administration and Control System
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 4 April 2001,Official Report, column 224W, on IACS, if IACS applicants submitting electronically can be protected against the Post Office using their names and addresses for commercial purposes. [160241]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 8 May 2001]: Applicants submitting their 2001 IACS forms electronically must first obtain a digital certificate which they use to digitally sign their applications. Digital certificates are issued by commercial companies who have been accepted as competent Certification Authorities. There are currently two digital certificate providers approved by the Office of the e-Envoy: Equifax Secure who issue SecureMark certificates and the British Chambers of Commerce in partnership with Royal Mail Viacode who issue ChamberSign certificates.

  In order to obtain a digital certificate applicants provide personal information to the Certification Authority. The information supplied to certificate providers by applicants is held under the terms of the UK Data Protection Act 1998 and as such cannot be used for any purposes other than that for which it was originally intended, unless authorised by the applicant. This includes other commercial purposes.

  As part of the Public Key Infrastructure which underpins digital certificate technology, some of this information (name, company name and e-mail address) will be held in a public electronic directory. This is necessary to enable the transmission of secure e-mail.

  In addition, section 11 of the Data Protection Act 1998 also offers protection to the applicant against the use of personal data for the purposes of direct marketing. Section 11 states:

  (1) An individual is entitled at any time by notice in writing to a data controller to require the data controller at the end of such period as is reasonable in the circumstances to cease, or not to begin, processing for the purposes of direct marketing personal data in respect of which he is the data subject.

  223W

  (2) If the court is satisfied, on the application of any person who has given a notice under that subsection (1), that the data controller has failed to comply with the notice, the court may order him to take such steps for complying with the notice as the court thinks fit.

  (3) In this section "direct marketing" means the communication (by whatever means) of any advertising or marketing material which is directed to particular individuals.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the outcome was of the recent consultation exercise into an appeal mechanism for IACS claimants in England. [160948]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The responses to the consultation exercise on an IACS appeals mechanism in England that began in December 2000 have now been evaluated and I am pleased to say that new appeal arrangements for IACS claimants in England will be introduced.

  These arrangements will reflect the three-stage appeal mechanism on which we consulted that attracted positive support from the farming industry for handling IACS appeals in England. The decision to proceed with the introduction of the new arrangements is in line with both the recommendations of the IACS and Inspections Red Tape Working Group and, more recently, of the House of Commons Agriculture Committee in its report on "The Implementation of IACS in the European Union."

  A good deal of detailed work remains to be done but we aim to work with industry to introduce the new arrangements as soon as we can.

  BSE
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make available the latest progress report prepared by his Department on bovine spongiform encephalopathy. [160951]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  A further progress report on BSE in Great Britain was placed in the Library of the House today.

  The report outlines the measures, which have been taken to protect public health since June 2000 and includes the latest EU requirements for testing and surveillance.

  There is also a section on the protection of animal health which covers controls on animal feed.

  The epidemiology section shows that the epidemic of BSE in Great Britain continues to decline in line with predictions.

  The report is also published on the MAFF website: www.maff.gov.uk. animalh/bse/index/html

  Beef Imports
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last wrote to the Prime Minister on the subject of imported over-30-month beef products. [146400]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]: Letters from Government Ministers to the Prime Minister fall under the exemption in Part II Section 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, but I last wrote to the Prime Minister on this issue on 16 November 2000.

  Classical Swine Fever
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the source of the outbreak of classical swine fever in East Anglia last year and the lessons the Government have drawn from its occurrence. [153246]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  A wide-ranging meeting was held between officials and key stakeholders on 16 February 2001 to review the sources of the outbreak and lessons learned. However, further consideration of these issues has had to be postponed while the State Veterinary Service concentrates on eradicating the current outbreak of foot and mouth disease. Investigations into the sources of both outbreaks will continue as a matter of urgency.

  Pig Swill
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to ban the use of swill as a source for the feeding of pigs. [153961]

  Ms Quin
  With effect from 24 May, there will be a ban on the swill feeding of catering waste which contains meat or has been in contact with meat to livestock. This ban also includes the feeding of poultry slaughterhouse waste and wet fish as swill.

  There will be a three-week phase-in period up to 24 May, which is intended to ensure that animals can be weaned off waste food on to an alternative diet safely.

  Meat Imports
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the countries where farm animal diseases are widespread from which(a) meat, (b) meat products, (c) poultry and (d) poultry products are imported, indicating the country and disease together with the amount imported over the last year for which figures are available; and what plans he has to ban such imports. [156409]

  Ms Quin
  The Community's animal and public health import requirements for animal products include disease control provisions. In particular these relate to the List A notifiable diseases of the Office International des Epizooties which include foot and mouth disease, and classical swine fever among others. Unless third countries can demonstrate that they have veterinary and public health facilities to cope with possible outbreaks of these diseases they will not be eligible to export animal products into the Community.

  Imports of meat and poultry and their products are allowed from third countries which have outbreaks of diseases, but only if they can attest and demonstrate that they have in place animal and public health safeguard measures as laid down in Community law. Where any of these measures are not met the UK will prohibit the import of products which may cause risk to public or animal health. My officials are preparing information on the amount of imports into the UK last year of meat and poultry and their products from countries or parts thereof which have had outbreaks of List A diseases in the last year. I will write to the hon. Member with this information in the near future and place a copy in the Libraries of the House.
  225W
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food from which countries where standards of animal (i) welfare and (ii) health and hygiene are lower than those in the UK,(a) meat, (b) meat products, (c) poultry and (d) poultry products are imported; and what plans he has to prohibit such imports. [156404]

  Ms Quin
  World Trade Organisation rules do not permit us to use animal welfare considerations as a criterion for the import of meat and poultry. I do not in any case believe that restricting trade is necessarily the answer. It is far better to work, as we do, to improve welfare standards across the EU and in third countries.

  On health and hygiene, imports into the UK of meat and poultry and their products are governed by Community legislation, which protects both animal and public health requirements. Under these rules only third countries approved by the Commission may import into the Community and subsequently imports may start only when the Commission agrees a list of establishments in that country which meet established Community hygiene standards. The lists of countries and establishments allowed to import into the Community the products listed are available on the Commission's website at: http://forum.europa.eu.int/irc/sanco/vets/info/data/listes/table0.html.

  Responsibility for ensuring that third countries meet these requirements lies with the Food and Veterinary Office of the European Commission. The UK will prohibit the importation of animal products that do not meet Community standards.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what information he has collated about the level of Government aid paid to the fishing industry of other EU member states; [157238]

  (2) what information he has collated about (a) aid, (b) subsidy and (c) support given to national fishing industries over the last year by Governments in (i) France, (ii) Belgium, (iii) the Republic of Ireland, (iv) the Netherlands and (v) Denmark. [158435]

  Mr. Morley
  I am placing a note in the Library of the House containing the latest information which we have.

  Chinese Poultry Meat
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the disease risks from the proposed importation of poultry meat from the People's Republic of China. [157595]

  Ms Quin
  EU law establishes the requirements for the importation into the EU of fresh poultry meat from third countries. The European Commission's Food and Veterinary Office is responsible for carrying out inspections in third countries from which meat is imported. They need to be satisfied that any third country is complying with all the relevant community provisions before imports may be permitted.

  Imports into the community of poultry meat from China were suspended in 1996 as their hygiene standards did not meet community import requirements. Following a number of Commission missions to inspect Chinese veterinary controls and hygiene standards, the
  226W
  Commission proposed to reinstate the specific areas of China previously allowed to export poultry meat as they once again met all Community requirements. Imports could not restart until a list of approved establishments had been drawn up. This has now been done and member states agreed on 24 April to permit the resumption of exports from approved establishments in China from 24 May.

  Transport (Disinfection)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he provides to vets on the implementation of Directive 91/628 in respect of the disinfection of transport. [159587]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: These requirements are currently implemented by the Transport of Animals (Cleansing and Disinfection)(England)(No. 2) Order 2000 (SI 2000/1618), which came into force on 6 July 2000. The main provision of this Order is that, subject to certain exemptions, livestock transports should be cleansed and disinfected after each use. Guidance on the Order was issued in November 2000 to all members of the State Veterinary Service and to local authorities who enforce the Order.

  Flood Defence
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 30 April 2001,Official Report, column 501W, on flood defence, if he will list the pilot studies being undertaken; and when they will be assessed. [160275]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency is undertaking the following pilot catchment area studies utilising recently prepared guidelines:—

  North-east—River Derwent catchment

  North-west—River Irwell catchment

  Midlands—River Severn upstream of Gloucester

  Southern—River Medway and tributaries

  South-west and Moors—Catchments draining across the Somerset Levels.

  The progress of these studies will be closely monitored. A review of the lessons learnt from these studies in autumn 2001, together with feedback from consultation on the current guidelines, will be incorporated into revised guidelines for the main programme of such studies leading to Catchment Flood Management Plans.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Walsall, North of 11 April concerning a constituent. [160281]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 8 May 2001]: My noble Friend Baroness Hayman replied to the letter from my hon. Friend on 8 May.

  Processed Food Exports
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to restore UK exports of those food products that contain processed
  227W
  meat and dairy ingredients which conform to the requirements laid down by Decision 2001/172/EC to EU applicant countries. [160401]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 8 May 2001]: I wrote on 27 April to the Ambassadors of all those EU applicant countries which have imposed import restrictions on UK products going beyond the requirements laid down in Commission Decision 2001/172/EC, urging their governments to reconsider their positions.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans the Government have to table proposals for reform of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy. [160622]

  Ms Quin
  The CAP is failing to deliver what farmers, the rural economy and the environment need. The Government are committed to securing a more economically rational CAP to enable the industry to respond flexibly to consumer wishes without being constrained by the market-distorting nature of the current CAP, and to securing a CAP which is compatible with the protection and enhancement of the natural environment.

  Responsibility for presenting proposals to reform the CAP rests with the European Commission. We expect a package of reforming measures to issue next year for a number of key CAP commodity regimes. We will continue to work closely with the Commission and other member states to drive forward the reform agenda.

  Farm Business Advice Service
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what services are offered by the Farm Business Advice Service; and what funds have been allocated to it. [160529]

  Ms Quin
  The Farm Business Advice Service provides up to three days of free one-to-one business advice to farmers and growers in England. The service provides a business health check leading to the preparation of an Action Plan that will help farmers develop better business practices and signpost them to organisations that can provide further support and advice. £4.1 million was spent on delivery of the Farm Business Advice Service in 2000–01 and the service has a budget of £5.25 million for 2001–02.

  An enhanced form of the service is being introduced for those farmers whose livestock have been compulsorily slaughtered under the foot and mouth control measures. They are in particular need of help to plan ahead and will be offered up to five days' free advice. Under the enhanced service advisers will help individual farmers develop an effective recovery or exit strategy, draw up a business plan for the farm, explore and develop new income opportunities and access the range of other support measures available. The farm business advisers will draw on guidance the Ministry will provide for farmers who are considering restocking. The additional cost of the enhanced service will be £10.4 million, £4.4 million of which will be funded by carrying forward unspent provision from 2000–01.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in which countries type O foot and mouth virus is(a) endemic and (b) responsible for outbreaks in the last year; and in respect of each country, what restrictions on livestock product exports to Britain were implemented, and when. [153360]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The Pan Asian type O virus strain of foot and mouth disease is endemic in most of Asia and the middle east. In the past year there have been outbreaks of this type in Japan, South Korea, China, Eastern Russia and throughout the middle east and South East Asia. There have been outbreaks due to other type O virus strains in South Africa and South America, in particular Brazil and Uruguay.

  The UK, in accordance with Community legislation, does not allow the importation of meat and meat products from any of the countries affected by the Pan Asian O type virus. The single exception concerns animal casings from Japan, China and Mongolia, which must be treated in accordance with the animal health controls in EU legislation. Imports of meat are allowed from Brazil but only from regions that are free of FMD. Veterinary certification attesting to that must accompany each consignment. Following notification from the European Commission of outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in South Africa and Uruguay, the Government took action to prohibit imports. In respect of South Africa, England and Wales prohibited imports of fresh meat with effect from 5 January, Scotland on 8 January and Northern Ireland on 17 January. In respect of Uruguay, England and Wales prohibited imports of fresh meat with effect from 26 April with Northern Ireland and Scotland taking similar action with effect from 1 May.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the consignment of sheep that was exported to France on 31 January and which tested positive for foot and mouth disease. [160950]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  A consignment of 402 sheep was certified for export to France on 31 January from premises in Wales. In early March the French authorities blood tested 31 of the animals for foot and mouth disease before slaughtering them and seven samples gave positive results. The French authorities have now confirmed that the samples that initially showed positive results have been subject to further testing with negative results. They have concluded that the earlier test results were false positives.

  This explanation from the French authorities supports our view that, contrary to media reports, foot and mouth disease did not go undetected in sheep in Great Britain for up to two months prior to the disease being confirmed.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made as to the best materials to be employed in the construction of pyres for the incineration of dead livestock, to minimise the production of dioxins and furans, and in particular TCDDs and TCDFs, from such pyres; and if he will make a statement. [159850]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 1 May 2001]: I have been asked to reply.
  229W
  Guidance has been issued by the Department of Health entitled "FMD: Measures to minimise risk to public health from slaughter and disposal of animals—further guidance" to provide practical advice to those at the local level on the best way, from a public health perspective, to dispose of animal carcases (available on www.doh.gov.uk/fmdguidance). This includes guidance on the construction and siting of pyres which takes account of the possible risks to health from the emissions of air pollutants from the pyres. The Department of Health has also published a risk assessment "Foot and Mouth—Effects on health of Emissions from Pyres Used for Disposal of Animals" (available on www.doh.gov.uk). The risk assessment provides estimates of the release of dioxins and other air pollutants from pyres and predicted concentrations in air. Detailed advice on the materials to be used for the construction of pyres is set out in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food "Air Code". This also includes advice on the materials which should not be used as fuels in such pyres, so as to minimise the production of air pollutants such as dark smoke, dioxins and furans.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment has been made of the risks associated with imports of live horses from countries with foot and mouth disease. [153972]

  Ms Quin
  Horses are not susceptible to foot and mouth disease. Nor are they capable of incubating or transmitting the disease except by mechanical means, for example via their hooves, tack, clothing or equipment. The Office International des Epizooties (OIE—the international animal health organisation) provides recommendations for precautions that should be taken by countries importing live animals from areas where foot and mouth disease is present although these recommendations do not include requirements for horses.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment has been made of the risk of the spread of the foot and mouth virus in smoke from pyres used to incinerate infected carcases; and what research has been carried out on the minimum temperature needed to kill the virus during incineration. [156375]

  Ms Quin
  The Institute of Animal Health at Pirbright has recently produced a report, in collaboration with MAFF and the Meteorological Office, on the spread of the foot and mouth disease virus from the burning of animal carcases on open pyres. This report is to be published in the Veterinary Record shortly.

  Six pyres, located in Devon, Exeter and Worcestershire, were monitored. Additional pyres are currently being investigated in Cumbria and Devon. The report concludes that early results indicate that breakdowns due to virus dispersion from pyres are unlikely to occur in general and the pyres analysed to date have shown no evidence that breakdowns due to this cause have occurred.

  The Institute of Animal Health has informed the Ministry that the virus is inactivated at temperatures above 50 degrees centigrade. There may be a small thermo-resistant element of the virus which is also destroyed at 70 degrees, but expert opinion is that this is likely to be insignificant in the possible spread of infection from pyres.
  230W
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what the source was of the British sheep which were confirmed as having foot and mouth disease in France; [156432]

  (2) if he will list the consignments of live sheep exported from the UK between 30 January and 23 February. [156433]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answers 30 March 2001]: Foot and mouth disease was confirmed in France in British sheep consigned from premises in the Hereford and Worcester area. Between 1 February and 20 February 2001, 45,808 sheep were certified for export from Great Britain to other member states. Figures for exports from Northern Ireland are not available. The destination member states and the number of consignments exported were as follows:

  Number

  France

  69

  Belgium

  3

  Germany

  10

  Italy

  3

  Netherlands

  31

  Ireland

  2

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to compensate farmers who are affected by culling, on farms contiguous to those with confirmed outbreaks of foot and mouth disease for the value of unused feed and other items on the farm which are rendered valueless by the cull. [156771]

  Ms Quin
  Feedingstuffs on infected premises and on premises contiguous to infected premises will be destroyed if they are considered to be contaminated and cannot be disinfected. Compensation is payable for the market value of animals slaughtered and, in line with the Animal Health Act 1981, for any feedingstuffs or any other materials destroyed or seized as being contaminated. Farmers will not receive compensation for items which will go unused as a result of foot and mouth disease which are not seized by the Ministry.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how the compensation for milk wasted as a result of foot and mouth disease is calculated; what representations he has received regarding compensation levels for milk: what considerations informed the decision to set the level of compensation at a rate below market price; what plans he has to revise the structure of compensation; and if he will make a statement. [156698]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 3 April 2001]: The Animal Health Act 1981 grants the Ministry powers to seize and dispose of anything necessary for preventing the spread of foot and mouth disease. Milk from infected premises and premises considered to be at risk of or exposed to infection is therefore seized, disinfected and disposed of.

  Compensation is paid for anything seized for the purpose of preventing foot and mouth disease. Section 36 of the Act says that compensation for anything seized shall be its value at the time of seizure. Compensation for

  231W
  milk is therefore paid at the price the owner of the dairy currently receives for supplies to milk buying companies. Farmers will not receive compensation for items which will go unused as a result of foot and mouth disease which are not seized by the Ministry.

  The Ministry has not received any representations regarding compensation levels for milk and there are no plans to revise the compensation structure.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what contingency plans were drawn up by his Department prior to the current outbreak for the handling of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease; and at what point in the outbreak it was proposed that the Army should become involved. [156876]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 4 April 2001]: The Ministry has contingency plans to deal with notifiable exotic animal diseases, including foot and mouth disease. These are regularly updated and tested by the State Veterinary Service.

  At each stage of the current outbreak we have called on the appropriate resources. As the disease grew, so did our response. We were in touch with the Ministry of Defence on 20 February, to alert them that there had been an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Essex, and that military assistance might be required. This led to the first active deployment of troops on the ground on 16 March following a formal request by MAFF for such MOD assistance on 14 March.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received calling for higher compensation under foot and mouth welfare measures for organically reared pigs than that already available for non-organically reared pigs. [157338]

  Ms Quin
  The Ministry has received a number of representations from keepers of pedigree animals and producers of organically reared animals, regarding payments under the Livestock Welfare Disposal Scheme.

  The scheme is designed to provide payments to farmers to recognise the welfare needs of animals that may arise because of foot and mouth disease related restrictions. It is not a compensation scheme. The scheme helps farmers who have no means of moving livestock by disposing of animals which cannot be kept in good welfare conditions and by providing money to help them keep any remaining animals in good condition.

  There are no plans to increase payments for pedigree or organically reared animals.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many animals were(a) awaiting slaughter and (b) slaughtered on each day of the foot and mouth outbreak. [157160]

  Ms Quin
  MAFF publishes slaughter and awaiting slaughter figures each day. These reflect the data then available. As further data become available these figures may alter. The figures in the table reflect the position as of 1 May 2001.
  232W

  Number of animals slaughtered and awaiting slaughter—cumulative total by day

  Thousand

  Date

  Slaughtered

  Awaiting slaughter

  1 May 2001

  2,382

  118

  30 April 2001

  2,380

  116

  29 April 2001

  2,375

  113

  28 April 2001

  2,368

  119

  27 April 2001

  2,359

  117

  26 April 2001

  2,340

  124

  25 April 2001

  2,333

  116

  24 April 2001

  2,319

  108

  23 April 2001

  2,297

  117

  22 April 2001

  2,277

  123

  21 April 2001

  2,249

  137

  20 April 2001

  2,203

  162

  19 April 2001

  2,158

  186

  18 April 2001

  2,106

  193

  17 April 2001

  2,072

  180

  16 April 2001

  2,040

  163

  15 April 2001

  1,985

  203

  14 April 2001

  1,925

  243

  13 April 2001

  1,854

  288

  12 April 2001

  1,785

  277

  11 April 2001

  1,709

  283

  10 April 2001

  1,633

  299

  9 April 2001

  1,555

  288

  8 April 2001

  1,484

  312

  7 April 2001

  1,420

  318

  6 April 2001

  1,338

  352

  5 April 2001

  1,255

  365

  4 April 2001

  1,183

  367

  3 April 2001

  1,103

  372

  2 April 2001

  1,021

  386

  1 April 2001

  947

  407

  31 March 2001

  870

  419

  30 March 2001

  799

  394

  29 March 2001

  712

  401

  28 March 2001

  662

  375

  27 March 2001

  604

  331

  26 March 2001

  562

  318

  25 March 2001

  523

  276

  24 March 2001

  488

  256

  23 March 2001

  437

  244

  22 March 2001

  400

  223

  21 March 2001

  351

  231

  20 March 2001

  313

  198

  19 March 2001

  286

  172

  18 March 2001

  266

  152

  17 March 2001

  230

  157

  16 March 2001

  219

  145

  15 March 2001

  191

  119

  14 March 2001

  171

  113

  13 March 2001

  147

  103

  12 March 2001

  133

  97

  11 March 2001

  123

  91

  10 March 2001

  113

  84

  9 March 2001

  99

  80

  8 March 2001

  85

  66

  7 March 2001

  79

  50

  6 March 2001

  69

  48

  5 March 2001

  52

  59

  4 March 2001

  48

  55

  3 March 2001

  34

  52

  2 March 2001

  23

  43

  1 March 2001

  16

  40

  28 February 2001

  10

  28

  27 February 2001

  6

  25

  26 February 2001

  3

  14

  25 February 2001

  3

  7

  24 February 2001

  1

  4

  23 February 2001

  1

  1

  22 February 2001

  1

  1

  21 February 2001

  —

  1

  20 February 2001

  —

  1

  Source

  MAFF Disease Control System database at 19:00 on 1 May
  233W
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence he has collated in the last two months of wildlife contracting foot and mouth disease; and how many cases there have been of wildlife being diagnosed as suffering from foot and mouth disease. [157039]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 April 2001]: There have been no laboratory confirmed cases of foot and mouth disease in wildlife species in the UK during the current outbreak (as of 4 May 2001).

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the last foot and mouth infected animals were burned at Layer-de-la-Haye, Essex; when disinfection of the infected farms will be completed; and when movement restrictions on surrounding farms will be lifted. [157246]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 6 April 2001]: The infected animals at the two separate sites at Layer-de-la-Haye were burned on 11 March and 23 March respectively, in both cases the day after slaughter. The State Veterinary Service completed all of the cleansing and disinfection work on the two farms by 24 April 2001. However subsequent blood sampling in the 3 km area resulted in the discovery of two seropositives and this has delayed the lifting of the Infected Area. All stock on the new farms involved have been destroyed and sent for rendering and an additional 3 km patrol area has been established.

  Inspections and blood sampling in this new area should be completed by 3 May. Provided these are clear, it is hoped restrictions in the whole Colchester area could be lifted by next week.

  The cleansing and disinfection of the new Dangerous Contact premises is under way but this should not affect the lifting of the Infected Area.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will issue guidelines to his Department's staff, dealing with foot and mouth disease in the areas affected, to ensure that neighbouring residents are informed if slaughtered carcases are to be burned near their homes. [157373]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 6 April 2001]: Methods for informing residents of burning sites in the neighbourhood are decided at a local level, and will include mail shots, consultation with relevant organisations and publicity through local press.

  Safeguarding public health is the Government's overriding priority in handling the foot and mouth outbreak. The Department of Health has published detailed guidance on the disposal of carcases together with advice about the public health aspects of disposal, including burning.

  All fires are being constructed following special guidance from the Government to minimise public health risks. As with any fire, however, smoke contains pollutants that will stay in the air for a short time. Local residents are therefore advised to avoid sustained exposure within the vicinity of pyres.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish his Department's assessment of the discovery on 31 January by French veterinarians of foot and mouth disease in sheep exported from Wales. [157483]
  234W
  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: The circumstances were as follows. A consignment of 402 sheep was exported to France from premises in Wales on 1 February under an export health certificate that had been issued on 31 January. In early March, the French authorities blood tested 31 of the animals before slaughtering them. The French authorities have now informed us that the seven samples that initially showed positive results have now been re-tested with negative results. They have concluded that the initial serological positive reactions must be considered as false positives.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to make a statement on the easing of livestock movement in the Brentwood area of Essex; and what conditions must be met before such a statement can be made. [157956]

  Ms Quin
  The infected area status around Brentwood was lifted on 24 April 2001. This means that the Brentwood area becomes an 'at risk area' and farmers can now apply for licences to move their livestock to other similar areas in the country under the livestock movement schemes.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the D notices will be lifted in the Chorley constituency. [157521]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: Form D notices are services on individual premises when an Inspector has reasonable grounds for suspecting an animal situated on the premises has been exposed to foot and mouth disease and where the premises are in a Protection Zone. These are withdrawn as soon as this is appropriate. The Protection Zone in the Chorley constituency is currently being reviewed and will be lifted as soon as possible in line with veterinary guidance.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the public health effects of the burning of old railway sleepers associated with the disposal of culled animals. [157890]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 10 April 2001]: Emissions of pollutants from burning railway sleepers were considered as part of the Department of Health-led risk assessment on the health effects of air emissions from pyres. This Risk Assessment is available on the Department of Health's website. Railway sleepers form an important source of fuel for pyres. The sleepers may be treated with creosote and this will add to the range of pollutants emitted on burning. The emission of pollutants from sleepers was assessed by the Environment Agency and factored into the risk assessment. No separate assessment of the emissions from burning sleepers has been undertaken: the focus has been on the pyres as a whole.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what part illegal movements of animals have played in the spread of foot and mouth in the United Kingdom. [157784]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 10 April 2001]: Illegal movements of animals are investigated by enforcement officers of the local authority and exceptionally by MAFF Investigation Branch and the police.
  235W
  To date, although throughout the UK, rumours and suspicion of illegal movement is alleged, we have no evidence against which we can state that illegal movement has been proved to have led to any one particular case.

  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if a flock of sheep from Abermarle Barracks, Heddon-on-the-Wall, was slaughtered and buried prior to the outbreak at Burns de Farm. [158254]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: No. We are assured that no sheep have been present within Albermarle barracks for a number of years.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the incubation periods are for the known strains of foot and mouth virus; and if he will make a statement. [158726]

  Ms Quin
  The incubation period varies according to the infecting dose, the strain of virus and the susceptibility of the infected animal, both individual and species. It can be between two and 14 days, but certain strains of FMD virus serotype 0 circulating in Asia, including that in the UK, can have very short incubation periods in pigs, as short as 18 hours.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he has is taken to ensure a consistent message is generated by all parts of the Government regarding foot and mouth disease; and if he will make a statement. [158730]

  Ms Quin
  The Government have at all times sought to provide the best possible information to Parliament, to farmers, to those on the ground fighting the disease, and to the public and the news media here, and abroad.

  In particular we have created an extensive dedicated website, set up a 24 hour a day helpline, co-operated with other Government Departments throughout the Joint Co-ordination Centre in MAFF and the News Co-ordination Centre (NCC) in the Cabinet Office. The NCC has provided two complementary websites and a general helpline. The No. 10 Downing street website has provided a multi-lingual service, and British Embassies and High Commissioners have provided information through local news media and their own local websites. Communication activity is among the topics co-ordinated by regular meetings of the Cabinet Office Briefing Room (COBRA).

  The Scottish Executive, the Northern Ireland Executive, and the National Assembly for Wales have provided similar information services, co-ordinated with these arrangements. In the English regions, my Department's offices have worked with the Central Office of Information (C0I) and Ministry of Defence staff to provide full local services for the news media. My offices and the COI have also arranged direct communication with farmers and others.

  We have reported to Parliament 0 times since the beginning of the outbreak on 20 February and my right hon. Friend the Minister has written to farmers on three occasions, put advertisements in the specialist press and written articles for several local and national newspapers. The Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Minister and a number of other Ministers have made many visits to disease-affected areas to meet local people and local news media.
  236W
  The Office of Science and Technology provided science teams who visited the regions to explain the basis of the culling policy. The Ministry has also provided a mobile public information unit which supports local operations in explaining the details of the campaign to eradicate the disease.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has assessed the possibility that foot and mouth spreads as a result of the gases rising from the incineration of carcases in connection with the foot and mouth disease; and if he will make a statement. [158718]

  Ms Quin
  The Institute of Animal Health at Pirbright has recently produced a report, in collaboration with MAFF and the Meteorological Office, on the spread of the foot and mouth disease virus from the burning of animal carcases on open pyres. This report is to be published in the "Veterinary Record" shortly.

  Six pyres, located in Devon, Exeter and Worcestershire, were monitored. Additional pyres are currently being investigated in Cumbria and Devon. The report concludes that early results indicated that breakdowns due to virus dispersion from pyres are unlikely to occur in general and the pyres analysed to date have shown no evidence that breakdowns due to this cause have occurred.

  The Pirbright Institute of Animal Health has informed the Ministry that the virus is inactivated at temperatures above 50 degrees centigrade. There may be a small thermo-resistant element of the virus which is also destroyed at 70 degrees, but expert opinion is that this is likely to be insignificant in the possible spread of infection from pyres.

  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reports he has received about the results of the virology tests taken from livestock which were slaughtered upon suspicion by the French authorities, on the farm of M. Nozin, of Hameau le Fayed, St. Nicholas de Bliquetuit, France; when the sheep in question were in contact with foot and mouth disease, and by what means; on what date the sheep arrived in France; what evidence the Head of Veterinary International Trade for his Department has that the serological test results were due to false positive reactions; what testing procedures other than the FMD Elisa test can produce such results; and if he will make a statement. [158252]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: This consignment of sheep was exported to France by ferry on 1 February 2001. The French authorities have now informed us that the seven samples that initially showed positive results have now been re-tested with negative results. They have concluded that the initial serological positive reactions must be considered as false positives.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many appeals his Department has received from farmers against the slaughter of their livestock as part of his policy to control foot and mouth disease. [158264]

  Ms Quin
  As of 3 May, 17 cases are under consideration by MAFF in which farmers have engaged solicitors who have raised questions about the proposed slaughter of their stock. They all involve the contiguous cull policy before it was recently modified.
  237W
  The legislation does not provide for a formal legal appeals procedure against slaughter although, of course, challenge by way of judicial review is always available to anyone. To date only one judicial review has been brought but it was discontinued by the applicant. MAFF policy is that if a farmer objects to having his stock slaughtered under the contiguous slaughter policy, a veterinary reassessment is performed. This takes into consideration all the representation made by the farmer and reviews the situation on the ground. A final decision is then taken by the local Divisional Veterinary Manager.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at what times and on what days of the week the foot and mouth helplines at each of his Department's offices are open to telephone calls from farmers and other members of the public; what plans he has to extend these hours; and if he will make a statement. [158259]

  Ms Quin
  The national foot and mouth disease helpline is open 24 hours a day, seven days a week to offer advice and assistance to farmers and other members of the public. The 24 Animal Health Divisional Offices (AHDOs) are open during normal office hours and the opening times have been extended according to the disease situation. Outside these hours a duty veterinary officer is available to provide emergency assistance.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what resources are available to him to test milk and blood samples for foot and mouth disease(a) in his Department, (b) in other Government Departments, (c) in places of education, (d) in the private sector and (e) elsewhere; and if he will make a statement. [158479]

  Ms Quin
  Milk is not routinely tested to confirm a diagnosis of foot and mouth disease (FMD). Tissue and blood samples for the diagnosis of FMD are tested in Great Britain only at the Institute for Animal Health laboratory in Pirbright. This is the world and EU community reference laboratory for FMD. The laboratory has the experience in this area, the trained personnel and uses internationally recognised, validated laboratory tests for FMD. It is licensed for this purpose by the Ministry, and operates under the very highest conditions of containment to ensure that there is no escape of infection from the laboratory premises.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the consistency of the application of the rules for identifying herds and flocks for contiguous culls to control foot and mouth disease; and if he will make a statement. [158476]

  Ms Quin
  The identification of contiguous premises and the culling operations carried out at such premises are managed locally but monitored centrally by headquarters staff of the State Veterinary Service. We are not aware of any significant inconsistencies in the application of policy in this area.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the advice given to those flying close to outbreaks of foot and mouth disease. [158449]

  Ms Quin
  The Ministry may request the Civil Aviation Authority to impose restrictions for the purposes of disease control. Current instructions are that no flying is 238W
  permitted below 500 feet for a radius of one nautical mile around certain infected premises. These restrictions apply to those infected premises where the risk of airborne transmission is considered to be high. For example, restrictions are imposed on infected premises with a significant number of pigs, due to the high levels of virus they excrete. The restrictions will be lifted as soon as slaughter is completed. There are also restrictions that apply to mass burial and cremation sites, with flying not permitted below 1,000 feet for a radius of two nautical miles around the site.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if auctioneers performing foot and mouth disease valuations are paid(a) a percentage commission of the valuation, (b) a fixed fee and (c) by other means. [158204]

  Ms Quin
  [holding, answer 23 April 2001]: The current agreement with the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers is for a fee structure of 1 per cent. per valuation, subject to a daily minimum fee of £500 and a daily maximum fee of £1,500.

  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies he has commissioned on the lessons from the current outbreak of foot and mouth disease(a) in general and (b) relating to animal welfare; and if he will make a statement. [158488]

  Ms Quin
  There will undoubtedly be lessons to be learned from our experiences of the foot and mouth epidemic. How this can best be done will be considered later when the outbreak has been dealt with.

  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice has been issued to(a) the Jockey Club and (b) individual racecourses on the movement of horses into and out of foot and mouth disease restricted areas. [158392]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: Horses are not susceptible to foot and mouth disease but may be involved in spreading infection in the same way as vehicles and people by carrying material from an infected animal. For this reason, horses on infected farms cannot move off the farm until the restrictions are lifted. Guidelines have been issued for horse-riding, and some activities are prohibited in an infected area. These include hunting and point to point meetings.

  The State Veterinary Service has carried out assessments of the risks of spreading foot and mouth disease by holding horse race meetings. Instructions and guidelines for horse racing have been issued by the Jockey Club and British Horseracing Board, in conjunction with MAFF. The Jockey Club and British Horseracing Board ensure that the conditions are enforced by individual racecourse. Detailed information, including the veterinary risk assessments, is also accessible on the MAFF website http://www.maff.gov.uk/.

  Current veterinary advice is that no race meeting should be held within 3km of a confirmed or suspected case of foot and mouth disease. Horses are not permitted to enter a racecourse if they are from premises situated less than 1km of a premises on which foot and mouth disease has been confirmed in the previous 30 days.
  239W
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those establishments licensed for the training of racehorses which were situated within areas restricted under foot and mouth disease precautions on 9 April. [158390]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: The Ministry does not hold this information. Racehorse training yards are licensed by the Jockey Club.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans there are to cull farms between Priestweston and Marton Hill in the Shropshire/ Powys area, in order to create a fire break against the spread of foot and mouth disease; and if he will make a statement. [158944]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 26 April 2001]: There are no plans to carry out any culls to produce fire breaks against the spread of foot and mouth disease in the Priestweston/Marton Hill area of Shropshire. The only culls that would take place are those on Infected Premises and on farms that would be identified as being contiguous to such premises, and on premises adjudged to be Dangerous Contacts.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what instructions have been given to(a) veterinary surgeons and (b) other departmental officials about the need to classify apparent cases of foot and mouth disease as suspicious rather than confirmed; and if he will make a statement; [158985]

  (2) what post-slaughter assessment is made of stock slaughtered on suspicion of foot and mouth disease; where it is established that such stock was infected with foot and mouth disease, if it is his policy to reclassify such cases as a confirmed outbreak; and if he will make a statement. [158965]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answers 26 April 2001]: On investigation for foot and mouth disease, veterinary inspectors can follow two courses of action. Being either satisfied on clinical grounds or suspicious that foot and mouth disease is present, the stock will be slaughtered and samples sent for testing. Stock on contiguous premises is also culled when disease has been confirmed on the premises under investigation. Slaughter on suspicion cases are confirmed as outbreaks if the laboratory results are positive. If a veterinary inspector is satisfied that the disease is not present, restrictions on the premises are lifted.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farms have had animals slaughtered on suspicion of foot and mouth disease in(a) Worcestershire and (b) the United Kingdom; and how many animals have been destroyed in the course of the current outbreak. [158988]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 26 April 2001]: Since the start of the outbreak of the 2001 epidemic of foot and mouth disease the following numbers of premises have had animals slaughtered on suspicion of foot and mouth disease.
  240W

  Farms

  Animals

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  12

  10,901

  Great Britain1

  141

  72,000

  1 Does not include Northern Ireland

  The total number of animals slaughtered since the start of the outbreak as of 1 May is 2,382,000 animals.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of ease of transporting(a) napalm and (b) timber and old tyres to avoid transport in connection with destruction of animal carcases. [158871]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 26 April 2001]: Napalm produces very toxic compounds when burnt, and so cannot be used because of the public and environmental health risks. We have made no assessment of the ease of transporting napalm compared with transporting timber or old tyres.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy that railway sleepers and other materials not needed to be burned for purposes of disposing of animal carcases will be removed from burn sites on farms rather than being burned up. [159165]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 26 April 2001]: Veterinary advice is that a risk assessment should be undertaken at the site to judge the severity of contamination of any unused pyre material. Railway sleepers and other materials will be disinfected and reused where possible, otherwise they will be burnt on site. Unused straw will always be burnt.

  There are restrictions on moving materials from infected areas, so where pyre materials are re-used, any movements must be carried out under licence.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the current average compensation payment is for(a) a cow and (b)a sheep. [159176]

  Ms Quin
  The average compensation payable per animal up to 4 May is £916 for cattle and £110 for sheep.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the average compensation paid to livestock farmers is who have been affected by foot and mouth disease. [159177]

  Ms Quin
  Payments to farmers depend on the mix, numbers and valuation of their livestock and may be covered by more than one claim. The average compensation payable per animal up to 4 May is £916 for cattle, £110 for sheep and £89 for pigs.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will amend the rules allowing movements of animals to slaughter for human consumption from within infected areas to permit movements from premises under form D restrictions where there has been no recent nearby outbreak, subject to a veterinary inspection. [159722]

  Ms Quin
  New rules introduced on 3 May allow the movement of healthy animals direct to slaughter from within a Protection Zone, subject to certain conditions. Such movements provide for animals to leave the Protection Zone but not the infected area.
  241W
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the current average compensation payment is for a pig. [159679]

  Ms Quin
  The average compensation payable up to 4 May for a pig is £89.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in respect of how many farms in Cumbria and Devon temporary veterinary inspectors have registered dissent over the operation of the contiguous cull. [159465]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: Records have not been kept in relation to individual farms. In both Cumbria and Devon when the policy was initially announced a number of temporary veterinary inspectors (TVIs) initially expressed disquiet with the presumption that cattle on contiguous farms would automatically be

  Table 1: Cases currently classified as slaughter on suspicion

  Week ending

  County

  11 March

  25 March

  1 April

  8 April

  15 April

  22 April

  29 April

  6 May

  Total to date

  Avon

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  1

  —

  4

  Berwickshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  3

  Cornwall

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Cumbria

  2

  1

  3

  1

  2

  8

  —

  5

  22

  Derbyshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Devonshire

  —

  —

  4

  14

  6

  5

  4

  —

  33

  Dumfrieshire

  —

  —

  3

  4

  1

  1

  3

  —

  12

  Durham

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  4

  4

  1

  13

  East Lothian

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  7

  3

  2

  2

  —

  —

  14

  Gwent

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Gwynedd

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  5

  Hereford and Worcester

  —

  —

  2

  3

  6

  1

  —

  —

  12

  Kent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Kirkcudbright

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  7

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Northumberland

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  3

  —

  —

  5

  Powys

  —

  —

  3

  1

  3

  1

  1

  —

  9

  Roxburgh

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  Shropshire

  —

  —

  2

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  5

  South Yorkshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  Tyne and Wear

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  West Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Wigtown

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  3

  Great Britain

  2

  1

  42

  33

  34

  28

  21

  8

  169

  A further 50 cases initially identified as slaughter on suspicion were subsequently reclassified as Infected Premises following clinical examination or testing. These are in Table 2.

  Table 2: Cases initially classified as slaughter on suspicion and reclassified ed as Infected Premises

  Week ending

  County

  25 March

  1 April

  8 April

  15 April

  22 April

  29 April

  6 May

  Total to date

  Cheshire

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Cumbria

  1

  1

  4

  3

  2

  3

  1

  15

  Denvonshire

  —

  1

  —

  2

  3

  1

  —

  7

  Dumfreshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Durham

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Gloucestershire

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Gwent

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  242W
  slaughtered. Subsequent clarification of the policy and the refinements announced on 26 April have been generally welcomed by the veterinary profession.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many slaughtered on suspicion cases in(a) England and (b) Cumbria have not been concluded or finally classified. [159460]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: As of 22.00 hours on 3 May 2001, there were 21 cases in England of which 1 were in Cumbria.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list on a weekly basis per county since the foot and mouth epidemic began the number of cases classified as slaughtered on suspicion. [159457]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: The information on cases currently classified as slaughter on suspicion is in Table 1. There were no cases which originated before 11 March.
  243W

  Table 2: Cases initially classified as slaughter on suspicion and reclassified as Infected Premises

  Week ending

  Country

  25 March

  1 April

  8 April

  15 April

  22 April

  29 April

  6 May

  Total to date

  Hereford and Worcester

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Kirkcudbright

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  3

  Northumberland

  —

  1

  —

  2

  1

  1

  1

  6

  Powys

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  3

  Shropshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Wigtown

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Great Britain

  3

  8

  9

  11

  12

  5

  2

  50

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for(a) England and (b) Cumbria the number of (i) cattle and (ii) sheep which have been slaughtered from farms contiguous to infected premises. [159474]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: The table shows the numbers of cattle and sleep slaughtered on premises contiguous to infected premises in England and Wales as at 19:00 on 2 May.

  cattle

  Sheep

  England

  73,832

  327,179

  Cumbria

  6,980

  43,382

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what his policy is on the use of raptors to keep foot and mouth disease landfill sites free of birds; [159278]

  (2) if he will assess the benefits of using Wingaway dam cry bird scarers on foot and mouth disease landfill sites. [159277]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: Decisions as to whether to use raptors or bird scarers on foot and mouth disease landfill sites are For the individual operators managing the sites.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will discuss delays relating to the animal welfare cull of the stock belonging to Gareth Owen in Powys with the Intervention Board; and what information his Department has on the current condition of the animals. [159834]

  Ms Quin
  It is not practicable or appropriate to comment on individual cases under his scheme. Given full information on the animals and holdings concerned, the Intervention Board will be happy to respond to any queries.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussion: he has had with Ministers from other EU and European countries on the introduction of a regime for permanent use of vaccination against foot and mouth disease. [159513]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 30 April 2001]: None. There was a general discussion of foot and mouth disease at the informal meeting of EU Agriculture Ministers at Östersund on 8–10 April, at which some member states called for a reassessment of current EU policy but none advocated permanent use of vaccination against foot and mouth disease.
  244W
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to apply the rate of compensation for animals slaughtered under the Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme prevailing at the time of his oral statement of 26 April 2001,Official Report, columns 456–59, to all animals (a) accepted and (b) entered for the scheme prior to his statement. [160100]

  Ms Quin
  The point of collection or slaughter on farm under the Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme is the point at which animals are entered into the scheme. The revised rates of payment under the scheme apply to animals collected or slaughtered on farm after midnight on Sunday 29 April. This includes animals that were the subject of applications made before 26 April.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to review each application under the Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme, and, where he is satisfied that animals will be slaughtered on or after 30 April as a result of errors made or delays caused by his Department or his agencies, to pay the higher rate of compensation prevailing before that date; and if he will make a statement [160075]

  Ms Quin
  We will give careful consideration to any complaints about the alleged mishandling of applications under the Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme. We will consider individual cases on their merits.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what instructions have been given to those slaughtering animals during contiguous culls about the report they should make and the steps they should take when they discover clinical symptoms of foot and mouth disease in the stock they are slaughtering; and if he will make a statement. [159849]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 1 May 2001]: Normal suspect disease procedures apply when clinical symptoms of foot and mouth disease are discovered in stock being slaughtered during contiguous culling. The slaughtered animals are reported as confirmed on clinical grounds. The newly confirmed premises in turn becomes the centre for a circle of contiguous culling. The same also applies if samples taken from contiguously culled animals test positive for signs of the disease.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many reports were received of the illegal movement of livestock in(a) February, (b) March and (c) April. [159956]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 1 May 2001]: This information is not available in the format requested. Local authorities provide quarterly returns to the Ministry on levels of enforcement activity in England but the returns

  245W
  do not necessarily separate out work in response to reports of illegal movements of stock. However, in the period February to April, MAFF has been made aware of at least 230 reported illegal movements in England. MAFF is also aware of at least 73 such reports in Wales and eight in Scotland.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he has taken to reduce the spread of future outbreaks of foot and mouth disease that may occur after the present outbreak. [159955]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 1 May 2001]: The statement by my right hon. Friend the Minister on 26 April 2001, Official Report, columns 456–73, updated the House on a number of actions taken following an initial assessment of the origins and spread of the disease. The consultation on the proposed ban on pig swill closed on 10 April. 150 responses were received, almost all of which favoured a ban. A number of detailed issues were raised which are being considered urgently and an announcement on this is expected shortly. A large number of comments has been received on a proposed 20 day standstill period, after movements on farm, for sheep, goats and cattle. Because of the considerable interest in this issue, it has been decided to extend the consultation period for a further month from the initial deadline of 11 May. The cross-departmental examination of the controls on commercial and personal imports of meat and meat products is under way and a further announcement will be made in due course.

  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the efficiency of equipment to test live animals in the field for the presence of foot and mouth disease infection. [159822]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 1 May 2001]: All confirmatory diagnosis of foot and mouth disease infection is carried out at the Institute for Animal Health, Pirbright. The tests used are those recommended in the OIE Manual of Standards for Diagnostic Tests and

  Cattle

  Sheep

  Pigs

  Goats/deer llamas etc.

  Total

  (a) Animals slaughtered on infected premises1

  249,000

  690,000

  22,000

  400

  961,400

  (b) Animals slaughtered on suspicion

  8,000

  63,000

  2,000

  0

  73,000

  (c) Animals slaughtered on contiguous premises

  89,000

  406,000

  28,000

  800

  523,800

  (d) Animals slaughtered for welfare reasons

  36,000

  440,000

  177,000

  700

  653,700

  Animals slaughtered as other dangerous contacts

  75,000

  718,000

  59,000

  100

  852,100

  Total

  457,000

  2,317,000

  288,000

  2,000

  3,064,000

  1 On infected premises, all animals are slaughtered. They are not tested individually for infection

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on(a) the potential of deer to catch foot and mouth disease, (b) the potential of deer to act as carriers of the disease and (c) plans he has to control deer suspected of (a) and (b). [160644]

  Ms Quin
  All cloven-hoofed animals, including deer, are susceptible to foot and mouth disease. Wild deer tend to show mild or inapparent disease, resembling the disease in sheep, although some species, (eg roe deer and muntjak deer in the UK) may be severely affected. The age of the animal greatly affects the severity of the disease.
  246W
  Vaccines, plus additional tests under development. The equipment used in these tests is regularly serviced and maintained at the standard required by the tests used.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if wild deer with foot and mouth disease are capable of infecting the farm animals with which they come into contact. [R] [159945]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 1 May 2001]: Our current veterinary risk assessment concludes that infected deer could transmit foo and mouth disease to susceptible livestock during the clinical stages of the disease. However the risk of wild deer playing any significant part in the spread of the disease is assessed as very low and feral deer are unlikely to represent a longer term risk. We therefore have no plans at this stage to control wild deer populations.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what stocks of foot and mouth vaccines his Department holds. [160381]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 8 May 2001]: The Department does not hold stocks of foot and mouth vaccine. However, contingency plans exist to draw sufficient doses from the International Vaccine Bank (IVB) and the EU Vaccine Bank (EUVB) to vaccinate some 750,000 cattle. This is available at short notice but, as the EUVB holds sufficient doses of appropriate vaccine for 2.5 million cattle, additional supplies are available from this source if required.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many of each animal species slaughtered in the foot and mouth outbreak were(a)known to be afflicted with the disease, (b) suspected of being infected, (c) inhabited contiguous areas and (d) killed for welfare reasons. [160378]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 8 May 2001]: The numbers of pigs, sheep and cattle that have been slaughtered are broken down as follows (figures as at 19:00 2 May 2001):

  Deer can be carriers of the foot and mouth virus, and could transmit foot and mouth disease to susceptible livestock during the clinical stages of the disease. However, the Ministry's current veterinary risk assessment indicates that the risk of wild deer playing any significant part in the spread of foot and mouth disease is very low. There are therefore no plans at this stage to control wild deer populations, although as more information becomes available about that epidemiology of the disease in areas where there are are Wild deer, the risk assessment will be updated.
  247W
  All samples that have been submitted to the Institute of Animal Health for testing, as of 4 May, have tested negative for evidence of the foo and mouth virus, antigens or antibodies.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he hits to table proposals for reform of the EU's methods for tackling foot and mouth, following the recent UK outbreak. [160623]
  248W
  Ms Quin
  As my right hon. Friend the Minister reported to the House in his statement of 26 April 2001,Official Report columns 456–73, at the Government's instigation the European Union will convene a conference later in the year to all aspects of our experience of the disease, in order to help shape control policy for the future.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock
(Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Bradford): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I have to inform the House that Her Majesty's Government have appointed Lieutenant-General Sir Michael Willcocks, KCB, to be Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod in succession to General Sir Edward Jones, KCB, CVO, CBE, and that he is at the Door ready to receive your Lordships' commands.
Whereupon the House directed that he be called in. Accordingly he was called in and officiated in his place.

Tributes to General Sir Edward Jones
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I take this opportunity to thank Sir Edward for his diligent and tireless service to the House during the six years that he has served as Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.
The holder of the office of Black Rod has a bewildering number of duties, and I am sure that we all accept that Sir Edward has proved himself more than adept at all of them. He has performed his ceremonial duties with great style, including of course his six state openings of Parliament. Behind the scenes, Black Rod and his department are responsible for the organisation of state openings, a huge operation which he has performed with great skill and care.
As your Lordships know, in addition, Black Rod and his team are also responsible for the organisation of all major events in this part of the Palace. I include, as I am sure your Lordships well remember, the successful recent visit of President Clinton and the celebrations to mark the centenary of the Federation of Australia. Such large operations have always been conducted with enormous skill.
Black Rod is also responsible for regulating access to the building, and for security issues more generally. I know that we are all grateful for his substantial efforts in that regard. They have included removing hereditary Peers who had jumped on the Woolsack, and the more serious problems of racial hate mail with which he has dealt with great tact, discretion and effectiveness.
However, I suspect that it is in the realm of accommodation that the works of Sir Edward will be most remembered and will be most permanent. The major improvements to the structure of the Palace, begun in the early 1990s, have continued apace. On a practical level, the Palace has been made more
1022
accessible to disabled people, and the installation of the parliamentary data and video network is now nearing completion. Last summer the Line of Route was opened up to the general public for the first time in many years. Those are all activities in which Black Rod was engaged most successfully.
He has also confronted and taken up the challenge of the shortage of working space in your Lordships' House, which, quite rightly, is always a matter of intense interest. In the past few years there have been major improvements and, as Members of the House will know, still more offices will become available during the Summer Recess. We know that there is some way to go, but we should be grateful to Sir Edward for his great efforts in that area. During his time, I believe that we have turned a corner in relation to this thorny problem.
On behalf of the entire House, I thank Sir Edward for his ceaseless work and enthusiasm in the service of the House. We will miss him and Lady Jones very much. I can especially remember their splendid Christmas parties that I hope will become part of the Black Rod tradition.
In the past few months Sir Edward and I have had an informal personal competition as to which one of us would retire first. He has beaten me by about four weeks. I wish him every happiness in his retirement. I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending very best wishes to him and to Lady Jones.
Finally, I welcome Sir Edward's successor, Lieutenant-General Sir Michael Willcocks. I am sure that he will fulfil the onerous duties with as much distinction as his predecessor; and I hope that he enjoys his time with us.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, on behalf of the Opposition, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for her splendid and full tribute to General Sir Edward Jones. On this side of the House, we associate ourselves fully with her remarks. However, although today we know who succeeds Sir Edward, it may be a few weeks yet before we know who will succeed the noble Baroness herself! I am ever hopeful!
Sir Edward's term of office has been exemplary and the noble Baroness has rightly listed many of his achievements. During that time he has had the challenge of managing considerable change, such as followed the general election of 1997 when changes were made to the management of the House, and after the expulsion of the hereditary Peers. He and his team, as well as the Doorkeepers, for whom he is responsible, managed that task with few complaints.
Sir Edward has served this House with skill, enthusiasm, distinction, and, surprisingly sometimes for a man with such a booming voice, with sensitivity. I suspect that we shall all miss his tall stature bearing down on us, as we shall all miss Lady Jones, who has played a hugely supportive role in the Palace of Westminster and beyond.

1023
I too welcome his successor, Lieutenant-General Sir Michael Willcocks, another distinguished soldier who takes on this burden of office. I believe it is right to say that he has a tough act to follow, but I am convinced that he will match up to all the outstanding qualities of his predecessor.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I too thank the Leader of the House for, and associate these Benches with, the tribute that she has paid to the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod. In particular, I associate with those remarks my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, who is very sorry not to be present on this occasion.
General Sir Edward Jones brought to his post a great contribution drawn from his own experience, first, as a distinguished military man, which I am sure taught him leadership and decision-making, and secondly, as the military representative to NATO from 1992 to 1993, where he learnt the art of diplomacy that he has used most effectively in this House.
More recently Sir Edward has distinguished himself as a celebrity on television. I too occasionally appear on television and I am deeply envious of his wonderful clothing. Only yesterday I discovered, in an unguarded moment from Sir Edward himself, that he is capable of changing into his full resplendency in just over five minutes, an attribute that I wish I could emulate.
All of us will miss his wise guidance and that of his splendid and marvellous wife, Lady Jones. Perhaps I can conclude this brief tribute to him by saying that the cleaning of Royal Court is one of his great achievements. It was said, famously, by Christopher Wren,
"Se monumentum, requiris, circumspice".
I am sure that when Sir Edward looks at the beauty of the Palace of Westminster in its clean and resplendent state he will be able to say, together with Christopher Wren, that he has a proper and lasting memorial.
I also greatly welcome Lieutenant-General Sir Michael Willcocks as his successor. He has already distinguished himself by the excellent short parade which he was able to master so professionally and effectively. All of us on these Benches greatly look forward to working with him and wish him well in his onerous but exciting new duties.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, in the absence of the Convenor, it is my privilege from these Benches to pay tribute to the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod. I am well aware that military gentlemen do not hold politicians in high esteem. Indeed, when I entered the House of Commons in 1964 I received a letter from my general. He said:
"Dear Weatherill. I am astounded to be informed that an officer of the regiment is going into politics. It is a dishonest profession. I pray that you may prove to be the exception. I very much doubt it".
Whatever Black Rod's view of politicians may have been six years ago when he first came to your Lordships' House, I wager that that is not his view
1024
today. Sir Edward Jones has been a splendid and outstanding Black Rod. Not only has he looked the part but he has also acted the part with military precision, efficiency, great style and dignity. During his time here, he and his wife, Lady Jones, have made many friends, not only among Members of your Lordships' House and, I suspect, among Members of the other place, but also among the staff, who hold him in high esteem.
I believe that Seneca said,
"Obedience is yielded more readily to one who commands gently".
That epitomises the way in which Black Rod has carried out his duties to your Lordships' House. We on these Benches salute him and also Lieutenant-General Sir Michael Willcocks, whom we wish an equally successful and happy time in your Lordships' House.
The Lord Bishop of Bradford: My Lords, it is a great pleasure for me to associate my fellow bishops and myself in the warm tributes paid to Sir Edward Jones. I can assure your Lordships that when as a bishop with no political background one is introduced to your Lordships' House, it is a very daunting and unnerving experience. The kindness and helpfulness afforded by Sir Edward and his staff to many bishops is greatly appreciated. We welcome an opportunity publicly to thank him and to say how grateful we are for the help and encouragement we have been given.
His approachability and his ability to tolerate the hesitant, to say nothing of fools, and to give the impression that he does so gladly, is something we have come greatly to appreciate. He has contributed to the courtesy and generosity shown in this House towards its newer Members.
Sir Edward, in his role as Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, has brought great dignity to all of our proceedings and I want to emphasise that word in a society where dignity is somewhat lowly prized. His dignity has impressed and encouraged us all; he has set a great example. We wish him well.
We also offer our very best wishes to Lieutenant-General Sir Michael Willcocks and, if I may, I should like to give him a personal welcome. As a national serviceman who served with I Battery (Bull's Troop) and then in the 2nd Regiment Royal Horse Artillery, perhaps I may say how wonderful it is to see a distinguished officer from the Royal Horse Artillery gracing your Lordships' House. I hope that it is in order for a former acting bombardier to greet a general in that way. If it is impertinent, I pray I may be forgiven.
As bishops, we hope that Sir Michael will feel very happy here. He will find the bishops the least troublesome of all Members of your Lordships' House and the most unpredictable. We hope also that he will have a fulfilling time in office.

Organic Farming
2.45 p.m.
Lord Taverne Lord Taverne asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the justification for their subsidising organic farming.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, the support provided for farmers undertaking conversion to organic status is in recognition of the contribution which organic farming makes to achieving the Government's aims of securing environmental benefits and orienting production to the market within the agricultural sector.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, while there is no doubt a place for organic farming to encourage diversity, and while there is some evidence from California that organically farmed apples are more tasty than other Californian apples, do the Government not agree that there is no sound evidence for saying that organic farming is more environmentally friendly than conventional farming, given its inefficient and wasteful use of land? Furthermore, is there not some evidence of greater risk to health, particularly a much higher risk from poisoning by pathogenic strains of E. coli?
Generally, is there any justification for subsidising a form of farming which has no basis in science but which is based instead on the rather dubious ideology of Rudolf Steiner?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, on a personal note, I ought to thank the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, for giving me the opportunity to appear at the Dispatch Box to deal with something other than a Statement on foot and mouth disease. However, after hearing his supplementary question I am not so sure.
The important point I want to make is that while there are many and varied views about the qualities of organic food as against non-organic food, it is important to recognise that we need to pursue the objectives I listed in answering his Question—environmental stewardship and bringing agriculture closer to the market—across the whole range of agriculture and not only and solely through the mechanism of organic farming. It has environmental benefits and is rightly subsidised, and it has been generously subsidised by this Government in terms of conversion but not in terms of on-going production.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, in view of the noble Baroness's reply to that last question, can she make a serious case for subsidising the bio-fuel industry, which really does have enormous environmental benefits?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I would expect the noble Lord to make no other comment. But it is an important issue. When, at this time, we are looking at the future of agriculture after a horrific experience
1026
across farming in this country, it is important to use opportunities not simply to recreate the previous pattern of agriculture but to look at what in the broadest sense can provide such environmental benefits. I know that the noble Lord is a passionate advocate of bio-fuels in that context.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, given the range of rethinking on agriculture that is now taking place, not least among those who have lost stock from foot and mouth disease, how does my noble friend think that suitable advice, including on organic farming, should play its part?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, provisions and advisory services already exist for those contemplating conversion to organic status. It is an important, long-term decision and it needs to be a soundly based business decision. However, the noble Lord is right to say that many people who lost stock during the foot and mouth outbreak need to think carefully and obtain high-quality business advice as regards their future, whether that is in organic production or something else. Yesterday, my right honourable friend announced the provision of particularly focused business advice for those who have lost stock in the recent foot and mouth outbreak.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the population of the world is likely to multiply four-fold during our lifetime and that if the premise of organic farming is carried out throughout the world it will be grossly extravagant and wasteful of space and will result in inadequate supplies of food being available for those who require it?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the role of organic production in this country, where there is real consumer demand for it, is an important one which the Government rightly support. I have some sympathy with the view of the noble Earl. We need to look at all possible developments in agriculture to meet the challenges of feeding a vastly increased world population in the years to come.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that at the moment the United Kingdom meets only 30 per cent of the demand for organic produce and that organic farmers in many of the countries which supply the other 70 per cent are more heavily subsidised than ours?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. We supply a minority of our own market in organic production. That is one of the reasons why, in terms of sustainability, we have vastly increased support. Support for organic farming ran at just over £500,000 a year until 1997; this year we shall spend £18 million.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, does the Minister agree that despite that support people vote with their shopping baskets for organic

1027
farming and demand still far outstrips supply? Does the Minister also agree that the Bill which set targets for organic conversion was a step in the right direction? Does she welcome the comments of Commissioner Fischler that CAP reform must be speeded up to bring about the environmental benefits which, as your Lordships' House reports so clearly underline, organic farming can deliver?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, certainly I agree with the noble Baroness so far as concerns CAP reform. But if there is such a buoyant market for organic produce the case for government subsidy is somewhat undermined.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, in the field of organic farming is it not even more crucial that the standards set throughout Europe and the world should be the same? There are different conversion rates and standards in various countries? Does the Minister agree that our farmers would be helped if the standard was based on a uniform unit and produce properly labelled so that consumers could make the correct choice?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, there are defined European standards about organic production. The responsibility for the enforcement of organic standards in this country lies with UKROFS. It is impossible to prevent people wanting higher standards. One can ensure that everything conforms to minima, but if organic certifying bodies and other organisations wish to impose higher standards themselves they have the right to do so.

Identity Cards
2.53 p.m.
Baroness Sharpies>Baroness Sharpies asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, following the six-month pilot study of a voluntary smart card, they have any plans to introduce such an identity card nationally.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, a number of local smart card schemes for electronic access to public services are being tested but none is a pilot for a national scheme; nor do they represent any form of national identity card. Any decision to introduce a national identity card would need to be taken in its own right. Having considered the arguments carefully, we are not persuaded of the case for doing so.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply which is slightly more encouraging than the response to my previous Question on this. I have been pursuing this matter since 1993, so
1028
perhaps I am getting somewhere. Can the Minister say who was consulted in the last pilot scheme on possible voluntary identity cards?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am slightly mystified by the noble Baroness's reference. I am not aware of any consultations that are currently being undertaken. I am aware that a number of local authorities are piloting smart cards and similar cards which access local services. I asked my office to make contact with the Local Government Association this morning to find out how that was progressing. I am happy to continue to advise your Lordships' House on these matters. I congratulate the noble Baroness on her persistence in regularly putting Questions on ID cards at Question Time.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there are many in this country who are bitterly opposed to a national identity card because they believe that individual freedom is already at risk and has been undermined to an unacceptable extent?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that was one of the considerations which focused the minds of Ministers when they considered these matters, and it was certainly a matter which weighed very heavily on the minds of the previous government when they considered the case for national identity cards, including voluntary ones. That is also one of the reasons which has been particularly persuasive in this matter.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, can the Minister explain why he believes that a photo driving licence will not become a de facto ID card?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the principal reason is that the purpose of a photo driving licence is to permit a person to drive a vehicle, having passed a test. No doubt it is a useful means of identification and is often used in that way.

Child Trust Fund
2.56 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird The Viscount of Oxfuird asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they intend to introduce the so-called "baby bonds"; and what financial provision has been made for them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government announced on 26th April that they would consult on two new proposals to increase saving and asset ownership: the child trust fund and the saving gateway. The exact timing and cost of these policy proposals will depend on the results of the consultation process.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether income that accrues under either proposal will be subject to taxation? If not. how can it be fair to tax the savings of non-taxpayers, including pensioners and children who may have been bought privatisation shares by their parents, through the non-refundable stealth tax on dividend income introduced by the Chancellor?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thought that it would not be long before the Benches opposite moved from a debate on something which involved the transfer of money from government to people to their obsession with the transfer of money from people to government. The question of the tax status of the child trust fund and the saving gateway is one of the matters for consultation. Clearly, if there were to be tax relief for income under either or both of these measures the question would arise whether it became a regressive or progressive proposal in taxation terms. That is one of the matters which is being seriously considered.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the expression "baby bond" is the registered trade mark of the Tunbridge Wells Equitable Friendly Society, of which I have the honour to be chairman? That is declared in the register. Is the noble Lord also aware that the primary work on this matter was done by the think tank IPPR, of which we were proud to be a co-sponsor? Is the Minister further aware that the friendly society movement, which has some 6 million members, looks forward to working with the Government to introduce the child trust fund and hopes that that movement will have a major role to play?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am particularly grateful for the last part of the noble Lord's question. I learnt only 10 minutes ago that he and his society had the prescience to register the expression "baby bond". My immediate conclusion was that they would begin to charge the Government for the use of that name. I am delighted to learn—I hope—that that is not the intention. But the main conclusion that I draw from the noble Lord's question is that we have some very valuable allies.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be better to divert this money into the cutting of tuition fees?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the assumption of the noble Lord is very flattering to the Government. It is our intention that 50 per cent of young people in this country should benefit from higher education, but even when we achieve that target tuition fees would apply to no more than half of that 50 per cent. The proposals announced in April of this year apply to the whole population.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, all this business about transfer of moneys this way and that does not make much sense. Is this not just a plain electoral gimmick?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if governments could not make proposals for improvements in the welfare and happiness of the people of this country, that might be a serious question. There are still plenty of opportunities for us to continue making improvements of the kind that we have suggested.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, is it not true to say that this baby bond is a fitting epitaph for a government who have always liked the idea of treating voters as babies? Perhaps the Minister will follow me in sonic baby arithmetic. There are 717,000 births roughly a year in this country. At £500 per head, this baby bond will cost the Government the sum of £350 million per year. Does the Minister accept that the Government have increased tax on voters by £28 billion per year? Therefore, the sum that the Government are so generously giving back amounts to just 1¼ per cent of the extra amount they have already taken in taxes. Does not the Minister think that even babies could see that coming?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for the preview of what will undoubtedly appear either on posters or on party election broadcasts for the Conservative Party. I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be glad to have forewarning of the cutting edge of Conservative Party philosophy. In particular, the remarks about babies will go down very well.
The Conservative Front Bench and its Back-Benchers are showing the same predilection as was shown by the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird: that the only way to respond to a proposal to transfer money from government to the people is to change the subject. I notice that neither the Front Bench nor the Back Benches have recorded the fact that Mr Portillo said that he would not proceed with this project.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain why the Government feel that people cannot have babies without the Government paying them to do so?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government do not feel that. They are not King Canutes. The urges which cause people to have babies will continue under any government.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, can the Minister explain why the Government's support for the baby bond has not been matched by their support for the Opposition's proposal to fund pensions for young people? If the Government are to transfer money to individuals to try to encourage savings and self-sufficiency, would it not be more sensible to crystallise an existing liability on the state (for paying pensions) and to fund those rather than to create an additional liability on the state 18 years earlier?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I find that a remarkable question. The Government have successfully introduced stakeholder pensions and are

1031
introducing second state pensions which are valuable for young people as well as those of other ages. The Government's record in supporting pensions for people not at present receiving them is outstanding.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, will the Government agree that it would be more sensible if, instead of taking money away from non-taxpayers and then giving some of it back, they abolished tax on small savings altogether, as recommended by the party on this side of the House?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is about the third or fourth attempt to divert attention from the original Question to something quite different. We are aware that if the only benefit of what one noble Lord called "baby bonds" was tax relief, that would be regressive in personal taxation terms. That is why other things would have to be done, particularly in terms of the relationship with tax credits and with other forms of benefits, to ensure that the finalised proposals are not regressive but benefit the less well-off. The analysis of these matters is clear in the paper issued in April. I commend it to the noble Viscount.

Asylum Policy
3.5 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Prime Minister's article in The Times of 4th May represents government policy; and, if so, what changes they wish to make in the United Nations Convention on Refugees of 1951; and by what authority they believe these changes can be brought about.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Prime Minister's article made it clear that the United Kingdom is taking a lead in arguing for reform, not of the terms of values or principles of the 1951 convention, but of how it operates.
Earl Russell: My Lords, may I draw the Minister's attention to a reply given by his noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal? She said that:
"Article 63(1) of the treaty establishing the European Community requires the Council to adopt within five years of the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam measures on asylum which are in accordance with the Geneva Convention".—[Official Report, 18/04/00; col. 560.]
So it is enshrined in the European Treaty that asylum policy should be in accord with the 1951 convention. Does the Minister agree that revisions of the European treaties require unanimity and that, therefore, the likelihood that the Prime Minister will, even if it were desirable, achieve any significant alterations in the 1951 convention is negligible?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I cannot agree with that. The noble Lord is drawing attention to an important article which relates in part to the
1032
celebration of the 50th anniversary of the signing of the 1951 convention. As part of that article, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has instigated a programme of global consultations which draws together refugee producing countries, countries of first asylum, refugee receiving countries, academics and legal experts to discuss topics of interest to those concerned with the protection of refugees. It is in that context that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister wrote his article and also that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made a number of important contributions to the debate about how in the future we can deal with some of the many challenges that confront the world with regard to refugees or those seeking refugee status.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, is it or is it not correct that some countries which are signatories to the convention, including some countries in Europe, and their courts do not accept that persecution by other than an agent of the state attracts the protection of the convention?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am sure that with the noble Lord's experience in these matters as a former Home Secretary he will know that it depends very much on how one defines "an agent of the state". However, the noble Lord's point is a valid one and one that bears careful consideration in a complex international legal minefield.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when I attended a meeting called by the UNHCR representative in London under the Three Circles Consultation, which the Minister has mentioned, I do not recall any representative of his department being there? However, it may be that such a representative was present but did not bother to say anything. Can the Minister enlighten the House on whether a submission was made to the UNHCR in response to the invitation to the Three Circles Consultation? If so, could that be published?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, if such a submission was made to the UNHCR, I shall endeavour to enlighten people as to its contents. No doubt it is a matter of public record.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the 50 years that have expired since the 1951 convention was agreed circumstances have changed fundamentally all over the world? There are people now who have tried to rely upon the convention in order to maintain that they are refugees but who have not been persecuted in the way that the convention described and envisaged. The convention is now being abused and it is high time that it was revised and brought up to date. Any attempt that the Prime Minister or his successor makes in order to improve matters will prevent the convention being abused by people coming to this country who have no right to rely upon it.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, no doubt the noble Lord will know much more about the times in

1033
which the convention was signed. It was certainly before my birth, but I understand that the noble Lord was very active in politics at that time. Of course the world has changed. It is a far more complex place. It is much easier and cheaper to travel globally. We have to ensure that the abiding principles of the convention and the philosophy which underpins it are properly adhered to in the quite proper application of the rule of law. That is what our Government seek to do. We judge asylum applications on that basis. We seek to help those who are rightly fleeing persecution and offer them comfort and support here. But we do it within the rule of law and in accordance with proper procedures and processes. I am sure that is how it should be.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, in the light of the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, does the Minister consider that changing the United Nations convention would be at best a long-term business and that the situation is urgent? Will the noble Lord confirm that there are twice as many asylum seekers now as there were four years ago and that three quarters of them are refused admission on the 1951 criteria? Does he further recognise that the Government's policy of dispersal has failed on a test either of efficiency or humanity and that it is time to introduce reception centres, which we have promised to do?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am always greatly intrigued when noble Lords opposite raise the issue of reception centres. To my certain knowledge, our Government have provided for a detention centre at Oakington, but noble Lords opposite seem to forget that it is a Conservative council that has blocked the planning application for a similar centre in Kent. Conservative Members struggle to identify further and additional sites. If we were to satisfy the political wishes to which the noble Lord has given expression, we would probably need 50 similar centres, at a cost of £2 billion, for which I am not clear the Shadow Home Secretary has policy clearance. The policy is a rather mystifying one. I recall that Miss Widdecombe observed that it would take her some four or five years to incarcerate the entire asylum population, whom she would like to lock up prior to their applications for asylum being given fair consideration. It is a strange and baffling policy. I am struggling to understand how it could be easily implemented.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that locking up all asylum seekers would be in direct contravention of Article 31 of the Geneva convention, which says that those who arrive, even unlawfully, should be given freedom of movement until their position has been established? Will he also confirm that, in an attempt to avoid what would be a deeply demeaning competition to see who can be harsher to refugees, we might consider the possibility of employing some of those who are in this country, in the way that other countries do, at a time when we are recruiting from South Africa, the Philippines and elsewhere the teachers and nurses that we desperately need?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I listen carefully to what the noble Baroness says on these matters. She always raises them with great concern and with a feeling of humanity regarding the issues involved. Her interpretation and understanding are probably quite right. What we as a government have to do is a very difficult job. We have to strike the correct balance. We must treat people decently, fairly and properly when they come here seeking asylum but we must also ensure that we properly carry out our immigration and asylum legislation so that those who make unfounded claims are eventually returned.

Business of the House: Standing Orders 40 and 46
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 40 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be suspended until the end of the Session so far as is necessary to give Her Majesty's Government the power to arrange the order of business; and that Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended for the same period.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice and Police Bill
3.15 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Offences leading to penalties on the spot]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No 1:
Page 3, leave out lines 32 and 33
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure formally to move this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, leave out lines 7 to 12
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, again, it gives me great pleasure formally to move this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Closure of certain licensed premises due to disorder or disturbance]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 9, line 33, after "of" insert "and related to"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to move this amendment and to thank the Government and the Minister for taking on board the point that we made in Committee. If it is not already obvious to your Lordships, Amendments Nos. 3 to 7 all address the same point. As I am on my feet, I should also mention that we do not intend to move

1035
Amendments Nos. 8 or 9. They are superficially similar but actually relate to a different clause which we do not wish to pursue today. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, these amendments are before the House by common consent. We are happy to oblige. We listened carefully to what noble Lords opposite had to say about these matters. I took away the amendments and gave them careful consideration. All the amendments in the group work together. Four are consequential on the first. I hope that this will now ensure that matters are much happier when the police are deciding whether to extend a closure order. I am sure that it will make for the better order of that business. I am happy to support the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendments Nos. 4 to 7:
Page 9, line 36, after "of' insert "and related to"
Page 11, line 2, after "of' insert "and related to"
Page 11, line 47, after "of" insert "and related to"
Page 12, line 24, after "or insert "and related to"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 19 [Closure notices]:
[Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.]
Clause 42 [Police directions stopping the harassment etc of a person in his home]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 34, line 6, leave out "victim" and insert "resident"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 10, perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 11 to 16. These amendments change the terminology of the clause, renaming the person who is suffering harassment as the "resident" when previously he had been referred to as the "victim". They do not change the overall effect of the clause. That has to be plainly understood. We believe that the clause is very important. However, matters were raised in earlier debates, more particularly by noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches who were concerned about the issue. They thought that the term "victim" was pejorative. I understand the point that they made and we have now reached an understanding and agreement about the terminology that satisfies all sides of the House. The amendments which follow on from Amendment No. 10 are all consequential and are there to ensure that we have a coherent description which holds together and makes the legislation work effectively. I beg to move.
Lord McNally: My Lords, noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches welcome the Minister's move on this point. It may not change the powers in the Bill but we believe that it changes the psychology, and to a certain extent the philosophy, and as such it is welcome.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 11 to 16:
Page 34, line 9, leave out "victim" and insert "resident"
Page 34, line 10, leave out "victim" and insert "resident"
Page 34, line 20, leave out "victim" and insert "resident"
Page 34, line 22, leave out "victim" and insert "resident"
Page 34, line 26, leave out "victim" and insert "resident"
Page 34, line 27, leave out "victim" and insert "resident"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 50 [Offence of activity of using crack cocaine]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 17:
Leave out Clause 50
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment would have the effect of removing Clause 50 from the Bill. The House will recall that there was a brief period of slight chaos at the end of one of our days in Committee. An inadvertent error was made which meant that two clauses which had a similar effect were agreed. The second of the agreed clauses was defective. The amendment simply seeks to remove that defective clause. I am sure that the clause will be removed with the support of the House. We have reached clear agreement on the subject of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, as the Minister said, there was some confusion. The Government Benches kindly voted for our proposed Clause 50, which was intended to clamp down on crack cocaine houses. However, Clause 38 had already been passed with our agreement. As the Government consider Clause 38 to be better drafted, I do not think that it is necessary for Clause 50 to remain in the Bill. That is why I support this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Part 2 [Information disclosure for the purposes of criminal proceedings etc]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 18:
Leave out Part 2
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 18 seeks to leave out Part 2 of the Bill. There was discussion in Committee and subsequently the Government have agreed to our suggestion that the issues involved in Part 2 require further consideration. The issues have proved quite controversial in various professions, including the legal profession, my own accountancy profession, and others. They were not discussed in the other place and were only briefly debated here. It is right that Part 2 should be given proper consideration over an extended period. The amendments grouped with Amendment No, 18 are consequential upon it. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am happy to be associated with these amendments. We debated this part of the Bill yesterday. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, in his usual cogent way, expressed the Opposition's view that this part of the Bill required better and more detailed evaluation. It was, he said, complicated and detailed.

1037
The noble Lord is not quite right in saying that Part 2 was not discussed during the consideration of the Bill in another place. I should say for the record that the clauses in Part 2 were considered in another place during the Committee stage. However, given the short amount of time available to complete the parliamentary stages of the Bill, we have jointly tabled the amendment seeking to remove Part 2 of the Bill. This will provide a period of time in which, no doubt, we can improve the quality of the legislation, if that is what is required, and perhaps undertake further consultations. If the Labour Government are re-elected, we shall consider carefully the best way to proceed with what we believe are very useful reforms.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said, Amendments Nos. 26 to 29 are consequential to Amendment No. 18, which seeks to remove Part 2 from the Bill.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, may I point out that, although these clauses were formally taken by the Commons Committee, they were not discussed because the guillotine had already fallen?
Lord McNally: My Lords, we on these Benches support this deletion. We do so because we are mightily convinced by the persuasive arguments deployed by both Front Benches about the need for further consideration. We agree that these issues are controversial, that there has been inadequate discussion, and that there is a shortness of parliamentary time. As we go further through the Report stage, we hope that both Front Benches will be persuaded by similar arguments which are not restricted to the legal and accountancy professions.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 70 [Meaning of "legal privilege"]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 62, line 1, leave out subsection (9)
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this group of amendments refers to the Homes Bill. I understand that the Government are not proceeding with that Bill. It is therefore correct to delete from this Bill references to the Homes Bill before we proceed further today. The other amendments in the group are consequential upon Amendment No. 19.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
>Lord Bassam of Brighton>Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 20 and 21:
Page 62, line 14, at insert "or"
Page 62, line 16, leave out from "(c.36)" to end of line 17
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 71 [General interpretation of Part 3]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 64, leave out lines 23 and 24
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 87 [Restriction on use and destruction of fingerprints and samples]:
Lord McNally Lord McNally moved Amendment No. 23:
Leave out Clause 87
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I said, I was mightily impressed by the arguments deployed for leaving out Part 2 of the Bill. We are now talking about the two clauses in the Bill which refer to DNA. I ask your Lordships to read the debate that took place in the House last night on this issue. It was a model of this House at its best, with powerful speeches made from the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches by noble Lords with considerable experience in this area. I do not intend to repeat in detail those arguments.
Our reasons for seeking the deletion of Clauses 87 and 88 are precisely the ones that have just been deployed for the removal of Part 2. When the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General comes to respond, noble Lords should remember that if the Prime Minister could have achieved his heart's desire and held the general election on 3rd May, this legislation would not have stood a prayer of going through the House. Therefore, the idea that this is some kind of urgent "must have" legislation does not stand up to scrutiny.
Certainly, this very important step forward has been carried through with inadequate parliamentary scrutiny. As has been referred to on a number of occasions from all sides of the House, we are dealing with new technologies and new powers. We on these Benches are aware that it is very easy to portray any opposition to a request from authorities for new powers as somehow siding with criminals against the forces of law and order.
However, there is another side to the argument. Over the past 10 years we have experienced what I would describe as a law and order arms race between the Conservative and Labour Front Benches. It is probably the final epitaph of Jack Straw's stewardship that during his period as shadow Home Secretary and as Home Secretary he has never been successfully outflanked to the right by his Conservative opposite number. However, it means that when both Front Benches play the populist card an extra responsibility rests on Parliament, and particularly on this House, not to be intimidated by such threats as, "How are you going to explain this to the parents of a raped child?" and other emotive cards that are played.
I had never heard anyone deliver threats in such gentle and mellifluous tones as the Attorney-General did in the debate last night. On my way home at about midnight—the time when one feels most sinister—suddenly thought that it was exactly the technique of the late lamented Donald Pleasence, who played the character of Bloefeld, one of the most sinister villains

1039
in the James Bond series. I appreciate the technique; however, I ask colleagues, particularly on the Conservative and Labour Benches, to think hard about where our duty lies at this particular time.
We believe that the civil liberties aspects of this issue have not been fully debated. In regard to those that were debated fully in this House last night, many of the concerns about this measure were expressed with great power on all sides of the House. Therefore, we are right to ask the Government even at this late stage not to abandon these powers if they genuinely believe that they are necessary, but to give adequate time for a proper public debate about the issues involved and for proper study by experts and others of the implications. Then, in a proper way at a proper time, Parliament can make the decision as to whether the authorities should have these powers.
We have fallen into a habit over the past few years of accepting Home Office legislation "on the bounce". We saw an example in the terrorism Bill that followed the Omagh bombing. The Home Office slipped in a whole section that had been waiting on a shelf and was not in any sense emergency legislation. There is always a demand for urgency on the part of the authorities and the implied threat: "If you are against us, you must be on the side of the bad guys". That is not the whole picture. Parliament has wider responsibilities—not least to defend the broader civil liberties of the citizen.
We do not oppose the detail of these clauses. We merely ask for time for them to be properly considered. The best approach would be, as with Part 2, to drop these two clauses from the Bill. Then, if the Government have confidence in what they want to do, a successor government can bring them back in the new Parliament. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, this is the first occasion in my 55 years in Parliament on which I have attended a Report stage of a Bill that affects law and order and the liberty of the subject, the Committee stage having ended only at a late hour the night before. It is also the first occasion on which I have heard a Liberal Democrat Peer, whom I greatly respect, make what might be described as a Third Reading speech in the middle of the Report stage—although his remarks were relevant not only to these amendments but to the Bill as a whole.
I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in his implied criticism of my noble friends on the Front Bench. They have shown great discretion, even when they have had entirely reasonable doubts about some of the clauses in this new and far-reaching Bill. I hope that on further reflection the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will realise the valuable part that my noble friends have played.
That said, I welcome the Government's surrender of some of the controversial clauses, and in particular of Part 2. In the circumstances in which we now find
1040
ourselves, it was a necessary and wise step for them to take. However, a good deal of the remaining provision is controversial and is the subject of further amendments. I shall make no further comment at this time. I hope that I may be forgiven for making what is virtually another Third Reading speech at this early stage.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I wish to add little to what my noble friend Lord McNally said so cogently—because it was all said, not least by me, last night. There is one point to which my noble friend did not refer and which is highly germane; namely the chaotic state of the national DNA database. We cannot look at the amendment before us without realising that the police, in an audit of the national DNA database last July, found that over 50,000 samples had been stored illegally. To those of us on these Benches, it seems bizarre to say the least that the Government should be considering the proposals in Clauses 85 and 86 against that backdrop. As I say, I propose to confine my remarks to that point in support of my noble friend Lord McNally.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, one never comes to this House without learning something. This afternoon we have learnt that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, feels sinister at midnight. I take it that his classical education is coming out—"sinister" comes from the Latin for "left".
These clauses are not a reaction to an event such as a bombing—as the noble Lord rightly pointed out, we saw such a reaction following the Omagh bombing and on other occasions. On the contrary, they are a more long-term reaction to changes in scientific knowledge and hence of the techniques that have become available.
We had an interesting debate on the matter last night. I shall not repeat the points I made then, save to say that I do not believe that we are collectively winning the war against crime. DNA evidence—and the handling of fingerprint evidence—is an extremely valuable investigatory tool; it also potentially provides high-quality evidence in court cases. In these circumstances I believe it right that these clauses should remain in the Bill.
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, for his remarks. This provision is not a short-term remedy; nor has it been proposed without consultation. As your Lordships will remember, as long ago as July 1999, the Home Office published a consultation document, Proposals for Revising Legislative Measures on Fingerprints, Footprints and DNA Samples. That document formed the basis for some of the measures contained in the Bill. That was a fair while ago, and it is not right to assume or to misremember what happened in another place. The provisions relating to fingerprints and DNA samples were debated at length at all stages, including in Committee, in the Commons. However, I listened

1041
carefully to what was said in the debate last night. Some points were plainly of deep concern to those who made them. In saying that, I do not take away from the concerns; nor do I accept that the concerns are necessarily valid. In respect of the database, to which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, referred, I said yesterday in answer to him and my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws that I was able to give a commitment to a long-term review of improving the security and efficiency of the database.
However, I know that there are concerns among your Lordships that are not partisan; and, indeed, not entirely complimentary, although I gratefully received the bouquet from the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I always wanted to be an actor, and I believe that Donald Pleasence was rather a good one. I should like to spend a few moments on the issue because we need to remember what these clauses are talking about. They are talking about the retention of all fingerprints and samples taken on suspicion of involvement in a criminal offence. The purposes for which they can then be used—it is worth looking at the text of the Bill—are specifically restricted: the prevention and detection of crime, the investigation of an offence and the conduct of a prosecution. They cannot lawfully be used for any more devious purposes. I almost said "sinister"; but perhaps I should use "devious" as the adjective. They can be used only to prove or disprove involvement in crime.
We are not seeking to extend the powers to take fingerprints or other samples; we are seeking only to retain those that have been lawfully taken. These are extremely important aspects. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, is right to point out that one is capable of generating by these modern procedures evidence of extremely high "objective" quality. I do not apologise for using that word again. It is much more potentially capable of being reliable, objective evidence than, for example, the eye-witness identification made by the honest, apparently trustworthy and reliable witness who, although honest and apparently trustworthy, experience has commonly shown us can be plainly mistaken.
The proposed changes about retention were made necessary as a result of the decisions of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division in the cases of the Crown against Weir and the Crown against B, under the Attorney-General's reference No. 3/199. Those cases put into stark focus—I do not apologise for those words because they are a moderate description of what occurred—whether or not our law was coherent, comprehensible or justifiable on the retention of samples in those cases. I should remind noble Lords who did not have the benefit of being present in Committee last night, or the opportunity fully to read the Hansard report of the proceedings, that in those cases there was compelling, objective evidence of, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, "high quality" that linked one defendant to a rape and a second defendant to a murder. If that is to be called "playing the populist card", I believe that to be fundamentally mistaken as a description.
1042
It was originally held that that evidence of high objective scientific quality, which was capable of being extremely reliable, had to be excluded from the 2iury. Why? It was because both defendants, having given their original DNA samples, had either been acquitted or not proceeded against. The Court of Appeal ruled that material to be not admissible. If it is a sensible principle of criminal jurisprudence—I contend that it is—that cogent, probative evidence of high quality ought to be admitted, then, with great respect, those decisions caused some surprise.
The subsequent decision of the House of Lords overturned the ruling of the Court of Appeal and, therefore, the contention made by and on behalf of the Attorney-General succeeded. The House of Lords ruled that where a DNA sample fell to be destroyed because of Section 64 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 but had not been, it did not make evidence obtained as a failure to comply with that prohibition inadmissible. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I know is only just starling what I hope will be extremely important and influential work, commented:
"This has the curious result"—
understatement is always a pleasure to study—
"that the police are under a legal duty to destroy material. but are able to use it as evidence if they breach their duty by keeping it".
The Bill's proposals in these two linked clauses seek to put right that anomaly.
The ruling of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords allows the court a discretion to use the information, but that only affects cases where by chance, inadvertence or inefficiency the samples have been kept. I am most grateful for the support received from the Opposition Front Bench in this respect. The Government's view is that the evidence should not be discarded and that the police should be able to make use of that valuable and objective evidence. In my view, once it is acceptable that prints and samples should be able to be retained and properly used in the defence of individual liberty, which has been attacked by criminals if they are proved to be such, it is a proportionate use of the power of society to enforce the protection of the individuals who compose it.
A further worry expressed last night related to the retention of samples that were given voluntarily. Being an optimistic creature, I shall say this now for the last time: the samples can be retained only if there is written consent to the retention given by the person providing the sample. We believe that these are legitimate weapons in the structured armoury of a civil state response. I recognise that the concerns expressed were not raised on the basis of party point scoring; indeed, I do not believe that anyone on either side thought that any of us was indulging in that last night.
Obviously, I have given a good deal of thought to the expression of view that was encapsulated quite briefly and economically by the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Phillips. I hope that they will accept the following suggestion as being constructive. Bearing in mind the concerns expressed, I believe that I ought to be able to give a commitment—I have

1043
authority to do so—that this whole matter will be subject to a review when five years' experience has been had. I am able to give that commitment. I am not pretending that everything about the present state of the law is perfect. However, what I do assert without any doubt at all in my mind is that we must get the law right in this particular context.
I made my commitment to the long-term review of the database in what I accept was a less specific form to the noble Baroness. I believe that both she and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, accepted it as being a constructive approach. This commitment is deliberately more focused because I listened carefully to what noble Lords said. I hope that they will recognise that I am not playing any sort of card. I am trying to meet legitimate concerns that were conscientiously expressed and to balance and marry those with the views advanced by myself on behalf of the Government and by the noble Lord, Cope of Berkeley, on behalf of the Opposition Front Bench.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Before the Minister concludes and my noble friend replies, I have two questions. First, can a government Minister make a commitment of this sort that is binding on a successor government? Secondly, can the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General give me any indication as to whether such a review would have an element of independence in it?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, obviously I cannot bind a successor government, if the noble Lord's ignoble hypothesis were ever to come about. However, I hope that I have expressed our commitment to the measure as firmly as possible. Of course, if one of two alternative parties were in power—I look for a smile from the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Phillips—they would decide the matter. I have made my stance perfectly plain. I believe that the consultation ought to be as widely based as possible. I do not think that your Lordships can expect me to be more specific than that. I hope that I have been as helpful as I possibly can.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I say on behalf of my party that a review on the time-scale that has been mentioned is essential.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I welcome the extremely constructive suggestion of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. Yesterday when we discussed the need to strike a balance between civil liberties and the needs of victims of crime the noble and learned Lord said,
"I recognise the civil liberties implications here, in the balance I believe that their [the victims'] needs come rather higher".—[Official Report, 8/5/01; col. 2082.]
The debate has been conducted honourably by noble Lords on all sides of the House. However, a division of opinion remains. The concern over civil liberties
1044
remains. We welcome the review that has been suggested. We shall certainly return to the matter in the new Parliament when legislation is introduced following the publication of the Auld committee's report. Therefore, this is not the end of the matter. Nevertheless as we are in the peculiar position of having to undertake a truncated review of this legislation, we wish to test the opinion of the House.
3.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 23) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 200.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Northover, B.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L

Avebury, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L. [Teller]

Clement-Jones, L.

Razzall, L.

Dholakia, L.

Redesdale, L.

Ezra, L.

Roper, L.

Geraint, L.

Russell, E.

Goodhart, L.

Saatchi, L.

Hamwee, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Harris of Richmond. B. [Teller]

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lucas, L.

Taverne, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

McNally, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Maddock, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Tope, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Walmsley, B.

Newby, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Acton, L.

Burlison, L.

Ahmed, L.

Burnham, L.

Ampthill, L.

Buscombe, B.

Andrews, B.

Byford, B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Caithness, E.

Arran, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Astor, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Attlee, E.

Carrington, L.

Bach, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Baker of Dorking, L.

Christopher, L.

Barnett, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Berkeley, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Colwyn, L.

Biffen, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Billingham, B.

Courtown, E.

Blackstone, B.

Crathorne, L.

Blaker, L.

Crawley, B.

Blease, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Boardman, L.

Croham, L.

Bowness, L.

David, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Brennan, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Brett, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B

Brookman, L.

Denham, L.

1045

Dixon-Smith, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dundee, E.

[Teller]

Elder, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Elles, B.

Marsh, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Erroll.E.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Mishcon, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Mitchell, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Molloy, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Fookes, B.

Moynihan, L.

Fraserof Carmyllie, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Freeman, L.

Nicol, B.

Gale, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Orme, L.

Geddes, L.

Palmer, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Parekh, L.

Gilbert, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Patel, L.

Glentoran, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Peston, L.

Goudie, B.

Plumb, L.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Puttnam, L.

Gregson, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Grenfell, L.

Rawlings, B.

Hanson, L.

Reay, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Renton, L.

Harrison, L.

Richard, L.

Haskel, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Haslam, L.

Rogan, L.

Hayman, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Henley, L.

Seccombe, B.

Higgins, L.

Selsdon, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Serota, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B

Sharples, B.

Hooper, B.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Howe, E.

Simon, V.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hoyle, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Strange, B.

Chancellor)

Swinfen, L.

Islwyn, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Privy Seal)

Tomlinson, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Turnberg, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Judd, L.

Uddin, B.

Kimball, L.

Vivian, L.

Kirkham, L.

Waddington, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Warner, L.

Laming, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Weatherill, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Whitaker, B.

Lindsay, E.

Whitty, L.

Lipsey, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Lockwood, B.

Wilcox, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Wilkins, B.

Longford, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Luke, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.4 p.m.
Clause 88 [Provision for Northern Ireland corresponding to s.87]:
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Clause 131 [Inferences in police conduct proceedings]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 25:
Leave out Clause 131
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this matter was discussed last night at a quite late hour.
Baroness David: My Lords, does the noble Lord want to leave out Clause 131? Is it not Clause 126? I beg your Lordships' pardon. I am told that there is new numbering.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, it was Clause 126 in the Bill used in Committee yesterday. However, in the Bill as amended it becomes Clause 131. It is exactly the same clause. They are renumbered because we have inserted some additional clauses. The speed with which we have had to consider these issues has made the position somewhat confusing. That is the explanation.
The matter was discussed late last night. That was the first time this proposition had been discussed in either House of Parliament. The proposition is that in police disciplinary proceedings an inference should be able to be drawn from silence on a specific matter. It is a familiar argument in connection with the criminal law. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, stated last night that when the original consultations on the proposal took place the police staff associations were content with the proposal but that they had had second thoughts since. That is right. I am told that the original consultation was on the basis that a clause of this character was to be introduced, but that the standard of proof required should be the criminal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt". The standard now in police disciplinary proceedings is "the balance of probability". That has led the Police Federation and ourselves to oppose the insertion of this clause.
I made the point last night—I shall not labour it again today—that our police are a highly supervised body answerable not only to the law but to the complaints commission, their authority, and so on. If a policeman does something wrong, he finds himself facing criminal charges, if justified, or disciplinary proceedings, or both. We should be extremely careful about placing through this clause an additional burden on policemen in trouble, in particular when we have discussed the issue so little. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, in our view this clause removes an anomaly which would bring the regulations on police conduct into line with those in criminal proceedings where the new style of caution was introduced in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
It is perhaps worth reciting some history on the matter since it is an issue which has been around for a number of years. The Home Affairs Select Committee,

1047
in its report in March 1998 on police disciplinary and complaints procedures, proposed this change (at paragraph 109 of Volume 1 of the report of the proceedings of the committee on 15th January 1998) on the basis that it would go some way towards addressing quite proper concerns over the use of "no comment" interviews in police disciplinary investigations.
At present, if it is decided to instigate proceedings against an officer for a possible breach of the discipline code, now called the conduct code, the accused officer will be notified and cautioned along the lines of the traditional criminal caution. This stated:
"You do not have to say anything unless you wish to do so, but anything you do say may be given in evidence".
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 modified this caution and the right to silence in an important way in that although it would be open to a defendant to say nothing, adverse inferences could be drawn where the defendant chose to do so in certain circumstances. This change was not accompanied by an equivalent change in the caution in disciplinary proceedings because it was originally thought that Section 50 of the Police Act 1996 would enable this change to be made by regulations. It was subsequently decided that the change should be made by primary legislation.
The modified caution states:
"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you say may be given in evidence".
The proposal to change the caution was agreed by all members of the Home Affairs Select Committee and was discussed from 1998 onwards in the Police Personnel Procedures Working Group which is a working group of the Police Advisory Board. There was universal agreement from all the police staff associations, including the Police Federation, the Police Complaints Authority, the Association of Police Authorities and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary.
The Police Federation now appears to have changed its stance. It had previously said that a police officer should be in no better and no worse a position than any other member of the public who is being investigated. The Police Superintendents' Association also believed that it was wrong to allow an unfettered right of silence to police officers subject to a disciplinary inquiry. Paragraph 4.1 of the report on the right of silence said:
"In view of the recent change to the general criminal law, we believe it is wrong that police officers who are subject to a disciplinary inquiry have an unfettered right of silence".
Let us consider what happens in other uniformed services. The Military Police use the same wording as in the modified caution. In fire service disciplinary proceedings, when a member of a fire brigade is given the opportunity to explain his conduct to an investigating officer he is informed that he is not obliged to say anything concerning the matter and he is warned that any explanation he makes may be used in subsequent disciplinary proceedings. The Prison
1048
Service does not use cautions, but a form of written words when staff are investigated and when they are charged.
The police force is a vital public service in which the highest standards of conduct and behaviour are necessary to maintain public confidence. If a police officer's conduct is called into question and he or she refuses point blank to explain, is it not reasonable to be allowed to draw inferences from that silence?
We are seeking the implementation of what was agreed three years ago. In other fields of employment, inferences can be drawn from silence in disciplinary proceedings. In this day and age, we believe that it is right that the police disciplinary proceedings should reflect best practice elsewhere.
Two lines of argument were advanced in the clause stand part debate in yesterday's Committee stage. One was that not enough detailed consideration had been given. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, used the phrase "on the bounce"—a phrase that he has repeated today. The other argument was that the difference between criminal conduct and misconduct was important and it was felt that the police were one of the most supervised occupations in the country, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said again this afternoon.
I do not find either argument compelling. No strong or powerful argument has been made to exempt the police from a practice that is becoming more widespread in disciplinary proceedings and is the standard in criminal proceedings. Concern was expressed that we should be extremely careful about the conduct of police disciplinary proceedings. In my experience, police disciplinary investigations and proceedings accord to the highest standards and are properly conducted and thoroughly carried out.
My understanding is that the former Home Secretary, Michael Howard, supported the change back in 1994. In 1996, Conservatives in government clearly anticipated that it would be put into effect by regulation. The Conservatives supported the move as recently as 1998, when the Home Affairs Committee report was supported by all parties. I find it most strange that they have changed their position. I am not convinced by the arguments that have been put forward. We have demonstrated our care and concern over the issue. We have consulted carefully through the proper formal arrangements. There has historically been widespread agreement and support for the change. That is why it was put into the Bill.
I hope that the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats will not press the amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the Minister and I have summarised the arguments that we made last night. It is time to seek the opinion of the House.
4.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 25) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 140; Not-Contents, 116.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Laird, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Arran, E.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Astor, V.

Lindsay, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Liverpool, E.

Attlee, E.

Lucas, L.

Avebury, L.

Luke, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Blaker, L.

McNally, L.

Boardman, L.

Maddock, B.

Bowness, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Marlesford, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Bramall, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Buscombe, B.

Moynihan, L.

Byford, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Newby, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Noakes, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Northesk, E.

Carr of Hadley, L

Northover, B.

Carrington, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Onslow, E.

Coe, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Colwyn, L.

Palmer, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Courtown, E.

Parkinson, L.

Craigavon, V.

Patten, L.

Cranborne, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Crathorne, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Croham, L.

Rawlings, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Reay, L.

Denham, L.

Redesdale, L.

Dholakia, L.

Renton, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Dundee, E.

Rogan, L.

Elles, B.

Roper, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Russell, E.

Elton, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Ezra, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Falkland, V.

Sandberg, L.

Ferrers, E.

Seccombe, B.

Flather, B.

Selsdon, L.

Fookes, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Sharples, B.

Freeman, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Geddes, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Geraint, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Glentoran, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Goodhart, L.

Stewartby, L.

Goschen, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Hamwee, B.

Taverne, L.

Hanson, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Tebbit, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Higgins, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hooper, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hooson, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Howe, E.

Tope, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Vivian, L.

Jacobs, L.

Waddington, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Walmsley, B.

Kimball, L.

Wilcox, B.

Kirkham, L.

Young, B.

1050

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L

Acton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Ahmed, L.

Chancellor)

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Islwyn, L.

Andrews, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Bach, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Privy Seal)

Berkeley, L.

Jeger, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Judd, L.

Billingham, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Blease, L.

Lipsey, L.

Brennan, L.

Lockwood, B.

Brett, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Brookman, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

[Teller]

Burlison, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Christopher, L.

Marsh, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Mishcon, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Mitchell, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Molloy, L.

Crawley, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Orme, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Parekh, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Patel, L.

Dixon, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Elder, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Richard, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Filkin, L.

Simon, V.

Gale, B.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Gilbert, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Strange, B.

Goudie, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Tenby, V.

Gregson, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Grenfell, L.

Turnberg, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Uddin, B.

Harrison, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Haskel, L.

Weatherill, L.

Hayman, B.

Whitaker, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Whitty, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wilkins, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hoyle, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.25 p.m.
Clause 144 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Bassam of Brightton Lord Bassam of Brightton moved Amendments Nos. 26 to 29:
Page 114, line 33, after "section," insert "and".
Page 114, line 33, leave out "Part 2 pf this Act and sections".

1051
Page 115, line 1, leave out "Part 2 of this Act and section 90 come" and insert "Section 90 comes".
Page 115, leave out line 6.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Extension of existing disclosure powers]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 30:
Leave out Schedule 1.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Powers of seizure]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 130, leave out lines 4 to 6.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 46 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of this day), Bill read a third time.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I rise briefly to take up a point which arose 10 minutes ago when I asked the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General whether one could expect the review of the DNA arrangements, which he offered to the House to take place after five years, to be undertaken by an independent person. In giving his answer to that and to another question which I raised, I do not believe that he dealt with that particular point. I should be most grateful if he would do so.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may say a brief word. In spite of the concessions wisely made by the Government and their acceptance of the various opposition amendments which they originally opposed, I believe that it is regrettable that so little time has been spent by your Lordships in considering this lengthy Bill, which runs to roughly 170 pages. In view of my own experience, I regret to say that I fear that, in the course of time, the courts will throw doubts upon the wording and effect of some parts of the Bill. Therefore, I believe that further consideration of it should not wait until five years have passed. It may well be that thought upon it will need to be given sooner than that and that it would be much wiser to hold a review within two years.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, perhaps I may make a point in relation to the amendment to which I put my name today—Amendment No. 25 concerning Clause 131. I had, in fact, intended to put my name to an amendment changing Clause 136. In Committee late last night, I spoke to an amendment on Clause 131. Overnight, a renumbering took place. I make this statement for the information of the House.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I want to make a point of amplification which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, indicated to me that he wished to have. I am
1052
grateful to him for that. Whoever carries out the review will be a person of perceived and actual independence.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am most grateful.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill
4.29 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Application of Part 5 of the Care Standards Act 2000]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 28, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
"(3) For subsection (6) substitute—
"(6) Regulations may provide for the references to a child in subsection (1) to include references to a person (including a child) who was at any time (including a time before the commencement of this Part)—

(a) a child ordinarily resident in Wales;

(b) a child to or in respect of whom services were provided in Wales by, or on behalf of or under arrangements with, a person mentioned in Schedule 2B; or

(c) a child to or in respect of whom regulated children's services in Wales were provided.""

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, grouped with this amendment are Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8. If it is convenient, I shall speak to all of them.
Amendment No. 1 is a technical amendment. It will ensure that the commissioner will be able to exercise his jurisdiction in circumstances involving a child who has died. Having re-examined the provisions in Clause 1, there may be some doubt about the commissioner's jurisdiction in those sad circumstances. We have had discussions on the matter and re-examined the provisions.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are technical amendments, which will ensure that the commissioner will be able to review the exercise of Assembly functions and those of other bodies that are listed in the Bill in the event that they may have delegated the exercise of functions to other persons. For instance, the Assembly delegates its duties to provide careers advice to the Careers Service. The provisions may relate to one or two other bodies. This is a prudent pair of technical amendments, which will remove any doubt about the commissioner's powers.
Amendment No. 5 will empower the commissioner to consider and to make representations to the Assembly about any matter affecting the rights or welfare of children in Wales. We had an interesting discussion on that matter in Committee. Noble Lords on all sides—Liberal Democrat, Conservative and Plaid Cymru—were eager for such a provision to be included in the Bill. I said on an earlier occasion that we would think about the matter carefully, and I promised to bring forward an amendment.
Amendment No. 5 means that the commissioner will have a formal role. I know from discussions with noble Lords on all sides, for which I am very grateful, that this will be a welcome improvement to the Bill, and I need not detain the House further on it.
Amendment No. 7 relates to the new power of consideration and representation. As is well known, we believe that the commissioner's main field of jurisdiction should be in respect of bodies that have functions within the Assembly's devolved fields of responsibility. That is why the amendment is necessary.
Amendment No. 8 will replace the phrase, "county borough" with the phrase, "county borough council or community" council. The amendment virtually speaks for itself. I hope that noble Lords agree that it is appropriate to add community councils in Wales to the list of bodies that are subject to review by the commissioner under Clause 3. I beg to move.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for speaking to this group of amendments. Amendment No. 1 is a welcome clarification and amplification of the scope of the Care Standards Act 2000 and of the role of the children's commissioner. The Attorney-General explained the element of retrospection in the amendment. That is in the Bill's original wording and the Care Standards Act. We have now had three versions of subsection (6)—the Government have clearly had a wrestling match with themselves. There is no denying the fact that the latest amendment appears to be an improvement.
Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 8 are basically tidying-up amendments. Amendment No. 5 is the amendment of real significance, and I am grateful to the Attorney-General for his exposition of it. It will give the commissioner formal power to,
"make representations to the Assembly about, any matter affecting the rights or welfare of children in Wales".
That gives him plenty of scope and we welcome this development. We are grateful to the Attorney-General for his acknowledgement of our contribution to this advance in the Government's thinking.
The commissioner can make representations only to the Assembly, not directly to another department of state. If the matter that concerns him is outside the Assembly's sphere of responsibility, he will not, as I understand it, be debarred from making the representation. The onus for taking the representation further passes from the commissioner to the Assembly
1054
itself. The commissioner will obviously report such representations in his annual report, which could give rise to questions about what happened to them.
If I understand proposed new subsection (2)(b) correctly in the context of Section 74 of the Care Standards Act, the commissioner cannot examine cases of particular children outside the devolved spheres of government or report on them and he cannot require information, explanation or other assistance from persons outside the devolved areas from, for example, a Home Office institution or the Ministry of Defence. One can see the reasoning behind that and the need for a consistent approach. I am bound to say that one of the problems with having been in government for as long as I was is that one always sees the government's point of view and the benefits of provisions that are neat and tidy and that fit reality to itself, rather than the other way round. However, the Government have undoubtedly moved in this regard, and we are grateful. We wish that they had moved further, but there we are.
As I understand this rather complex amendment, the commissioner may be involved in proceedings arising from a review of the effect on children of the exercise of any function of the Assembly or by any of the regulated bodies that are contained in Schedule 2A. Proceedings may also arise in connection with services relating to children that are provided by the bodies that are listed in Schedule 2B or by regulated services. The commissioner is closely confined to the devolved areas in this regard. The last part of the amendment makes it clear that his general power to make representations that may arise in relation to non-devolved areas is excluded from the area of proceedings.
I hope that the Attorney-General will confirm that my understanding of the amendments is correct. As I said, we welcome them and thank him for the grace with which he introduced them. He did so in response to representations from all parties. We wish that he had been able to go further but we are grateful for the progress that has been made.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I, too, thank the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for the clarifications that are contained in Amendments Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 8. I shall say no more about them.
I very much welcome the additional power of consideration and representation in Amendment No. 5. Although we had initially thought in terms of the commissioner having a right to make representations to a Westminster Minister, on reflection I consider that it enhances the importance of the Assembly for the commissioner to make his representations directly to the Assembly and for the Assembly then to consider whether it wishes to carry those representations forward to a specific Minister. That is a good chain of responsibility and accountability and an improvement on the way in which we were moving initially.
Baroness Young: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord a question on Amendment No. 5, which introduces the,
"Additional power of consideration and representation".
The amendment says,
"any matter affecting the rights or welfare of children in Wales".
I feel that that makes the provision very wide in scope. We are not now talking about children who may be in care or children who come before the courts. As far as I can see, the provision relates to,
"the rights or welfare of children in Wales",
presumably from families who are conducting themselves as families privately do conduct themselves.
Can the Minister give instances of the kind of situation when he thinks the commissioner may consider such representations about the rights and welfare of children in Wales? What does he have in mind? The phrase suggests an extremely wide power, and a power to interfere with private family arrangements. It is difficult to believe that that is the intention and it would be helpful to have clarification.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, first, I should perhaps say how grateful I am for the generous remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. Secondly, I can say to the noble Baroness that there is no power here to interfere with private family relationships. Amendment No. 5 is a response to questions raised on all sides in our various discussions as to what the role of the commissioner is. The subsection to which the noble Baroness referred says that the commissioner may consider and make representations to the Assembly.
I return to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. This commissioner is a creature—I do not say that in any derogatory sense; I say it in a sense of commendation—of the Assembly, bearing in mind that this is the first legislation that has arisen since the devolved Assembly was set up. He can make representations to the Assembly. They may involve matters of how social services deal with children; they may involve matters of how the police deal with children. It is right to give the commissioner a wide remit and that is what we expect the commissioner to do.
Obviously, if representations are made to the commissioner to consider matters which he feels are disproportionate or frivolous, he has a discretion not to take the matter further. When he has looked into matters, he has the ability to make representations to the Assembly. After all, the commissioner is intended to be the champion and protector of the rights of children whose rights and welfare, we all agree following the report of Sir Ronald, were previously unheard and unheeded. Therefore this is a perfectly appropriate subsection. It does not give the commissioner power to interfere with individual family arrangements, whatever they may be.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Clause 2 [Principal aim of the Commissioner]:
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 14, at end insert—
"(2) In exercising his functions, the Commissioner shall have particular regard to the rights and responsibilities of any parents or guardians of children to whom this Part applies.""
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in proposing this amendment I return to the amendment I moved in Committee which had support from all parts of the Chamber. On re-reading the debate I sense a strong feeling among Members that somewhere on the face of the Bill the rights and responsibilities of parents or guardians should be included.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, for our discussion earlier today about these matters and for his letter setting out in some detail the Government's view. As I understand it, both from his letter and from what he said this morning, there is no difference in principle between what the Government would like to see and what my amendment proposes. All that divides us is that I should like to see it on the face of the Bill and the Government feel that it is implicit in the Bill and therefore that my amendment is unnecessary.
I am not at all sure that my amendment is unnecessary. I am bound to say, even at this late stage, how disappointed I am that following our debate on 3rd April, when there was a great opportunity to look at this matter, it has been left to the last gasp and a time when it is not possible to amend the Bill. I therefore place on record my deep disappointment about the turn of events.
It is an important issue of principle that somewhere parents should be mentioned on the face of the Bill. I recognise—the noble and learned Lord said so and it is in the Bill—that the Bill is designed to help children, particularly children who suffered so much, as Sir Ronald Waterhouse said in his report. But children do not exist on their own; they are part of families. Many issues which involve children also involve parents. There is a danger when we have an Assembly which envisages the commissioner as having not only an investigative function, but also an advocacy function. It is particularly worrying if one considers the underlying child's rights agenda which seeks to promote the new doctrine of the autonomous child.
That agenda maintains that families are likely to fail children and that the solution to the problem is to free children from their families and give them adult rights. We hear a lot about freedom of expression, freedom of religion, the right to association and the right to privacy. Those rights are safeguarded largely, if not primarily, by the state. If the state is to fulfil that role, then it must actively monitor parents' treatment of their children and participate in educating and providing for them.
We are already seeing pressure for that type of intervention with, for example, the Children are Unbeatable campaign. There is a great danger of the increasing marginalisation of parents in issues with

1057
which I have come to be very familiar such as sexual health education, provision of contraceptive advice, abortion advice and, most recently, the morning-after pill. In all those issues parents are being marginalised.
These are serious issues and it is a matter of deep regret that we have not had the time to consider them thoroughly and properly. What the role of parents is seen to be will be a matter of great importance when further Bills of this nature come before the House. If we believe, as I do, that the most important thing is to sustain parents and children together in families—this at a time of the break-up of families and a weakening of the whole of the fabric of society from which, generally, children do not benefit—then we need to recognise that there is an important role for parents. There should be something in that regard on the face of the Bill.
I deeply regret the position in which we find ourselves. I shall not press the amendment today. I accept that the Bill should go through. It is what the House wishes, what the Welsh Assembly wishes and what everybody else wishes. But we may well come to regret in the future that something was not said on the face of the Bill about parents. I hope, even at this late stage, that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, will go as far as he can to give the kind of assurances that I and, I believe, many who think hard about these problems, would like to see. I beg to move.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I support the sentiments expressed so well by my noble friend in her amendment which we invite the Government to accept. They have nothing to lose by so doing and much to gain.
Amendment No. 2 is an innocuous amendment in the sense that it simply requires the commissioner to have regard to the rights and responsibilities of parents as he exercises his functions. "Having regard to", in layman's terms, simply means giving consideration to and being mindful of parents' parental rights and responsibilities. The amendment does not give the commissioner any more specific duties than that. He is not required to define, safeguard or promote such rights either in general or in particular. But it is an important amendment in our view because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, acknowledged in Committee, the rights and welfare of children cannot be properly safeguarded and promoted in limbo without reference to their parents or guardians. That was confirmed and amplified by the noble and learned Lord in a letter to my noble friend Lady Young. I certainly hope that the noble and learned Lord will read relevant sections of his letter into his reply to this debate so that it is on the record.
The underlying argument was that as consideration of parents was implicit in the definition of the commissioner's principal aim, there was no need to put my noble friend's amendment on the face of the Bill. That argument can be stood on its head. My noble friend's amendment would make explicit and crystal clear what was expected of the commissioner in that context.
1058
More generally, the noble and learned Lord knows well the inspirational source of my noble friend's amendment. It is a justified concern for the family and its future at a time when that most basic of all human institutions for the care and upbringing of children appears to be losing value and esteem in our society. While it is acknowledged that circumstances sadly arise when children may have to be taken out of their parents' care in their own best interests, that should never occur without the fullest possible consideration being given to the character and reputation of the parents as parents and all the circumstances in which they are bringing up their children. Surely, I am right in believing that a court of law would not act otherwise. It would take the views of the parents and guardians into account.
The Children's Commissioner for Wales, in fulfilling his principal aim of safeguarding and promoting the rights and welfare of children should have regard to no more and no less the rights and responsibilities of the parents. That seems axiomatic to me and the sine qua non in such matters. But it is also precautionary. The state, bodies and persons that stand in loco parentis do not always know best. They are fallible, as we know to our dismay. I know that the noble and learned Lord understands our concerns and I hope that he can be as helpful as possible in the time-constrained circumstances in which we find ourselves. As my noble friend said, we wish this Bill to reach the statute book, imperfect though it may be.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I believe that all sides of the House support the concept of the family and the proposition that children are best brought up within a loving relationship which the family provides. Listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I felt that she sees the commissioner as a person who may champion children's rights against those of the parents. I do not believe that that is the thinking behind the Bill at all; rather it is that from time to time children find themselves vulnerable for one reason or another. That may follow the break-up of the marriage or occur as a consequence of the child having been brought up in a one-parent family and so forth. It may be that such children are taken into care.
The commissioner's purpose is not to remove a child from its parents or to interfere in the relationship between them; it is to stand up for the child in a situation where the family has broken down for one reason or another and the child is in a vulnerable position. It may well be that it is part of the commissioner's function to try to strengthen the relationship between the children and parents. I have read what was said in another place by Mr Edward Leigh. I fear that the view of the Children's Commissioner is distorted and that he is portrayed as being someone who takes an adversarial position to the family and parents. I do not believe that that is the case. It certainly does not emerge from the debates in the National Assembly. I am sure that the commissioner will not see his responsibilities in that way.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for sending me a copy of his letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Having read it, like the noble Baroness. I am still not happy. Perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord a question. If he were to accept the noble Baroness's amendment, would it have any deleterious effect on the Bill as a whole? I cannot see that it would. I am still extremely concerned about this matter because I have long felt that sometimes there is too much readiness on the part of local authorities and social workers to take children into care without perhaps always considering what is in their best interests. For a long time I have thought that it was probably better for children to be brought up even in quite a bad home rather than be taken into care. Nothing that has happened in the past 10 to 15 years has made me change that view.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I support the sentiment of this amendment, but if I had drafted it myself I would have inserted the words "the views and the responsibilities of any parents or guardians" because the word "views" concerns something which is to be estimated whereas the word "rights" imports something quite different. It would be a mistake to put the word "rights" into the Bill.
I do not quite agree with my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. There is a basic difference of view between the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the Government on this matter. I believe it is implicit in what has been said so far that the Government anticipate that the commissioner will always consider the rights and responsibilities and, no doubt, the views of parents in reaching conclusions on various matters.
Amendment No. 5 is in the name of the noble and learned Lord, the Attorney-General. It provides that,
"The Commissioner may consider, and make repraesentations to the Assembly about, any matter affecting the rights or welfare of children in Wales".
As I understand the Government's position, they anticipate and believe that the commissioner, in exercising his right and duty under that paragraph, will pay regard to the strong views that have been expressed by the Government. No doubt the noble and learned Lord can strengthen the statement of views today. I believe that that would meet the fears expressed in debate so far that sufficient emphasis has not been given to family and parents.
Lord Williams of Most n: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with the question raised by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, as to whether, if this amendment were adopted as part of the legislation, there would be a deleterious effect. The answer is plainly yes. The amendment is not pace the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, that the commissioner should have regard to, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said it,
"shall have particular regard to".
In other words that is not consonant with the paramountcy of the interests of children in all modern children legislation, not least the Children Act 1989.
1060
However, I understand that concerns have been expressed and I shall do my best to deal with them. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, to other noble Lords and to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for what they said. As has been indicated, I wrote on 10th April to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, copying the letter to all those in your Lordships' House who had expressed an interest.
The whole purpose of the Bill is to extend the commissioner's role as a champion of children's rights and welfare. We do not want that to be diluted. However, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, I say that the commissioner was never intended to interfere in family life. In respect of the questions and concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I confirm that the commissioner will have no investigative, review or monitoring powers in respect of parents or guardians. That is not part of his work and it is not part of his lawful remit.
Of course, it may be desirable for him to consider and to make representations to the Assembly about aspects of family life that may affect children's rights or welfare. However, in response to requests made by a number of your Lordships to make the matter plain on the record, I stress that the commissioner will need to take a balanced view of all relevant issues that affect children's rights or welfare that include the rights, views—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hooson—and responsibilities of parents or guardians.
In my letter of 10th April I indicated that,
"the welfare of children is inextricably linked to the role of the family and parents".
Often they are mutually supportive, but not always, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, pointed out. It is right and proper that the commissioner, in taking a balanced view, will want to consider the weight to be given to the rights, the views and the responsibilities of parents. I am quite confident—I make this statement deliberately—that the commissioner will want to bear in mind the concerns expressed by the noble Lady and other noble Lords who have spoken and indeed I would encourage him to do so.
In many situations the rights of parents and families and the rights and welfare of children coincide. However, we know that in some circumstances they do not and, sadly, that is why we are discussing this matter. We must not pretend that such differences will never occur. In those cases where there are differences, the Children's Commissioner, given the deliberate purpose of his new office, must consider children's rights and welfare as paramount.
I point out that the Children in Wales Commissioner Campaign Group, including Children in Wales, has fought hard to secure this Bill and fully supports the Government's position. I hope that I have dealt faithfully with the questions that have been asked, and I hope that I have fulfilled the undertaking that I gave this morning to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lords, Lord Roberts of Conwy and Lord Hooson.
5 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for the way in which they have spoken about this matter. I believe that they reflect what has been a general concern in the House. Looking again at what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said in Committee, I believe that he thought there was a need to include a reference to parents.
I regret that the Government were not willing to redraft the amendment in an acceptable form. I have already indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, that I would certainly choose his form of words—to include the word "views"—if that were acceptable. But I regret that that is now water under the bridge. I put this matter on the record because it is an important issue about which I feel strongly.
I am grateful to the Attorney-General for what he has said. Tomorrow I shall read Hansard carefully. I am particularly grateful to him for firmly setting out that the commissioner's powers of investigation do not extend to families. That is an important statement. As we have seen the difficulties that can arise with over-zealous social workers and others, it is important that families should have that kind of reassurance. I am also grateful to him for setting out—in a slightly different but I believe a strengthened form of words in his letter—the work of the commissioner.
I regard those two matters as important because the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said that we are taking for granted the fact that the commissioner will always act in a reasonable manner. The law has to consider what would happen if he were not to do that, which is why one writes in various checks and balances. Of course, I do not anticipate that and I would be upset if that happened, but nevertheless life is full of such difficulties. Following the case of Pepper v. Hart, I know that when people resort to the law, lawyers have to take into account the intention of Parliament when the Bill was passed. Therefore, it is valuable indeed to have the words of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General on the record in this way.
As I said, it is not my intention to divide the House on this matter, but it will be valuable to have this debate on the record. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Review of exercise of functions of Assembly and other persons]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 3 and 4:
Page 2, line 21 leave out "by the Assembly of any function" and insert "of any function of the Assembly"
Page 2. line 24, leave out from second "exercise" to end of line 25 and insert "in relation to Wales of any function of any person mentioned in Schedule 2A"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
"ADDITIONAL POWER OF CONSIDERATION AND REPRESENTATION
(1) After section 75 of the Care Standards Act 2000 (c. 14) insert—
"75A ADDITIONAL POWER OF CONSIDERATION AND REPRESENTATION
(1) The Commissioner may consider, and make representations to the Assembly about, any matter affecting the rights or welfare of children in Wales.
(2) The function of the Commissioner under subsection (1) is exercisable only where he does not have power to consider and make representations about the matter in question by virtue of any other provision of this Act or any other enactment.".
(2) In section 74 of that Act—

(a) in subsection (1), after "may" insert ", in connection with the Commissioner's functions under this Part,"; and

(b) after that subsection insert—

"(1A) The reference in subsection (1) to functions of the Commissioner does not include a reference to his power to consider and make representations by virtue of section 75A(1)."."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
"EXAMINATION OF CASES
In section 74(3) of the Care Standards Act 2000 (c. 14) (examination of cases), after paragraph (b) insert ", or
(c) requiring persons to allow the Commissioner access to institutions which include children to whom this Part applies.""
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is similar to the new clause that I proposed in Committee, but I hope that it is more appropriately placed. Section 74 of the Care Standards Act provides for regulations to be made in relation to the commissioner's function of examining particular cases, the types of case that may be examined, the circumstances, the procedure and the publication of reports. Those are the matters covered by the regulations.
The clause goes on to state that regulations may make provision requiring persons to provide information, explanations or other assistance to the commissioner. I am not sure what is meant by "other assistance" in that context. It may include access to institutions for the purposes of an examination or to determine whether a consequential recommendation has been complied with as stated in the clause. I would have thought that it included access in those limited circumstances. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will give us the Government's view on the matter. However, the amendment that I propose would make it explicit that he has a right of access in such limited circumstances.
For the avoidance of doubt I suggest that the Government accept the amendment which would limit the commissioner's power of access to the specific purposes of Clause 74. It avoids the Government's main criticism in Committee that it is not the commissioner's function to carry out spot checks on the inspectorate. I understand and accept that view.

1063
The amendment simply enables him to ensure that when he examines a case he has all the right facts and when he has reported on it and made recommendations that such recommendations are complied with to his satisfaction. Surely, he will need that power; or the Assembly will need a power to regulate to give him that power. We are providing merely for regulations to be made to that effect, if they are deemed necessary.
It may be said that the Assembly has not asked for the power. Perhaps it has not considered it in as much detail as we have. I believe that perhaps occasionally we should treat the Assembly as Shakespeare treated his audiences at the Globe and elsewhere; he did not give them what they wanted, he gave them what they had not dreamed of. Perhaps on this occasion the Government will agree that we should give the Assembly what it has not dreamed of. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I support what was said by my noble friend Lord Roberts. I believe that this is another amendment which would add to the Bill without affecting its main principles. One thing I have learnt in public life is that there is never a substitute for a personal visit anywhere to anything. Long ago when I was chairman of a children's committee—it has long since departed and is now part of social services—it was a regular routine between meetings to visit all the children's homes for which I was responsible. It was possible to do that and one did so every month. One understood a little about what was happening.
In respect of difficult cases, the commissioner might not want to visit again or to look himself or herself, but not to have the right to do so when one wants to is a disadvantage because one is trying to ascertain the facts and the best remedy. The amendment is completely constructive and I hope that it will be acceptable to the Government.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, at an earlier stage of the Bill we on these Benches called for a wider power of access to institutions. I see that the amendment limits that right of access to the examination of a particular case. I see great force in that and I support it.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, asked me about my view of Section 74(3). It is that as it is in the context of the provision of information, explanations or other assistance, that would not include the legal right of the commissioner to demand access.
I understand the difference of view and perhaps I can briefly set out the Government's view. First, if the commissioner has reason to suspect child abuse, he should inform one of the statutory child protection agencies which have lawful powers of entrance—foremost, the police. Secondly, we need to bear in mind what happened post the Waterhouse report. We also need to bear in mind the Assembly's desired plan for the commissioner.
1064
Normally, a right of access is given in the context of law enforcement or inspection roles. The commissioner's role is not one of inspection. I agree with the noble Baroness that personal, preferably unannounced, visits are an extremely valuable corrective but that is now the duty of the care standards inspectorate for Wales, which is a different body. When one has a commissioner newly set up, and the care standards inspectorate soon to be in place, one does not want to have a blurring of functions. Certainly the report of the National Assembly for Wales did not envisage the access as one of the commissioner's roles; nor is there anything in the Waterhouse report which suggests that.
What the Assembly was looking to and what we have provided, and what the Waterhouse recommendations went to and what we have provided, was to put the commissioner's main, primary role as one of strategic overview and monitoring. One ought not to underrate the importance of the establishment of the care standards inspectorate. That will undertake regular checks, for example, of children's homes and will be expected to react quickly to allegations of wrong-doing; for instance, by making urgent, short-notice or unannounced visits.
If there is an inspection of a children's home, the commissioner may decide to examine a particular case concerning a matter of principle. There is nothing to stop the commissioner requesting a visit should be so wish and it is difficult to see that if the request were made it would be refused. Of course, he could comment on that refusal in any annual report or ad hoc report that he wished, at his own discretion, to make to the Assembly.
I believe that there is a slight difference of emphasis; I am not sure it is fundamental but there is a difference of approach. The real gap which was identified in the past and spoken of by Sir Ronald Waterhouse in his report is now met by the care standards inspectorate. Furthermore, inspections do not always meet the case. Many of the institutions described in such gloomy detail by Sir Ronald were to my personal knowledge frequently inspected by those who did not know what to look for.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his comments. I am grateful in particular to my noble friend Lady Young and to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for their support.
It seems curious that regulations may make provisions for requiring persons to provide the commissioner with information or requiring persons who hold, or are accountable for, information to provide the commissioner with explanations or other assistance, but that there is no provision for regulations which would enable the commissioner to check things out on the ground for himself.
I listened carefully to what the noble and learned Lord said about rights of access and one must balance that as a fact of life against the power of the commissioner to request visits should be feel them to

1065
be advisable or necessary. I am not altogether satisfied with the present position, but I do not intend to seek the opinion of the House on this matter.
I want to express my regret. Without wanting to go into previous arguments which we expressed in a more general context in Committee, in my opinion the commissioner and the Assembly will before long come to us complaining of the absence of this power. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Further functions of the Commissioner]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 5, line 36, at end insert—
"(b) after that subsection insert—
"(1A) The proceedings which may be prescribed by virtue of subsection (1)(b) are proceedings relating to—

(a) the exercise or proposed exercise of a function as mentioned in section 72B(1);

(b) the provision of services as mentioned in section 78(1)(b) or (c)."; and.

after subsection (5) insert—
"(5A) The references in subsections (4) and (5) to functions of the Commissioner do not include a reference to his power to consider and make representations by virtue of section 75A(1)."."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Schedule [Persons and arrangements subject to review]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 7, line 7, leave out "or county borough" and insert ", county borough council or community".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 46 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of this day), Bill read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Bill
5.19 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Geddes) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Removal of disqualification of clergy]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, leave out "a Lord Spiritual" and insert "the Bishop of a see in the Church of England."
The noble Lord said: I made clear at Second Reading of the Bill, as did my noble friend Lord Pilkington, that I disliked the Bill. My noble friend regrets that he cannot be with us as he is indisposed. The Bill makes a dent, admittedly a small one, in the establishment of the Church of England, to which I am attached. However, Church of England clergy have long had open to them a bypass route round the disqualification. The Bill also allows a Roman Catholic priest to stand for Parliament against the canon law of his Church. I am sorry that the Bill is proceeding.
This particular amendment and those grouped with it propose an extremely minor alteration which would not have much practical effect. At the same time, I should make clear that it is not my intention to pursue our objections to the Bill this afternoon. I beg to move.
Lord Norton of Louth: I fear that I cannot support my noble friend's amendment on this occasion. My attitude to the Bill is determined by my belief that electors should be allowed to choose whomsoever they want to serve them in Parliament. We may not like their choices, but that is a matter for them. Given my belief in freedom of choice, this Bill does not go far enough. This is a reaction to a specific problem rather than a Bill that has been introduced on the basis of considered reflection of obstacles to electors in choosing whomsoever they wish. Other obstacles could have been removed. This should have been a wider-ranging Bill; it does not go far enough.
Conversely, my noble friend's amendments, which impose restrictions, go too far. There is a case for certain people not standing by reason of the positions they hold, but the categories should be as limited in number as possible. We should start from the position that any individual should be permitted to be a candidate and serve as a Member of Parliament and that a compelling, not plausible, case must be made to forbid a particular category of person from being eligible to sit in the other place. The case for these amendments is not a compelling one. If bishops are to be prevented from standing and being elected to Parliament that should be a matter for the Church itself, not statutory provision. I am in favour of getting rid of statutory obstacles, not retaining them.
Furthermore, I see two particular problems in respect of the amendments before us. First, bishops serve in this House in a personal, not representative, capacity; they speak for themselves, not the Church of England. That may explain their interesting voting behaviour at certain times. Secondly, if a bishop is elected to another place he will be elected to speak for the electors in a constituency, not the Church of England. As my noble friend touched upon, I believe that the point is an academic one—not that there is anything particularly wrong with academic points—but the principle of freedom of choice is important and should on this occasion be overriding.
Lord Goodhart: I rise to support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. He has put the matter extremely accurately and with his

1067
characteristic clarity. I entirely agree with him that statutory restrictions on the right to stand for election to Parliament should be limited as far as possible. I understand and accept the fact that those who are already Members of your Lordships' House, because they are Members of Parliament, should not be entitled also to elect other Members of Parliament. Nevertheless, that does not apply to bishops who are not yet Members of your Lordships' House. Although it is unlikely in the extreme that any diocesan bishop would think it appropriate to stand for election to the other place, I believe that that matter should be dealt with by the Church, not statute.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: These amendments would prevent all bishops from sitting in another place. The Bill proposes to bar only those bishops who sit in your Lordships' House as Lords Spiritual. There are 42 Church of England diocesan bishops, of whom 40 could qualify to sit in this House as Lords Spiritual. At any one time only 26 are summoned to be Lords Spiritual. It is those bishops who will be disqualified from membership of the other place as they already have a voice in your Lordships' House. That is broadly in line with the recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee but goes slightly wider.
Although the Government consider it extremely unlikely that bishops, whether or not Lords Spiritual, would wish to become MPs while performing their duties as bishops, it seems right in principle to relate the disqualification to those who actually have a voice in this House. We consider it right to remove all statutory restrictions, thereby enabling anyone who so wishes to become an MP if elected, save for those bishops who are Lords Spiritual. I repeat that they already have a voice in this House. The other bishops, whether diocesan or suffragan, do not. The Church of England has been consulted specifically on this point and is entirely content with the way in which the Bill is drafted.
I believe that if a bishop is not a Lord Spiritual but is a member of the Labour Party, Liberal Democrat Party or Conservative Party he should have the right to sit in another place, and the electorate should have the right to exercise its choice in electing that individual as a local Member of Parliament.
As ever, the noble Lord, Lord Norton, has given the Committee one of his mini tours de force. I always enjoy the noble Lord's constitutional lectures in this Chamber. He makes a case for widening the choice that the electorate can freely exercise. I believe that the noble Lord makes a perfectly respectable case and has chosen an appropriate moment at which to do so. As the noble Lord acknowledges, that is beyond the scope of this Bill. But these matters should be at the forefront of our minds. No doubt during an election campaign it is right and proper to consider how one may properly extend the rights of people who for one reason or
1068
another are excluded from standing for Parliament. I pay tribute to the noble Lord for introducing that point at this stage in the proceedings.
We must resist these amendments. We believe that this discrimination is unfair and unfounded and that the further limitation which the noble Lord, Lord Cope, seeks to introduce is entirely unnecessary.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I agree with my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth that this matter should have been introduced and debated on the basis of a wider principle than simply one hard case, as it were. As I believe was pointed out at Second Reading by the right reverend Prelate who took part, in this matter the law has developed as a result of hard cases. Being lightly educated myself, I always hesitate to use the word "academic" in relation to a particular argument, in the sense that something is of small interest and not really relevant. That always seems to me to be deeply insulting, particularly to distinguished academics such as my noble friend. I would not have chosen that word, but my noble friend is at greater liberty to use it than I am.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, nearly lost me when he suggested that bishops might stand for one of the parties represented here. That would be even more improper than a bishop standing at all. I should like to think that if he stood at all he would stand as an independent. However, I do not propose to pursue this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Consequential amendments]:
[Amendments Nos. 5 to 8 not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
In the Title:
[Amendments Nos. 9 to 11 not moved.]
Title agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 46 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of this day), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Private Security Industry Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with a privilege amendment; the amendment considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before six o'clock.

  Local Authorities: Broadband Data Transmission
  Local Authorities: Broadband Data Transmission
  Prime Minister's Adviser on Crime
  Prime Minister's Adviser on Crime
  Police Stations: Broadband Data Transmission Services
  Police Stations: Broadband Data Transmission Services
  Asylum Decisions
  Asylum Decisions
  Crime Strategy: Lord Birt's Role
  Crime Strategy: Lord Birt's Role
  Immigration Controls
  Immigration Controls
  Asylum Applicants: Language of Explanatory Notes
  Asylum Applicants: Language of Explanatory Notes
  Immigration Controls: Discrimination on Grounds of Ethnicity
  Immigration Controls: Discrimination on Grounds of Ethnicity
  Standford Hill Prison: Board of Visitors
  Standford Hill Prison: Board of Visitors
  Police Complaints Authority
  Police Complaints Authority
  Police Complaints System: Review
  Police Complaints System: Review
  Child Protection on the Internet
  Child Protection on the Internet
  Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit
  Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit
  Export of Cultural Goods: Apulian Vases
  Export of Cultural Goods: Apulian Vases
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Reopening of Royal Deer Parks
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Reopening of Royal Deer Parks
  Landfill Tax
  Landfill Tax
  Gross Domestic Product Estimates
  Gross Domestic Product Estimates
  Seven-figure Salary Earners : National Insurance
  Seven-figure Salary Earners : National Insurance
  Financial Services Authority
  Financial Services Authority
  Royal Parks Agency
  Royal Parks Agency
  Access Scheme: English Tourism Council Consultation
  Access Scheme: English Tourism Council Consultation
  IR35 Judgment
  IR35 Judgment
  Questions for Written Answer
  Questions for Written Answer
  Millennium Dome: Caretaking
  Millennium Dome: Caretaking
  Shipbuilding: Unfair Competition by South Korea
  Shipbuilding: Unfair Competition by South Korea
  IT Skills: Mail on Sunday Research Poll
  IT Skills: Mail on Sunday Research Poll
  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Extensively reared stock
  Extensively reared stock
  IACS Claimants: Appeals Mechanism
  IACS Claimants: Appeals Mechanism
  Inputs Task Force: Report
  Inputs Task Force: Report
  Hills Task Force: Report
  Hills Task Force: Report
  UK Withdrawal from EU: Tariff-free Access to Single Market
  UK Withdrawal from EU: Tariff-free Access to Single Market
  European Rapid Reaction Force
  European Rapid Reaction Force
  US Missile Defence Proposals
  US Missile Defence Proposals
  Danube Commission
  Danube Commission
  Gaza General Hospital
  Gaza General Hospital
  Turkey: European Court of Human Rights Judgments
  Turkey: European Court of Human Rights Judgments
  European "Reunification"
  European "Reunification"
  Great Manchester Brain Injury Rehabilitation Centre
  Great Manchester Brain Injury Rehabilitation Centre
  Forced and Bonded Labour
  Forced and Bonded Labour
  Benefit Sanctions
  Benefit Sanctions
  National Health Service Numbers
  National Health Service Numbers
  Prosthetic and Orthotics Services
  Prosthetic and Orthotics Services
  Medicines Control Agency: High Level Targets
  Medicines Control Agency: High Level Targets
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority