Sitting of 12 November 2001

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

    Child Support
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: If he will reinstate the first eight weeks of maintenance payments by absent parents under the child support regulations; and if he will make a statement. [11679]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): The deferral of maintenance liability reflects the complexity of the current scheme and the need to encourage non-resident parents to respond quickly. We are introducing new simpler child support arrangements from April next year, which will apply initially to new cases. In the new scheme, maintenance will be calculated quickly and payments should start flowing within six weeks. Maintenance liability will normally begin from the date that the Child Support Agency contacts the non-resident parent.
    Mr. O'Brien: There is a family in my constituency in which there are twin daughters aged 11, a girl of 15 and the parent with care. They were deserted by the father earlier this year. For the first two months, no maintenance was received. As maintenance is paid in arrears, that period can extend to three months. The consequences are that no mortgage or energy bills are paid. There is difficulty in meeting food and clothing bills. It was decided to send the elder girl to a private school when the family was a unit. As a result, there are fee arrears. In addition, the parent with care has to meet £90 a month in legal fees for a divorce that she never intended.
    A system that drives children into poverty is a bad system, and the system that props up that system is also a bad system. What advice can my hon. Friend give me to ensure that the people to whom I have referred do not lose their home, and that they will be able to enjoy the quality of life that they had before the CSA became involved?
    Malcolm Wicks: I would be happy, with my colleagues, to examine the circumstances surrounding what is clearly a sad case. We all have experiences of the inadequacies of the current system. That is why the Government consulted widely and legislated. We will be
    552
    implementing new child support measures from April next year. They are designed to put children first, and to ensure that children benefit from the maintenance that is received. I have described the new arrangement for maintenance liability, which will start from the day that the non-resident parent is contacted. I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend. I assure him that the reforms will make a substantial difference.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: If the Minister is to re-examine the regulations, surely he should look again at the very existence of the agency. Surely he will accept that maintenance orders should reflect the individual facts of each case and should not be determined in accordance with a formula. If that is right, does he accept that an agency cannot exercise such discretion? That discretion should be entrusted again to a court or to a quasi-judicial body.
    Malcolm Wicks: We should not make the mistake made by many English people of being optimistic about the past. The court system did not work. I remember the facts and figures. That is why the House, led by the then Conservative Government, introduced the agency. We are all agreed that in circumstances of family breakdown in modern societies such as ours, we must ensure that there is parental responsibility. If we have a child, we must help to maintain that child. The agency did not work under the Conservatives, and that is why we are undertaking fair and efficient reforms to put children first. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and I would agree with that.

    Jobcentre Plus
    Liz Blackman: What plans he has to improve co-ordination between the benefits system and the support given to help people find work. [11680]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Alistair Darling): The Employment Service and those parts of the Benefits Agency that deal with people of working age are being brought together to form a single gateway to the benefits system known as Jobcentre Plus.
    Despite industrial action on the part of a minority of our staff, the first 49 Jobcentre Plus offices opened on 22 October, providing for the first time a fully integrated employment and benefit service. We plan to extend this integration nation wide beginning from next year.
    Liz Blackman: I took the opportunity to visit Jobcentre Plus in Derby during the recess. I was impressed by the refurbishment and the atmosphere. However, there are some clients who on occasions will he difficult and challenging toward the staff at a Jobcentre Plus office, as elsewhere. What assurances can my right hon. Friend give that their security and safety remain the highest priorities?
    Mr. Darling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking the trouble to see a Jobcentre Plus office. I think that everyone who has been to one of the offices has found that they are qualitatively better than the classic DSS office with which so many people were depressingly familiar.

    553
    I agree with my hon. Friend that staff safety is of paramount importance, as is public safety. That is why the new Jobcentre Plus offices will operate in a predominantly unscreened environment. There will be screen facilities available for people we know are difficult, or where there are benefit problems—for example, crisis loans.
    In addition, each office has undergone a safety assessment. That has led to the installation of closed circuit television and, for the first time, security staff on the floor of offices, who are ready to intervene if someone is difficult or is not behaving in the appropriate manner. I urge all Members to visit one of the new offices. They are better, and I believe that in the long run they will show real results both for the efficiency of the system and, critically, in getting people into work.
    Mr. Steve Webb: Last week, with the Department's assistance, I too visited a Jobcentre Plus office; I am grateful to the Department for making that possible. I met committed staff who want to help people get back to work. It was clear that they lacked back-up in their information technology systems. For example, when clients phone in, the information is typed into a computer, then printed out and typed into a different computer because one system does not talk to the other. The Benefits Agency system does not talk to the Employment Service system. When I asked the staff about that, they did not have a clear idea of when the two systems would talk to one another. Will the Secretary of State tell us when that will happen?
    Mr. Darling: Yes, I will. Following the spending review settlement last year, for the first time the Department has the resources to begin to replace its entire IT system. Our difficulty is that some DSS IT systems are nearly 20 years old and are woefully out of date, leading to the problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We are therefore in the process of making changes. Indeed, the IT equipment on staff desks will he changed over the next year or so, which will overcome a lot of those problems. However, the back-end changes necessary for the Department's main computer system will take longer simply because it is one of the biggest in the western world; it will take a long time and a lot of investment to change it. However, we are committed to doing so because otherwise it will continue to be riddled with the problems with which every hon. Member is all too familiar.
    Mr. Tony McWalter: I commend the Jobcentre Plus initiative, but does my right hon. Friend accept that the co-ordination of the benefits system and the work system requires radical changes in housing benefit? That is particularly important for areas like Hemel Hempstead, where housing costs are so high that there is still a strong disincentive to go out to work.
    Mr. Darling: I agree; it is not just the organisational change that will be achieved by Jobcentre Plus that is necessary, but changes to the tax and benefits system. That is why, over the past four years, we have reformed the tax and benefits system to make work possible and to make it pay. The working families tax credit is an example of the changes that we have made.
    554
    I agree with my hon. Friend about housing benefit. We have made a number of changes, including the benefit run-ons and so on, which will make the transition to work far easier. We also need to improve the administration of housing benefit which, in too many local authority areas, is frankly lamentable. Often the hassle of trying to get housing benefit leads to work disincentives. As my hon. Friend will know, we are committed to longer-term change in housing benefit, which will involve restructuring it, but that will take some time because housing benefit is quite expensive. However, I agree entirely with the general point that my hon. Friend seeks to make.
    Michael Fabricant: The Secretary of State rightly identified the problem of attacks on staff. He will be aware that such attacks have doubled in the past few years and that there were 5,100 last year. He mentioned the introduction of closed circuit television cameras; he will also be aware of trade unions' concern. What practical steps can he take in addition to introducing screens so that that growing trend diminishes?
    Mr. Darling: Since the hon. Gentleman raised that, perhaps I should make the position clear concerning the number of assaults. The figure of 5,000 that he quoted includes verbal assaults, in which someone perhaps uses words that we would not use in the House; that can sometimes happen—[Laughter.] More seriously, last year there were just over 160 physical assaults. Of course, that is 160 too many; however, when quoting the figure of 5,000 care has to be taken to disaggregate verbal assaults and physical assaults.
    Another point is that some of our staff—those doing home visits, for example—are used to dealing with clients away from the general security of the office. That said, as I told the House a few moments ago, I take the security of staff seriously. Frankly, in the past, we did not do enough; we allowed the public areas in some benefits offices to be turned over to people who fought with one another, dealt in drugs and did all sorts of things that created an atmosphere and environment in which trouble was likely.
    I am committed to carrying out a safety assessment in every Jobcentre Plus office, which may involve CCTV and having security staff ready to intervene. However, the whole reform will result in a better and safer environment. Finally, the test of all that is that nearly every single Jobcentre Plus office is open, despite the strike. Nearly every member of our staff who will be working with the public in those predominantly unscreened environments is at work. To a large extent, the people on strike, on the picket line, will not be seeing members of the public.
    Mr. James Clappison: We condemn the industrial action currently being taken over Jobcentre Plus. Will the Secretary of State continue to bear in mind what is being asked of staff, who will now have to deal with benefits and provide employment advice, and sometimes, as the hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) says, deal with challenging people and be exposed to verbal assaults? Will he also bear it in mind that those on the receiving end of verbal assaults are predominantly female workers? Is the right hon.

    555
    Gentleman aware of the views of Mr. Nick Burkitt of the Institute of Public Policy Research, who says that advisers might find themselves having to
    "find a job for someone who hasn't worked in 10 years; understand a benefits system with a rule book the size of a phone directory; be sensitive to the needs of local businesses and be able to defend themselves against a client with a skinful of Special Brew"?
    Does the Secretary of State agree that safety must be paramount? He said that, but will he see that every reasonable precaution is taken, that the number of staff available to help with incidents involving advisers is sufficient, and that advisers are not exposed to the risk of physical or verbal assault?
    Mr. Darling: As I said a few moments ago, great importance must be attached to maintaining the safety of our staff and the public. That is one of the reasons why we are engaging security staff, who have instructions to intervene in the event of any difficulty. It has been known for members of the public to be attacked. The hon. Gentleman's second point relates to training. Yes, we are making sure that our staff have sufficient training. If he goes to one of the Jobcentre Plus offices—he may be one of the hon. Members who have been to such an office—he will know that one of the things that the staff like doing is being able to advise on benefits and on how to get into jobs at the same time.
    Finally, it is the Government's policy, with which I take it the Opposition agree, to give help to people who up till now got no help in getting into work, and to get them into work. That means that there must be a single gateway to the benefits system. The old distinction between people who signed on as unemployed, and those who signed on for benefit and got no help or assistance, must stop. That is the rationale underpinning Jobcentre Plus, which is why we will make sure that all our offices are converted to Jobcentre Plus over the next few years.

    Welfare to Work (Mothers)
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: What plans his Department has to assist the transition from welfare to work for mothers with young children. [11683]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): The key is to make work possible for mothers. The new deals have had a major impact. It is also essential to make work pay, hence the importance of the national minimum wage and the working families tax credit. Also, from 5 November, we have extended the new deal for lone parents to all lone parents who are not working or those who are working fewer than 16 hours per week. That further increases the wide range of help for mothers with young children, making possible the move from welfare to work.
    Mr. Cunningham: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but will he bear in mind the fact that lone parents often feel isolated and sometimes find it difficult to get child care?
    Malcolm Wicks: There has been a great extension of child care places under this Government. Also, the role of the personal adviser is important—the face-to-face discussion that goes on to reassure lone mothers in particular, who may not have been in the workplace for
    556
    many years, that getting back into work is possible. I have seen good examples of that in our Jobcentre Plus offices, which is why we must maintain and develop that policy in the coming years.
    Alistair Burt: If assisting people from welfare to work should assist in the alleviation of poverty, why is the gap between rich and poor still widening under the Government? Does the hon. Gentleman think that it still matters?
    Malcolm Wicks: The hon. Gentleman and I used to debate many of these matters, although in those days, his position was often not the egalitarian one that it now seems to be. The fact of the matter is that we are being successful in combating child poverty. We are the first Government to say that we will eradicate it. When he was a social security Minister, the number of lone parents on income support in the dependency state was at record levels. However, since 1997, 100,000 lone parents have come off income support and into work. That is the difference between what we are doing and what he and his colleagues did.
    Mr. Michael Clapham: May I welcome my hon. Friend's statement? It is good to see people over the age of 50 being brought back into employment, especially when they have had hard disablement assessments. However, many of the permanent jobs that are being created are on the periphery of the new economy, where there is a great deal of flexible working and work intensity—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is speaking to Question 6, at which we have not yet arrived. We will do so now.

    New Deal (Over-50s)
    Mr. Chris Pond: What actions he is taking to assist unemployed people over the age of 50 years. [11684]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Alistair Darling): We are committed to the principle of extending opportunity to everyone, regardless of age, and to tackling age discrimination in the workplace. A key element of that process is the new deal 50-plus, which has already helped more than 50,000 people move into work since its launch last year.
    Mr. Pond: Given that age discrimination is not only an injustice, but a waste of talent and experience, what plans does my right hon. Friend have for enforcing the code of conduct on age diversity in employment? I am sure that those measures will be effective, but if they are not, will he consider introducing legislation to protect against age discrimination in employment?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend will know that the Government are committed to introducing legislation to strike against discrimination in terms of the European directive that was agreed earlier this year. There is a code of practice whose evaluation will be ready fairly shortly. My view is that, although a code of practice is all very

    557
    well, I am not sure that it will achieve what we all want. In particular, we need to ensure that we can raise general awareness of age discrimination.
    I am concerned that people in too many organisations do not think about the consequences of discrimination or about the fact that they are wasting an asset, very often in their own company, by not keeping or encouraging people who are over 50. It is very important that we tackle the problem. It cannot be right that a third of the whole population over 50 are economically inactive and out of work. Too many of them depend on benefits for most of their income, so it is a priority for the Government to do something about it.
    Annabelle Ewing: I have listened with interest to what the Secretary of State has said about the position of over-50s in the workplace. Given that unemployment in Scotland increased by more than 27,000 in the last quarter—more than half the entire increase for the United Kingdom—does he agree that it would now be appropriate to establish official targets to cut unemployment, just as such targets are set for inflation?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Lady may know, although she might not want to admit it, that this Government set themselves the objective of reducing the very high unemployment that we inherited and have made substantial progress in doing that throughout the whole country, including Scotland. It is wrong of her to paint a picture suggesting that life in Scotland is somehow completely different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom. She will know that, in my constituency and hers, unemployment has fallen dramatically since 1997. She is right to highlight the fact that there are pockets in different parts of the country where unemployment is far higher than it should be. The Government will make proposals in the not-too-distant future specifically to address that problem.
    Miss Anne Begg: One of the problems that we have found in Aberdeen is that there is a skills shortage, while at the same time, many companies, especially in the oil industry, force people into retirement once they reach 50. That mismatch of needing to fill the jobs, but at the same time encouraging people to retire early, seems out of kilter. Will my right hon. Friend encourage employers to keep employees once they reach 50? Ending the waste of enormous talent would help them to bridge the skills gap that we are experiencing in the north-east.
    Mr. Darling: I agree with my hon. Friend. Many employers lay off people—in my view, shortsightedly—simply because they are over 50. At the same time, they claim that they cannot get skilled employees. Many people over 50 are motivated and skilled, and could easily be brought back into the work force. One of the specific tasks of Jobcentre Plus, which, as my hon. Friend knows, has an office in Aberdeen, is to do more to match job vacancies with the people available. In the past, we did not do enough to match individuals with the vacancies, and back that up with the required skills and training. Sometimes people could have returned to work if they were given the right skills and training. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the problem that many employers lay off people over 50 who have a lot more to give.
    558
    [Interruption.] In reply to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), as I approach 50, such matters are much on my mind.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: I know that you will find it hard to believe, Mr. Speaker, but I must declare an interest because I am over 50 and liable to be laid off any minute.
    I wholly endorse the Secretary of State's comments, but may I urge him to rely little on codes of practice because they have a limited effect? The problem is so serious and so bad for the morale of those whom it affects that he and his Ministers should take every opportunity—I am sure that they do—to emphasise that such discrimination is unacceptable and deeply injurious to the financial health of this country.
    Mr. Darling: I have no doubt that, after the last election, the hon. Gentleman was glad that he did not need the new deal for over-50s; he is all right for a year or two yet. I agree with the serious point that he made. I am sure that I am not the only Member of Parliament who finds that an increasing number of over-50s with skills and training attend surgeries. In areas such as my constituency, where unemployment is just over 1 per cent. and there is an acute skills shortage, I come across people who cannot find work. One cannot help but believe that there is an element of discrimination against over-50s by employers. In places where I have worked, I have heard people saying, perhaps unconsciously, "Of course, he's over 50. Let's give the younger person a chance."
    I take the matter seriously, and I believe that the Government have to do more, but employers should also begin to rethink their attitudes. They cannot claim that they want to get rid of skilled, motivated over-50s and also say that they cannot get people to work for them. In today's climate, there is no better time to start thinking about the over-50s. The hon. Gentleman has reached 50 already; others have still to get there, but we should all approach the problem as if we were personally affected.
    Mr. Frank Field: Does the Secretary of State accept that although the unemployment rate has fallen in almost all constituencies, that has not been matched by an increase in the employment rate? The answer that he gave a moment ago, that the Government will pay equal attention to putting people in touch with the labour market and to increasing the numbers of jobs, is therefore good news for our constituents. When will the Government be able to introduce ideas to effect that?
    Mr. Darling: My right hon. Friend knows that unemployment has fallen dramatically in most constituencies. As I said earlier, unemployment remains stubbornly high in some parts of the country and people have been out of work for a considerable time. The over-50s are especially badly hit there. We need to do more. I have already mentioned the new deal for the over-50s, and Jobcentre Plus will do far more to match individuals with jobs and back that with skills and training. However, further measures are necessary to get as many people as possible into work. I assure my right hon. Friend that the Government will introduce such measures.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: I join the consensus, and declare that I, too, have reached the magic age of true

    559
    maturity. Does not the Secretary of State accept that, even by comparison with other new deal initiatives, there is a danger that the costs of the new deal for over-50s will be high and that the personal adviser's skills may not always be able to cover the individual's precise needs?
    The most common deficiency among this age group is probably a lack of information technology skills, because the subject had not been invented when we were at school. Will the Secretary of State have a word with his colleague, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, about the scrapping of individual learning accounts, which is likely to be a kick in the teeth for such people's chances of re-employment?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the new deal for the over-50s. This new deal is voluntary, which sets it apart from some of the other new deals. That might explain why not as many people as I would like have taken advantage of it; we need to keep that matter under review. There were particular problems with individual learning accounts, to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has referred.

    Pension Service
    Mr. David Stewart: If he will make a statement on the operation of the new pension service. [11685]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): The pension service will provide a dedicated, modern and customer-focused service designed to meet the individual needs of pensioners. The new service will be phased in from April 2002.
    Mr. Stewart: Does my hon. Friend recognise that many pensioners across the country, from Thurso to Truro, want a local service with local staff who have local knowledge? Will she consider introducing interviews to give face-to-face advice to pensioners in the near future?
    Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend is certainly correct to say that some people, pensioners included, prefer to see advisers face to face. That is why we shall have a local service to enable home visits and face-to-face interviews to take place, when requested. That does not take away from the fact that many services that need to be provided nationally can be provided by telephone and run administratively through the pension centres that we are establishing. Pensioners are increasingly contacting us by phone; more than half of all retirement pension claims are now made in that way. It is sensible to centralise the administration of that process to ensure that it can be provided efficiently and give a good service throughout the country.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Does the hon. Lady agree that the individual counselling to be made available from April 2002 will be no substitute for effective public policy on pensions today? Have not the Government betrayed pensioners through the Chancellor's additional tax burdens on pension funds, and through their failure to relinquish the annuity requirement? Above all,
    560
    is not the fact that the number of private occupational pensioners has fallen since they came to power evidence that their policies are failing?
    Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman has a cheek to talk about the Labour party betraying pensioners. His party betrayed them over 18 years. We are putting right the mess. He will see that, with our new pension credit policy, we shall close the income gap even more, so that every pensioner gets a decent income in retirement. When his party was in power, pensioners who were carers or disabled did not get any pension at all. We are putting that right, and trying to close the income and wealth gap between pensioners. We are putting right the mess that his Government made.
    Mr. Paul Burstow: The Secretary of State told the House that the computer systems in his Department are ancient and do not talk to each other. Will the Government provide a new computer system to operate the pensioner credit system, and will it be able to talk to the other systems?
    Maria Eagle rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Once again, that is a matter for the next question. The hon. Gentleman should bide his time.

    Pension Credit
    Colin Burgon: If he will ensure that the upper limits indicators for pension credit will be linked to the minimum income guarantee and rise proportionately each year. [11688]
    The Minister for Pensions (Mr. Ian McCartney): Our proposals for pension credit will ensure that all pensioners share fairly in the rising prosperity of the nation. Our plan is that the levels of pension credit will be reviewed routinely as part of the normal uprating process. As the pension credit consultation document makes clear, our intention is that the guaranteed income level of the pension credit will keep pace with the growth of earnings over this Parliament.
    Colin Burgon: I thank the Minister for his reply, and I am delighted that we are now turning our attention to that large group of pensioners who have only modest savings and small occupational pensions. In my constituency, for instance, that includes people who have worked in tailoring and mining. They will be delighted when the pension credit comes into being. Will the Minister continue what I would class as a caring, committed and concerned approach by improving the quality of the financial advice and information that our pensioners receive? In my opinion, far too many pensioners invest their life savings in low-yield funds.
    Will the Minister also consider the introduction of an effective equity release scheme, which would allow pensioners, with a great degree of confidence, to use their biggest capital asset—usually their home—to raise an income without fear of losing it?
    Mr. McCartney: The whole purpose of pension credit is to get away from the system in which pensioners with a small second-tier pension or savings—such as those pensioners to whom my hon. Friend referred—were taxed effectively at 100 per cent. for every extra pound of income. Pension credit will give them a bonus or a reward for every pound of second pension or savings income up to a maximum level per week. That is the first time in pension provision since the creation of the welfare state that the state will make payment in recognition of the thriftiness of pensioners. The scheme will mean a guaranteed £100 a week for a single pensioner and £154 for a couple. Some 5.5 million pensioners—50 per cent. of all pensioners—will gain as a result of the credit.
    Mr. David Willetts: Will the Minister confirm two independent figures about pension credit? First, will he confirm that the House of Commons Library estimates that when pension credit is brought in, more than 57 per cent. of pensioners could find themselves on means tests? Secondly, will he confirm that independent experts calculate that the cost of pension credit could be more than £2 billion? For the first time, we will have a Government who have taken almost £5 billion from pension funds belonging to the pensioners, driven those pensioners into dependency, and then expected them to be grateful when they get the money back through a complicated new means test.
    Mr. McCartney: When we publish the Bill, we will publish the costs. We are the first Government in decades to introduce a pensions policy that will increase income for pensioners, not decrease it as the Conservative party did in Government. Some 5.5 million pensioner households will benefit from the policy. Already, 2 million pensioners have benefited from the minimum income guarantee, and others are benefiting from the winter fuel allowance. One could go on, but the problem is that the hon. Gentleman would not like it because he would like to abolish all those measures.
    Mr. Willetts: Let me ask the Minister another question. He is saying that 5.5 million pensioners will benefit, but he has been warned by Help the Aged that pension credit is far too complex. Why will not Ministers learn—[Interruption.] It is no good the Secretary of State telling the Minister of State the answers; I am asking the Minister. It is not surprising that the pension credit Bill will be introduced in the House of Lords if the Secretary of State does not trust his Minister to answer questions about it.
    Why is the Minister assuming that 5.5 million pensioners will get pension credit, when we know from all the Government's schemes that one of the big problems is catastrophically low take-up, with fewer pensioners collecting benefits to which they are already entitled because the Government's schemes are too complicated by far?
    Mr. McCartney: The problem is that the hon. Gentleman does not like this Government paying out resources to get pensioners out of poverty. He fought the last election on the basis of taking away benefits from pensioners. I made the position clear to the hon. Gentleman—when we publish the Bill, we will publish the costs. We made it clear during the consultation that
    562
    our target is to ensure that half of Britain's pensioner households benefit from the policy. What a difference it makes having a Government who are on the side of pensioners, rather than one who attacked them.
    Miss Julie Kirkbride: Does the Minister agree that the minimum income guarantee, however well intentioned, has been a disaster for the Government's policy on stakeholder pensions? Stakeholder pensions have flopped, with very few people taking them up. The Minister offers people a guaranteed income in old age, and yet expects them to save their own money to achieve the same standard of living as they would achieve by saving nothing at all. In those circumstances, the scheme is bound to be a flop.
    Mr. McCartney: The last Conservative Government drove almost 2 million pensioners into poverty. The minimum income guarantee has produced an average increase of £15 per week, and the very poorest pensioners—over 100,000 of them—have received an average increase of £20 a week this year alone. The hon. Lady must learn from history. When the Conservatives were in power they drove pensioners into poverty; it is the job of this Government to get them out of poverty.

    Private Pensions
    Mr. Peter Viggers: What targets his Department has set to increase private pension provision. [11689]
    The Minister for Pensions(Mr. Ian McCartney): We are committed to encouraging private saving to meet the long-term demographic challenge of an ageing population. We will achieve this through a package of measures, rewarding saving through pension credit, with better information for current and future pensioners, through combined pension forecasting and a pensions marketing campaign. There will be better regulation of the pensions industry, notably reforms of the minimum funding requirement, adoption of the Myners report and a recently announced certification review. We are providing suitable vehicles for saving such as the stakeholder pension and the state second pension.
    Mr. Viggers: Does the Minister agree that extravagant claims have been made for the stakeholder pension system, which is a bad deal for many investors, especially in the light of the guaranteed minimum pension? This is an important and detailed subject, so will the Secretary of State, unlike most of his Cabinet colleagues, be present during the whole of tomorrow's important debate?
    Mr. McCartney: I will be present for the whole debate, and I am looking forward to it. We will punch a hole in all the misinformation that the hon. Gentleman's party is issuing about stakeholder pensions. The Association of British Insurers estimates that as many as two thirds of employers required to do so will have designated a scheme by 8 October. From a standing start, we have established in the marketplace a pensions vehicle for many people who

    563
    under the Conservatives had no access to personal pensions, group pensions or employer pensions, with or without contributions.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has talked about the review of minimum funding requirements. He is fully aware of some of the details behind the disgraceful situation that affected some of my constituents employed by H. H. Robertson. I do not expect him to answer in detail, because some matters are still sub judice and covered by industrial tribunal proceedings, but when they are completed, will he undertake to examine the conduct of the case carefully and determine what lessons can be learned to protect other people in similar situations?
    Mr. McCartney: I am aware of that case. Indeed, in opposition, and as a constituency Member in the north-west, I was part of the combination of Members of Parliament who sought the truth of what happened in that scandalous situation. My hon. Friend can rest assured that with all such scandals the Government review issues relating to pension protection. The whole point of Myners was to ensure that we had a transparent pensions system and a regulatory regime that fits the needs of not only the industry but its customers. We will have to await the outcome of the case before I can say anything specific, but I will be happy to meet him about it when it has been determined.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: What proportion of the £5 billion a year taken out of pension funds by the worst of all the Government's stealth taxes is handed back to pensioners in the benefits that the Minister has been claiming are so generous?
    Mr. McCartney: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor reduced corporation tax and introduced many other measures, including, over some years, reducing taxation on pensioners' income. We have a comprehensive strategy on the stability of the economy, of pension funds and of the tax regime. to ensure that employers and employees alike will benefit.
    Mr. David Willetts: I just want to check what the Minister has said. He claimed as one of the Government's achievements the fact that two thirds of companies obliged to designate a stakeholder pension have done so, but will he confirm that the law obliges them to have designated a stakeholder pension by 5 October? He has claimed as a great Government achievement the fact that one third of employers have still not even complied with something obligatory. If a third have not complied, is not that evidence of how much the stakeholder pension scheme is failing?
    Mr. McCartney: First, I said that it was the ABI that had stated the position. Secondly, it was 8 October, not 5 October.
    Mr. Willetts: Ooh!
    Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman might as well get his facts right.
    564
    If, from a standing start, we have got on board two thirds of employers who before the introduction of the stakeholder pension had no form of saving for their employees, that is a very good start indeed. Under the Tories, we had a 100 per cent. nil return, because they never provided an opportunity for a large proportion of people who will now benefit from stakeholder pensions to have any kind of pension. Instead, all we had was a mis-selling scandal.

    New Deal (Lone Parents)
    Caroline Flint: If he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the new deal for lone parents. [11691]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Alistair Darling): Nearly 250,000 lone parents have joined the new deal for lone parents and so far more than one in three participants—just over 100,000—have found work.
    Caroline Flint: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and I welcome what the new deal is trying to do, alongside sure start, of which I am a board member locally. What measures is my right hon. Friend considering to assist those lone parents who have been on benefit for some time, perhaps 10 years, and those whose youngest child is of secondary school age?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend knows that the new deal for lone parents has been very successful. The problem has been that there are still too many lone parents who, because the scheme was voluntary, did not come and find out what was on offer. Therefore, the Government have introduced regulations that will progressively require lone parents, beginning with those with older children and moving on to those with children of down to the age of five, to come in for interview and to find out what options are available to them under the new deal. If people live in one of the areas covered by one of the new Jobcentre Plus offices, they must go in to receive advice as a condition of receiving benefit and will therefore know what the new deal has to offer.
    The more people who know about the new deal for lone parents, the easier it will be to get people into work. I remind the House that the number of lone parents on benefit has steadily fallen in the past five years. Our job is to ensure that we move progressively towards our target of 70 per cent. of lone parents in work.
    Sandra Gidley: I hope that the Secretary of State is aware of the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics that show that the percentage of people finding work after joining the new deal for lone parents is falling. Is that a sign that the system is failing, and what will he do to reverse the trend?
    Mr. Darling: I have just said that the problem with the new deal for lone parents is essentially that it was voluntary and that too many people, perhaps for too many years, did not know that initiatives such as the new deal, the working families tax credit and others would help them into work. That is why we have decided to make it a condition of receiving benefit that lone parents will have to come and find out what is on offer. Once people know

    565
    that they can get help with child care, for example, or that the working families tax credit will increase the amount of pay that can be taken home, many more—who showed little interest until then in finding work—show much more interest. It is just a pity that the party of which the hon. Lady is a member opposed the new deal in the first place.
    Mr. Anthony D. Wright: How many people have entered work through the new deal since May 1997. [11692]
    The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown): Well over 500,000 people have been helped into work since we began introducing our programme of new deals in 1997.
    Mr. Wright: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. However, some areas of the country experience unemployment far in excess of the national average. I have had discussions with my local employment office staff and they suggest that the new deal could be more flexible. For example, the six-month waiting time for unemployed people could be reduced to three months. That would have a dramatic effect in constituencies such as Great Yarmouth in reducing the unemployment figures even further.
    Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for the consistent support that he has given to the new deal. As he knows, we keep the matter under review and the regulations governing the different new deals—for young people and for 25-plus—are slightly different, but all the regimes make provision to get those people who need help the most on to the schemes before the normal waiting period.
    Miss Anne McIntosh>: Following the Secretary of State's earlier argument, does the Minister agree that many of those entering the new deal would have removed themselves from the jobless register anyway, and that the vast majority of effort should be put into the over-50s and the long-term unemployed?
    Mr. Brown: I do not accept the argument. All the evidence is that the new deal for the under-25s has meant that around twice as many people have found work as would otherwise have done so.
    Mr. Bill Tynan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition, instead of constantly undervaluing the new deal, should recognise its success? Does he also agree that hon. Members could lead by example by employing new deal workers when they are suitable?
    Mr. Brown: All support for the new deal is welcome. As my hon. Friend has said, it is worth pausing to think about the alternative: under the Conservative Government, about 3 million people were unemployed.

    Benefit Fraud
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: What targets his Department has set local authorities for benefit fraud prosecutions for 2001–02. [11693]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): We are working closely with local housing authorities on a range of initiatives. Until now we have been hampered by a shortage of information about housing benefit fraud. That is why this year, for the first time, we have introduced a continuous measure of the level of such fraud. When we have that data, we will consider the appropriateness of, and scope for, setting targets to reduce fraud.
    Mr. Robathan: May I give the Minister some information? Last year, about 460,000 suspected cases of benefit fraud were reported by local authorities, of which 1,100 were successfully prosecuted. In the most recent financial year, only 42 per cent. of local councils successfully prosecuted anyone at all. Is it not the case that we have heard a great deal of talk and spin about cracking down on fraud, but have seen precious little action? There is no evidence that fraud is being reduced substantially, at a time when it should be going right down.
    Malcolm Wicks: We have reduced fraud by about 10 per cent. above our target for income support and jobseeker's allowance, for example, so we are beginning to win the war against fraud. As for housing benefit, of the 370,000 cases that went for investigation, in 100,000 cases fraud was established and a weekly saving was claimed. If the hon. Gentleman feels that there should be more prosecutions locally, I tend to agree with him, and when we have the data about housing benefit fraud I shall be sympathetic to considering the idea of having local targets for prosecutions as well as for fraud reduction.

    Lone Parents (Employment Targets)
    Paul Goggins: What employment targets he has set in relation to lone parents. [11695]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): The new deal for lone parents has already helped more than 100,000 lone parents move into work. This is just one of a range of polices that we have introduced to help raise the employment levels of lone parents to our target of 70 per cent.—in line with those found elsewhere in Europe and the United States— by the end of the decade. Already we are making progress. In recent years, the lone parents employment rate has increased from 45 per cent. to 51 per cent.
    Paul Goggins:Both sides of the House welcome the fact that through the new deal and other initiatives, the Government are increasing the employment rate for lone parents at almost three times the overall national rate of increase. Given that the lack of affordable child care remains a significant barrier for many lone parents who want to move into work, is the Minister confident that there will be sufficient child care places to meet the ambitious 70 per cent. target by 2010?
    Malcolm Wicks: Yes, I am confident. Taking account of turnover—the fact that we always lose some child care places every year—we have added more than 200,000 to the stock of child care places available, and some 418,000

    567
    children are benefiting. In addition, through the working families tax credit and the child care tax credit, we are making child care affordable. That is a crucial part of our policy of enabling lone mothers to escape poverty by getting back into the labour market.
    Kevin Brennan: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways to increase employment among lone parents is to ensure that job shares are widely available in the labour market? Has he any plans to provide incentives for employers to offer more job shares?
    Malcolm Wicks: A number of employers, aware of the need for flexibility in the labour market and the need for many parents to work part time rather than full time at a certain stage in their lives, are attracted by the idea of job shares. I would certainly encourage that. Among other things, we need to ensure that work is family friendly, and job shares are one way ahead—although not necessarily in all jobs, I am bound to add.

    Jobcentre Plus
    Mr. Win Griffiths: If he will make a statement on the progress of the Jobcentre Plus pathfinder pilot scheme. [11697]
    The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown): The first 49 Jobcentre Plus offices opened on 22 October, providing for the first time a fully integrated employment and benefit service. First reactions from both individual customers and employers have been overwhelmingly positive. We plan to extend this integration progressively nationwide, beginning later next year.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I visited the first stage of the Jobcentre Plus pathfinder in my constituency of Bridgend, and it appears to provide an excellent service. However, a number of staff, especially Benefits Agency staff, remain concerned about the safety issues that will arise when the project is rolled out across the whole work and pensions estate, so to speak, and there is impending strike action. What efforts are being made to get everybody around the table to discuss what I believe are the quite small changes that will be necessary to make the majority of staff happy about the new environment in which they have been asked to work?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having visited the Jobcentre Plus office servicing his constituency. I urge all Members of the House to visit one of the new jobcentre plus sites if they can. As my hon. Friend has said, they are very attractive and provide an excellent working environment for delivering the service. That is an excellent working environment for our clients as well as for our employees.
    I regret that some of our employees have taken industrial action, and I believe that the reasons underpinning it are misplaced. Of course, the Government would like to bring the industrial dispute to a conclusion with a consensus and get a return to work. However, the Government will not
    568
    resile from the underpinning principle of providing the majority of Jobcentre Plus services in an unscreened environment.
    Andrew Selous: What degree of uniformity has there been for risk assessments for various Benefits Agency offices? It has been put to me by staff in Jobcentre Plus offices that risk assessments seem to vary widely between different offices. Does the Minister agree that there is a huge difference between the American offices, where there are no screens and the guards are armed, and those in the United Kingdom where that is not the case?
    Mr. Brown: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that we will not be introducing armed guards into the offices. We see no need for doing that. He is right that the risk assessments vary, although not as widely as he suggests. The reason is that individual circumstances in various parts of the country vary, and each risk assessment is tailored to local circumstances.

    Private Pension Provision
    Mr. Andrew Rosindell: What targets his Department has to encourage private pension provision. [11698]
    The Minister for Pensions (Mr. Ian McCartney): We are committed to encouraging private saving to meet the long-term demographic challenge of an ageing population. We believe that everyone who can save for their retirement has a responsibility to do so, and that saving should be rewarded. Through stakeholder pensions schemes, we are targeting moderate and high earners without access to a good occupational scheme or a cost-effective personal pension. Stakeholder pensions offer those with current provision a secure, value-for-money and flexible savings vehicle.
    The new pension credit will ensure that savings pay, targeting those with modest pensions or savings. It will support state second pensions and stakeholder pensions by providing those with low incomes and modest pensions with a cash top-up. The simplification review led by Alan Pickering will target the layers of regulation that increase compliance costs for employers and providers, possibly making pension provision expensive or confusing. The review will report in July with recommendations.
    Mr. Rosindell: I thank the Minister for his reply. However, does he accept that many younger people are concerned about whether the existing provision will help them in years to come? Many younger people will obviously depend purely on a private pension. Does he accept that the Government need to do a great deal more if that is to be sustained?
    Mr. McCartney: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must ensure that we sustain our education campaign so that every individual in the community of working age takes some responsibility for long-term savings. The problem is that when we spend resources on doing that, the Conservative party complains. However, we will continue to do so.

    569
    It is important that, throughout people's working lives, we provide them with savings and pensions platforms. People have different needs from time to time. Until now, at any event, younger people have not seen the necessity to save for their old age. Through various vehicles and our educational campaign, we are trying to get young people not only to think about their old age but to start saving through appropriate vehicles.
    We also need to look after the many people who have disabilities or are carers. The state second pension will be introduced to ensure that those with broken work records, for example, such as young people with disabilities, have the opportunity of a reasonable income when they retire.
    Paul Flynn: Is not the cheek of the Opposition breathtaking? They are the party who brought
    570
    in private pensions and who bribed and conned 6 million people out of safe occupational schemes, and now those people find that they are losing out badly. Young people know that they are immortal and will never grow old, so is not the only way to ensure that they have a pension to set up a safe, secure scheme that is compulsory and run by the state?
    Mr. McCartney: I listened to my hon. Friend. This Government have reviewed and modernised the pensions system, and introduced stakeholder pensions, second state pensions and pension credits so that when people get to pension age, rather than facing a life of poverty as they would have done under the Conservatives, they have an income and are treated with dignity and respect.

BILL PRESENTED
  ANTI-TERRORISM, CRIME AND SECURITY
  Mr. Secretary Blunkett, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Straw, Mr. Secretary Reid, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Mrs. Secretary Liddell and Beverley Hughes, presented a Bill to amend the Terrorism Act 2000; to make further provision about terrorism and security; to provide for the freezing of assets; to make provision about immigration and asylum; to amend or extend the criminal law and powers for preventing crime and enforcing that law; to make provision about the control of pathogens and toxins; to provide for the retention of communications data; to provide for implementation of Title VI of the Treaty on European Union; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 49].

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that under the Human Rights Act 1998 an order was made yesterday and laid before the House today, and it will be effective tomorrow. You will know also that it provides for a derogation from article 5 of the European convention on human rights so as to allow detention without trial. It refers specifically to the existence of a public emergency in the United Kingdom and to an Act that has not yet been published as a Bill and cannot be obtained from the Vote Office.
Have you received a request by the Home Secretary to make a statement? If not, would you be good enough to use your good offices to try to persuade the right hon. Gentleman to come to the House at the earliest opportunity and make a statement on what is, on any view, a serious derogation from human rights?
Mr. Speaker: I have no power to make the Minister make a statement. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made his point, and I have no doubt that the Minister will have heard him.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is on a different matter. With a majority of the size that we face, it is to the power and protection of the Chair that the Opposition must look. Are you aware that the Animal Health Bill, which we will debate this afternoon, touches on issues concerning the slaughter of animals which are fundamental in light of foot and mouth disease? Is it sensible for such a Bill to be introduced before the report of the Government's inquiries, held in private, has been assessed by the House and when we are unable to determine whether the Bill is truly needed?
Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman seeks to have the occupant of the Chair make a political statement, and I would not want to do that. These are matters for debate, and it is up to the hon. Gentleman to catch my eye and make those points.
Mr. Mark Fisher: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), could you ask the Home Secretary to come to the House later today? The order laid before the House today proposes huge changes to our human rights legislation, and at the very least we need the opportunity to ask the Home Secretary on what basis he is making those changes.
Mr. Speaker: As I have stated, I have no powers to make the Home Secretary come to the House. As for asking him to do so, there is nothing to stop the hon. Gentleman asking him.
Mr. Simon Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The climate change talks in Marrakech concluded over the weekend, and I understand that progress was made on agreements between countries on fighting climate change, but the United States still remains

573
outside the Kyoto treaty. Have you had any indication from any member of the Cabinet that they wish to come to the House to make a statement on climate change talks, which will have an immense effect on this country in future?
Mr. Speaker: I have had no contact from the Minister concerned.
Mr. Peter Lilley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have frequently criticised Ministers who have made statements outside the House before the House has been informed. You will be aware that, over the weekend, there were leaks in all the papers about the changes to human rights legislation and about the introduction of internment without trial. However, even now, after that leak to the press, there is to be no announcement to the House. Could you unequivocally condemn that, Mr. Speaker, and ensure that it never happens again and that statements are made to the House, not just to the newspapers?
Mr. Speaker: A debate will be held next Monday and the right hon. Gentleman can make those points then.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to trouble you, but the Home Secretary has spoken of a public emergency. Are there no rules of the House that insist that, when there is a public emergency of such extraordinary dimensions as to require legislation and an instrument of this nature, the Home Secretary should come to the House?
Mr. Speaker: There are no rules.

Orders of the Day

  Animal Health Bill
  [Relevant document: The Minutes of Evidence taken before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on 6th November 2001, HC 339-i, on the Animal Health Bill.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: I would point out to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  3.36 pm
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Today's Second Reading debate takes forward our contingency planning in the area of animal disease control. I shall try to cover what the Bill does, why the Government have concluded that we need to take these powers and, of course, why we are bringing the Bill forward now.
  The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that we have the powers that we believe we need and that we tidy up some of the anomalies in existing powers, and to set up a consistent structure and regime for the handling of animal disease. Hon. Members will have seen that the Bill focuses on two high-profile diseases, foot and mouth and scrapie, but that the powers in it will be extendable to other animal diseases. So, specifically, the Bill should ensure that we have all the powers that we might need to deal swiftly and effectively with any new cases of foot and mouth disease, and will enable us to accelerate the eradication of scrapie from the national sheep flock.
  Obviously, we all hope that we are near the end of the foot and mouth disease outbreak. The signs are encouraging; there have been no new cases for about six weeks, but we cannot rule out the possibility of further sparks of disease. That is why we continue to take every opportunity to stress the importance of vigilance and high standards of biosecurity, especially given the large number of animal movements currently taking place. If we do not need these powers in relation to the current outbreak, we shall of course be delighted. However, we need to plan ahead, whether on foot and mouth disease or on other diseases.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Margaret Beckett: If the hon. Lady will allow me to make a little more progress, I shall of course give way to her if she still wants to intervene.
  We would normally have consulted the industry and all our other stakeholders before introducing legislation but it became clear during the summer that it was sometimes touch and go whether we stayed on top of the disease, not least because it was touch and go whether we could maintain the 24 or 48-hour slaughter deadline. It also became clear that in some instances we lacked the appropriate powers to deal with the disease as quickly as necessary. So the Government decided—albeit with considerable reluctance—that we needed to prepare to

  575
  take steps now, and swiftly, in order to prepare either for any resumption or for a fresh outbreak of that or another disease. In consequence, there has simply not been time to conduct the dialogue that we would normally seek. Of course, during the coming weeks and months, we will still be able to consult widely on key elements, as I shall explain. We were grateful that the Select Committee on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was able to take evidence on the Bill last week from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
  Miss McIntosh: The right hon. Lady will be aware that the outbreak came very late in the day to the Vale of York, and that she received from me, on behalf of farmers, several serious representations that departmental officials, Army officials and, indeed, vets had come on to Mr. Bosomworth's farm and most likely introduced foot and mouth. Why is the Bill silent on the failure of the right hon. Lady's Department's officials to observe the Department's own biosecurity?
  Margaret Beckett: The hon. Lady is straying into what happened during the handling of the disease and into the various allegations that have been made. I am not sure what she would have the law say in this regard, but the law makes it clear that it is important that biosecurity observed. Whether breaches were committed by people whom the Department used to implement its policies is no doubt something that the inquiries will examine.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: A point that my right hon. Friend has made concerns me. The Bill will have an enormous impact and may introduce urgent changes, so many people will wish to give evidence on it. Since the Bill is subject to a programme motion, it is clear that it will go through the House quite quickly. Will my right hon. Friend consider allowing more time for its consideration, rather than proceeding on the basis of what appears on the Order Paper today?
  Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend knows better than anyone that, on Second Reading, we deal with the principles of the issue. Much of what I suspect concerns those who have anxieties about the Bill is likely to be a matter of detail, and there will be an opportunity for much more measured consultation of that detail and of any orders that might be introduced. The question of the time scale has been examined and agreed, but I assure my hon. Friend that we hope and believe that it will be possible for it to be given adequate scrutiny. The Government will of course continue to address that issue as the Bill goes through its stages.
  The Bill emphasises our precautionary approach to disease control per se. It will give us a wide range of options, ensuring that we have maximum flexibility to tailor our strategy to whatever might be the prevailing circumstances. I want to stress that the Bill is related not just to foot and mouth disease and that, in particular, it does not prejudge what policy on the disease in the longer term should be. The measures that it contains would also be needed if we were effectively to implement any kind of vaccination programme.
  We remain of an open mind as to what our long-term policy for controlling foot and mouth and other animal diseases should be. It remains the case that we will be
  576
  guided by the independent inquiries when they report next year and we will consider carefully any alternative options for disease control, such as vaccination, that the inquiries may put forward.
  I wish to explain in more detail what the Bill does and why.
  Mr. David Curry: The right hon. Lady mentioned the independent inquiries but, as she knows, the "lessons learned" inquiry will not begin until the epidemic is deemed to have finished. Will the ministerial papers, including the advice from scientists, on those episodes in which vaccination was considered be made available to the inquiry and will they be made public?
  Margaret Beckett: When the inquiry begins is partly a matter for Dr. Anderson, although if it appears that the commencement of the inquiry will not interfere with the tail end of handling the disease, it is possible that the inquiry may begin a little earlier. That is a matter for Dr. Anderson. Whatever papers he seeks will obviously be provided and, equally, as I understand it, what is published will be a matter for him. There is certainly no wish to keep hidden matters that ought properly to be considered in the inquiry.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The House will be aware of my farming interests. Will the Secretary of State tell the House why it is so urgent for the Bill to be introduced before, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) made clear, any of the three inquiries has taken place?
  Will the Secretary of State also comment on that aspect of the Bill that makes it a requirement only to pay 75 per cent. in compulsory compensation, with 25 per cent. being discretionary? That is a departure from most previous Bills. Will the right hon. Lady explain why that is?
  Margaret Beckett: I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's second point in due course. As he said, it relates to parts of the Bill.
  I think I have already dealt with the hon. Gentleman's first point—perhaps too briefly, if he did not follow my point. It became apparent during the handling of the disease, and through our experience of handling it, that the Department lacked what seemed to be necessary powers, and I shall say a little more about that shortly. Consequently, I agreed to the drafting of a Bill, and that drafting was continued. I will say quite frankly to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that I was not enthusiastic about seeking to take these powers, but I have become convinced that they are necessary. Obviously, all that took some time. As members of any Government will know, time can never automatically be found in the legislative programme for measures, however much Departments might require it. So the answer to the hon. Gentleman is that we feel the need to take action, and I shall come to that in a little more detail later.
  The foot and mouth disease provisions fall into two main categories. First, there are powers if need be to enter premises on a precautionary basis, whether for culling, vaccination or testing, to prevent the spread of disease—without having to prove, as under present legislation, that the animal has been exposed to disease. Secondly, as the

  577
  hon. Gentleman has just identified, there is a new approach to compensation on infected premises, which is related to enforcement of biosecurity measures.
  The current powers have proved insufficient in a number of cases. In stamping out the disease, it has for many years been the accepted policy approach to kill infected animals. However, it has also long been regarded as necessary to cull animals on contiguous premises as well as on infected premises, in order to protect against the spread of disease. Although that has been established policy, there has always been an issue of when animals could be culled. As required by existing legislation, only animals which have been "exposed" to FMD can be culled. Inevitably, when that is the criterion, there are liable to be, and have indeed been, disputes about whether animals have been in contact with or exposed to the disease.
  The effect of those disputes has in some cases led to delays, which have in turn led to further spread of the disease. The Bill will give us wider powers to address that problem. It applies—I stress this—only to animals susceptible to FMD. Any such animals could be slaughtered if Ministers concluded that that would prevent the spread of FMD. There is no question of provisions in the Bill covering, as some media comment has suggested, hamsters or goldfish. Even animals susceptible to FMD could be slaughtered only when the scientific and veterinary advice is that that is necessary.
  Although the Bill alters the circumstances in which an animal can be culled from culling following exposure to disease to culling in order to prevent disease, that would by no means automatically lead to the culling of more animals. In fact, considerable scientific evidence supports the view that, by culling quickly where it is necessary, we might prevent the further spread of disease and actually end up killing fewer animals.
  Sadly, experience from the recent appalling outbreak has suggested that if we are to be able to act with the speed that is required, wider powers of entry are also needed. The current position is that if a farmer whose property is suspected of harbouring FMD refuses to allow access, vital days can be lost while an injunction is sought from the courts. That delay may mean—and we believe has on occasion meant—not only that the farm in question goes down with FMD but that the disease spreads even further.
  I stress at this point that I am not saying that those who perfectly legally challenged action under the existing law should in some way be blamed. They were only trying to do what they believed to be best. The fact is, however, that there have sadly been times when taking such legitimate action may have hindered attempts to tackle the disease.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The right hon. Lady says that she believes that the actions of farmers may have helped to spread the disease—that that may have been a factor. What evidence does she have that farmers' attempts to protect their animals actively helped to spread the disease, and will she publish that evidence?
  Margaret Beckett: I used the word "may", because I am someone who tries to use words with great accuracy,
  578
  and of course such things are never susceptible to 100 per cent. proof. 1 shall give the hon. Gentleman and the House an example.
  In Thirsk this summer, 55 local appeals were lodged against the contiguous cull. Of the 29 upheld by the divisional veterinary manager, nine cases of infection were subsequently revealed—and that, in turn, triggered additional contiguous culling. In the cases where the appeal had been rejected by the DVM, two also became infected premises. Again, that, in turn, triggered culling on additional farms.
  It is believed that the same occurred in the Brecon Beacons, where there was evidence to suggest that the handling of the disease lagged behind the spread of the disease because culling followed testing, which is what the Welsh Assembly decided to try to do, as it did not wish to kill unnecessarily. Only when a decision was taken to proceed with the contiguous cull to try to get ahead of the disease was that outbreak brought under control, so although these things can never be subject to 100 per cent. proof, it appears that there is evidence to suggest that that occurred. Certainly, that is very much the belief of the vets and scientists who dealt with those issues.
  I repeat that we are not blaming people, but, sadly, without attributing blame, we still have to consider the facts and what may have been the unintended effects of people's actions. In the Thirsk area, for example, vets and epidemiologists believed that those events seriously hampered efforts to bring the disease under control.
  Miss McIntosh: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Margaret Beckett: Hon. Members repeatedly expressed in the House their considerable concern and anxiety—indeed, the hon. Lady who is seeking to intervene did so—because of the fear that the disease might spread to the pig-intensive areas of Yorkshire and around the Humber. Again, there was great concern at that time.
  Miss McIntosh: The issue that the right hon. Lady raises is indeed very serious. Each of the farms in Thirsk to which she referred is, I think, situated along a road. The evidence raised at the time was that there was something uncanny about the roadside connection, and it should have been incumbent on the right hon. Lady's Department to investigate that before introducing the Bill.
  Margaret Beckett: With respect to the hon. Lady, she is making the same point about waiting for the inquiry. I simply tell her, as I have done at each stage—and to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), who raised the issue with Mr. Speaker earlier—that none of us knows what will happen. She will perhaps know that I told the Select Committee that I thought it would be a miracle if we got through the period of increased autumn movement without a resurgence of the disease. We have been extraordinarily fortunate that there has been no resurgence of the disease for some time, but no one can rule out the possibility that it will recur.
  If we had waited, I suspect that, if the disease began to reappear tomorrow, next week or in three weeks' time and we had not produced any proposals to tackle some of the issues that have been raised, we would have been asked

  579
  why we had waited. As I shall say in a few moments, given that, unfortunately, contiguous culling may be needed to get ahead of the disease, the Government are trying to get ahead of the circumstances in which we may find ourselves.
  Mr. Michael Jack: If speed in introducing this measure is so much of the essence, why was it left until August this year to begin to draft the Bill?
  Margaret Beckett: There was discussion on the matter and consideration of the issues raised a little earlier. It is only from memory that I say that it was about August when drafting began, but 1 remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was with some reluctance—certainly from my point of view—that the Government embarked on this course. We are mindful of the fact that these are strong powers and that they should be used, if they ever are used, only with great caution. However, it seemed right at least to have the preparatory work done so that if the Government became convinced that such powers were indeed needed, it would be possible to try to convince colleagues that it was necessary to continue with the Bill. I also remind the right hon. Gentleman that, as I shall say later, two diseases are specifically dealt with in the Bill—one is foot and mouth disease and the other is, of course, scrapie.
  I want to repeat, because it is a matter of concern, that every time any of the issues concerning what actually happened and people's practical experience are raised, there is a tendency for people to respond by saying, "Oh, you are blaming X or Y," or, "You are blaming farmers." It is not a matter of blame; it is a matter of recording what seems to have happened so that we can try to ensure that we learn from some of that experience. It is also a matter of making a policy response that is related and proportionate to that experience.
  Malcolm Bruce: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Margaret Beckett: I will, but thereafter I shall try to avoid giving way. I am mindful of the time that I am taking.
  Malcolm Bruce: If the right hon. Lady acknowledges that the powers are draconian, why are they so one-sided? Anyone who challenges them runs the risk of losing 25 per cent. in compensation. He or she will also have to make a payment to the Minister to have an appeal heard. If the Minister is unsuccessful in winning the case, should there not be compensation for having taken the action wrongly?
  Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is in error. There is no question of someone even being considered to lose a part of their compensation because they seek to appeal. That aspect is related solely to issues of biosecurity, to which I shall come in a moment. It is not the case either, as some reports have said, that we are removing in any way the right of appeal against the decision to cull.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me about making a charge. I think that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State conveyed to the Select Committee that the only purpose of making a charge—it is not a matter of covering the
  580
  cost—is to discourage an appeal that is not well founded. If someone appeals and that appeal is allowed, there is no question but that the charge will be refunded. We will make provision for a charge not to be levied where there is a case of hardship. The position is not as simple as some media reports have suggested.
  As I have said, there is no question of taking away the right of appeal against such a decision. A farmer will still be able, as now, to make representations to the local DVM, putting forward reasons why his animals should not be slaughtered. He or she will still be able to seek judicial review or appropriate interim relief from the court if necessary, if that is believed to be justified.
  In cases of difficulty where access is needed, whether to test, to vaccinate or perhaps to kill animals, we propose a process that is based on a warrant from a magistrate. Such a warrant would be issued to inspectors only on sworn evidence. The magistrate will need to be satisfied that the conditions set out in the Bill have been complied with.
  The House knows that the Government have kept the possibility of vaccination continuously under review during the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. We retain an open mind on its possible role in future. As I have reported to the House before, we are co-sponsoring with the Dutch Government an international conference in Brussels in December to examine the issues. If we sought to use any type of vaccination programme in future, we would need to have the necessary full range of powers to carry it out, including what is not now in legislation, which is the possibility of the payment of compensation.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister give way?
  Margaret Beckett: No. I ask the hon. Gentleman to forgive me. I must make progress.
  The Dutch Government, who had a small and quickly detected outbreak of foot and mouth disease earlier in the year, used vaccination to reduce pressure on disposal capacity by allowing slaughter to be carried out at a rate that kept pace with disposal. Although this meant that they killed more animals per outbreak than we did, it worked in their particular situation. We are seeking to increase the number of effective options available to us by ensuring that we have the power, should we wish or have the need to do so, to carry out a similar programme in future.
  In the Bill, we take a different approach to arrangements for compensation on infected premises. Part of a livestock farmer's responsibility—a fact of which most are extremely conscious—is to take precautions, including good biosecurity, to minimise the risk of animal diseases. In the Bill, we propose to reflect that responsibility in compensation arrangements.
  I do not dispute that the vast majority of farmers ensure that their animals have the proper high standard of care and that they, the farmers, practice good biosecurity. However, the sad fact remains that a small minority have, through irresponsible actions or an irresponsible approach, either potentially or actually contributed to the spread of disease. I stress that that is undoubtedly a small minority. However, it is to the benefit of good farmers as well as to the public at large to send, as the Bill does, a clear message to the irresponsible minority that if they do not raise their standards to those of the majority, they may not receive full compensation.

  581
  The Bill will only affect compensation paid in respect of infected premises. On contiguous premises and others where no infection is found, full compensation at market value will be paid, as before. But on infected premises, the automatic entitlement will only be to 75 per cent. of the market value of the animals slaughtered. An assessment will be carried out at slaughter of compliance with disease control measures and will look at whether the farmer has acted in a way which risked spreading the disease. Biosecurity will clearly be one of the key factors assessed.
  Mr. Tony Banks: My right hon. Friend is talking about the actions of the irresponsible minority. What further investigations have there been into allegations that have appeared in newspapers, including The Daily Telegraph? On 30 July, that newspaper alleged:

  "A farmer in Wales said that an anonymous caller offered to sell her a foot and mouth infected sheep for £2,000."
  Have there been any investigations into those allegations and, if so, what conclusions have been reached?
  Margaret Beckett: There have indeed been investigations, as my hon. Friend would expect. Investigations into the example that he cites were inconclusive. There are other cases of concern which may raise issues to be brought before the courts. However, my hon. Friend will appreciate that we cannot refer to that here.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown rose—
  Margaret Beckett: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I have given way to him twice and I must get on
  Farmers will be informed in writing whether they are to receive 75 per cent. of the maximum amount, 100 per cent. or something in between. They will then have the right of appeal to an independent person if they wish; that right is set out in the Bill. No responsible farmers should suffer under the new measures. In fact, they will gain if all standards are raised to the best. The detail of what will be in the assessment and how it will be carried out are not in the Bill. We intend to carry out a full consultation on that issue, giving stakeholders sufficient time to comment, because we want to get it right and to take the farming community with us as much as we can.
  The Bill also provides powers to extend the new measures on slaughter, compensation and so on to other animal diseases. If, for example, we were unlucky enough to experience another outbreak of classical swine fever next year, we could, if need be, seek similar powers in relation to that disease. Any such extension would be by affirmative resolution, so both Houses would have the opportunity to debate the proposal. Again, that is about putting the right framework in place now so that it will be available should problems arise in future. The House will recall that a key lesson of the Phillips report was that Government should seek to make preparations in advance to deal with issues of that kind.
  It has been a punishing year for rural communities, many of which were already suffering serious harm to their economic prospects, which have worsened as a result of the rampant and unprecedented foot and mouth outbreak. The sheep sector has suffered particularly badly
  582
  and, of course, we need to continue to act decisively against the disease. Again, as highlighted in the Phillips report, we must consider other contingencies with which we may have to deal in future. As I made clear in my statement to the House on 22 October, there remains an acknowledged theoretical risk that BSE could be found in sheep. We must be prepared to take timely and decisive action to limit that risk.
  It is on that basis that we published in September, as required by the Phillips report, a draft contingency plan for tackling the risk of BSE in sheep. The plan describes options which would enable the Government to respond flexibly and quickly to the range of scenarios which might apply if BSE were to be found in our national flock. Those include, at one extreme, slaughter and disposal of the whole flock. At a less dramatic level, the Government could consider deploying the kind of abattoir controls with which we are already familiar in relation to BSE in cattle. I emphasise again that those are only options, the application of which would depend upon emerging knowledge and expert advice. That does not mean that we should avoid taking sensible and effective precautions now to deal with any eventuality.
  Mrs. Angela Browning rose—
  Margaret Beckett: I shall give way to the hon. Lady because she has not sought to intervene before.
  Mrs. Browning: The right hon. Lady is talking about the theoretical risk of BSE in sheep. Will she share with the House what is clearly new scientific advice to the Government? I noticed that, in a statement on 21 October, Sir John Krebs said that, if BSE in sheep were proven, the Food Standards Agency would advise banning the consumption of all dairy and milk products from sheep and goats. Clearly, there has been transmissible spongiform encephalopathy in bovines, but the idea is that, in a different species, TSE will mean a ban on the milk supply. On what scientific basis was that statement made?
  Margaret Beckett: I am afraid that I cannot do so. The hon. Lady might raise the question with the Food Standards Agency. I am not totally familiar with the statement that she quotes, and I am not aware on what scientific advice it might be based.
  It must be desirable to seek to eradicate from our sheep flock the risk not only of BSE but of the entire family of such diseases. That includes scrapie, which has been present in this country for centuries, although it is not always found in other countries where there are large sheep flocks.
  We announced in July the establishment of the national scrapie plan, which is designed to enable us, through a rapid programme of genetic identification and breeding controls, to breed TSE resistance into the national flock. The plan has received much support from the sheep sector, but it is a voluntary scheme and it is becoming clear that take-up of the scheme at the present rate could take too long to have the desired effect. Moreover, the Food Standards Agency has specifically called on the Government to seek to speed up scrapie eradication in this country.
  The Bill would enable us to accelerate the process by compulsory means. Ministers could specify those types of sheep which, by virtue of their genetic susceptibility,

  583
  stand the risk of developing scrapie or, theoretically, similar types of disease. The Bill would then allow not only for the identification of those animals but, where appropriate, for their exclusion and the exclusion of their semen, eggs and embryos from breeding programmes. Animals subject to those restrictions would have to be castrated or sterilised or, at a later date, slaughtered.
  To ensure that we have the means to carry out this work effectively, the Bill contains limited new powers of entry and enforcement, consistent with similar provisions relating to the control of foot and mouth disease. I must emphasise that these powers are not intended to raise the prospect of mass slaughter. Rather, they are designed to facilitate the redevelopment of the flock in a managed way, without causing unnecessary disruption to farmers. Indeed. Ministers will be required to consider whether there are exceptional reasons that justify the continued use even of some susceptible sheep for breeding purposes, and farmers whose animals are subject to breeding restrictions will have the right of appeal to an independent adjudicator. We will be consulting in full on how the appeals process and other detailed arrangements are to be managed, so that producers' concerns can be fully addressed.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. The Bill enables the Secretary of State to make arrangements for compensation in the event that the powers are exercised. Is it the right hon. Lady's intention to lay a compensation scheme before the House and make it available to Parliament?
  Margaret Beckett: Those issues will have to be considered in time. I will not say today that the Government intend to introduce such a compensation programme. We shall want to hear from the industry and all involved.
  We shall also consider carefully when the powers to which I referred should be introduced, taking account of whether further progress is made under the voluntary arrangements. We shall consult the industry organisations and other stakeholders, as it is essential that we have their views. 1 remind the House that we have always made it clear that a compulsory scheme was likely to be necessary at some stage. We believe that if we seek the necessary powers now to make that possible, they will enable the Government better to safeguard human health and consumer confidence; the future of our sheep industry and its integral role in the rural economy; and sheep producers who, by moving towards the exclusive production of scrapie-resistant rams, will achieve disease-free animals and a basis for more competitive trading.
  The Bill provides the options that we need at this time to tackle risks posed by foot and mouth disease, TSEs in sheep and other diseases. We undoubtedly have more lessons to learn, and the Bill is by no means the end of the story, but the Government regard it as a vital step towards a more secure and healthy future for our livestock industry, and I commend it to the House.
  4.9 pm
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Animal Health Bill because it is inappropriate to legislate on this matter before an independent inquiry into the causes and handling of the foot and
  584
  mouth epidemic has been established and before the Government's internal inquiries have reported; because the Bill confers undue powers on officials; and because it makes no provision for controls to prevent the importation of disease."
  If the House chooses to accept the reasoned amendment, it will send the Government back to the drawing board, allowing time for the introduction of new, better and properly considered legislation. The Opposition are prepared and willing to support and speed the introduction of sensible, practical and proportionate measures to help to deal with future outbreaks of foot and mouth and other diseases. In particular, we welcome in principle the measures contained in part II, which will help to eradicate scrapie from the national flock, although we believe that they will require close and detailed scrutiny to ensure fair treatment and the future of certain rare breeds. Ministers will have to do a great deal more to convince the farming community that those measures are proportionate.
  I am acutely aware that, given the scientific uncertainty about whether BSE may be present in sheep—an uncertainty that is not helped by the recent mix-up between cows' brains and those of sheep—there is an urgent need to speed up the scientific inquiry into this field and to take precautionary measures.
  Mr. Hogg: I am sorry to press my hon. Friend on the same point that I put to the Secretary of State, but does he understand the importance of establishing a compensation scheme for farmers whose stock will be affected if powers are exercised under part II with regard to sheep?
  Mr. Ainsworth: If my right hon. and learned Friend will be patient, I shall come to compensation in a moment. He has made an important and compelling point, and we will seek answers to the question that he asked the Secretary of State, who appeared unable to provide an answer.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I should like to make a similar point. My hon. Friend will be aware that, with regard to possibility of the recent experiment concluding that BSE was present in the national sheep flock, serious consideration was being given to total cull of the national sheep herd. The Bill provides that only 75 per cent. mandatory compensation would be available in those circumstances. Will he press the Secretary of State very hard on whether she has anywhere in her Department any current evidence of BSE, because if she has, the Bill could become oppressive?
  Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend makes a compelling point. There are ways in which much of the Bill might become oppressive anyway.
  Margaret Beckett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ainsworth: I should be delighted to do so. I shall deal later with the discrepancies in the compensation arrangements that are set out in the Bill. It is not entirely clear why they exist.
  Margaret Beckett: The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) is mistaken. If he looks again at the Bill, he will see that the possibility of not paying full compensation at once is linked only to bad biosecurity.

  585
  Obviously, whether there are genes resistant to TSEs—transmissible spongiform encephalopathies—in sheep is a completely different issue.
  Mr. Ainsworth: We do not wish to give the Bill a Second Reading because it does not take a second glance to work out that it is poor legislation. It is badly drafted and targeted, and, in all likelihood, it is, as many suspect, badly motivated.
  The foot and mouth outbreak was a catastrophe that cost millions of animal lives and billions of pounds. It brought heartbreak and financial ruin to thousands of businesses throughout the country—and not only those involved in farming. There are important lessons to be learned, but the Bill contains no evidence to show that the Government have learned from their mistakes. Indeed, it suggests strongly that they are in denial of their role in the whole sad affair. I fear that it represents another blow to the credibility of the Secretary of State and her new Department.
  Although the Department has been in existence for only five months, it has already acquired a reputation for being by turns incompetent, feeble and vindictive. Today, it is in vindictive mode. I do not know how many times the Secretary of State repeated that she did not blame farmers for what had happened—I look forward to reading Hansard to ascertain that. However, the notion that farmers were to blame for the disaster of foot and mouth disease is at the heart of the Bill.
  Whenever anything goes wrong, it is the Government's natural and cowardly instinct to look around for someone else to blame. However, I have rarely witnessed anything as low or contemptible as their attempt to blame foot and mouth on the farming community. After all that the farming community has been through in the past year, the Government produce a Bill that tries to punish it for a crime that it did not commit. It is a punishment inflicted on the innocent by the guilty.
  Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman's comments are bizarre. It is hardly the Secretary of State's fault that foot and mouth disease spread throughout the country. Ministers did not go around spreading it. What about the pig fanner in Northumberland who fed his pigs infected swill and transported them all the way to Essex? Does the hon. Gentleman believe that that person is exonerated from any blame?
  Mr. Ainsworth: I greatly respect the hon. Gentleman, but he should study the matter more carefully. He is clearly unaware of Professor Woolhouse's evidence, which suggests that if Ministers and officials had got to grips with the disease sooner, only half as many animals might have had to be culled.
  Margaret Beckett: Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Professor Woolhouse made his calculation and assessment, and he clearly has a valid point of view, but at the time, many people, including Opposition Members, blamed the Government for acting too swiftly.
  Mr. Ainsworth: If the Secretary of State agreed to a full independent public inquiry, we might get to the
  586
  bottom of some of those important issues. The Bill has sweeping powers, yet the Government have produced no conclusive evidence that resistance by farmers to culling helped to spread the disease.
  Part I is based on a false premise, which the Government use to try to justify disproportionate measures.
  Mr. Russell Brown: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman remembers the outbreak in 1967 and the inquiry that followed it. Despite the inquiry and report, we were ill prepared for what happened this year. Holding an inquiry does not mean that we will be prepared if such an outbreak regrettably happens again.
  Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman makes a strange point. We should like a public inquiry to consider why the Government did not consider the evidence of the Northumberland committee of 1967–68 and use it as a precedent for action of the latest outbreak. It is one of the greatest mysteries of the affair.
  Mr. David Borrow: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether the Opposition's policy is to hold a public inquiry into foot and mouth disease, and take legislative action only after the publication of its report, which could take two or three years? In the absence of an inquiry report, are they in a position to propose measures to tighten the regulations?
  Mr. Ainsworth: We support a full independent public inquiry because that is the only means of getting to the bottom of what happened and when events occurred. Why did Ministers make decisions at particular times? What were the causes of the outbreak? How did the disease arrive in this country? We believe that legislation would be better informed and more useful to the farming community, consumers and everyone else if it were based on an understanding of the issues. Only a full public inquiry can get to the bottom of them. Presumably the Government refuse to hold a public inquiry, despite the massive public support and demand for one, because they know what they would find.
  Margaret Beckett: That point is repeatedly made by Conservative Members. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Department is mindful of what was in the Northumberland report. Opposition Members say that they want something like the Northumberland report, and that that means a full public inquiry. The Northumberland report was not the result of a full public inquiry, of the kind that Opposition Members want, under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1971, and it was serviced by Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food officials, not by anyone outside the Department. But Opposition Members consistently quote that report. I have no quarrel with that; it is a very useful report. I have read it, but I do not see the lessons that Opposition Members have alleged can be drawn from it. That inquiry was thought to have been good enough then, and this Government have put in place a more independent process that is being run not by the Department but by people outside it and an independent chairman.
  Mr. Ainsworth: It is being run by other Government Departments. The Government have set up a smokescreen, not a full independent public inquiry. If the

  587
  right hon. Lady had nothing to hide, she would have nothing to fear from a public inquiry. In the absence of such an inquiry, people will inevitably be led to the conclusion that the Government have something to hide. That suspicion will haunt her for the rest of her political life.
  It has been left to county councils to fill the gap left by the Government's cowardice. Northumberland has announced a public inquiry, and Devon has already reported its preliminary findings, which have a direct bearing on the Bill. The Devon inquiry gave those who had suffered most from the foot and mouth crisis the voice that the Government seem determined to deny them. It found:
  "the outbreak and the handling of the ensuing crisis was lamentable."
  It also found evidence of
  "insensitive and even belligerent operatives and bungled culls"—
  which, it said, did

  "little to enhance the professional reputation of all those involved, from Ministers downwards."
  Those problems were not confined to Devon. Who could forget the television images of idiots with handguns chasing terrified animals round fields in Wales, for example?
  Mr. Eric Martlew: First, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill is putting in what was left out of the Animal Health Act 1981? For example, a farmer who deliberately infects his sheep or cattle would, under the 1981 Act, get 100 per cent. compensation and not be prosecuted.
  Secondly, with reference to the Devon inquiry, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House why Conservative-controlled Cumbria county council has not asked for a public inquiry when Cumbria was the worst affected area?
  Mr. Ainsworth: Public inquiries seem to be breaking out all over the country in the absence of a national one. Shropshire is now holding one, and I have no doubt that Cumbria is considering the matter carefully, although I am told that it is concerned about the cost to its council tax payers. The issue should be handled and sponsored by the Government in a proper and considered way. On what the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) said, a public inquiry does not have to take two or three years but can be conducted far more quickly if given the right instructions.
  Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend heard the remarks of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), who now appears to support a Bill that proposes that someone who deliberately infects their own animals with foot and mouth would still get 75 per cent. compensation.
  Mr. Ainsworth: It is one of the more bizarre aspects of the Bill that a farmer who infects his own animals will still get compensation. My right hon. Friend and others will no doubt wish to explore that issue in Committee.
  A widely circulated letter from Alan Richardson, a retired veterinary surgeon who worked for the Home Office and for MAFF, and who was involved in the 1967 outbreak and offered his services in. Cumbria during the
  588
  latest outbreak, provides further compelling evidence of incompetence, bureaucracy and sheer stupidity on the part of officials acting on orders from Ministers.
  Mr. Richardson reported for duty on 28 February at the Carlisle office, which he found
  "completely overwhelmed. And the bemused confusion among the staff of all ranks proclaimed there had been no contingency planning at all."
  He went on to report
  "excessive bureaucracy … administrative chaos … dithering … wasted time … bizarre priorities … ludicrous procedures … Many young, foreign and inexperienced veterinarians were manipulated, even bullied, by HQ staff."
  Worse still, he reports:
  "Before the General Election, HQ tried to resist positive diagnoses; even where there was little doubt".
  What instruction had those officials received from Ministers to resist positive diagnoses before the general election? Given that the Prime Minister had by then taken personal control of the crisis, was there perhaps a deliberate attempt to stifle bad news in the run-up to the general election? That is one of the issues that a full independent public inquiry could get to the bottom of.
  As well as condemning the handling of the outbreak, the Devon inquiry offers a series of sensible recommendations for future action, dealing with the training of officials, animal movements, vaccination, the disposal of culled animals and compensation. None of those is to be found in the Bill.
  Even more bizarre is the way in which the Bill pre-empts the outcome of the Government's own inquiries into the catastrophe. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), kindly circulated a letter to hon. Members in which he says:
  "I also wish to make clear that in bringing forward these measures the Government is not pre-empting the findings of the independent inquiries that are considering aspects of the foot and mouth outbreak."
  Setting aside the fact that the inquiries are not independent in the true sense, that is turning the truth on its head. He seeks to justify pre-empting the inquiries on the grounds that
  "We are now at a critical stage in dealing with the tail end of the epidemic and must be ready to take timely and effective action should it reappear."
  It would have helped had they taken timely and effective action in the first place. This is like locking the stable door after 4 million animals have bolted and been destroyed. There may well be a case for changes in legislation, but such a case could be made only after careful analysis of what went wrong and the lessons that have been learned.
  As the National Farmers Union has pointed out,
  "It is most important that the advice of the current inquiries is to hand before decisions about any changes in current policy are made."
  The NFU also mentions next month's international conference in Brussels, which is co-sponsored by the Government and to which the Secretary of State referred. It will debate the merits of different approaches to future outbreaks. She confirmed today that it may bring some fresh thinking on vaccination.

  589
  Yet, today, we have a Bill that pre-empts any fresh thinking. Not content with pre-empting their own inquiries, the Government have seen fit to pre-empt international discussions that could be vital to setting the course for future policy. Far from identifying and addressing the faults in the way in which the system was applied and seeking to right them, the Bill seeks to put even more power into the hands of the very people who were responsible in the first place for the bloody shambles, the heartache, the callous disregard for animal welfare and the massive costs to rural businesses and public funds.
  The National Sheep Association said:
  "We are extremely concerned that even more power should be given to a group of people who in far too many cases proved they did not understand farmers, livestock and livestock handling and frequently had extremely poor management and operational skills. "
  It is worth remembering that, right now, 18 DEFRA staff at the Exeter office are suspended, pending inquiries into financial irregularities.
  The Bill provides for the mass slaughter of almost any animal that Ministers decide should be killed. Clause 1(3) makes it clear that it is "immaterial", in Ministers' considerations, whether any such animals have been
  "affected with foot-and-mouth … suspected of being so affected … in contact with animals so affected … exposed to the infection",
  or even "treated with vaccine".
  Mr. Martlew: I expect the hon. Gentleman to attack the Government, which is the Opposition's job, but I do not expect him to attack the staff in the way that he has. Is it not a fact that, in Cumbria and throughout the country, DEFRA staff and MAFF staff before them have worked hard and tirelessly for long hours to try to get the disease under control? Can he give his statements some credibility by praising those staff?
  Mr. Ainsworth: I am delighted to do that, because many staff, officials, vets and members of the armed services worked extremely hard. However, that does not mean that the instructions to which they worked were adequate or well directed. Nor does it explain why so many people giving evidence to the various public inquiries that have now been established have gone out of their way to criticise officials and the clumsy and often belligerent way in which they operated.
  I know that officials will need to get approval from a magistrate before exercising the new powers, but I do not know how a magistrate will know whether a request for mass slaughter is justified. I hope that the Minister will explain that.
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard: We in the Select Committee questioned the Minister on that point, and I asked whether magistrates were to be given special training. I am afraid that he replied that that was not a matter for him. Given that the magistrate concerned might have to remove the livelihood of a member of his community, I ask the Minister to produce an answer today or, at the very worst, in time for Committee. I am glad that my hon. Friend raised the point, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's answer.
  Mr. Ainsworth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has unrivalled expertise in these matters and plays a
  590
  distinguished role in the Select Committee. As she will have heard, I have asked that the Minister address the point in his concluding remarks, although the Secretary of State may wish to do so now.
  Margaret Beckett: No, I have a question for the Opposition. What special training do those who deal with injunctions have?
  Mr. Ainsworth: The right hon. Lady's attempts to run away from an important question are pathetic. She owes it to the people on whom the legislation will impact to provide an answer to my right hon. Friend's question.
  Mrs. Shephard: I will happily answer the right hon. Lady, although perhaps she should remember that she is in government and responsible for finding answers to questions. Magistrates are, of course, provided with training to deal with injunctions and other matters. This is a matter of a different order, which is why I put the question to the Minister, and why I was so shocked that he could not find the answer. Clearly, the right hon. Lady does not know either. What a scandal.
  Mr. Ainsworth: It is indeed scandalous.
  Margaret Beckett: Let me point out to the hon. Gentleman what my hon. Friend the Minister sought to convey to the right hon. Lady, who should know that the training of magistrates is not a matter for our Department. It would be wrong of us to seek to intervene in that; it is a matter for the Lord Chancellor's Department.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We are getting into an awkward three-way exchange.
  Mr. Ainsworth: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The fact is that the legislation will pose serious problems for magistrates if they do not get appropriate training. It envisages a magistrate receiving a telephone call and being told that there is an urgent case. That magistrate will have to rely simply on the word of officials or of the Minister. Given that the Government's credibility, and especially the Department's, is at such a low ebb, the magistrate will be in an extremely difficult position. The Secretary of State clearly has no understanding of how discredited her Department has become. Many will ask why, after all the mess and chaos over which the Government have presided and which they have, in many ways, abetted, anyone should trust the word of the Secretary of State's officials on FMD.
  Farmers or other people responsible for animals will not get the chance to put their case. The sentence will, in effect, be summary and based on the evidence of the Department alone. That is not only unreasonable but unjust. On the front page of the Bill, the Secretary of State baldly states:
  "In my view the provisions of the Animal Health Bill are compatible with the Convention rights."
  That means the European convention on human rights. She may be aware of legal opinion that disagrees. If nothing else, it looks as if the Bill will be good news for lawyers.
  Several of my right hon. and hon. Friends, notably my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), have already raised the

  591
  issue of compensation. Schedule 1 assumes that farmers must first prove that they have taken proper care to protect their animals before they are entitled to full compensation for any livestock, healthy or otherwise, that are to be destroyed on Government orders. The assumption is made against the farmer. For the law to be just, it should require the authorities to prove that the farmer or animal owner has been negligent. The Government appear to assume that farmers are more prone to negligence than Ministers or officials. That view is not widely shared in rural Britain.
  Why does clause 4 distinguish between the compensation arrangements for animals slaughtered as part of a general carnage and those for animals slaughtered after vaccination? In the case of vaccinated animals, the Bill allows the Minister to
  "pay compensation of such an amount as may be prescribed by order of the Minister."
  Given that most people agree that vaccination would play a part in the event of another outbreak of FMD, that seems to give the Minister wide discretion to determine the level of future compensation payments.
  The National Sheep Association goes so far as to suggest that the compensation arrangements in new section 35A in schedule 1 are
  "an evil tool which is the product of a devious and nasty mind!"
  Ministers have much explaining to do on compensation, and it is undoubtedly an issue that my right hon. and hon. Friends will wish to pursue with vigour in the Bill's subsequent stages, assuming that it gets a Second Reading.
  Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend will be aware that matters of compensation must also be considered by the European Commission. Was not it interesting that the Secretary of State made no reference to her discussions with the EU? After all, we are part of a single market.
  Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend makes a good point, because it appears that the Bill has been drafted without reference to the EU framework. As I said, forthcoming international discussions may have significant ramifications for the handling of diseases and the Government have pre-empted their outcome.
  The Bill is as notable for its omissions as for the new powers that it confers on Ministers. The most serious omission is the absence of any new measure to tackle one of the root causes of the FMD outbreak and other forms of animal disease: inadequate import controls. It is widely agreed that as FMD did not originate spontaneously, it must have been imported. The farming community has long argued for more stringent surveillance measures and tougher sentences for illegal or substandard food imports. It is arguable that such measures would make the greatest single contribution to reducing the risk of further outbreaks. As things stand, I am sad to say, we could import FMD again tomorrow, and the Bill does nothing to reduce that risk.
  The Bill is premature, has been introduced without consultation, is misdirected, and contains measures that are unfair and disproportionate. It will do nothing to restore the Government's reputation among the farming community, nor to encourage much needed confidence in the wider rural community.
  592
  It is indeed an extraordinary achievement for the Government to have earned the severe criticism of both Compassion in World Farming and the Countryside Alliance. That must be a first. Better legislation would follow mature consideration both of the reasons for the outbreak and of the failure of the Government's attempt to bring it under control. I urge the House to accept our amendment.
  4.40 pm
  Mr. Mark Todd: I will support the Bill's Second Reading—but I have considerable reservations, which I will talk about later.
  The parts of the Bill that merit its being sent for further consideration in Committee are, in particular, those relating to the national scrapie plan. I think we would all accept that we have for far too long tolerated a fatal illness in sheep which may also mask other serious animal diseases that may have implications for human health. The national plan, which the Bill will assist, may help us to accelerate the elimination of scrapie from our national flock. That measure alone means that the Bill merits strong consideration. The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), commended it, although he said that it needed further detailed consideration. I agree with him; it certainly is a strong feature of the Bill.
  The second element that deserves positive support is the recognition that carelessness and ignorance may lead to the spread of disease, and that it may be worth while to give farmers incentives to avoid those risks as far as possible.
  Those are the key elements that I think are positive. However, I am afraid that there are other elements that I regard with some doubt, and Ministers will need to persuade me. They will also have to take a more flexible view of the need to improve the Bill in Committee. Bearing in mind the haste with which the Bill has been put together, it would be prudent for Ministers to listen carefully to reasoned amendments in Committee, and to reflect on whether they would improve it.
  I am concerned by any step to widen Ministers' powers to destroy animals without having to act according to clear criteria. I recognise and accept the rationale that the disease might have been slowed down by a more vigorous cull process applied with more rigour across our country, so if I can be persuaded that the powers in the Bill will ensure that those measures are available, I shall accept it. However, from Ministers asking for such exceptional powers, I would normally seek absolutely clear criteria for deciding on the application of those powers—which, as has already been said, would end a farmer's livelihood, temporarily at least.
  The second issue that concerns me is the denial of compensation on the basis of biosecurity lapses over a 21-day period—a period that may go back before the outbreak even started. Unless it is the contention that those biosecurity measures should be in place as a matter of course on all farms at all times, the time of the outbreak of the disease would probably be the point at which most farmers would consider the need to introduce additional security measures on their properties. Yet the legislation, baldly written as it is, implies that for 21 days before the outbreak was identified on a property, a farmer would have had to have taken those measures already, even if he were ignorant of the fact that an outbreak had occurred elsewhere in the country.

  593
  Ministers should further consider how the 21-day rule is to be interpreted. In the Select Committee, a number of Members questioned the Minister on how the principle operated, bearing in mind the fact that most farmers would receive a visit from a Department official at the time the outbreak occurred but would not normally expect to see such an official during the previous 21 days to identify whether the appropriate measures had been put in place. Of course, those measures are not defined. I recognise that they may be defined in regulations and note the assurance of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that there will be consultation on those issues, but at present we are slightly in the dark about them.
  It would be prudent to ensure that the 21-day principle were tied much more clearly to matters for which there was a verifiable record, rather than a matter of opinion, such as whether a passer-by noticed a disinfectant trough next to a footpath. The outbreak gave rise to enough urban and rural myths without our encouraging yet more people to speculate, sometimes maliciously, or imagine how various things happened. This principle rather invites that process.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. His farming constituents, like mine, no doubt suffered during the foot and mouth crisis from MAFF's continual changes of instructions on biosecurity measures. In those circumstances, how is a farmer expected to know what the correct biosecurity measures are?
  Mr. Todd: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I disagree with him. I think that steps were taken. It is fair to say that the recommended measures changed from time to time, as experience demonstrated what measures were most effective. At a very early stage, all farmers received clear guidance on how to identify foot and mouth disease—which is extremely difficult in the main carrying species—and on the measures that seemed appropriate at the time. Farmers with longish memories remembered the use of footbaths and other measures to improve biosecurity. I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I think that some steps were taken and some learning done. I do not blame MAFF for that.
  My third point was made by the hon. Member for East Surrey and, indeed, I have made it before repeatedly. For the Bill to be a balanced approach to controlling the risk of disease in our land, the most sensible accompanying measure would be steps to control illegal meat imports. The main route is not illegal imports presented as legal imports but illegal imports on the backs of trucks labelled as containing vegetables, or in people's luggage. Thus far, the measures that have been taken are clearly inadequate and have been widely criticised. There would be greater hope of engaging with the other stakeholders in the rural community if more positive action were proposed to accompany these steps.
  My fourth concern is that consultation has been extremely limited, although I appreciate why. I am reassured by my right hon. Friend's statement about substantial consultation on the various schedules and regulations. I hope that they will be extremely detailed and that they will fill the obvious gaps in the Bill.
  594
  Fifthly, although the Bill places specific obligations on farmers, it does not balance them with obligations on Department officials to carry out tasks within a certain time. There is the 21-day rule for determining whether people have properly followed biosecurity measures, but there is no precise timetable within which an official will be obliged to decide, for example, whether a farmer is entitled to compensation of 100 per cent., 75 per cent. or something in between. There is certainly no obligation on the Department to pay compensation within a certain time. which has caused a certain amount of grief in my constituency.
  Margaret Beckett: Obviously, these are issues that the House will want to discuss, but the Department has it in mind to set a target of three weeks.
  Mr. Todd: I thank my right hon. Friend. I take that as meaning that the Department will have three weeks in which to pay compensation. When the Select Committee asked the Under-Secretary about decisions on compensation, we had difficulty in drawing an answer out of him, but I got the impression that those decisions would be made in days rather than weeks, and that, in many cases, it would be plain to the official visiting the farm that a decision could be made on that day. 1 shall return in a moment to the reasons for my concern about that lack of definition of the Department's obligations.
  I am concerned also about the lack of definition of what biosecurity measures will be required. The Select Committee asked questions about that. We asked how these measures differ from the requirements that the law already imposes. The Under-Secretary made it clear that several prosecutions for biosecurity lapses were in hand, so the law does affect farmers, particularly on matters such as dirty vehicles. That might be covered in a schedule defining the circumstances in which different biosecurity measures would be appropriate. There is a great deal more work to be done on that.
  There are different farming practices and different means of species management, which will have to be reflected in the steps that are taken. The Under-Secretary, speaking to the Select Committee, rightly drew attention to the extreme biosecurity measures taken in pig units. There is such a property in my constituency, and it would have been extremely difficult to visit it or even to get near it when those measures were in place, and rightly so. Clearly, we need to reflect on such experiences and draw up specific regulations.
  Mr. David Drew: My hon. Friend's argument is cogent. Does he agree that there remains a significant problem with the division of responsibilities between central and local government in monitoring biosecurity?
  Mr. Todd: I thank my hon. Friend for his typically astute remark. I was about to turn to the management of powers, which is another area of doubt. As those of us who have had foot and mouth in our constituencies are aware, the role of county councils and trading standards officers is vital. There was significant variation in the ways in which functions relating to movement restrictions were carried out. I commend the people involved in that task in my county, who worked extremely hard and were assiduous. When I asked queries, they answered promptly and pursued lengthy inquiries into the movement of

  595
  animals. One point that certainly came through was that often they did not receive sufficient information quickly enough to carry out their responsibilities as they felt they should. My hon. Friend is thus right to highlight that concern.
  My final point has been touched on by the Opposition and it troubles me greatly: the Bill will pass considerable powers to a Department that, if we are honest, did not in all respects perform in a way of which we can be proud as public representatives. That does not mean that I criticise many of the junior officials who worked extremely hard. During the outbreak in my area, farmers were most complimentary about MAFF officials and spoke of the sensitivity, kindness and care with which they carried out their responsibilities. The problem lay further up the chain.
  Although the problem was handled with great care and sensitivity, frustration arose when bills had to be paid and issues signed off at a more senior level in the Ministry and in relation to the overall strategic management of the outbreak. There is concern, which I have conveyed to the Under-Secretary, about passing more powers to a group of senior managers whose adequacy many people may criticise, even though those managers may have felt that they carried out their responsibilities in the best way, given the circumstances.
  We require some assurance about the way in which such diseases will be managed in DEFRA in future, such as the accountability and roles of Ministers and the essential management tasks that will be allocated to the Department's personnel. Most of us will require greater reassurance on those key matters—not on the willingness of junior staff who, in many ways, performed well beyond the call of duty, and certainly not on the role of the armed forces and others who were drafted in to help in extreme circumstances. However, that critical strategic and operational management role was seen as being of poor quality in many areas—especially those that were under the most stress.
  Before we pass such severe and draconian powers, even though they may be justified, we must be assured about the quality of the people who will make judgments.
  4.58 pm
  Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) trod carefully on egg shells. He showed a degree of dexterity, and he highlighted many of the concerns felt not only in the House but by people outside.
  It is good to know that Labour Members are prepared to express those concerns. Opposition Members can be a little less constrained in the force with which we express our views, but it is good that Government supporters recognise that the Bill does not seem to justify its introduction as an emergency measure. It seems neither timely nor to have been subject to proper preparation or consultation. The Secretary of State has not explained why there is such a desperate need to pass the Bill in haste.
  Although many of us who called for a public inquiry still believe that the Government will live to regret not holding one—many questions will go unanswered and will fester beneath the current performance of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—I wholly accept that a public inquiry would not of itself
  596
  allow for the introduction of more urgent measures. If the Government believe that legislative changes are required—no one is suggesting that they are not—they have a duty to explain exactly what is informing their policy and to explain the reason for their haste. They have not even taken time to consult those directly affected—the farmers—and the other agencies concerned for animal health and welfare. Although the Secretary of State said that the Government would consult on the secondary legislation, that apparently could not be done for the primary legislation.
  Ministers must be well aware of the feeling—I am sure that the Secretary of State has encountered it—that the Department and the Government are indifferent, if not hostile, to the interests of those engaged in agriculture and the rural economy. The absence of consultation does not help to reassure those people that there is a genuine desire to engage them in a partnership to deal with a problem that has destroyed many people's livelihoods, and continues to do so. That is why I and my colleagues do not believe that the Bill is justified.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is Scottish, so does he share my concern and amazement that there has been no consultation with the devolved Assemblies or Parliaments? In particular, does he share my concern that there will be a different system of compensation in England and Wales from the one that pertains in Scotland? As he suggests, many cross-border issues will prove to be a festering sore for the Government.
  Malcolm Bruce: I have read the amendment to which the hon. Gentleman has attached his name and I know that he is concerned about the role of the National Assembly for Wales. I suspect that his concern is shared by my colleagues in Wales. Consultation has taken place between Departments north and south of the border, but I agree that it has not taken place with the Parliament. I shall return to that point.
  Given the slaughter that has taken place over the past few months and the appalling spectacle of pyres and bulldozed bodies, the wider public will be concerned that the Government are planning an even bigger scale of slaughter next time. People will want to know whether that is the right way to respond to the crisis.
  The hon. Member for South Derbyshire made the reasonable point that the Department needs to put its own house in order before it begins to legislate about the behaviour of the others with whom it has to work. There can be no doubt that the Department has been run down progressively over a number of years. That process began under the Conservatives, but it has continued under Labour. Regional offices have been reduced or closed and policy has been applied inconsistently. The hon. Gentleman may believe that changes were made according to the information available, but different advice or instructions appeared to given at the same time in different parts of the country. I am told that that actively encouraged farmers to take legal advice and action against the Government. That might not have happened if policies had been applied consistently.
  The veterinary service has been run down substantially over many years and the relationship between state veterinary services and private vets, which used to be an

  597
  important part of the delivery of policy, has broken down. As has rightly been said, biosecurity or the lack of it at ports may have allowed the disease to come in.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley)indicated dissent.
  Malcolm Bruce: Although we do not know that, my view is based on strong reports. Before 11 September—I am sure this is still true—those of us who travelled to the United States knew that at any international airport we would be surrounded by sniffer dogs. They were not looking for heroin or for cannabis, but for ham sandwiches or anything else that might infect American food. We have no such security in this country, and nothing in the Bill suggests that we will get it.
  The hon. Members for South Derbyshire and for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) alluded to the definition of inadequate biosecurity, which is now to become an offence that could compromise someone's right to full compensation. There may be a legitimate argument for having such a rule, but the problem is that the Department will decide what biosecurity is and when a breach occurs. A magistrate will have to decide on the basis of departmental information whether a breach has taken place.
  Reference has been made to the training of magistrates and to injunctions, which involve a point of law. However, determining questions of biosecurity involves a point of professional judgment with which a magistrate has more difficulty. A farmer might ultimately persuade a magistrate that the advice was wrong, but that might happen after the flock had been slaughtered.
  Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman is again mixing up parts of the Bill. Appeal on the ground of biosecurity is not to a magistrate but to a separate tribunal, which will be experienced in dealing with such issues. The intention of consultation is to agree the assessment with the industry—which does not object to the proposal in principle—to make it as simple and understandable as possible, and to use it as part of the guidance that we give farmers about the practices that they should be applying. That could be done logically and straightforwardly, and such a provision would be to the advantage of the whole industry.
  Malcolm Bruce: That is a helpful intervention, but the industry will want to know why that could not have occurred before the introduction of emergency legislation.
  Mr. Martlew: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that only this weekend 400 sheep were killed in south Cumbria on suspicion of foot and mouth? We are not over the outbreak yet; there was a lull in the 1967 outbreak of the kind we face today. I disagree with the slaughter policy, but we need to pass the Bill so that we can get on top of the disease and reduce the number of animals that have to be slaughtered. We have learned the lessons of the outbreak since the end of February.
  Malcolm Bruce: I suppose that the hon. Gentleman would say that, if the disease flared up again on the
  598
  previous scale, such legislation might be justified, but I still do not think that we would have enough answers to suggest that the policy had been thought through. Given what we hope is a diminishing problem, what has been learned over the past few weeks and months suggests that we can manage. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman's intervention implies that we are doing so.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I was about to make that point; the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) argued against his own position. Is not one important factor that under clause 1(3) there no longer has to be even a suspicion of infection? Action can be taken simply because the Minister feels like it.
  Malcolm Bruce: Exactly. The Minister is much respected in the House and in the farming community, but it is not good enough just to say, "I'm the Minister. I wouldn't misuse those powers." He may not be the Minister who uses them. The point of scrutiny in this House is to justify in an absolute sense the powers that are conferred, regardless of who the Minister may be. The power of the Secretary of State or the Minister to determine that any animal should be slaughtered without any justification seems extremely strong, and one for which the House would have to have an overwhelming reason to grant. The case for that has certainly not been put to us convincingly.
  More to the point, the public want the outbreak to be eliminated. I and my party defended the slaughter policy at times when it was extremely difficult to do so—for example, we said that it should not be changed half way through and that there was no adequate alternative. The Minister may accept that or not.
  Many of us also said that the scale of the slaughter and the images that it created should never be repeated. We need to find a better way. Indeed, my colleague, Ross Finnie, Minister for Environment and Rural Development in Scotland, is on record as saying that he does not believe that he could get away with such a policy if there were another outbreak on the same scale.
  Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman is making a fair and reasonable case for his legitimate concerns about the Bill. The powers relate to such matters as a firebreak cull, which was implemented in Scotland following veterinary advice. Such action would not be one of my personal preferences. I should make it clear that I do not want culling on such a scale to occur ever again in this country. The Bill does not pre-empt any different approach, but whatever approach we take is bound to include some elements of vaccination, zoology and culling. The Bill strengthens all those aspects.
  Malcolm Bruce: Let me be clear: some practical amendments to the legislation in the light of experience may be justified, but given the way in which the outbreak has been handled, we could have waited a little longer to introduce a Bill. There could have been more consultation, and more questions could have been answered. We fear that the Government are taking more powers than they hope will be necessary just in case they need them. Opposition parties have a responsibility to call Ministers to account and to question and challenge powers that we believe are too sweeping and unjustified.

  599
  The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) mentioned the different system in Scotland. The Bill will apply to Wales, although the National Farmers Union in Wales is worried about the confusion that might arise over who will take which decisions. Ross Finnie has told me that, after consultation, he will introduce legislation in Scotland and that there must be a parallel rule on the scrapie measures. As the NFU in England has said, we want to know what will happen in Scotland, because there is no point in having a regime in England and Wales if there is no parallel regime in Scotland. I endorse that view as someone who is strongly pro-devolution. Parallel measures are needed.
  Mr. Russell Brown: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that much of Ross Finnie's argument for taking that decision centres on the fact that the last outbreak in Scotland occurred on 30 May, so he has had time to consider what has happened?
  Malcolm Bruce: Yes, but I am not persuaded that the situation for Ministers south of the border is fundamentally different. I appreciate that there was a bigger, more expensive and extensive outbreak in England and that it is not yet over. I accept all that, but it beggars belief that we cannot manage our way through what may happen without taking draconian powers.
  People assumed that lessons were being learned that might be appropriate for the next outbreak, not that measures were being taken this late in the day to finish off the current outbreak. Indeed, the Minister has implied that the Bill is intended for the next time, but he has used the fact that we are not quite in the safety zone to justify its introduction now.
  As the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) implied in his intervention, the disease affected his constituency very badly, and it affected mine tangentially. Nevertheless, the outbreak in Scotland was more manageable and was dealt with quickly, but there was also much more co-operation, understanding and shorter lines of communication, all of which helped. The watering down of the regional offices in England lengthened the lines of communication there. which created some of the difficulties. Lessons may be learned from that, but perhaps Ministers could have considered the situation in Scotland and said, "This is relevant and this is not" and applied the best practice and discarded the rest, and explained why. It would have been reassuring if that had happened.
  The scale of the powers to deal with scrapie and the lack of justification for them give me considerable cause for concern. For example, clause 6(4) states:
  "The Inspector may take with him such other persons as he thinks necessary to give him such assistance as he thinks necessary.
  The inspector may require any person on the land or premises to give him such assistance as he reasonably needs for the purpose mentioned in subsection (2)."
  If a farmer expresses resistance, the inspector will tell the farm workers that he is co-opting them to help him deal with their boss's concerns. What message does that send? Will the inspector turn up with the Army or half the constabulary? We have seen that happen, and people want to know the specifics of what will happen.
  The Library brief makes it clear that the legal measures may fall within the European convention on human rights, but it suggests that the compensation rules may not. As I
  600
  said in an intervention on the Secretary of State, my concern is that the legal measures seem to be loaded in favour of the Department and are not even-handed in relation to the smaller beast—the farmer who challenges the Department's judgment.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I merely want to say that a farm worker who refuses to assist in those circumstances will commit an offence.
  Malcolm Bruce: Indeed—the hon. Gentleman's intervention is helpful. I hope that the Minister will understand that our opposition to the Bill is not a knee-jerk or negative reaction, simply produced by the fact that we are in opposition. We believe that very substantial powers may be created in a hurry, and it behoves Minister to justify doing so. At present, we do not think that Ministers have justified them.
  When the Secretary of State came to the House after the debacle of the sheep and cow brain research, she indicated that legislation to eliminate scrapie was at an advanced stage of preparation. No reference was made to other powers, and it is interesting that the reference to scrapie in the Bill, as opposed to the schedule, occupies one line. The rest of the Bill relates to foot and mouth disease and all its implications.
  There is a general recognition that if we can breed scrapie out of the herd, there is merit in so doing. Obviously, questions arise about how effective that will be. Another question is how to decide which breeds are scrapie resistant. Where is the cut-off point? Where is the determination? Who decides?
  As the Government and the Minister have said, measures will be taken to protect special breeds. We need to know what those measures will be. If we want diversity of breeding, we need to ensure that we do not, in the process of trying to eliminate scrapie, create such uniformity among the sheep flock that we make it less resistant to another unknown disease that would have so much of a common thread that it would run through our genetic stock.
  We have an obligation to maintain diversity as well as having an attachment to some unusual breeds. That is true in some of the wilder and more remote parts of Scotland and elsewhere. We need to know that we are not going down a path that is incompatible with maintaining diversity. Perhaps the Minister will indicate how that can be achieved when he replies. He will find that many people want answers.
  If this measure had merely been the scrapie Bill, I suspect that it would have received a Second Reading without a Division. Given the other provisions that it contains, there certainly will be a Division. We shall vote against the Bill.
  5.17 pm
  Mr. David Borrow: Like many right hon. and hon. Members, I was rather surprised when the Bill was placed before the House, and I am surprised by some of the reasons that lead us to be debating it this evening. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs spoke to the Environment Committee last week and mentioned that there was a slot in the legislative programme that enabled

  601
  the Government to deal with the scrapie problem. Perhaps it is not surprising that officials in the Department for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs had been busy examining ways in which foot and mouth disease had not been handled as well as it could have been and had found that there were measures that could be introduced and tagged on to the Bill.
  By rushing through the proposed legislation without much consultation, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and his colleagues risk fanning the flames of opposition within the rural community. I represent a semi-rural constituency that has not been affected by foot and mouth. I recognise that within it farmers are not natural supporters of either the Labour party or a Labour Government. They are happy and prepared to use anything that is done by the Labour Government within the agricultural community as a reason to object to and vilify that Government. Therefore, my hon. Friend's Department must be careful about the handling of any legislation that relates to the agricultural community.
  Over the past eight or nine months while foot and mouth disease has been rampaging across England, I have noticed that there has been no consensus on how the disease should be handled. There was criticism that the Government were being too draconian. At another stage, there was criticism that they were not moving fast enough and were not culling enough animals. There were arguments in favour of vaccination, but there was strong opposition when the issue appeared on the agenda of the NFU. It was said that vaccination would be a complete disaster.
  As the disease has moved round the country and as it has been handled and seen to flare up again, I have learned from the debates and swings of opinion over the past eight months that there is no consensus among scientists or farmers on how best to deal with it. That makes it difficult for Ministers and DEFRA officials in any Administration to carry out policies that will take the farming community with them. In a way. that is part of the problem. There were strong arguments in the spring for a limited use of vaccination, but I well remember ministerial advisers telling the Select Committee that they would not advise Ministers to use vaccination, even if there were good scientific reasons for doing so, without the support of the farming community.
  The same goes for the culling policy—contiguous culling and firebreaks. Measures on vaccination and culling in the Bill could be used only when there was a majority view in the farming community in favour of vaccination or contiguous culling. They could be used only against the odd individual in a particular locality who sought to resist the consensus on the right approach to deal with foot and mouth. The extravagant opposition of some newspaper articles and correspondence, which, I am sure, right hon. and hon. Members have received, comes partly from the assumption that Governments would use vaccination or a firebreak policy when there is overwhelming opposition from the farming community. Ministers need to be clear that those powers should be used only when there is a majority in favour of using them and a handful of farmers who do not go along with the consensus.
  602
  On the specifics of the Bill, I am concerned about the issue of appeals. I accept that farmers can go to the divisional veterinary manager and appeal against vaccination or a policy of culling. The second stage is an appeal before a magistrate. I understand that that appeal simply involves a DEFRA official going to see a magistrate and saying that the Department wants to carry out a cull or have access to the farm to vaccinate. At that stage, there is no opportunity for farmers to put the contrary case to the magistrate. They can only take action by going for judicial review, most likely after the action has been taken.
  There may be good reasons for taking action quickly, but I am not convinced that we cannot devise a system whereby the magistrate is accessible to both farmers and DEFRA officials. We must be careful to carry the farming community with us as much as possible when such measures are used. We are setting up a situation in which a farmer's animals can be culled and then, at a later stage, judicial review can show that he was right all along, and compensation is paid because the Government got it wrong. In doing so, we risk making the Department even more unpopular with farmers and discrediting the policy that we seek and on which there is a general consensus. When the provision dealing with that is debated in Committee, I hope that Ministers will have much more information about how it will work. They need to work hard with the farming community, the National Farmers Union and other organisations to persuade them of the merits of their policies. It would be a disaster if, in two or three months, the Bill is enacted in the face of fierce opposition from the farming community. That is not in the interests of the Government or of defeating foot and mouth disease in the future.
  Mr. Morley: Almost all the main farming organisations and some of the special organisations have welcomed the principles behind the measure. They have concerns about some of details, but there is not widespread opposition to the idea of the Bill. Many organisations, understandably, want clarification about how it will work and about some of the procedures.
  Mr. Borrow: I accept that. The majority of organisations dealing with farmers can go along with much that is in the Bill. They are worried about how the provisions are to be carried out in practice. The fact that the Bill has been rushed into the Chamber without a long period of consultation has given rise to concerns and suspicion that might not have arisen, had there been a longer period for such consultation. It is important that in the weeks ahead, everything possible be done to ensure that the farming community is on board on the Bill.
  The other aspects that are likely to be controversial can be seen as tidying-up measures. In the Animal Health Act 1981 there is no provision making it an offence deliberately to infect an animal with foot and mouth disease. One may consider that a daft thing to do, but as the Bill provides an opportunity to rectify that omission, it seems sensible to do so and make that act an offence. That is not the same as saying that there are thousands of farmers out there deliberately infecting their animals in order to claim compensation.
  I shall deal briefly with biosecurity and the withholding of the final 25 per cent. of compensation for infected animals. That is a useful measure. I take on board the

  603
  point made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the way in which the appeals will be dealt with is still the subject of consultation. That is important, because we need the support of the farming community for the measures in the Bill—useful measures which we hope will not be needed, but we must carry the farming community with us.
  Finally, I shall comment on the remarks of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth). As I understand it, the Opposition would hold a public inquiry and only after that would they decide whether any tidying-up measures were necessary to improve the legislation in respect of foot and mouth. I do not find that a sensible position for the Opposition to hold. It may be sensible to argue that there should be a public inquiry, except that that would take a long time.
  In the light of their experience of fighting the outbreak, it is sensible for officials at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to advise Ministers and tell them that if particular powers had been available, or if certain measures had been introduced, the Department would have been more effective in dealing with foot and mouth. Those officials should press Ministers for legislation to be introduced if the opportunity arises. I think that there is a lot of work to be done on the Bill in Committee and I shall support its Second Reading. My final word is on the view that I have expressed throughout my speech: we must do all that we can to ensure that the farming community supports the legislation and that proper explanations are given, point by point, of the way in which it will operate in practice.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. William Hague: It is a privilege, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to catch your eye from the Back Benches for the first time in nine years or so—something that I hope to do on rural matters on many occasions in the years ahead. As you can imagine, the Bill is of pressing importance to my constituents in Richmond, Yorkshire, in the Yorkshire dales. Ours has been one of the hardest hit areas in the whole foot and mouth crisis, which is one of the worst events with which I have had to deal in almost 13 years as a Member of Parliament. We have had 39 cases of foot and mouth disease, deep human and animal hardship, and huge losses in the local tourism industry.
  Other hon. Members who represent similarly affected constituencies will agree that it is hard to imagine from central London the effect on the feelings, way of life and economy of the parts of our country that have been hit so hard by this disease. The farmers who have suffered it on their farms are among the most robust and stoical people one could ever come across, anywhere in the world. However, their stoicism has been tested to the limit this year by desperate animal welfare problems arid severe economic consequences, as well as by the fact that those difficulties have been accompanied and exacerbated by some of the worst instances of bureaucratic bungling, mismanagement and, sometimes, indifference that I have ever come across.
  We cannot consider the Bill in isolation from that record. Indeed, the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) made the same point from the Labour Benches. We cannot consider granting to a Department new and rather sweeping powers without looking at how it exercised its powers over
  604
  the past year. The matter cannot be considered in isolation. The Secretary of State used as one of the justifications for urgent legislation—indeed, this was the only justification that she gave—the argument that there had been protracted legal cases involving farmers who objected to culling. She gave the example of Thirsk, which is situated in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). However, one of the reasons why those legal cases and disputes arose was that farmers no longer had confidence in the exercise of the Ministry's powers, because of the way in which the outbreak had been handled until that time.
  So I fear that the Government are introducing legislation to deal urgently with a symptom of the problem, rather than with its actual cause. We in this House are law makers. That is our principal job. In the end, we are judged collectively by the laws that we make and by whether they are good. It is our collective experience in all parties that, if measures are rushed in their conception, introduced without reasonable consultation, unlikely to command wide support—a point mentioned by the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow)—or presented via weak arguments from the Front Bench, they are unlikely to be good law. Sadly, all those factors are present in the Bill. There is no clear reason why these measures alone, rather than others, should be introduced today, except a degree of frustration in the Department with some people who have argued back, a desire to ensure that the Government can always get their way, and, from a financial point of view, a little bit of meanness thrown in.
  The Government would be in a far stronger position to introduce these or any other measures if they had announced, at this stage or previously, the establishment of a true, public, open and detailed inquiry into the origins and development of foot and mouth disease, and if they had said that any emergency legislation that was necessary now, in the interim, would be subject to review after consideration of the results of such an inquiry. They would be in a far stronger position if they had a comprehensive plan about how they would tackle foot and mouth disease if it were to arise again in the next few months. However, they have presented nothing of that sort to the House. There is simply this measure on its own. No comprehensive plan has been put forward to the House, nor even a list of measures that must be urgently effected to tackle the disease more competently than before. We have not heard about a wider contingency plan. In fact, we have not heard much about the previous contingency plan. I know that the Government claim to have had a contingency plan when they were asked about the purchase of railway sleepers, but they seem reluctant to give it to anybody.
  I have seen a written answer from the Under-Secretary, which said that the contingency plan had been placed in the Library and that it is published on the Department's website. However, as far as I can tell, it is not on the Department's website today and the Library has no knowledge of it. I hope that the Under-Secretary will undertake to publish—or republish if he has already published it—the contingency plan that was followed by Ministers when this year's foot and mouth outbreak began.
  Mr. Morley indicated assent.
  Mr. Hague: No argument, such as that the Government are having an inquiry and that that is part of a bigger plan

  605
  and urgent list of measures, is available to Ministers during the debate because they are not doing such things. They refused to hold a true, public and independent inquiry despite the comments made by the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) when he announced the inquiry on BSE. He said that BSE
  "has also threatened the livelihood of thousands of people throughout the farming and food industries; it has cost the taxpayer huge sums: and it has caused considerable difficulties in our international relations. It has been … a disaster. We have a responsibility to … look at how circumstances developed in this disastrous manner."—[Official Report, 22 December 1997; Vol. 303, c. 678.]
  Do such factors not apply to this case? Has it threatened the livelihood of thousands of people throughout the farming and food industry? Yes, it has. Has it cost the taxpayer huge sums? Yes, it has. Has it caused difficulties in our international relations? Yes, it has been a disaster. Do we not have the same responsibility as we had for BSE to examine the development of such disastrous circumstances through an equivalent inquiry?
  Mr. Martlew: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and I am glad to see him speaking from the Back Benches. I remind him that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) made the announcement, the Opposition said that an inquiry on BSE was not necessary and, when they were in government, they refused to hold such an inquiry. It was two years later when the Labour party, which was then in government, apologised for the fact that an inquiry on BSE had not been held.
  Mr. Hague: I recall the Opposition's policy because I was Leader of the Opposition at the time. We did not oppose the establishment of the inquiry, and all of us who were even slightly connected with the matter when we were Ministers co-operated fully with it. There is no reason why Ministers today should not co-operate with a similar inquiry into the origins of the foot and mouth outbreak. What misdemeanour was so serious that it cannot be openly aired in such an inquiry? What evidence is so dangerous that it cannot be brought out in public? What gaps in the Government's handling were so wide that they cannot be publicly aired? By what standards can we have an inquiry into BSE and not foot and mouth, except by the standards of hypocrisy that the Government have set on other occasions?
  An inquiry is not being held because the attitude of the central personnel in the Government—not necessarily the Ministers specifically involved with the matter—is that disaster in the countryside is an inconvenient news story, rather than a major policy matter that should be resolved. That is why they slapped down the Minister for the Environment when he said that there would unquestionably be a public inquiry, because we would want to know how the disease took such hold. We have not heard from the right hon. Gentleman on that subject—I am not sure whether we have heard from him about any subject since he was slapped down by Downing street for making the statement.
  I have three major objections to the Bill. First, it is not based on a sound, independent, considered and comprehensive analysis of what happened and it is not
  606
  accompanied by such an undertaking with the Bill as an interim measure. Secondly, the Bill places an onus on farmers that the Government are not prepared to carry. The public inquiry in Devon, which is the most authoritative assessment so far, said that the Government's handling of the crisis was lamentable. Its first recommendation was:
  "We therefore find that methods of import control must be tightened to the highest international standards and if necessary he the subject of new legislation."
  The authors of that report raised an important point, which is my third objection to the Bill.
  It is now clear that we need urgently to take tougher action on bringing food into the United Kingdom—or the European Union, if that is the level at which such decisions should be made. It is incredible that passengers on an aeroplane can still bring meat into the country, provided that they claim that it is for personal use. Large quantities of meat are being brought in, in this way. and sold on to markets.
  Recent examples—I know that these are the most lurid—have included: a cargo declared as vegetables that included 15 dead monkeys and an anteater; another that contained a whole freshly slaughtered deer; maggot-infested fish; and live crabs in a suitcase. In March, baggage handlers at Heathrow refused to handle a suitcase that was leaking blood and covered in maggots. The Government have to deal with those problems quickly, to prevent not only foot and mouth but many other diseases, such as brown rot in potatoes, or classical swine fever, which came to this country last year.
  If the Government expect farmers to improve their biosecurity, it is time the Government improved the biosecurity of the entire nation. They are proposing to pay 75 per cent. compensation initially, then 100 per cent. if DEFRA officials—applying some as yet unspecified criteria—are satisfied that biosecurity has been maintained on a farm. In any fair system, it would be the other way round. There should be a presumption that 100 per cent. compensation should be paid, unless it could be shown that biosecurity had been insufficiently maintained, in which case 75 per cent. would be paid. Would Ministers apply their criteria to themselves? Would they agree to receive 75 per cent. of their salary initially, and get the balance only if the biosecurity policies of the nation were judged by a third party to be secure? I cannot see the Minister being gripped by enthusiasm for such a proposition.
  Mr. Todd: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that my plea on this subject was based on rather stronger ground than his, bearing it in mind that exactly the measures that he now criticises—and that I criticised in my speech—applied during the 18 years of Conservative government?
  Mr. Hague: This problem has existed for a long time. I stand on exactly the same ground as the hon. Gentleman on this subject. He tactfully explained in his speech that he supported the Bill, then went on to give seven or eight reasons why he had grave reservations about it. I am standing on exactly the same ground, except that I am freer, on this side of the House, to vote against it, which I suspect from the hon. Gentleman's speech is what he would dearly love to do.
  Ministers would not be gripped by enthusiasm for applying those same compensation criteria to themselves. They would not be keen on the idea because they would

  607
  know that their salaries would be unlikely ever to be paid in full. The biosecurity of this country has not been secured, and is not being secured. No Bill is adequate unless it tackles this indefensible situation.
  Mr. Morley: I do not dispute for a moment that biosecurity in relation to imports of animal products is a serious issue. In fact, I wrote to the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), about the measures that the Government are taking. In many aspects, we do not need primary legislation to tighten up those procedures. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if disease gets into this country illegally—we can never guarantee 100 per cent. that that will not happen—we must take measures to prevent it spreading? That is the problem that the Bill addresses.
  Mr. Hague: Of course I agree with the Minister's argument that, if disease enters the country, we must be equipped to prevent it spreading. That brings me to my third objection to the Bill, which is that it seeks to extend ministerial power in ways that are both sweeping and vague—a terrible combination. It seeks to extend the centralisation of ministerial power. I put it to the Minister that, in this year's outbreak, centralised Government decision making was often part of the problem, and that many people will, therefore, be sceptical that the extension of that decision making could be part of the solution.
  I know that the Government like to conjure up the idea that Ministers knew what to do all along, but that recalcitrant farmers sometimes stood in their way. The experience in my constituency was often the exact reverse. In many cases, farmers desperate to slaughter their own and surrounding stock were waiting for a decision from London, with local vets entirely on their side also trying to get a decision.
  I remember one instance in April, when I telephoned the office of one of the Ministers in what was then the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on a Friday afternoon on behalf of a farmer, begging the Department to make a decision on farmers who were wanting to carry out a cull in an area of Wensleydale. No decision was made for days. We could not get a decision from London over the weekend. Foot and mouth disease did not take the weekend off; it continued its march, whatever day of the week it was.
  I know that there are many hard-working people in what was MAFF and is now DEFRA. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) asked about the staff and the civil servants earlier, and they are hard-working people. I am not someone who takes potshots at civil servants; indeed, I was so fond of them when I was a Minister that I married one. However, it must be said that the administration of the affairs of MAFF during the foot and mouth outbreak left a great deal to be desired. In the words of the hon. Member for South Derbyshire, it was not something of which we could be proud. It often took five days to get a decision; that has been recited in some of the evidence to the Royal Society inquiry, and may have contributed to the spread of the disease.
  Now Ministers are saying that they need these new powers because time is of the essence. Actually, we needed more rapid decision making at the time of the
  608
  outbreaks; we needed more decentralised decision making, with local vets playing a bigger and more authoritative role, rather than more power given to the centre. The decision making of Departments during the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in my constituency was often slow and often led to massive confusion. Putting that right would make a bigger contribution to preventing the spread of disease than the Government's proposals in the Bill. Such proposals could at the very least be accompanied by those changes and reforms.
  In my constituency, lorry loads of dead animals were transported 40 miles through uninfected areas. Then, a reversal of policy from London meant that they had to be taken 40 miles back and, in one case, they were delivered right back to the farm on which they had been killed. If we had such instances, it is no surprise that the Government ended up in battles with farmers later on in the outbreak about whether their livestock should be culled.
  Today, administration of the Leeds office of DEFRA is hardly an advertisement for smooth competence. Again, I have no doubt that it is full of hard-working people, but there is a big problem in terms of its recent work and the granting of movement licences. Licences have been delayed for weeks; they are often lost, or duplicated; they have been sent out after movements have taken place on the authorisation of a previous licence; frequently, they are full of errors; and sometimes the licences are sent to the wrong place.
  If it were necessary today, with a fresh outbreak, for the Minister to trace animal movements in Yorkshire from the records of the Leeds office of DEFRA, he would find that any knowledge of what had gone where was surrounded by complete chaos. When we are told that the same Government Department is going to decide on the level of compensation by criteria that are not set out and on what animals will be slaughtered without any criteria being set out in the Bill, people are deeply sceptical and they are right to be so. Is it any wonder that the agricultural community is hostile to greater powers going to a Government Department that, in their daily experience, is so deeply disappointing?
  For farmers in the dales, there is a further problem, which adds to their scepticism about the Bill. The 21-day standstill period on animal movements, proposed by the Government, may mean that farmers who buy animals cannot then sell livestock for 21 days. If so, the consequences for the hill livestock industry in the dales are serious, since a huge amount of trade must be carried out within a short few weeks in the autumn. I acknowledge that more work may be necessary on that and that we may require better tracing mechanisms to go alongside any relaxation of the rules that the Government allow. Such a mechanism should be introduced urgently for the benefit of the economy of livestock farming in our country, particularly in North Yorkshire. That is the type of thing the Government should be doing.
  The Bill is not the correct response to the disaster in the countryside. Good legislation would be based on the results of, or accompanied by the setting up of, a clear, open and comprehensive public inquiry. It would be founded on widespread consultation, part of an overall strategy to improve the nation's defences against animal disease, and on an understanding of how Government

  609
  bureaucracy has performed in the 2001 crisis. The Bill is none of those things and this House should decline to give it a Second Reading.
  5.50 pm
  Mr. Patrick Hall: It is worth acknowledging that the Bill has been introduced in the context of the Government's growing recognition of the importance to national life of the countryside, farming and food. That is an important backdrop to today's debate. However, it is also a specific response to the current foot and mouth outbreak, although not exclusively so.
  Given the devastation caused by the outbreak, the fact that there remains a real risk of further cases at the tail end of the epidemic, and its heavy financial and psychological costs, it is deeply disappointing that many commentators—including some Opposition Members—have put so much of their energy into deliberately stirring up exaggerations about the Bill's intentions. There are certainly serious matters to be addressed, but energy must be put into serious constructive scrutiny to serve the interests of farmers, which will not be assisted or advanced by some of the things that we have heard.
  The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) missed an opportunity to set a constructive tone. That was quickly put right by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who might be looking for his job. One never knows—time is a great healer.
  Matters have been raised here and outside that must be carefully addressed. Unfortunately, the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny has not yet allowed that to take place. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister—both today, and more particularly in Committee—will take on board all measured and constructive suggestions for amendment.
  I am prepared to accept the Minister's explanation that the Bill is urgently required and that it would have been helpful had some of its measures been in place in the past, because of the experience of the 1967 outbreak. About three months after everyone believed that that outbreak was over, there were several further outbreaks and they lasted many more months. I am prepared to accept that these are urgent matters, although some of them are controversial and need careful scrutiny.
  I am also prepared to give a fair wind to Ministers' contention that nothing in the Bill will override any conclusions and recommendations in the "lessons learned" report or yet to be made by future inquiries into legislative and scientific aspects of the foot and mouth outbreak. If any conclusions arising from those inquiries suggest a need for amendment of this or other legislation, or for other measures not requiring legislation, it is vital for the Government to be open to them. I am pleased that the Minister and the Secretary of State have given assurances that that is the case, but I would like it to be confirmed again today.
  There are concerns that must be taken seriously about the contiguous cull, compensation, vaccination, appeals and the justification for the enhanced powers of enforcement in the Bill. They are indeed controversial matters. The Bill does not promote a particular method of disease control, but the answer to the question, often posed in the media, as to whether the Bill facilitates the contiguous cull policy, is yes. It removes barriers to the process and puts it on a statutory basis.
  610
  Much commentary on the Bill has focused on, and attacked, the proposed new powers. That is sometimes done on the basis that the majority of animals killed under the contiguous cull were not diseased. However, it is entirely consistent with such a method of disease control that that be so. It is logical that such a policy could not succeed if only infected animals were culled. By the time animals are infected and the infection is confirmed, there is a high chance that the disease will already have moved elsewhere and be incubating in other animals in the neighbourhood or even beyond, if biosecurity has not been effective and movement bans have not been introduced or respected.
  A contiguous cull is undoubtedly rough justice, but the evidence of last spring and summer's experience shows that it has merit. I hope, however, that vaccination and other measures, such as more effective biosecurity or different management, might lead to changes, reducing the need to rely on it.
  There is strong evidence that, if the disease is to be contained, action must be swift. Time is of the essence. If the contiguous cull policy is to be followed, it must prevail. That is the hard logic of the matter. Anything that obstructs or delays its implementation must be examined carefully.
  Mrs. Browning: My constituency had some of the earlier foot and mouth outbreaks. There were delays to the contiguous cull there not because the farmers protested or appealed but because the Ministry delayed for 19 days before turning up to carry it out. That totally defeats the purpose of a contiguous cull.
  Mr. Hall: I am happy to accept the hon. Lady's point, and I hope that the "lessons learned" and other inquiries will take it on board. We all want to learn from what has gone on, and ensure that lessons are learned and mistakes are not made should we need to apply the policies again.
  The present system allows a farmer who has been informed of a decision to cull his or her livestock to appeal to the district veterinary manager—I believe by letter. The vet may accept the appeal. Although the majority of stock saved by that process remained healthy, a minority went on to become infected. That included a case that went to the High Court, in which the farmer's appeal was upheld. So there are clearly risks in the process, and we must make a judgment about what level of risk is acceptable, given that we cannot eliminate risks 100 per cent in human affairs. It is part of our job in the House to weigh up the balance of the arguments.
  In the majority of cases, the appeal to the district veterinary manager was turned down. Many farmers—possibly most—accepted the outcome and reluctantly agreed to an immediate cull of their livestock, but others refused access to departmental vets and officials, who then had to apply to the High Court for an injunction to access those premises to carry out the cull. That was the principal cause of delay in implementing the cull once the system was working more effectively and the administrative problems of the policy had been solved. That delay led to more infection and, therefore, the need to cull more animals. It is that delay that the Bill seeks to eliminate.
  The first appeal to the district veterinary manager will remain intact under the Bill. It has not been abolished. However, if such an appeal is not upheld, DEFRA

  611
  officials, instead of having to go to the High Court, with the delays inherent in that process, will be able to seek a warrant from a local justice of the peace. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) pointed out, in those circumstances, the JP will hear the case for the warrant from the DEFRA officials who apply for it. However, the farmer will not be permitted to be heard, and that does not seem fair. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider that point carefully. I do not expect him to be able to pronounce on it this evening, but I hope that he will consider it further in Committee.
  Even if the contiguous cull is necessary and even if it is, at best, rough justice, the denial of the right to be heard reduces the element of justice being seen to be done. We must question that. There is nothing wrong with a farmer exercising the right of appeal and seeking to save his or her livestock and livelihood. Indeed, on occasion, such appeals succeed, depending on an assessment of the local veterinary situation, so the system has some flexibility. The enjoyment of a right to appeal should be set in a system that is seen to be fair. The whole process that is triggered by the appeal, including the seeking of the warrant, should be fair and open, and seen to be so.
  Some of those who advise the Government as experts on such matters believe that the right of appeal represents too much of a risk, because it introduces delay and because decisions to allow appeals might turn out to be wrong. We know that some premises have become infected in just that situation. I put that point to Professor David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser, and his colleague Professor Mark Woolhouse of the University of Edinburgh, and they confirmed that, from a purely scientific point of view, anything that delays the culling of potentially infected animals is a real risk. Given the awful consequences of living with a higher rather than a lower level of risk, we must ask whether we are justified in retaining the right of appeal. I think that we are, but we must be clear that we retain it on social, legal and political grounds—because it is the right thing to do in a free society—but we do not do it on the best available scientific advice. We must acknowledge that. The right of appeal is not threatened by the Bill, but I imagine that the logic of some of the advice that Ministers have received is that it could and should be abolished. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to be clear about why he has not accepted that advice or perhaps the strong inference of the advice.
  Difficult, controversial and hard as these issues are, there is no easy option. Tough powers are needed to prevent the spread of disease, to get ahead of it and stop matters getting worse, and among all the many groups in society, farmers are those who best understand that. However, it is important that the procedures be effective, open and fair so that they are supported and understood and so that we can all accept that we are trying to make something work in the national interest.
  6.6 pm
  Mr. David Curry: Earlier this year, when I needed to get over to Bentham and Ingleton for my surgeries, the quickest route was to drive up Wensleydale in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). Normally, it is a wonderful drive against the sun and along the river, with the dales on each side. However, then FMD arrived in his constituency and the journey became rather sinister.
  612
  I could see the pyres alight, with their smoke, and smell them from a long way away. The fields were empty of animals. Above all, there was a terrible sense of claustrophobia.
  I wondered how FMD could be in Cumbria and Wensleydale, north and south of my constituency, but not in mine. I spoke too soon, because two days after the Prime Minister announced the general election, we had our first case in Ribblesdale and, by the time that we had finished, we had had more than twice as many as there were in my right hon. Friend's constituency. Indeed, one of the few remaining totally restricted areas is in the Skipton area in my constituency.
  I saw at first hand the coruscating effect on people of all sorts and businesses of all descriptions of the countryside being literally shut down. I reflected on what the lessons might be as we tried to learn them. The first lesson is still true today. Ministers frequently announced schemes—to get animals to slaughter, to get animals to market, to get animals into processing plants, or to provide welfare for animals—and a week later, I would inquire of the people who had to implement them, often trading standards officers, what had happened. They would say that they did not have the operating instructions yet, so they could not do anything. The gap between instruction and implementation throughout the epidemic has been far too long.
  An enormous amount depends on the most recent autumn movement programme, because people in my constituency who are caught with too much livestock up on the hills that they cannot sell are sucking the pebbles dry. However, the DEFRA computer failed. It has continually failed, which has meant that wrong orders have been given, people were cleared who should not have been and farmers were caught in an immensely frustrating, Kafkaesque situation of knowing that they could achieve something if only the machine would provide the right answer. That is still a problem. I recognise that the public sector has a catastrophic record of trying to make information technology work and that enormous strains are placed on it, but a lot of problems still need ironing out.
  The second lesson is the fact that there was no central personnel function; I do not think that MAFF ever applied one. A very limited number of the departments in the Ministry supplied almost all the people to handle the epidemic; some departments escaped with almost none of their people being taken. To what extent was somebody at the centre considering whom to send, where to send them and how to bring the teams together? It took a tremendously long time to put co-ordinated management teams in place.
  Foot and mouth came to my constituency a long time after it came to Cumbria, Devon and Wensleydale. It was not at the beginning of the experience but towards its end, yet the vets seemed to be in an autonomous organisation, managing themselves—not very well, because that is not what they are there to do. It took a long time to bring the components together and introduce some sort of integrated management programme.
  Because of all that, and because the election was taking people's attention away, the idea grew up in my constituency that the Government did not want people to know about our epidemic. It took place out of the

  613
  public eye, without attention—because after all, it had already been announced that the epidemic was under control. Indeed, that announcement was made before the outbreak in Skipton and Ripon even started.
  Even before one professor mentioned the fact to the Select Committee, I thought that the biggest problem was that MAFF was terribly out of touch with the industry that it was in charge of. In my constituency, as well as in that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks, and in Cumbria, it seemed to have an image of agriculture derived from watching "All Creatures Great and Small". Wonderful and entertaining though that programme was, it was only a partial mirror of agriculture in my constituency. The number of people who commute between different holdings seemed to catch the Ministry entirely by surprise. The industry had moved away from the Ministry's perception of it.
  "Agentisation"—if that is the right word to describe the acquiring of agency status by the various MAFF organisations—certainly played a part in that. We must now ensure that we have the necessary information about what is happening and where, which is crucial for the future handling of outbreaks.
  What I have said so far is just a preliminary, because now I shall turn directly to the Bill. It is not about the prescription of a certain method of fighting foot and mouth disease. It is, we hope, clearing the way to fight that disease more effectively, either by slaughter or by vaccination—although there are questions to be asked about the compensation that would be paid in the event of slaughter as part of a ring vaccination scheme. That subject was skated over cautiously, which makes me think that the Treasury did not want to be too precise about what might ultimately be paid. The Minister will, of course, have said from the beginning that getting farmer consent is crucial to combating the disease, and that is linked to a perception that the payments are reasonable.
  In pursuit of the goal of rapid slaughter—if and where that becomes the policy—there is great curtailment of the right to resist. In practice, the right to resist, protest and appeal becomes all but extinct under the Bill.
  The key emotional issue has been the contiguous cull. The Select Committee took evidence from Professor David King, Professor Mark Woolhouse and Professor Ray Anderson, and I thought that they made a convincing case that the contiguous cull was a crucial weapon in getting ahead of the epidemic, which had got ahead of the Government and roared out of control. One reason why it was out of control—and here I have some sympathy for the Government—is the fact that they did not take action immediately the first outbreak was detected, during those crucial three days between 20 and 23 February. We have been told that had action been taken immediately, the epidemic might have been cut to between a half and a third of its eventual size.
  I can understand that if Ministers see one outbreak, there is some hesitation about the extent to which draconian action must be taken. That is why it would be good to see the papers that were submitted to Ministers at that time—and we would also like to see the papers that scientists wrote for Ministers, and for the Prime Minister, when vaccination was actively being considered. I hope that they will be made available to the inquiry, and that
  614
  the inquiry will publish them. I have heard reports that the "lessons learned" inquiry may take evidence in private; I hope that it will not, because that would be a serious error, not only from the Government's point of view—that does not concern me much—but from that of the farmers and the rest of the community, which concerns me greatly
  There was a catastrophic failure to get to grips with the illness in Cumbria. It simply got out of control and the local people could not cope with it. That happened in Devon as well, and it meant that the contiguous cull became, perforce, the instrument by which we tried to catch up.
  Of course some farmers were irresponsible—just as a percentage of any group of people, such as politicians, estate agents or anyone else, will be irresponsible. We have all heard of the famous farmer in Thirsk with seven holdings who commuted freely between them without any effort at biosecurity. However, I do not think that that was the predominant mood among farmers, by any means.
  Most farmers were petrified of the disease, although that was against their own economic interests. In my constituency—and, I am sure, in that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks—for the many farmers who are still stuck up on the hills trying to keep on practising agriculture, the irony is that the disaster that overtook them was the fact that their animals did not get foot and mouth disease. Their economic interests would have been better served if their animals had contracted it. Now they are desperately struggling to maintain some form of normal agriculture, which is a testimony to the sheer guts and determination of farmers. What they can do is survive, as they have done for generations, but there is no logical or practical reason why they should carry on. They just hang on in there, because that has been bred into them through generations of farming stock.
  If slaughter is the policy, the logic of the Bill is implacable, because 50 per cent. of outbreaks occurred within one and a half miles of the local source outbreak, and it is crucial to be able to kill animals before the incubation period—three to five days—is up, and the disease can be transmitted. However brutal it sounds, killing the animals quickly is at the heart of the argument once we embark on a slaughter policy.
  It is therefore inevitable that many uninfected animals will be killed. There is no guarantee, however, that those animals would have remained uninfected, and the few that might have been infected would have set up other centres for the spread of the disease. We were told that there was a 17 per cent. chance of the disease moving from infected premises to surrounding premises; if slaughter is the policy that we are to embark on, then if it were done, it were well it were done quickly.
  The Bill clears the way to do that, but at an enormous cost. It is draconian. If the farmer cannot come to an agreement with the Government's regional vets, in practice he has no further recourse. The Government appeal to the magistrate, and the magistrate issues a warrant. The farmer has no right to appear and state his case before the magistrate, and although there may not be a man waiting outside on a motor cycle, someone will be on the telephone as soon as the magistrate issues a warrant, and the slaughter will take place.
  As the Minister told us, the farmer can go to judicial review, but that is about process and legal competence; it is not about the substance of the issue. The farmer may

  615
  get some retrospective intellectual satisfaction, but he ain't going to get his animals back. He will have to start from scratch again.
  Mr. Patrick Hall:Is the right hon. Gentleman arguing for the retention of the current system, whereby DEFRA officials would have to apply to the High Court for an injunction, with all the inherent delays?
  Mr. Curry: No, I am not, because one has to follow the logic. If a slaughter policy is to be implemented, it has to be effective. But I want reassurances. Because farmers had the right that the hon. Gentleman explained to the House in his speech, it was imperative for the Government to get them on side and ensure that the maximum number were willing to co-operate. One of the instruments for doing that was a compensation scheme for compulsory slaughter—a scheme that everybody agrees was relatively generous
  If the Government do not need to do that because they can get the farmer on side through compulsion, does that mean that in any future outbreaks, they are likely to take a more stringent view of the appropriate level of compensation? I ask that as a speculation born of an eternity of suspicion of the Treasury, both when I was a Minister and under the present Administration. The Treasury is unchanging; perhaps that is good for society as a whole, but it just does not feel like it at the time.
  The Bill also provides a penalty for poor biosecurity by docking up to 25 per cent. of compensation. That provision needs a great deal of examination in Committee. How do we arrive at 87.75 per cent. as opposed to 74.66 per cent.? Is there a scale of biosecurity? Will it be published so that the farmer has a checklist and can ensure that he does not fall foul of it? How will the Minister ensure that biosecurity measures are not installed at the last minute? It is perfectly possible to make things look impressive for an inspection, as the Government, having introduced such a gendarmerie of inspectors, must surely be aware.
  Mr. Martlew: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it fair that farmers who did not give a damn during the outbreak, leaving gates open and going from one farm to another—although there were very few of them—should receive the same amount of compensation as those who took the proper precautions and still got foot and mouth? Or should there be some way in which the farmer who took precautions is compensated fully?
  Mr. Curry: I am not arguing against the principle of a penalty. I want to ensure that the farmer knows what measures he will be assumed to have taken to comply fully with the regulations, and I want the process by which the figure is finally arrived at to be transparent. He should also have assurances about the means that the independent person he can appeal to uses to undertake the task. As in much legislation, the principle might be difficult to dispute, but how it works in practice is the key for people on the ground. Will it work in a way that is clear and evident to everyone?
  Then we come to the Bill's curious nooks and crannies. We have all heard the rumours that have abounded during the course of the epidemic about farmers infecting their own flocks, with infected apples, and tongues, bits of tail
  616
  and other parts of the carcase being discovered on farms. Nobody, as far as I am aware, has had a charge pressed against him for that reason. However, if a farmer does infect his flock, he will be in a curious position. The Minister said that at present he cannot be prosecuted and gets full compensation. Under the Bill, he will spend two years as a guest of Her Majesty, he is banned from keeping animals for life and he takes, in some cases, up to £400,000–75 per cent. of the compensation—to prison with him.
  Mr. Morley: The right hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. He made it before in the Select Committee, which is one of the advantages of pre-scrutiny. I have discussed this with officials and understand that the advice remains that we have to pay the 75 per cent. compensation because of human rights legislation. The animals are being compulsorily taken and killed. However, if someone deliberately infects their animals, there is the possibility of implementing action for fraud and getting the money back in that way.
  Mr. Curry: I am glad that the Minister has discovered a way. When he discovered this curious fact in the Select Committee, he gave the impression that he had trodden in an unpalatable substance and wondered what it was doing in the Bill and why someone had not told him about it. No doubt he had an earnest conversation with his officials immediately afterwards. I am delighted that he has sorted the matter out, even by this curiously circuitous route.
  If farmers are to be discouraged from infecting their own animals and if they are to maintain the rigorous attitude that they have maintained until now, it is important that those who are struggling to carry on farming in these most difficult circumstances have all the help that they can get. They want things to be rigorous; they do not want risks taken. They have the right to expect that schemes reflect their circumstances, work and can be accessed easily.
  The other big question that inevitably haunts this debate is that of vaccination, because it would have avoided the need for a contiguous cull and the shutdown of the hundreds of thousands of businesses that were part of the epidemic's collateral damage. If there is an effective option for vaccination and effective equipment to test in the field—the two prior conditions—it is a persuasive argument.
  We were told categorically that the equipment to test reliably in the field was not ready for use. There have been some arguments that it is, but we were told categorically by our witnesses that that was not the case. We were also told categorically that present tests do not distinguish between an animal that is infected with the disease and one that has been vaccinated and displays the antibodies.
  We need vaccines that are available and efficacious. They must be able to deal with all strains of polyvalent viruses and should be long-lasting: what the Government's chief scientist called "smart vaccines", to use the jargon. Even he emphasised the danger of vaccinating an already infected animal in a ring around an infection.
  I echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks said with regard to the public inquiry. I do not think that it needs to replace the more rapid inquiries. I do not see why it cannot crown the various,

  617
  more informal, inquiries that are taking place, so that we can learn some early lessons. This is not a zero sum game. We need to learn lessons and make sure that we have access to that crucial advice. There will be a central argument about vaccination and we need the advice of the scientific communities. Ministers are not scientists and neither are we. We are trying to understand and, ultimately, we have to decide who we are going to believe. We need the facts to make that decision.
  I do not want the scrapie issue to be entirely lost. I draw the Minister's attention to an article on the back page of Farmers Guardian, a journal to which 1 have warmed considerably since it invited me to write a column. The article refers to Professor Malcolm Ferguson-Smith of Cambridge university, who argues:
  "The Government is drafting a Bill to completely remove those sheep that are susceptible to scrapie—that could mean culling three quarters of the national flock as that is the proportion susceptible to it … We need to know if those sheep resistant to scrapie are resistant to the development of the disease or resistant to infection, as if it is the latter they could pass the disease on".
  The professor also said that it had already been shown
  "that sheep resistant to scrapie are susceptible to BSE so the culling policy as a BSE measure did not make any scientific sense at all."
  Those are the professor's claims. As I said, I am not a scientist, and do not know whether he is right or wrong. If he is right, some serious questions need to be asked about the course along which the Government are about to embark. I hope that the Minister will deal with that point.
  The issue of tests is important. Professor Donaldson has argued that the Government are not carrying out adequate tests for BSE on cattle. Similarly, tests on the continent are not adequate, even though they are dealing with greater cattle numbers, because they are capable of detecting only the last stage of the disease.
  Finally, a number of colleagues, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks and the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) mentioned meat imports. A sense of equilibrium and balance needs to be achieved. If we are introducing increasingly draconian measures at home—which, for the most part, farmers agree to and think are necessary—and curtailing the right to appeal so that a policy can be dispatched rapidly, it is incumbent on the Government, out of simple fairness, to ensure that equal rigour should be exercised so that inadvertent or false imports cannot put the health of the country at risk. I know that that may have to go through the European channels. My concern is not that arrangements exist to permit trade—I am in favour of that—but whether the formal arrangements that exist operate in the conditions that are prevalent, and that we are as satisfied that the rule is enforced there as we are that it is enforced here.
  Secondly, as the hon. Member for South Derbyshire said, we must deal with the level of illegal imports. We can ask people to make a particular effort only if they believe that other people are making the same effort and that the Government are, in that sense, on their side. A sense of solidarity has held the farming community together, and apart from the sheer problems of administering the regime, the one thing that farmers have constantly mentioned is that if they are to be exposed to meat from abroad, there is no point to their efforts because there is no equivalence of pain.
  618
  The Minister and the Government said that they are considering that matter, but what we have been told is very imprecise, and I invite the Minister to clarify the point. It is in his own interests to do so, and he owes it not only to farmers but to the whole rural community to ensure that we are taking every step to prevent another such outbreak, so that the draconian measures in the Bill need never be used.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: May I say to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who made his usual thoughtful speech, that the one time when I did not feel at all sorry for him was when he was describing his trip through Wensleydale to his advice surgery? He should try the trip to my advice surgery, which is a walk down the Romford road from Forest Gate to Stratford during which I am assailed by a number of sights arid smells that are nothing like those in his constituency. He is very lucky indeed.
  Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman probably sees more foxes on his walk than I do on mine.
  Mr. Banks: Thanks to foot and mouth disease, we are probably seeing a few more than usual.
  May I say to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) that it is a pleasure to see him on the Back Benches? I do not mean that in a nasty way. He looks far more relaxed than he did as Leader of the Opposition, and we can see that in the excellent portrait of him by Johnny Yeo, our election artist, which is in Portcullis House. I hope that all hon. Members will have the opportunity to see it. We have got ourselves a pretty good deal because it will not take much amending to portray the new Leader of the Opposition—although of course we would not do that.
  I admit that there are not many farmers in Newham, although all the cattle on the Wanstead flats, which were culled because of BSE, used to represent a pleasant connection with the rural aspects of the area, which is on the edge of Epping forest. I had many letters from constituents about the images of foot and mouth disease on the television and in newspapers, which were not good at all.
  I have several serious reservations about the Bill, starting with its short title, Animal Health Bill. I resent and dislike the euphemisms used in this place, particularly those concerning animals and MAFF, or DEFRA, as it is now called. The Bill is about the more rapid slaughter of animals, so perhaps it should more appropriately be called the Slaughter of Animals Bill, although given the propensity of DEFRA officials to kill things it might plausibly be entitled the "We have come to slaughter your pet llama" Bill.
  I have not plucked that example out of the air—although plucking a llama out of the air would have been a good trick—because it is one of the animals at risk from foot and mouth disease. The reference is in no way connected to the fact that our former colleague, Matthew Parris, has two pet llamas, which are suitably exotic pets for an exotic gentleman. Under the Bill, people should take steps to protect their pet llamas and, given the extensive powers that Ministers will have, a number of other animals that will be at risk in any foot and mouth outbreak.

  619
  The welfare aspect of the Bill concerns the livestock industry. I fully appreciate that foot and mouth had a profound impact on livestock farmers, but I understand that 68 farmers received compensation cheques for more than £1 million, and I do not hear many complaints from them. When everyone is jumping up to defend farmers and those who work in the rural economy, it is worth bearing it in mind that the total cost to taxpayers of foot and mouth was more than £2 billion. The Secretary of State and other hon. Members have referred to an irresponsible minority, and surely that irresponsible, and indeed criminal, minority must include the pig farmer in Northumberland who probably kicked off the whole wretched outbreak when he fed his pigs infected swill and transported them all the way to Essex to be slaughtered.
  Mr. Bill Wiggin rose—
  Mr. Banks: I give way to the hon. Gentleman because he is obviously going to defend that farmer.
  Mr. Wiggin: I am curious about how one could start an epidemic by feeding one's pigs infected swill. Surely the person or persons who provided the farmer with that swill triggered the epidemic.
  Mr. Banks: That goes back to the points that were made about biosecurity. The swill was probably infected by imported products, but the fact that the pigs were transported so far down the country shows that the farmer was acting irresponsibly.
  There are other examples of irresponsible behaviour, including one from The Daily Telegraph in which it was suggested that a farmer was offered a sheep infected with foot and mouth. There is anecdotal evidence involving a number of infected animal parts on farms, but I heard that there was not enough evidence to proceed with a prosecution. I am only going by what I have read and heard, but unless someone is making all that up, there must be farmers who were responsible for the rapid spread of the disease throughout the country, and we ought to be investigating them.
  Opposition Members, including the Front-Bench spokesman, seemed to be trying to point the finger at my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and her ministerial colleagues, as though they were responsible for the spread of the disease, which is bizarre. Ministers might be criticised for their conduct during the outbreak, and that is a matter for debate, but they cannot possibly be accused of having kicked off the whole damn thing..
  I accept that there is no conclusive evidence of how foot and mouth entered the UK, although there seems to be general acceptance that the speed with which the disease spread was due to the fact that animals were transported in and out of markets and other premises several times in quick succession. It seems crazy to have allowed that. There is also the matter of animals being transported long distances to be slaughtered. I mentioned the pigs taken from Northumberland to Essex, and I understand that in September several consignments of sheep were transported by sea from Scottish islands to the west coast port of Oban and then by road to Birmingham
  620
  to be slaughtered. It cannot be sensible to transport animals such a long distance to slaughter, particularly at times of high risk.
  Mr. Drew: Does my hon. Friend accept that the specific, overwhelming evidence of the role of the dealers in that process needs close examination and must be dealt with?
  Mr. Banks: I do accept that. I echo the comments made by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber when I say that perhaps we ought to pause and give more extensive consideration to the way in which the disease originated and spread and to how we can deal with it in future. I shall not assault my Front-Bench colleagues—although I am sure that they have the substance to withstand any puny blows from me—but I am singularly uneasy about a number of points in the Bill. Concerns have been expressed by Labour Members as well as Opposition Members.
  Obviously, one of the most significant mechanisms by which the disease is spread must be contaminated animal products, and we need to look at how those are brought into the country. I find the stories of people importing infected meat amazing. Indeed, the idea that people are allowed to bring meat into the country is amazing. As a regular traveller to the United States, I know how vigorously one is questioned there about any products that one is taking into the country. We have no such procedures, and given the importance of agriculture in this country, we should have far greater controls and protective mechanisms at the point of entry. I hope that the Government will turn their attention to that.
  I shall certainly not accept criticism from the Opposition about the supposed failure of the Government to act, given that for 18 years the Conservatives were in charge of agriculture policy. Apparently, they can see with clinical vision exactly what is wrong now that there is a Labour Government: somehow they could not see it at all when they were in government. The Opposition should be careful before they point the finger and mount opportunistic and unjust criticism of Ministers.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: One of the reasons why we are calling for a full, independent public inquiry is precisely because we want to know what went wrong.
  Mr. Banks rose—
  Mr. Martlew: What about BSE?
  Mr. Banks: As my hon. Friend says, the Conservatives were not so keen in government to call for an inquiry into, BSE. I remember the complacency with which various Conservative Ministers approached the problem of BSE and CJD. I can still remember the questions. One does not have to be an expert to know when something is likely to happen. One can rely on one's sensibilities and instincts. Anyone who was interested in the processes of nature could work out that BSE was going to get into the human food chain, yet Ministers constantly said that it was impossible. They were saying that not because they had scientifically deduced it: they were going on the advice of MAFF officials, and that advice was rubbish. That is what bothers me. That is why I keep telling my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and my hon. Friend

  621
  the Under-Secretary to beware of those experts who still inhabit the Department. The acronym has changed, but the cast has not changed much—nor has the culture
  When I criticise the Bill, I want my hon. Friend the Minister—who is a good friend—to know that I do so to try to protect him, not to attack him. For years, I watched as MAFF officials sabotaged Conservative Ministers; now that they are called DEFRA officials, they will sabotage Labour Ministers.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: Do I smell a whiff of double standards? In opposition, the hon. Gentleman was one of those who called for a full inquiry into the causes and handling of BSE. Incidentally, the Government of the day received advice not only from MAFF officials, but from top scientists, that the disease was a new phenomenon and that sufficient research had not been carried out. If the hon. Gentleman believed that there should have been a full inquiry into BSE, why do he and his party not believe that there should be a full inquiry into the latest foot and mouth outbreak? That seems to me to smack a little of hypocrisy.
  Mr. Banks: The hon. Lady makes a nice point but it goes straight over my shoulder because she has not heard the rest of my speech. I actually support an independent inquiry, but I was responding to her Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for East Surrey. He was the one who was exhibiting a touch of hypocrisy; he was speaking for a party that would not hold a full inquiry into BSE, but now demands one into foot and mouth disease.
  I supported calls for an inquiry into BSE and I support calls for an inquiry into foot and mouth disease. I want to know how it happened, what went wrong, the criticisms that might be made of officials and what we can do to ensure that it never happens again. The hon. Lady was rather too abrupt; it was too early to accuse me of hypocrisy, but if she stays around she may have ample evidence to make that criticism stick.
  I apologise to the House. I cannot resist temptation and when I am dragged into such arguments they take me away from what I was intending to say. I realise that many Members want to speak.
  The additional sweeping powers to be given to Ministers are the aspects of the Bill that really concern me. If that involved only my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, I should sleep easy in my bed, but it does not: it will involve all those DEFRA officials and all those so-called experts—the people who got us into all the difficulties in the past and who will undoubtedly get us into difficulties in future. That is why I am uneasy. The Bill goes much too far in giving Ministers additional powers, and I am not happy about that.
  Indeed, the idea that Ministers can order slaughter whether or not animals have been exposed to foot and mouth disease is one that I find wholly unacceptable. I hope that my hon. Friend is getting the idea that I am not a happy bunny—[Laughter.] If I were, I should probably be slaughtered by some of his officials in the next outbreak.
  During the current outbreak, the policy was to cull contiguously for up to 3 m—[HON. MEMBERS: "3 km".] Yes, three metres would have been a bit close. The
  622
  scientific evidence seems to show that that was unnecessary. I hope that my hon. Friend has read the interesting article that was published in The Veterinary Record on 12 May—"Relative risks of the uncontrollable (airborne) spread of FMD by different species".
  Mr. Morley:Yes.
  Mr. Banks: The resigned way in which my hon. Friend acknowledged that he had read the article suggests that he may not have been wholly convinced by it, but I hope that he will at least answer the points raised in it. That would save me reading them out to the House. As he knows what is in the article, no doubt he will be able to address it.
  The scale of the slaughter during the current outbreak was abhorrent. I say "current" because it has not yet officially finished. Although I can understand the logic that if everything is slaughtered we shall eradicate the disease, I cannot go along with the lack of humanity in that approach. As I have said on several occasions, it is just as well that DEFRA is not in charge of the national health service, given its attitude to disease control.
  What about isolation, vaccination or surveillance? They are all worth consideration. I hope that an inquiry would examine in detail all those alternatives to mass slaughter so that we can avoid the scenes we witnessed. I cannot accept that contiguous culling was in the interests of animal welfare.
  I am trying to find something nice to say to my hon. Friend, but it is a bit difficult at the moment—even though he knows that I am one of his strongest supporters in the House and I pay him due credit for everything that he has done in support of animal welfare. He is being badly advised on the Bill. If Ministers had introduced the Bill during the outbreak, there might have been much greater justification for it and they could have argued far more persuasively for its acceptance by the House. The obvious signs of the crisis were all around. However, it seems strange to bring in the measure at the very fag end of the damn thing. I agree that the outbreak is not officially over, but we appear to have gone way past its strongest point, so to introduce legislation at this stage is not only unnecessary but premature. In those circumstances, it is difficult to understand why we should be asked to support the measure.
  We are being asked to support a Bill that gives far greater powers to Ministers before we fully understand the causes of the outbreak. The powers given to DEFRA officials are so extensive that they terrify me. I am terrified on behalf of all the animals that could be slaughtered. I have already mentioned llamas, but elephants, deer, rats and goats can all be affected by foot and mouth disease.
  Mr. Morley: And hedgehogs.
  Mr. Banks: Indeed. God forbid—if I believed in him—that along should come the DEFRA officials saying, "Minister, it's getting very bad, we shall have to slaughter all those animals." They will go into the zoos, take out the llamas and the elephants and so on. That might sound a bit exaggerated but, given the evidence of the past,

  623
  that is the sort of advice that I would expect my hon. Friend's officials to give. It is to protect him against such advice that I tell him that it is a bad Bill.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Banks: No, I am about to finish. This is my peroration; surely the hon. Gentleman recognises that.
  I do not intend to support the Bill in the Lobby, nor do I intend to join the Opposition's opportunistic attack. I shall abstain in person, as they say. However, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister recognises that I will do so out of concern for him as well as for animals. I hope to serve on the Committee and perhaps to help him to improve this wretched Bill.
  6.50 pm
  Mr. Michael Jack: The speech of the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) almost reached biblical proportions in terms of its broad-brush description of the animals that might be vulnerable under the powers in the Bill. He joins a growing list of right hon. and hon. Members who have, in their own ways, asked telling and searching questions about it.
  The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) took his usual careful and considered approach and he almost got to the stage of saying that he would not support the Government. He thought better of that, but asked some important questions. The hon. Members for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) and for Bedford (Mr. Hall) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) did exactly the same as the hon. Member for West Ham. They illustrated one of the major problems with the Bill: the speed with which it has been introduced and the lack of any consultation with the people who understand the problem and, more important, may understand something about how one deals with it.
  It is interesting that there has been little mention of the Prime Minister so far in the debate,. I recall that he took charge of the foot and mouth outbreak and some improvements supposedly resulted. We can understand the good reasons why he has remained quiet at this time. but it would be interesting to learn whether he had anything to do with the Bill. I always think that one judges a Government by the way in which they handle a crisis. This Government have handled this crisis badly
  The chief vet, Mr. Scudamore, gave evidence to the Select Committee and he is reported as saying:
  "Government vets were forced to 'learn as we went along', as the number of cases increased rapidly. He added, 'We had a major problem with manpower on the ground and ran out of vets and we didn't have enough technical staff.'"
  Such people form the basis of the scientific advice that lies behind the Bill
  As a former Minister in MAFF, I recognise that science has an important and powerful role to play in the operation of DEFRA. However, with the Ministers' advisers learning as they went along, there is also a powerful case for listening to other arguments. As the Minister will understand from the evidence that the Select Committee has received, there is still no definitive science on exactly how the disease started, We know how it spread, but we do not know how it started.
  624
  We also learned recently that there is no definitive science that explains how the disease moves from farm to farm. We think that we understand some of the ways in which it can do that but, again, there is no definitive answer. One of the arguments that people have used to challenge the powers that will give DEFRA officials the ability to arrange for slaughter on the basis of suggestion came from farmers in Devon who offered powerful arguments about why their farms should be protected.
  The Select Committee therefore held an interesting discussion on contiguous culling. If there is contiguous activity between an animal on a diseased farm and one on a farm without the disease, one can imagine how disease might be spread by contact or by its release into the air. However, when the animals involved are on farms two valleys away and round a bend in the river, we do not know exactly how the disease spreads between them. Yet farmers in such circumstances might be the ones to challenge the powers in the Bill. Therefore, despite the strong science base in DEFRA, it is right to ask questions about the nature of the powers in the Bill.
  In a letter that the Minister sent to colleagues in the House, he said:
  "The Government has had to act swiftly in bringing forward this legislation, in particular in relation to foot and mouth … We will nevertheless be working with our stakeholders"—
  people with an interest in an issue are now described as "stakeholders"—"
  "in the months ahead".
  Hang on a minute, were we not supposed to be rushing to get the Bill on to the statute book? Yet the Minister said that they would be working with stakeholders
  "in the months ahead on how key elements of the proposed measures would work in practice and"—
  believe it or not
  "there will be full consultation on that."
  The man who wished to act swiftly appears to have slowed things down remarkably.
  The hon. Member for West Ham made a telling point when he said that the Bill might have been justified if it had been introduced at the peak of the disease. I am also intrigued about the timing of its introduction, so that is why I asked the Secretary of State about that.
  The Minister told the Select Committee that the Bill's drafting began in August, which is an interesting month because many people are on holiday then. I suspect, therefore, that officials were thinking about the Bill and making submissions to Ministers in May or June. The Minister would have replied, "Oh, those powers are a bit steep. How am I going to sell that? What am I going to do?" The Bill was probably thought up some time ago but, if it is central to fighting foot and mouth, he should have introduced it earlier and with a degree of proper consultation.
  All the arguments made have questioned the Bill's practical implications. Despite Professor King's argument about there being a 17.5 per cent. chance that a contiguous farm would be infected, we have not been able to debate what that means in practical terms just as we have not been able to debate how a decision on the operation of the powers can be challenged. Although reference has been made to magistrates and to judicial review, I can imagine what might happen in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon.

  625
  Someone is up on the fells with the wind blowing; telephone lines are down; there has been a power cut and the mobile phone has not been charged, so how would he get in touch with his lawyer to mount a judicial review to challenge the operation of the powers? The provision is not practical in the real world.
  Although farmers will have an opportunity to talk to the veterinary authorities about the operation of the powers, I would like some form of stay of execution, at least, to be built into the procedures so that a second opinion can be obtained and the farmer can be heard. Even if he does not necessarily have his day in court, an element of informed arbitration would help to decide whether it was right and proper to use the powers.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: My right hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. Is he aware that the Bill substantially reduces the flexibility that Ministers already have and have exercised during the foot and mouth outbreak? For example, culling was due to take place on 34 farms in the Forest of Dean, but it took place on only 18. A successful legal challenge by farmers resulted in the Minister using his discretion to arrange for blood tests to be carried out on the animals on the remaining 16 farms. Those animals were saved from the cull, and it eventually turned out that none of the farms had any infection at all. The discretion that existed will no longer exist and that will result in substantially greater costs to public funds because of the compensation that will have to be paid.
  Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend's powerful point echoes the concerns of the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ). She asked searching questions when the Select Committee twice took evidence on the issue. I recognise the scientific justification for culling and accept the power of the concept that a diseased animal is a disease factory unless action is taken early. However, the circumstances under which the powers are operated have been justifiably questioned in the debate.
  Mr. Morley: The right hon. Gentleman raises a number of serious points which I am sure can be addressed when the Bill is further considered. It is certainly true that ministerial discretion was exercised in relation to blood testing on the farms in the Forest of Dean. I was the Minister who took that decision, and I was happy to do so. Nothing in the Bill rules out such discretion. The key is to make clear the criteria that one would want to apply in the appeals process. In the Forest of Dean, more blood testing was possible and some time had passed, so the situation just required some common sense.
  Mr. Jack: I am grateful to the Minister for saying that, but the very fact that he had to give us such a lengthy response illustrates the point that I and so many others have made about lack of consultation on the Bill. If drafting began in August, at least some discussion with interested parties was possible. The Ministry quite often calls in people. Why did not DEFRA call in the interested parties, perhaps for a one-day conference? Perhaps it did; we have not been told.
  Mr. Morley: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is no point in the Government consulting on a
  626
  Bill unless they intend to introduce it. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear, only in the later stages of our consideration was she convinced of the need for the Bill and that parliamentary time was available for it. That window was very narrow, which meant that there was not an opportunity for detailed consultation.
  Mr. Jack: I would cast a little doubt on that. I suspect that there was a legislative slot and that somebody had suggested such a Bill. It is very much a tail-end Charlie measure. If it really is that important, it should have been introduced earlier.
  In evidence sent to right hon. and hon. Members, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, while welcoming certain aspects of the Bill, seeks clarification. Vegetarians International Voice for Animals—the hon. Member for West Ham will be interested in this—says that it is concerned about the human rights implications of the Bill. The Countryside Alliance wants a public inquiry. The National Farmers Union expresses surprise at the Bill, and the National Beef Association questions the content of it. One could go on; the number of people who want to know more is legion.
  Let us consider the operation of the culling powers. Mr. Anthony Gibson, who looks after matters for the NFU in the south-west, has said that the Minister's accusation that farmers spread the disease by resisting the cull is
  "simply not true here in Devon. None of the herds or flocks which were saved from the contiguous cull, either by direct or by legal action, subsequently developed FMD."
  Mr. Morley indicated dissent.
  Mr. Jack: I can only quote to the Minister what has been sent to us. It is up to him to deal with it.
  The Secretary of State told the House what was in the Bill without spending a moment on justifying its powers. She did not go through the science about culling or mention the findings of Professor King and others, but strode straight in to say, "This is what we are going to do; this is how we are going to do it. Take it or leave it." She drifted on to talk about scrapie, but that was it. Yet we are supposed to say that that is justification for such measures.
  Let us consider those who have had to go to court to defend their interests. Peter and Gillian Cave, who are farmers in the west country, were successful. They saved 100 pedigree Devon cattle which were earmarked for slaughter. They described the Government's approach as "jackboot tactics". They said of the measures:
  "This smacks of Nazi law, malicious and spiteful—you bloody well behave or we'll get you."
  They are people under stress. The point about the need to win over the hearts and minds of the rural community on these measures is well made by such powerful statements from farmers who have been affected.
  Other evidence that reached the Select Committee came from Lucy Gent, Mark Higham, Darrell Gibbs and Julia Harding. They said of the Bill:
  "To make it compulsory is unscientific, immoral. cruel to animals and their owners, and highly counter-productive in terms of disease control by diverting resources away from the crucial task of culling infected animals as quickly as possible."
  The Minister knows—because his advisers said so—that the biggest failings in running the disease control system were the lack of planning, lack of a contingency plan,

  627
  lack of resources, and the falling behind in the slaughter programme. None the less, we find that the Minister is to rely on such measures in the future.
  It is a pity that the Secretary of State did not comment on some of the people who, it is suggested, did cause a problem—so-called hobby farmers. Owing to the nature of their farming, they may have been less justified in making claims than those who are knowledgeable, run large-scale operations and are well advised and informed farmers. We have heard nothing about that from the Government in presenting the Bill. It is sad that there has been no in-depth justification for the measures.
  Right hon. and hon. Members have discussed the mechanism of the courts and compensation, but I want to touch on the biosecurity measures. It is interesting to note how biosecurity is a firm feature of the pig industry. It is breached occasionally, but not often. Why has not the Minister decided, for example, to introduce under the cover of this Bill a national code of practice on biosecurity?
  Mr. Morley: We can do that.
  Mr. Jack: The Minister says that the Department already does it.
  Mr. Morley: I said that we can do it
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. We cannot have sedentary interventions. If the Minister wants to respond, perhaps he might intervene.
  Mr. Jack: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker—so anxious was I to engage the Minister in debate. I am delighted that he says that such a suggestion can be implemented. Why has the Secretary of State not said the Department has learned a lesson and will, from now on, advise farmers on some practical, permanent and implementable biosecurity measures—not just on foot and mouth but for the list of other animal diseases covered by the Bill? That would have been practical, but it has not been done.
  The National Pig Association produced a powerful video on meat importation showing the failings of the current system. The former Secretary of State for the Department, the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown), said that all kinds of new controls would be proposed. Where are they? I keep hearing that Ministers are rushing in with this Bill, yet we were told in July that they were working hard on new defence mechanisms to stop infected meat entering the country. Where are those mechanisms? We have had no detail; the Minister says that he will write to us. It is now November, so the Department's priority has been to draft the Bill and not to strengthen the import defences of the UK. As the NPA video showed, our defences were wide open even until recent weeks.
  There is some doubt about the measures on scrapie. What struck me in the submission from the National Sheep Association was the sense of disappointment and
  628
  shock that the voluntary work could not have been allowed to continue. Interestingly, in the note that the NSA sent to Members, it says:
  "It might be more profitable if greater effort was put in by Government to help breeders to develop resistant genes by using artificial insemination and embryo transfer in carefully controlled programmes. It is vital that breeds are given adequate time."
  Mr. Morley indicated assent.
  Mr. Jack: It is all very well for the Minister to nod, but the Secretary of State did not review progress on the voluntary scheme. She said virtually nothing about resources for it; she said nothing about the signs of vulnerability of some genotypes to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies; she gave us no comfort by suggesting that the matter had been considered properly; she gave us no details on discussions with the NSA; she answered none of the points raised by the association. For example, the NSA said:
  "The Minister cannot at this stage cope with the voluntary work which is available—what therefore is the benefit of compulsion?"
  That is central to the power in the Bill, but we heard nothing from the Secretary of State about it.
  The Countryside Alliance says in its briefing:
  "The Bill could be used as a vehicle to allow for the indiscriminate eradication of large sections of the national flock".
  Interestingly, Lord Haskins in his report on Cumbria advocated a reduction in the national flock, so some people might put two and two together. We have heard no answers to such questions. That accounts for the fact that many hon. Members on both sides of the House question the details of and the justification for the Bill. That is why Opposition Members will vote against it, and the Minister now has an awful lot of work to do.
  7.10 pm
  Mr. Huw Edwards: I normally like to welcome Government Bills: this time, I acknowledge the Government's need to introduce the Bill. I have heard reservations about the Bill expressed by hon. Members on both sides of House. Like my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), I found the title "Animal Health" slightly confusing. The Bill clearly deals with foot and mouth and other livestock diseases, and it could have been given a more accurate title.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham and other hon. Members have said that they might have accepted the Bill if it had been introduced at the height of the crisis, but if such measures would have been right then, they are right now, and I recognise and acknowledge the need to introduce them.
  There was a serious outbreak of foot and mouth disease in my constituency, especially around Cross Ash, Grosmont, Chepstow, Raglan and Usk. There were about 20 cases when the outbreak was at its worst. When we thought that it was all over, there were further outbreaks in Llanelen, which is very close to the Brecon Beacons national park, and it was felt that the outbreak was related to the serious outbreak in that area.
  I will never forget the despair of the farmers who were most directly affected. I also have great sympathy with the farmers who were not directly affected but whose livelihoods have been directly affected as a consequence.

  629
  Many of them have suffered a greater financial loss because they have lost their markets and the price of their livestock has been depressed.
  I will never forget seeing farmers who had heard that they had an outbreak of the disease on their farms. In one case, I had to leave the farm, which those who were with me and I did immediately. I will not forget the impact in the Cross Ash area in the northern part of my constituency, or the sight of bloated carcases awaiting disposal after delays. Many of my constituents have written to me because they were repelled by the level of slaughter that was occurring. That put me in a difficult position because I represent a strong agricultural area. Many of my constituents have written to me about the need for vaccination. We should consider what is said by those most directly affected, rather than by mere observers. The general view of those farmers was that the culling policy was correct to get ahead of the disease, even though it caused considerable distress.
  I recognise that there are reservations about the Bill, especially in relation to its timing and the lack of consultation. I recognise that many organisations in the industry have expressed surprise that there has not been more time, but I accept that, if these are emergency measures, they need to be introduced as soon as possible. If there were anomalies in the law relating to foot and mouth disease and the way in which officials could intervene during the outbreak, it is right that they should be resolved. We all sincerely hope that there will not be another outbreak next spring, but if there were to be another outbreak, I should not want to hear hon. Members say that the Government should have introduced such measures immediately after the 2001 outbreak. I hope that the precautionary principle is right in this case.
  Mr. David Heath: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says. Does he agree that if another outbreak occurred next spring, people might equally say that the Government had not been sufficiently assiduous in dealing with prevention by introducing measures that would avoid infection from imported meat or meat products, and that they had concentrated far too much on internal measures rather than on the external measures that would provide us with greater protection?
  Mr. Edwards: I acknowledge the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and I would have made it a little later in my speech. I regret that the Bill contains no provisions dealing with illegal imports or substandard legal imports, and I sincerely hope that other legislation will be introduced as quickly as possible in that respect.
  Farmers in my constituency said that other animals may have contributed to the spread of the disease. During the outbreak in the Cross Ash area, they said that deer and birds contributed to its spread. If there is evidence to show that, I will accept the need to have the powers to cull those species.
  At meeting after meeting, I have heard frustration expressed at delays in confirming cases of foot and mouth disease, in slaughtering and in paying compensation. This is a slightly different issue, but I tried to get through to the Intervention Board by phone. What a curious body it
  630
  is—and with a curious name. I could never find out who the official relating to Monmouthshire or even Wales was, although there were serious welfare problems and serious delays. I understand that the Minister with responsibility for agriculture in Wales is to rename the Intervention Board as it affects Wales, and I am glad that he is introducing such measures.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House have recognised that the provisions on scrapie are welcome, but we have heard reservations about the compensation system and the 25 per cent. penalty. I can understand that there might be difficulties in implementing that system and in maintaining consistency in making judgments about whether farmers had taken the right biosecurity measures.
  I note from the representations that we have received that organisations such as the RSPCA and the Country Landowners Association have expressed support for the Bill's general principle, as well as some concerns about the details. They have asked us to consider the Bill in detail in Committee and to consult at the same time.
  In all the meetings that I have had with farmers they have expressed concerns about illegal and substandard legal meat imports—the point that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) made a moment ago. That is the one factor in the spread of foot and mouth disease that they repeatedly mention.
  I hope that the Government will consider more search powers and more punishments for offenders. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham referred to the procedures on the carrying of foodstuffs into the United States and other countries. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mon (Albert Owen) has told me personally that Ireland has much stronger laws on meat imports. Jim Scudamore, the chief veterinary officer, has recently stated that illegal meat imports are seriously threatening animal and public health.
  According to the Farmers Union of Wales, it was recently discovered that travellers had brought in 5.76 tonnes of illegal meat on 14 flights at Heathrow. Farmers in my constituency are absolutely appalled by that, and they want measures to be introduced to stop it happening.
  The problems of long-distance livestock movements has been mentioned. Hon. Members have referred to the role of certain unscrupulous dealers who have moved livestock around considerably more than was generally known. That also reveals a lack of infrastructure such as local abattoirs. There is no large-scale abattoir in my constituency. If we had resources to invest in abattoir capacity, the number of long-distance livestock movements could be greatly reduced.
  It is a great pity that my constituency is outside the objective 1 area. If it was in the objective 1 area, we could get some of the investment that we need. In a strong farming community such as Monmouthshire, there is no doubt that we could have more infrastructure—for example, better livestock markets, meat processing facilities and abattoirs. Those facilities could serve not only Monmouthshire, but south-east Wales and the border areas of England.
  Farmers have raised with me the issue of inconsistencies in the payment of the slaughter premium. I recently met a group of farmers who had had their livestock culled and who had been led to believe that they would be entitled to the slaughter premium. I have been

  631
  advised by auctioneers that whereas at one stage veterinary officers were handing out forms suggesting that the slaughter premium would be paid, they were later giving out forms that did not state that it would. Auctioneers believe that the premium should have been paid. I hope that as a result of the representations that I am making in the form of written questions to the Minister, the rules and regulations that relate to the premium will be examined. If it should have been paid, it should be paid as soon as possible.
  I think that we recognise the need for emergency legislation that is based on the precautionary principle to deal with the anomalies that have been exposed in the foot and mouth outbreak. It is important that the Bill should he subject to serious scrutiny in Committee and that the relevant bodies with an interest in the industry should be widely consulted on its provisions.
  7.21 Pm
  Mrs. Angela Browning: The Bill has the feeling of a pre-emptive strike about it. From what we have heard from Ministers, the Bill is based on unproven assumptions about the the recent foot and mouth outbreak. Had these proposals come forward as emergency legislation during the outbreak, they would have been more acceptable. There would have been questions to ask about detail, but the broad principle of expanding Ministers' powers in terms of slaughter policy and its definition would perhaps have been accepted. It is not only the timing of the Bill's introduction that we have to consider: if we are looking to the future rather than simply considering a Bill that is too late for the past, it is to be hoped that the measure is part of a clear strategy.
  Mr. Morley rose—
  Mrs. Browning: I shall say something nice about the Minister in a moment. That being so, I hope that he will ask me a nice question.
  Mr. Morley: That is what I call a pre-emptive strike.
  I am sure that the hon. Lady will understand that ideally it would have been better to have the Bill on the statute book at the early stages of the epidemic. Some of the justification that has been requested in relation to the contiguous cull and poor biosecurity has become much more evident as the outbreak has progressed. More information has been collected. In those respects the defence case is much stronger now than it was at the beginning of the outbreak.
  Mrs. Browning: I am sure that that is true in broad principle. However, in terms of the contiguous cull—I am about to say something very nice about the Minister—I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the role that he played in allowing me to see him to refer to three farms in my constituency. He examined the issues and he intervened. I am pleased to tell him that the farms are still running, with the animals on them. They did not get foot and mouth disease and the hon. Gentleman's intervention was extremely helpful. It was also extremely sensible. It was not until 19 days after an outbreak that the farms, which were deemed to be contiguous, were approached on the basis that the animals were to be slaughtered. It is clear that such an approach 19 days after an outbreak defeats the object of a contiguous cull.
  632
  There are problems, and that is why I am concerned that the Bill is being introduced now. The Devon county council inquiry has recently published its preliminary findings under the chairmanship of Professor Mercer. It shows clearly that there are still many questions to be answered about the disease and its spread which should be influencing changes in policy and legislation. I am sure the Minister is fully familiar with these findings.
  Paragraph 1.26 states:
  "We find that more research is needed on the transport of the Foot and Mouth virus by boots, clothing, tyres, hooves and any other passive agent so that the degree of selection which might be applied to the closure of rights of way and the type of access may be determined."
  That is important if we are to start penalising people, which I do not agree with, for biosecurity breaches. Paragraph 1.20 states:
  "Any future cull adopted to contain the spread of disease must be applied by experienced operators trained to assess the risk according to the physical conditions."
  The Minister will be familiar with the assessment of risk. He and I pored over a large map on his desk trying to identify where the farms that we were discussing were. Every farm has a holding number. The Department has masses of information relating to the integrated administration and control system, for example, but it is not possible to draw a line on the map and say, "Cull here." One may be talking about anything within a 3 km zone. A relevant factor is the topography of the area. That point was picked up in Professor Mercer's preliminary conclusions.
  Surely these are the matters that we should be considering before we introduce new legislation that contains extended powers. Such legislation should be based on what is practical and on the experience of those who have had to manage the crisis. That is why I described the Bill as a pre-emptive strike.
  I do not feel that the Bill is merely premature. I do not think that it fully takes into account information which I am sure is available and will come forward. Certainly it is not the result of the Devon county council's inquiry alone. I have in mind some of the Government's inquiries, when they are concluded. Like many other colleagues, I deplore the fact that we are not having a full independent public inquiry. However, the Minister is right to say that useful information has already come forward. I am sure that more information will become available as the inquiries continue.
  It seems extraordinary—I say this as a former Minister in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—that the details of farms and their topography are not available in map form or on a computerised mapping system. That information would allow for much more practicality in determining the way in which decisions about culling are made.
  Most of us have supported the need to act quickly and to create a cordon sanitaire by means of contiguous culls. We all understand that if that action is taken promptly we can contain the spread of the disease. I am not opposed to the principle of the contiguous cull, unpleasant as it is. However, if we are to go down the same route again, either if the existing outbreak flares up or if there is another one in the foreseeable future, we should at least be able to take a different approach to managing the situation from that which has been adopted in the past few months.

  633
  I urge the Minister to try to be as flexible as possible. He said last week in the evidence that he gave to the Select Committee, and in answers to questions, that he wanted flexibility. If he is to maintain flexibility, which many of us have found useful, it is important that when the Bill becomes an Act the hon. Gentleman's hands should not be tied. Flexibility, pragmatism and practical on-the-ground knowledge should be available and ready to be interpreted if any future culling is needed
  I had hoped by now to have seen more information and more specific advice from the Government about a potential vaccination policy. Built into the background to the Bill is the assumption that we may have a vaccination policy in place in future. In an Adjournment debate initiated by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael) on 5 July, I asked whether it was the Government's intention through the summer months to collate all the up-to-date information about vaccination policy, not only from scientists in the UK but from valuable information that can be obtained from other countries that have foot and mouth disease and have operated such a policy. I asked that question in July because we all lived in fear of another outbreak flaring up as the weather changed and as we went into autumn, into October and November. Although I wrote to the Minister for Rural Affairs after the Adjournment debate, I have not had a reply to my letter, and it is now November. The subject of my proposal was put to me by local branches of the National Farmers Union in Devon. I had hoped that by now the Government would feel that they had sufficiently researched information on vaccination, especially as they are now giving it recognition in the Bill, and would be in a firmer position to say that they would propose using it if an outbreak flared up on any scale in the near future. I am sure that the decision has been complicated for Ministers. The NFU opposed vaccination, but the Under-Secretary will be aware that its south-west branch was not solidly against it.
  Mr. Morley: It was not actually for it.
  Mrs. Browning: No, but it felt what a lot of us feel—that we do not have that information in the public domain. I raised that in the debate on 5 July because it is incumbent on the Government to collate information and put it in the public domain; people will then feel better informed. If the Government said, as they might well have done, that they had to vaccinate, people would have understood the basis for their proposal. I have not been an Agriculture Minister for many years and I am out of date on the latest thinking and science on vaccination; it is not for me to say yes or no on behalf of my farmers. All that I know is that the information is out there. and it is the Government's job to put it into the public domain.
  Mr. Morley: I can certainly confirm that vaccination was considered several times throughout the outbreak and, as the hon. Lady knows, it has always been an option available to us. Of course, there are detailed questions about it to which people want answers. There are also people who need to be convinced, but it is difficult to do that in the middle of an epidemic. At moment, at the tail end of the epidemic, it is not likely that vaccination will play a role, although the door is still open. We have
  634
  sponsored a conference next month to examine issues surrounding vaccination, and there will be a detailed examination of it in the Royal Society inquiry. Issues arising from that may influence thinking for the future, as well as developments such as new tests which have not yet been validated.
  Mrs. Browning: I welcome that. I hope that, when the Minister for Rural Affairs returns to the Chamber, the Under-Secretary will prod him to send me a reply, which is almost four months overdue.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends have huge reservations about the additional powers and the fact that the Under-Secretary is introducing the Bill at this particular time. In an emergency, Ministers can call on emergency powers to deal with just about any situation. They may have to get legal advice and a second opinion on that advice, but when it comes to a genuine emergency. Ministers are not usually constrained by lack of powers and can do whatever has to be done, regardless of difficulty. Clearly, we are not in that situation; the Bill is not an emergency measure to deal with a current emergency. As the Under-Secretary acknowledged. it deals with the tail end of the disease—or what we hope is the tail end. I am not suggesting that new powers are not needed to deal with a future emergency, but the required package, of which the Bill may be a part, does not seem to have been thought through and has not been informed by the various inquiries that are being conducted.
  I should like to put a hypothetical question to the Under-Secretary. If all the Department's decisions are based on science—this is why I questioned unproven assumptions at the beginning—and if it is still basing its recommendations and legislation on science and scientific advice, why. in the middle of what was a crisis, was there a clear breach of the rules on severe animal health risk, when Phoenix the calf was saved by an overnight change in the rules?
  Mr. Morley: It was a coincidence.
  Mrs. Browning: That will not do. I will get really cross with the Under-Secretary if he takes that line. It was clear. however heart-rending that little face was on the front page of the tabloids and however many crocodile tears the Prime Minister felt he had to shed over Phoenix the calf, that it was a matter of animal health in the middle of a genuine crisis and the rules were changed overnight to deal with it.
  Mr. Morley: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Browning: All right. as I am generous.
  Mr. Morley: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who has been very generous. In all seriousness, I followed the discussions about exemptions to the contiguous cull. I did not have responsibilities for animal health until this June, but I have always been interested in the issue and, of course, I followed it. Exemptions to the contiguous cull for cattle under certain conditions were changing just before Phoenix the calf was affected. I urge the hon. Lady not to think that it was a sudden decision because it looked good on the television and in the papers, although, indeed, it did.
  Mrs. Browning: Ever the masters of spin! The matter is serious; I understood that Phoenix the calf was, by some

  635
  miraculous event, lying by its dead mother's body, she and the other cattle having been culled. As a result, Phoenix was saved. Other people may or may not judge that an animal health risk; I am sorry, but I think that Phoenix the calf was an animal health risk. However, in stark contrast, throughout the country, people were having to go to law, often in distress, to save animals whose cull under the contiguous cull rules could not be justified, given anomalies in the way in which officials expedited the contiguous cull.
  A culling policy is serious, as the Minister knows, and is not easy to introduce or implement; we know that it causes a lot of hardship. However, one has to stick to proper, proven advice, ideally scientific, particularly in relation to animal disease. That is why there was cynicism and a lack of confidence in the policies associated with foot and mouth. In the midst of chaos and despair, there were examples of policy which, frankly, made people wonder about the motivation or organisation behind the Government's management of more serious issues. I hope that the Under-Secretary will assure us in his winding-up speech that the Department, despite its new title, is basing legislation and decision making on good, sound scientific advice, not on what happens to be on the front of tabloid newspapers. It would be wicked to take decisions on any ground other than good scientific advice, despite—and I am used to this—the cynicism of the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) about the advice of officials from DEFRA or the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He has been getting that off his chest for a long time.
  I turn briefly to BSE in sheep, which is another important issue. I was extremely surprised that the Secretary of State suggested that I should turn to the Food Standards Agency to get an answer to a serious statement by Professor Krebs. In an FSA press release of 22 October, he said that if BSE was found in sheep, it was
  "likely that the Agency would have to advise against consumption of goat meats … and sheep and goat milk and dairy products."
  I asked the Secretary of State about that; I want an answer from Ministers, and do not want to be batted away to somebody who does not have to stand at the Dispatch Box. On what scientific basis does the FSA believe that milk and dairy products from any species with BSE are unfit for human consumption? If that is true, that has a huge read-cross to the dairy industry. I am sure that the Under-Secretary does not need me to spell out the implications of Professor Krebs's statement, which requires speedy clarification.
  However difficult it is to deal with those matters, and despite the fact that the FSA is independent, when Members of Parliament raise such issues on the Floor of the House, we deserve a proper answer from the Minister at the Dispatch Box, whatever their seniority. We do not deserve a Secretary of State who shrugs her shoulders and says that she did not know; if she did not, I hope her officials are briefing her tonight. That was a very serious statement from Professor Krebs, and I hope that before the evening is out—
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I do not like to act as an apologist for the Secretary of State, but one of the difficulties that she may have—this goes to the heart of
  636
  many of the Department's problems—is that the Food Standards Agency is responsible to an entirely different Secretary of State.
  Mrs. Browning: That may be so, but we are discussing the contingency plan for the possibility of BSE in sheep, which is clearly part of the Bill, for which DEFRA has ministerial responsibility. We can legitimately expect such matters to be raised in Standing Committee. I know that the Under-Secretary has taken on board the serious point that I am making. Whether or not it is technically a matter for the Department of Health, we deserve an answer, and I should like an answer later tonight.
  7.41 pm
  Mr. Erie Martlew: I support the Bill. That is probably the only part of my speech that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will accept. Coming from Cumbria and representing Carlisle. I can tell the House that we were in the thick of foot and mouth, and I do not believe that we are out of the woods yet. As I said in an intervention, this weekend we killed a large number of sheep in the south of the county, just on suspicion.
  People who oppose the Bill probably think that foot and mouth occurs every 30-odd years. We had it in 1967 and in 2001, so they think that it will not recur for some time and that there is therefore no need to rush legislation through Parliament. Anyone who examines the history of foot and mouth will realise that it occurred regularly before 1967—almost every year—so there is a good chance that it will come to us again fairly soon. We need legislation in place to deal with that.
  The lessons have been learned. We found that the Animal Health Act 1981 was defective. The Minister who put it through is probably in the other place. We found out, for example, that a farmer could deliberately infect a flock and get 100 per cent. compensation. Obviously, that was never considered at the time.
  In north Cumbria, one option was that we should have a fire break—that we should cull the sheep in the north of the county to stop the infection getting on to the fells. That policy would have been illegal, as the Government did not have the powers to implement it. It was ultimately carried out by other means, but if it had been challenged, we would have had serious problems.
  The purpose of the Bill is to allow us to get on top of the disease before it gets out of control. We have learned the lessons. I am sad to say that MAFF was not prepared to deal with the disease in March when it struck us in Cumbria. The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) presented a catalogue of mistakes made in his constituency. I could have multiplied them by 10 in the case of Cumbria.
  The outbreak was dealt with very badly in the early stages. but I do not believe that at that time any Government would have dealt with it any better. I was coming down to the House of Commons and telling Ministers one thing, and they were telling me that their officials were telling them something else, and that no problem existed. It was only when my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin), the then Minister of State, came to Cumbria and talked to the farmers one Sunday, having previously spoken to MAFF officials, that she realised the problem that we had.

  637
  The disease was out of control. I live right in the centre of my constituency in an urban area. All round the city, one could smell the burning three or four miles away. On the edge of my constituency, a mass grave contains the remains of 400,000 culled sheep. They were taken through the narrow roads, past the local school, and slaughtered on site. It was a mess. The Government learned the lessons.
  Reference has been made to the Prime Minister. Progress began to be made in Cumbria when the Prime Minister came up in March. He listened to the farmers, asked searching questions and gave instructions. The Army arrived, the famous brigadier was there and carried out those instructions, and that is when we started to get on top of the situation. The Prime Minister came on two occasions after that. Without his direct support and help, we would no doubt still have a problem.
  We cannot pursue a policy of mass slaughter again. The hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) said that he did not believe that the policy could be carried out in Scotland again; it had got out of hand. It could not be done in Cumbria again. We were fed up with the wanton destruction and death. We felt sick about the total devastation.
  That is why I support the Bill, which gives the Government the option of introducing compulsory vaccination and paying compensation. Without it, we would not have that option for the future. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) has left the Chamber. Voting for the Bill could mean saving the lives of millions of animals.
  I was the first Member of Parliament to ask for a public inquiry. However, I am prepared to allow the Government to have separate inquiries, as long as they are open. I spoke to those undertaking the scientific inquiry when they came up to Cumbria, and others are coming too. if we get the right answers from those inquiries, a new precedent will have been set for dealing with such issues. There must be an advance on the procedure followed in the Phillips inquiry, whereby we take over a set of dusty rooms in south London, hear evidence for three years and produce a report that hardly anybody reads, all at a cost of £30 million. However, I warn the Government that if they try to hide the facts about the foot and mouth outbreak, I will be the first Member to ask for a full inquiry.
  We have heard about the problem of contaminated meat coming into the country. Everyone seems to think that it is easy to stop it. If it were so easy, we would have no illegal immigrants and no drugs problem. It is extremely difficult to stop such things.
  There is another factor that has been overlooked. We know about the chaos caused by the recent outbreak of foot and mouth. Whatever our views, no one thinks that it was caused deliberately, but an enemy of the country who wanted to create chaos could deliberately introduce the disease. The virus is not difficult to get in the third world. The only way to deal with that will be vaccination.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's comments. He seemed to think that it was impossible to do anything about illegal imports of meat, drugs or whatever. One cannot guarantee anything in life,
  638
  but if measures can be implemented in America and New Zealand—which I know that he has visited—to protect their populations from the importing of animal and plant disease, surely we can take a stab at it. At present, we have wide open doors.
  Mr. Martlew: If the hon. Lady had been a Minister four years ago, she would have said that our policy obviously works, as we have not had an outbreak. Of course we must consider measures to tighten up on imports, but there is no panacea to stop illegal asylum seekers or drugs coming in, so we must always assume that imported meat will come in illegally.
  I come now to a problem that was mentioned by several hon. Members, although I do not think that any of them offered a solution. At the beginning of the outbreak we were hampered in Cumbria and everywhere else by the small number of vets. We all know that the size of the veterinary investigation service was reduced by the previous Government. There may have been a good reason for that. The changes that had occurred may have meant that the vets did not have much work, and they would not have stayed if that was the case. Perhaps we should consider introducing the equivalent of the Territorial Army for veterinaries and the possibility of establishing a reserve on which we can call when a crisis occurs.
  Mr. Wiggin: We had enough trouble persuading the Government to bring in the Army, let alone the Territorial Army. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is practical.
  Mr. Martlew: I am sorry that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. I was trying to make a serious point. If he wants to make party political points, that is fine, but when he has been in the House longer, he will learn when to intervene and when not to.
  I have sought an Adjournment debate on Lord Haskins's report. It is a very good report and I have a lot more to say about it, but I point out now that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary must deal with pet animals. There is no doubt that much of the anguish that was caused to individuals in the crisis related to pets. In my constituency, someone rang me anonymously, in case I contacted MAFF, to say that he was concerned about two pet goats. He asked me what to do. I said, "Hide them." Of course, I also told him to have good biosecurity. He never got back in touch. I hope that he took my advice.
  The situation was a real problem and a public relations disaster for the Government. That is where I disagree with the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). We should not run our approach on scientific grounds alone. If we had culled Phoenix the calf—I am sure that it would have been done only for scientific reasons—public support for Government policy on culling would have disappeared. That would have had more effect on getting on top of the disease than saving one calf.
  Mrs. Browning: Constituents of mine also owned two goats that were saved. Much as I sympathised with the fact that they were pets and lovely animals, I believed that it was right for them to be subjected to a blood test. If they had tested positive, they would have been just as

  639
  much a risk to the farming community as any other animals, pets or not. Difficulties arose only when blood tests were refused. I could not understand why that happened in some cases.
  Mr. Martlew: I would not disagree with the hon. Lady on that point.
  I shall support the Bill's Second Reading, as the alternative is not to give the Government powers to vaccinate compulsorily and to grant compensation. That will be the way forward in any future outbreak.
  7.53 pm
  Mr. Simon Thomas: I am pleased to speak to the reasoned amendment that I and my hon. Friends tabled, which invites the House to decline to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), who made by far the best speech in favour of the Bill that we have heard tonight, although am sure that the Under-Secretary will make up for that. He was right to point out that the Bill gives powers for vaccination that the Minister does not currently have, and powers for a cull following vaccination that are not currently in place. The scenario might, therefore, be less optimistic than he and the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) hope.
  My party and I oppose the Bill not on principle, because we have much sympathy with what the Government are trying to do, but on the practicalities of the way in which it was put together. It is poorly drafted and badly thought out. A lack of consultation with the farming industry and the devolved Assemblies and Parliament in the United Kingdom is obvious. The Secretary of State's attempts to spin the matter and say that there would be plenty of consultation on the secondary legislation have been undermined by the fact that the Government are seeking to impose a guillotine on consideration of the Bill. Not only is it being rushed through Second Reading, but we are also to have a programme motion on the rest of its passage. If the Government were serious about the process of consultation, we would not impose such a motion on the Committee stage, Report and Third Reading, but allow the Bill a natural progression through the House with plenty of time for the debate that the Government say they want.
  Another matter is relevant in questioning why the Bill has been introduced so quickly. In the past, the House has been told many times about contingency plans for foot and mouth. We were told about the buying up of supplies, including wood, railway sleepers and so on. The Government said, "Of course these things happen, because they are contingency plans." We were told that regular contingency planning occurred. We accepted it, as it was the right way forward: such planning should occur. However, why has that planning, which has occurred under Labour and Conservative Governments since 1981, failed to identify any weakness in legislation? If the contingency planning was proper and thorough—some speakers have suggested that it may not have been—any weaknesses in legislation would have been revealed and we could have dealt with the matter at our leisure.
  Mr. Morley: The answer is simple. There has never been an outbreak on this scale in this country. Indeed,
  640
  there has probably never been an outbreak on such a scale anywhere in the world. The contiguous cull policy, for example, was introduced as part of the lessons that were learned in handling the outbreak. I agree that it is necessary to think ahead and to try to envisage all contingencies, but I believe that it is hard to make contingency plans for a type of epidemic that has never been experienced or even considered in this country.
  Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to the Minister for making that point. I partly accept it, but surely it reinforces the view that there was a need at least to consider the results of his own three inquiries before introducing the legislation. Perhaps a full public inquiry would take too much time, but his inquiry on the lessons to be learned should have been reported first and foremost, before such legislation was introduced.
  In that context, it has been very disappointing not to have the opportunity fully to consult the National Assembly for Wales, which was partially responsible for dealing with the outbreak in Wales, or the other devolved institutions. The farming unions have not yet been consulted fully on the matter. The handling of foot and mouth in Wales revealed defects in the way in which animal health was dealt with there and a need to tighten up the regime. I regret to say, however, that the Bill does not remedy those defects. The handling of foot and mouth in Wales was characterised by confusion. The National Assembly for Wales is, of course, responsible for agriculture in Wales, but DEFRA has responsibility for animal health, as MAFF did previously. However, the matter is still not clear, as some sections of the Animal Health Act 1981—especially section 86—are devolved to the National Assembly for Wales, which looks after animal health in relation to brucellosis and tuberculosis.
  We therefore have a mismatch and must deal with the confusion that arises from it. Some of the problems mentioned by the hon. Member for Carlisle and the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) with regard to the lack of local decision making were exacerbated in Wales by the fact that there were two decision-making processes—one in the National Assembly for Wales and one in the Ministry. Very often, neither knew what the other was doing and there was disagreement about how the process should be conducted in Wales. Hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies will know that that is the case from having received phone calls about confusion in the farming community and a lack of clear planning on how to take the matter forward.
  It is also wrong to introduce the Bill without the House having had the full benefit at least of the three separate strands that the Government have established, even if not of a public inquiry. I and my party remain convinced that we need an independent public inquiry into the foot and mouth outbreak and into how we can learn from it. The Under-Secretary's statement in his intervention that the outbreak was probably the worst in the world underlined the need for such an inquiry; nevertheless, in the meantime, we certainly need to see what the Government themselves have to say.
  Before we consider introducing any further legislation, we need to consider the real lessons of foot and mouth disease, such as those that are known to us already without the benefit of a public inquiry, and, indeed, without any other inquiry having reported.

  641
  First, it has been stated forcefully, especially by Professor Mark Woolhouse in his evidence to the Select Committee on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, that if the Government had acted more quickly and there had been no three-day delay in banning animal movements, the scale of the epidemic would have been lessened by between a third and a half. He estimates that we could have saved £1 billion, and 3 million animals would not have been slaughtered. I accept that that is only one person's scientific view, but it is interesting to note that the need to ban animal movements immediately is the first or second recommendation of the Devon inquiry.
  The Government are not necessarily to blame for the delay because there was confusion on all sides at the time of the outbreak. However, if they want more powers to enforce biosecurity, it is right for us and the farming community to ask them to take further administrative steps to ensure that they do not repeat their mistakes. The question of whether to pay farmers' compensation in the light of poor biosecurity can be turned on its head: what would the Government do if they dithered in the unfortunate case of any future outbreak of foot and mouth?
  The buck cannot be passed to the farming community. There is blame on all sides. The Bill covers the few farmers whose biosecurity may have been poor and the few who may even have flouted the regulations. A series of draconian measures are based on that. I am unconvinced about whether we need them. We can make a similar link with imports, which many hon. Members have mentioned. I shall not reiterate their points.
  Secondly, let us consider vaccination and the cull policy. We were told again tonight that the Government always had an open mind on vaccination—but they never acted. When the chief veterinary officer, Jim Scudamore, gave evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee earlier this week, he said that the policy on vaccination was "certainly not a success". He also pointed out that the Dutch had used vaccination.
  Has culling worked? The Under-Secretary revealed that of the 103 farms that legally challenged the cull, foot and mouth had developed on only eight. I am sure that that is eight more than the Under-Secretary wants, but the figures show that many farmers had a genuine reason for challenging the cull on their farms. More than 90 farmers were right to do that, yet the Bill will remove the right to challenge.
  In a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) on 7 November at column 299 of Hansard, the number of infected premises in Wales was given as 107. We were told that 94 premises were tested, of which 54 tested positive. That suggests that approximately half did not carry foot and mouth disease. Yet, 304,847 sheep were slaughtered in Wales. We must therefore ask whether culling worked and whether enough consideration was given to vaccination.
  A convincing case has been made that, economically, vaccination would have been more effective for farming: whether it would have been more effective against foot and mouth remains an open question, which I hope the Under-Secretary will answer, if not later tonight, then after the conference that he mentioned.
  Mr. Drew: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price),
  642
  who suggested that sheep could have been quarantined until the results of blood tests were known. How can thousands of sheep be placed in quarantine?
  Mr. Thomas: I believe that my hon. Friend's point was reiterated by a Labour Member. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) may not have been in the Chamber to hear it. Putting animals into quarantine has been discussed. I have not considered that, but I have examined vaccination. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the report that the Elm Farm research centre published. I acknowledge that it has, an axe to grind on specific issues, but the report is useful. Peter Midmore of the University of Wales in Aberystwyth wrote it, and it sets out the economic case for vaccination. We should discuss the scientific case for vaccination's ability to deal with foot and mouth if it ever reappears in this country.
  The lack of vets has been discussed. The chief vet has admitted that we ran out of vets and reached the position of paying £250 a day to attract sufficient vets to deal with the outbreak.
  Lack of rendering capacity caused increasing problems. That was the reason for so many pyres, which constitute a human as well as an animal health issue. There is not one rendering plant in Wales. If foot and mouth broke out again, we could not render animals there. The single rendering plant that existed in Wales was in Tan-y-groes in my constituency, and has been closed owing to a private legal action. It is important that the Government consider a rendering strategy as part of their plans for future action against foot and mouth.
  Charlotte Atkins: Does the hon. Gentleman support the idea that is currently being investigated by Blue Circle, whereby it could take animal carcases to use as an alternative fuel in the cement industry?
  Mr. Thomas: I would take a lot of convincing that incineration for fuel was the way forward. I am deeply dissatisfied with the use of incineration to deal with our municipal waste. That also applies to animal waste.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments about the need for more rendering plants. Does he believe that it is right to bring infected carcases to a rendering plant in an area where there is no foot and mouth? It is believed that some outbreaks of foot and mouth in Cheshire could be directly connected to infected carcases being brought into the county. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on that?
  Mr. Thomas: I suspect that I would have similar anxieties if the rendering plant in my constituency, which remains free of foot and mouth, had been opened. However, if that was the best scientific method of disposing of carcases, we would have to go for it. The mass burial of carcases in Wales, especially on the Epynt mountain, was a travesty of animal and human welfare. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman supports on-farm burials, but we need the best scientific evidence.
  Mr. Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is dealing with the matter seriously and positively, but if infected carcases

  643
  are being taken to rendering plants in areas where there is no infection, is not it important that the vehicles should be airtight and liquid tight and should be inspected?
  Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman makes the point well. I agree that the tightest biosecurity must apply to the transport of carcases or infected animals to rendering plants, slaughterhouses and so on.
  I oppose the Bill because it gives DEFRA Ministers such wide powers, without proof that they would have made a blind bit of difference to the handling of the current outbreak.
  Let us consider scrapie. I believe that it is included in the Bill to deal with possible BSE outbreaks in future. To date, there is not a scrap of evidence of BSE in the sheep flock. We may require further powers to eradicate scrapie, but the Bill does not fulfil that need. The Department that does not know the difference between sheep brains and cow brains should not have powers over the future of our sheep flock. A Department that cannot run a research project without elementary safeguards for checking and counter-checking its results demands more power. I am reluctant to grant it.
  The Department's skin was saved by a National Assembly for Wales official, Mr. Mike Simmons, who represents the Assembly on the Whitehall working party on testing sheep brains. He insisted that the material should be sent for DNA testing in July. The Government came within 36 hours of destroying the sheep industry in Wales and the United Kingdom. Mr. Simmons' insistence saved
  "not only the Welsh agricultural industry but the European agricultural industry."
  Mr. Morley: Mr. Simmons has played an important role in the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, and we very much value his input. However, I am sure that he does not claim to be personally responsible for that, especially as he will be aware that the former MAFF chief scientist asked for the DNA testing to be carried out before he made the submission.
  Mr. Thomas: I have to tell the Minister that the words that I just read out were not mine but those of Rhodri Morgan, the First Minister in Wales. He believes very strongly that Mr. Simmons saved his backside.
  Let us imagine what would have happened to the sheep industry if the Bill had been in the Minister's hands and that report had gone to SEAC without being discovered. The Minister would have had the power immediately to authorise the mass slaughter of the sheep flock. We came very close to that, and the Minister's embarrassment was saved by a small but very important official in Wales. That is the truth. I believe the Labour party's propaganda, because it was Rhodri Morgan who sought to put that on the front page of the Western Mail to reflect well on himself.
  This is why we have included in our amendment to the Bill the need to devolve powers to the National Assembly. The present Department, whether it be in the form of the Minister himself—I am sure that it is not—or the officials to whom the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) referred, is not prepared or able to take these issues properly or effectively into account. The issues need to be devolved to the National Assembly. Is it any wonder that
  644
  most farmers in my constituency think that there is some sort of agenda behind the Bill? I am trying to negotiate with them, but they think that the Government are trying to take powers to cut the sheep flock and the cattle herd in the United Kingdom.
  There are also real concerns among the supporters of animal refuges in my constituency. The refuges are next to farmland and people are concerned that the Minister might apply these powers to other animals in a refuge that can carry foot and mouth.
  The plans for compensation are crude, although I accept that we need them and that the Minister will do more work on them. If the Government really wanted to improve animal health, they should have examined issues such as the transportation of live animals over long distances. They could also have examined the difficulties that local abattoirs are experiencing in reopening, which was dealt with in the third recommendation of the Devon inquiry. An example is the case of my constituent, Oswyn Jones, who is trying to reopen Llanwnnen abattoir in the face of every bit of red tape, and who is facing huge veterinary bills.
  The way in which foot and mouth has been dealt with in Wales, and the way in which the Government's skin was saved over BSE in sheep, have made it clear that the National Assembly for Wales would be a more able and effective promoter of animal health, a more able and effective defender of the public interest, and a more able and effective developer of sustainable fanning in Wales. No doubt the Minister for Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael), would agree with that if he were in the National Assembly.
  The Bill gives Ministers the wrong powers for the wrong purposes and on false premises. I hope that the House will decline to give it a Second Reading.
  8.14 pm
  Albert Owen: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) and to contribute to this debate. I have some concerns, as have some of my hon. Friends, about the speed of introduction of the Bill, but I feel that those issues can be settled in Committee and I shall support the Bill tonight in the Lobby.
  I want to concentrate on the slaughter policy pertaining to foot and mouth. The policy of establishing a firebreak prevented the disease from spreading in my constituency. My constituency of Ynys Môn—better known by its English name, Anglesey—was one of the first areas in the United Kingdom to suffer from foot and mouth, and had the first reported cases in Wales. The action that followed was decisive, if somewhat brutal, after an initial muddle at the start of the handling of the outbreak.
  To date, just 13 cases of foot and mouth have been reported on Anglesey. I say "just", because they were reported very early on in the outbreak. Yet an estimated 50,000 animals were slaughtered in the compulsory cull in south Anglesey. The National Assembly for Wales, with the full co-operation of the fanning unions in Wales, authorised the cull and gave it its blessing. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Agriculture for adopting that policy and for taking those tough decisions at that time. I also support how the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food worked with

  645
  the National Assembly, although, like the hon. Member for Ceredigion, I have some reservations about that arrangement.
  Establishing the firebreak had its problems, not least that of disposing of so many animals, but it worked and we must learn from that experience. It prevented the spread of the disease and allowed the vast majority of the isle of Anglesey to remain disease-free. It allowed open access to the countryside to be restored much earlier than in many other parts of the United Kingdom and Wales, thereby allowing the tourism industry on which my constituency relies so much, and which is vital to the economy of the island, to recoup some lost time and money. It was because that policy was adopted that the National Assembly and the appropriate authorities were able to announce that the disease was under control, and to send out positive messages sooner than in other areas of the United Kingdom.
  Movement restrictions remained in place, however, and farmers in the local community had to conform to tight restrictions. I have no doubt that failure to institute those measures at that time would have compounded the problems still further. The initial confused situation marked by the localised burning of animals in huge pyres sent out a terrible signal, and those graphic images did untold damage to the tourism sector in my local community. The confusion over which animals were at greatest risk, which should be killed, and how many should be buried, where and when, created chaos. The Bill can help to alleviate that chaos, which is one of the reasons why I support it.
  Although I support many of the measures in the Bill, I ask for some assurances from the Minister; for example, that the Bill will not preclude the use of vaccination without the need to slaughter later, for animals not destined for the food chain. I am particularly concerned by the allegation that so-called hobby farmers are a nuisance. I do not share that opinion; they are farmers who look after animals in the same way as others, even though those animals are not destined for the food chain. I believe that it would be possible to exempt such animals from a mass cull in a designated area, and that a vaccine could be used in such cases. I am not as colourful as my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) when he talks passionately about preventing the killing of pets and other animals owned by hobby farmers. We should seriously consider that issue, and send out the right messages to those people.
  I understand the logistical problems posed by mass vaccination. However, we must not abandon the research into and the application of vaccination in forming policy for future outbreaks. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made some movement on that in her opening speech. I further understand the cost implications of mass vaccination, but we must acknowledge that any policy to contain and eradicate diseases such as foot and mouth will be costly.
  On costs, I draw the House's attention to the evidence given to the Select Committee by Professor Roy Anderson, who claimed that an estimated £1 billion of taxpayers' money could have been saved if time had not been wasted when implementing the ban on animal movements in the crucial first few days of the outbreak. Indeed, it is alleged that the first reported case in my
  646
  constituency can be traced back to an abattoir in Essex. More must be done to stop the movement of animals across such great distances.
  I suggest that the House take note of the Devon inquiry, which called for an immediate ban on animal movements from day one of an outbreak. This is simply a question of prevention being better than cure. The same inquiry called for a study to support the re-establishment of small, local abattoirs to be supported by grants. That should be looked at, as it would help to stop the spread of the disease.
  I do not support the calls for a public inquiry, although I did have leanings towards that at one time. We should not have such an inquiry until we have heard the results of the Government inquiry. However, there should be a firm commitment to a national contingency plan that clearly identifies the role of each of the constituent parts, including the local authorities and DEFRA. The pressures and burdens placed on local authorities, DEFRA, vets, administrators and farmers during the mass slaughter campaign were immense in my constituency. Emergency planning is required, in line with what has happened in terms of the maritime disasters that have occurred off the Welsh coastline.
  It is right to widen the powers of slaughter to limit the spread of the disease. Enforcement during the first months of the crisis was patchy, as hon. Members have revealed. I believe that this Bill will clarify and eliminate unnecessary and complex legal injunctions without removing the right to appeal. The Bill needs greater scrutiny in Committee. However, I repeat that, only this year, the farming unions in Wales supported the slaughter policy in my area and upheld the right to appeal. It is fundamental, especially with the adjusted compensation proposed by the Bill, that a fair and concise appeals procedure be available. Again this needs to be looked at in Committee.
  I wish to refer to the implications of the Bill and the relationship between the National Assembly for Wales and DEFRA. The Bill covers England and Wales, but I have concerns about the confusion that might occur between the devolved Administration and DEFRA. We need clarity, and I hope that the Minister will deal with that.
  In conclusion, I wish to consider consumer confidence, which is mentioned in the Bill. Too often the consumer is overlooked in favour of powerful interest groups, such as landowners and farmers—consumers are important stakeholders and their opinions should be sought. During the recent general election campaign, I paid great attention to the ordinary consumers in my predominantly rural constituency. They told me of the need for the Government to take decisive action to recognise and prevent a future outbreak. Their views were echoed by the many small businesses in the tourism and agriculture-related sectors. I support the desire to enact policies that provide decisions and reduce the chances of prolonged crises of the sort that destroy our rural and urban communities.
  My constituents want their Member of Parliament not only to voice their concerns, but to take decisive action to support legislation that is resolute and has the long-term prosperity of the countryside in mind. That is why I am pleased to support the Bill tonight. I hope that the Minister will take on board my concerns.
  8.23 pm
  Mr. Colin Breed: There have been some tremendously good, informed and experienced speeches in this debate because so many hon. Members have had direct experience in their constituencies of the problems during the foot and mouth crisis. There has been a large measure of agreement on the aims of the Bill, but—perhaps this is a problem for the Government—there has been considerable agreement across the House that these measures have not been well thought out and are not the best way of proceeding.
  We have heard it suggested in the House and in the Select Committee that speed is of the essence, but one must wonder whether, this time, it is a matter of more haste, less speed. We have not had the benefit of the inquiries set up by the Government; in fact, these have only just started to take evidence. We are told that the foot and mouth disease outbreak is not actually over. Originally we were told that no inquiry was to start until the crisis was over; yet here we are proposing legislation before the crisis has finished, although I very much hope that we are at its tail end.
  There has been no public inquiry, however much one has been demanded. Because of that, one might have expected a significant period of pre-legislative scrutiny. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) for securing one evidence session last week for the Select Committee—at rather short notice—but no one believes that that was the real consultation that would be necessary to give proper consideration to the proposals and to ensure that all stakeholders have had their opportunity to be consulted prior to the Bill coming to this House.
  The Bill proposes extremely wide-ranging powers, and it surprises me and others that, in the Minister's view, the Bill does not breach the European convention on human rights. If the proposals were enacted and we had another foot and mouth crisis, one wonders how long it would be before the proposals were challenged and ultimately tested in the courts. The right to submit evidence in a court of law appears to have been taken away. Any system that looks at the evidence on one side only must be undemocratic and not in the best interests of justice in this country. All persons affected by the Bill's provisions, and not just the Minister, must have the right to contribute to the appeal process. The right of a post-slaughter judicial review is not sufficient to protect animal owners. I do not think that farmers, or other fair-minded people in this country, would consider that to be so either.
  Mention has been made of pet owners. That reminds me of an incident involving a pet owner in my constituency, who was a long way from an outbreak and had a family pet—a pot-bellied Vietnamese pig. She had to move house and, quite properly, she telephoned to make certain what the arrangements were. She could not get any real indication and enlisted my support. The advice that I was given was perhaps not entirely helpful: it was suggested that my constituent have a farewell barbecue. In the end, a licence was granted. The initial response may have been given in the heat of battle, but that is not how we should treat what are very serious situations.
  The Bill paves the way to enshrining contiguous culling as the principal weapon against any foot and mouth outbreak. The Minister is shaking his head. I understand
  648
  why, and I know that there will be other alternatives, but as things stand now, regardless of any future proposals, that is what the Bill does.
  Mr. Morley: There is nothing in the Bill that pre-empts future responses to any epidemic of whatever kind. It does not enshrine culling as the principal weapon but says that if culling is to be done, it must be done quickly and effectively.
  Mr. Breed: Precisely. At present, that is all we have to go on. Should other proposals be made following the current inquiries, will the Bill be revisited and the provisions amended or improved accordingly?
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the contiguous cull. Did the Minister's response mean that there would be a contiguous cull where an outbreak of foot and mouth has been identified and proven, or where there is a suspected contact and the Department wants to slaughter the animals on all the adjacent farms? If the latter is the case, it is absolutely outrageous. I stopped one such cull in my constituency, when there was a suspected contact in Rainow. Unfortunately, I missed the immediately adjoining farm, where people slipped in and slaughtered, but I managed to stop them doing it on the next farm. I believe that a contiguous cull must happen only with a proven case.
  Mr. Breed rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has used his considerable experience to get in a question to the Minister. I suggest to the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) that he reclaim ownership of his speech.
  Mr. Breed: I will, Mr. Deputy Speaker, despite my considerable sympathy for the hon. Gentleman's inquiry. I think that the powers in the Bill will mean that his latter alternative is the case. It will provide for indiscriminate culling on the flimsiest of justifications. There will be a "just in case, shoot first and answer questions later" policy, which I think is unacceptable.
  The compensation provisions are being used as a weapon to beat the recalcitrant farmer into submission. The proposed sliding scale of penalties, based on the whim of a DEFRA inspector, is unsatisfactory. There should be a proper independent assessment of the risks that the farmer might have caused. Why do we need a system of penalties and compensation? Surely we should leave the compensation as it is and invoke fines for those who transgress. After all, we are to fine people who walk their dogs on footpaths and beaches, so why can we not fine the farmers who breach the biosecurity provisions, rather than tinkering with a compensation system?
  I agree with most of what has been said about the control of imports. Last year I visited Felixstowe, a huge port through which there is significant trade. We inspected some of the ways in which imports were being handled. There were between 40 and 60 cases a week of illegal imports—of potatoes, meat, anything. We asked how many prosecutions there had been in, say, the past five years. We were told that that was very simple to answer, because there had been none.

  649
  When we asked why, we were told that the sheer time spent in prosecuting a case would impinge on the ability to conduct investigations; that the burden of proof needed and the hurdles that had to be jumped in order to get a case to court were extremely high; and that, even if all that had been done and the case won, the fine that can be imposed is so insignificant that the offender would probably hand over a cheque and run laughing from the court. The legislation is in place but we need to try to make it a little more effective.
  The proposals for eliminating scrapie are quite sensible. Arguably, they could have been introduced some years ago, when other countries were clearly trying to eradicate scrapie from their flocks. Eliminating the disease will take time, so perhaps we need a timetable with annual targets so that we can be sure that we are bearing down on it over a reasonable period.
  Consideration must also be given to the value of genetic diversity. We should not eradicate one disease from our national sheep flock only to reduce genetic diversity to such an extent that it causes other problems. We need vital sheep production in the future, giving us the necessary biodiversity, and we should remove scrapie if possible. Current scientific evidence suggests that we cannot achieve both, and we should weigh up the value of genetic diversity of our stock against the problems caused by scrapie.
  The greatest omission from the Bill is also significant. The Government's advisers have said that if the animal movements ban had been introduced on day one instead of day three, the outbreak would have been significantly reduced. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and we should remember that the first outbreak was in pigs in Essex, but I am sure that, next time, animal movements will be stopped on day one. The Bill should address the issue of animal movements, especially as they are such a significant part of the way in which FMD, and possibly other diseases, are spread.
  Animal movement restrictions, or the standstill proposals, should have been part of the Bill, in advance of the draconian provisions that we are now considering. I know that there would be practical difficulties and that farmers have well founded concerns about how they can run their businesses if all animals are subject to a 21-day standstill. However, we need some proper solutions, because animal movement is as important a factor as import restrictions. Before we address how we manage the disease when it has become endemic, we need to consider proposals that could prevent that from happening. The NFU and most farmers recognise that the status quo is not acceptable.
  Another important factor is traceability. We need a technically and economically feasible identification system. Several commercial operations are considering methods of traceability through electronic identification, and they should be given assistance with that. Traceability, in its widest sense, is an area in which this country could lead Europe. We are already way ahead of the others and if we have a system that requires full traceability, we will need a good identification system.
  All those factors would achieve more than this sledgehammer of a Bill. In some respects, the Bill is a knee-jerk response. It fails to wait for the inquiry proposals,
  650
  and some aspects of it are against natural justice. If implemented, it will produce much confrontation at a time when we need co-operation. It will involve the unnecessary slaughter of many animals and cost millions of pounds. It must be resisted. The Minister should go back to the drawing board and produce a coherent, sensible contingency plan, perhaps with some legal backing if necessary, to deal more effectively with any future disease outbreak.
  My colleagues and I will vote against Second Reading, and if the programme motion goes to a Division, we will also vote against that. That is not because we are against programme motions or, indeed, the aims of the Bill, but because of the speed with which the Bill has been introduced, the haste with which it is passing through the House and the implications it carries. If we take the measure of the debate we have had tonight, the clear implication for the Minister is that he may have the votes of his hon. Friends but he has not won their hearts and minds.
  8.40 pm
  Mr. David Drew: It is obvious that the Bill is in need of some friends, and I shall try to be one. but I make no apology for criticising some aspects of it, as it is our duty as Members of Parliament to scrutinise and recommend. My hon. Friend the Minister also seems to be in need of some friends; he will be pleased to know that my regional newspaper has referred to him as "Stalin". I am sure that all hon. Members share my feeling that I cannot think of anyone less like Stalin than him—the only similarity is that he once had whiskers.
  The exaggerated comment on the subject that we are discussing sometimes misses the point about what we need to do. The Bill could be referred to as the Benefit of Hindsight Bill; as the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) said, we could all do with 20:20 hindsight, but now we need to learn and to take things forward.
  I support the need for legislation, but I hope that when the Bill reaches the Standing Committee, it will not be only the animals that are slaughtered, because some changes and improvements are needed. If I am selected for the Committee, I hope to make some suggestions.
  It is not only the Government who have lived in denial; some of the stories about foot and mouth are, in essence, about the fact that all concerned have lived in denial. The outbreak has taught us about two key factors. First, we learned how many animals were kept on holdings with insufficient biosecurity, which meant that the outbreak would be far worse than that in 1967, and worse than other outbreaks of disease, notwithstanding the existence of BSE, which is a rather different type of disease.
  Secondly, some 30 years on, we know that the significant difference between now and the previous outbreak is the unacceptable speed and frequency with which animals are moved round the country. Whatever we think about some of the details in the Bill, it is a matter of simple necessity that we introduce some movement controls now. That idea was first discussed at the height of the outbreak, and it was not well received by many farmers, but if one talks to them quietly now, they accept the need for controls.
  I have raised this subject so often that people will be sick of hearing me talk about it, but I make no apology for repeating my opinion that the role of dealers in the

  651
  market place, and the way in which they can determine how animal movements take place, is unjustified. We have learned, to our cost, about the role that dealers play in our methods of buying and selling animals—and we must do something about it. I am not sure whether the Bill quite does that, and that is one of the improvements that I hope to see.
  There are many myths about vaccination. At the outset, I was favourably disposed to vaccination, and to firebreak vaccination; I still am. The Government, through my hon. Friend the Minister, have said candidly several times that they can see its benefits. Again with the benefit of hindsight, we can now say that, with co-operation from some elements in the farming community, vaccination could have been used.
  The problem is that vaccination is not a cure. It is useful in some respects, but there is no evidence that prophylactic vaccination works. The simple fact is that the economics do not stack up. I know that we are talking not about economics but animal welfare and consumer perceptions. However, we cannot continue to vaccinate animals if it effectively costs more than they are worth in the marketplace. There are many examples of vaccines not being available, not working or not being detectable in animals that have been vaccinated or that carry antibodies. I always bow to the superior knowledge of the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who made those points. All the evidence that we took in the Select Committee tended to clarify—to the disappointment of those who want simple solutions—the fact that vaccination is not the answer to all the problems, at least not for the moment. Perhaps it will be in years to come, when smart vaccines are available.
  Like my right hon. and hon. Friends, I support a public inquiry, but not a full judicial tribunal of evidence inquiry. As I tried to say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State some weeks ago at Question Time, the BSE inquiry, which was long in evidence, was fine for paying lawyers' wages but taught us next to nothing. We already knew most of what came out of the inquiry, which was sad, because I should have thought that there was something to be learned. There is always something to be learned from the minutiae, but we are still looking for scientific evidence on overall causation and transmission. As many Members have said, if we do not obtain sufficient evidence from the mini-inquiries, we can still call for a public inquiry. But we need the right sort of public inquiry: the evidence must be considered quickly and the results made known as soon as possible.
  If we ask the right questions. we might get the right answers. It worries me that people are trying to fit up the Government; they say, "The Government are guilty and here is the evidence." Let us not beat around the bush—the Government made mistakes. But this was a huge outbreak, against which every other outbreak pales into insignificance. It was different from the one in 1967, affecting different types of animal. Contrary to what many Conservative Members said, the Army did not come to the rescue then in the same way as it did this time. We approached this outbreak differently, because we had to. Epidemiologists were much more prominent than vets.
  652
  There are arguments in the scientific community about who did what and why, but we must face up to the fact that things have been different in this outbreak.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Why was the epidemic so quickly contained in the four counties of Derbyshire, Staffordshire, Shropshire and Cheshire in the 1967–68 outbreak? Are there not lessons to be learned?
  Mr. Drew: I take that to be a rhetorical question because that is my point. The outbreak was different this time because of different features in various parts of the country. We were able to localise the problem in the 1967–68 outbreak which meant that we could pour resources into those areas. My county was not the worst affected this time. Even so, significant resources were poured into it to cope with the outbreak.
  I hope that we can take several of those points on board, not necessarily in the Bill but through the change in mindset that must follow it. It is not just a question of what we do but of how we do it. We must look at the checks and balances provided by different organisations. I have made great play of the role of local government and central Government. In Gloucestershire, after some initial hiccups, both functioned amazingly well. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) said, we must give credit where it is due—in this case, to the officials, who worked very hard. We must learn from what they did well and apply that knowledge in the Bill. I fear that rather than spreading good practice and tightening legislation, we are focusing on the negative. However, despite the criticism that I have voiced and will continue to voice, I believe that there is a need for legislation. Although I do not believe that the Government acted illegally, they were hamstrung.
  We have talked about the dilemma faced by farmers who did not want their animals killed. Those who earn their bread and butter from farming made it absolutely clear that they understood from the outset why their animals had to be culled, and quickly. Opposition to the cull came mostly from those who are not completely dependent on farming. That is a harsh judgment, and Conservative Members may look askance, but that was the case in my constituency, and it was probably replicated in many others. Those whose animals were slaughtered made that sacrifice because they wanted the disease to be eradicated. They felt that it was wrong for others to suffer and they knew that the sooner the disease was brought under control, the earlier they could begin to participate again, with dignity, in an industry that would sustain them.
  Mr. Breed: Farmers felt that they were participating voluntarily, along with their neighbours. Might not their attitude have been different if Stalin and his jackbooted crew had forced them to participate?
  Mr. Drew: There is some validity in the hon. Gentleman's argument. As he knows, notwithstanding the fact that my hon. Friend the Minister, the Stalin of the Front Bench, is muttering away, the evidence from the Select Committee and the pre-legislative scrutiny is that the success of the 24-hour and 48-hour contiguous culls relied on taking out animals quickly. We cannot have it both ways. The evidence shows that if we had waited, the disease would have gathered momentum. We have to

  653
  persuade people to comply, but we must have power to back us up. Sometimes individuals make sacrifices because they see that it is right to do so. I wish that people would not claim that science can prove things that are unprovable; we all know that science is imprecise, and in these matters we are pushing back the boundaries of knowledge.
  I want to make a couple of observations to which I hope the Minister will respond. Like other hon. Members, I think that there is a lacuna in the Bill because it lacks a strategy for controlling imports. Such a strategy must be linked to the measures in the Food Labelling Bill. I make no apology for the fact that I am a supporter of that Bill, which is promoted by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). I know that these matters are ones in which we must relate to Europe, and I shall say no more about that, but we need to tighten controls. Anything that can be done in Committee can only be of benefit.
  I turn now to the carrot and stick approach represented by the 75–25 per cent. arrangement. I am not sure whether the figures are right, and I am not sure whether it is the most appropriate way to handle the issue. The Government must come up with a more rigorous defence of that scheme.
  I have already mentioned dealers, and we need to tackle their part in the operation of the livestock markets; otherwise, the biggest losers will be the auction marts to which the dealers are seeking to return. We will be doomed unless we prevent the problems that occurred in the past.
  My hon. Friend the Minister will not be surprised to hear me say that the problems of BSE, foot and mouth and classical swine fever notwithstanding, some of us who represent certain parts of the country experience the continual crisis of bovine TB. What will be the impact on that disease when slaughter policies come into play? I am sure that on one side of that battle people will say, "Jolly good. Now we can take out all the badgers, because the Government have finally cottoned on to the fact that they need to be dealt with." On the other side, people will oppose doing anything of the sort.
  Earlier, the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) said that Labour Members were treading on egg shells, but my hon. Friend the Minister will be walking in a minefield on the issue of bovine TB. I leave him with those helpful remarks and look forward—hopefully—to serving on the Committee.
  8.56 pm
  Mr. Bill Wiggin: I am grateful to be able to follow the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), before he leaves for the gulag. I am also grateful for the opportunity to speak on this serious Bill, as the subject affects a great number of my constituents.
  The Bill could have provided additional powers by order to tackle foot and mouth and other animal diseases. Secondly, it could have provided additional powers to deal with transmissible spongiform encephalopathy in sheep.
  In principle, the opportunity to legislate on those matters is most welcome. Such legislation could try to improve the speed at which the Government control the
  654
  outbreak of those diseases. However, despite such obvious benefits, the wording of the Bill is such that in practice many of them have been lost.
  The Bill comes at a time when the entire countryside is crying out for a full public and independent investigation into the handling of the foot and mouth crisis. The Government said repeatedly that that would be too expensive and too slow, so they opted for three separate sub-inquiries. However, now that we have seen the size of the death toll of farm animals, the size of the compensation bill and the damage done to people's livelihoods both in tourism and in farming, there is no justification for preventing a full independent and public inquiry, such as the one held by the Government into BSE—albeit covering only, conveniently, the period up to 1997. I reject the Government's excuse for further avoidance of an inquiry and urge the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to reconsider.
  Part 1 of the Bill deals with the power to slaughter. To what extent does the Minister need extra power to slaughter any animal that he thinks should be slaughtered in order to prevent the spread of foot and mouth? Since the last confirmed outbreak was reported on 30 September, 2,030 cases have been notified. Since 3 February, 3.9 million animals have been slaughtered for disease eradication purposes; 1.9 million animals have been slaughtered under the livestock welfare disposal scheme; Farmers Weekly estimates that as many as 2 million dead animals may have been left out of the Government's statistics; hundreds of thousands of young livestock have been excluded from the official figures; and the direct cost of foot and mouth may have amounted to almost £2 billion. It is hardly surprising that my spellcheck rejected DEFRA and offered me "death row" instead.
  Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman made that up.
  Mr. Wiggin: No, it is entirely true.
  On a slightly light hearted note, not only animals that carry foot and mouth—we saw the effects of the disease on the horse racing industry—are affected by the Bill. I have written to the Minister about my constituent who farms worms but is unable to sell them because he fears that the virus may be in the soil. I hope that the Minister will reply to my letter of about three months ago.
  Will the Minister also clarify whether the measure will affect cats and dogs that stray across restricted ground? Will they be subject to the slaughter policy?
  Mr. Morley: Scurrilous comments appeared in some of the Sunday papers to the effect that the Bill would give us powers to slaughter cats, dogs, horses, gerbils, goldfish. rabbits and just about anything. The Bill applies only to farm animals that are susceptible to the disease.
  Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification.
  The Bill will also enable the Minister to pursue the other group likely to commit infringements—ramblers and those who ignore "footpath closed" signs. It provides severe penalties for people who deliberately bring about the spread of the disease. Not only might they face six months in prison, but they could also find that their pets are confiscated and that they are no longer allowed to own animals.

  655
  Such provisions are draconian and the burden of proving deliberate infection may well lie with the Government, who, in the case of many farmers, may rely on hearsay or very thin evidence. Banning the ownership of livestock will destroy not only farmers' businesses, but their way of life. The Minister will be aware that it is simply not possible for a Welsh hill farmer to grow wheat on the side of a mountain.
  On vaccination, I recognise that the Minister has every reason to cause to be slaughtered any animal that has been treated with a vaccine for the purpose of preventing the spread of disease. I originally thought that that was possibly one of the more necessary provisions in the Bill, but clause 4(4) deals with the compensation payable to farmers after their animals have been slaughtered. There seems to be no reason why vaccinated animals should be considered inferior in terms of value simply because they have been vaccinated to prevent the spread of the disease. If they are so considered, farmers will have no incentive to assist officials and it will immediately lead the farmer to oppose the Government instead of encouraging co-operation. Farmers who vaccinate voluntarily to save their stock because of its rarity or genetic value will also be put at a disadvantage. How else can farmers save their stock while contributing to the firebreak effort to end the epidemic?
  Part 3 deals with enforcement powers. I wonder how necessary such powers are, because it appears that the Government are trying to close the door long after the horse has bolted. Newspapers take particular delight in reporting any case in which farmers or smallholders resist the Government's slaughter policy, but I am not aware of any case in which it was suggested that people had harboured an infected animal. I am happy to give way if my understanding is not correct.
  Mr. Morley: In some cases tests showed animals to be positive, yet officials were refused access and court injunctions had to be sought. I want to be careful about giving particular examples, because they can be subjective. We must consider the Bill's overall objective, which is to speed up culling if it is used as an option. The Bill does not presuppose that culling will be the option chosen but, if it is, it must be carried out quickly and efficiently.
  Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply.
  In most of the cases that we have discussed, farmers exercised the highest standards of biosecurity. The only animal to escape the contiguous cull was Phoenix the calf, which was spared and given Government protection for emotional reasons. I suspect that the decision owed more to electoral opportunity than to a determined attempt by the Government to eradicate the disease. However, that example would not be possible under the Bill, so does the Minister deeply regret the sparing of that small calf?
  Clause 6 amends the Animal Health Act 1981, new section 16(4) of which refers to a justice of the peace—not necessarily in court—issuing a warrant to an inspector. I have grave misgivings about this provision. Are the usual checks and balances in place, because the inspector need invent only a minor excuse for the farmer in question to lose 25 per cent. of the value of his stock? Under new subsection (9), the inspector also has the power to request or demand
  "such assistance as he reasonably needs for the purposes mentioned".
  656
  However, that will not leave the farmer with much opportunity to appeal if he deems the inspector's request to be unreasonable.
  Many farmers may for legitimate reasons have problems providing "such assistance" as the inspector "reasonably needs". Perhaps it would have been better if the wording had referred to the farmer providing "any possible assistance" that he could provide. For example, it is no good asking him for something that he does not possess unless that is part of a Government strategy to cut payments for compensation.
  Given the stories of horrendous abuse of my constituents by Department officials and given the fact that no qualifications are specified for inspectors, the provisions relating to refusal to be obedient to any whim of any inspector are wrong. Once again, the Bill is over-draconian.
  Under proposed section 65, an inspector may examine any vehicle to ascertain whether the provisions of the Act are being complied with. There is no mention of time scale. Can we envisage people's vehicles being impounded for long periods? Conversely, vehicles such as those shown on television dripping with blood and other liquid could be impounded in an area that was not previously infected. I hope that the images that we saw will not be repeated when or if the disease recurs.
  Under the Bill, the Minister may by order amend the Act to allow for the adjustment of compensation. That is worrying because it creates an area of political judgment and subjectivity instead of objective, fair and well-understood compensation. Under proposed schedule 3A, the Government have split compensation into three sections. Only 75 per cent. of the value of the animal prior to slaughter will be payable, and in all cases the Minister must decide, after considering an inspector's assessment, whether to pay all or part of the remaining 25 per cent.
  Although I recognise that in some cases the Government might want to penalise farmers who do not practise biosecurity, surely we should start from full compensation rather than build up to it. The Bill approaches the matter from the wrong direction. Will farmers be fully aware of which biosecurity measures they are expected to implement before inspectors come to slaughter their flocks?
  People are being put in a virtually impossible position. The inspector must decide whether the occupier of the premises created a significant risk of the spread of foot and mouth during the previous 21 days, but how on earth will the inspector know what has been going on during the previous three weeks? The answer is that inspectors will not know and will therefore generalise. Farmers will be forced to go to court to claim 25 per cent. of the value of their stock because they will not agree with the wording of the inspector's report.
  Surely it would be useful to retain local vets, who are sensitive to local conditions, to advise all their clients on appropriate measures. That advice would then be the benchmark against which compliance could be judged. That would of course take into consideration all local difficulties and conditions.
  A fee is due for appeals. Although I recognise that the intention is to prevent nit-picking, it shifts the burden from the Government to the farmer. The intention cannot be just to hold back the farmer's money and then to make him pay to try to reclaim it. That is compounded by the

  657
  Government's record on paying their bills. Surely a bad payer should not be able to legislate on paying interest on sums that they have held back. That is wrong. The National Pig Association described the Government's attitude to farmers during the crisis as inhumane. Desperate farmers complained that the Government have turned out to be the country's No. 1 bad payer. Jean Turnbull of the NPA said that that was maladministration of the most vicious kind.
  The lateness of compensation payments is due to civil service bungling. When people telephoned asking when compensation would be paid, officials refused to give their names. I have had many complaints from my constituents that they could never get hold of the same person, so were forced every time they telephoned the DEFRA office to begin from scratch. It is very difficult for farmers at the best of times; such problems make things worse.
  On scrapie, the Minister may by order specify sheep genotypes that are susceptible to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. That is a laudable approach to cutting the time frame for the eradication of scrapie and the introduction of genetically superior sheep in the British flock. I hope that full compensation will be payable because, as the Minister will be aware, the price of sheep is not high at the moment. Perhaps he has chosen a particularly bad time to introduce that positive step.
  A person who receives a restriction notice may not appeal until the end of a 21-day period. The Ministry does not have a very good record of dealing with any problem in 21 days, and it therefore seems unfair that it should insist on farmers reacting quite so speedily. Given that the Government took more than four years to decide that the sheep brains that they had been looking at were in fact cow brains, the Ministry is painting itself into a very small and potentially expensive corner. Given the enormous power of enforcement, perhaps a slightly longer notice period would have been valuable.
  There are elements of good news. Miles Blackwell left £10 million to the Rare Breeds Survival Trust" but he did so without the knowledge that the Government were planning to slaughter many rare breeds because of their lack of resistance to scrapie. That funding could not have come at a better time and is desperately needed.
  The Bill is about shifting the blame for the gross mishandling of foot and mouth disease from the former Ministry to the farmer. It is designed to subordinate the farmer to the Minister and his inspectors. It will put the fanner in a position of dependency, yet Professor Mark Woolhouse told Members of Parliament that if the Government had simply imposed a ban on livestock movement 72 hours earlier than they did, the spread of the disease would have been halved.
  The Countryside Alliance criticised the Government—[Interruption.] It did so for the very good reason that the system for identifying, slaughtering and disposing of infected animals is cumbersome and substantially increases the risk of spreading the disease. The gap between diagnosis and disposal should be hours, not days. The Government should prioritise the disposal of animals, not the slaughter of uninfected animals. Indeed, animals lay dead for nine days at Winforton in my constituency.
  658
  One question that an inquiry should answer is whether animals were killed in greater numbers and more quickly because the Prime Minister wanted to call an election. Newspapers have also reported that DEFRA employees could have helped to spread the disease. Indeed, in my constituency, I found that vets who lived in Worcestershire were travelling across Herefordshire to cull in Brecon. I wrote to the Minister asking about that very serious risk, but, again, I have not yet had a reply.
  The importation of meat from abroad is the most important threat to British farming. It would cost the Government about £8 million to provide bio x-rays and staff to prevent the importation of bush meat at Heathrow airport. The cost to the Government would be passed on to the passengers. In the 14 checks carried out at Heathrow last year, 5 tonnes of meat were found. A single body would need to be responsible for the prevention of the importation of infected meat, and the cost would work out at less than 10p per passenger. That would also help animals in the wild by reducing the poachers' markets.
  The early introduction of the Bill has greatly surprised the NFU, and we would all have welcomed a longer consultation period, involving the farming industry.
  Parts 1 and 3 contain the slaughter and enforcement provisions. Although discussions have been held on the prevention of scrapie, genotype research is still in its infancy, and there does not seem to be a great deal of explanation of how the Government will enforce the cull or control.
  The Food Standards Agency has always maintained that there is no danger in eating lamb, yet the Bill contains measures to tackle BSE in sheep, although we are no nearer knowing whether BSE can infect sheep.
  The lot of farmers and their stock would be significantly improved if the Government were to take steps to stop the European Parliament amending the directive on veterinary medicinal products. Farmers are currently free to purchase non-prescription medicines—such as wormers, vaccines and sheep dip—from tightly regulated distributors who employ qualified staff, trained to industry standards and controlled by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and its inspectorate.
  New proposals would force farmers to buy such products from vets or pharmacies—and then only by prescription. That proposal will introduce further impracticality and higher costs, and it will finish the jobs of 3,500 people. Without doubt, all that would have a direct, negative impact on animal welfare standards. There is no evidence to show that any improvement in food safety standards or animal welfare standards would result from implementing that change; instead a whole legion of qualified people would be removed from the food production process, damaging the businesses of my constituents David Pryce of Medicrop, John Hancock of Hanco National Pig Supplies, Mrs. Dickson of Westhope Livestock Supplies, as well as Mr. Davies and Margaret Edwards. What we need is legislation to protect us and to maintain the standards of animal welfare, while keeping the cost to farmers competitive.
  At a time when farmers' incomes average £5,200, any step to help them would be welcome. It is a shame that the Government are not doing more to cut red tape at this difficult time. Indeed, they did not even manage to claim the full agrimonetary compensation.

  659
  The Bill will require detailed scrutiny if we are to capitalise on the lessons learned from the crisis. We must ask about the position of the National Assembly for Wales in the light of clause 14. Has the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs had discussions with the Scottish Assembly about the Bill so that we might have co-ordinated legislation for cross-border outbreaks? I see the Minister nodding, and I am grateful.
  We should question whether the power to slaughter is compatible with the European convention on human rights. Will the Government publish their legal advice on that as well?
  It is clear that to introduce the Bill before any of the three inquiries have concluded their findings is premature. The timing of the Bill is curious and its drafting looks like a rush job. From the huge numbers of dead animals to the vast cost to the tourist industry and to farmers, it is clear that the Bill covers only the tip of the iceberg.
  The Government cannot consider that the Bill represents a positive step until all the facts are known. Separate experiences of both farmers and people working for the Ministry throughout the country need to be heard. Introducing legislation is no substitute for equipping people with the facts. That is why we should not support the Bill until the need for it is brought out by a full and independent public inquiry. Nor should we support the Bill until the Government take real steps to prevent the importation of diseases.
  9.16 pm
  Charlotte Atkins: I believe that the increased powers that are sought by Ministers are justified, as long as they are balanced by responsibilities that are taken on by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State confirmed that DEFRA hopes to pay all compensation within three weeks. That is one of the responsibilities that the Department should be taking on if it is expecting to have increased powers.
  I dealt with the case of a farmer who had to wait many weeks for his compensation merely because of a computer fault. In the event, I managed to get the problem sorted out in 24 hours. However, that sort of thing should not be happening.
  In Staffordshire, the National Farmers Union, trading standards officers, vets and other officers worked well together during the outbreak. Inevitably, however, there were delays and huge frustrations for farmers. I believe that the proposed wider powers will help to speed up the process. The disease would have been slowed if the cull had been conducted with more rigour, so those powers are justified if they hasten the ending of future diseases.
  Farmers were quick to criticise, but they cannot have it both ways. If they want things sorted out quickly for their benefit, they cannot hold out and introduce unnecessary delays either to maximise the money that they receive following negotiations about compensation or for other reasons.
  Many Members have told the House about cases where the preventive culling of animals was not justified. In Dilhorne, in my constituency, apparently healthy sheep were moved on the authority of a private vet, and then found to be infected. That caused the unnecessary further loss of animals and of local livelihoods. I agree with my
  660
  hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) that we must examine animal movements, especially of sheep, and control the scale a them, for welfare reasons and because of concerns about the threat of disease being spread.
  Farmers have a basis for complaint about illegal imports. I have raised the issue before on the Floor of the House. We must do more to control illegal imports, whether they come in on the back of a lorry or are brought in personally. There are anecdotes about Customs officers following a trail of blood from suitcases. I do not know whether they are true. However, it is ludicrous to allow people to import in that way. When a school party from my constituency went to France, its members could not even take a bag of beef-flavoured crisps into the country. We must make sure that our standards match those of other countries and stop those imports.
  I do not see why farmers should not receive compensation as an incentive to comply with biosecurity measures.
  Mr. Russell Brown: Schedule 1 refers to adjusted compensation. During the foot and mouth outbreak, did my hon. Friend, like me, receive phone calls from people who were doing their utmost to ensure that they did everything correctly and had full biosecurity, although neighbouring farms were doing very little—in fact, some people did nothing to prevent the spread of the disease to their farms?
  Charlotte Atkins: I certainly did; that caused a good deal of anger in my constituency and along its borders.
  We must ensure that biosecurity measures are clearly defined so that farmers can easily comply with them. The Government have a proud record on compensation. After all, they introduced 100 per cent. compensation for animals infected with bovine tuberculosis; the previous Government did not act in that way. Many farmers in my constituency, which has been seriously affected by bovine TB, have reason to be grateful to the Government for conceding that point.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) spoke movingly of the impact of foot and mouth and the scale of the devastation in Cumbria. Staffordshire was not the centre of the outbreak this time round, although it was in 1967. Even though it became officially free of foot and mouth at the beginning of October, there is still great concern about the impact of the disease on the county. For instance, we still have no open livestock markets, six months after the last case, which has had a huge impact on places like Leek in my constituency, as markets obviously set the market price for animals. It is ludicrous that farmers get one stock price for all their animals, whether the poorest or the best lambs are on offer. The area surrounding Leek is farmed by hill farmers, and the market also plays an important role in breaking down the isolation that many of them suffer. Many of those farmers earn less than £5,000 a year, so they are not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. Indeed, Staffordshire Moorlands district council has paid out nearly £100,000 to help agricultural workers who have lost their jobs in the Moorlands. However, those housing benefits could be the tip of the iceberg, because the knock-on effects on the rural economy could have a much a greater impact, which we have yet to experience.
  A lot of participants in our debate have acknowledged that foot and mouth did not just affect farmers. That is why the Bill is important; we must not focus just on the

  661
  impact on farmers, who have a responsibility to recognise the knock-on effect of the disease on the rest of the economy. I was delighted that the Government recognised the impact on tourism and local businesses. I was particularly pleased that the Treasury and Advantage West Midlands finally agreed that Staffordshire should benefit from the rural recovery fund grant scheme. So far, £700,000 has been awarded in grant aid since June. One firm in my constituency that benefited was the Peak School of Hang Gliding in Wetton. It was decimated by the foot and mouth outbreak and although the grant will not help the firm to recover the money that it has lost, it will see it through to the future. It will ensure that the firm can invest in computer equipment, regenerate its business with a web page to attract further trade, produce its own publicity leaflets and buy new equipment.
  Although Staffordshire has not been at the centre, the outbreak has had devastating effects. We must allow the Government to take on increased powers. Of course, the powers must be properly scrutinised in Committee—that is the role of a Committee during the passage of a Bill—and we should support Second Reading tonight.
  9.25 pm
  Mr. Richard Bacon: I shall be brief. I apologise to the House for not being present all afternoon—I was in the Chamber for the opening speeches, but afterwards I had to attend the Public Accounts Committee hearing. I look forward to the National Audit Office inquiry into foot and mouth next year and the PAC hearing that will follow. I hope that we may see the Minister at that time next year.
  The Bill shows all the signs of being hurried. I cannot support it on Second Reading because of the wide-ranging and sweeping powers that it confers on Ministers. The Bill states that it is immaterial whether animals are affected with foot and mouth; it is immaterial whether they have been in contact with animals so affected; it is immaterial whether they have been exposed to the infection of foot and mouth; and it is immaterial whether they have been treated with vaccine.
  If we were giving the powers to a Department that had the confidence of farmers, I might consider supporting the Bill, but the farmers in my constituency, South Norfolk, have very little confidence in the Department. That is a result of the way in which classical swine fever was handled—I am pleased to say that we were able to avoid foot and mouth directly, although we suffered from the indirect effects—the way in which the re-establishment of pig movements was handled, a range of issues relating to pig farrowing, the new regulations being introduced for laying hens, and the mix-up over sheep's brains and cows' brains. My constituents do not have confidence in the Department, so I cannot support the wide-ranging powers
  Furthermore, I cannot support the compensation regime. I know that the Bill is designed to provide additional powers to tackle foot and mouth, but from reading the clause headings, such as "Extension of power to slaughter", "Adjusted compensation"—downwards, of course—"Treatment: power of entry", "Slaughter: power of entry", "Slaughter: warrants", "Refusal and obstruction of inspector" and "Deliberate infection of animals", one could be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that the
  662
  outbreak was entirely the fanners' fault. There may be some farmers who behaved improperly, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) that the assumption should be 100 per cent. compensation in the first instance. There should be a prima facie assumption that farmers are entitled to that.
  The final reason why I cannot support the Bill is that it ignores the most important issue—it has been mentioned by so many other speakers that I hope the Minister has heard it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), the hon. Members for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) and for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who is no longer in his place, and many others spoke about illegal imports. The Minister should speak to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to Mr. Richard Broadbent, the chairman of Customs and Excise, and get that issue sorted out. We have rats, bats, gorillas, monkeys, porcupines and anteaters coming into Heathrow unchecked, and the Government are doing practically nothing about it. It is about time that they did.
  The Bill gives far too much power to the Minister, more or less unchecked, the compensation regime is wrong-headed, and the Bill makes no mention of the central problem—illegal imports.
  9.29 pm
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: I cannot imagine many Second Reading debates in which the House has had the privilege of hearing speeches by the former Leader of the Opposition, who spoke after eight years away from the Back Benches, the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, himself a former Agriculture Minister, and two previous distinguished Agriculture Ministers. It has been a very wide-ranging and interesting debate.
  I must mention first my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). The reference to Richmond, Yorks always amuses me somewhat. I am aware that there are two Richmonds in the United Kingdom, but there is no doubt that my right hon. Friend represents the Yorkshire one. Not only is he a Yorkshireman, but he is proud of Yorkshire, and I have no doubt that Yorkshire is 100 per cent. proud of him. He and his neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), spoke from personal experience of the foot and mouth epidemic in Yorkshire and about the fact that there had been so much bungling and incompetence in the exercise of powers by officials. They expressed support for a truly public and open inquiry. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks said that the onus on farmers that is apparent in the Bill should be placed on the Government themselves. He also supported import control and gave a vivid description of some of the imports into this country that could have an adverse effect on plant and animal health.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) made a very interesting speech. She has much experience in these matters and I very much hope that she will serve on the Committee that considers the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), who apologises for being unable to be present for the winding-up speech, also gave of his long experience of ministerial office.
  On the Labour Benches, we were very fortunate once again in hearing from the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who was loquacious, as always, but put in a

  663
  splendid performance. None the less, he admitted that he, too, was uneasy about the sweeping additional powers given to the Minister by the Bill. In a very reflective and constructive speech, the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), who serves on the Select Committee, expressed qualified support for the Bill and said that he wanted improvements to be made at the Committee stage.
  The Celtic fringe was also represented. The Welsh case was put by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), although the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) also spoke and might object to my saying that. The Scottish influence came in the form of the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce). I must refer to one more hon. Member: my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin), whom I mention only because, like me, he followed someone of the same name into the House of Commons.
  I detected a certain lack of support for the Bill on both sides of the House. Those who said that they would vote in support of Second Reading expressed considerable and numerous reservations. As a result, much work will be ahead of us in the Committee stage.
  Despite the fact that almost 6 million animals have been slaughtered at a cost to the public purse of almost £2 billion, and although rural businesses of every sort are reeling and United Kingdom farmers are still suffering from months of over-stocking with little or no income as a result of the epidemic, the Government have chosen to give themselves further draconian powers in the face of a future disease outbreak. They obviously consider the proposals in the Bill to be more important than acting positively to prevent another disease outbreak by improving border inspections to stop illegal meat imports, which threaten human as well as animal health. Moreover, they have taken no action to tackle the issue of cheap food imports that are not produced to our own high standards, which undermine our farmers' competitiveness and carry serious risks of infection with animal disease. For example, urgent action should have been taken as a precautionary measure at the outset of the epidemic to prevent the importation of meat from countries with endemic foot and mouth disease.
  The proposals in the Bill do nothing to assist farmers. They are a knee-jerk and panicked reaction by the Government to the implications of their handling of the epidemic, with the dithering, delays and centralised control that resulted in hundreds and thousands of animals being unnecessarily culled.
  Conservatives and every rural organisation have persistently called for a full, open and independent public inquiry into the causes and handling of the epidemic to establish the true facts. The Government are running scared and refuse to establish such an inquiry, giving the excuse that it would take too long. That is patently untrue. There is no reason for not producing a comprehensive report in a reasonable time to allow mature reflection before leaping prematurely to legislate.
  The Bill makes a mockery of the inquiries that the Government have already set up. Any reform in response to the epidemic should react to the recommendations of the "lessons learned" inquiry. At a stroke, the measure detracts from the inquiry that Dr. lain Anderson is conducting.
  If the Bill is enacted—we shall resist its provisions at every stage—it will empower DEFRA vets and officials to the extent that farmers would have to stand by and
  664
  watch the compulsory slaughter of their stock. They would be powerless to prevent it. Compensation would be determined by DEFRA officials, who would take into account whether the farmer had complied with departmental orders. There would be no meaningful right of appeal and no appeal before the slaughter took place.
  In The Daily Telegraph today, Adam Nicolson sums up the position in an article entitled, "How foot and mouth is fuelled by computers and cluelessness". He writes that the new changes
  "allowing the Government to kill any animal it wants to, whether the farmers wants it killed or not are yet another symptom of a political and official culture governed by a contempt for any authority but its own."
  Throughout the epidemic, the Government sought to sully the names of United Kingdom farmers by accusing them of increasing the spread of the disease through allegedly poor biosecurity measures.
  If Ministers had deployed appropriate resources in the early stages of the outbreak, the disease would have been eradicated in a shorter time. Scientists such as Professor Mark Woolhouse and Dr. Neil Ferguson have corroborated that view. It is incontrovertible that failure to minimise delays between suspicion of infection, slaughter and disposal of carcases at the beginning of the epidemic, especially in those vital three days in February, meant that the Government quickly and irrevocably lost control.
  Anyone who has visited rural communities knows that DEFRA officials were responsible for many biosecurity lapses. There are abundant reports of such errors, whether caused during farm-to-farm blood testing or by the inadvertent introduction of the disease to a clean farm by DEFRA officials or those contracted to the Department through moving infected livestock from one farm to another, unaware of farm boundaries. It will be interesting to know the extent of the biosecurity that the Government will require of farmers before permitting their full compensation cheque to be processed. Will they be given prior, clear advice about the Government's requirements and will it be farm specific?
  In this country, we have always believed that people are innocent until proven guilty. At present, the proposals are loaded towards the Government and against natural justice.
  Mr. Banks: Who wants to be a millionaire?
  Mrs. Winterton: As far as that is concerned, the Government have elevated many millionaires to the upper House. If they had the same work ethic as farmers, they would turn up in the other place a little more often. One millionaire who advises the Government has attended the other place only four times since he took his seat. What a record. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should not shout. We do not have a debate on the House of Lords at this moment. Perhaps some other time.
  Mrs. Winterton: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I had to respond in kind.
  Part 2 of the Bill seeks to reduce by about half the likely time horizon for the eradication of scrapie in the sheep flock. There are no objections in principle to that aim, although a voluntary system would have been preferred by the industry.

  665
  Many questions remain unanswered, to which we shall return in Committee. I trust that meaningful consultation with the industry will take place about details and timing, and that a willingness will be expressed to compensate fully for losses incurred as a result of the introduction of the compulsory scheme.
  Since the announcement of the Animal Health Bill, it has been recognised for what it is: a dictatorial, hasty piece of legislation that seeks in a cold and calculating way to blame farmers and to absolve the Government of responsibility for the sheer scale of the foot and mouth epidemic. I invite right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to vote for the amendment this evening and to vote against the Bill.
  9.41 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I welcome the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) to the Dispatch Box. This is the first time that she and I have debated across the House, and I am sure that we shall do so again.
  I did not recognise the Bill that she was talking about. She complained about the Bill giving compulsory powers to kill farmers' animals whether they liked it or not. Those powers were introduced in the Animal Health Act 1981. This Bill is about issues such as access.
  Many contributions to the debate were thoughtful and sensible, and I hope that I can respond to them in kind. My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) asked about the details of the biosecurity assessment, which is a sensible point, We shall hold detailed consultation on those assessment measures, and there is no reason why we should not use that as part of guidance to farmers in future.
  The hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) asked about the time scale of the Bill, and I shall say more about that in a moment. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) raised the issue of vaccination. Those are important issues that we shall address and that I am sure that the lessons learned through the inquiries will address. I repeat that there is nothing in the Bill that pre-empts the conclusions of any future inquiries, or that specifies one particular way of responding to animal disease outbreaks in future
  On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble, only a minority of farmers caused difficulties; the majority co-operated. I must point out to the hon. Member for Congleton that the majority of farming organisations welcome the Bill in principle. Of course they have concerns about the detail, and I am sure that I shall be able to address them in Committee.
  I was pleased to see the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) back on the Benches making a contribution. He criticised MAFF, although, in fairness, I think that he recognises that many of the people working in the regions and for the old MAFF and the new DEFRA worked round the clock and made an enormous commitment to dealing with the outbreak. Some unfortunate aspersions were cast on those people and on their commitment, and I want to place on record how hard they worked to defeat the disease and to bring the world's
  666
  worst outbreak of foot and mouth under control more quickly than the 1967 outbreak. That was no mean achievement.
  The right hon. Gentleman raised a number of points. He said that no details of contingency plans had been placed in the House of Commons Library. I understand that the national contingency plan was revised and submitted to the EU Commission in June 2000. It has been made publicly available on request, and was deposited in the Library on 14 May. I understand that the contingency plan has not been made available on the DEFRA website, but I give an undertaking tonight to ensure that it is.
  The right hon. Gentleman and others referred to illegal imports. As a Government, we take that issue seriously, but many measures to strengthen our procedures do not require primary legislation and there is no reason to include them in the Bill. However, that does not mean that they cannot be addressed. Since the outbreak, DEFRA has been leading interdepartmental discussions with Customs and Excise, the Home Office, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the Food Standards Agency, local authorities and health authorities to strengthen the arrangements at ports of entry.
  The publicity available to travellers about import rules has been strengthened, as has the effectiveness with which evidence about illegal activities is shared among various enforcement agencies. Steps are being taken to improve the effectiveness of enforcement policy at ports by better targeting of available resources.
  I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman—unlike one or two organisations and individuals, unfortunately—was not saying that illegal imports were the No. 1 issue in relation to the foot and mouth disease outbreak. It is an important issue, but the way in which the disease spread is also important.
  Mr. Todd: The long list of organisations with which DEFRA is consulting highlights one of the difficulties of dealing with this subject. There are many hands involved and, in a typically English style, we do not co-ordinate them very well.
  Mr. Morley: I certainly look to co-ordinate wherever possible, and the consultation will be wide.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) put the issues in perspective. When one looks at the contiguous cull, which is a disease-control measure, there must be a balance in relation to the associated risks. We took special cases into account in the contiguous cull under the present arrangements, with appeals to the district veterihary managers. There is no reason why we cannot do that in future, and no reason why we cannot strengthen the procedures and make them clearer to understand. We can consult on that.
  The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) referred to the gap between policy and application, and identified problems of local decision making that did not fit into the national context. The Government set up the joint co-ordinating committee to bring together all the different agencies and organisations, as well as having the COBRA committee which met weekly. However, we are not saying that mistakes were not made or that improvements cannot be made for the future. Those matters will be addressed.

  667
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) warned me about taking advice from officials; when it comes to advice, I always listen carefully to what he has to say. Understandably, he was concerned about the culling of pet farm animals and susceptible animals such as llamas. Pet farm animals such as goats, llamas or pigs can get the disease. In that respect, we must have measures that apply to all animals that can spread the diseases. I recognise that there are sensitivities about pets and sanctuaries. We will take those into account in the guidance that we give our district veterinary managers and in drawing up potential exemptions. However, that will have to be based on veterinary advice in relation to disease control. We cannot give automatic exemptions.
  The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) referred to the speed of response, and to the interesting idea of taking a second opinion of available vets in relation to an appeal. I am happy to look at that proposal in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) supported the Bill, but was cautious. I understand the points that he made and I am sure that they can be addressed. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) mentioned the need for flexibility and a pragmatic approach. She also mentioned vaccination—a point that will be addressed—and emphasised the need to be guided by good science. I absolutely accept that. She asked what measures would be taken about sheep's milk should BSE be detected. BSE in sheep would spread via different pathways from BSE in cattle. That is why a sub-committee of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee expressed concern. I will write to her about that in further detail.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: The Minister rightly talks about good science. Will he confirm that Sir Brian Follett's inquiry at the Royal Society will examine the possible effects of vaccination on foot and mouth disease?
  Mr. Morley: Yes, I can confirm that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) raised local problems as a Cumbrian Member. I want to put on record my thanks for the major role that he played in identifying problems in the area, He brought them to the Government's attention so that action could be taken to rectify them.
  The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) asked about the "lessons learned" inquiry. I repeat that it does not pre-empt any future inquiry.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mon (Albert Owen) gave a clear example of how the contiguous cull can be effective, and was so in his constituency. Of course there were practical problems, as he said. He sought an assurance that we would not rule out a "vaccinate to live" policy. I am happy to give him that. We will almost certainly consider pursuing such a policy. He, too, asked about pet farm animals and sanctuaries. I repeat that we will be sensitive about that. He asked whether such animals could be vaccinated, and of course we can consider that.
  The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) asked about not ruling out any particular option. Again, I am happy to give him an assurance on that. He also spoke about a scrapie timetable. That is an important point. We have had discussions with the sheep organisations
  668
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Baal."] Sheep farmers' organisations, I should have said. There are serious issues concerning time scale, genetic diversity and the need for traceability. Diversity can be dealt with in the Bill, but traceability will have to come later.
  Malcolm Bruce: The Minister is being very reasonable and saying that he can deal with all the issues that have been raised, but the Bill is to go through the House in three weeks. Can he honestly say that all those issues can be dealt with in that time scale? Is that reasonable?
  Mr. Morley: Our debate has gone rather wider than what is in the Bill, but I do indeed believe that the concerns that have been raised can and will be addressed in Committee.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) spoke about the many myths that have appeared during the outbreak and about the role of dealers. He also made the important point that, of course, many things went wrong—them have been highlighted in this debate—but many things went right as well. We should not forget that in relation to lessons learned. He also spoke about bovine TB, which I accept is an important issue.
  The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) was concerned about some of the details regarding bush meat. To my knowledge, we are the first Government who have arrested and jailed people for importing bush meat. We take these issues seriously.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) talked about the speed of payments to farmers. That is an important matter and we will certainly take it seriously.
  The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) raised several issues, but I did not think that he quite understood all the measures in the Bill.
  Much of the debate has been about the principle of culling. Let me make it clear that the Bill is about more than that. Ideally, nobody wants animals ever again to be culled here on the scale that has been necessary in this outbreak. That is all the more reason why, if we are to have culling, it must be done speedily and effectively.
  In response to points made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham and others, of course we are all concerned about culling animals. The Government want to minimise the number of animals culled. The measures in the Bill mean that, by taking quicker and more effective action, fewer animals will be affected.
  We have consulted on the scrapie proposals in some detail. I discussed the matter with a stakeholder group last Friday and we had a good response to our attempts to deal with what is a serious issue. We will consult on the biosecurity assessments and there is no reason why we cannot do so in parallel with the Bill. Many hon. Members have raised the issue of the contiguous culling procedures, and we can consult on those. We can also consult in parallel with the Bill on the details of the local appeals, how they can be made and what exemptions will exist. We also have a timetable for the scrapie plan, which we have already started to discuss with the National Sheep Association and the NFU.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the Minister confirm that the consultations that he has just mentioned will concern

  669
  secondary legislation and that in Wales those matters will be dealt with by the National Assembly and not by his Department?
  Mr. Morley: We will look at how the National Assembly for Wales deals with these measures. We have worked closely and effectively with the National Assembly and it has had much autonomy in its handling of the outbreak. We will look to learn the lessons from that for all the devolution arrangements for disease control handling, and I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks.
  We need to seek consensus whenever possible, and I accept that in relation to the points that hon. Members have made. However, many people who oppose the measures in the Bill actually oppose the whole principle of contiguous culling, despite the fact that two independent scientific reports demonstrate how important it is, and despite the experience of the Brecon Beacons. Until contiguous culling was started, we were just chasing the disease. The programme of taking blood samples, waiting for the results and then moving on did not work until the contiguous cull was introduced. I do not want widespread culling and we can and will look for alternatives, but I am convinced that contiguous culling worked and all the evidence supports that.
  Mr. Bacon: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Morley: I am sorry, but I only have three minutes left.
  There will always be a minority who refuse to co-operate because they do not accept the need for culling. There have been organised campaigns to try to resist the cull, but our vets are convinced that the disease has spread further because of the delay caused by appeals. Culling is not the only issue. On serology, we have had farmers refusing to allow staff on to farms to take blood samples so that restrictions on certain areas can be lifted. For example, there was a 14-day delay in Devon, and delays in other parts of the country happened because people refused to co-operate. The measures would mean speedier arrangements for blood testing and, should we introduce it, vaccination.
  A minority of farmers were involved in poor biosecurity and subsequent spread of disease, but after all the publicity about the need for good biosecurity, I was disappointed that 400 people in the Thirsk blue box were cautioned. Speed of decision making is important in culling programmes and I accept that DEFRA has issues to address on that point as well. The problem is not only the people who resist the cull.
  Hon. Members mentioned local vets who worked for DEFRA as veterinary inspectors, and we much appreciated their input and comments. However, speed of culling is essential. Some 45 per cent. of all outbreaks in the disease were within 1 to 2 km of the initial outbreak and 60 per cent. of all outbreaks were within 1 to 3 km. We want not a penalty for farmers who do not have good biosecurity but an incentive for all farmers to ensure that they concentrate on their actions in the future. I accept the need for the measures to be proportionate, reasonable, fair and transparent. I also accept the need to
  670
  consider exemptions and variations according to region. Above all, however, this is an important measure that will help us to fight disease, and I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House proceeded to a Division.
  Mr. Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.
  The House having divided: Ayes 180, Noes 308.

  Division No. 53]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Gray, James

  Allan, Richard

  Grayling, Chris

  Amess, David

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Greenway, John

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Bacon, Richard

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Baker, Norman

  Hammond, Philip

  Baldry, Tony

  Hancock, Mike

  Barker, Gregory

  Harvey, Nick

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Hawkins, Nick

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hayes, John

  Bercow, John

  Heald, Oliver

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Heath, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Hendry, Charles

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Hermon, Lady

  Brady, Graham

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Brake, Tom

  Holmes, Paul

  Brazier, Julian

  Horam, John

  Breed, Colin

  Howarth, Gerald (Adershot)

  Brooke, Annette

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hunter, Andrew

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Burstow, Paul

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Burt, Alistair

  Keetch, Paul

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Key, Robert

  Cash, William

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Chope, Christopher

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Clappison, James

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Lamb, Norman

  Lansley, Andrew

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Laws, David

  Collins, Tim

  Leigh, Edward

  Cran, Jarnes

  Letwin, Oliver

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Lewis. Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Lidington, David

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Loughton, Tim

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Evans, Nigel

  Malins, Humfrey

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Maples, John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Fallon, Michael

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Flight, Howard

  Mercer, Patrick

  Flook, Adrian

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Moore, Michael

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Francois, Mark

  Norman, Archie

  Gale, Roger

  Oaten, Mark

  Garnier, Edward

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Gibb, Nick

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gidley, Sandra

  Page, Richard

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Paice, James

  Goodman, Paul

  Paterson, Owen

  671

  Pickles, Eric

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Price, Adam

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Prisk, Mark

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Pugh, Dr John

  Thurso, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Rendel, David

  Tredinnick, David

  Robathan, Andrew

  Trend, Michael

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Tyler, Paul

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Salmond, Alex

  Viggers, Peter

  Sanders, Adrian

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Webb, Steve

  Selous, Andrew

  Whittingdale, John

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Wiggin, Bill

  Shepherd, Richard

  Wilkinson, John

  Simmonds, Mark

  Willetts, David

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

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

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Willis, Phil

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Wilshire, David

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Spink, Bob

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Spring, Richard

  Yeo, Tim

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Streeter, Gary

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Stunell, Andrew

  Swayne, Desmond

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Swire, Hugo

  Mr. Laurence Robertson

  Syms, Robert

  and

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mr. John Randall.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Alexander, Douglas

  Casale, Roger

  Allen, Graham

  Caton, Martin

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Challen, Colin

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Chaytor, David

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clapham, Michael

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Austin, John

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

  Baird, Vera

  Banks, Tony

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Barnes, Harry

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Barron, Kevin

  Clelland, David

  Battle, John

  Clwyd, Ann

  Bayley, Hugh

  Coaker, Vernon

  Beard, Nigel

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Coleman, Iain

  Benn, Hilary

  Connarty, Michael

  Bennett, Andrew

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Benton, Joe

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Berry, Roger

  Corston, Jean

  Betts, Clive

  Cousins, Jim

  Blackman, Liz

  Cox, Tom

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Crausby, David

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cruddas, Jon

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Borrow, David

  Cummings, John

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Brennan, Kevin

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bryant, Chris

  Davidson, Ian

  Burden, Richard

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Burgon, Colin

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Burnham, Andy

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Cairns, David

  Dismore, Andrew

  672

  Dobbin, Jim

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Doran, Frank

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dowd, Jim

  Kidney, David

  Drew, David

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Edwards, Huw

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Efford, Clive

  Lammy, David

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Ennis, Jeff

  Laxton, Bob

  Etherington, Bill

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Farrelly, Paul

  Lepper, David

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Fisher, Mark

  Levitt, Tom

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Linton, Martin

  Flint, Caroline

  Lloyd, Tony

  Flynn, Paul

  Love, Andrew

  Follett, Barbara

  Lucas, Ian

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Luke, Iain

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lyons, John

  Foulkes, George

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gapes, Mike

  McCabe, Stephen

  Gardiner, Barry

  McCafferty, Chris

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Gerrard, Neil

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McDonnell, John

  Gilroy, Linda

  McFall, John

  Godsiff, Roger

  McIsaac, Shona

  Goggins, Paul

  McKechin, Ann

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Grogan, John

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  McNulty, Tony

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  MacShane, Denis

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McWilliam, John

  Hanson, David

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Mallaber, Judy

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Mann, John

  Havard, Dai

  Marris, Rob

  Healey, John

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hendrick, Mark

  Martlew, Eric

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Merron, Gillian

  Heppell, John

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hesford, Stephen

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Heyes, David

  Miliband, David

  Hill, Keith

  Miller, Andrew

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hoey, Kate

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hope, Phil

  Morley, Elliot

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Mountford, Kali

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Mudie, George

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hurst, Alan

  O'Hara, Edward

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Olner, Bill

  Illsley, Eric

  O'Neill, Martin

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Owen, Albert

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jamieson, David

  Perham, Linda

  Jenkins, Brian

  Picking, Anne

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pond, Chris

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  Pope, Greg

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Pound, Stephen

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  673

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Stevenson, George

  Purchase, Ken

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Purnell, James

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Rapson, Syd

  Stringer, Graham

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Tami, Mark

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Ross, Ernie

  Timms, Stephen

  Roy, Frank

  Tipping, Paddy

  Ruane, Chris

  Todd, Mark

  Ruddock, Joan

  Touhig, Don

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Trickett, Jon

  Ryan, Joan

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Salter, Martin

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Sawford, Phil

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Tynan, Bill

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wareing, Robert N

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Sheridan, Jim

  Watts, David

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  White, Brian

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Woolas, Phil

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wray, James

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Soley, Clive

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Southworth, Helen

  Wyatt, Derek

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Squire, Rachel

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mr. Fraser Kemp and Jim Fitzpatrick

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
  The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 181.

  Division No. 54]

  [10.17 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Ainger, Nick

  Blizzard, Bob

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Alexander, Douglas

  Borrow, David

  Allen, Graham

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Bryant, Chris

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Burden, Richard

  Austin, John

  Burgon, Colin

  Bailey, Adrian

  Burnham, Andy

  Baird, Vera

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Barnes, Harry

  Cairns, David

  Barron, Kevin

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Battle, John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Caplin, Ivor

  Beard, Nigel

  Casale, Roger

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Caton, Martin

  Benn, Hilary

  Cawsey, Ian

  Bennett, Andrew

  Challen, Colin

  Benton, Joe

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Berry, Roger

  Chaytor, David

  Betts, Clive

  Clapham, Michael

  Blackman, Liz

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  674

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Heyes, David

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hill, Keith

  Clelland, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hoey, Kate

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hope, Phil

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Coleman, Iain

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Connarty, Michael

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Corston, Jean

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cox, Tom

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Crausby, David

  Hurst, Alan

  Cruddas, Jon

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Illsley, Eric

  Cummings, John

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Jamieson, David

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Jenkins, Brian

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Khabra, Piara S

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kidney, David

  Doran, Frank

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dowd, Jim

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Drew, David

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Edwards, Huw

  Lammy, David

  Efford, Clive

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Laxton, Bob

  Ennis, Jeff

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Etherington, Bill

  Lepper, David

  Farrelly, Paul

  Leslie, Christopher

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Levitt, Tom

  Fisher, Mark

  Linton, Martin

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Lloyd, Tony

  Flint, Caroline

  Love, Andrew

  Flynn, Paul

  Lucas, Ian

  Follett, Barbara

  Luke, Iain

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Lyons, John

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Foulkes, George

  McCabe, Stephen

  Gapes, Mike

  McCafferty, Chris

  Gardiner, Barry

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gerrard, Neil

  McDonnell, John

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McFall, John

  Gilroy, Linda

  McIsaac, Shona

  Godsiff, Roger

  McKechin, Ann

  Goggins, Paul

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Grogan, John

  McNulty, Tony

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  MacShane, Denis

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McWilliam, John

  Hanson, David

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Mallaber, Judy

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Mann, John

  Havard, Dai

  Marris, Rob

  Healey, John

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hendrick, Mark

  Martlew, Eric

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Merron, Gillian

  Heppell, John

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  675

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Miliband, David

  Skinner, Dennis

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Morley, Elliot

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mountford, Kali

  Soley, Clive

  Mudie, George

  Southworth, Helen

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Squire, Rachel

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stevenson, George

  O'Hara, Edward

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Olner, Bill

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Owen, Albert

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Pearson, Ian

  Stringer, Graham

  Perham, Linda

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Picking, Anne

  Tami, Mark

  Pickthall, Colin

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Plaskitt, James

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Pond, Chris

  Timms, Stephen

  Pope, Greg

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pound, Stephen

  Todd Mark

  Trickett, Jon

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Touhig, Don

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Purchase, Ken

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Purnell, James

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Rapson, Syd

  Tynan, Bill

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Watts, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  White, Brian

  Ross, Ernie

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Roy, Frank

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Ruane, Chris

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wood, Mike

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Woolas, Phil

  Ryan, Joan

  Worthington, Tony

  Salter, Martin

  Wray, James

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Sawford, Phil

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wyatt, Derek

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sheridan, Jim

  Jim Fitzpatrick and Mr.Fraser Kemp

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Allan, Richard

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Amess, David

  Burns, Simon

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Burstow, Paul

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Burt, Alistair

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Bacon, Richard

  Cash, William

  Baker, Norman

  Chope, Christopher

  Baldry, Tony

  Clappison, James

  Barker, Gregory

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Bellingham, Henry

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Bercow, John

  Collins, Tim

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Cotter, Brian

  Boswell, Tim

  Cran, James

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Brady, Graham

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Brake, Tom

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Breed, Colin

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Brooke, Annette

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  676

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Norman, Archie

  Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

  Oaten, Mark

  Evans, Nigel

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Öpik, Lembit

  Fabricant, Michael

  Ottaway, Richard

  Fallon, Michael

  Page, Richard

  Flight, Howard

  Paice, James

  Flook, Adrian

  Paterson, Owen

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Pickles, Eric

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Price, Adam

  Francois, Mark

  Prisk, Mark

  Gale, Roger

  Pugh, Dr John

  Garnier, Edward

  Randall, John

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gibb, Nick

  Rendel, David

  Gidley, Sandra

  Robathan, Andrew

  Goodman, Paul

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Gray, James

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Grayling, Chris

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Salmond, Alex

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Greenway, John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Grieve, Dominic

  Selous, Andrew

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Hammond, Philip

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hancock, Mike

  Simmonds, Mark

  Harvey, Nick

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Hawkins, Nick

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

  Hayes, John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Heald, Oliver

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Heath, David

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Spink, Bob

  Hendry, Charles

  Spring, Richard

  Hermon, Lady

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Streeter, Gary

  Holmes, Paul

  Stunell, Andrew

  Horam, John

  Swayne, Desmond

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Swire, Hugo

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Syms, Robert

  Hunter, Andrew

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Keetch, Paul

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Key, Robert

  Thurso, John

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Tredinnick, David

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Trend, Michael

  Lamb, Norman

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Tyler, Paul

  Laws, David

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Leigh, Edward

  Viggers, Peter

  Letwin, Oliver

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Webb, Steve

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Whittingdale, John

  Lidington, David

  Wiggin, Bill

  Loughton, Tim

  Wilkinson, John

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Willetts, David

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Willis, Phil

  Malins, Humfrey

  Wilshire, David

  Maples, John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Mates, Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Yeo, Tim

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Mercer, Patrick

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Moore, Michael

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Moss, Malcolm

  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and Mr. Julian Brazier.

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.

  ANIMAL HEALTH BILL (PROGRAMME)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [28 June],
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Animal Health Bill:

  Committal
  1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
  Programming of proceedings
  2. All proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further message from the Lords) shall be programmed.

  Proceedings in Standing Committee
  3.—(1) Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 4th December 2001.
  (2) The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

  Consideration and Third Reading
  4.—(1) Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Six o'clock on that day.
  (2) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Seven o'clock on that day.
  (3) Sessional Order B (programming committees) made on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.—[Mr. McNulty.]
  The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 178.

  Division No. 55]

  [10.28 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Ainger, Nick

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Alexander, Douglas

  Brennan, Kevin

  Allen, Graham

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Bryant, Chris

  Burden, Richard

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Burgon, Colin

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Burnham, Andy

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cairns, David

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Austin, John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Caplin, Ivor

  Baird, Vera

  Casale, Roger

  Banks, Tony

  Caton, Martin

  Barnes, Harry

  Cawsey, Ian

  Barron, Kevin

  Challen, Colin

  Battle, John

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Chaytor, David

  Beard, Nigel

  Clapham, Michael

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Petertorough)

  Benn, Hilary

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Benton, Joe

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Berry, Roger

  Clelland, David

  Betts, Clive

  Clwyd, Ann

  Blackman, Liz

  Coaker, Vernon

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Blizzard, Bob

  Coleman, Iain

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Borrow, David

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  678

  Corston, Jean

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cox, Tom

  Hurst, Alan

  Crausby, David

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cruddas, Jon

  Illsley, Eric

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Cummings, John

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jamieson, David

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dobbin, Jim

  Kidney, David

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Doran, Frank

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Dowd, Jim

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Drew, David

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Lammy, David

  Edwards, Huw

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Efford, Clive

  Laxton, Bob

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Ennis, Jeff

  Lepper, David

  Etherington, Bill

  Leslie, Christopher

  Farrelly, Paul

  Levitt, Tom

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Linton, Martin

  Fisher,Mark

  Lloyd, Tony

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Love, Andrew

  Flint, Caroline

  Lucas, Ian

  Flynn, Paul

  Luke, Iain

  Follett, Barbara

  Lyons, John

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Foulkes, George

  McCabe, Stephen

  Gapes, Mike

  McCafferty, Chris

  Gardiner, Barry

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gerrard, Neil

  MacDonald, Calum

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McDonnell, John

  Gilroy, Linda

  McFall, John

  Godsiff, Roger

  McIsaac, Shona

  Goggins, Paul

  McKechin, Ann

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Grogan, John

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  McNulty, Tony

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  MacShane, Denis

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hanson, David

  McWilliam, John

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Havard, Dai

  Mann, John

  Healey, John

  Marris, Rob

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Martlew, Eric

  Heppell, John

  Merron, Gillian

  Hesford, Stephen

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Heyes, David

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hill, Keith

  Miliband, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Miller, Andrew

  Hoey, Kate

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hope, Phil

  Moffatt. Laura

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Morley, Elliot

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Mountford, Kali

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Mudie, George

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  679

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Soley, Clive

  O'Hara, Edward

  Southworth, Helen

  Olner, Bill

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Squire, Rachel

  Owen, Albert

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Pearson, Ian

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Perham, Linda

  Stevenson, George

  Picking, Anne

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Plaskitt, James

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Pond, Chris

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Pope, Greg

  Stringer, Graham

  Pound, Stephen

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Tami, Mark

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Purchase, Ken

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Purnell, James

  Timms, Stephen

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Tipping, Paddy

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Todd, Mark

  Rapson, Syd

  Touhig, Don

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Trickett, Jon

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Ross, Ernie

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Roy, Frank

  Tynan, Bill

  Ruane, Chris

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wareing, Robert N

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Watts, David

  Ryan, Joan

  White, Brian

  Salter, Martin

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Sawford, Phil

  Woodward, Shaun

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Woolas, Phil

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Worthington, Tony

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wray, James

  Sheridan, Jim

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wyatt, Derek

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Mr. Fraser Kemp and

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Jim Fitzpatrick.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Burt, Alistair

  Allan, Richard

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Amess, David

  Chope, Christopher

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Clappison, James

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Bacon, Richard

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Baker, Norman

  Collins, Tim

  Baldry, Tony

  Cotter, Brian

  Barker, Gregory

  Cran, James

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Bellingham, Henry

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Bercow, John

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Boswell, Tim

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Brady, Graham

  Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

  Brake, Tom

  Evans, Nigel

  Brazier. Julian

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Breed, Colin

  Fabricant, Michael

  Brooke, Annette

  Fallon, Michael

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Flight, Howard

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Flook, Adrian

  Burns, Simon

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Burstow, Paul

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  680

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Page, Richard

  Francois, Mark

  Paice, James

  Gale, Roger

  Paterson, Owen

  Garnier, Edward

  Pickles, Eric

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Price, Adam

  Gibb, Nick

  Prisk, Mark

  Gidley, Sandra

  Pugh, Dr John

  Goodman, Paul

  Randall, John

  Gray, James

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Grayling, Chris

  Rendel, David

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Greenway, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Grieve, Dominic

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Salmond, Alex

  Hammond, Philip

  Sanders, Adrian

  Hancock, Mike

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Harvey, Nick

  Selous, Andrew

  Hawkins, Nick

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Hayes, John

  Shepherd, Richard

  Heald, Oliver

  Simmonds, Mark

  Heath, David

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

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

  Hendry, Charles

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hermon, Lady

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Spink, Bob

  Holmes, Paul

  Spring, Richard

  Horam, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Streeter, Gary

  Hughes. Simon (Southwark N)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Hunter, Andrew

  Swayne, Desmond

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Swire, Hugo

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Syms, Robert

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Keetch, Paul

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Key, Robert

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Thurso, John

  Lamb, Norman

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Lansley, Andrew

  Trend, Michael

  Laws, David

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Leigh, Edward

  Tyler, Paul

  Letwin, Oliver

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Viggers, Peter

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lidington, David

  Webb, Steve

  Loughton, Tim

  Whittingdale, John

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Wiggin, Bill

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Wilkinson, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Willetts, David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Mates, Michael

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Willis, Phil

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Wilshire, David

  Mercer, Patrick

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Moore, Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Moss, Malcolm

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Norman, Archie

  Oaten, Mark

  Tellers for the Noes:

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Mr. Laurence Robertson and Mrs. Cheryl Gillan.

  Öpik, Lembit

  Ottaway, Richard

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  ANIMAL HEALTH BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Animal Health Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown in consequence of the Act.—[Mr. McNulty.]
  The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 177.

  Division No. 56]

  [10.40 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Ainger, Nick

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Alexander, Douglas

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Davidson, Ian

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Dismore, Andrew

  Austin, John

  Dobbin, Jim

  Bailey, Adrian

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Baird, Vera

  Doran, Frank

  Banks, Tony

  Dowd, Jim

  Barnes, Harry

  Drew, David

  Battle, John

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Beard, Nigel

  Edwards, Huw

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Efford, Clive

  Benn, Hilary

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Benton, Joe

  Ennis, Jeff

  Berry, Roger

  Etherington, Bill

  Betts, Clive

  Farrelly, Paul

  Blackman, Liz

  Fisher, Mark

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Frtzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Blizzard, Bob

  Flint, Caroline

  Borrow, David

  Flynn, Paul

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Follett, Barbara

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Foulkes, George

  Brennan, Kevin

  Gapes, Mike

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Bryant, Chris

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Burden, Richard

  Gerrard, Neil

  Burgon, Colin

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Burnham, Andy

  Gilroy, Linda

  Cairns, David

  Goggins, Paul

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Grogan, John

  Casale, Roger

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  Caton, Martin

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Challen, Colin

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hanson, David

  Chaytor, David

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clapham, Michael

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Havard, Dai

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Healey, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clelland, David

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Coaker, Vernon

  Heppell, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hesford, Stephen

  Coleman, Iain

  Heyes, David

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hill, Keith

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Corston, Jean

  Hope, Phil

  Cousins, Jim

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cox, Tom

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Crausby, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  682

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hurst, Alan

  O'Hara, Edward

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Olner, Bill

  Illsley, Eric

  O'Neill, Martin

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Owen, Albert

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jamieson, David

  Perham, Linda

  Jenkins, Brian

  Picking, Anne

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pond, Chris

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  Pope, Greg

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Pound, Stephen

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kidney, David

  Purnell, James

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Rapson, Syd

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Lammy, David

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Laxton, Bob

  Ross, Ernie

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Roy, Frank

  Lepper, David

  Ruane, Chris

  Leslie, Christopher

  Ruddock, Joan

  Levitt, Tom

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Linton, Martin

  Ryan, Joan

  Lloyd, Tony

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Love, Andrew

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Lucas, Ian

  Sawford, Phil

  Luke, Iain

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Lyons, John

  Sheridan, Jim

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McCabe, Stephen

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Skinner, Dennis

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  McDonnell, John

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McFall, John

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McKechin, Ann

  Soley, Clive

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Southworth, Helen

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  McNamara, Kevin

  Squire, Rachel

  McNulty, Tony

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  MacShane, Denis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  McWalter, Tony

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  McWilliam, John

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Stringer, Graham

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mann, John

  Tami, Mark

  Marris, Rob

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Timms, Stephen

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Tipping, Paddy

  Martlew, Eric

  Todd, Mark

  Merron, Gillian

  Touhig, Don

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Trickett, Jon

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Miliband, David

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Miller, Andrew

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Morley, Elliot

  Tynan, Bill

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Mountford, Kali

  Wareing, Robert N

  Mudie, George

  Watts, David

  Munn, Ms Meg

  White, Brian

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  683

  Woolas, Phil

  Wyatt, Derek

  Worthington, Tony

  Wray, James

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Jim Fitzpatrick and Mr. Fraser Kemp.

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Hancock, Mike

  Allan, Richard

  Harvey, Nick

  Amess, David

  Hawkins, Nick

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Hayes, John

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Heald, Oliver

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Heath, David

  Bacon, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Baker, Norman

  Hendry, Charles

  Baldry, Tony

  Hermon, Lady

  Barker, Gregory

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Holmes, Paul

  Bellingham, Henry

  Horam, John

  Bercow, John

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Berestord, Sir Paul

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Boswell, Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Brady, Graham

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Brake, Tom

  Key, Robert

  Breed, Colin

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Brooke, Annette

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Lamb, Norman

  Burns, Simon

  Lanstey Andrew

  Burstow, Paul

  Laws, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Leigh, Edward

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Letwin, Oliver

  Cash, William

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Chope, Christopher

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Clappison, James

  Lidington, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Loughton, Tim

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Collins, Tim

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Cotter, Brian

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cran, James

  Malins, Humfrey

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Mates, Michael

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Mercer, Patrick

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Moore, Michael

  Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

  Moss, Malcolm

  Evans, Nigel

  Munison, Dr Andrew

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Norman, Archie

  Fabricant, Michael

  Oaten, Mark

  Fallon, Michael

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Flight, Howard

  Öpik, Lembit

  Flook, Adrian

  Ottaway, Richard

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Page, Richard

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Paice, James

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Paterson, Owen

  Francois, Mark

  Pickles, Eric

  Gale, Roger

  Price, Adam

  Garnier, Edward

  Prisk, Mark

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Pugh, Dr John

  Gibb, Nick

  Randall, John

  Gidley, Sandra

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Rendel, David

  Goodman, Paul

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gray, James

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Grayling, Chris

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Salmond, Alex

  Greenway, John

  Sanders, Adrian

  Grieve, Dominic

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Selous, Andrew

  Hammond, Philip

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  684

  Shepherd, Richard

  Tyler, Paul

  Simmonds, Mark

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Viggers, Peter

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

  Waterson, Nigel

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Webb, Steve

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Spink, Bob

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Spring, Richard

  Wiggin, Bill

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wilkinson, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Willetts, David

  Stunell, Andrew

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Swire, Hugo

  Willis, Phil

  Syms, Robert

  Wilshire, David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Yeo, Tim

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Thurso, John

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Tredinnick, David

  Mr. Laurence Robertson and Mr. Julian Brazier.

  Trend, Michael

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Question accordingly agreed to.

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

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
    That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership Agreement between the Members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States and the European Community and its Member States (The Cotonou Agreement)) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 15th October, be approved.
    TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
    That the draft Maternity and Parental Leave (Amendment) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 18th October, be approved.

    COMPANIES
    That the draft Uncertificated Securities Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 22nd October, be approved.—[Mr. McNulty.]
    Question agreed to.

  COMMITTEES

    Ordered,
    That Angus Robertson be added to the European Scrutiny Committee.—[Mr. McNulty.]

    ADMINISTRATION
    That Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown be discharged from the Administration Committee and Mr. John Hayes be added to the Committee.—[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
    EDUCATION AND SKILLS
    That Mr. Laurence Robertson be discharged from the Education and Skills Committee and Mr. John Baron be added to the Committee.—[Mr. John Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
    INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
    That Alistair Burt be discharged from the International Development Committee and Mr. Robert Walter be added to the Committee.—Mr. John Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
    SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
    That Mr. Parmjit Dhanda, Dr. Ian Gibson, Mr. Tom Harris, Mr. David Heath, Mr. Mark Hoban, Dr. Brian Iddon, Mr. Tony McWalter, Dr. Andrew Murrison, Geraldine Smith, Bob Spink and Dr. Desmond Turner be members of the Science and Technology Committee.—[Mr John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.

Care Homes (Avon)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McNulty.]
10.53 pm
Mr. Steve Webb: As you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, there has been much discussion in recent months about the effects of the proposed care standards on elderly people, nursing homes and elderly residents in residential homes. However, a group that has, not for the first time, been paid rather less attention is people who are under pension age but also live in residential care. For brevity, I shall refer to them as young residents, although they span the age range. They can be anything up to pension age, but include younger adults and some children.
I bring that group to the House's attention because many younger people may spend many years, and possibly the rest of their lives, in care. They need security and stability, but I fear that they do not have that. I seek assurances from the Minister that she will consider the Government's proposals and ascertain whether that insecurity is justified and whether the anxieties can be tackled. The debate refers especially to younger people in care homes in the Avon area, which covers more than 2,000 young people in the independent sector alone. However, the issue obviously has a nationwide relevance.
I do not want to imply that the Minister or the Department have anything other than the best intentions. I do not suppose for a moment that they support anything other than the best care for residents of the homes that we are considering. That is also my objective. My purpose tonight is merely to ascertain whether the Government will achieve their objectives through their proposed standards. The debate is not party political, and I hope that the Minister will gather from my tone that I am worried about some of my constituents who live in care homes and about whether the proposals are in their best interests.
Many of my comments are coloured by a visit to one care home, the Manor House, in my constituency. It cares for adults with learning disabilities from a variety of age groups. I want to raise two specific issues. First, I am worried that, in some cases, the proposed standards may close homes, especially those in the smallish category, with perhaps nine to 15 residents. The standards suggest that those homes might have to shrink to eight residents or that the required structural changes will cost them one or two bedrooms. Consequently, homes that provide a relatively homely environment, which we all want, may be jeopardised.
The sort of proposals that will cause the problems that I mentioned include a requirement for one toilet for every two clients next to their bedroom, one bathroom for every three clients, no more than eight people sharing a staff group or a dining area, respite care with separate facilities from long-stay residents, and no double rooms after 2004. The case for each standard is understandable, but together, they could mean the end of the road for homes such as the Manor House.
Why would the Manor House face problems? It is a listed building. Many buildings in which people are cared for are old, and the Manor House has specific problems. Any structural change takes twice as long and costs twice

687
as much. We all support higher standards, but how will they be financed? The list of standards that we can improve for free is probably short. Most of the proposed care standards have a price tag. For example, different staff for different groups, and more toilets for fewer residents have a price tag. That also applies to management time spent on many of the aspects that we have discussed.
Many care home places are barely adequately funded through local authorities. With the best will in the world, it is unlikely that there will be an increase in local authority fees to care homes to pay for the improvements. Those running the homes believe that they will lose revenue and not have the money to pay for the changes. I fear that some will simply close.
What would be the effects of closure? I have received dozens of letters from parents and other relatives of residents at the Manor House. I have brought one with me that gives a flavour of the anxieties that are being raised. It was written by constituents who have a grandchild in her late teens, to whom I shall refer as Mary. The grandparents state:
"We looked after Mary until she was 19 and we realised we were getting old and might soon be unable to look after her. We looked around for a suitable home … but we were dismayed to find there were no 'Happy' homes … until we 'found' the Manor House at Frenchay. Here was a happy home where they loved each other and were so concerned when someone was unwell; where they had lovely surroundings and the freedom to move around."
There is no question of this being a bad home or an exploitative one. It has emerged in letter after letter from relatives of the residents that this is a good home. The grandparents make this interesting observation:
"The owners and operators of this home are best qualified because they have a handicapped son of their own and know how to make a happy home for them all."
This proprietor and their family have been in the business for decades; they know what is needed and provide a good quality of service. In the context of whether people are getting a good enough standard of service at the moment, the grandparents say that their granddaughter
"has a lovely large room with two big windows and a full view of the garden in this beautiful old listed manor house."
That is going to be part of the problem.
In all the letters that I have received, this part of the grandparents' letter jumped out at me the most. They say:
"In October … I shall be 83 and my wife 72. We thought we had Mary settled for the rest of her life, but now we are worried that The Manor House will not be able to meet the new requirements so recently laid down and may have to close."
If my fears are unjustified, and if the Manor House can carry on, I will be delighted to write back to the grandparents, and to many others who have written to me, to say, "You need not worry. Your fear is that you may not be around for much longer, but your granddaughter will be properly looked after in a place where she is happy." I would love to be able to say that, but I have the anxiety that I may not be able to. I would be grateful for the Minister's reassurance on that. If places such as the Manor House close, I am not convinced that suitable alternative provision is likely to be in place in the foreseeable future.
I want to raise another specific concern about the regulations, with reference to the case of another resident at the Manor House, of which I became aware in the last
688
few days. A lady in my constituency contacted me about her son, Mark, who is 15 and has a mental age of three. In the past week, she has been told by the local social services that homes will not be able to have dual registration for adults and children, and Mark is the only under-18-year-old in the building.
If I have misunderstood this, I have done so in all innocence, but I believe that Mark's mother is worried and has rung me to say that her 15-year-old may not be able to stay there if the new rules come in straight away. I am unclear about when and how they will come in. She says that the Manor House is the right place for him. He has been there for about five years, and it took him three years to settle. She says that he is not " a change person"; he likes stability, and to be in ones place. Any disruption, any change, even to somewhere brand spanking new and apparently brilliant, would be a serious problem for this family.
Mark's mother says that, yes, some of his peers in the home are 18 or 19, but many of them have similar mental ages—chronological age is not the acid test here—and get on very well and are well suited to each other. She also says that some of the slightly older or more mature residents are good role models for him. Saying that he should not mix with those people is not in his interests. His mother would not believe anyone who said that it was in Mark's interest to be moved out.
I understand the argument that says we should not house teenagers with 60-year-olds and try to claim that we can cater for those two very different groups with the same sort of provision. I understand the thinking behind that, but my theme is that, when we apply these generalities to specific cases, we have to ask whether such sweeping generalisations work in every case. When they do not work, how much scope is there for flexibility?
I have raised this issue with the Minister, and responded to the consultation process. The Minister wrote back to me in mid-October; I am sure she has a copy of the letter to hand. The one slightly bitter comment that I might make is that one of the sentences in her reply states that
"homes that provide good quality care should have nothing to fear from the introduction of national standards."
The providers to whom I have talked take great exception to that sentence, because they say that the homes that go under will be the ones that are on the brink financially. They will be the ones that cannot afford the alterations; the ones that will lose some of their fee income when they lose a bedroom; the ones that simply cannot make ends meet. They say, "If I go out of business, it will not mean that I ran a bad home." If the Manor House closes, it will not be because it was a bad home; it will be because it could not make ends meet, perhaps because it was a listed building and could not afford the structural changes. Any suggestion that the homes that go under because of the regulations are bad homes would be bitterly resented. I hope that that was not what the Minister was saying.
The Minister also says in her letter that it will be for the Care Standards Commission to decide
"in the particular circumstances of each individual home whether the home conforms to the standards necessary to meet the assessed needs of its residents."
I must stress that although I talk about the care home owners—with whom I have had dialogue—we are concerned about the residents; the owners are the intermediaries. The key question is how much discretion

689
or flexibility the inspectors will have. If a home meets 90 or 95 per cent. of the standards, but fails on two or three of the long list, will the inspector be able to say that. having talked to the residents, he has found that it is a good home, providing good quality care? If so, will he be able to allow the home to continue? Or will the inspector have to say that the home fails to meet the standards and that unless it meets them within a specified time, it cannot carry on? There is a danger that in the laudable attempt to raise standards, we are over-prescriptive.
For example, shared rooms are to be phased out. However, what if brothers want to be in a shared room, and their family and social workers think it works for them? Will the standards stipulate not merely that nobody should be forced to be in a shared room, but that nobody may be in a shared room? Is the system being too prescriptive when what works for the individual might be something different from the national model?
The Minister may ask what I would do, and one day I might get the chance. However, for the moment, I offer a suggestion. When we build new homes, we could build in the structural features that make sense. With existing homes, I envisage a situation in which every home that does not meet every standard has to report that fact in all the literature it produces, or whenever its staff talk to new or existing residents. The home would have to list any standard that it did not meet and say when it would meet it, and if it thought that it could. If the home could not meet the required standard, it would have to say why not, and why it did not think that that failure would be detrimental to the care it provided.
From the inspection point of view, I would argue that people who go into the homes should be asking, "What works?" The Government have been known to say on occasion that what matters is what works. What works in the Manor House may be an evolution of the present set-up towards ever-higher standards, but not a step change. If the sums do not add up now, they probably will not add up in 2007 either. However, inspectors will need to exercise some discretion.
There are very good homes throughout Avon, such as the Manor House at Frenchay, that risk closure because the Government's best intentions may have unintended consequences. I would be grateful if the Minister clarified the areas of uncertainty to which I have referred and perhaps offered some reassurance that the Government are still thinking these things through. I hope that she may be able to offer some flexibility on the interpretation of the standards.
11.8 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): I congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on obtaining a debate on this important issue. There is not much dispute about the principle of national minimum standards for people living in care homes. The old regulatory system evolved over the years in a rather ramshackle way and is riddled with gaps and anomalies. It is important to set the improvements we are making in that context. Existing standards for care homes are set and administered in inexplicably different ways by different authorities, and some homes are not regulated at all.
The Care Standards Act 2000 allows us to change that. It created the new and independent National Care Standards Commission to regulate care services, and introduced the
690
concept of national minimum standards that can be applied consistently to all providers of services in Avon or anywhere else. I will return to the hon. Gentleman's point about the approach that the commission will take to the regulation and inspection process.
The standards put residents' interests at the heart of the regulatory system. I make no apology for that. We should never forget that we are talking about people's homes, where they live, possibly—hand we hope—for many years. I certainly share the hon. Gentleman's objective of safeguarding good provision. We must also ensure that inadequate provision is improved through the implementation of our new care standards.
People who need residential personal care are entitled to as many as possible of the comforts of home life that the rest of us take for granted, and that is a big part of what the standards are about. The draft—I emphasise draft—standards for care homes for young adults were issued for consultation. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the consultation was genuine and we have listened carefully. We talked, we listened and we reviewed the evidence. We consulted a wide range of service groups, carers, providers, purchasers and regulators of the services.
Many of the hon. Gentleman's points echoed what we heard from others. We will publish the final version of the standards within the next few weeks. Without being too cryptic, the final version will not be identical to the draft version. This evening I will go as far as I can to suggest the direction in which we have been moving, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that, much as I would love to, and despite his view that he may one day be in my position at the Dispatch Box, I cannot give him a sneak preview of the detail.
I will write to the hon. Gentleman about the specific issue of the home with the young man aged 15.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the cost of implementing the standards. We are well aware of the difficulties with which many homes are struggling. That is why earlier this year we set up the strategic commissioning group, which brought together some of the key individuals and organisations involved in commissioning and providing care services for adults, including representatives from the private and voluntary sectors. The group considered local commissioning arrangements and their impact on service users and providers. It published its report last month, supported by £300 million to smooth the flow of patients from hospital to care home. Its work will also help to bring some much needed stability to the sector by encouraging more long-term agreements between local authorities and providers.
We know that meeting the new standards will have cost implications for some homes, and we 'accept that ultimately they may need to reflect those costs in their fees. This is an issue that should be considered in what in some cases should be a much more participative commissioning process in local areas.
It is worth remembering that we have already raised funding for social services by nearly 18 per cent. in real terms since 1996–97. Next year and the year after we will raise it even more, by an average of 3.5 per cent in each year, giving local authorities some ability to reflect the increased costs in their fee levels.
The hon. Gentleman was concerned about the effect of the standards limiting the overall size of homes and, within homes, the size of the groups of residents sharing

691
staff and living areas such as dining rooms. The draft standards suggested that new homes should accommodate up to 16 people in groups of up to eight. Existing larger homes would be expected to organise into groups of eight residents by 2007. I am convinced that the principle behind that standard is right. It can make all the difference between an establishment looking and feeling like a large, anonymous institution and it becoming at least a little more like a family home. I know which I would rather live in, and I expect most people would feel the same.
Most people would sympathise with the principle, but many of those who responded to the consultation exercise felt that we had set the numbers too low. The concern was perhaps felt most acutely, although not only, in the substance misuse sector. Respondents from that sector argued that their residents tended to stay for limited periods of treatment rather than indefinitely, and that some forms of treatment depend on groups of more than 10 residents living and working through their therapy together.
I also recognise the points that the hon. Gentleman made about other care homes for young adults. The concerns were sincerely and persuasively expressed, and I can tell him now that the standard will be modified accordingly while staying true to its guiding principle. The limits will rise, and there will be some extra leeway for shorter-term stays.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the issues of the number of toilets and bathrooms available to residents, and that has generated much debate, both during the official consultation period and since. The draft standards suggested one toilet for each two people and one bathroom for three people, in both cases adjacent to bedrooms. Many people felt that we were aiming unreasonably high. It is an important question of balance. Not many of us—not even Ministers—have completely unlimited access to our own individual, private facilities 24 hours a day. On the other hand, not many of us would be thrilled about constantly using public toilets and baths, even when we were at home. At the risk of repeating myself, we are talking about people's homes, not somewhere they spend the odd night or week.
We believe that we can find a sensible compromise. Many people told us that the requirement for toilets and bathrooms to be next door to bedrooms was not practical, and we have been looking closely at that. Many people told us that one toilet per two people was a higher standard than exists in many private residences, so we have looked closely at that too. We have also been thinking about whether we can give existing homes more time to meet the standards, for some of the reasons that the hon. Gentleman outlined. In other words, we are willing to reconsider when people make a good case, but what still matters most is that service users live in as homely and comfortable an environment as possible.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of single rooms, and the argument about single versus shared bedrooms has been one of the more lively ones. Not many of us would want to share our bedroom with someone we had not chosen to share it with, but it is not hard to see how providing single rooms for all from day one could make life very difficult for some homes.
692
The draft standards say that all service users should be offered a single room. Existing shared accommodation is to be phased out by 2004, unless people choose to share. I hope that that covers one of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised. New provision will be built with single rooms.
The objections have not all been financial or technical, although such objections are important and need to be considered. Providers of substance misuse services have argued that service users often need to share with a buddy—someone to discourage regression or self-harm. That seems like common sense. There is no actual evidence to suggest a link between how many people share a bedroom and how successful the outcome of their treatment is, but that is an important issue. Few things are more fundamental to privacy and a genuinely homely atmosphere for adults than having their own space which they share only with those whom they invite to share it.
Different circumstances might arise for special residential colleges for people who need care, and we are looking at that. We are also considering whether the standards could embrace the idea of a clinical need for sharing, as a form of protection for the service user. However, in general, we are clear that new build should be for single occupancy. Existing sharing might have to continue for a few years, but in future people should only share if they want to.
I hope that I have gone some way towards reassuring the hon. Gentleman to some extent, although I guess that he, and others who have expressed concerns, will reserve judgment until they see the final standards. I hope that I have at least convinced him that our consultation was not a cosmetic exercise, and that we valued and listened to all the responses and kept an open mind.
Once the final standards are published the focus will, of course, shift to the National Care Standards Commission, whose job it will be to interpret and use the standards as it inspects and regulates residential care for young adults. When the commission is deciding whether any regulation has been breached, it must take the standards into account, but the standards are not regulations.
The section from my letter that the hon. Gentleman read out still represents the Government's position. It will be important for the commission, as it develops its work, to work with providers, to use the standards and to ensure that the assessed needs of users, which are at the centre both of his approach and of the Government's, are fundamental
It is right both to issue regulations and to set national minimum standards, because there are homes that are not good enough for users, and it is clear that action needs to be taken. The objective is to ensure, first, that we have a coherent set of regulations and standards across the country wherever such provision is made, and secondly, that we implement those in a way that is both flexible for providers and enables users to—
Mr. Webb: Is the Minister saying that one cannot under any circumstances breach a regulation, but that the regulations will not necessarily be absolutely exhaustive in defining standards?
Jacqui Smith: The national minimum standards and the regulations are different. Given the consultation process that we have gone through, the minimum standards are important.
It will not be for me to tell the commission how to go about its day-to-day business, but I am confident that it will act reasonably sensibly, and in the best interests of
694
service users. That is something to which we can all look forward as we move towards raising standards for service users while maintaining good-quality provision.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Eleven o 'clock.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Sport
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions were held with Sport England on the establishment of the new opportunities fund for sport. [14108]

  Mr. Caborn
  I and my officials have held a number of meetings and conducted detailed correspondence with Sport England about the new opportunities for PE and school sport initiative.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the(a) start up and (b) operating costs are of the new opportunities fund for sport. [14107]

  Mr. Caborn
  The new opportunities school sport initiative is one of 13 programmes operated by the fund in the areas of health, education and the environment. The estimated direct costs for this programme to 31 March 2002 are £767,600 of which £97,600 represents start-up costs. Over the lifetime of its programmes, the new opportunities fund aims to keep its running costs within 5 per cent. of its lottery income.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to merge the New Opportunities Fund for Sport organisation with Sport England; and if she will make a statement. [14106]

  Mr. Caborn
  The new opportunities fund is the body designated in the National Lottery Act 1998 to distribute lottery funds to initiatives concerned with health, education and the environment, one of which is the new opportunities for PE and school sport initiative. I have no plans to merge the new opportunities fund with Sport England.

  Departmental Assets
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 1 November 2001,Official Report, column 802W, on departmental assets, if he will estimate the value of the Government art collection; and if he will make a statement. [13125]

  Dr. Howells
  It is not possible to give an accurate estimate of the value of the Government art collection, which, as a non-operational heritage asset, has no current market valuation. The current monetary value of a work of art can be accurately assessed only at the time of its purchase or sale or by professional valuation. The collection is not actively traded, and it would not be a justifiable expenditure of public funds to have the whole collection valued professionally.

  However, from 1 April 2000 additions to the collection have been included at cost in the asset register of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, on the grounds
  502W
  that the purchase price provides a reliable basis for capitalisation. This accounting policy will apply to national museums and galleries and other collections from 1 April 2001. The value of purchased additions to the Government art collection as at 31 March 2001 is £124,000.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Rough Sleepers Unit
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the Rough Sleepers Unit will compile information about the number of hotel places in major centers of population. [10780]

  Ms Keeble
  The Rough Sleepers Unit already compiles information on the hostel bedspaces that it funds. In addition, local authorities around the country hold information on hostel bedspaces in their area.

  The RSU required local authorities with significant numbers of rough sleepers to assess the provision of hostel accommodation in their areas in order to develop local rough sleeping strategies. This information is held and reviewed locally but has not been compiled centrally by the RSU.

  However, the RSU is now considering its future beyond April 2002 and information on hostel provision will be an important feature of any future work. Therefore such information will be compiled in the new year.

  Under the provisions of the Homelessness Bill, local housing authorities would be expected to review the resources available to the authority and its partners in their periodic homelessness reviews: this should include reviews of hostel and other accommodation available to homeless people.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on how many occasions in(a) 2001, (b) 2000 and (c) 1999 services on the west coast main line have been disrupted owing to collapse or other failure of the overhead power cables; and what average length of delay has been caused to passenger services as a result. [11505]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The following table from Railtrack shows the disruption to passenger and freight trains on the west coast main line caused by incidents involving overhead lines in 1999, 2000 and 2001. I understand that data are not separately available for passenger services only.

  Disruption to WCML caused by incidents involving overhead lines 1 April 1999 to mid-October 2001

  Total minutes delay

  Number of incidents

  1999

  67,019

  358

  2000

  64,965

  365

  2001

  111,971

  371

  London Underground
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he has asked the National Audit Office to evaluate the PPP bids for the London Underground once the final bids have been prepared; and if he will make a statement. [11614]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The National Audit Office produced a report into the financial analysis of the London Underground PPPs in December 2000. The NAO has examined the further work London Underground and its advisers are undertaking on the financial analysis of the PPPs, and found that London Underground intends to take the issues raised by the NAO in its earlier report on board. I understand that, while the NAO will continue to monitor the situation, it does not believe that a further report at this stage would be useful.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what assumptions regarding the cost to the public sector of cost overruns he is planning to include in the guidance for the public sector comparator for assessing the public-private partnership bids for London Underground; [12387]

  (2) what plans he has to make changes to the assumptions underlying the public sector comparator for assessing bids under the public-private partnership for London Underground; and if he will make a statement. [12388]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government's plans for a publicly run, privately built tube will deliver around £13 billion of investment to improve the underground's infrastructure over the next 15 years. The Secretary of State has made clear that he will only be prepared for these plans to go ahead if he is content that they represent value for money.

  London Underground is carrying out a thorough evaluation of the value for money of bids, guided by the results of a public sector comparator. The detailed assumptions made in this comparator, including those on cost overruns, have been developed by London Underground, assisted by its engineering advisers Ove Arup and its financial advisers PricewaterhouseCoopers. I understand that London Underground, again assisted by its advisers, is currently reviewing the comparator to ensure that it represents a level-playing-field test for evaluating final bids.

  The value for money evaluation of the London Underground PPPs will be made publicly available, but not until London Underground has concluded its negotiations with bidders. To publish the value for money evaluation any earlier would reveal London Underground's negotiating position and so undermine its ability to achieve best value.

  Mr. Lammy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what information he collates on the incidence of crime in underground stations. [13265]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is a matter for the British Transport Police (BTP). The BTP collate all data in relation to incidences of crime on London Underground. They publish annual crime statistics for London Underground, using Home Office guidelines, within their annual report. A Crime and Disorder audit is carried out annually for underground stations and this is also 504W
  provided to the Government, all boroughs in London and the Crime Director for London. The latest such report will be available very early in the new year.

  Motorway Speed Limits
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations have been made by the police in the past five years in respect of raising the maximum speed limit on motorways in the UK to 80 mph. [12328]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None.

  Area Cost Adjustment
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what external validation(a) will be and (b) has been applied to the use of New Earnings Survey statistical data used for distribution of the area cost adjustment for 2002–03; [12998]

  (2) what steps he (a) will take and (b) has taken to ensure that small sample sizes in the New Earnings Survey data used for distribution of the area cost adjustment for 2002–03 are within acceptable statistical confidence limits; [12997]

  (3) what criteria he uses to assess the acceptability of statistical confidence limits for data used for distribution of the area cost adjustment for 2002–03; [12996]

  (4) what discussions his Department has had with the Office for National Statistics about the use of the New Earnings Survey in the calculation of the area cost adjustment for 2002–03. [12995]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The use of New Earnings Survey (NES) data for the purposes of calculating the area cost adjustment have been the same in every local government finance settlement since 1993–94. Ministers at the time, after extensive discussion with local government, decided that the current methodology was the most appropriate use of the data for distributing grant to local government. When the methodology was developed, there was consideration of sample sizes and whether to base the area cost adjustment on one or two years of NES data.

  We announced on 20 July that we do not intend to change this long established methodology for 2002–03, while we review the grant distribution formulae as a whole in time for 2003–04. We have made careful checks that we are using the NES data in the usual way for 2002–03. This includes confirming that the NES data supplied to us by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) are correct, and validating the area cost adjustment calculations by ensuring that at least two members of our grant distribution team independently derive the same results. External validation by those outside Government is not possible because of the need to ensure the confidentiality of those included in the survey.

  We have also been party to discussions between the ONS and the Association of London Government (ALG), who asked the ONS for an explanation of the movements in the data since last year. The ONS reply to the ALG confirms that the data that underpin the area cost adjustment for 2002–03 are correct. The reply is also a helpful contribution to our formula grant review. For example, it has a bearing on whether we should address possible volatility around small samples by using an

  505W
  average of two or three years of NES data for the area cost adjustment. Smoothing the area cost adjustment in this way is one of the options we are currently discussing with local government.

  Dry Rot
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent guidance he has given to local councils on the treatment of dry rot and which chemicals are permitted for its treatment. [12892]

  Dr. Whitehead
  My Department does not provide local councils with guidance on the treatment of dry rot in timber but refers such inquiries to authoritative sources of information such as the Building Research Establishment and the British Wood Preserving and Damp Proofing Association.

  Chemicals permitted for treatment of dry rot are approved under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986. The labels of approved pesticidal products will state which of these can be used specifically against dry rot. A list of all approved products is published in "Pesticides 2001"; this annually updated publication can be found in the Research Section of the House of Commons' Library.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the operation of the working time directive in respect of HGV drivers. [10307]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: There are two working time proposals that will affect drivers of large goods vehicles. First, parts of the horizontal amending directive (EC2000/34)—due to be implemented by 1 August 2003—will introduce some changes. Drivers will be subject to the 48 hour average working week, four weeks paid annual leave, health checks for night workers and a provision for adequate rest. As with existing working time legislation, workers will be able to sign an individual opt-out if they want to work longer than the 48 hour average.

  The second proposal concerns mobile workers in the road transport sector and is still subject to negotiation in Brussels. The directive will only apply to drivers of large vehicles who are currently subject to EC drivers' hours rules (EC3820/85). It is clear that there will be no individual opt-out from the 48 hour average working week, but other significant issues have still to be resolved with the European Parliament. Negotiations should be complete by the end of this year, and we expect the new directive will be adopted in early 2002. Implementation in the UK will be in a further two to three years.

  Pedestrian Protection
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what(a) proportion of seriously and fatally injured pedestrians received their injuries from being hit by the fronts of cars and (b) the main types of impacts for pedestrian deaths in serious injuries are. [13417]
  506W
  Mr. Jamieson
  It is estimated that, in 2000, 53 per cent. of all pedestrians fatally or seriously injured in road accidents received their injuries from being hit by the front of a car.

  73 per cent. of pedestrians suffering fatal or serious injury in 2000 were hit by a car in a single vehicle accident; 19 per cent. were hit by other vehicles (i.e. not cars) in single vehicle accidents; and 8 per cent. were hit in accidents which involved more than one vehicle.

  Noise Mitigation
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will publish the timetable for the implementation of the ring-fenced budget for noise mitigation measures. [13217]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government's policy of reducing the effects of traffic noise is being implemented through two programmes.

  The Government's "Transport 2010: The 10 Year Plan" gives a commitment to surface at least 60 per cent. of the trunk roads, including all the concrete trunk roads, with quieter materials by 31 March 2011. We have a policy of using quieter surfaces as a matter of course whenever a road needs to be resurfaced and I recently announced the criteria to be used for prioritising the concrete trunk roads to be resurfaced with quieter materials.

  The second programme, with an annual £5 million ring-fenced budget, is to provide noise mitigation measures in the most serious and pressing cases where practical and cost-effective measures can be provided.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which light rail projects have received support from the Strategic Rail Authority since it was established. [13146]

  Mr. Jamieson
  While it is not for the SRA to support particular light rail projects, they have co-operated with franchise operators and local authorities in furthering the development of light rail schemes for Tyne & Wear Metro, Manchester Metrolink, Nottingham Express Transit and the West Midlands Metro. The SRA are also working to facilitate development of the currently proposed project in Bristol.

  Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what information he has collated on the number of US states which have banned the use of methyl tertiary butyl ether; and what discussions he has held with his US counterparts in the use of methyl tertiary butyl ether as a petrol additive. [13253]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department does not hold details on the use of MTBE in the United States. I understand that the US Federal Government is proposing to reduce significantly or eliminate MTBE in petrol due to public concern about MTBE in groundwater. MTBE is used significantly less in the UK and there is no evidence to indicate that contamination of groundwater presents a significant risk here.
  507W
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his policy is on the use of methyl tertiary buty1 ether; what plans he has to review the policy; and if he will make a statement. [13227]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Directive 98/70/EU (enacted by Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 3107) sets a limit of 15 per cent. on ethers containing five or more carbon atoms per molecule—which includes MTBE. For the UK as a whole, usage typically averages less than 0.5 per cent., with most production having none.

  The main risk identified with MTBE, particularly in the USA, is to groundwater. In the UK public consultation has recently finished on a draft groundwater protection code for petrol stations and underground storage tanks to be made under Regulation 21 of the Groundwater Regulations 1998. This will provide advice on what processes/precautions need to be in place at petrol stations and other underground fuel storage areas to ensure protection of groundwater and compliance with the Groundwater Regulations.

  Translation Services
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what translation services he ensures are available to local authorities in(a) England and (b) Staffordshire. [13500]

  Dr. Whitehead
  No such services are made available centrally to local authorities. It is up to each local authority to provide such services as are necessary in the light of their local circumstances.

  Seller's Pack
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to re-introduce legislation to make a seller's pack compulsory. [13807]

  Ms Keeble
  Legislation will be introduced when parliamentary time allows. In the meantime we are pressing ahead, in consultation with consumer representatives and the professional bodies, with developing the detailed contents of the seller's pack.

  Aviation Industries
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the airline and aerospace industries. [11335]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 8 November 2001]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), on 8 November 2001, Official Report, column 339W.

  Central Trains
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of services provided by Central Trains in the last 12 months ran on time. [13460]
  508W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Over the last 12 months 72.5 per cent. of services provided by Central Trains ran on time. Services are deemed punctual if they arrive at their destination within five minutes of the timetable.

  Council Housing
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many households in(a) council housing and (b) registered social landlord having in each local authority area in London will have target rents set as a consequence of the Government's rent restructuring proposals (i) less than £20 above current rents, (ii) £20 to £30 above current rents and (iii) £30 or more above current rents. [14072]

  Ms Keeble
  The information is not currently available. Social landlords will only have completed their property valuations and calculated their target rents under the reforms around the end of this calendar year.

  Overcrowding (Trains)
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what assessment his Department has made of the level of overcrowding on trains on routes between Blackpool and Birmingham; [13920]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of powers to ensure train operating companies take action to address overcrowding on trains. [13916]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No specific assessments have been made but all train operators have a general obligation in their franchise agreements to provide sufficient capacity to avoid excessive crowding. In the Metropolitan areas, Passenger Transport Executives specify overcrowding controls for the services they require. One of the aims of the new franchise policy announced by the Secretary of State in July was to instruct the Strategic Rail Authority to reduce overcrowding and negotiate new franchises or extensions to secure the necessary improvement in capacity.

  Empty Homes
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the latest estimate is of(a) the number of empty homes and (b) the number of homeless; and what steps the Government are planning to improve these figures. [13760]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 9 November 2001]: From the latest available information it is estimated that there were 763,900 empty residential properties at the beginning of 2000–01. The majority of these are classified as transitional vacancies.

  The number of households accepted by local authorities in England under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 and 1996 Housing Acts as being eligible for assistance, unintentionally homeless and in priority need, in the first six months of 2001 was 59,530.

  The Government have introduced a number of measures to reduce the number of empty homes including a reduction in VAT and changes to the way local authorities plan for housing. We will consult shortly on

  509W
  proposals to allow local authorities discretion to remove or reduce the 50 per cent. council tax discount for long-term empty homes.

  Homeless acceptances represent households in need who are helped by local authorities into accommodation. The provisions of the Homelessness Bill will:
  require housing authorities to take a more strategic, multi-agency approach to the prevention of homelessness and the re-housing of homeless households;
  ensure that everyone accepted by housing authorities as unintentionally homeless and in priority need must be provided with suitable accommodation until they obtain a settled housing solution: and
  allow housing authorities greater flexibility to assist non-priority homeless households, principally through a new power for housing authorities to secure accommodation for such households where they have the scope to do so.

  To support these provisions, investment in new affordable housing through the Housing Corporation will rise to over £1.2 billion by 2003–04—about double the current level.

  The Government are currently developing a national strategic framework to help prevent and tackle homelessness throughout the country.

  Airport Slots
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to submit proposals to the European Commission in relation to regulations 248/92 and 95/93 governing slot(a) allocation and (b) ring fencing at Heathrow and Gatwick. [13697]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 9 November 2001]: The Government are currently reviewing whether they should seek to ensure that slots are reserved at London airports for regional services. One possible means of achieving this could be the utilisation of Article 9.1.a of Regulation 95–93. The Government have received a PSO application for the Inverness-Gatwick route from the Scottish Executive and this is under consideration. If the Government decided to impose a PSO, they would need to inform the Commission in accordance with Regulation 2408–92.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on demand for slots at Heathrow and Gatwick over the next five years. [13693]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 9 November 2001]: The Department has commissioned the South East and East of England Regional Air Services study (SERAS), which is considering all aspects of airport capacity in the area, having regard to future forecasts of demand. The study is looking up to 30 years ahead. Consideration of demand for runway capacity at Heathrow and Gatwick forms part of the work.

  We expect the study to be completed towards the end of this year. Public consultation on the shortlisted options is due in early 2002.

  Health and Safety Laboratory
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the costs of the Health and Safety Laboratory's estates in Sheffield and Buxton in 2001–02. [13934]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Health and Safety Laboratory's estates costs for the current year are estimated to be £3,693,000.

  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the annual costs of the Health and Safety Laboratory's estates under the proposed PFI scheme on the Buxton site. [13933]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Commercial negotiations for the Health and Safety Laboratory PFI collocation project have not been concluded with the preferred bidder. Any proposed costs relating to this project are therefore commercially confidential and cannot be made available.

  Housing Association Schemes
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how many do-it-yourself shared-ownership scheme purchases there were by each housing association in each of the last five years; [12463]

  (2) which housing associations participated in the do-it-yourself shared ownership scheme; and how many (a) do-it-yourself shared ownership scheme purchases and (b) transactions by shared owners there were in respect of (i) additional shares and (ii) outright purchase in each of the last five years. [12464]

  Ms Keeble
  Assistance under the do-it-yourself shared ownership (DIYSO) scheme led to 6,712 purchases in the years 1996–97 to 2000–01. Tables showing these purchases by housing association in each year have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  The number of transactions by DIYSO purchasers in respect of the purchase of additional shares and staircasing to outright ownership is not identified separately by housing associations.

  Contingency Plans (West Midlands)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what contingency plans he has made to improve transport services in the west midlands if a national stadium is placed there. [13533]

  Ms Keeble
  The capability of the transport system to deal with the potential demands of a national stadium in the west midlands are being considered by the project teams and the Government. There are a number of current projects which will improve the performance of the existing network, including the M6 Toll and Active Traffic Management on the M42. If implemented, the recommendations from the West Midlands Area Multi- Modal Study will also significantly improve the transport system. The Football Association have yet to decide whether or not they want a national stadium.

  Health and Safety Inspections (Hotels)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many hotels in(a) London and (b) the UK have failed health and safety inspections in the last 12 months; and what mechanisms there are to ensure that health and safety guidelines are adhered to. [13535]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We do not have any information in respect of the number of hotels in London and the UK that have failed health and safety inspections. Local authorities (LAs) are responsible for the enforcement of health and safety law in hotels throughout GB and LA inspectors will take appropriate enforcement action to ensure that health and safety guidelines are adhered to.

  Fire Services
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many vacancies there are for fire personnel in the UK; and what steps he has taken to encourage more people into the service in the last five years. [13536]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Based on annual returns to HM Fire Service Inspectorate, the provisional figures for the establishment and actual strength of the fire service in England and Wales as at 31 March 2001 were as follows:

  Establishment

  Strength

  Variation

  Whole-time

  33,640

  33,376

  -264

  Retained

  14,960

  12,033

  -2,927

  Control

  1,428

  1,440

  +12

  Non-uniformed

  6,474

  6,071

  -403

  Totals

  56,502

  52,920

  -3,582

  Local fire authorities are responsible for the recruitment and selection of fire service staff. In general the fire service is a popular career choice and applications far exceed the number of vacancies available each year. However, in some areas fire authorities and brigades do experience difficulties in recruiting to the retained (volunteer) sections of the fire service. For more than 10 years the Home Office, which had responsibility for fire service matters prior to the transfer to DTLR in June this year, has helped to encourage people to join the fire service both in a full-time and voluntary capacity by providing recruitment literature and advertising posters for local use. Over the last two years the Home Office, and now DTLR, have been encouraging. Fire authorities to review their recruitment practices in order to ensure they reach groups that are currently under-represented in the service. To help authorities to do this DTLR has developed new national recruitment literature which will be launched shortly.

  Train Toilets
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what regulations exist to oblige train operating companies to make working toilets available to passengers on trains; and what plans his Department has to make the provision of toilets on trains an obligation in future train operating franchises. [14706]
  512W
  Mr. Jamieson
  There are no regulations requiring train operators to provide toilets on trains, nor are there any plans for such regulations to be introduced. Train operators will only make the most of their commercial opportunities if they provide the facilities that passengers demand. The Strategic Rail Authority do not think it is a priority for investment to specify the provision of facilities which train operating companies are likely to provide of their own accord. Where train operators provide toilet facilities they are subject to the same environmental health requirements as any other provider of these facilities.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what powers the Strategic Railway Authority has to oblige train operating companies to make working toilets available to passengers on trains. [14704]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The franchise agreements under which rail services are provided do not require toilets to be provided on trains. Any changes to a franchise agreement would have to be negotiated by the Strategic Rail Authority and the train operator concerned.

  Airport Security
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessments he has made of security procedures as they apply to(a) general aviation and (b) regional airports within the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [13484]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department lays down the security requirements for the operators of public transport aircraft, both passenger-carrying and all-cargo, and the managers of the aerodromes they operate from. Following the attacks of September 11th these requirements have been extended to general aviation. DTLR inspectors monitor compliance.

  Rating Appeals (Hertfordshire)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the cost to industry in Hertfordshire of delays in the consideration of rating appeals in the last three years. [13243]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have made no such assessment.

  The Valuation Office Agency (VOA), an executive agency of Inland Revenue, is responsible for compiling and maintaining the non-domestic rating lists. Since 1 April 1998, the VOA has received some 1,400,000 appeals challenging the rateable values entered in the rating lists compiled since 1990, including some 800,000 appeals against the rateable values shown in the list that came into force on 1 April 2000. Consideration of this number of appeals inevitably takes time. The VOA publishes programmes setting out when all appeals will be considered; these are reviewed in consultation with ratepayers. If, when an appeal is considered, the VOA and the ratepayer do not reach agreement on the valuation, the appeal will be heard shortly afterwards by an independent Valuation Tribunal. Appeals may be considered earlier than is set out in the programme, if a ratepayer is suffering financial hardship.
  513W
  When an appeal is made, the ratepayer must continue to comply with the payment schedule as set out in the original demand notice from the local authority. Payments may only be altered following the settlement of an appeal and following the issue of a revised bill by the local authority. In general, the effect of any appeal leading to a change in rateable value will be backdated either to the date that the change in value occurred, or the first day of the financial year in which the appeal was made, whichever is the later. Where an appeal leads to a reduction in the amount due to be paid, any previous overpayment is refunded to the ratepayer with interest.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 6 November 2001,Official Report, column 135W, on Railtrack, what action he will take to ensure the administrators of Railtrack conclude the proposed sale of the Oswestry branch line from Gobowen to Llanymywech to the Cambrian Railways Trust. [13859]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I understand that Railtrack have proposed a meeting for 16 November with the Cambrian Railways Trust to discuss the proposed sale. The Trust has yet to confirm its availability.

  Road Traffic Accidents
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many(a) fatal and (b) serious, road traffic accidents involving monocular commercial drivers there were in each of the last five years where the monocular vision of the driver was a contributory factor. [14267]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested is not available.

  Rosyth Ferry Terminal
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the(a) short-term, (b) medium-term and (c) long-term plans for the proposed Rosyth ferry terminal. [13937]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The proposal for the Rosyth terminal that was considered for Freight Facilities Grant purposes was the expenditure on works that the port expects to be completed in a matter of months. The service that these works will serve is designed to go on for several years, but no further development at Rosyth has been notified.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will place in the Library the proposals for the ferry terminal at Rosyth including(a) the initial investment plans and (b) the(i) short, (ii) medium and (iii) long-term plans. [13936]

  Mr. Jamieson
  All correspondence between DTLR and the grant applicants is commercially confidential.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many people at or above state retirement were placed in(a) bed-and-breakfast accommodation and (b) temporary
  514W
  local authority accommodation in the last year; how many were (i) permanently rehoused, (ii) placed in long-term residential care and (iii) found intentionally homeless, broken down by (A) sex and (B) age; and what the average length of stay was, in each responsible local authority, grouped by county. [13511]

  Ms Keeble
  This information is not collected centrally. Information on supported placements in long-term residential care and nursing homes is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  Abandoned Cars
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimates his Department has made of the number of abandoned cars dumped in England in(a) 2000 and (b) 1997. [12571]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: I have been asked to reply.

  Although the Department currently holds no central records of the number of vehicles abandoned each year we estimate that some 350,000 cars were dumped in the United Kingdom in 2000. We do not have an estimate of how many were dumped in 1997.

  More up to date information on the number of abandoned vehicles removed by local authorities is being collected in the Department's 2000–01 Municipal Waste Management Survey which should be published in July 2002.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Consultation Documents
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many consultation documents were issued by his Department from(a) 15 October to 14 January, (b) 15 January to 14 April, (c) 15 April to 14 July and (d) 15 July to 14 October in each year from 1996. [12896]

  Mr. MacShane
  The FCO has issued consultation documents as follows:

  (a) None

  (b) None

  (c) One, 1999

  (d) Two, 1998 and 2000.

  India
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with representatives of the Indian Government since 11 September; and if he will make a statement. [13727]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  India plays an important role in the international campaign against terrorism. As such, we have had a number of meetings with the Indian Government. The Prime Minister visited India on 6 October and met Prime Minister Vajpayee. Mr. Vajpayee visited London on 12 November for talks with the Prime Minister. The Foreign Secretary and his Indian counterpart, Jaswant Singh, met in London on 3 October and expect to meet again at the UN General Assembly in New York this week.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the change in the internal stability of Pakistan since 11 September; and if he will make a statement on the control of Pakistani nuclear weapons. [14244]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) on 24 October 2001,Official Report, column 258W. We expect all countries, including Pakistan, to implement stringent safety and security measures at their civil and military nuclear facilities.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy not to alter the sovereignty of Gibraltar without the consent of the people of Gibraltar. [13900]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to my statement on 7 November 2001,Official Report, columns 88–92WH. The Government will continue to stand by their commitments to the people of Gibraltar as set out in the preamble to the Gibraltar Constitution.

  Foreign Debt (Serbia)
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is his policy to support the demands of the Serbian Government to write-off two thirds of the country's foreign debt. [13105]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.

  The UK Government strongly support the impressive economic reform efforts of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). As a result the UK will be seeking an agreement in the forthcoming negotiations between the FRY and its Paris Club creditors beginning on 13 November that reduces FRY' s debt to sustainable levels. On the basis of current IMF projects HMG will advocate debt reduction by official creditors of 75 per cent. Consistent with our policy towards other recipients of debt reduction, any deal should be designed to provide the incentives for continued economic reform in the medium term.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Violent Incidents
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the serious violent incidents attributed to(a) the IRA and proscribed Republican groups and (b) proscribed Loyalist terrorist groups over the past 30 years, indicating in each case the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) number of casualties and (iv) estimated cost of the damage. [12622]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Police Recruitment
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the most recent recruitment campaign for the Police Service of Northern Ireland. [11493]

  Jane Kennedy
  The second recruitment competition for the Police Service of Northern Ireland was launched on 12 October, and the closing date for applications is 16 November. By 5 November, Consensia had received 8,700 requests for application packs, and the response in terms of applications received to date has also been encouraging.

  Francis Devlin
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures will be taken in response to the European Court of Human Rights decision in favour of Francis Devlin on 30 October; what compensation he will pay to Mr. Devlin; how many cases contesting procedures relating to national security exemption certificates are outstanding, and what steps will be taken to settle those cases prior to any court hearing in Strasbourg. [12991]

  Jane Kennedy
  The European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in the Devlin case on 30 October. The court found a breach of article 6(1) because Mr. Devlin had no effective way of challenging the certificate issued under section 42 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 in relation to his discrimination proceedings. The court rejected the Government's argument that Mr. Devlin could not rely on article 6(1) rights in the circumstances of his case. In rejecting this argument the court found a breach in the same terms as those found in the Tinnelly and McElduff cases. Following those judgments in 1998, the Government established a Tribunal, under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, to which an individual can appeal against a section 42 certificate. The remedial action required, should a similar situation to Mr. Devlin's case arise now, is therefore already in place. The court awarded £10,000 to Mr. Devlin and the Government are considering the terms of the judgment and their next steps in relation to this. The Government are aware of only one outstanding case in Strasbourg contesting procedures relating to section 42 certificates and are considering what steps should be taken to seek to settle the dispute.

  Criminal Justice Review
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will publish the Government's response to the criminal justice review. [14740]

  Mr. Browne
  A draft Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill and implementation plan were published today and copies have been placed in the Library. Copies of both documents are also available on the Northern Ireland Office website, along with the outcome of an equality screening exercise.

  Many of the recommendations will be implemented through the legislation. The implementation plan sets out the programme of work required to implement the criminal justice review, the time scale for this and who

  517W
  will be responsible for taking it forward. It also states that the Government's target is to devolve policing and justice after the Assembly elections scheduled for May 2003.

  There will now be a period of consultation before the legislation is introduced in Parliament. Subject to the outcome of consultation, it is expected that the legislation will be introduced in this Session.

DEFENCE

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment has been made of the capability of each of the territorial infantry battalions to be deployed on operations as formed units. [R] [9672]

  Dr. Moonie
  Under the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) the Territorial Army (TA) was restructured to make it more relevant and usable and more fully integrated into our armed forces and defence plans. As a result, more TA units are now held at a higher state of readiness than pre-SDR and we continue to assess that the TA infantry battalions have the capability to be deployed on operations as formed units. As such they are an essential part of the Army's order of battle.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment has been made of the capability of the TA to provide the framework for the rapid expansion of the forces; and if he will make a statement. [R] [9676]

  Dr Moonie
  The national footprint of Territorial Army (TA) units, created following the Strategic Defence Review, continues to provide a sound basis for generating formed units and individuals as an essential part of the Army's order of battle. We are looking at ways of increasing the contribution the TA makes to our defence plans. In line with the strategy for the Army (a version of which was placed in the House Library in March) a range of options is being considered including how the TA may be used in providing assistance to the civil community in an emergency.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Territorial Army units he has available with anti-aircraft capability. [13835]

  Dr Moonie
  [holding answer 9 November 2001]: Within the Territorial Army, there are two Air Defence Artillery Regiments equipped with the Javelin air defence missile system, and one Air Defence Artillery Regiment trained in the use of the Rapier air defence missile system and the high velocity missile system. These are available at extended readiness to deploy on operations.

  Summer Recess
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) press notices and (b) consultation documents were issued by his Department during the summer recess. [9235]

  Dr Moonie
  [holding answer 23 October 2001]: During the summer recess, the Ministry of Defence issued a total of 27 press releases (excluding operational notes). No
  518W
  consultation documents were issued during this period. Copies of press releases and consultation documents can be viewed on the MOD's website.

  Communications
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment is being made of the impact of improved communications on the ability of subordinates to take the initiative; and if he will make a statement. [11498]

  Dr. Moonie
  Much work has been done, and more is under way, to ensure that the full potential of improved communications is realised. New technology, including the Personal Role Radio and Bowman, is being introduced in such a way as to enhance the effective exercise of command. Army doctrine will continue to empower subordinates at every level to take the initiative within the framework of their commanders' intent.

  Departmental Promotions
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department spent on information literature, advertising and campaign material in the financial years(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98, (d) 1998–99, (e) 1999–2000 and (f) 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [12274]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. I am therefore unable to provide a substantive answer under the terms of exemption 9 (voluminous and vexatious requests) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  However, a breakdown of the Ministry of Defence's public relations' expenditure is published in the annual departmental performance report, broken down into categories of Royal Navy, Army, Royal Air Force and civilian recruitment, PR, marketing and business support services, chief of PR, sales promotion, scholarships and national employers' liaison committee.

  Medical Preparedness
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish in full the Three Services Board of Inquiry report into medical preparedness prepared by the Surgeon General's Department; and if he will make a statement. [11621]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]: I assume the hon. Member is referring to the reports of the three Service Boards of Inquiry into medical preparedness for Op. Palliser. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 1 February 2001, Official Report, column 262W and to the comprehensive information which has already been provided on the conclusions and recommendations of the three Service Boards of Inquiry. Board of Inquiry reports are internal documents and, given their confidential nature, it is not the practice of the Ministry of Defence to publish them in full.

  Defence Diversification Agency
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list Scottish firms that have had negotiations with the Defence Diversification Agency since its inception. [12187]
  519W
  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 2 November 2001]: Defence Diversification Agency contacts with Scottish firms are listed. The list includes companies and private sector organisations where discussions are active, assistance has been provided, or discussions have been held but assistance could not be provided. The list covers the period from January 2000 (the agency having been established in the previous year) to date.

  Company

  Location

  Clariant

  West Lothian

  Gemini

  Tayside

  Ferranti Photonics

  Tayside

  ESL

  Renfewshire

  Kogg Caledonia

  Tayside

  MacTaggart Scott

  Midlothian

  Enfocast

  London/Scotland

  Reign of Sound

  Livingston

  NMT

  Livingston

  Motech

  Livingston

  Tannoy Ltd.

  Lanarkshire

  New Product Technologies

  Lanarkshire

  Meiklewall

  Lanarkshire

  Linn Products

  Lanarkshire

  REVIVO

  Highlands and Islands

  Weatherford

  Grampian

  Stenmar Sonavision

  Grampian

  Prosyst

  Grampian

  Leading Edge Advantage

  Grampian

  IES

  Grampian

  Westica

  Glasgow

  Realise

  Glasgow

  Q1 Biotech

  Glasgow

  Diagnostic Potentials

  Glasgow

  Buchanan International

  Glasgow

  Ascom IT

  Glasgow

  Adenco

  Glasgow

  Magnetic Mirror Energy

  Fife

  ZED Vu

  Fife

  Viscotest

  Fife

  Simclar International

  Fife

  Optima Enclosures Ltd.

  Fife

  Movi-mail

  Fife

  Mission Technology

  Fife

  Mine Ordance

  Fife

  Miller (Methil)

  Fife

  Milestone International

  Fife

  Logistic Systems Ltd.

  Fife

  IDS Ltd.

  Fife

  ICM Fortronic

  Fife

  HCS Fluid Power

  Fife

  Freeform Technologies

  Fife

  Forth Ports

  Fife

  Easy Park

  Fife

  DNA

  Fife

  Cyber Frontiers

  Fife

  Co-drive Technologies

  Fife

  Cipher Solutions

  Fife

  Calluna

  Fife

  Bonnybrae Ltd.

  Fife

  Babcock

  Fife

  Alcan

  Fife

  McGregor Traders

  Edinburgh

  Image Fusion

  Edinburgh

  Footle

  Edinburgh

  Dovetail

  Edinburgh

  Amey Vectra

  Edinburgh

  Acuid

  Edinburgh

  Biotrix

  Borders

  Vesion 7

  Ayrshire

  Provan Engineering

  Ayrshire

  Orcam

  Ayrshire

  Evolvon

  Ayrshire

  Chilton

  Ayrshire

  Alan West Wallacetown

  Ayrshire

  Consultation Documents
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many consultation documents were issued by his Department from(a) 15 October to 14 January, (b) 15 January to 14 April, (c) 15 April to 14 July and (d) 15 July to 14 October in each year from 1996. [12898]

  Dr Moonie
  Since January 2001, the Ministry of Defence has co-ordinated its written public consultation in line with the Cabinet Office's "code of practice" issued in November 2000. The Ministry of Defence issued six consultation documents during the period January 15 to April 14 and one document between April 15 to July 14. No documents were issued between July 15 to October 14. Prior to January 2001 these statistics were not held centrally and to establish accurate figures could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Defence Medals
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review the criteria for determining the award of a defence medal for service personnel. [13178]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are no plans to review the qualifying criteria for the defence medal which recognised non-operational service for armed forces personnel and certain specific categories of civilians during the Second World War.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will instruct the Adjutant General's Office to instigate a review of the rules covering the issue of the defence medal. [13543]

  Dr. Moonie
  I do not believe there is a requirement for a review of the regulations surrounding the defence medal. In 1946, the Committee on the Grants of Honours, Decorations and Medals discussed the awards, and their qualifying criteria, that should be instituted to reward service in the campaigns, operations and defence commitments during the Second World War. Members of the Committee included senior military and Government officers who had first hand experience and thorough knowledge of the events throughout the war. The regulations governing the qualification requirements for all Second World War medals were finalised in 1948, following approval from His Majesty King George VI, and were announced on 11 June 1948. These regulations have been strictly adhered to ever since.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will create an accessible Board of Appeal for the award of defence medals, in order that evidence that is acceptable to a Court of Law is not disregarded. [13544]

  Dr. Moonie
  I do not believe there is a requirement for a Board of Appeal. The authoritative source of an individual's medal entitlement is properly their service record. If an individual disputes the official record then the onus is on that individual to provide official contemporary documentary evidence as proof of entitlement.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he delegates to the Officer-in-Charge, Army Medal Office, full authority for the decision making process for medal applications. [13542]
  521W
  Dr. Moonie
  The proposed qualifying criteria for medals are submitted to the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals (HD Committee) for consideration, after which their recommendation is passed to the Sovereign for approval. Following Royal assent the Officer-in-Charge of the Army Medal Office is responsible for ensuring that all applications for Army and Home Guard medals fulfil the relevant qualifying criteria by checking eligibility against official service records. The Navy, Royal Air Force and Royal Marines have their own medal offices with the appropriate delegated authority.

  Golden Jubilee Medals
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received to grant the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal to service men who were injured during World War Two; and if he will make a statement. [13225]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has not received any representations requesting an amendment to the qualifying criteria for the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal to include those service men who were injured during the Second World War.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 28 June 2001,Official Report, column 132W, on war pensions, if he will state (a) how many expert caseworkers there are and (b) whether all the caseworkers are qualified medical doctors. [13745]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are currently five expert caseworkers employed by the War Pensions Agency. All are medically qualified and hold full registration with the General Medical Council.

  Saif Sareea
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many missions or training packages involving UK armoured vehicles and tanks as part of Saif Sareea II were(a) cancelled and (b) reduced in package due to (i) serviceability shortfalls and (ii) technical malfunctions in the vehicles; what percentage of missions or training packages involving UK armoured vehicles or tanks this represents; and if he will make a statement. [11769]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 8 November 2001]: Inevitably on occasions minor technical or mechanical problems temporarily required individual Challenger 2 tanks and other vehicles to undergo short periods of maintenance, but overall the armoured vehicles deployed on Exercise Saif Sareea 2 successfully completed the tasks required of them.

  The extent of the involvement of Challenger 2 was, however, adjusted during the exercise as further experience was gained in operating the tank in the harsh desert environment. Previous experience of operating other armoured vehicle types in desert conditions meant that maintenance could be more accurately programmed and no adjustment to their involvement was necessary.
  522W
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason logistical aspects of Saif Sareea 2 were carried out in non-tactical settings. [11748]

  Mr. Hoon
  The extent to which logistic support to a major exercise is conducted tactically requires a very careful balance to be made between the effective conduct of the wider exercise, the training benefit to be gained and the costs both financial and on military manpower. In the case of Exercise Saif Sareea, the vast majority of logistic support was conducted tactically throughout the exercise play.

  The sole major exception to this was third line logistic support to the deployed land forces: logistic support to land forces in the exercise area was conducted tactically, but was non-tactical along the 1,200 kilometre line of communication across Oman. To have deployed tactically at third line would have placed a major additional burden on army logistics staffs, with little or no gain in terms of training benefit.

  Afghanistan
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost of the munitions used in each week of the Afghanistan campaign. [13523]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 23 October 2001,Official Report, column 114W, to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker).

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of cluster bombs used in Afghanistan did not explode on impact. [14253]

  Mr. Ingram
  The cluster bombs used in Afghanistan have not been prohibited by any treaty or convention and they are employed only against legitimate terrorist and military objectives where they are the most effective weapon to attack the target concerned. All types of munitions can fail in various ways and cluster bombs are no exception. However, it is not for Her Majesty's Government to comment on the performance of US weapons.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what communications have taken place between his Department and operational commanders involved in military actions in Afghanistan in respect of the clear labelling of yellow cluster bombs and yellow food parcels; and what plans there are to halt the use of cluster bombs by the Allied coalition forces involved in operations in Afghanistan. [14265]

  Mr. Ingram
  We are in close touch with the US on all aspects of the response to the 11 September attacks, including at the military planning level. I understand that the US authorities have recognised that there is a problem with bomblets from cluster bombs and food parcels both being yellow. They have, therefore, dropped leaflets with diagrams of the two explaining which should be approached and which avoided.

  Cluster bombs are legitimate weapons that have not been prohibited by any treaty or convention. There are no plans to halt their use against legitimate terrorist and military targets.

  Depleted Uranium
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 29 October 2001,Official Report, column 519W, which categories of nuclear weapons contain depleted uranium; and what the purpose is of including depleted uranium in these weapons. [14271]

  Dr. Moonie
  The UK Trident warheads for our nuclear deterrent contain depleted uranium. The purpose of this material is ultimately associated with the functioning of the warhead and the details are classified. For this reason I am withholding this information under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Procurement Contracts
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence with how many small and medium enterprises his Department has signed procurement contracts. [14115]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information is not held in the format requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The Ministry of Defence places around 50,000 contracts annually with a total value of around £9 billion.

  Smallpox Antidote
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what levels of smallpox antidote are held by his Department. [14120]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence does not hold a supply of smallpox vaccine.

  Military Supplies
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence by whom the review of military supplies will be conducted; and if he will make a statement. [14124]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence has been conducting an extensive review of all its logistic stockholdings to ensure consistency with defence planning assumptions. This work started over 12 months ago. In light of September 11, and as a standard military practice, we have reviewed the validity of that original work.

  Bowman
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date he expects the Bowman personal role radio to be in service. [14121]

  Dr. Moonie
  Following the successful employment of personal role radios by 45 Commando RM on Exercise Saif Sareea 2, we expect to meet the declared in-service date by the end of this year, some three months earlier than planned.

  Nuclear Warfare Strategy
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the UK's nuclear warfare strategy. [14117]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government's nuclear weapon policy was set out in the Strategic Defence Review.

  Indirect Fire Precision Attack
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Indirect Fire Precision Attack project. [14116]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Indirect Fire Precision Attack (IFPA) project will provide the Army with all-weather, 24-hour Indirect Fire System for the precision attack of targets at extended range. BAE Systems has been selected, after competition, as the preferred bidder to manage the Assessment Phase contract, which is expected to be placed in early 2002.

  On current plans we expect to decide whether to proceed into the demonstration and manufacturing stage in 2005. If so the first IFPA capability would be delivered in 2010 and full IFPA capability would then enter service after 2015, incrementally under Smart Acquisition.

  UK Airports (Military Protection)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what military protection is being offered to UK airports; and if he will make a statement. [14125]

  Mr. Ingram
  Responsibility for airport security rests with the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR), who are currently working on this issue in consultation with other Departments, including the Ministry of Defence. There are long-standing arrangements for the armed forces to provide support to the DTLR, should a specific threat arise.

  Civil National Infrastructure
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to deploy(a) armed forces personnel and (b) reservists to protect critical elements of the civil national infrastructure, other than nuclear power installations. [14118]

  Mr. Ingram
  Security of the critical elements of the civil national infrastructure rests with a number of Government Departments. The police may request the support of the armed forces to guard key installations should other resources prove insufficient. While we maintain close contact with the police, there have been no recent requests for this support.

  The possible deployment of the Territorial Army and reservists in this role will be considered during the development of the new chapter of the Strategic Defence Review, announced in the House on 4 October. This work will consider the requirement for additional resources, should this and/or other roles be identified, and the cost-effectiveness of the armed forces playing a greater part in this work.

  Forces Review
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which divisions of his Department are contributing to the Forces Review; and if he will make a statement. [14119]

  Mr. Hoon
  As I have made clear, the work we are conducting is not a new Strategic Defence Review. It is more the adding of a further chapter to the existing SDR to ensure that we have the right concepts, forces and
  525W
  capabilities in place to meet the additional challenges posed by asymmetric threats of the kind that we saw on 11 September.

  A wide range of individuals are taking part in the work from many areas of the Ministry of Defence, because of their current responsibilities and/or their wider knowledge and expertise. We are also involving other Government Departments and other experts. At this stage, the work is being led by the policy area within the MOD.

  Desert Combat Suits
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many desert combat suits are held at command ordnance depots. [14031]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are currently 53,647 pairs of desert trousers (across 27 sizes) and 118,490 desert jackets (across 13 sizes) held in UK ordnance depots. The Ministry of Defence does not hold information on the number of desert combat suits held in the Commonwealth depots.

  Army Foundation College
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which MOD sites are under consideration for the siting of a new Army Foundation College. [13932]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Army is currently examining options for improving its system of initial training, including the establishment of a second Army Foundation College, together with the provision of improved facilities that are appropriate for the future and for a range of abilities and age groups, to build in the success of the existing college at Harrogate. These options include the provision of a college through partnership with the private sector. As part of this process, the Army is considering options that include existing Ministry of Defence sites, to select a Public Sector Comparator for the project. I am withholding the details of the MOD sites in question in accordance with exemption 7 (Effective Management and Operations of the Public Service) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. If it were decided to pursue the partnership option, this would be announced

  Year

  Category of equipment

  Quantity

  1997

  Spares: grenade sight caps

  Information not held centrally

  Small arms ammunition

  In the order of 25 million rounds of ammunition

  1998

  Manual loader for air-to-ground missile

  60

  1999

  No contracts placed

  2000

  Concept Study

  Not applicable

  2001

  Anti-tank missile hardware for assessment trials

  14 missiles and associated equipment

  Overseas Entertainment
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) acts and (b) costs of artists performing for UK forces overseas, in the past five years. [14122]

  Mr. Ingram
  Information in the precise format requested is not held by the Ministry of Defence. Officials are, however, establishing with the Services Sound and Vision Corporation who organise "Combined Services Entertainment" details of the number of shows performed in each of the past five years, the overall cost for each 526W
  in the normal way through the Official Journal of the European Communities. It would then be open for any proposals for the college, including its location, to be put forward for consideration as part of the competitive process. We anticipate a variety of sites, including existing MOD and other locations, to be proposed.

  A decision on the way forward is unlikely before next year.

  Strategic Defence Review
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what procurement spending commitments implicit in the Strategic Defence Review he will meet. [14123]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence gave on 29 October 2001,Official Report, columns 513–14W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann).

  Defence Imports (Israel)
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what stage is the proposed purchase from Israel of the Gill-Spike anti-tank missile; what the results are of the tests of the missile by his Department in the UK and Canada; and if he will make a statement. [13667]

  Dr. Moonie
  Gill-Spike is already in service with the Israeli Ministry of Defence. The UK is currently evaluating Spike along with the US Javelin weapon to assess the most appropriate system to meet our requirement for medium range anti-tank guided weapons. The results of the trials will be considered, along with all other relevant factors including cost and time scales, before reaching a final decision. We expect to do so late next year.

  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the(a) quantity and (b) category of defence equipment purchased from Israel for each year from 1997. [13671]

  Dr. Moonie
  Since 1997, five contracts have been placed with prime contractors based in Israel:

  show and examples of artists who have performed. I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House. I am withholding costs of the artists performing for reasons of commercial confidentiality in accordance with Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  RAF Coltishall, Norfolk
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the security of personal items of service men at RAF Coltishall, Norfolk; and if he will make a statement. [14325]
  527W
  Mr. Ingram
  No assessment has been made of the security of personal items of serving personnel at RAF Coltishall, Norfolk. Service personnel are routinely briefed on how to ensure the security of their personal items.

  Challenger 2
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if halt drills for Challenger 2 require filters to be cleaned. [13764]

  Dr. Moonie
  The halt drills for the Challenger 2 main battle tank do not require filters to be cleaned. There is, however, a requirement to check the warning light for the filter indicators and replace filters as required.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes in halt drills have taken place since the introduction of Challenger 2. [13765]

  Dr. Moonie
  There have been some very minor changes to the halt drills since the introduction of the Challenger 2 main battle tank. These relate to checking the light source for the muzzle reference system and inspection of the main armament at periodic intervals.

TREASURY

  Pensioners (Buckingham)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people of pensionable age there are in the Buckingham constituency. [14210]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the national statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. John Bercow, dated 12 November 2001:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your question concerning how many people of pensionable age there are in the Buckingham constituency. (14210)
  ONS does not produce population estimates on parliamentary constituency boundaries. The smallest area level for which we produce population estimates is for local authorities.
  Mid 2000 estimates of the number of people of pensionable age in local authority areas area available in table 8 on the National Statistics website at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme population/PENo3/PENo3 v3.pdf

  Unemployment (Buckingham)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the level of unemployment was in the Buckingham constituency in(a) September 2000 and (b) September 2001. [14204]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the national statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. John Bercow, dated 12 November 2001:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question concerning the level of unemployment in the Buckingham constituency in September 2000 and September 2001. (14202)
  528W
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles statistics for unemployment from surveys following the internationally standard International Labour Organisation definition. However, for the Buckingham parliamentary constituency the survey sample size is too small to provide estimates. ONS also compiles statistics of claimants of unemployment-related benefits. The claimant count consists of all people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance or National Insurance credits at Employment Service local offices. They must declare that they are out of work, capable of, available for and actively seeking work during the week in which the claim is made.
  Between September 2000 and September 2001 the claimant count level in the Buckingham parliamentary constituency rose by 25 from 354 to 379.

  NIRS2
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the NIRS2 computer system to be fully operational. [11686]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The NIRS2 computer system is fully operational.

  VAT
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much additional VAT revenue was secured by shadow economy teams in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02 to date. [12206]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: The information is as follows:

  Additional VAT revenue

  £ million

  1999–2000

  43.6

  2000–01

  1—

  2001–02

  1—

  1 Data not yet available

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average case value was of cases of VAT fraud investigated by HM \plain\f3\fs18 Customs and Excise under the civil penalty procedure in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000, (d) 2000–01 and (e) 2001–02 to date; and if he will express the figures both in actual cash terms and in constant prices. [12211]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: The average values for VAT civil evasion cases are as follows:

  Year

  Number of cases

  Actual average value (£)

  At constant 2000–01 prices (£)

  1997–98

  898

  28,000

  30,000

  1998–99

  902

  32,000

  33,000

  1999–2000

  861

  35,000

  37,000

  2000–01

  729

  49,000

  49,000

  These figures are rounded to the nearest thousand. Figures for 2001–02 are not yet available.

  Budget Allocations
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what additional budget allocations have been made since 11 September to(a) the UK security services, (b) the

  529W
  Ministry of Defence, (c) the Department for International Development and (d) other Departments; and if he will make a statement; [9952]

  (2) what allocations have so far been approved out of the reserves for the financial years (a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [8931]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer, 25 October 2001]: The Chancellor has made it clear that the Government will meet the costs of measures related to our response to international terrorism, while continuing to deliver our spending plans within the fiscal rules. Any additions to departmental expenditure limits will continue to be reported to Parliament through the supplementary estimates process in the normal way.

  Tax Deduction
  Derek Conway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the basis is for the policy of allowing tax deducted from bank and building society deposits to be reclaimed, but not from dividends paid on shares and unit trusts; and if he will make a statement. [14085]

  Ruth Kelly
  Income tax is deducted at source from bank and building society interest, and the tax deducted can be reclaimed where a saver is not liable to pay it. There is no tax deduction at source from dividends, and so no tax to reclaim. Dividends carry a tax credit which satisfies the tax liability of investors with income up to the basic rate limit, but non-taxpayers cannot claim payment of this tax credit.

  Fuel Duties (Greater London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received as to the effect of fuel duties on businesses in the Greater London area in the last 12 months. [13441]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Chancellor receives many representations covering a wide range of issues including the impact of fuel duties upon the economy. These are given due consideration in the context of the Budget judgment.

  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if part-time employees or ex-employees who have been awarded backdated access to their occupational pension schemes, will be permitted to take the relevant tax relief for the year in which the contribution applied; and if he will relax sections 592 and 594 of the Taxes Act 1988 to permit such persons to make a one-off tax-free contribution of greater than the annual permitted amount. [13652]

  Ruth Kelly
  Part-time employees have always been able to join and contribute to tax approved pensions schemes on the same basis as other employees. Any restriction on the participation of part-time employees in an occupational pension scheme is as a result of scheme rules.

  It is up to employers and employees to settle how to give part-timers' rights to retrospective membership in occupational pension schemes, or agree equivalent compensation. In such cases there are no limits on the amounts of contributions which employers and employees
  530W
  may make to defined benefit occupational pension schemes. Employee contributions of up to 15 per cent. of the pay of the year of payment of contributions qualify for tax relief, as do all employer contributions.

  Customs and Excise (Officer Suspensions)
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Customs and Excise officers are suspended over allegations relating to a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice; and in which areas of the country they were based. [13715]

  Mr. Boateng
  Eight officers are suspended: at Leeds (six), Brighton (one) and London (one).

  Heroin Seizures
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much heroin seized in the last year in the United Kingdom was supplied from Pakistan; and whether this includes controlled deliveries by Customs and Excise from Pakistan to the United Kingdom. [13714]

  Mr. Boateng
  The complexity of smuggling routes means that Customs does not know the country of origin of all drug seizures. Of the heroin seized in the UK by Customs during the financial year 2000–01, 83 kg is recorded as having Pakistan as the known country of origin. It is not policy to give details of investigative techniques as that could prejudice the investigation and detection of crime.

  Customs and Excise (Controlled Deliveries)
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many operations conducted by HM Customs and Excise in relation to controlled deliveries are under legal review by independent counsel. [13716]

  Mr. Boateng
  HM Customs and Excise has asked independent counsel to advise on five controlled delivery cases.

  Debt Write-off
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to write off debts owed by the poorest countries; and if he will make a statement. [13459]

  Mr. Boateng
  The UK has consistently been at the forefront of the international debate on debt relief for developing countries. The UK pushed for the heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) initiative to be speeded up, and as a result 23 countries were receiving debt relief at the end of October. Those countries will receive $54 billion in debt relief, which will reduce their debts to below the developing country average.

  The UK's 100 per cent. bilateral policy on debt relief means that it stands ready to write off £1.9 billion of debt to all 42 HIPCs, and is one of the highest contributors to the HIPC trust fund.

  In addition, the Chancellor also announced last December that the UK would hold in trust any payments from those HIPCs yet to receive debt relief, and we continue to call on other creditor countries to follow our lead.

  Cigarette Imports
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the interpretation of the phrase, for own consumption, when applied to the import of cigarettes from the EU into the United Kingdom. [13193]

  Mr. Boateng
  The definition of "own use" and the circumstances whereby people travelling to the UK from other EU countries are entitled to bring into the UK without charge cigarettes which they have purchased tax-paid elsewhere in the EU are set out in the Excise Duties (Personal Reliefs) Order 1992.

  Equitable Life
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the estimate is of the cost of the Penrose inquiry in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [12842]

  Ruth Kelly
  No firm estimate has been made of the cost of the Penrose inquiry. Whatever resources are required by Lord Penrose will be made available to him.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff are employed on the Penrose inquiry(a) full-time and (b) part-time. [12841]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Penrose inquiry is an independent inquiry and the number of staff employed on it will be determined by the requirements of Lord Penrose. I understand that currently there are seven full-time and two part-time staff employed on the inquiry.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures are being taken to help improve manufacturing employment and the share of GDP produced by the manufacturing sector. [13002]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government are committed to creating and maintaining the right climate for businesses of all kinds to flourish, invest and grow. Since 1997, the Government's central economic objective has been to achieve high and stable levels of growth and employment. To this end, they have pursued macro-economic and enterprise policies which promote business activity, and which should contribute to higher productivity. The Government have been determined that we will not return to the damaging cycle of boom and bust, which created so much uncertainty and trapped businesses in a cycle of low investment and low productivity.

  Specific measures of benefit to manufacturing, in support of this objective, have been detailed in successive Budgets, pre-Budget reports and various White Papers, including "Opportunity for All in a World of Change" (Cm 5052) and "Excellence and Opportunity—A Science and Innovation Policy for the 21st Century" (Cm 4814).

  Tax Burdens
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what(a) discussions he has had with and(b) representations he has received from the social exclusion unit regarding the tax burden on families in the lowest income quintile. [12801]
  532W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government are committed to helping all families with children through the tax and benefit system, targeting the most support on those who need it most. The Treasury works closely with other Departments, including with the social exclusion unit, to help achieve this aim.

  As a result of personal tax and benefit measures since 1997, families with children in the lowest income quintile are on average £1,700 a year better off.

  Post Office Closures
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on financial exclusion among persons in the lowest income quintile resulting from sub-post office closures in(a) inner-city and (b) rural areas in the past four years. [12803]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government have made no such assessment.

  Consultation Documents
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many consultation documents were issued by his Department from(a) 15 October to 14 January, (b) 15 January to 14 April, (c) 15 April to 14 July and (d) 15 July to 14 October in each year from 1996. [12894]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave her on 24 October 2001,Official Report, columns 258–59W, and to the response to the question by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on 25 October 2001, Official Report, column 377W. Consultation documents from May 1997 are listed on the Treasury public website (www.hm-treasury.gov.uk). Providing information in the format requested and for dates before 1997 would incur disproportionate costs.

  Economic Growth
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the impact on(a) Government expenditure and (b) tax revenues of a 0.1 per cent. change in the economy's rate of growth (i) in the year in which that change is experienced and (ii) in subsequent years. [12868]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Treasury's estimates of the impact of the economic cycle on the public finances are set out in the publication, "Fiscal policy: public finances and the cycle", HM Treasury, March 1999.

  Privy Council Silver
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much Bonham and Brooks charged by way of(a) cancellation and (b) otherwise in respect of the withdrawal from their auction of 30 November of certain items of Privy Council silver. [12867]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury has engaged Bonham and Brooks to perform a programme of services relating to the valuation of assets as well as their sale. That engagement will continue. The fees payable will reflect the eventual overall outcome of the programme. No cancellation or other fee will be payable as a result of the recent withdrawals from auction.

  Graduate Incomes
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 31 October 2001,Official Report, column 888W, to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), on graduate incomes, if he will give estimate of the average gross weekly earnings of full time employees by age, broken down into (a) graduates and (b) non-graduates and (i) male and (ii) female in each category for spring 2000. [14275]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Lynne Jones, dated 12 November 2001:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the average gross weekly earnings of graduates and non-graduates (14275).
  The Labour Force Survey (LFS provides estimates of average gross weekly earnings for graduates and non-graduates. However, it only collects information about qualifications from respondents of working age (men aged 16–64 and women aged 16–59). Therefore, it does not provide estimates for female graduates and non-graduates aged 60 years or over.
  Estimates for male and female graduates and non graduates for spring (March to May) 2000 are given in the attached table.

  Average gross weekly earnings of full-time1 employees by age, gender and whether a graduate or non-graduate; United Kingdom; spring (March to May 2000); not seasonally adjusted

  £

  All full-time employees of working age2,3

  Graduates

  Non-graduates

  Male full-time employees aged:

  16–64 years

  426

  628

  370

  18 years

  152

  5—

  152

  22 years

  266

  300

  258

  30 years

  399

  480

  372

  40 years

  490

  813

  426

  50 years

  506

  746

  442

  60 years

  431

  5—

  382

  Female full-time employees aged:

  16–59 years

  313

  455

  276

  18 years

  160

  5—

  160

  22 years

  229

  250

  221

  30 years

  351

  450

  308

  40 years

  354

  5—

  313

  50 years

  322

  5—

  295

  60 years4

  —

  —

  —

  1 The definition of full-time/part-time is based on respondents' self-assessment

  2 Men aged 16–64 and women aged 16–59

  3 Includes people who did not state their qualifications

  4 Estimates for women aged 60 years are not available because the questions about qualifications only apply to people of working age

  5 Sample size too small for reliable estimate

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Breast Cancer
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the survival rates are for victims of breast cancer in(a) North Yorkshire, (b) Nottinghamshire, (c) Cumbria and (d) the United Kingdom at the latest date for which figures are available. [13381]
  534W
  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Miss Anne McIntosh, dated 12 November 2001:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning the survival rates for victims of breast cancer in North Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, Cumbria and the United Kingdom at the latest available date (13381).
  Figures on survival rates from cancer are not generally available for local authority areas, such as Nottinghamshire and Cumbria. However, the following five-year survival rates for women aged 15–99 diagnosed with breast cancer are available for health authority areas in England:
  figures for women diagnosed in the period 1991–1993 can be obtained from the Department of Health website at: www.doh.gov.uk/nhsperformanceindicators/hlpi2000/h1143t.html; and
  figures for women diagnosed in the period 1992–1994 are being made available at health authority level on the National Statistics website (www.statistics.gov.uk) from Monday 12th November.
  Information on five-year survival from breast cancer in the United Kingdom as a whole is not available. Separate figures are available for England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, based on women diagnosed during 1992–94, 1985–89, 1991–95, and 1993–96, respectively, and followed up to the end of 1999, 1994, 1998, and 1999, respectively. These are given in the following table. Because of differences in coverage and end of follow-up, and for other reasons, figures for the separate countries are not directly comparable and cannot be made so.
  Breast cancer in men is rare. Survival rates for men diagnosed 1986–90 and followed up to the end of 1995 have been published for NHS regions in England, and Wales, in Coleman MP et al., Cancer survival trends in England and Wales 1971–1995: deprivation and NHS Region. Series SMPS No. 61. London: The Stationery Office, 1999.

  Survival from breast cancer for women aged 15–99 in the United Kingdom

  Percentage

  Country

  5 year relative survival

  England

  75

  Wales1

  65

  Scotland

  75

  Northern Ireland

  78

  1 Females aged 0–84

  Sources:

  Office for National Statistics. Cancer survival 1992–1999, England. London: ONS, 31st January 2001

  Welsh Cancer Intelligence and Surveillance Unit. Cancer Registration and Survival in Wales 1985–1994. Cardiff: WCISU, 1999

  Scottish Cancer Intelligence Unit. Trends in Cancer Survival in Scotland 1971–1995. Edinburgh: Information & Statistics Division NHS in Scotland, 2000

  Fitzpatrick DA, Gavin AT. Survival of Cancer Patients in Northern Ireland 1993–1996. Belfast: Northern Ireland Cancer Registry, 2001

  Reserves
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much money remains in the reserves; and what plans he has to increase the funds available in the reserves over the course of the current financial year; [10259]

  (2) if he will provide a breakdown of how, and in what quantities, money available in the reserves has been spent so far in the current financial year. [10251]
  535W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Any additions to departmental expenditure limits will continue to be reported to Parliament through the supplementary estimates process in the normal way. The forthcoming pre-Budget report will set out the latest position on the public finances.

  Business Payroll Costs
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish the Carter review of payroll costs to business; and if he will make a statement. [13699]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said to him at Question Time on 8 November 2001,Official Report, column 363.

  Bank Disclosures
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 23 October 2001,Official Report, column 204W, on bank disclosures, what information he has received on the lending patterns in under-invested communities of (a) Lloyds TSB, (b) HSBC, (c) Nat West and (d) Barclays. [12447]

  Ruth Kelly
  Information on the lending patterns of banks to under-invested communities is available in the Bank of England's report "Finance for Small Businesses in Deprived Communities" (November 2000). It is a matter for individual banks to decide whether to disclose further information. I am aware that, of the banks mentioned in my hon. Friend's question, Barclays published some data in their "Social and Environmental Report 2000".

  Construction and Refurbishment Contracts
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the top 10 companies to which his Department contracted out their construction and refurbishment work in the last 12 months. [6417]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information is as follows:

  HM Treasury

  No such contracts were let in the period concerned.

  Office of Government Commerce

  Balfour Beatty Refurb. Ltd.

  DTZ

  Turner & Townsend Proj. Management

  Withey Building Services

  Cheetham Hill Construction Ltd.

  Interior Plc.

  VHE Construction Ltd.

  Kilby & Gayford Construction

  Paragon Interior Group Plc.

  Lambert Smith Hampton

  OGC Buying Solutions

  Spraybake Limited

  Hodge Clemco Ltd.

  HM Customs and Excise

  Interior Design Management

  Courtenay Building Cont.

  Spectrum Projects Ltd.

  Wates Interiors Ltd.

  Turner & Townsend Ltd.

  536W

  Connaught Interiors Ltd.

  Rosser & Russell

  John Laing Construction

  Simpson Ltd.

  British Airports Authority

  Inland Revenue

  HBG Management Ltd.

  Semple & Cochrane Ltd.

  George S. Hall Ltd.

  Instyle Construction Ltd.

  Interserve

  Drake & Scull Technical Services

  Malla Rail

  Taylor Woodrow Management Ltd.

  Trillium

  Bailey Maintenance Services.

  Motor Fuel Producers (Tax Income)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was raised in tax on motor fuel producers in each year since 1997. [14015]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates of tax receipts from motor fuel producers are not available.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to review the method for calculating business rates for small rural public houses. [14007]

  Dawn Primarolo
  None. Small rural public houses, along with other business properties, are assessed for non-domestic rating purposes by Valuation Officers, appointed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, in accordance with the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (as amended). The method of valuation for such properties is a matter for those involved in the assessment process; i.e. Valuation Officers, ratepayers and their professional advisers, and is subject to a right of appeal to an independent tribunal in the event of disagreement.

  Mr. James Sharp
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will refer the case of Mr. James Sharp, a constituent, to the Treasury Solicitor. [14005]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue Solicitor, not the Treasury Solicitor, advises the Valuation Office Agency on rating litigation and he has been instructed in this case.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the decision of the East Wales Valuation Tribunal in the case of Sharp v. Valuation Office. [14006]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Treasury does not assess decisions of the Valuation Tribunal. Valuation Tribunals are independent bodies set up to deal with disputes in connection with, inter alia, non-domestic rating matters. Appeals against their decisions lie to the Lands Tribunal. It would be inappropriate for the Treasury to intervene with these independent bodies.

  ECOFIN Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the outcome was of the ECOFIN Council held in Brussels on 6 November; what the Government' s stance was on each issue discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [13437]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I attended the ECOFIN Council.

  The Commission presented its communication on company taxation. I made it clear that while the Government might support some action to tackle barriers to cross-border business, they do not support the Commission's proposal for a consolidated company tax base in the EU. The specific proposals contained within the study will be considered in due course.

  The Commission presented its progress report on the Risk Capital Action Plan, highlighting the need for the EU to remove barriers to a single EU risk capital market. I stressed the UK's support for the objectives of the action plan, but expressed concern that the proposed prospectuses directive, as currently drafted, would have the effect of reducing the supply, and increasing the cost, of risk capital. The Council agreed that rapid progress on the Risk Capital Action Plan was necessary, in line with the timetable agreed at the Lisbon European Council.

  The Council noted Economic Policy Committee reports on the budgetary impact of aging populations and on the measurement of output gaps. It also noted a report from the Economic and Financial Committee on measures to improve the quality and timeliness of Eurozone statistics.

  The Council also adopted conclusions with respect to Ireland's compliance with the Council Recommendation of 12 February 2001, which recommended measures to bring the 2001 Irish budget in line with the 2000 Broad Economic Policy Guidelines. The Council agreed that the earlier Recommendation had lost part of its force, mainly due to exogenous shocks that have reduced inflationary pressures in the Irish economy.

  ECOFIN agreed that taxation of audiovisual and musical products should be examined by the Commission in the context of its wider review of VAT reduced rates, and not by the Culture Council, as taxation matters are for ECOFIN.

  No votes were taken at the meeting.

  IR35
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to review the 5 per cent. ceiling for tax exempt expenses under IR35. [13496]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Service company workers affected by the service company legislation are entitled to all the same expenses as conventional employees. In addition to these expenses, service company workers are also entitled to a 5 per cent. flat rate reduction in recognition of the fact that there are costs associated with running a service company. We have no plans to review the level of this deduction.

  Business Compliance Costs
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the Inland Revenue will measure compliance costs to business as referred to in Cm 407; and if he will make a statement. [10972]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on 31 October 2001,Official Report, column 746W.

  National Insurance Numbers
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many checks on national insurance numbers will have been completed by the end of 2001. [14130]

  Dawn Primarolo
  During the 1999–2000 tax year, 626,641 pay roll items were checked. Of these 288,924 errors were found and 6,223 cases were referred for potential fraud investigation.

  During the 2000–01 tax year, 1,035,796 payroll items were checked of which 770,308 were found to contain errors and 22,777 were referred for potential fraud investigation.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the role(a) the private sector and (b) the not-for-profit sector can play in the running of (i) English schools and (ii) English local education authorities; and if she will make a statement. [11485]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: Local authorities and schools can already contract with the private and voluntary sector to support schools. The White Paper "Schools: achieving success" proposes partnerships between schools, local authorities and partners who might in some cases be from the private or voluntary sector. But schools will continue to be managed by the governing body and headteacher, even where they are supported by expertise from other sources. Local education authorities should secure high quality services from the most cost-effective source available, in accordance with best value principles. Sources include the education authority itself, or partnerships with other public, voluntary or private sector bodies, both profit making and not for profit. Individual local education authorities remain responsible and accountable for the services concerned, however they are provided.

  Music Standards Fund
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many local authorities are receiving grants from the Music Standards Fund to provide instrumental tuition for pupils. [10045]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: All 150 local education authorities in England are receiving grants from the music standards fund. LEAs may spend

  539W
  their music standards fund grants in any way which enhances opportunities for pupils to access high quality musical education. This includes instrumental tuition.

  Early Years Excellence
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she will announce the result of the bid by Somerford Infant School and the Grange Neighbourhood Nursery Partnership for an early years excellence center. [13029]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 6 November]: 49 early excellence centers are now developing practice in integrated care, education and family services. Working closely with sure start and neighbourhood nurseries, we will create up to 100 centers across the country by 2004. On 27 February we announced an expansion of the programme and invited expressions of interest in joining it. On 1 October we announced 14 new centers—the first in a series of designations resulting from those expressions of interest. The proposal for a center at Somerford Infant School as part of the Grange neighbourhood nursery scheme was, at this stage, considered not yet ready to join the programme. Along with other proposals in need of further work Somerford Infant School was invited to develop its plans further. We are now considering proposals as part of a next batch of EEC designations and expect to make further announcements in the new year.

  GCSE Grades
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of children achieved five or more GCSEs at A* to C grades in (a) schools with sixth forms and (b) schools without sixth forms, in 2001. [11538]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: The proportion of 15-year-olds that achieved five or more GCSEs at A* to C was (a) 52.2 per cent. in schools with sixth forms and (b) 42.2 per cent. in schools without sixth forms in England in 2001.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will give a breakdown of the number of lone parents leaving the New Deal for Lone Parents for employment who have(a) at least one child below the age of five years three months and (b) all children aged over five years three months, for each month since the inception of the New Deal. [9679]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information is in the table.

  Numbers leaving the new deal for lone parents into employment Great Britain up to July 2001

  Age of youngest child1

  Month

  Under 5 years and 3 months

  5 years 3 months and over

  December 1998

  33

  34

  January 1999

  75

  73

  February 1999

  98

  98

  March 1999

  143

  138

  April 1999

  198

  227

  May 1999

  217

  247

  540W

  Numbers leaving the new deal for lone parents into employment Great Britain up to July 2001

  Age of youngest child1

  Month

  Under 5 years and 3 months

  5 years 3 months and over

  June 1999

  255

  312

  July 1999

  434

  559

  August 1999

  411

  524

  September 1999

  410

  507

  October 1999

  682

  919

  November 1999

  859

  1,061

  December 1999

  1,302

  1,643

  January 2000

  883

  1,099

  February 2000

  707

  928

  March 2000

  1,109

  1,368

  April 2000

  869

  983

  May 2000

  926

  1,147

  June 2000

  1,163

  1,319

  July 2000

  965

  1,188

  August 2000

  907

  1,065

  September 2000

  989

  1,131

  October 2000

  1,148

  1,345

  November 2000

  1,396

  1,637

  December 2000

  1,414

  1,689

  January 2001

  967

  1,124

  February 2001

  815

  974

  March 2001

  1,186

  1,359

  April 2001

  903

  1,011

  May 2001

  1,028

  1,123

  June 2001

  1,192

  1,275

  July 2001

  955

  1,052

  Total

  24,639

  29,159

  1Age of youngest child when attended initial interview

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Civil Service
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many full-time employees work in the civil service. [14331]

  Mr. Leslie
  The most recent data were published on 8 November 2001. This showed that in April 2001 there were 436,400 full-time permanent staff in the civil service. There were also 11,400 full-time staff employed on a casual basis, bringing the total to 447,800.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Computer Crime
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many cases of computer(a) hacking, (b) fraud and (c) theft her Department recorded in (i) 2000 and (ii) 2001; and on how many occasions in those years computer systems have been illegally accessed by computer hackers (A) within and (B) outside his Department. [13133]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 31 October 2001,Official Report, columns 692–93W.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to extend the no-fly zone at Sellafield. [13229]
  541W
  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 8 November 2001]: There are no plans to extend the flying restrictions applying to Sellafield at the present time. Flying restrictions over Sellafield prohibit aircraft from flying over the nuclear installation below a height of 2,200 feet above mean sea level in a two nautical mile radius. The regulations currently applying are the Air Navigation (Restriction of Flying) (Nuclear Installations) Regulations 2001 which came into force on 11 May 2001. The regulations do not prohibit flights for the purpose of landing at or taking off from the helicopter landing area at the installation. Such flights are made with the permission of the person in charge of the installation and in accordance with any conditions to which that permission is subject.

  Mr. Chaytor: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the B215 building at the Sellafield site has been designed to resist a plane crash. [13231]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 8 November 2001]: All nuclear licensees are required by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), the safety regulator, to ensure that they maintain valid safety cases for operations on each of their sites. Safety cases need to take due account of external hazards such as plane crashes at nuclear installations. HSE is satisfied that the safety case applying to the Sellafield site, including building 215, took appropriate account of the risks of an accidental air crash.

  The UK's civil nuclear sites apply stringent security measures regulated by the Office for Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS), the security regulator. The security regulator works closely with the Health and Safety Executive, the safety regulator, which provides advice on the safety implications of events, including external hazards such as plane crashes, at nuclear installations. Security and safety precautions at nuclear sites are kept under regular review. Both regulators are reviewing all relevant precautions in the light of the recent terrorist attacks in the USA. It is not Government policy to disclose details of security measures taken at civil nuclear sites.

  Employment Agencies
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received on the draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2001; what assessment she has made of the effect of such regulations on employment agencies and businesses; and if she will make a statement. [14223]

  Alan Johnson
  We received representations from workers' organisations, employers' bodies, trade associations, agencies, employment businesses, individuals and other interested parties. The regulatory impact assessment for the draft conduct regulations found that they should reduce recruitment costs for employers across the economy, and make the labour market more efficient and flexible. In addition, clarifying the contractual position of temporary workers will help ensure they get the employment rights to which they are entitled.

  Our objective in overhauling the existing regulations, which date from 1976, is simpler, clearer, regulations, which are relevant to the market of today and of the future. The proposed new regulations are in many cases updated versions of existing requirements. They are designed to benefit recruitment agencies, those employed
  542W
  through them and hirers. They will remove unnecessary restrictions on agencies' operations and the services they offer, while protecting the interests of work-seekers and vulnerable groups.

  Paternity Leave
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement about the provision of paternity leave for fathers of multiple births. [13654]

  Alan Johnson
  The Employment Bill introduced on 7 November includes a new right to two weeks' paid paternity leave for fathers following the birth of their child. The Bill includes provisions for regulations to be made to address cases where more than one child is born as a result of the same pregnancy. Future regulations will cover these special circumstances.

  Royal Ordnance (Chorley)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what priority the Royal Ordnance site has been given in order to promote the use of a brownfield site. [13749]

  Alan Johnson
  A very high priority has been given to the Royal Ordnance site, which is identified as one of 11 strategic sites in the North West Development Agency's regional strategy. A large part of the site has already been acquired by a development consortium, and Chorley Borough Council are currently in negotiations with the present owner to acquire 50 hectares of the site for re-use as a major inward investment site. This will see the return of one of the largest brownfield sites in Lancashire to productive use.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment the North West Regional Development Agency has made of the benefits involved with the use of the Royal Ordnance site in Chorley. [13748]

  Alan Johnson
  Chorley borough council, with the backing of the North West Development Agency, are currently negotiating the purchase of part of the Royal Ordnance site. Officers of the North West Development Agency are working closely with the Council to assess the likely costs and benefits of converting the site to make it suitable for inward investment.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has for the future use of the site at Bradwell power station. [13378]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 8 November 2001]: None. The site belongs to BNFL, which has announced publicly its planned lifetime limits for Magnox power stations. The power station at Bradwell is due to stop generating electricity next year.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received proposing the building of new nuclear power stations; and what plans she has for the construction of new nuclear power stations. [13271]
  543W
  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 8 November 2001]: My Department has no plans to build nuclear power stations nor has it received any proposals from electricity generating companies to do so.

  Universal Bank
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if all those in receipt of benefit pension and tax credit payments will be automatically eligible for a Post Office card account after the introduction of the Universal Bank. [12684]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: It is the Government's policy to encourage people to use the type of account which is most appropriate for their needs. The Post Office card account is intended primarily for people who are unable or unwilling to open even a basic bank account, and it is the Government's intention to promote the take up and use of basic and other bank accounts. As a consequence, this matter is being considered within the context of an overall migration and marketing strategy on which a great deal of work is currently under way.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post offices there are in each parliamentary constituency; and how many of them derive more than 40 per cent. of their income from the Benefits Agency. [10740]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: I have been advised by Consignia that they do not hold figures on post office numbers by parliamentary constituency. The latest information available remains a special exercise undertaken by the Post Office in 1999 to determine the numbers of post offices in each parliamentary constituency and how many of them derived more than 40 per cent. of their income from the Benefits Agency.

  Consignia have not repeated his exercise but the answer was set out in the reply given to the then hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington on 29 November 1999, Official Report, column 22W.

  Ilisu Dam
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with the Prime Minister in relation to export credit guarantee to underwrite the Ilisu Dam project; and when the last discussion took place. [13464]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have had no discussions with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in relation to export credit guarantee to underwrite the Ilisu Dam project.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment she has made of the human rights impact of the Ilisu Darn project in Turkey; [13465]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the progress made in providing relocation packages for people who would need to be resettled as a result of the Ilisu Dam project in Turkey; [13467]
  544W
  (3) if she will make a statement on how the Ilisu Darn project in Turkey meets each of the four conditions that the Government have set for export credit guarantees; [13466]

  (4) what assessment she has made of the progress made in ensuring that the Ilisu Dam in Turkey will not cut off water supplies to Syria and Iraq in times of drought. [13468]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have commissioned reports from independent consultants on the environmental impact assessment report and the resettlement action plan prepared in respect of the Ilisu Dam project. These reports, together with comments received from the public, are being considered and discussed with other Government Departments with an interest in the project, in particular the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. When our consideration is complete, I will make a statement. No date has been set for a decision regarding ECGD support for the project.

  Flexible Working Hours
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to give employees the right to request flexible working hours; and if she will make a statement. [11696]

  Alan Johnson
  In my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's reply to the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) on 28 June 2001,Official Report, column 149W, she announced the formation of the Work and Parents Taskforce to look at how parents and employers can be encouraged to consider flexible working patterns that suit them both. The Taskforce is due to report this month. The Government hope to respond to the Taskforce's recommendations soon after.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make it her policy to ensure that all letters sent by Ministers in her Department to hon. Members are signed by the Minister replying or by one of his or her private secretaries and that the use of facsimile signatures inserted by computer is abandoned. [13259]

  Ms Hewitt
  I can confirm that I have asked that all letters sent by Ministers in my Department to hon. Members, other than letters which are going to all or a large number of MPs and communications sent by e-mail. are approved and signed in person by the Minister, or approved by the Minister and signed by their private secretary.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will reply to the letters dated 21 July and 25 September from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan regarding Whitelink Seafoods, Fraserburgh. [9983]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 25 October 2001]: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade replied to the hon. Gentleman's letters of 21 July and 25 September on 7 November.

  She will write further to explain why there was such an exceptional delay in this correspondence.

  Sub-post Offices
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the funding of sub-post offices. [13061]

  Mr. Alexander
  To start the implementation of all the recommendations of the Performance and Innovation Unit, the Government have committed £270 million of support over three years for modernisation of the post office network. That ring fenced funding is being allocated in accordance with an agreed robust business case from Post Office Ltd.

  £15 million has been earmarked for the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions to help sustain and improve post offices in deprived urban areas. Up to £25 million has been allocated this financial year for the Government General Practitioner ("Your Guide") trial in Leicestershire which began in July.

  The Government are committed to providing transitional financial assistance to rural post offices and decisions on this will be taken following advice from the Postal Services Commission which is expected in the weeks to come. In addition we have made available a £2 million fund to support volunteer and community initiatives to maintain or reopen post office facilities in rural areas where traditional services would otherwise close.

  Royal Mail
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list those parts of the country in which the Royal Mail has withdrawn a morning collection in the last 12 months. [12590]

  Mr. Alexander
  Under the terms of the licence issued by the independent regulator, the Postal Services Commission, to Consignia to provide postal services, the company is required to make at least one collection of relevant postal packets every working day from each access point. Subject to this requirement the timing and number of collections is an operational issue for Consignia.

  I am advised that changes to the frequency of mail collections are being assessed on an area by area basis and that therefore no national data are available in the format requested.

  Nuclear Security
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to ensure the security of nuclear power stations. [13473]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 9 November 2001]: The UK's civil nuclear sites apply stringent security measures regulated by the Office for Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS), the security regulator. The security regulator works closely with the Health and Safety Executive, the safety regulator, which provides advice on the safety implications of events, including external hazards such as plane crashes, at nuclear installations. Security and safety precautions at nuclear sites are kept under regular review. Both regulators are reviewing all relevant precautions in the light of the recent terrorist attacks in the USA. It is not Government policy to disclose details of security measures taken at civil nuclear sites.

  Greenhouse Gases
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in setting up a greenhouse gases emissions trading scheme. [12816]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  In August 2001, DEFRA published the Framework for the UK Emissions Trading Scheme, which sets out the structure of the scheme and what firms need to do to participate. The UK scheme will be the first economy-wide emissions trading scheme in the world.

  Currently, we are in the pre-registration period. Firms are registering their interest in the scheme and approaching the Department about their eligibility for joining. For those firms taking on voluntary absolute emissions caps, there is also the opportunity to prepare to bid for a share of the up to £43 million per annum incentive offered by Government. The incentive will be allocated via an auction early next year. Emissions trading will go-live in April 2002. Several forward trades have already taken place.

PRIME MINISTER

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations he has received from the Performance and Information Unit regarding progress towards meeting the Government's targets for renewable energy supply; and if he will make a statement. [13273]

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Prime Minister when the Cabinet Office report on UK energy needs will be published; and if he will make a statement. [13881]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 8 November 2001]: The Performance and Innovation Unit has published its analysis of how to allocate the extra £100 million support to boost the development of the UK renewable energy industry. This money will help us reach our target that 10 per cent. of electricity sales by licensed suppliers will come from renewable sources eligible for the renewables obligation by 2010.

  The unit is conducting a wide ranging analysis of the UK's energy needs. It will be presenting its findings to me by the end of the year.

  Public Policy
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Prime Minister what the(a) names and (b) functions are of the units dealing with the formulation and the delivery of public policy which are answerable to (i) the Prime Minister, (ii) the Deputy Prime Minister and (iii) Ministers in the Cabinet Office. [13181]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 8 November 2001]: For information on my office, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 19 October 2001, Official Report, column 1361W.

  For details about the Deputy Prime Minister and Ministers in the Cabinet Office, I refer the hon. Member to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Deputy

  547W
  Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on 11 July 2001, Official Report, column 573W.

  On Friday 9 November I announced that Baroness Morgan would join my office as the new Head of Political and Government Relations in Downing Street. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) will take over the Ministerial responsibilities within the Cabinet Office for equal opportunities and the Women's Unit, reporting to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry as the Cabinet Minister with responsibility for this area. My hon. Friend will continue to report to the Deputy Prime Minister on, her existing responsibilities.

  Policy Co-ordination
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Prime Minister how many civil servants working directly for(a) the Prime Minister, (b) the Deputy Prime Minister and (c) Ministers in the Cabinet Office are responsible for the central co-ordination and progress of policy. [13180]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 8 November 2001]: As at 1 September 2001, there were 27 civil servants and special advisers working in the Policy Directorate, European Adviser's Office and Foreign Adviser's Office in No. 10. In the Cabinet Office, there were 244 in the Cabinet Secretariats; 12 in the Delivery Unit; 20.5 in the Deputy Prime Minister's Central Policy Group; 62 in the Regional Co-ordination Unit; 39 in the Social Exclusion Unit, and 40 in the Women and Equality Unit and the Equality Secretariat.

  Departmental Changes
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Prime Minister in respect of each Government Department which has been renamed or had its responsibilities altered since the last general election, what the purpose of the changes was; and if he will make a statement. [13182]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 8 November 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on 2 July 2001, Official Report, column 31W.

  European Leaders
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his meeting with European leaders at No. 10 Downing street on 4 November. [13637]

  The Prime Minister
  This was a useful and productive discussion, and an important part of our effort to keep in close touch with partners in the campaign against terrorism.

  Fishery Harbours
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on departmental responsibility for fishery harbours. [14741]

  The Prime Minister
  The Transfer of Functions (Fishery Harbours) Order 2001 was laid before Parliament today. It transfers legislative responsibility for English fishery harbours from the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions.
  548W
  The transfer follows a recommendation of the 1998 Review of Trust Ports, and will improve the efficiency of the Government's involvement in harbour legislation. A consultation exercise showed wide support for the transfer.

  Work Force Development
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Prime Minister when he will publish the Performance and Innovation Unit report on work force development. [14240]

  The Prime Minister
  The PIU report on work force development is expected to be published by the end of the year.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Performance and Innovation Unit's review of the legal and regulatory framework for voluntary organisations. [13897]

  The Prime Minister
  I announced details of the review in the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) on 3 July 2001,Official Report, column 93W.

  As part of the consultation process, public events have been held in London, Manchester, Llandrindod Wells, Edinburgh and Belfast. There have also been a number of seminars with experts in the field. To encourage wider participation the review team is also posting working papers on the Performance and Innovation Unit's website for comment (http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/innovation/2001/charity/main.shtml).

HEALTH

  Care Standards (Young Adults)
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the financial impact will be on individual homes and local authorities of implementing national care standards for younger adults. [9498]

  Jacqui Smith
  It is not possible to quantify the effect on individual homes of implementing the national minimum standards for younger adults. For some there will be none, for some others the effects will be minimal.

  The resources provided for personal social services are increasing by, on average, 3.4 per cent. per annum in real terms over the next three years. We expect home owners will cover the costs of meeting the standards through the fees they charge. Local authorities are funded to meet these additional costs.

  GPs
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new GPs were recruited in 1999–2000 and 2000–01. [9092]

  Mr. Hutton
  The latest data available are for September 2000. Data for September 2001 will be available at the end of January 2002. The information is shown in the table. The number of general practitioners
  549W
  registrars (GPs in training) increased from 1,520 in September 1999 to 1,659 in September 2000, an increase of 9.1 per cent.

  Unrestricted Principals and Equivalents (UPEs)1 analysis of workforce and flows, 1999–2000

  England

  Numbers

  1999–2000

  UPEs

  27,5912

  27,7042

  joiners

  1,203

  of which:

  new joiners

  958

  re-joiners

  245

  leavers

  1,090

  Change in UPEs

  113

  1UPEs includes GMS unrestricted principals, PMS contracted GPs and PMS salaried GPs

  2Number of UPEs are numbers at 1 October 1999 and 30 September 2000

  Other rows relate to changes between successive October/September censuses

  Source:

  Department of Health General Medical and Personal Medical Services Statistics

  Student Nurses
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the timetable of his review of funding for student nurses. [10935]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department completed its review last year and following this Ministers considered options for amendment of the current support arrangements. Following the announcement in the March 2001 Budget of additional funding for the National Health Service, the decision was made to direct extra money to all NHS funded students, using an across the board increase in basic bursary rates, rather than targeting specific groups. With effect from September this year bursary rates were increased by 10.4 per cent., the biggest increase since bursaries were introduced in the late 1980s.

  Head Injury
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to commission research into the incidence and prevalence of head injury. [11667]

  Ms Blears
  The Department has supported, and continues to support, research into head injury through the national health service research programmes. The Department welcomes high quality research applications in response to nationally advertised calls for proposals.

  In 1999–2000 the Medical Research Council spent almost £2 million on research related to the area of head injury. Priorities for research are kept under review and reflect analysis of the burden of disease, potential benefits and Government priorities.

  Departmental Assets
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what stocks of(a) antiques, (b) paintings and (c) fine wines are held by his Department; if he will list such assets sold over the last three years together with the sale proceeds from such transactions; what plans he has to sell
  550W
  further such assets over the period of the current comprehensive spending review; and if he will make a statement. [10832]

  Ms Blears
  The Department does not held any stocks of antiques, paintings and fine wines and no such assets have been sold over the last three years.

  Eye Tests
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve access to NHS eye tests. [12377]

  Jacqui Smith
  Since we extended eligibility to free national health service sight tests to people aged 60 or over, with effect from April 1999, nearly 3 million more people are receiving NHS sight tests each year. We have no plans to extend the eligibility criteria further, but we wish to publicise the benefits to eye health of having a regular sight test and eye examination.

  Strategic Health Authorities
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health within which statutory format the proposed strategic health authorities will operate from April 2002. [12367]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: We plan to bring forward a bill in the current Session to provide the necessary powers to introduce strategic health authorities and to reallocate current health authority functions to primary care trusts. Subject to parliamentary approval strategic health authorities will be introduced as soon as possible after Royal Assent.

  The reduction in the number of health authorities from April 2002 will be achieved using existing powers under section 8 of the National Health Service Act 1977.

  MRI Scanners
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the sources of expenditure were on new linear accelerators and MRI scanners in each of the last two years. [12714]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: Some £43 million has been made available for linear accelerators and some £26 million for MRI scanners from the New Opportunities Fund cancer initiative from September 1999 to date. These sums have purchased 57 linear accelerators and 36 MRI scanners. In parallel, the £100 million national health service central fund initiative for cancer diagnostic equipment which began in April 2000 is supporting investment in CT scanners.

  These sums are in addition to equipment purchased locally by NHS trusts. Full information is not held centrally, but at least eight linear accelerators and 26 MRI scanners supported by trust funding have been installed over the same period.

  Future NHS funding for 45 linear accelerators and 50 MRI scanners is also planned as announced in the NHS Cancer Plan.

  NHS Patients
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health with which EU nations his Department has had discussions over the treatment of NHS patients. [12704]
  551W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: The Department has had discussions with all other member states on the financial consequences of treatments provided under Regulation (EEC) 1408/71, including referrals of individual patients for treatment using the E112 arrangements.

  Following recent rulings of the European Court of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State notified both the Commission and other member states of his decision to amend domestic legislation to clarify that health authorities and trusts may commission treatment from other member states of the European Economic Area. Officials have since met or corresponded with representatives of hospital providers from Austria, Belgium, France, Greece, the Netherlands, Germany, Portugal, Spain and Norway.

  Nursing Care
  Mr Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons(a) the consultation process on free nursing care arrangements ran for four weeks and (b) the consultations on care standard regulations ran for 10 weeks. [13154]

  Mr. Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 9 November 2001]: Consultation on the care standards regulations lasted for a period of 12 weeks and this is the usual amount of time for carrying out a consultation. However, on free nursing care, it was necessary, exceptionally, to reduce the period of formal consultation to four weeks in order to ensure that individuals could benefit financially from these arrangements from 1 October. In recognition of this, extra efforts were made to ensure that those most interested were aware of the consultation. Many organisations were sent copies of the guidance and invited to comment. Requests to extend the deadline from individuals and organisation were viewed sympathetically.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health authorities, primary care groups and primary care trusts had not appointed(a) a nursing home co-ordinator and (b) a lead nurse by 1 November. [13158]

  Mr. Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 9 November 2001]: As far as we are aware, all the relevant English health authorities and primary care trusts have people in place to fill these roles.

  NHS Trusts (Franchises)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria he will use to determine when an NHS trust might be made subject of a franchise arrangement. [13510]

  Mr. Hutton
  if a national health service body is not performing one of its functions adequately or at all, or there are significant failings in the way the trust is being run my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has the powers, under section 13 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001, to intervene.

  In the case of NHS trusts that have recently received a zero star performance rating they are required to provide an action plan, agreed with the Department, to address the particular areas of performance which they need to improve. Franchise arrangements will only be considered if these trusts fail to make progress against their action plan.

  GP Partnerships
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many applicants there were on average for a general practitioner's partnership in 1985; how many there were on average in the last 12 months; what representations he has had from general practitioner about difficulties filling vacancies in their practices; and what is the average time taken to fill such vacancies. [14241]

  Mr. Hutton
  There were an average of 6.9 applicants per general practitioner vacancy outstanding at some stage during the period 1 April 2000 and 31 March 2001 in England and Wales.

  The average time to fill each GP vacancy was 4.8 months.

  There is no information available on the average number of applicants in 1985.

  The Department regularly meets the General Practitioner Committee of the British Medical Association to discuss issues affecting recruitment and retention.

  Nurses
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many low cost housing units for nurses in London have been found by the Department's housing tsar. [14112]

  Mr. Hutton
  802 units have been provided so far with agreements signed for a further 120 units due for occupation next year. We are well on target to deliver the additional 2000 units of affordable housing units for national health service staff in London which is the target set in the NHS Plan. We expect to exceed this target.

  In addition London NHS trusts are refurbishing 2,500 units in London, and 2,300 units of accommodation will be provided in London as part of the starter home initiative which will benefit some 5,000 NHS key workers. Overall we will have helped 7,500 individual staff in the NHS by mid-2003.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing posts there are(a) in the UK and (b) in London; and how many unfilled vacancies there are. [14111]

  Mr. Hutton
  As at 31 March 2001 there were 9,000 (3.4 per cent.) qualified nursing and midwifery posts in England which had been vacant for three months or more. The equivalent figure for the London area was 2,960 (6.4 per cent.).

  Information on vacancies for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland is a matter for the devolved Assemblies.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the NHS budget was spent on mental health in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000, (d) 2000–01 and (e) the current year to date. [13855]

  Jacqui Smith
  Spend on mental health services as a percentage of total national health service spend was 12.3 per cent. in 1997–98, 12.1 per cent. in 1998–99 and 12.5 per cent. in 1999–2000. Information from health authorities and NHS trusts for subsequent years is not yet available.
  553W
  The figure given for 1999–2000 is not directly comparable to previous years or future years, 1999–2000 represents the first year that primary care group expenditure was included in the calculation and the formula used to apportion the expenditure was based on estimated data. In future years the data for primary care groups will be more detailed and the resultant figure for percentage spend will be more accurate.

  MRSA
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the incidence of methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus in hospitals was in each of the last five years. [13504]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) on 25 October 2001,Official Report, columns 341–42W.

  Health Spending
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  T o ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the UK is spending on health as a percentage of GDP in the current financial year; and what the comparable figures are for(a) Spain, (b) France, (c) Germany and (d) Italy. [13479]

  Mr. Hutton
  For the year 2001–02, total health spending in the United Kingdom is estimated to be 7.3 per cent. of gross domestic product.

  The best available comparable data for other countries comes from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The latest data for Spain, France, Germany and Italy are for 1998, and in calendar years rather than financial years. The spend as a percentage of gross domestic product of these countries and the United Kingdom can be seen in the table.

  Percentage

  Country

  1998

  Spain

  7.0

  France

  9.3

  Germany

  10.3

  Italy

  7.7

  United Kingdom

  6.8

  Source:

  OECD Health Data 2001

  NHS Trusts (Franchises)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what performance measures will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of a franchise arrangement. [13509]

  Mr. Hutton
  If a national health service body is required to enter into a franchise arrangement under Section 13 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001, it will be expected to agree an action plan with the Department that addresses its particular areas of weakness. Successful implementation of the action plan will be the key criterion in evaluating the effectiveness of franchise arrangements.

  National Blood Service
  Mr. Havard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the National Blood Service's appropriate use of 554W
  blood and blood components group contingency plans for prolonged periods of blood shortages will be published for consultation. [13507]

  Mr. Hutton
  Consultation is currently taking place with health professionals who use blood to establish what measures are practicable to introduce into the national health service.

  Mr. Havard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the National Blood Service's appropriate use of blood and blood components group plans to minimize the risk of transfusion-transmitted vCJD. [13506]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Blood Service appropriate use of blood group aims to minimise the theoretical risk of transfusion-transmitted vCJD by ensuring that blood and blood components are only ever transfused when clinically indicated. This is in addition to measures introduced by the Government to reduce the theoretical risk of transmitting vCJD through blood—leucodepletion of blood for transfusion and the importation from the United States of America of plasma for fractionation.

  Mr. Havard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what kind of blood substitute therapies and alternatives to blood transfusions the National Blood Service's appropriate use of blood and blood components group is examining; and who it is consulting on these matters. [13505]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Blood Service appropriate use of blood group is looking at simple pre-operative measures to avoid the need for transfusion, including assessment of haemoglobin levels to determine whether transfusion is necessary; correcting anaemia with appropriate vitamin and iron supplements; volume replacement with solutions other than blood components and autologous blood transfusion in all its forms.

  The group is carrying out wide consultation with experts in the field both inside and outside the National Blood Service including the Jehovah's Witnesses Hospital Liaison branch.

  The four United Kingdom Chief Medical Officers held a "Better Blood Transfusion" conference on 29 October 2001. The main aim of the conference was to help set the priorities for blood transfusion in the national health service for the coming three to five years. One of the important issues discussed was how to avoid the unnecessary use of blood in clinical practice in the face of decreasing supplies and numbers of blood donors. We will be taking work forward on this and other issues considered at the conference and further guidance will be issued to the NHS in 2002. Information about the conference is available on www.doh.gov.uk/bbt2

HOME DEPARTMENT

  DNA Databases
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on the creation, maintenance and retention of DNA databases in combating terrorism in the United Kingdom. [13409]
  555W
  Mr. Denham
  Our policy on DNA is the same for combating all crime. The Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 included an amendment modifying the restriction on the use of DNA taken under the provisions of the Terrorism Act in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, to allow their use additionally for the prevention and detection of any crime, the investigation of any offence or the conduct of any investigation.

  The fingerprint and DNA databases are registered with the Data Protection Registrar and information stored on them is covered by data protection legislation. Additional safeguards ensure that this information can only be used for the prevention and detection of a crime, the investigation of an offence and the conduct of a prosecution.

  Strangeways
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the handcuffing of a prisoner at Strangeways during his chemotherapy treatment for cancer at North Manchester General Hospital. [13406]

  Beverley Hughes
  Following a risk assessment, a prisoner receiving treatment at the North Manchester General Hospital was released on temporary licence so that he could receive treatment without escort and without the application of any restraints. However, he breached the conditions of his licence by disappearing from the permitted area of the hospital, and his licence was revoked pending a full reassessment of risk to the public. During this period, lasting six days, he was handcuffed and escorted by prison staff. On completion of the risk assessment, the Governor was satisfied that the prisoner had not deliberately breached his licence conditions. He was therefore again released on licence and all security measures have been withdrawn. It is Prison Service policy that restraints should normally be removed at the request of medical staff. No such requests were made in this case.

  Imitation Firearms
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to restrict the availability of imitation firearms. [13261]

  Mr. Denham
  There are already serious penalties for threatening someone with an imitation firearm, or for using one to resist arrest or with criminal intent. In view of the considerable legal and practical issues involved the Government are not persuaded that fresh legislative measures are warranted. We will, however, continue to look at what further measures might usefully be taken to tackle misuse.

  Anthrax Attacks
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hoax anthrax attacks have been reported since 11 September; and if he will make a statement. [13026]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: The Metropolitan Police started recording the number of hoax anthrax attacks on 9 October, with the rest of the United Kingdom's police forces following suit on 19 October.
  556W
  Since then, there have been 2,700 false alarms, scares, threats and hoaxes relating to suspicious packages and mail items.

  With the exception of Halloween, these incidents have dropped significantly since 23 October.

  Passport Fees
  Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on passport fees. [14334]

  Angela Eagle
  The Privy Council has made an Order in Council, the Consular Fees (Amendment) Order 2001, which gives authority for an increase in passport fees in the United Kingdom. The increase will take effect on 14 January 2002. The fee for a standard 32 page passport will increase from £28 to £30 and for a 48 page passport from £38 to £40. The fee for amending an existing passport will increase from £17 to £18. The cost of a passport for a child will increase from £14.80 to £16. The additional charge for those making applications in person in the United Kingdom will increase from £12 to £15. The fee for a collective passport, for organised trips for schools and youth groups, will increase from £40 to £42.

  Two new services will be introduced for 14 January 2002 at passport office public counters. A one week guaranteed service will cost an additional £15. A same day premium service will cost an additional £30.

  This is the first increase in passport fees for two years. In relation to the cost of travel abroad, a fee of £30 for a standard 10 year passport still represents very good value for money.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many publications were issued by his Department in each of the last four years. [11834]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The number of publications issued each year by the Home Office Communication Directorate (CD) and the Research, Development and Statistics Directorate (RDS) since 1999 are as follows:

  Financial year

  Total number of publications issued by CD and RDS

  1 April 1999–31 March 2000

  443

  1 April 2000–31 March 2001

  439

  1 April 2001–to date1

  373

  1 31 October 2001

  Figures are provided for the period from 1 April 1999. Before this date production was not centralised and it is therefore not possible to provide a complete list of publications prior to this date.

  The publications produced reflect the full range of Home Office responsibilities, including for example, police recruitment and crime prevention materials, research reports, publications issued to victims of crime and advice on fire safety issues.

  Youth Offender Panels
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase
  557W
  the use of youth offender panels; what steps he has taken to increase participation in the scheme; and if he will make a statement. [13482]

  Mr. Denham
  Referral orders and their associated youth offender panels have been piloted in seven areas in England and Wales since summer 2000. They are due to be implemented throughout England and Wales on 1 April 2002. The Government and the Youth Justice Board are supporting youth offending teams' preparations, with finance, training and guidance. From 1 April youth courts will refer all young offenders aged 10–17 who plead guilty and are convicted for the first time to a youth offender panel unless the offending is so serious as to warrant custody or the court orders an absolute discharge or makes a hospital order.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for which offences teenagers may be referred to a youth offender panel. [13480]

  Mr. Denham
  Under the referral order legislation, the youth court will refer all young offenders aged 10–17 who plead guilty and are convicted for the first time to a youth offender panel, unless the offending is so serious as to warrant custody or the court orders an absolute discharge or makes a hospital order.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the extent is of the powers of youth offender panels; and how binding their judgments are. [13481]

  Mr. Denham
  Youth offender panels meet young offenders sentenced to referral orders, their parents or guardians and, where appropriate, victims. They agree contracts with the young offenders, including interventions aimed at preventing re-offending and reparation to individual victims or the wider community. The contracts last between three and 12 months, the term of the referral order as set by the court. Offenders who do not agree to contracts or fail to carry out contracts they have agreed may be referred back to the court and an alternative sentence may be given.

  Residency
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for residency on behalf of sponsors of British citizens were granted in 2000; how many such applications were received in 2000; how many such applications have so far been received in 2001; how many have so far been granted; and what is the average length of time between such an application being received by the Home Office and its granting; [14242]

  (2) how many applications for spouses of British citizens for residency are pending; and how long on average it took between applications being received, and their being opened in the last 12 months. [14243]

  Angela Eagle
  The latest published information relates to decisions on applications for indefinite leave to remain on the basis of marriage to a British citizen in 2000. Some 34,840 applications were granted on this basis.
  558W
  Information on the number of applications lodged, average decision time and corresponding data for 2001 is not available. We are also not able to provide information on pending applications for spouse applications and average time between receipt and opening.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his officials received an application on behalf of Mrs. Melissa Gryspeerdt of Chippenham, Wiltshire; when they expect to process it; and if he will make a statement. [14246]

  Angela Eagle
  On the information provided by the hon. Member, I cannot at present confirm the receipt of any application on behalf of Mrs. Melissa Gryspeerdt. If the hon. Member or his constituent is able to provide more detailed information, including Mrs. Gryspeerdt's maiden name, the date of posting and the recorded delivery details, we will make every effort to trace the application as a matter of priority.

  Sex Offences
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans in relation to reforming the law on sex offences and the recommendations of the report, "Setting the boundaries: Reforming the law on sex offences". [13892]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We received more than 700 responses to the consultation paper "Setting the Boundaries: Reforming the law on sex offences". We are currently analysing the responses to each chapter and will be making an announcement of our conclusions as soon as this is completed.

  Computer Crime
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of computer(a) hacking, (b) fraud and (c) theft his Department recorded in 2000 and 2001; and on how many occasions in 2000 and 2001 computer systems in his Department have been illegally accessed by computer hackers (i) within and (ii) outside his Department. [11002]

  Mr. Denham
  Official records compiled under the Government scheme for reporting Information Technology (IT) security incidents, the Unified Incident Reporting and Alert Scheme (UNIRAS), show the following figures.

  The number of cases of computer hacking detected was 0 in 2000 and 0 in 2001.

  The number of cases of fraud detected was 0 in 2000 and 0 in 2001.

  Asylum
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of racial harassment were reported to the National Asylum Support Service's Investigations Team by asylum seekers in(a) 2000 and (b) 2001 broken down by (i) month and (ii) region; and if he will make a statement. [13044]

  Angela Eagle [holding answer 7 November 2001]: The number of allegations of racial harassment reported to the National Asylum Support Services (NASS) Investigations Team in (a) 2000 and (b) 2001 is as follows.
  559W

  Year

  Number

  2000

  May

  14

  June

  119

  July

  138

  August

  146

  September

  136

  October

  36

  November

  40

  December

  32

  2001

  January

  47

  February

  71

  March

  66

  April

  64

  May

  78

  June

  74

  July

  71

  August

  103

  September

  72

  October

  122

  1The performance Monitoring Investigations Section (PMI) became fully operational in October 2000. Figures prior to October 2000 represent those cases reported to the Investigations Sections. Further allegations may have been investigated within the wider Operations Section within NASS but there are no statistics for this

  The figures are not broken down by region. The figures represent the reports which NASS' s Investigations Section received and information on who reported the incident is not recorded.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Sri Lankans have sought political asylum in the UK in each of the last three years. [13446]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is provided in the table.

  Applications for asylum to the UK, excluding dependents, from nationals of Sri Lanka, 1998–20001

  Year

  Applications

  1998

  3,505

  1999

  5,130

  Applications for asylum to the UK and initial decisions1 for nationals of Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Somalia and Iraq, excluding dependents, August 2000 to July 20012

  Month

  Applications

  Initial decisions

  Grants of asylum

  Percentage of initial decisions

  Grant of ELR

  Percentage of initial decisions

  Refusals

  Percentage of initial decisions

  Afghanistan

  August 2000

  495

  180

  15

  9

  40

  23

  120

  68

  September 2000

  535

  175

  10

  6

  30

  16

  135

  77

  October 2000

  560

  410

  45

  11

  30

  7

  340

  82

  November 2000

  550

  515

  115

  23

  110

  22

  285

  56

  December 2000

  535

  545

  130

  24

  255

  47

  160

  29

  January 2001

  510

  1,020

  175

  17

  555

  55

  290

  28

  February 2001

  615

  1,320

  225

  17

  785

  59

  310

  24

  March 2001

  680

  2,045

  375

  18

  1,215

  59

  450

  22

  April 2001

  700

  930

  195

  21

  550

  59

  185

  20

  May 2001

  900

  1,025

  220

  22

  615

  60

  190

  19

  June 2001

  910

  985

  220

  22

  600

  61

  165

  17

  July 2001

  810

  875

  220

  25

  485

  55

  165

  19

  Total

  7,790

  10,020

  1,955

  19

  5,265

  53

  2,800

  28

  Sri Lanka

  August 2000

  445

  470

  45

  10

  25

  6

  365

  78

  September 2000

  470

  405

  40

  10

  15

  4

  320

  79

  October 2000

  565

  675

  105

  15

  10

  1

  565

  83

  November 2000

  675

  895

  110

  12

  10

  1

  775

  87

  December 2000

  610

  770

  90

  12

  20

  3

  655

  85

  January 2001

  570

  1,240

  140

  11

  40

  3

  1,065

  86

  560W

  Applications for asylum to the UK, excluding dependents, from nationals of Sri Lanka, 1998–20001

  Year

  Applications

  20002

  6,395

  20012,3

  3,060

  1 All data rounded to nearest five

  2 Provisional

  3 January to July

  The information is published regularly in the annual statistical bulletin Asylum Statistics United Kingdom, a copy of which is available in the Library, and from the RDS website: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for asylum were made in each of the last 12 months by(a) Afghans, (b) Sri Lankans, (c) Somalians and (d) Iraqi Kurds; what proportion were (i) granted and (ii) refused; what proportion were granted exceptional leave to remain; and what proportion have been removed. [14022]

  Angela Eagle
  The latest available information is provided in the table and relates to the number of applications and initial decisions made under normal procedures for principal applicants. Data on initial decisions are independent of applications data, and do not necessarily relate to applications lodged in the same period. Information on Iraqi Kurds is not available.

  Following the initial decision, applicants have a right of appeal to the Immigration Appellate Authority.

  Reliable information on the proportion of those refused asylum or exceptional leave to remain in the latest 12 months who were subsequently removed is not available. Information on the nationality of persons removed is not available due to data recording problems.

  Information on asylum applications and initial decisions is published regularly in the annual statistical bulletin "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom", a copy of which is available in the Library, and from the RDS website: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/irrunigration1/html
  561W

  Applications for asylum to the UK and initial decisions1 for nationals of Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Somalia and Iraq, excluding dependents, August 2000 to July 20012

  Month

  Applications

  Initial decisions

  Grants of asylum

  Percentage of initial decisions

  Grant of ELR

  Percentage of initial decisions

  Refusals

  Percentage of initial decisions

  February 2001

  435

  1,495

  205

  14

  40

  3

  1,245

  83

  March 2001

  410

  1,950

  260

  13

  90

  5

  1,600

  82

  April 2001

  445

  865

  125

  15

  60

  7

  675

  78

  May 2001

  425

  805

  105

  13

  40

  5

  660

  82

  June 2001

  415

  695

  85

  12

  30

  4

  585

  84

  July 2001

  355

  565

  85

  15

  30

  5

  450

  80

  Total

  5,815

  10,835

  1,395

  13

  415

  4

  8,965

  83

  Somalia

  August 2000

  615

  680

  210

  31

  125

  19

  325

  48

  September 2000

  545

  540

  95

  18

  60

  11

  360

  67

  October 2000

  485

  445

  105

  23

  30

  6

  315

  70

  November 2000

  435

  615

  185

  30

  70

  11

  360

  58

  December 2000

  420

  525

  160

  30

  80

  16

  285

  54

  January 2001

  500

  705

  260

  37

  155

  22

  295

  41

  February 2001

  380

  805

  345

  43

  165

  20

  300

  37

  March 2001

  470

  1,135

  390

  34

  265

  24

  480

  42

  April 2001

  420

  565

  240

  42

  140

  25

  185

  33

  May 2001

  495

  700

  290

  42

  175

  25

  235

  33

  June 2001

  505

  460

  180

  39

  135

  29

  145

  32

  July 2001

  710

  520

  185

  36

  170

  33

  165

  32

  Total

  5,980

  7,690

  2,645

  34

  1,570

  20

  3,440

  45

  Iraq

  August 2000

  870

  510

  80

  15

  220

  43

  210

  41

  September 2000

  1,035

  345

  45

  14

  105

  30

  200

  58

  October 2000

  1,185

  490

  30

  7

  15

  3

  445

  91

  November 2000

  1,205

  580

  60

  10

  25

  5

  495

  85

  December 2000

  695

  530

  35

  7

  40

  7

  455

  86

  January 2001

  755

  1,180

  65

  6

  90

  7

  1,030

  87

  February 2001

  710

  890

  90

  10

  110

  12

  690

  78

  March 2001

  425

  1,280

  105

  8

  190

  15

  985

  77

  April 2001

  295

  630

  60

  10

  120

  19

  445

  71

  May 2001

  340

  780

  65

  8

  135

  17

  580

  74

  June 2001

  440

  580

  65

  11

  110

  19

  405

  70

  July 2001

  580

  580

  45

  8

  125

  22

  410

  71

  Total

  8,535

  8,380

  740

  9

  1,285

  15

  6,360

  76

  1 Cases decided under normal criteria. Excludes cases decided under pragmatic measures aimed at reducing the pre-1996 asylum application backlog.

  2 Provisional data.

  Notes:

  All data except percentages are rounded to nearest five.

  Columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.

  Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

  Nick Tucker
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the investigation by the Criminal Cases Review Commission into the case of Mr. Nick Tucker to report. [13440]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Criminal Cases Review Commission commenced its review of Nicholas Tucker's conviction on 31 May 2001. It has made progress with the case but is unable to say when it will complete its consideration.

  Badger Baiting
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make badger baiting a recordable crime. [13891]
  562W
  Mr. Denham
  Convictions, cautions, reprimands and warnings under sections 1(1) and (3), 2 and 3 of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 are recordable by police forces on the Police National Computer. These include offences of wilfully killing, injuring or taking a badger, cruelly ill-treating a badger, and intentionally or recklessly interfering with a badger sett, including damaging or destroying a sett or causing a dog to enter a sett.

  Paramilitary Training
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will put in place measures to ensure that children and young people are prevented from participating in paramilitary style training organised by political parties. [13426]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 8 November 2001]: I am aware of the allegations of paramilitary type training for young people being provided and the particular concerns

  563W
  of the honourable member in relation to 'Camp Excalibur' in North Wales. I understand that North Wales Police have conducted a full investigation into such activities. They have assured me that no criminal offences have been committed. It is of course an offence under Section 54 (1) and (2) of the Terrorism Act 2000 to provide instruction or training or to receive instruction or training in the making or use of firearms, explosives, or chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. In addition, under subsection (3) (b) a person commits an offence if he invites another to receive instruction or training and the receipt would constitute an offence under subsection (2) but for the fact that it is to take place outside the United Kingdom. Any concrete and verifiable evidence of such activities will be dealt with immediately.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the impact on the criminal injuries compensation scheme of the decision in Rv. CICAP ex parte August and ex parte Brown; and if he will make a statement. [12969]

  Mr. Denham
  The handling of individual cases, or groups of case, is entirely a matter for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority and the independent appellate body, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel. Ministers do not get involved in or comment on those bodies' handling of individual applications or their interpretation of the scheme rules.

  However, I understand that in the light of the outcome of this judicial review, the claims officers of the Compensation Authority and the Adjudicators of the Appeals Panel will continue to determine whether an applicant was a non-consenting victim of a sexual offence by considering each case on its facts and circumstances.

  Corporate Manslaughter
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress in bringing forward proposals for a new offence of(a) corporate manslaughter and (b) corporate killing. [12736]

  Mr. Denham
  In May 2000 we published a consultation paper "Reforming the Law on Involuntary Manslaughter". This included proposals for a new offence of corporate manslaughter or corporate killing.

  The consultation period closed in September 2000 and an interdepartmental working group has been set up to consider the issues raised. We intend to bring forward legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  National Black Police Association
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will update the information given in his answer to the hon. Member for Worthing, West of 19 July 2001,Official Report, column 345W, concerning the National Black Police Association. [13708]

  Mr. Denham
  As you will be aware, an article appeared in the Evening Standard on 8 August which suggested that the written answers which I gave on 19 July 2001, Official Report, column 345W, about the case of Superintendent Dizaei was not correct. As a result,
  564W
  I asked Home Office officials to examine further with the Metropolitan police the information which was provided. As a result, I am satisfied that the information given in the answers, which was based on information provided by the Metropolitan police, gave a misleading impression, for which I apologise. I am satisfied that there was no intention to mislead and that the errors arose because of misunderstanding between officials and the Metropolitan police about the information which the police had provided in order to answer the questions.

  I am advised by the Metropolitan police that the full and accurate picture is as indicated in my letter to the hon. Member of 9 November, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. This clarifies the position regarding the telephone calls that Superintendent Dizaei made in connection with his National Black Police Association business.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Jurors
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what measures there are to protect the identity of jurors in court; [12426]

  (2) what rules restrict the names of jurors being read out in court. [12425]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answers 6 November 2001]: In cases where a judge is satisfied that there is a danger that there will be an attempt to intimidate or interfere with a jury, he may order that the names of jurors should be withheld and that they should only be balloted by number.

  Libra Project
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 31 October 2001,Official Report, column 752W, on the Libra project, how many of the magistrates courts committees with Office Automation will keep their existing dedicated terminals to access the legacy systems until the new Libra software is available; and if he will make a statement. [13197]

  Mr. Wills
  In all of the Magistrates Court Committees in receipt of the Libra Office Automation service, access to the main legacy system is achieved, for almost all staff, via the Libra terminal on their desks. Access to some other legacy systems used in discrete areas is achieved by a communication link to the legacy network, again using the Libra terminal. Only a minority of staff require this facility. In some cases separate stand-alone terminals have been retained to provide this access, in addition to access for specific local systems where that access was not available on the legacy network, and is not currently available on the Libra service. This mixture of access is replicated in all MCCs.

  Money Claims
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the Lord Chancellor will introduce legislation to change the law so that if a claim is made against a first defendant and a second defendant
  565W
  for the same sum of money the case against the latter is not decided upon until the case against the former is resolved; and if she will make a statement. [13145]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor has no current plans to change the law on joint or joint and several liability. However. under the general case management powers of the court, the trial judge may consolidate proceedings or direct a separate trial of any issue for the purpose of managing the case and furthering the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules of enabling the courts to deal with cases justly.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Jobcentres (Assaults)
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps his Department plans to take to deal with violent assaults on Jobcentre staff. [11699]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Violent assaults on Jobcentre staff in our 1,000 plus Jobcentres are extremely rare. In the year to 30 June 2001 out of 137 incidents involving assaults on staff only three were reported as requiring treatment for more than cuts and bruises.

  In order to reduce the risk of assaults of any kind to an absolute minimum every Jobcentre is subject to a risk assessment, as a result of which a range of security measures are in force in each office. These can include, security guards, CCTV and panic alarms.

  We will take determined action against customers who in any way threaten, attack or abuse our staff.

  Learning Disabilities
  Mr. Mahmood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what support his Department is giving to help those with learning disabilities to get back into work. [11700]

  Maria Eagle
  People with learning disabilities have access to the full range of specialist disability employment programmes and support from specialist advisers.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on progress with preparation for the changes to the Child Support Agency which will come into effect in April 2002. [11703]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Preparations for the introduction of the new child support scheme are progressing in accordance with the planned timetable.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the qualifications of the Auditor General to the 2000–01 accounts of the Child Support Agency; and if he will make a statement. [7269]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to my hon. Friend.
  566W
  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Mark Todd, dated 9 November 2001.
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions asking what assessment has been made of the qualifications of the Auditor General to the 2000/2001 accounts of the Child Support Agency.
  I very much regret that the Agency's accounts have again been qualified by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
  Some of the concern expressed by the Comptroller and Auditor General will be remedied as we implement the new Child Support arrangements from 2002.
  Others we can address now and I am doing so through a standard approach to corporate governance, to risk management and to the improvement in the accuracy of work undertaken.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much is owed to the Child Support Agency in outstanding child maintenance payments; how much of this is deemed uncollectable; and if he will make a statement. [11060]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Laurence Robertson, dated 9 November 2001:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about the Child Support Agency.
  You asked what amount is owed to the Child Support Agency in outstanding child maintenance payments; what amount of this is deemed uncollectable; and if he will make a statement.
  The amount of debt that was reported in the Child Support Agency's Annual Accounts for the year ending March 2001 is £527.80 million, of which £286.58 million is deemed collectable, £208.72 million is deemed possibly uncollectable and £32.50 million is deferred debt.
  In the year 2000/2001 our target was to reduce the amount of outstanding debt by 25%. We realised that target and have set ourselves the same challenge for 2001/2002.

  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what the annual budget of the Child Support Agency has been in each year since 1993; [7584]

  (2) how many cases the Child Support Agency has handled in the last 12 months; and what the average cost per case over that period was. [7585]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Dr. Howard Stoate, dated 9 November 2001:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about the Child Support Agency.
  You asked what the annual budget of the Child Support Agency has been in each year since 1993. Also how many cases the Child Support Agency handled in the last 12 months: and what the average cost per case over that period was?
  The table at Annex 1 shows the Annual Budget of the Agency for each year since 1993.
  During the last 12 months the Agency handled 1,555,550 cases.
  The average cost per case is £132.17 and is based on the Agency's running costs (excluding the costs associated with the Child Support Reforms) between October 2000 and September 2001 of £205.590 million.
  I hope this is helpful.
  567W

  Annex 1: Annual Budget since 1993

  £ million

  Year

  Budget

  1993–94

  114

  1994–95

  184

  1995–96

  194

  1996–97

  206

  1997–98

  207

  1998–99

  204

  1999–2000

  207

  2000–01

  203

  Workers (Rehabilitation)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent discussions he has had with private sector insurers about the rehabilitation of workers. [11705]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We are introducing a Job Retention and Rehabilitation Pilot from next year which will help people at risk of losing their job due to illness or disability to stay in work. We consulted widely on the development of this pilot which attracted interest from a range of groups including insurers.

  New Deal
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment his Department has made of the impact the new deal has had on youth unemployment. [11706]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Since 1997, youth unemployment has fallen by over 40 per cent., and long-term youth unemployment has been cut by almost three-quarters.

  The new deal for young people has played a major part in this success. Up to August 2001, the programme had helped over 326,000 people into work, and independent research has estimated that, without the new deal, long-term youth unemployment would have been about twice as high.

  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the new deal for disabled people. [11704]

  Maria Eagle
  Early evaluation found that the new deal for disabled people had a positive impact on helping disabled people move towards work.

  The pilot phase of the new deal for disabled people helped over 8,200 people move into work and since July we have begun to introduce a network of job brokers nationally.

  The new deal for disabled people is just part of the range of help we are providing to help people on Incapacity Benefit move towards work. These include removing benefit barriers to allow people to take part in worktrials and work placements and ensuring that taking up work is worthwhile by introducing the disabled person's tax credit.

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the new deal for 50 plus; and if he will make a statement. [11682]
  568W
  Mr. Darling
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) earlier today, at column 556.

  Mr. Simon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment his Department has made of the effect the new deal has had on long-term unemployment in Birmingham, Erdington. [11687]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  In Birmingham, Erdington since 1997, claimant unemployment has fallen by a third and the number of people unemployed for one year plus has been more than halved.

  People who have been unemployed for 12 months or more can now benefit from the employment zone operating in Birmingham that has already helped over 2,300 people into work.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many persons have left the new deal for young people since its inception; how many of them have left to enter(a) jobs lasting less than 13 weeks, (b) sustained jobs and (c) jobs lasting more than 26 weeks; and what is the cost per person into a sustained job. [7982]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The results of the new deal for young people are contained in the monthly statistical first releases which are available in the Library.

  By the end of July 2001, 594,300 people had left the new deal for young people. Of these, 239,500 were to sustained unsubsidised jobs and 190,770 entered unsubsidised jobs and did not return to claim jobseeker' s allowance within 26 weeks.

  If someone on the new deal for young people moves into a job which lasts less than 13 weeks, they return to the new deal and are not classed as leavers.

  The average cost per person into a job on the new deal for young people is around £4,000. This estimate cannot be broken down by the type of job obtained.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many participants in the new deal for lone parents have obtained places on(a) Employment Service programmes, (b) work based learning for adult programmes and (c) other training programmes since the inception of the new deal; and if he will give a breakdown of the qualifications obtained in each case. [9639]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The latest information on the number of participants in the new deal for lone parents programme who have taken up education or training is contained in the statistical first release (SFR) which is available in the Library.

  Information is not recorded on the type of training undertaken or qualifications gained.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many places were(a) available and (b) taken up on (i) the employment option and (ii) the full-time education and training option on the new deal for the long-term unemployed in each year since its inception; and what the cost per place in each case was. [9332]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The new deal for 25-plus provides individually tailored help for long-term unemployed adults. Support through subsidised employment and education and training opportunities (ETO) is provided on the basis of individual need. As a result, the number of places available
  569W
  for subsidised employment or ETO relate directly to the number of participants for whom such provision is the most effective route into sustained, unsubsidised employment.

  The table shows the number of subsidised employment and ETO places that have been taken up since July 1998.

  Year

  Subsidised employment

  ETO

  From July 1998

  1,811

  1,381

  1999

  6,597

  3,995

  2000

  5,692

  2,383

  January to July 2001

  2,051

  1199

  Total

  16,151

  7,958

  1Numbers taking up subsidised employment and ETO placements are for pre-April 2001 starts and hence do not include starts to the enhanced new deal 25-plus intensive activity period. The figures are taken from the Statistical First Release (SFR). The number of starts to ETO may be undercounted and future SFRs will show revised figures as necessary

  Estimated average unit costs for subsidised employment and ETO are available for 1999–2000 and 2000–01. These are set out in the table.

  £

  Year

  Subsidised employment

  ETO

  1999–2000

  1,402

  802

  2000–01

  1,557

  869

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions further to his answer of 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 904. on unemployment advice, what research he has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into deadweight cost and the new deal. [9528]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We have commissioned a comprehensive range of new deal evaluation, including that by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) which looked at the overall impact of the programme on the wider economy. This was a valuable piece of research showing that without new deal long-term youth unemployment would be about twice as high.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many of the long-term unemployed have been subjected to sanctions in respect of the new deal for the long-term unemployed since its inception. [9335]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Up to September 2001, 50,913 sanctions had been imposed on people participating in new deal programmes. Figures are not available for individual programmes.

  Source:

  Employment Service Labour Market Statistics

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the total cost to date has been of(a) publications on and (b) advertising of new deal programmes for the unemployed. [11651]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Figures available are as follows:

  Publications1—£2,574,690

  Advertising—£17,522,478.

  570W
  It does not include an element for new deal for lone parents (NDLP). Throughout the period from 1997 to date, publications for NDLP were included in the overall cost of marketing for all advertising campaigns run by the Department of Social Security in each of the relevant financial years. It is not possible therefore to separate out this cost.
  1 This figure covers only publications for new deal for young people, 25 plus, partners of unemployed, 50 plus, disabled people and action teams

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many participants in the new deal to date have been placed on a computer skills course as part of the Ambition: IT partnership. [11649]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Ambition: IT initiative is currently being developed. Training will be available from January 2002.

  Universal Bank
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people he estimates will receive benefits through the universal bank. [11707]

  Mr. Darling
  Universal Banking Services are scheduled to be available when we begin to migrate our customers to payment by automated credit transfer in 2003.

  Manufacturing Sector
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the monthly changes in the number of people employed in the manufacturing sector since 1998. [11708]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Since 1998 the number of people employed in the manufacturing sector has fallen from 4.5 million to 4.1 million. Over the same period, total UK employment has increased by around 500,000.

  Manufacturing is an important sector of the economy, with output at near record levels. But as in other industrialised countries, there are fewer people employed in producing these manufactured goods than 20 years ago. In a dynamic economy jobs are being created and lost all of the time. Where changes in the economy lead to job losses, and to upheavals in individuals' lives, help and support is available so they can find a new job as quickly as possible—wherever they live and whatever part of the economy they work in.

  Pensioners Credit Scheme
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment the Government have made of the contribution the pensioners credit scheme will make to the income of pensioners in the United Kingdom. [11709]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Pension Credit forms a key part of the Government's overall strategy for tackling pension poverty.

  When introduced in 2003 it will mean that no single pensioner need live on less than £100 a week and no pensioner couple need live on less than £154 a week.

  Over-50s
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what strategy his Department is developing to help people aged over 50 into work. [11710]

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to help unemployed people over 50 years of age back into work. [11714]

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to help unemployed people over 50 years of age back into work. [11717]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We are committed to the principle of extending opportunity for all to everyone regardless of age, and tackling age discrimination in the workplace. A key element of this is the New Deal 50 plus which has already helped over 50,000 people move into work since its national launch in April 2000.

  We are developing proposals to increase take up of the New Deal 50 plus training provision, and employer involvement in the programme, in the form of 3rd Age Apprenticeships. These will offer work-based training organised on a sectoral basis, making use of existing New Deal 50 plus funding arrangements, particularly the Training Grant.

  The on-going Age Positive campaign is challenging workplace attitudes towards age, ensuring employers realise the benefits of employing an age diverse workforce. An extensive direct mailing initiative early in 2001 successfully targeted recruitment agencies, in addition to the Federation of Small Businesses.

  Social Deprivation
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to help people back into work in areas of social deprivation in St. Helens, North. [11711]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Our welfare to work initiatives are helping people into work in all parts of the country. We have introduced Action Teams for Jobs which are providing tailored help to jobless people in the most employment deprived areas. Action Teams have already helped over 15,000 jobless people move into work.

  The Merseyside Action Team, launched in October 2000, covered two areas of Merseyside: Wirral and St. Helens. We increased the number of Action Teams from 40 to 53 on 15 October 2001 and St. Helens now has its own Action Team which will focus even more closely on helping disadvantaged jobless people in the area move into work.

  Jobs (Peterborough)
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the impact of measures to create jobs in Peterborough since 11 September. [11712]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The current labour market position in Peterborough is strong. The claimant unemployment rate in September 2001 was 2.3 per cent., below the national average of 3.1 per cent. Total unemployment in the constituency has fallen by 40 per cent. in the last four 572W
  years. Over the same period the number unemployed for one year or more has fallen by two thirds, while the number of 18–24 year olds unemployed for six months or more is down by almost 75 per cent.

  Our aim remains employment opportunity for all throughout the country. We have put in place a framework that delivers:
  a platform of economic stability and low inflation, to promote sustained growth in output and jobs;
  investment in education and training so people have the skills they need to take up work;
  a labour market policy with a strong work focus so all jobless people have access to vacancies, advice and help with jobsearch;
  a range of New Deal programmes which help disadvantaged groups move from welfare into work;
  policies such as the National Minimum Wage and Working Families Tax Credit designed to make work pay; and
  locally focused initiatives designed to tackle the problems of particular areas, such as Action Teams for Jobs.

  These policies, alongside continued economic growth, have combined to ensure steady improvement in the labour market.

  Jobfinder Plus
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the role of compulsion in jobfinder plus. [11713]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  In parallel with the introduction of Jobcentre Plus we a requiring new and repeat claimants to working age benefits to attend an interview with a Personal Adviser to ensure that they are aware of the support that is available to help them into work. Other than for claimants of Jobseekers Allowance, to whom the current rules continue to apply, there is no requirement on them to take any other steps to look for work.

  Employment Programmes
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what discussions he has had recently with employers to discuss the Government's employment programmes. [11715]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Since June of this year we have met with key employer organisations and many individual employers. Their input is central to the development of our employment policies and to ensuring that our employment programmes meet local labour market needs and employers' recruitment needs.

  We have also created the National Employment Panel to ensure that employers, and other key customers, have a strong and permanent voice within the Department. The panel is an employer-led body that will provide independent advice on the design, delivery and performance of our welfare to work initiatives.

  Employers have a central role to play in achieving our goal of creating and sustaining employment opportunities for all.

  Training Providers
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what was the average length of time
  573W
  taken by his Department to release funds to training providers following audit in the latest six-month period for which figures are available. [11716]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Audits are carried out by the Department, as part of its normal commercial relationships with external providers. Departmental auditors are not empowered to withhold funds which are payable to providers. They will advise on any irregularities that may have been identified during the course of the audit. Contracting teams will decide on any appropriate action in these circumstances.

  In the last six months, there are no instances of the Department withholding payment to training providers as a result of audit activities.

  Maternity Benefit
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the operation of sure start maternity benefit. [11718]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Sure Start Maternity Grant complements the Sure Start programme, which is helping many thousands of children from the most deprived areas to get the best start in life.

  The Grant is available to people receiving Income Support, income-based Jobseeker's Allowance, Working Families' Tax Credit, or Disabled Person's Tax Credit. It is worth up to three times as much as the Maternity Payment it replaced and provides more help to those families in most need.

  Employment Zones
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of employment zones in reducing unemployment. [11681]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Employment Zones are one of a range of initiatives we have introduced to help people move into work. The 15 Employment Zones are performing well and have already helped over 14,500 people into work. We are currently evaluating the Zones before deciding how to take the initiative further.

  Tax Credits (Pensioners)
  Roger Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what further plans he has to introduce tax credits for pensioners. [11694]

  Mr. McCartney
  As announced in the Gracious Address, the Government will introduce a Bill to provide for Pension Credit in this session.

  The Pension Credit forms a key part of the Government's overall strategy for tackling pensioner poverty.

  When introduced in 2003 it will mean that no single pensioner need live on less than £100 a week and no pensioner couple need live on less than £154 a week.

  Around half of all pensioners will gain as a result of the introduction of the Credit.

  Pensions
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his policy is on the status of the basic state pension within overall pension provision in the United Kingdom. [11701]

  Mr. McCartney
  The basic state pension will remain the foundation of income in retirement. We have increased the rates above inflation this year and we will do so again next year.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 24 October 2001,Official Report, column 242W, on pensions, if he will provide quarterly figures on the sales of personal pensions for the last five years. [12449]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is in the table:

  Thousand

  Time period

  Number of personal pension and Group Personal Pension contracts sold

  1996

  Qtr 1

  254

  Qtr 2

  300

  Qtr 3

  247

  Qtr 4

  253

  1997

  Qtr 1

  300

  Qtr 2

  398

  Qtr 3

  329

  Qtr 4

  279

  1998

  Qtr 1

  360

  Qtr 2

  384

  Qtr 3

  318

  Qtr 4

  332

  1999

  Qtr 1

  307

  Qtr 2

  327

  Qtr 3

  279

  Qtr 4

  271

  2000

  Qtr 1

  251

  Qtr 2

  268

  Qtr 3

  234

  Qtr 4

  242

  2001

  Qtr 1

  300

  Qtr 2

  314

  Notes:

  1. Figures sourced from the Association of British Insurers.

  2. The figures include both single premium and regular premium pensions. They do not include additional voluntary contributions.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the feasibility of using the administrative mechanisms that he uses to ensure that women receive their retirement pension as
  575W
  soon as they reach 60 years to allow him to pay winter fuel payments to women who reach 60 years after the qualifying date but before the end of the winter. [14032]

  Mr. McCartney
  Using a qualifying week allows us to gather and verify household information in order for payments to be made in time for the coldest weather. To do otherwise could compromise our ability to make timely payments to more elderly recipients.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have responded to the recent winter fuel payment advertising campaign; and what steps have been taken to evaluate the effectiveness of the campaign. [7913]

  Mr. McCartney
  Press advertising ran over a two week period at the beginning of August 2001 to support a targeted mailing to those newly eligible for a Winter Fuel Payment from winter 2001.

  We measured press advertising specific response (period 2–23 August 2001) as follows:
  A total of 27,016 calls to the Winter Fuel Payment Helpline. Of these 9,389 calls quoted specific press adverts.

  Press coupons continue to be returned. Up to 5 October 2001:

  19,232 press coupons had been returned requesting a claim form.

  154,241 completed claim forms had been returned in total.

  Year ended 31 March 1999

  Year ended 31 March 2000

  Year ended 31 March 2001

  Inquiries and complaints received by OPAS

  30,984

  32,174

  36,322

  (7,176 written)

  (7,304 written)

  (8,415 written)

  Inquiries and complaints received by the Pensions Ombudsman

  3,067

  3,269

  3,215

  Inquiries and complaints rejected by the Pensions Ombudsman as not suitable for investigation1

  2,395

  2,594

  2,409

  Complaints upheld by the Pensions Ombudsman to some extent2 (percentage)

  59

  49

  39

  1 Most rejections are because the case is not within jurisdiction (eg referred to a different ombudsman) or because the matter has not been fully explored with the body complained against, or because OPAS has not been given an opportunity to resolve the matter. The complainant receives a decision in almost all cases which are within jurisdiction and where the matter has been explored/OPAS consulted.

  2 As a percentage of those investigated.

  Complaints about OPAS are not within the Pensions Ombudsman's jurisdiction and no specific records are kept of complaints made about OPAS and rejected, but if people are unhappy with the result of inquiries made by OPAS they can refer the matter to the Pensions Ombudsman.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what training has been undertaken by staff commencing work in the new Jobcentre Plus offices. [14033]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I refer the hon. Member to answer given to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on 8 November 2001,Official Report, column 374W.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which Jobcentre Plus offices provide the facility for benefit claims to be made over the telephone; what length of time he estimates such telephone calls to take; and who is responsible for paying for the calls. [14035]
  576W
  The campaign for winter 2001 will continue until the end of March 2002. Evaluation takes place on an on-going basis through call center statistics. It will be assessed later in the campaign if customer interview research needs to be commissioned.

  Inter-agency Liaison
  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to improve liaison between the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service. [11690]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The first 49 Jobcentre Plus offices opened on 22 October providing, for the first time, a fully integrated employment and benefit service. First reactions from both individual customers and employers have been overwhelmingly positive. We plan progressively to extend this integration nation-wide beginning later next year.

  Pensions Complaints
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) cases were referred to OPAS, (b) complaints about OPAS were referred to the Pensions Ombudsman, (c) other complaints were referred to the Pensions Ombudsman and(d) complaints were upheld by the Pensions Ombudsman in respect of (i) OPAS and (ii) others and (e) complaints were rejected by the Pensions Ombudsman in each of the last three years. [12104]

  Mr. McCartney
  The available information is contained in the following table:

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Customers making new and repeat claims in all of the 15 Jobcentre Plus areas that have been operating since 22 October are encouraged to make initial contact with Jobcentre Plus by telephone. During this call the member of staff will collect initial details about the customer, and subsequently send them the appropriate claim forms. We estimate that the phone call should take no longer than 20 minutes. Customers are told the expected call length at the beginning of the call and can request they are called back by the member of staff.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many of the new Jobcentre Plus offices(a) have been risk assessed and (b) are awaiting risk assessment to determine the necessary level of security to be employed following the removal of glass screens. [14238]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  All of the Jobcentre Plus offices which are operating the new Jobcentre Plus process have been risk assessed.
  577W
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions at what level of risk assessment it will be deemed necessary to provide a Jobcentre Plus office with security staff; and how many security staff he expects will be employed in Jobcentre Plus offices in the next 12 months. [14230]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Decisions on whether individual offices require security staff have been made on the basis of the recommendations of the risk assessments carried out in each office. Currently, 78 security staff are in place in 28 offices. Further risk assessments are shortly to be carried out in all Jobcentre Plus offices, in the light of experience of their actual operation. Further deployment of security staff will be decided in the light of the recommendations of these assessments.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what consultation with Benefits Agency staff was undertaken before the decision to remove glass security screens from new Jobcentre Plus offices; and what were the results of such consultation. [14224]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Jobcentre Plus management have been involved in lengthy discussions nationally with the Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union regarding the layout and furnishings of the new Jobcentre Plus offices including in respect of the Risk Assessment process. Local PCS representatives have also been consulted about the safety arrangements in each of the new Jobcentre Plus offices, including in respect of local Risk Assessments. There have also been frequent and regular communications direct with staff in both the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions who is responsible for carrying out risk assessments in the new Jobcentre Plus offices; and if this process is subject to reassessment following(a) appeal from office staff and (b) review at designated time intervals. [14237]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Risk assessments in Jobcentre Plus offices were carried out by specialist staff employed by the Employment Service and the company Land Securities Trillium which is responsible for the Benefits Agency estate.

  Further risk assessments are shortly to be carried out in all Jobcentre Plus offices in the light of experience of their actual operation.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his Department's estimate is of the costs involved in equipping all new Jobcentre Plus offices with(a) CCTV, (b) panic alarms and (c) security staff. [14234]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The estimated additional costs in respect of these measures in the new Jobcentre Plus pathfinder offices are currently in the order of £1 million—£2 million, which represents a mix of one-off and continuing costs.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many Jobcentre Plus offices have opened(a) with and (b) without protective screens; and what contingency plans the Government have to ensure that claimants who live in areas affected by industrial action continue to receive their benefit entitlement. [14036]
  578W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  All 15 Jobcentre Plus pathfinder areas have screened facilities for the handling of customers or situations likely to give rise to particular risks.

  Detailed contingency plans are in place to ensure that, to the maximum extent possible, customers continue to receive the benefits to which they are entitled, notwithstanding the current dispute.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what personal safety advice has been given to Jobcentre Plus staff following the removal of glass security screens in new offices. [14231]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  A key element in the introduction of the new Jobcentre Plus offices has been intensive training for staff in both interviewing and dealing with difficult situations and customers.

  Each office has its own plan in place for handling incidents so that all staff know what action to take should an incident occur.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions according to what criteria new Jobcentre Plus offices will be risk assessed; and what protection will be offered to staff in offices determined to be high risk. [14226]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Risk assessments for each of the new Jobcentre Plus offices have been carried out within the framework of a generic risk assessment which was developed earlier in the year in consultation with staff representatives. This generic risk Assessment recommended a wide range of potential risk control measures which risk assessors used as a basis for completing risk assessments at each Pathfinder office. The list of control measures set out in the generic risk assessment is not prescriptive and assessors were free to make whatever recommendations were appropriate to each office.

  Drawing on those assessments, and following consultation with local trade union health and safety representatives, a series of extra security measures have been introduced. These include wide coverage by closed circuit television; training for staff in how to handle difficult situations; better management in each office to avoid difficult situations building up; panic alarms; and more visible and effective security guards. Additionally, in each pathfinder area there are screened facilities to deal with individuals and parts of the business which pose a greater risk.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many security staff are employed in Benefits Agency offices; and what assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of such staff in(a) deterring criminal acts and (b) helping to protect office staff when a criminal act is committed; [14233]

  (2) how many old Benefits Agency offices are fitted with CCTV cameras; and what assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of such cameras in (a) deterring criminal acts and (b) helping to provide evidence following a criminal act. [14232]
  579W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  There are currently 387 CCTV systems installed and Land Securities Trillium has 1,179 permanent security staff members deployed in Benefits Agency offices. The number of security staff is supplemented by temporary staff where local needs demand.

  The installation of CCTV cameras and the deployment of security staff are based on the recommendations of independent risk assessors in order to reduce risks for staff in those offices. The security teams regularly defuse situations at an early stage and where necessary take action to notify the police. No statistics are available on the number of occasions when security staff intervene or CCTV is used as evidence in a prosecution.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his Department's policy is for dealing with claimants who act in a threatening or violent manner towards Benefits Agency staff. [14235]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Ministers and senior management have made clear that we will take determined action against customers who in any way threaten, attack or abuse our staff.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proposals he has to end child poverty; and how many children living in poverty there were in(a) June 1997 and (b) June 2001. [13757]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 9 November 2001]: Child poverty and social exclusion are complex multi-dimensional concepts, affecting many aspects of children's lives—including their living standards, health, housing, the quality of the environment, and opportunities to learn. The third "Opportunity for all" report (Cm 5260) sets out the Government's strategy for tackling child poverty and social exclusion and presents the latest information on the indicators used to monitor progress against this strategy.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he plans to extend the use of the application registration cards for asylum seekers to all benefit claimants. [11741]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The new application registration card will replace the Home Office standard acknowledgement letter issued to all asylum seekers. The card will only be issued to acknowledge an application for asylum and for no other purpose.

  As the application registration card is designed solely for use by asylum seekers, who are not eligible to receive social security benefits, it would be inappropriate to extend its use to non-asylum seekers who claim benefits.

  Attendance Allowance (Care Homes)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the entitlement of self-funded residents of nursing and care homes to receive attendance allowance; and if he will 580W
  estimate how many self-funded residents of nursing and care homes are receiving attendance allowance in each nation of the United Kingdom. [10915]

  Maria Eagle
  People who meet the whole cost of their place in a residential care home or nursing home entirely from their own resources and without help from public funds are termed self-funders and may be entitled to continued payment of attendance allowance which is based on care needs. Those self-funders who are entitled to attendance allowance can continue to be paid the benefit subject to their receiving no help from public funds.

  We estimate the number of self-funders over the age of 65 in the UK to be:

  Number of self-funders

  England

  57,000

  Scotland

  7,000

  Wales

  6,000

  Northern Ireland

  2,000

  Total

  72,000

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. Data for England, Wales and Northern Ireland to estimate the number of self-funders in receipt of attendance allowance in nursing and care homes were not available. We did have reliable information from the Scottish Executive for Scotland. This was used to then estimate the numbers in the remaining nations.

  3. It is assumed that all those self-funders in residential and nursing homes are entitled to attendance allowance or the care component of disability living allowance.

  4. It is assumed that the percentage of over 65s in care who are self-funders is the same in England, Wales and Northern Ireland as in Scotland.

  5. May 2001 and February 2001 5 per cent. scan of AA and DLA computer systems and Scottish Community Care Statistics 2000.

  Combined Pension Statement
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he intends to introduce the combined pension statement. [7575]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Department for Work and Pensions will offer a new service to enable people of working age to more effectively plan their retirement incomes through the provision of combined pension forecast statements.

  This voluntary service, which is a joint initiative between the Department's pension providers and employers, is being implemented in the three main phases.

  Phase 1 saw the development of the service through a series of pilot exercises conducted with the pensions industry. The pilots, which began in January 2000, are now coming to a conclusion.

  Phase 2, which commenced on 18 October 2001, sees the formal recruitment and registration of pension providers to the service.

  Phase 3 represents the physical production of the new statement by the industry. This phase will take the form of a rolling programme building to a service which will aim to provide 15 million combined statements by 2005–06.

  Devolved Administrations
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his policy is with regard to(a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department giving evidence to (i) Scottish Parliament, (ii) Welsh Assembly and (iii) Northern Ireland Assembly committees; and to what categories of document he gives (A) full access, (B) restricted access and (C) no access to (w) Scottish Parliament, (x) Welsh Assembly, (y) Northern Ireland Assembly and (z) House of Commons Select Committees. [7021]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) on 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 1003W.

  Department for Work and Pensions: total and percentage staff costs by grade level and region/nation

  Table 1—total staff costs

  £

  Government office region

  All grades

  SCS level

  Level 6/7

  SEO/HEO level

  EO level

  AO/AA level

  Ind/other grade

  London

  331,901,833

  7,739,330

  18,922,633

  41,029,012

  120,116,892

  143,646,332

  447,634

  South East

  196,724,201

  1—

  1,819,616

  14,061,550

  79,226,664

  99,956,176

  1,660,195

  South West

  144,022,302

  1—

  1,485,204

  12,006,716

  53,378,878

  76,262,133

  735,984

  West Midlands

  196,304,739

  363,181

  2,239,319

  15,891,457

  73,805,047

  103,993,203

  1—

  North West

  332,157,197

  1,226,834

  11,705,330

  39,142,345

  111,808,485

  163,571,051

  4,703,152

  North East

  245,071,976

  1,378,687

  6,319,869

  28,017,167

  73,061,108

  135,318,111

  977,034

  Merseyside

  100,380,994

  1—

  1,306,222

  6,952,041

  36,263,502

  55,821,874

  1—

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  255,268,964

  3,017,964

  13,627,902

  48,812,860

  94,385,696

  95,372,417

  52,125

  East Midlands

  105,249,208

  1—

  1,299,506

  7,657,134

  41,157,270

  54,982,172

  70,123

  Eastern

  96,206,315

  1—

  789,106

  5,496,386

  34,666,590

  55,179,192

  1—

  England Total

  2,003,287,729

  14,037,429

  59,514,707

  219,066,668

  717,870,132

  984,102,661

  8,696,138

  Wales

  116,956,484

  1—

  1,253,113

  8,879,369

  44,870,553

  60,569,941

  1,242,775

  Scotland

  247,708,964

  1—

  3,163,423

  19,229,663

  93,275,734

  129,009,599

  2,693,558

  GB Total

  2,367,953,177

  14,515,151

  63,931,243

  247,175,700

  856,016,419

  1,173,682,201

  12,632,471

  Northern Ireland

  156,169

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  156,169

  Grand Total

  2,368,109,346

  14,515,151

  63,931,243

  247,175,700

  856,016,419

  1,173,682,201

  12,788,640

  Table 2—Percentage of staff costs

  Government Office region

  All grades

  SCS level

  Level 6/7

  SEO/HEO level

  EO level

  AO/AA level

  Ind/other grade

  London

  14

  53

  30

  17

  14

  12

  4

  South East

  8

  1—

  3

  6

  9

  9

  13

  South West

  6

  1—

  2

  5

  6

  6

  6

  West Midlands

  8

  3

  4

  6

  9

  9

  1—

  North West

  14

  8

  18

  16

  13

  14

  37

  North East

  10

  9

  10

  11

  9

  12

  8

  Merseyside

  4

  1—

  2

  3

  4

  5

  1—

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  11

  21

  21

  20

  11

  8

  0

  East Midlands

  4

  1—

  2

  3

  5

  5

  1

  Eastern

  4

  1—

  1

  2

  4

  5

  1—

  England Total

  85

  97

  93

  89

  84

  84

  68

  Wales

  5

  1—

  2

  4

  5

  5

  10

  Scotland

  10

  1—

  5

  8

  11

  11

  21

  GB total

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  99

  Northern Ireland

  0

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1

  Grand total

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  1 Because there are three or fewer staff in this category the number and cost have not been separately identified.

  2 Staff costs for Northern Ireland have not been identified by grade because the small numbers in each category could potentially identify individuals and their salaries.

  Notes:

  1. Staff costs include basic salary and allowances plus employer's contribution to National Insurance and Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme.

  2. Staff Costs do not include ancillary matters such as accommodation, office services, stationery etc.

  3. The staff data from which these figures derive are as at 31 August 2001 as this represents the correct staffing position of DWP, which was formed in June 2001. Earlier DSS data is not comparable.

  4. Employment Service staff are included.

  5. War Pensions Agency Staff are included as they are still largely within the overall DWP administrative structure even though WPA is now technically part of the Ministry of Defence.

  6. Casual and other staff on temporary contracts are included.

  7. The grade groupings include specialist staff such as accountants, lawyers and auditors in their "generalist" grade equivalent.

  8. Because the staffing make-up of DWP is different from the DSS, the figures above are not comparable with those provided for DSS in Civil Service Statistics 2000.

  9. Overtime costs are not included as it would not be possible to collate the historical data required in sufficient detail in the time available.

  Departmental Spending (Staff)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate total staff costs for his Department and its agencies by nation and region of the UK; and if he will make a statement. [6847]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information requested is in the tables.

  The Department for Work and Pensions administers social security and employment services across Great Britain on an integrated basis. Not all staff costs incurred by the Department and its agencies within a nation or region relate to customers within the same nation or region.

  Job Losses
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many job losses have occurred in the UK as a result of the terrorist attacks of 11 September. [9885]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Because normal labour market turnover is so large, it is difficult to assess how much is due to particular changes or events.

  Jobcentres (Electronic Services)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many Jobcentres have had electronic jobpoints fitted; how many jobs are accessible through this service; and what assessment has been made of the effectiveness of the service in placing people in employment; [11260]

  (2) how much has been spent on the development and installation of jobpoint kiosks in Jobcentres across the country. [11255]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Since the first jobpoints were installed, a little over nine months ago, over 650 offices have been equipped with almost 6,200 machines. By February 2002, when all 1,000 Jobcentres will have been fitted with a total of 9,000 jobpoints it will be the largest managed network in the world of this sort of terminal.

  The Employment Service typically handles around 400,000 vacancies at any one time and these can be searched on jobpoints by job type, location, hours or other factors. In addition, there are usually more than 10,000 vacancies from other public employment services in the European Economic Area and around 1,500 which are being displayed by a small number of private agencies and recruiters as part of an experiment.

  Jobpoints are part of an extensive programme of modernisation of the Employment Service, which also includes vacancies taken through a single national telephone number, an internet job bank and new job matching tools for staff. It is not possible to separate the cost of jobpoints from other elements of the modernisation programme because of the interdependencies within it. As we have said before in a press release dated 31 October 2000 the work is being carried out through an eight year contract with Electronic Data Systems. The first phase of this, which included the jobpoints, is at a total of £470 million. However, a substantial part of these costs will be offset through efficiency savings derived from the whole of the programme.

  Evidence from an early evaluation of the Jobpoint Pathfinder offices is available in the House of Commons Library. It shows that the use of jobpoints is encouraging jobseekers to look at a larger range of jobs across wider geographical areas. Jobseekers are finding the machines easy to use and that they improve the effectiveness of their job searching. Evidence is emerging that people are applying for more jobs, and this should increase their prospects of moving from benefits to work, and doing so more quickly.

  The effectiveness of jobpoints is currently being further assessed as part of a wider evaluation of the Modernising Employment Service (MES) Programme. Results from the first year of the evaluation will be published in 2002 with final results in 2003.

  ONE Service
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the findings of his Department's research report number 149 "The Medium-Term Effects of Voluntary Participation in ONE"; and what steps he is taking to ensure that the findings of the report are acted upon. [11262]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The evidence from this report suggests that ONE has succeeded in providing a more individually tailored and work-focused service to clients. The report is only based on findings from the voluntary stage of ONE and so it is too early to draw definitive conclusions about ONE until evidence is available from the period when participation in work focused interviews became compulsory. However, emerging findings from ONE evaluation reports are being used to inform the development of the new Jobcentre Plus service.

  Job Opportunies (Scotland)
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what action the Government are taking to help create new job opportunities in East Central Scotland. [9656]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Since 1997, unemployment in the areas of Edinburgh, Fife, Lothian and Dundee has fallen by around a third, and long-term unemployment by around 60 per cent. Our aim is employment opportunity for all throughout the country. We have put in place a framework that delivers:a platform of economic stability and low inflation, to promote sustained growth in output and jobs;
  investment in education and training so people have the skills they need to take up work;
  a labour market policy with a strong work focus so all jobless people have access to vacancies, advice and help with jobsearch:
  a range of New Deal programmes which help disadvantaged groups move from welfare into work;
  policies such as the National Minimum Wage and Working Families Tax Credit designed to make work pay; and
  locally focused initiatives designed to tackle the problems of particular areas, such as Action Teams for Jobs, one of which started operations in Dundee on 15 October.

  These policies, alongside continued economic growth, have combined to ensure steady improvement in the labour market.

  National Insurance Numbers
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if his Department completed the planned checks on national insurance numbers in 2000; and how many of those checks resulted in anomalies that were passed to fraud investigators. [14128]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  During the 1999–2000 tax year, 626,641 payroll items were checked. Of these 288,924 errors were found and 6,223 cases were referred for potential fraud investigation.

  During the 2000–01 tax year, 1,035,796 payroll items were checked of which 770,308 were found to contain errors and 22,777 were referred for potential fraud investigation.
  585W
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate how many national insurance accounts exist where no contributions are being made; and what assessment he has made of the actual or potential fraudulent use of such accounts. [14129]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are approximately 14 million national insurance accounts in existence where contributors have made no contributions or received any credits for over 3 years or more.

  An assessment shows that there is no evidence to suggest that there is any higher incidence of actual or potential fraud on these accounts compared to any other.

  Departmental Staff (Disability)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of staff in his Department had a disability in each year since 1992; and what targets are in place to increase the recruitment of people with disabilities. [9809]

  Mr. McCartney
  The proportion of staff with a disability employed by the Department for Work and Pensions is currently 5 per cent. The proportion of disabled staff employed by the former Department of Social Security and the Employment Service in each year since 1992 (where data are available) is set out in the table.

  Percentage

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  DSS

  6.1

  —

  4.9

  4.7

  4.7

  ES

  —

  —

  —

  6.5

  5.8

  The figures for previous years omit the relatively small number of staff who have additionally transferred across to DWP from DfEE.

  This Department has a range of policies and procedures in place to encourage the employment of people with disabilities covering their recruitment, retention and career development. In addition, this Department participates in the Positive About Disabled People Symbol scheme (known as the "two ticks" symbol) and operates a guaranteed interview scheme for job applicants with disabilities. Equality targets have been put in place to increase the representation of disabled staff at all levels within across the organisation, for achievement by March 2005. Details are set out in the table:

  Percentage of disabled staff as at December 1999

  Target percentage by 2005

  SCS

  1.6

  3.2

  Grades 6, 7 and SEO

  2.2

  3

  HEO and EO

  5.1

  6

  AO and AA

  4.7

  6

  Key:

  SCS: Senior Civil Service.

  SEO: Senior Executive Officer.

  EO: Executive Officer.

  AA: Administrative Assistant.

  Grade 6,7: Senior management grades.

  HEO: Higher Executive Officer.

  AO: Administrative Officer.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what estimate he has made of the number of people in(a) Wales, (b) England, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland who receive incapacity benefit and have an occupational or personal pension income which does not affect their incapacity benefit;[12937]

  (2) how many people in (a) Wales, (b) England, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland in receipt of incapacity benefit since 1 April have had their benefit entitlement reduced; how many of these have had their benefit reduced to nothing; and what percentage of them receiving incapacity benefit since 1 April have had it reduced. [12933]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 7 November 2001]: The available information is in the tables.

  People entitled to Incapacity Benefit (IB) whose benefit is affected by their occupational or personal pensions as at 31 May 2001

  IB reduced to nothing

  IB Reduced

  Percentage reduced1

  Wales

  2—

  3200

  4.7

  England

  3200

  3500

  2.0

  Scotland

  2—

  3100

  1.8

  1 Figures refer to the percentage of new and repeat claims to Incapacity Benefit made since 6 April 2001 where Incapacity Benefit was reduced or reduced to nothing.

  2 Numbers are taken from a small number of sample cases and are subject to a high degree of sampling error, they should therefore only be used as an indication of the current situation.

  3 Nil or Negligible.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2. Figures for Northern Ireland are not included. Social Security matters in Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

  Source:

  Figures are taken from a 5 per cent. sample of the benefit computer system and exclude a small number of cases held clerically.

  Estimated number of people with an occupational or personal pension, which does not affect the rate of Incapacity Benefit they receive as at 31 May 2001

  Recipients

  Wales

  38,000

  England

  340,000

  Scotland

  41,000

  Notes:

  1. Figures include recipients with an occupational pension in excess of £85.00 per week, whose Incapacity Benefit is not affected because their claim was made for a period which began before 6 April 2001.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand, although estimates of recipients with occupational and personal pensions cannot be regarded as accurate to this degree.

  3. Figures for Northern Ireland are not included. Social Security matters in Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

  Source:

  Estimates derived from a 5 per cent. sample of the benefit computer system, excluding a small number of cases held clerically, and the 1999–2000 Family Resources Survey.

  Disability Income Guarantee
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to uprate the disability income guarantee in line with earnings; and if he will make a statement. [8967]

  Maria Eagle
  In line with section 150 of the Social Security Administration Act, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is currently reviewing the rates of benefit. He will make an announcement in due course.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the part played by the resistance by farmers to the slaughter of their stock in the spread of the foot and mouth outbreak. [12421]

  Margaret Beckett
  Resistance to the slaughter of stock on contiguous premises has led to delays in some disease control operations, seriously hampering efforts to bring the epidemic under control. The longer that animals which are believed to have been exposed to the virus remain alive, the greater the risk of them developing disease and spreading infection to neighbouring farms.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to review licensing arrangements for animal movements following the recent foot and mouth disease outbreaks. [8546]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 18 October 2001]: The licensing arrangements for animal movements are kept under constant review and have been regularly amended to reflect the improving disease situation. Once foot and mouth disease has been eradicated, we will need to look closely at the way in which animal movements contributed to the rapid spread of disease. This aspect of the outbreak is likely to be one of the issues that will be examined by Dr. Iain Anderson's independent inquiry.

  There have been restrictions on the movement of pigs for many years. Any proposal to retain licensing for other animal movements would need to balance carefully the needs of the livestock industry and the inherent disease control risks associated with animal movements.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the amount of FMD vaccine(a) held in the UK and (b) available from elsewhere in Europe. [12291]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 2 November 2001]: As at the end of October, the Government's commercial supplies of a suitable vaccine to protect against the current strain of FMD virus would be sufficient to vaccinate at least 2.5 million animals. The exact number of doses needed per animal depends on the potency of the final vaccine, the number of doses given and the length of time we wish the animals to be protected. Stocks were increased and kept up to date as part of our vaccination contingency plans.
  588W
  We also have access to some of the estimated 6 million doses of the relevant vaccine held in the European vaccine bank. We placed a reserve on 125,000 doses in April 2001 as a precautionary measure.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the(a) number and (b) value of contracts (i) negotiated and (ii) yet to be negotiated in relation to (A) cleansing and (B) restocking following infection of the foot and mouth disease. [8149]

  Mr. Morley
  Secondary cleansing and disinfection work required to be undertaken under contracts agreed with contractors and farmers has now been completed on about 5,300 premises. A further 1,400 premises which are subject to similar contractual arrangements are undergoing cleansing and disinfection at present, with another 210 still to be started.

  The cost of carrying out contracted work on cleansing and disinfection, based on completed, continuing and a small number of premises still to be started, is estimated to be about £250 million.

  Restocking of premises is a matter for the individual owner of the premises and stock and no contractual information is available.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans he has to lift the three kilometre D notice in the infected area in Leominster. [6662]

  Mr. Morley
  There have been no infected premises within 10 kilometres of Leominster and therefore there are no three kilometre D notice restrictions in place around Leominster. All protection zone restrictions in Herefordshire have been lifted; the last was lifted on 21 August. However, there is currently sampling and testing of the premises in the three to 10 kilometre surveillance zones in Herefordshire and until this has been completed satisfactorily, the county remains at "at risk" status.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what is the total number of animals, by species, slaughtered under the Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme since 19 February. [14055]

  Mr. Morley
  The Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme was opened on 22 March 2001, to deal with severe welfare problems arising from the foot and mouth disease movement restrictions that cannot be dealt with by any other means. As at 7 November, the Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme had dealt with a total of 1,929,891 animals since it opened. Of these, 1,481,049 were sheep (76.7 per cent.), 279,126 were pigs (14.5 per cent.), 166,531 were cattle (8.6 per cent.) and 3,185 were other species (0.2 per cent.).

  Chernobyl
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many sheep, on how many farms, are subject to restrictions resulting from the fallout of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986, broken down by region. [9938]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.
  589W
  The table shows the current numbers of farms and sheep remaining under restrictions arising from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986. The figures are presented for England, Wales and Scotland. The last restrictions in place in Northern Ireland were removed in April 2000.

  Farms

  Sheep

  England

  9

  11,500

  Wales

  359

  180,000

  Scotland

  18

  38,000

  Total

  386

  229,500

  Crustastun
  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what support her Department is giving to Bristol University and to Silsoe Research Institute in Bedford for the development of the Crustastun. [11198]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been advised that DEFRA is not supporting the development of Crustastun which is a trade name. DEFRA has supported link projects looking at the use of electric stunning for farmed fish.

  Litter
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her estimate is of the annual cost of clearing up litter in the UK in each of the last three years. [11968]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government do not keep consolidated data on how much each local authority spends on litter removal annually. A recent estimate by the Tidy Britain Group suggests that total annual expenditure on litter removal in England is about £370 million.

  Rural Recovery Programme
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much of the money committed to rural businesses as part of the rural recovery programme following the FMD crisis has been allotted. [9601]

  Alun Michael
  All of the £27 million allocated as direct grants to business in May has been committed. Some £21 million has already been approved for payment. Payment is made as soon as possible after a claim is submitted, subject to the usual checks, and it is expected that the full allocation will be used. The submission of a claim depends on the individual business which has received grant approval depending on individual RDA/ Business Link procedures.

  Computer Crime
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many cases of computer(a) hacking, (b) fraud and (c) theft her Department recorded in (i) 2000 and (ii) 2001; and on how many occasions in those years computer systems have been illegally accessed by computer hackers (A) within and (B) outside his Department. [13138]
  590W
  Mr. Morley
  There were no cases of computer hacking detected for 2000 and two cases in 2001, to date, perpetrated by persons outside the Department. There were no cases of fraud detected during the same period. The number of computer thefts detected was 19 in 2000 (15 by insiders and the remainder by persons outside the Department) and 16 in 2001, to date, (15 by insiders and the remainder by persons outside the Department). Figures for 2000 and until 11 June 2001 relate to Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and after that date to Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list those members of the Carbon Trust Board who represent(a) the energy supply industry, (b) the energy efficiency industry, (c) local government and (d) the rest of the public sector. [12102]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 8 November 2001]: For a full list of Carbon Trust Board Members, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to him on 5 November 2001, Official Report, column 36–37W. Appointments to the Carbon Trust Board are a matter for the Chairman and the Board. However, Government non-executive directors are appointed to represent the public interest and the interests of their respective Departments and Devolved Administrations.

  The independent non-executive directors are appointed on a personal basis and not to represent any particular interest. The aim is to bring the right balance of skills and experience to the strategic direction of the company. The executive team and work programme of the Carbon Trust will be developed to address operational or sectoral needs. In addition the Carbon Trust will be establishing stakeholder advisory groups to establish dialogue with and represent the interests of particular groups.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what was the total level of Government financial support made available to energy efficiency measures in each year since 1990. [12791]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 7 November 2001]: The funding made available by the Department and its predecessors to support and promote efficiency measures in each year since 1990 is as follows:

  Year

  £million

  1990–91

  18.4

  1991–92

  39.3

  1992–93

  49.4

  1993–94

  60.3

  1994–95

  102.7

  1995–96

  128.5

  1996–97

  116.0

  1997–98

  110.5

  1998–99

  109.0

  1999–2000

  112.0

  2000–01

  1163.5

  1 Estimated

  The core of this spend is the Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme, support for the Energy Saving Trust and the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme. Energy Saving Trust funding for Scotland was devolved from 1 July

  591W
  1999. Between 1991–99, the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme covered the whole of Great Britain. In July 1999 and April 2000, separate programmes were set up in Scotland and Wales respectively. For these devolved areas, it is the responsibility of the respective Parliaments and Assemblies to comment on the funding situation.

  AAPS
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will draw down the EU share, and pay the UK share, of the(a) first and (b) second tranche of aid on AAPS 2000 payments before 31 October. [9709]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 23 October 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to he reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) on 31 October 2001, Official Report, column 738W.

  Livestock Disease Prevention
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the future viability of livestock markets in England and Wales; and what steps she has taken to provide financial assistance for the additional costs involved in implementing extra disease prevention measures. [11421]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department's immediate priority is to eradicate foot and mouth disease. We have not made a formal assessment of the longer term viability of livestock markets. However, there will be a need to consider the extent to which the movement of animals through markets contributed to the spread of the disease.

  There are no plans to provide financial assistance to livestock markets for the costs incurred in relation to biosecurity arrangements. Livestock markets are legally required to carry out cleansing and disinfection at the conclusion of each market and must therefore bear these costs themselves.

  Animal Welfare
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will commission a study on the efficacy of marketing animals(a) over the internet and (b) via video link in reducing (i) the cost, (ii) animal suffering and (iii) infection risks of livestock markets. [12283]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 2 November 2001]: It is for farmers to decide how best to market their animals, taking account of costs and animal health and welfare requirements. We are aware of various initiatives by auctioneers to hold video and internet sales and that these have met with a degree of success. Such initiatives are to be welcomed as they provide another option for farmers to market their animals and we will watch developments with interest.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what response her Department has made to the European Commission's proposal to reclassify medicines for food-producing animals as prescription-only medicines; and what 592W
  assessment she has made of the consequence for (a) animal health and (b) the agricultural and equine veterinary medicine supply industry. [14063]

  Mr. Morley
  This proposal forms part of a much wider set of proposals produced by the European Commission to amend the procedures for the authorisation and control of both human and veterinary medicines in the EU. In its present form this particular proposal could result in UK farmers having to pay more by incurring veterinary surgeons' fees when obtaining those medicines that are currently available without veterinary intervention. This may deter farmers from seeking appropriate treatment. Furthermore, the proposal could restrict the number and types of veterinary medicines that may be supplied by registered agricultural merchants and saddlers, to a limited range of products for dogs and cats. This could have significant adverse effects on those businesses.

  In considering the proposal the Government have taken account of its likely impact on the supply of veterinary medicines and has agreed that, during negotiations, UK officials should seek to modify the proposal to enable a flexible approach to the distribution of veterinary medicinal products that takes advantage of existing national practices, so long as consumer protection and animal welfare can be demonstrably assured.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessments she has made of the proposals by the European Commission that medicines for food-producing animals will become prescription only medicines; and if she will make a statement on the consequences of this proposal for rural agricultural businesses. [13860]

  Mr. Morley
  This proposal forms part of a much wider set of proposals produced by the European Commission to amend the procedures for the authorisation and control of both human and veterinary medicines in the EU. In its present form this particular proposal could result in UK farmers having to pay more by incurring veterinary surgeons' fees when obtaining those medicines that are currently available without veterinary intervention. Furthermore, it could restrict the number and types of veterinary medicines that may be supplied by registered agricultural merchants and saddlers, to a limited range of products for dogs and cats. This could have significant adverse effects on those businesses.

  In considering the proposal the Government have taken account of its likely impact on the supply of veterinary medicines and has agreed that, during negotiations, UK officials should seek to modify the proposal to enable a flexible approach to the distribution of veterinary medicinal products that takes advantage of existing national practices, so long as consumer protection and animal welfare can be demonstrably assured.

  Compensation (Tuna Fishermen)
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has received regarding compensation for UK fishermen who(a) have had and (b) will have their tuna drift net licences withdrawn. [11590]

  Mr. Morley
  I have received one such representation this year.

  Recycling (Refrigerators)
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the cost to local authorities involved in storing refrigerators and deep-freezers awaiting recycling(a) by each local authority area and (b) in total. [12032]

  Mr. Meacher
  The costs of storage will be affected by a range of factors, in particular the environmental protection standards that are set for storage facilities. This Department has been working with stakeholders to assess the appropriate standards for storage of waste refrigeration equipment and will finalise this guidance shortly. We will monitor the costs of such storage over the next few months.

  Farm Business Advisory Services
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the waiting time is for access to the three-day farm business advisory services for farmers in(a) England and (b) the west midlands. [13198]

  Alun Michael
  Waiting lists vary across regions and it is not possible to provide a future for England. The waiting list in the west midlands region is currently open ended. To ease waiting lists we have switched £1.5 million of funding from the five-day "enhanced" service to the three-day service allowing demand for both services to be met. This will reduce waiting times considerably. The west midlands region anticipate that their three-day waiting list will be cleared within five weeks.

  Farming (Diversification)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what funding is available to farmers to diversify into tourism outside objective 1 areas. [13019]

  Alun Michael
  Outside objective 1 areas, the main source of Government funding for farmers wishing to diversify into rural tourism is the Rural Enterprise Scheme. Rural tourism is a high national priority within the suite of measures supported by RES. The proportion of the £152 million RES budget allocated to rural tourism, like all other measures under the scheme, is determined at the regional level in the light of consultation with local stakeholders. DEFRA also offers assistance in the form of free planning consultancy advice to farmers who intend to pursue an eligible RES diversification project, which may include diversification into rural tourism. The RES is not available in objective 1 areas but equivalent funds are available through the objective 1 Programme for each area. Other funding for farm-based tourism projects which utilise existing farm buildings is available from Regional Development agencies in the form of redundant building grant.

  Flooding
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the steps taken by the public bodies involved to reduce the risk of flooding in the south of Worcestershire since the Easter 1998 floods; and if she will make a statement. [13220]
  594W
  Mr. Morley
  A number of measures have been taken to reduce the, risk of flooding in this area since 1998.

  Liaison between the Environment Agency, local authorities and emergency services has been considerably strengthened, including a flood emergency exercise conducted in the Upper Severn area.

  The south Worcestershire area has also benefited from enhancements to the Environment Agency's Flood Warning service and the national flood awareness campaigns conducted annually. Every property on the `at-risk' database has been sent flooding information and everyone within telephone Flood Warning service areas has been invited to receive warnings.

  The Environment Agency have been investigating flood defence options at five locations which suffered flooding Easter 1998 floods and, where sustainable, works to alleviate flooding have been carried out, or are planned. A new rain gauge has also been installed at Hindlip.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures the Government have taken to reduce the risk of flooding to one in 100 in high risk areas. [13006]

  Mr. Morley
  I am reducing the risk of flooding by investing in effective flood warning arrangements and flood defences in the highest risk areas. Funding for the Department's programme is increasing from £66 million 2000–01 to £114 million in 2003–04.

  This Department provides funding to the Environment Agency, local authorities and Internal Drainage Boards for capital flood and coastal works that meet certain criteria. Responsibility for deciding which projects to promote and their timing rests with the operating authorities. The operating authority draws on its local knowledge of the area when deciding what needs to be done, including the design standard of protection within the economic justification of the project.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will provide funding for a flood defence scheme in Milby and Langthorpe. [13384]

  Mr. Morley
  I understand that the Environment Agency's initial assessment for a flood alleviation scheme in Milby and Langthorpe suggests that it cannot be justified economically. However, if the agency decides to promote a scheme, they can submit an application for grant aid to this Department. Such an application would be considered against our normal criteria for funding flood defences.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what preventive measures she has taken to ensure that the Ouse does not flood as a result of rivers to the north flowing into it. [13415]

  Mr. Morley
  Operational responsibility for flood alleviation measures rests with local operating authorities, namely the Environment Agency, Internal Drainage Boards and local councils.

  I understand that the Environment Agency's preliminary strategic review for the River Ouse catchment is due for completion early in 2002. The findings of this strategy will inform the agency's plans for a prioritised

  595W
  programme of feasibility and capital works in the catchment, including any for rivers flowing into the River Ouse from the north.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will provide funding towards construction of a land drainage pumping station in Rawcliffe; [13386]

  (2) what measures she has taken to ensure that Blue. Beck in Rawcliffe does not flood and that run-off water will be diverted away from local homeowners. [13416]

  Mr. Morley
  Operational responsibility for flood alleviation measures rests with local operating authorities, namely the Environment Agency, internal drainage boards and local councils.

  The Kyle and Ouse Internal Drainage Board is responsible for the Blue Beck and has commissioned consultants to examine how flood risk can be reduced, including an assessment of the justification of pumping facilities. If the board decides to promote works, they can submit an application for grant aid to this Department. Such an application would be considered against our normal criteria for funding flood defences.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on flood(a) warning and (b) prevention arrangements. [12885]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 1095W.

  Livestock Movements
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she plans to take to enable livestock to reach their winter accommodation before winter weather sets in. [10181]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department introduced livestock movement arrangements for the autumn on 17 September, in consultation with a wide range of interested parties. The scheme rules have been kept under constant review in light of the changing disease situation across the country and are designed to allow the maximum movement compatible with eradicating foot and mouth disease. Detailed information on the autumn movements arrangements have been placed on the DEFRA website http://www.defra.gov.uk/. A movement licence helpline is also available on 01392 314941 and is open from 8:30–17:30 on weekdays and 9:00–13.00 on Saturdays.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received relating to her Department's advice to farmers on the licensing provisions for livestock movements. [10177]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has received a range of representations concerning the operation of the autumn livestock movement arrangements. Advice on licensing arrangements has been made available to farmers through leaflets, the DEFRA website and the movement licence helpline. My noble Friend Lord Whitty sent a detailed letter to all livestock farmers in England and Wales about the arrangements on 11 September. We have consulted regularly with stakeholders ever since the licensing 596W
  scheme was introduced and we are always ready to consider suggestions for improving the way in which we disseminate information to farmers.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the number of animals over 30 months old which have not been transported owing to movement restrictions; and if she will make a statement. [12352]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: This information is not currently available. However, I have asked the British Cattle Movement Service to consider whether they can provide statistical information on the movement of over 30 month cattle, registered on the Cattle Tracing System. I will write to the hon. Member with more information as soon as possible.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what investigations she has carried out into her Department's animal health division with respect to the delay in the granting of movement licences; and if she will make a statement. [12349]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: The Autumn Movement Arrangements were introduced in three phases between 17 September and 1 October. The licensing system is dependent upon a database, which gave rise to a number of difficulties. My officials worked, and continue to work, very closely with local authorities and the livestock industry to resolve these difficulties, and I am satisfied that the arrangements are now operating satisfactorily.

  The permitted range of movements under the Autumn Movement Arrangements is kept under review in the light of the developing disease situation.

  Animal Health Act
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she plans to propose amendments to the Animal Health Act 1981 to give the Government powers to seize and destroy any animal; what right of appeal will be proposed; and what assessment she has made of compatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998. [13846]

  Mr. Morley
  The Animal Health Bill currently before Parliament does not give Ministers power to seize and destroy any animal. It provides for the Minister to cause animals to be slaughtered with a view to preventing the spread of foot and mouth disease (FMD). The term "animal" is defined in the 1981 Act and the Foot and Mouth Disease Order and the definition of animals for these purposes is restricted to FMD-susceptible animals.

  In addition, the Bill contains provisions to extend such powers to other diseases, by Affirmative Resolution Order.

  The two avenues of appeal against slaughter that are currently available remain unaffected. These are the ability to ask the local Divisional Veterinary Manager to review the case and to seek judicial review.

  Under the scrapie provisions, the Bill provides for Ministers to issue restriction notices requiring that genetically susceptible sheep should be either castrated

  597W
  (or sterilised) or slaughtered by their keepers/owners, and for Ministers to enforce these provision in the event of non-compliance. Appeals against a restriction notice could be made to an independent assessor.

  In my view these provisions, and all others in the Bill, are compatible with the convention rights for the purpose of the Human Rights Act 1998.

  Farm Study (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if a decision has been made to grant a cash contribution to Shropshire county council's Farm Study for Shropshire. [12611]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 November 20017: DEFRA has made a financial contribution to the Shropshire Farm Study via English Nature and the Countryside Agency. Our regional Rural Development Service staff based on Worcester have also provided technical assistance.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to ensure that once the foot and mouth disease export restrictions have been lifted UK animals exported under licence to France and the Netherlands are not then re-exported to southern European countries. [13547]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 9 November 2001]: Animals are not exported under licence although there is EU legislation covering the animal health requirements that must be met before animals move within the Community and the veterinary checks that must take place. EU rules governing animal welfare during intra-community trade in cattle, sheep and pigs lay down specific requirements which must be met during any journey. We enforce these rules rigorously within our jurisdiction. When a journey starts in another member state it is the responsibility of the authorities in that member state to ensure compliance with animal health and animal welfare requirements.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs if she will make representations to other EU countries to end the payment of export refunds on the export of live cattle from the EU to the middle east and North Africa. [13550]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 9 November 2001]: Export refunds on live cattle exports to Third Countries are a component of the EU's market management measures for the beef sector. No refunds are paid in respect of trade from the UK because of the BSE-related export ban. Nevertheless, a number of member states, the UK included, wish to address the continuing animal welfare problems with this trade.

  We have always maintained the UK's preference for a trade in meat rather than live animals. This view was reflected in the Council Resolution on the protection of animals during transport adopted at the June Council. The Resolution not only invited the Commission to produce recommendations to improve implementation and control of current EU animal welfare legislation, but also to report
  598W
  on options for reducing long distance transport of animals for slaughter. We hope the Commission produce their proposals and report soon.

  EU Agrimonetary Compensation
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the Government will claim the available EU agrimonetary compensation for arable farmers before 31 October. [9712]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 23 October 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) on 31 October 2001, Official Report, column 738W.

  Dioxins
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many maximum tolerable daily doses of dioxin, as defined by the WHO, 1.1g represents. [13439]

  Mr. Meacher
  In June 2001, the Joint Food and Agriculture Organisation/World Health Organisation (WHO) Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) proposed a provisional tolerable monthly intake of 70 picograms (pg) WHO toxicity equivalents (WHO-TEQ) per kilogram (kg) bodyweight for "dioxins" (that is polychlorinated dibenzo-p-doxins, polyclorinated dibenzofurans, and dioxin-like polychlorinated bephenyls). For an adult weighing 70 kilograms, this corresponds to a tolerable daily intake of approximately 160 pg. 1.1 g is 6,875 million times 160 pg.

  The 1.1 g figure which I quoted in my earlier response (23 October 2001) represents the emissions of dioxins and furans from municipal solid waste incinerators during 2000. This figure does not refer to human intake so it is not appropriate to make such a comparison with the TDI.

  The most recent (1997) estimate of average daily intakes for adults in the UK is 1.8 pg WHO-TEQ per kilogram bodyweight, which (for an adult weighing 70 kg) corresponds to an average daily intake of approximately 130 pg.

  The Government believe there is a strong case for reducing emissions to the environment further, and my Department will shortly be consulting on measures to achieve this.

  Scrapie
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans her Department has to bring forward legislation to provide for compulsory powers to cull sheep from flocks possessing the genotype susceptible to scrapie. [11211]
  599W
  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) on 5 November 2001,Official Report, column 30W.

  Imports
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the volume of(a) food imports and (b) agricultural imports into the United Kingdom in the last three years. [12809]

  Food and agricultural imports 1998–2000

  Values in £ million

  Group

  Category

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Live animals

  Pigs

  9.9

  10.0

  13.5

  Sheep and goats

  3.6

  4.5

  6.8

  Poultry

  4.7

  5.5

  5.3

  Bovine animals

  3.9

  2.3

  3.6

  Live animals Total

  22.2

  22.4

  29.1

  Meat

  Poultrymeat (inc poultry offal)

  523.6

  546.7

  540.8

  Other meat products

  381.1

  407.8

  473.8

  Beef and veal

  395.7

  431.8

  461.0

  Bacon and ham

  375.8

  398.9

  456.4

  Pork

  178.0

  215.4

  275.2

  Lamb and mutton

  203.8

  194.3

  199.6

  Meat Total

  2,058.0

  2,194.9

  2,406.7

  Dairy Products and Eggs

  Cheese

  611.9

  630.1

  601.0

  Butter

  210.1

  230.3

  234.8

  Yogurt and ice cream

  150.1

  158.1

  173.4

  Eggs and egg products

  30.6

  31.6

  43.6

  Milk and cream

  59.6

  47.4

  41.7

  Other milk products

  38.3

  39.5

  40.9

  Milk powder

  32.3

  38.2

  37.6

  Condensed milk

  12.1

  12.1

  16.6

  Dairy Products and Eggs Total

  1,144.9

  1,187.4

  1,189.6

  Fish

  Fish fresh, chilled or frozen

  543.5

  589.2

  612.3

  Crustaceans

  360.1

  355.9

  403.3

  Fish and crustaceans prepared or preserved

  378.6

  340.4

  306.6

  Fish live

  16.5

  17.2

  16.1

  Fish Total

  1,298.8

  1,302.7

  1,338.3

  Cereals

  Bread and biscuits

  445.3

  442.6

  445.6

  Unmilled cereals

  312.5

  286.8

  286.1

  Rice

  173.5

  178.8

  152.6

  Mixes and doughs for baking

  122.8

  129.3

  112.5

  Milled, rolled or flaked cereals

  98.3

  97.1

  101.3

  Cereals Total

  1,152.5

  1,134.7

  1,098.1

  Vegetables and Fruit

  Fresh fruit

  1,653.0

  1,572.6

  1,531.7

  Vegetables, fresh or chilled

  1,071.1

  1,053.4

  1,090.4

  Vegetables, frozen, prepared or preserved

  758.4

  816.4

  715.4

  Jams

  306.4

  290.3

  274.7

  Fruit juice

  268.8

  285.3

  250.3

  Nuts

  111.0

  115.4

  117.7

  Vegetables and Fruit Total

  4,168.7

  4,133.4

  3,980.2

  Sugars

  Sugar

  627.3

  583.6

  542.1

  Sugar confectionary

  130.0

  141.6

  153.5

  Honey

  21.0

  16.1

  16.4

  Sugars Total

  778.3

  741.2

  712.0

  Coffee, Tea etc.

  Chocolate

  332.1

  377.5

  387.8

  Coffee

  385.9

  296.8

  280.8

  Tea

  225.9

  204.2

  211.3

  Cocoa

  298.6

  301.6

  159.6

  Spices

  57.2

  54.6

  64.0

  Coffee, Tea, etc. Total

  1,299.7

  1,234.7

  1,103.6

  600W
  Mr. Morley
  It is not meaningful to combine volumes of different types of products. The table therefore shows the value of UK imports of food and agricultural products between 1998 and 2000.

  More detailed information on food and agricultural imports, including volumes, can be found at the DEFRA website (www.defra.gov.uk/esg/work—htm/index/ trade.htm and click on the link to "UK trade data in food, feed and drink including indigenity and degree of processing").
  601W

  Food and agricultural imports 1998–2000

  Values in £ million

  Group

  Category

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Animal Feed

  Oil cake

  250.1

  256.6

  255.2

  Other animal feed

  290.1

  231.3

  254.6

  Dog or cat food

  159.9

  161.8

  194.8

  Animal Feed Total

  700.2

  649.6

  704.7

  Miscellaneous Total

  912.8

  963.5

  829.0

  Beverages

  Wine

  1,763.0

  1,918.3

  1,688.5

  Other spirits

  279.9

  282.2

  364.9

  Mineral water

  187.3

  268.3

  289.5

  Beer

  315.2

  310.1

  283.4

  Whisky

  50.8

  49.5

  56.8

  Cider and other fermented beverages

  26.6

  26.0

  23.4

  Beverages Total

  2,622.7

  2,854.5

  2,706.4

  Oils and Fats

  Vegetable oils and fats

  755.8

  672.6

  604.8

  Processed fats and waxes

  89.2

  84.2

  95.3

  Animal oils and fats, not chemically modified

  73.2

  60.5

  59.7

  Oils and Fats Total

  918.2

  817.2

  759.8

  Total Imports

  17,076.9

  17,236.2

  16,857.5

  Source

  HM Customs and Excise

  Tenanted Farms
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of the future viability of local authorities' tenanted farms. [12807]

  Mr. Morley
  The 47th Annual Report to Parliament on Smallholdings in England was published in 1999. This report which is available in the Library of the House, covered the period to 31 March 1997. This showed that the total expenditure in the year to 31 March 1997, by local authorities with smallholdings, was £16.9 million and total income in the same period was £25.3 million. The Department also conducts an annual survey of tenanted land although this does not separately identify local authority tenanted farms.

  We have also commissioned work to establish the role local authority tenanted farms play in providing farming lets to new entrants. A preliminary assessment of the impact of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 was conducted by the University of Plymouth in 1997. This indicated that county smallholdings play an important but reducing role in providing farming lets to new entrants. A full policy evaluation of the 1995 Act is currently under way and this explores this area further. This work should be completed in early 2002.

  Ragwort
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and rural Affairs how many horses have died from ingesting ragwort in each of the last 10 years. [13597]

  Mr. Morley
  This information is not collected by the Department. However I can confirm that where agricultural land, or land used by farmers who have 602W
  diversified into equine enterprises, is threatened by the spread of injurious weeds such as ragwort the Department will continue to investigate any complaints received. We will also use our links with other organisations such as the British Horse Society to ensure horse owners are aware of the dangers of ragwort.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Legislation
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the President of the Council how many(a) Budgets have been introduced and (b) Government sponsored Bills have reached the statute book since 1997. [13866]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The information requested is as follows—(a) Five and (b)

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  World Summit on Sustainable Development
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures she is taking to ensure that water and sanitation issues are considered by the world summit on sustainable development; and if she will make a statement. [10934]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  To ensure that the UK views on water and sanitation are considered at the world summit on sustainable development (WSSD), I led the UK delegation to United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) in

  603W
  Geneva in September. UNECE is the regional preparatory conference at which items for inclusion in WSSD are discussed. The conference agreed that WSSD should develop specific initiatives, building on work undertaken since the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, in areas such as freshwater and sanitation.
  604W
  In December this year I will be leading the UK delegation to the International Conference on Freshwater in Bonn at which water and sanitation issues will be further discussed. The discussions at the Bonn conference will be reported to the second preparatory committee for the world summit on sustainable development.

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

Personal Statement: The Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I should like to take this first opportunity to put the record straight. In an oral Answer to a supplementary Question on 8th November I said that NMEC is not insolvent; that at all stages it traded entirely solvently and paid all its creditors. In fact, there was a period, as PricewaterhouseCoopers advised the company in the summer of 2000, when there was a need for a further Millennium Commission grant. Until the Millennium Commission confirmed the grant, there was a technical insolvency. Because the Millennium Commission made the further grant available on 5th September 2000, the insolvency never crystallised and all creditors have been paid.
The Answer I gave on Thursday was therefore unintentionally incorrect because it did not refer to that period. I apologise for the mistake, which is entirely my responsibility.

Gulf War Veterans: Health Study
2.37 p. m.
Lord Morris of Manchesterasked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to publish the findings of the medical study of the health effects of the multiple immunisation programme adopted by the Ministry of Defence to protect servicemen and women deployed in the Gulf War.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, the Ministry of Defence Interactions Research programme is studying whether the combination of vaccines used to protect UK personnel during the Gulf conflict can give rise to adverse health effects. As my noble friend Lady Symons announced in this House on 15th January, the programme is due to complete in 2003. The findings will be published in scientific literature as soon as possible thereafter.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend who understands, I know, the deep disquiet of Gulf veterans that they will not now know until the year after next, 12 years on, whether it was safe in 1991 to give them up to 14 inoculations in quick succession. Is the medical study also considering the
360
effects of issuing NAPS tablets; exposure to organophosphates, massive oil-smoke pollution and other toxic substances; and the constant stress imposed by Iraq's deployment of chemical and biological weapons? Without at least an interim report, how can any lessons learned from the study be fully applied in protecting our troops now on active service in Afghanistan and others, possibly including reservists, who may have to join them?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I understand the importance of my noble friend's Question, and his diligence and tireless energy on this subject in association with the Royal British Legion over a considerable period of time. He asked specifically about NAPS, the nerve agent pre-treatment sets. Yes, the interaction study includes work on whether the combination of NAPS and vaccines used to protect UK personnel during the Gulf conflict can give rise to adverse health effects.
My noble friend asked about lessons to be learned from the Gulf conflict in relation to the present conflict. We have taken steps to ensure that service personnel are kept up to date with routine vaccinations. Since the Gulf War, we have made improvements in the areas of medical record-keeping and in keeping up to date with the medical precautions which will need to be taken for those areas of the world where it is judged that our forces are likely to operate.
I should stress—I am sure your Lordships would expect me to do so—that the paramount concern of everyone involved in this research and consideration is to ensure that the best possible protection and support are given to those who risk their lives in defence of our freedom. Finally, my noble friend talked about the possibility of interim findings. As he rightly says, 2003 is longer than anyone would have wished to wait for the results. Perhaps I may refer him to the results published earlier this year in the Journal of Applied Toxicology. Other interim findings will be made public as and when they are known.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, will the Government, at the same time, be publishing their own views and comments, both on this study and on future programmes of this kind where our forces are serving abroad in unfamiliar conditions?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, the medical research is constantly ongoing and so far has been funded by the Ministry of Defence to the tune of £4.7 million. A further £1.5 million is anticipated. As has been repeatedly stated but needs to be restated, the basis of that research has been conducted with a view to ensuring the widest possible openness, frankness and dissemination of any results as and when they are discovered. As I am sure everyone will agree, it is important to ensure that the information is accurate. That is why the research has perhaps sometimes taken somewhat longer than we would have wished.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord would agree that every one of us in this

361
House, and probably in the country, accepts that it is the duty and intention of the Government to protect our forces when they go into a battlefield. However, does he also accept that when things apparently go wrong—they have very apparently gone wrong in this case—we should do something about it? I do not remember who it was who said that science is merely the assembling of facts which are common sense. Would it not be a good idea to apply common sense now and give the Gulf veterans the treatment they deserve? In other words, they should be recognised as being sick due to their service in the Gulf and should receive treatment accordingly?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I know that the noble Countess has been heavily involved in the issue and I am sure she will acknowledge that it is extremely complex, as is the evidence in respect of a number of issues that have been raised. We should keep in mind the statement made by the Government in 1997 declaring that three principles will govern all that we do: first, that all Gulf War veterans will have prompt access to medical advice from the Gulf War veterans' medical assessment programme; secondly, that there will be appropriate research into Gulf War veterans' illnesses and the factors which might have a bearing on those; and, thirdly and finally, as I have already said but make no apology for repeating, that the Ministry of Defence will make available to the public any information it possesses which is of potential relevance to the issue.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, how does one deal with an issue in respect of which one cannot have a control group? Presumably no government would dare to immunise only half of their forces, but the only real way of making an assessment would be to keep one group unimmunised. How does any government deal with such a dilemma?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, comparisons have been made between the forces which were deployed in the Gulf and those which were not. A number of studies have been made on that basis. However, nothing I say should detract from a recognition of the complexity of the issue or from the willingness and openness of the Ministry of Defence and the Medical Research Council to consider any future proposals which might present important information that could be the basis for research. We are looking forward as well as back.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, the problem was that at one time the Ministry of Defence ran out of anti-anthrax vaccine. Can the Minister assure the House that the Ministry owns enough vaccine to cover all foreseeable circumstances?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I know of the noble Lord's long-standing interest in the matter. For obvious reasons, and throughout much of this year and more recently, much concern has been expressed about anthrax. Independent medical advice has confirmed
362
that anthrax immunisation offers safe and effective additional protection and it is the duty of the department to ensure that adequate supplies of the vaccine are available.

Statue of Sir Walter Raleigh
2.46 p.m.
Baroness Trumpingtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the current situation with regard to the statue of Sir Walter Raleigh; and when the statue will be moved to its final destination.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the statue has been removed from Raleigh Green in Whitehall for cleaning before it is moved to the grounds of the former Royal Naval College at Greenwich. The site at Greenwich has now been prepared and the statue should be in its new home by the end of the year.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it would probably be churlish of me to say, "And about time, too!", so I shall not say it. Am I right in believing that it was mooted that a statue of a woman should replace that of tiny Sir Walter? Has that idea been abandoned? If not, I can think of several good subjects.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, if the noble Baroness would like to suggest some alternatives and find some sponsors, I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would be delighted to consider anything she proposes. However, I want to congratulate the noble Baroness on all the work she has done to ensure that Sir Walter Raleigh is moved to an appropriate place. I also want to suggest that there might be a small unveiling ceremony at which the noble Baroness might like to appear as Queen Elizabeth. I shall ask my noble friend Lord McIntosh, who has answered her Questions in the past, to appear as Sir Walter Raleigh with his cloak for her to step on.
Baroness Boothroyd: My Lords, is the Minister aware that my predecessor as Speaker and I did battle with government bureaucracy for 15 years in order to have the statue moved from Whitehall to an appropriate spot outside St Margaret's Church at Westminster? We were united in that desire by the Dean and Chapter of Westminster and by those who take care of the fabric of the two churches but the proposal was objected to by Westminster City Council. Is the noble Baroness further aware that the statue would have been most appropriately placed outside St Margaret's Church because it would have been seen daily by the hundreds of people who queue there to go into Westminster Abbey—plus the fact that the old chap's bones are actually underneath St Margaret's Church? Can the Minister tell me whether

363
there are any other projects of important historic connection around Westminster Abbey which Westminster City Council is seeking to veto?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am also extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, for the interest she has taken in the issue. I was aware that for a variety of reasons Westminster City Council decided not to grant planning permission for the statue to be placed on the green outside St Margaret's Church. I am not aware of any other proposals for statues to be placed on that spot, but, again, if there are any such proposals I should be particularly interested in them. However, I must add that it will be for Westminster City Council and not the Government to decide whether it is an appropriate place.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the two noble Baronesses that have spoken so far have not declared their interest? Both of them are indebted to Sir Walter for bringing in tobacco, to which they are both addicted.
Baroness Blackstone: Well, my Lords, I gather that the noble Baroness has given up. That must perhaps be a matter of disappointment for Sir Walter. He may indeed be turning in his grave.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the last time that this subject came up it was said that the reason his statue was so small was because tobacco had stunted his growth. Alas, it never stunted mine.

Public Services
2.50 p.m.
Viscount Goschenasked Her Majesty's Government:
What role they envisage for the private sector in enhancing the delivery of public services.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, the Government are determined to improve the delivery of public services. In the right circumstances, involving the private sector brings innovation and new management expertise to the delivery of good quality public services. Furthermore, one of our principles of reform is to create more choice for customers of public services with the option, if provision falls below acceptable standards, to have alternative services whether from other public service providers, from the private sector or indeed from the non-profit making voluntary sector.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, how does the Minister reconcile the ambitions given in his Answer to enhance the use of the private sector with the reality of the critically damaged reputation that the Government now have with it, following their action to force one of their largest private sector partners—Railtrack—out of business and to bypass the statutory regulator
364
entirely? Is not the inevitable consequence of this action that all future PPP projects will be more difficult to execute and will command a higher regulatory risk premium, making them much worse value for the taxpayer?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the Secretary of State, Stephen Byers, had to take decisive action in the interests of the travelling public. That was needed because the privatised system bequeathed by the Conservatives proved in the end to be unable to function efficiently and cost-effectively. As Stephen Byers has said, it was a difficult decision, but one that was needed to deliver a better rail system. I therefore see no reason why Railtrack should have any impact on other proposals for the modernisation of our infrastructure. I believe that financial backers are sophisticated enough to see the singularity of the situation that we faced on the railways.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, does my noble friend consider that there is a role for private and public initiatives to help in the regeneration of deprived areas of our country? I am currently investigating the disturbances earlier in the year in Burnley. In particular, perhaps my noble friend could say whether or not he feels that the PPIs could help in the clearance of some of the dreadful housing that I have witnessed over the last couple of months, houses that we should all be ashamed of. Help is desperately needed to clear these dreadful hovels.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I know that the local government sector has been particularly active with regard to clearing PFIs and PPPs. Since 1997, the capital value of PPPs has leapt to £16.5 billion. There are now almost 400 PPP projects of different types in various stages of procurement. That will take us up to a total of over £30 billion, which will be a key contribution to the regeneration of the country, and particularly the kind of areas that my noble friend indicates.
Lord Newby: My Lords, can the Minister say whether he is confident that the part-privatisation of the London Underground will go ahead in the light of the Railtrack fiasco, or whether the Government will now accept the case for keeping the Tube in the public sector?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, let me stress that the ownership of the Tube stays in the public sector. It will continue to be responsible for running the railway. The operation of the track, the signals, trains and stations will remain in public hands. Let me repeat that I see no reason why the Railtrack situation should have any impact on our proposals for the modernisation of London Underground. Financial backers are sophisticated enough to see that the kind of comparisons that the Opposition try to draw are misplaced.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, is it not a matter of grave concern that the Government can see "no reason"—to use the Minister's words—why the decision about Railtrack should make it more difficult to raise private finance when the overwhelming view of the financial markets is that it will make a considerable difference?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, we believed that Railtrack was a company that was facing financial meltdown. In April, I was party to a decision which advanced £1.5 billion to that company. But in July, after the election, I was interested to read that the company itself felt that the £1.5 billion was not enough to keep it going as a going concern. In the Government's view they were being asked for a blank cheque for no definite return. Any advisers in the financial sector in the City would see that to sign such a blank cheque would be bad business.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, will my noble friend ensure that the Government publish a paper indicating how calculations are made as to value for money in the case of a PPP as compared with financing the projects through the Treasury?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, a great deal of work has been done in this area. There is more in progress. I recall from memory of my time there, that there is a promise that the work being done on the public sector comparator for the London Tube will be published in time. If I am wrong about that I shall of course write and let my noble friend know.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, will the Minister accept that whatever the Government's rationalisation of the Railtrack series of events last month, the whole of the financial market was deeply shocked by what they did. For example, Digby Jones, the director-general of the CBI, has said that the Government will have to work hard to restore the faith of the capital markets. My question to the noble Lord is: do the Government intend to do anything to restore the faith of the capital markets?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, we served the capital market well in April by stating plainly that we would stand behind the rail network but that we would not stand behind particular companies or their shareholders. That was acknowledged by Steve Marshall of Railtrack in an interview to the Financial Times of 11th April. He said:
"Yes, they [the Government] would allow us to go bust. It's quite clearly item one on the agreement with the Government. While the Government stands behind the industry, they don't stand behind any particular company, of course they don't".
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, will my noble friend not agree with me that in the contribution that the private sector has made to finance the railways, the greatest sufferers have not been the people that the Opposition are bleating about but the hard-pressed commuters of
366
this country, the hard-pressed travellers who had what was previously a good railway system destroyed before their very eyes?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I understand the indignation of the noble Lord and indeed of many members of the travelling public. When I was at the Ministry of Transport we tried to be as understanding and supportive to Railtrack as was possible in the circumstances. The circumstances of July, however, made a continuance of that policy impossible.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, can the Minister shed any light on the mystery of why the public services appear to most people to be in a worse state now than they were when the Government changed power? Is it because, in the words of one Downing Street official:
"We are running a Soviet-style centralised system and that's never going to work"?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: Not at all, my Lords. What we are attempting to do is to sort out 18 years of dereliction and under-funding that we inherited. We are doing that very effectively in the sense that public sector investment—net of depreciation—will increase from £6.3 billion last year to £18.7 billion in the year 2003–04.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the long-suffering travellers on London Underground want the service to be improved and do not care where the money comes from as long as it is carried out quickly?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. I remind noble Lords that one of the guiding principles of this undogmatic Government is to do what works.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the public services have a major duty to ensure the safety of British airports? Is he further aware that very recently an aircraft has crashed close to JFK Airport in New York and a number of buildings in the area of Queens are on fire? If that is the result of a ground-to-air missile—nobody knows at this stage—will the noble Lord ensure that British airports are monitored very carefully by the military to ensure that an attack of that kind cannot happen here?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I am sure that I speak for everyone in the House when I say that the news that has just arrived is received with great sadness. I am no longer at the Ministry of Transport, but I can assure the noble Lord that the reputation of British aviation for its security measures was very high indeed, and I am sure that that will be sustained.

Regional Assemblies: Public Support
3.1 p.m.
Baroness Hanhamasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the low turnout and votes for elected mayors in the recent referendums, they propose to test public opinion on the demand for regional assemblies.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we are committed to testing public opinion through referendums before setting up elected regional assemblies. No region will have an assembly unless it votes for one.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. In view of the fact that the average turnout for the election of mayors was just 28 per cent, and in several cases as low as 10 per cent, and that the proposition for an elected mayor was successful in only a few local authorities, does the Minister believe that these experiments in local democracy are justified and that they will be any more successful or popular if extended to referendums on the public's reaction to regional assemblies?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I believe that the experiments in other forms of local democracy are justified. In certain cases the local leadership provided by a mayor can be of great importance. I do not believe anyone doubts that the leadership provided by Mayor Giuliani in New York has impressed the whole world. As to elected regional assemblies, we have made it clear that there will not be such bodies unless there is support for them in referendums beforehand. We need to identify what the threshold should be before such a referendum takes place. There are indications from public opinion that significant areas of the country would value an elected regional assembly. There have been low turnouts in quite a number of local government elections recently, as the noble Baroness is aware. I do not believe that she would suggest that that means we get rid of local government—far from it. We must try to inject greater interest in it.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am glad to hear the Minister's comment on local government. Is he aware that last week the Minister for Local Government, when commenting on low turnout, suggested that there should be mechanical measures, such as electronic voting, to encourage a higher turnout? Can the noble and learned Lord assure the House that this is not the limit of the Government's ambition? Does he agree that to encourage a higher turnout electors need to believe that they have a real say in what government will do at any level and that they will be electing politicians whom they can trust?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there is most certainly a place for making it easier for people to vote. As my right honourable friend in another place said,
368
the form of voting is exactly that which would have confronted Gladstone when he sought to vote. There is nothing wrong with trying to make voting easier and more accessible, but that should not be the end of it. We should look at ways of developing government that is more representative and closer to the people—mayors are one example—and let the people decide in relation to that, but we must also root local government in its role as local leaders.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, will the Minister ensure that when the Government come to consider the desirability of elected assemblies they remember the wisdom of John Major's observation that if the answer to the question is more politicians one is asking the wrong question?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, surely that is a matter for the regions to decide. For example, the North East or the North West can decide whether it wants a regional assembly which brings certain responsibilities closer to the people.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that there is a danger of electoral fatigue with people much keener on having elections and referendums than voting in them? Does he agree, therefore, that in these areas there is a case for supplementing referendums with other forms of test, such as citizens' juries, properly conducted opinion polls, and so on?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there is a role for those in relation to the development of policy. However, as to whether there should be an elected regional assembly, or what form of local government should apply in a particular area, I do not believe that there is any alternative to referendums.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what assessment the Government have made of the additional expenditure on a regional assembly and its likely cost to the average council tax payer? Can the noble and learned Lord also say whether he believes there is a need for both district and county councils following regional assemblies, and, if not, which one he would scrap?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not know the precise estimate of cost in relation to expenditure on a regional assembly. I shall write to the noble Viscount. As to whether there should be two-tier authorities, in some cases it is not right that there should be. That is something which needs to be looked at particularly in the context of where there is a regional assembly. If one has a regional assembly and two other tiers, that looks to be too many. As to which is the right one to remove, it is not for me to say at this stage.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister state the lowest percentage that would be acceptable and considered a fair test in a referendum?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I cannot say what the figure would be, but it is right that people

369
should be given the opportunity to vote. If there is a close vote and a low turnout, that is something that the Government must consider at a particular time. We must remember that turnout is going down at every level—in general elections, local elections and referendums—and simply to point out that fact is not an adequate response. We need to think of ways to ensure that more people feel engaged in the political process.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that whatever new system the Government may envisage to encourage voters to vote will not involve the use of pregnant chads?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I can give an assurance that pregnant chads are not at the forefront of our plans.

Export Control Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Welfare of Ducks Bill [H.L.]
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision with respect to the health and welfare of ducks kept for the production of meat or eggs or for breeding. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time. —(Lord Beaumont of Whitley.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Homelessness Bill
3.8 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
As many noble Lords will no doubt know, the Homelessness Bill was the first Bill to be introduced in another place in the current Session—a sign of the importance that the Government attach to its provisions.
The Government are committed to strengthening the existing safety net that local housing authorities provide to those who have lost their home or are at risk of becoming homeless. Homelessness often occurs in the wake of other upheavals in people's lives—for instance, the breakdown of a relationship, or health problems—and hits already vulnerable people harder still. The law already requires housing authorities to help those who find themselves homeless through no fault of their own. The provisions of the Bill will encourage authorities to assess their performance and see how they can target their assistance more effectively.
370
The Homelessness Bill is therefore intended to secure the prevention of homelessness as well as its relief. Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill will require local housing authorities to undertake a comprehensive review of homelessness in their district. This is not simply a head-counting exercise to determine the number of cases in the district and likely future levels of homelessness. The reviews will also require a good, hard look at what is already being done—not only in the public sector but also in the private and voluntary sectors—to prevent homelessness and to ensure that accommodation and appropriate support are available for those who are homeless; and to help people who need support to avoid becoming homeless.
Clauses 1 and 3 of the Bill will require each housing authority to draw up a strategy for preventing homelessness in its area and ensuring that adequate resources are available to help those who become homeless on the basis of the evidence gathered in its review. These strategies should embrace not only local authorities' relevant housing and social services functions, but also—with their agreement—the activities of other bodies, including voluntary organisations, that are working in the area to prevent homelessness or assist homeless people. The Bill encourages a multi-agency approach to tackling homelessness as part of these strategies. To ensure that they continue accurately to reflect the situation in each authority's area, strategies will have to be reviewed at least every five years.
The Bill also modifies the existing homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1996 to strengthen the protection available for homeless people. The provisions of the Bill will also offer greater protection to those who are unintentionally homeless but do not have a priority need. Housing authorities will be under a clearer duty to provide advice and assistance in such cases, and will have a new power under Clause 5 which will enable them to secure suitable accommodation for this client group, where they have sufficient resources available.
Clause 6 will ensure that all applicants who are unintentionally homeless and have a priority need must be secured suitable accommodation for as long as necessary until a settled home becomes available for them. It will also remove the current limit of two years on the main duty of housing authorities to secure suitable accommodation for homeless people in priority need.
Authorities are currently prevented from using their own accommodation to provide temporary housing for homeless people for more than two years in three. That restriction can be very unhelpful, putting an extra obstacle in authorities' way as they seek to find short-term accommodation for people whom they are obliged by law to accommodate. The relevant section of the Housing Act 1996, Section 207, is therefore repealed in Schedule 2 to the Bill, which will give authorities greater flexibility to meet homeless people's short-term housing needs.
Clause 8 of the Bill will ensure that homeless applicants have the right to ask the housing authority to review the suitability of any accommodation they

371
are offered without having to risk being made homeless again if the authority upholds its initial decision. That will help to ensure that all applicants are offered settled accommodation which is suitable for them.
At present, if other accommodation is available locally in the private sector, authorities can do no more than provide advice and assistance to those who approach them for help. Clause 9 of the Bill will remove this restriction on authorities.
Clause 10 of the Bill will clarify the obligations of local housing authorities towards people who have suffered violence or have been threatened with it. It will provide that applicants who would be at risk of any form of violence if they remained in their current home must be treated as homeless. Moreover, authorities will not be able to refer applicants to an authority in another area if they would be at risk of further violence there.
Under Clause 11 of the Bill, applicants will also have improved rights of appeal to the county court where they are dissatisfied with the local authority's homelessness decision. The court will be able to extend the 21-day period during which such applications can be made if there is a good reason to do so. Furthermore, applicants will have a new right to appeal to the county court if they are dissatisfied with a decision by the authority not to continue to accommodate them pending an appeal to the county court on the substantive homelessness decision. At present, local authority decisions not to accommodate can be considered only in the High Court by judicial review. The new powers will obviate the need for two different courts—the county court considering the appeal on the substantive homelessness decision and the High Court looking at the decision not to accommodate—to be involved in the same homelessness case at the same time.
Perhaps I may break from outlining the detail of the Bill to refer to a relevant point. We have also consulted on proposals to make an order under the Housing Act 1996 to extend the categories of homeless households who have a priority need for suitable short-term accommodation. The categories currently include families with dependent children, households where someone is pregnant, and households where someone is vulnerable as a result of old age, mental or physical disability or some other special reason.
We propose to extend the definition of priority need to cover 16 and 17 year-olds, people who are vulnerable as a result of being forced from their homes by violence, young people aged 18 to 21 who have previously been in care, and people who are vulnerable as a result of having spent time in local authority care, the Armed Forces or prison. I should note that the Government are firmly of the view that 16 and 17 year-olds belong, wherever possible, with their families, but in cases where a young person's relationship with that family has irrevocably broken down, they must be found suitable accommodation and support. The order will ensure this.
372
The order will also provide that people who are vulnerable as a result of having served a custodial sentence must be treated as having a priority need for accommodation. This proposal has been portrayed by some as giving ex-prisoners priority for housing over families. Let me make it absolutely clear that the order will do nothing of the kind. Being treated as having a priority need for accommodation under the homelessness legislation does not give anyone priority for the allocation of long-term social housing. The process of allocating long-term social tenancies is quite separate from the operation of the homelessness safety net.
Perhaps I may also remind noble Lords that ex-offenders without appropriate accommodation are twice as likely to reoffend as those who have settled housing. In the long run, it is many times more cost-effective to assist ex-offenders to go straight, in order to be able to work and to contribute to society.
I shall be frank. The provisions of the Bill and the priority needs order are intended to provide a safety net which is broad enough and strong enough to ensure that all those who are most vulnerable within our society will be provided with accommodation if they become homeless through no fault of their own. The result of that will doubtless mean that even more people will be recorded as statutorily homeless. But we must re-evaluate what the homelessness figures mean. These are people who are being helped; they are no longer homeless. Where the system currently fails is in the number of homeless people who are not covered by the current legislation and are therefore invisible in the statistics. Bringing their circumstances to light is the first step in securing settled housing for them, and we make no apology for doing so.
The Government's immediate priority must be to ensure that such people have somewhere suitable to live in the short-term. We need to work towards preventing homelessness occurring in the first place and ensure that sufficient accommodation is available so that those for whom homelessness cannot be avoided do not have to spend long periods in unsatisfactory temporary accommodation. We are aware of the plight of families placed, for want of a better option, in temporary bed and breakfast accommodation by authorities. We have set up the Bed and Breakfast Unit to work with authorities and other stakeholders to address the problem. The unit aims to reduce within two years the use in England of such accommodation, particularly in relation to families with children.
The next priority is to improve the quality of existing homes and to increase the supply of affordable accommodation. Last year, we published a comprehensive policy for housing in The Way Forward for Housing. The Government are committed to ensuring that everyone has the opportunity of living in a decent home. We are increasing investment in affordable housing through the Housing Corporation to over £1.2 billion by 2003–04, almost double the level in 2000–01.

373
There is also a part for the private sector to play in meeting housing demand. The Housing Investment Programme and the Best Value in Housing regime encourage local authorities to set out clear strategies to tackle empty property. We fully support the action of the Empty Homes Agency to encourage and cajole local authorities to implement effective strategies and will refer to empty property strategies in the revised guidance on homelessness. Such strategies are an opportunity for authorities to assess the potential of empty homes in their area and seek to engage their owners to bring back the homes into use. As a last resort, local housing authorities already have powers to make compulsory purchases of empty properties.
I should also like to touch on the operation of the Children Act 1989 with regard to homeless families. I have no doubt that some noble Lords will be aware of the concerns of Shelter regarding this issue, having followed discussion of the Bill in another place or perhaps having seen recent media coverage. These concerns were prompted by two recent court cases in which the obligations of a social services authority under the Children Act 1989 to provide accommodation and financial support for children in need were considered.
The Government take this matter very seriously and are giving it careful consideration. It has become clear to me that we need further evidence of how the provisions of the existing Act work in practice. I intend to meet representatives of local government and social services very shortly to obtain that information, and I shall report to the House in due course. In particular, I shall report to the House before the Bill has completed its passage through this House.
I return to the Bill. Its provisions also cover the allocation of social housing by local housing authorities. The Bill improves the rights of new applicants for local authority housing and existing social tenants seeking a transfer. Under Clause 13, local housing authorities will have to give proper consideration to all applications, whether these are for a first-time tenancy or for a transfer, and the current requirement to maintain a housing register will be abolished.
Clause 13 of the Bill will also replace the power which enables local housing authorities to carry out so-called "blanket exclusions" of whole categories of would-be applicants with a much more focused power, which will enable authorities to decide to treat individual applicants as ineligible, but only where they meet stringent criteria. These are that the applicant, or a member of his or her household, has been guilty of unacceptable behaviour; that the behaviour was serious enough to make the applicant unsuitable to be a tenant of the authority; and that this behaviour still renders the applicant unsuitable to be a tenant at the time the application for housing is considered.
This provision is intended to allow authorities to reject only those cases where the applicant, or a member of his or her household, has a record of serious unacceptable behaviour and has made no
374
efforts to reform. We shall make clear in statutory guidance that unacceptable behaviour will not include, for example, minor rent arrears, and, in particular, it will not include rent arrears which are the result of delays in the payment of housing benefits which were outside the control of the applicant.
It is important that human rights are respected. Clause 13 provides that an applicant who finds that his or her application has been thrown out on these grounds will have the right to ask for a review of the decision.
I know that concerns have been expressed about these provisions. Local housing authorities will, in some cases, need to perform a delicate balancing act when considering using these powers. This has certainly been the most difficult aspect of the Bill to shape. However, I believe that we have got the balance about right.
Clause 15 will give authorities the flexibility to draw up transparent allocation policies which reflect their local circumstances. This clause will also give applicants the right to obtain information about how their application is being handled and to ask for a review of key decisions by the authority.
The Government want to see authorities move towards allocation systems which allow both new applicants and existing tenants a greater degree of choice from the available accommodation which fits their needs. We believe that this is the best way to ensure that social tenancies are sustained and communities are maintained. We are therefore funding some 27 pilot schemes at present to test different approaches to choice-based letting. While these schemes are led by local housing authorities, there is a very strong emphasis on ensuring that they work in partnership with registered social landlords and other stakeholders.
The Bill and the priority need order, to which I referred, are at the heart of the Government's wider efforts to tackle homelessness. The Government are determined to ensure that people who become homeless through no fault of their own should be helped to secure suitable, affordable accommodation. The Homelessness Bill is vital to this work. It will strengthen the safety net, ensure that local housing authorities take a strategic approach to addressing homelessness in their areas, and allow authorities to be responsive to local circumstances in their allocation of social housing. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
3.25 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, in rising to the Dispatch Box for the first time as a shadow spokesman, I declare an interest by reminding the House that I am an elected member of a London local authority. I shall try not to refer too much to that local authority, although it has a good record on most aspects of its services—including housing—and, like all other local authorities, it will be greatly affected by the Bill before us today.

375
The provisions which make up the Bill were snatched from the jaws of the death of the Homes Bill, which, rightly, bit the dust as a result of the general election. In general, the provisions have been supported by the Opposition in both Houses, but not without reservations about some of the practical implications associated with them.
Increasing the priority categories—including now the Invisible"—which qualify for permanent housing over and above those already in the 1996 Act, however justified this may be, will have an enormous impact on local authorities' ability to carry out their duties. As, indeed, will the requirement to provide temporary accommodation for as long as it takes to find suitable permanent accommodation which meets the requirements of the homeless person—a position which can be further affected by the provisions for review and appeal of housing authority decisions.
I am speaking only of London at the moment—although I am sure the situation is reflected in other metropolitan authorities—where an ever increasing number of vulnerable, threatened or homeless people are already in temporary accommodation, often, as the Minister said, entirely unsuited to their own situation or that of their families. They continue to remain in it because of the scarcity of reasonable, permanent housing into which they can be settled.
In England alone, the number of households living in bed and breakfast accommodation has risen nearly three-fold since 1997, from 4,100 in the first quarter of that year to 11,340 in the second quarter of 2001. The cost is phenomenal, both in terms of financial outlay and human suffering. Extending the current categories of those deemed to be a priority will inevitably increase the current tensions in the demand for and availability of both temporary and permanent housing. No amount of government exhortations will change that situation in the short term.
As the Minister said, Clause 13 abolishes the duty on local authorities to maintain a housing register. If this is done, one can only question what requirements there will be for them to record applications made to them under the new provisions and their outcomes. In truth, the removal of the requirement for a housing register will not be mourned, particularly by those who have been on the waiting list for years. However, their chances of finding housing in the statutory sector is not likely to improve as the erasing of the housing register is, in reality, an admission that councils will not be able to consider offering housing to any but those on the priority list.
This, of course, has the additional effect of making it difficult to create a balanced community. There is a great need to ensure that, in estates or areas in which statutory housing is predominant, there are sufficient residents who do not need support themselves and who can help provide stability for the more vulnerable living alongside them.
With this in mind, and conscious that many local authorities have divested themselves of part or all of their housing stock to housing associations or other voluntary social landlords and many working closely
376
with landlords in the private sector, it is odd that the duty to assist with the housing of homeless people is not to be statutorily extended to them. I note from the debate in another place the proposal, confirmed by the Minister in his opening remarks, of a requirement for housing associations and registered social landlords to co-operate with the local authority. It is proposed, however, that this will be laid down in regulation and not in statute. We shall wish to test that concept during our further consideration of the Bill.
I said that the Government consider this matter capable of being directed by regulation, and I understand that consultation has just started. However, I should draw attention to our concern that the regulations are not currently available for consideration. I seek an assurance from the Minister that they will be published before Committee stage so that they can be taken into account.
The Government have also indicated that they will prepare guidelines on the definition of "vulnerable groups". These may be contained in the order referred to by the Minister, but are presently not available. I seek the same assurance that they, too, will be published before Committee stage. I do not see how we can properly consider the provisions if we do not have access to that information.
The designation and rationale of the extended categories of those in priority need are fundamental to the Bill and will have an immense impact on how local authorities implement it. It seems, at the very least, lax that the draft regulations on both matters are not available. It would also have been helpful had the Minister published the guidelines on how the Government plan to deal with private sector rogue landlords, and also their proposals for the licensing of houses in multiple occupation.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has published a consultation paper on private sector rogue landlords which I shall make available. It was published two or three weeks ago.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his intervention.
As I suggested, private sector landlords have an important role to play in helping to resolve the problems of homelessness. Therefore, we should welcome seeing and discussing the licensing of HMOs in particular, since a "light touch" regime should mean that there continues to be low-cost rented housing of a good and regulated standard in the private sector. That is an immensely important protection against homelessness for those who are able to live in that kind of accommodation. Such accommodation will be vital, since the proposed new subsection (2A) to Section 167 of the Housing Act 1996 within Clause 15 of the Bill suggests—I believe for the first time—that access to statutory housing could be means-tested.
The homelessness strategy which local authorities will be required to produce will have to cover not only their plans for identifying and supporting the homeless

377
or putative homeless and the provision of advice, but also allocations and their ability to meet the totality of the needs of those presenting to them. It will, in truth, be a major part of any "housing" strategy—because one cannot be carried out without the other. I wonder, therefore, why the term is not "housing strategy" or "homeless and allocations strategy". Indeed, either might have provided a better title for the Bill.
The plight of the homeless moves us all. The sight of young people—and often those who are not so young—sitting at night in particular, under sleeping bags in doorways, in all weathers, is unacceptable. The Rough Sleepers Unit has done an excellent job. I believe that there is yet another consultation in progress, which will not (once again) be completed within the time-scale of the Bill, on its future. But it is of great relevance to the legislation.
The good intentions behind the Bill are manifest, and are supported as such. Its contents must be dealt with against a background of falling numbers as regards new social housing. According to the DETR, the figures were down, from 150,000 in the period 1993–96 to 95,000 in the period 1997–2000. There is a need to improve the administration of housing benefit. Some local authorities are not performing at all well and should be relieved of their responsibility in this area. The number of empty homes stands at an estimated three-quarters of a million in all sectors. Each of these aspects can contribute to homelessness.
We welcome, however, the recognition that there are people whose anti-social behaviour is such that they put themselves beyond the need for further consideration by the local authority from whose accommodation they have been evicted. Again, there is a suggestion of more statutory guidelines. And can we please see those?
The Bill is a many-headed hydra. Although, we support it in general, during its passage we shall want to test some of its assumptions and its practical application.
3.35 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I begin by declaring my interests. I am a president of the National Housing Federation, president of the National Housing Forum and a patron of the Empty Homes Agency.
The speed with which this important piece of legislation has hit the tracks in this Session is in stark contrast to its slow progress in the previous one. We welcome that change. We are especially glad the Part I "fell off" along the track. Nevertheless, it is a quarter of a century since the Liberal MP, Stephen Ross, piloted the first Housing (Homeless Persons) Act through Parliament in the form of a Private Member's Bill. Despite a substantial increase in our national wealth since the 1977 Act, there are still many homeless people on our streets and in our communities.
The Minister outlined the Bill's purpose, and he knows that we agree with, and welcome, much that it contains. However, he will be aware from the speeches
378
made in this House and by my colleagues in another place when the previous Bill received its Second Reading, that there are still some matters on which we should like to make progress.
Perhaps I may deal first with allocations. The Bill sets out a new framework for the allocation of social housing. At present, many local authorities operate policies that deny people in need access to housing for reasons of rent arrears. That is often connected with the maladministration of housing benefit.
I welcome the Ministers remarks today, and the Government's housing Green Paper stated that the intention was to put an end to these types of practices. However, despite the Minister's words, we on these Benches are not convinced that the Government have got these matters quite right. We shall seek to press amendments preventing applicants being deemed ineligible for accommodation before their needs have been assessed. We shall also put forward amendments defining the circumstances in which local authorities can reduce the priority given to applicants. I welcome the Ministers remarks on that point. We shall also propose amendments in relation to the notification of priority given and the right to a review of such decisions. We want to strike a balance between meeting housing need and providing local authorities with the discretion not to house anti-social tenants.
We shall continue to pursue amendments regarding accommodation for applicants taking up their statutory right to a review of their housing need. Local authorities have a power to do that, but, as the Bill stands, an applicant for a review must appeal to the High Court if the local authority will not house that person. We believe that the appeal should be to the county court—not only in the interests of justice, but as a matter of consistency in administration.
We shall propose an amendment to give homeless people a reasonable length of time to consider their decision on a final offer of accommodation. Some local authorities give as little as 24 hours. Given the importance of ensuring that tenants need to be able to sustain their tenancies, I am at a loss to understand why the Government have been reluctant to concede this matter.
I turn briefly to provisions for dealing with non-priority homeless people. Again, I welcome the Minister's remarks. But we are not convinced that the statutory duties are strong enough to ensure a consistent, adequate standard of help and advice for this group.
I do not expect the noble and learned Lord to give definitive answers on these matters today. I should welcome an opportunity to discuss them with him before the next stage of the Bill.
There is another area of the Bill where we have some concerns and that is the role of registered social landlords. With registered social landlords set to overtake local authorities as the largest providers of social housing by 2004 it is vital that we have a clear and fair framework for their role in helping local authorities to meet housing need in their area. I am sure the Minister is aware that Shelter in particular has

379
concerns in that area. The National Housing Federation is concerned about the accuracy of some of the figures for housing need lettings by registered social landlords when assisting local authorities. I hope that we can also discuss that matter before the Committee stage.
I now turn to some of the wider issues that we believe will influence the effectiveness of this legislation in tackling homelessness. I was particularly pleased to hear the Minister refer to the problem with the Children Act. I also read the article which appeared, I believe, in the Observer a week or so ago. It certainly had shades of "Cathy Come Home". I believe that the heading referred to homeless families losing their children.
I turn to other government measures. We welcome the new proposals and the consultation on the regulations to extend priority need to homeless vulnerable groups. I am particularly concerned about those who have suffered domestic violence. That matter has not been dealt with by the Government as quickly as many of us were led to believe would be the case. I should like some assurances from the Minister that the regulations will dovetail in every way with the Bill. It is clear from experience with the Rough Sleepers Unit that such groups need quality aftercare to sustain their tenancies and that those with drug and alcohol related problems need good rehabilitation facilities. That is why I mention once again the Government's Supporting People programme. It needs to be effective and adequately funded to back up everything we are talking about.
As the Minister said, we expect the Government to publish a national homelessness strategy in December 2001. As we have heard today, local authorities will also be required to draw up their own strategies. In both cases we believe—I echo here what the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said—that these are vital strategies. They must not be add-on strategies; they must be an integral part of wider housing policy and provision. It is important that local authorities are required to consult closely on these plans with registered social landlords for them to be effective.
Previous speakers have mentioned the dreadful effects of temporary bed-and-breakfast accommodation. We welcome the fact that the Government are setting up a unit to tackle that. However, the good intentions behind the Bill and the various projects I have discussed will not be realised unless the supply of affordable housing is increased and unless we have an efficient and streamlined system of housing benefit.
The total housing stock of local authorities and registered social landlords has decreased by something like 150,000 units since 1996. Shelter believes that 100,000 new units need to be built each year while Alan Holmans of Cambridge University estimates the figure to be 80,000 to 85,000. The former DETR predicted that only 35,000 new units would be built each year. The reality is that last year only 17,000 units were built. That is the scale of the problem. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can tell us what resources for new homes
380
he has argued for with the Chancellor and what the prospects are for housing in the Chancellor's pre-Budget report to be issued in a couple of week's time.
As has already been mentioned, there is much poor accommodation in the private rented sector. Nationally, we have three-quarters of a million empty homes, about 600,000 of which are in the private sector. As others have said, we recognise that the private rented sector plays an important role in meeting housing need, but it is the most economically and socially disadvantaged people who often end up in the poorest housing. A long promised first step to improving such housing would be a statutory scheme for the licensing of houses in multiple occupation. The Government are aware that they will have an opportunity to keep their promise by backing just such a scheme as part of Dr Des Turner's Private Member's Bill on energy conservation. As a Brighton MP he has much experience of that housing sector. I was pleased to hear the Minister's comments on empty properties. I urge him to consider some other suggestions t hat he did not mention such as equalisation of VAT on new build and refurbishment, higher council tax rates on empty properties and a new housing market renewal fund.
I have probably detained the House long enough. In the ensuing couple of hours I look forward very much to hearing the valuable personal knowledge of my noble friend Lord Fearn when he makes his maiden speech. My noble friend Lady Hamwee will bring her expertise on London and regional government to the debate.
I end by stating where we on these Benches stand on this issue. We believe that everyone should be able to live in a decent, affordable home within a strong community. But we also have made it clear that if current housing pressures are not tackled, homelessness will rise and that will undermine not only this piece of legislation but also the other initiatives to tackle poverty and social exclusion. Housing is a valuable investment not just for the people who live in it but also for their communities. I believe that it is a vital part of a successful and flourishing economy. We welcome the Bill and look forward to taking part in its further stages.
3.47 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the Churches National Housing Coalition. As such perhaps I may say how much we welcome the Bill. Both in terms of professional commitment and the huge task undertaken by volunteers, the faith communities have for a long time taken significant action on behalf of homeless people. Having seen a similar Bill fail because of the onslaught of the general election, I hope that this Bill will be expedited by us all with speed; it is needed.
In 1988 I became what was then known as Provost of Sheffield. At my first celebration of Holy Communion one December Tuesday morning, six of us gathered at the Lord's Table. Across the Cathedral

381
from us in the south aisle sat a further six people, all homeless men seeking shelter from a bitter December morning. They brought with them six different stories of alcohol problems, mental health problems, family breakdown, unemployment and of their personal breakdowns following their experiences in the last war. When the Cathedral started to offer a coherent service to such people we quickly found ourselves meeting the needs of up to 40 people at any one time, of all ages, both sexes and of every social background.
When I moved to Guildford in 1994 I discovered that there were already in place in that town a number of excellent projects for homeless people. We soon added to them in Farnham and Woking and other parts of Surrey and north-east Hampshire which formed the diocese. Even in the midst of prosperity and success there were those whose lives had so collapsed that they were in effect homeless. Homeless people are to be found everywhere.
The Bill offers the possibility of a strategic approach by local and national government. It is good news that local authorities will be required to publish reviews and strategic documents. I understand that a national strategy paper is due to appear in December. We look forward to hearing more on that. We similarly welcome the targets seeking to reduce by two-thirds the number of rough sleepers by April of next year.
I am sure that it is not just people in faith communities and churches who have been scandalised and offended in recent years by the growth of the number of people sleeping on our streets or, as clergy sometimes discover in their pastoral ministry, by families seeking to live in homes without a stick of furniture, with no resources, often unable to heat their homes. These things are an offence in a society of such great wealth and opportunity.
We have long needed a national and consistently-applied strategy. Across the political spectrum housing policy has been a Cinderella for many decades. We look for all-party support as we seek to build up a coherent national strategy consistently applied.
When considering the needs of all homeless people, I hope that Ministers will assure us that they will develop strategic plans to include non-priority homeless people—single people, for example, below retirement age; and families whose children have now grown up.
I agree with the comments of the noble Baroness. I, too, want to press the Minister about the reference in new Section 160A to "unacceptable behaviour". People we have dealt with in our own ministry include not only those who do not pay but also the mentally ill and those with alcohol or drug problems. It is easy for local authorities to refer to "unacceptable behaviour" with the result that the needs of some of the most vulnerable people in our society are not met.
I support the comments about the need for the issue to be viewed in a wider setting. Those of us who live in the South East know that we face a serious crisis with lack of sufficient low cost and affordable housing to
382
meet the needs even of those in employment serving our public services. It would be good to know that the Government have coherent and achievable plans to meet what is becoming a major crisis in the south of England. Failure to do so will ensure that any strategy designed to deal with the homeless will not succeed.
I conclude by repeating our warm welcome for the Bill. We wish it success and we pray that it might bring good news to some of the most vulnerable people and families in our society.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Fearn: My Lords, I would normally speak on tourism and most people expect me to do so. However, when considering my maiden speech in this House, I decided that homelessness and especially homeless young people is a subject dear to my heart and should take priority.
Some time ago I slept with Jeremy Irons in a cardboard box on the steps of Westminster Cathedral. Half way through the night a group of very young people said to me, "This is a gimmick, isn't it?" I had always felt that it was. They asked, "Why don't you get out among the real homeless?" As a member of a local authority for 38 years—as I am still—and as housing spokesman in another place at that time I decided that I had better do so. I went to the hostel of the Simon Community, working in London. It caters mainly for the elderly. It was and is doing an excellent job. Members of that community invited me to go out in their van to see for myself. I did so for a few nights. On the first night, in February, it was snowing heavily. They took me to a park in the middle of an affluent community with many buildings and many businesses. There were 214 homeless young people there. I know that the figure was 214 because I counted them. I thought that I was going to meet druggies and alcoholics. However, having spoken to them all, there was none. I thought, "They're all unemployed". I asked; and the majority was not unemployed. Those people had never been able to get together the three months' rental which the Rachman society still demands in this city. I followed up the investigation and found that that was so.
So we must not always say that those young people between 17 and 25 are suffering from drugs, alcohol and disease. They are not. They cannot afford rental unless seven or eight of them band together to live in two rooms. That does not apply only to cities—I have visited Liverpool where voluntary and church organisations do great work among the homeless—but also to towns like Southport which has an affluent society. It is a beautiful town of 100,000 people. It is a seaside town with 12 miles of beach. There is plenty of housing but probably of the wrong kind. We have managed to buck the trend of the tourism downturn. We now have 4 million day visitors. It is a nice town.
However, there is another scene: the young homeless. I have been a member of Light for Life, a church organisation, which goes out among them. I am President of the Schizophrenia Fellowship. In the Schizophrenia Fellowship drop-in centre it is fine at

383
6.30 every night. But after 6.30 the young people are again out on the streets. There are not many in our town but they are there.
Every two months at midnight my doorbell rings. A young chap leans on the door—he is a very decent type and has been coming regularly for nearly two years—and asks, "Can you find me accommodation?" Every two months I find him bed and breakfast accommodation. He does not stay there for more than three or four days. He disappears again and we find him back under the pier. He cannot go under the pier at present because a heritage grant is making it one of the best piers in Great Britain—and I am one of those Peers! It is a beautiful pier but the young chap cannot go there now; he has gone to a garden I know of. I asked him, "What do you really want?" He said, "All I want is a place of my own". He does not want a hostel. Many of them do not want hostels. They would like a unit, a unit that could be provided, if the Bill does its job properly, by the local authority.
Having been a member of two local authorities—I still am after 38 years— know that that is not happening and probably will not happen unless more resources are put behind the Bill. In saying "more resources", I include probably the best organisations for solving the homelessness problem among young people: the housing associations. Wherever possible, they have steamed ahead; they are the only ones who have taken the risk and who have had the courage to give young people single units. Therefore, if we have any resources to spare, not necessarily through the local authorities but certainly through central government, they should be placed where they can be best used. I believe that the housing associations meet that need.
In my area we have a housing association. For two years I did not know that it existed, until someone in the Schizophrenia Fellowship said, "I have a unit, Quest Housing". Quest Housing is now spreading and is doing a great job in providing those units. There are others. For example, in London there is Camden Housing, which has also taken the initiative in providing homes for single, young people—young people who are on their own. I have had figures, details and documents from Centrepoint, which is an organisation that is also doing the right thing by young people, and CDS Liverpool has the STEPS system in place now, providing single units for young people.
As the Bill passes through the House I hope that single, young people will always be remembered and that something, not necessarily in relation to local authorities but probably in relation to housing associations, will emerge so that we can, once and for all, clear what is the "big issue".
4.2 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Fearn, and to congratulate him on his most informed and moving maiden speech. He has spoken with real feeling and, amazingly, without the need for notes. The noble
384
Lord, Lord Fearn, is a Peer from Southport and, as a fellow Lancastrian, I can assert that that is one of the many points in his favour.
For many years he worked for the Royal Bank of Scotland before becoming the MP for his local town. Following that he was Liberal Democrat spokesman for health and tourism. Clearly, he has a tremendous sense of civic pride and loyalty, being a local councillor and being involved in many local activities, including sports and drama. His wide interests and dedication to a number of political and social issues will make him a great asset to your Lordships' House.
Already much has been said about the Homelessness Bill here, in another place and by numerous concerned organisations. Shelter says that the Bill,
"if implemented effectively … offers the best opportunity in a generation to make real progress in tackling and preventing homelessness in all its forms".
I welcome, like other noble Lords, the duty of local housing authorities to formulate strategies based on reviews. I welcome the Minister's emphasis in relation to vulnerable people. I shall not repeat what has been said, but I want to focus, as did the noble Lord, Lord Fearn, on the homelessness of young people. I am reassured that the Minister has already referred to concerns that I shall express.
The report in the Observer mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, gives horrendous examples of homeless families being threatened with having their children taken away following a High Court ruling in May. Perhaps the Minister will respond further to that if he can.
The Children Act 1989 places the needs of children above all other considerations when offering council services, and has regularly been invoked to provide homeless families with permanent accommodation. In legal terms, the needs of children, are "paramount". However, recent court cases brought by the London boroughs of Lambeth, where I live, and Barnet have successfully challenged the Act. Homeless families have been told that the whole family cannot be helped and that the children of the families should go into care. That is because both Lambeth and Barnet are short of accommodation for homeless families. Presumably, other councils could follow suit and separate families. That loophole must be dealt with.
One woman threatened with eviction has two children aged 10 and 15. She has been told that she became intentionally homeless when her former partner sold their house and spent the proceeds. As she said to the Observer,
"That doesn't make any difference now".
She is terrified about what may become of her and the children. Another woman in the East Midlands was told that her children, one aged three months and the other six years old, should be taken into care after she moved into a hostel for the homeless. She is still breastfeeding the baby. That is punitive and unacceptable.

385
A large body of research shows that separating children from their parents, particularly at a young age, is seriously damaging, both emotionally and psychologically. It is shocking that homeless people, who may have suffered great misfortunes in their lives, should be punished through their children. It is shocking that local councils should allow that to happen for purely financial reasons, and that they should play with children's lives. Such action could have the most dreadful consequences.
What would children say if they were consulted about this situation? Consultation is enshrined in both the letter and the spirit of the Children Act. Some children would be too young to comment, but older children would be concerned about their families, their schooling, their relationships and their future. The Department of Health Social Care Group has been instrumental in listening to children following appalling scandals in the childcare system. I suggest that we are heading for new scandals if local authorities needlessly separate children from their parents.
Homelessness does not necessarily involve abuse or neglect of children. It means being unfortunate enough to have nowhere to live. It calls for support, not punishment of the worst kind. Deprivation can relate to more than physical deprivation, and neglect to more than material neglect. I suggest that separating children from their parents could result in serious emotional neglect and deprivation.
This Government have shown themselves to be concerned about the well-being and achievement of children. There will be an overarching children's strategy. There is already a Children and Young People's Unit, whose remit is to co-ordinate the strategy and to,
"join up Government policy and thinking on children and young people".
There is a Children's Fund; a Social Exclusion Unit, a Minister and a Cabinet Committee on Children. The Sure Start programme helps and supports families at a local level. All that is progressive and visionary, but surely we cannot allow paradoxes to creep in. The rulings on the rights of homeless people and their children are paradoxes of a particularly nasty kind.
I look to my noble and learned friend the Minister for some enlightenment on whether his earlier statements will resolve the issue, or if there could be an amendment to the Bill or to the Children Act 1989 to confirm that when a child's need is expressed, that need can be related to the accommodation of them and their families, whether or not they are regarded as intentionally homeless.
This constructive Bill will remove many anomalies. I hope that during its passage we shall resolve this essential and urgent issue of the potential separation of parents and their children.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Best: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Fearn, particularly as he has brought personal testimony and experience of
386
homelessness on the ground. That will act as an antidote to the dry statistical material that I shall bring before your Lordships. I declare my interest at the outset as director of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. I am responsible for many—I almost said innumerable—reports on the subject of homelessness over the years. From that perspective I want to share some thoughts with your Lordships.
I greatly welcome the Bill, which picks up a number of points that have emerged from some of those many reports. It is an excellent Bill and it will do much good. I have asked myself whether it addresses some of the underlying causes of homelessness, because if we treat only the superficial manifestations of problems, we shall never really solve this huge national issue. I feel that the Bill speaks to some of those underlying causes.
Sometimes, homelessness is a result of personal or family circumstances. The Bill speaks to some of those circumstances, giving people rights and opportunities where they might not have had them. Sometimes, homelessness is caused by the behaviour of the people who supply or finance housing. That includes private landlords and even the social housing landlords, which used to be mostly local authorities but today are often housing associations. Shelter and others have expressed concern about the behaviour of some landlords. The Minister has already made some reassuring comments on that score.
I suggest that the main underlying cause of homelessness is the fact that there are simply not enough homes to go round in some areas of high demand. That includes London and the South East, but there are many other hotspots elsewhere, including rural areas and my own city of York, in the far north, and other places. If there are too few homes for the number of households, somebody will miss out—usually the poorest and most vulnerable in society—and homelessness will follow.
My analysis comes from the statistical evidence that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has been able to work its way through. I want to share my thoughts on whether the current shortages, particularly in high-pressure areas, are likely to get worse over the next 10 to 20 years, or whether we are likely to see some substantial improvements.
I shall try to spare your Lordships some of the most boring statistics, but the number of households formed each year continues relentlessly to grow year by year. Even though our birth rate is relatively low, we go on generating more households. One reason for that is that we live longer and do not vacate our homes for the next generation as quickly as we used to. That is good news for many of us, but it has housing implications.
We also have a great increase in the number of single-person households. That trend seems likely to grow. Nowadays, people settle down and form couples in their 30s, not their 20s. Some people choose not to marry at all. Other people marry but divorce or separate later. We go on generating more single-person households.

387
Then there is the net increase of people moving into this country, compared with the number who move out. New statistics to be published by the Office for National Statistics this Thursday, of which we have already had a preview in a press release, show that the actuaries side of the ONS has uprated its figures on the inward flow of people to this country compared with the numbers who leave. That will also bring extra pressures to bear. Those pressures may be welcome in other regards—we wish London to be a great international centre and we need people to do many jobs in our service industries and throughout the economy—but we must acknowledge that if we have more people coming into the country than leaving, that has housing implications.
To cut to the chase, when those factors are added together, 200,000 extra homes are needed each year just to cope with the growth in the number of households that are formed each year. Even achieving those 200,000 extra homes each year will only leave us in the same position as we are in today on homelessness and housing shortage, as manifested in hostels for homeless people, bed-and-breakfast hotels and the rest. If we want to improve on that position, we must increase the output of housing to meet the demand from the households that will be formed and to make inroads into the backlog of unmet housing need. That will bring us to a realistic figure of perhaps 225,000 extra homes required each year.
As things stand, is it likely that we will achieve those numbers in the output of the house-building industry and the provision by the housing associations and registered social landlords? That seems a very slim prospect at present. Last year, the total number of new homes provided came to 177,000—the lowest number since 1924, excluding the war years. The economy is motoring pretty well, there is lower unemployment, more people are able to purchase their own home and mortgage interest rates are relatively low, yet our house-building and construction industry had a poor year. The figures for this year look only marginally better.
The housing associations have not been having a good time as providers on the social side. The number of homes that they own has grown, but that is because they have been taking over council stock, not because they have been building and producing new homes in sufficient numbers. We were delighted to hear the announcement before the election that the allocation from the Housing Corporation to the housing associations was to be doubled, more or less, over the next two or three years. That will make a difference, but not anything like enough of a difference to cover the total number of new homes that are likely to be needed in the next 10 to 20 years to meet the additional numbers of households and to make inroads into the backlog of unmet need. If we continue to go backwards year by year and if shortages grow, homelessness as a national issue will get progressively worse.
While I greatly welcome the Bill, which tidies up and extends a number of important issues that have concerned many of us, I point your Lordships to the
388
underlying problem and deep-seated cause of homelessness that will remain with us if we do not invest through the public and private sectors in the extra homes that will be needed in the next 10 to 20 years.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I, too, strongly support the Bill. I shall briefly speak about some of the accommodation needs of young offenders—probably not the most popular group about whom noble Lords will speak this afternoon. I declare an interest as chairman of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fearn, on his moving and excellent maiden speech and express my support for the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, about children and young people being separated from their families and taken into care because of an apparent shortage of social housing. That seems a bizarre social policy.
As many of your Lordships know, the Government have undertaken a major reform of the youth justice system. The accommodation needs of 16 to 17 year-old young offenders still present significant problems for the new multi-agency youth offending teams. Too many young people on community orders are homeless or lack suitable accommodation to prevent them drifting further down the path of crime. Particular problems arise in relation to young offenders who are on detention and training orders, where they serve half their sentence in custody and half in the community.
At any one time, some 2,500 or so young people are in custody under such an order. Since the average time spent in custody is approximately four months, about three times that number are affected each year. We know that many 16 and 17 year-olds in that group will not return to their parental homes or to the accommodation that they occupied previously. As we improve the quality of the custodial regimes for many of these young people, we find ourselves thwarted in our progress with them because they have nowhere suitable to live on their release from custody.
I believe that two sections of the Bill can help with the problem. The first relates to Clause 3, which sets out how local housing authorities should go about devising their homelessness strategy and whom they should involve. I hope that youth offending teams, which are separate from social services authorities, will be fully consulted and fully involved in the actions taken locally under Clause 3. I hope that the Minister will be able to give assurances that, in guidance on the new Bill, that point will be fully covered.
The second issue relates to Clause 15(3), which defines priorities for allocation of housing accommodation. A priority group is defined in the Bill as,
"people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds".
Again, I hope that the Minister will feel able to incorporate in this category young offenders who are on the caseloads of youth offending teams where the teams are experiencing great difficulty in securing suitable accommodation for the young people.

389
I welcome the Minister's recognition in his speech that young people sentenced to custody, along with other young people, are a priority group in the draft Homelessness (Priority Need for Accommodation) (England) Order that has been put out for consultation. However, as he made clear earlier in his speech, some of the remarks made in the Third Reading debate on the Bill in the other place about criminals jumping the housing queue were distinctly ill founded.
I am also aware that in the consultation process some local authorities may seem to have suggested—mistakenly, in my view—that the provisions in the draft order will encourage parents to kick their 16 and 17 year-olds out of home. That is why we continue to need the type of assurance that the Minister has given this afternoon.
The daily reality is that there is a general lack of appropriate housing, often with personal support, for homeless young people, as the Social Exclusion Unit has demonstrated. In some local areas there is confusion as to whether social services or housing departments are responsible for these young people. Homeless young people who offend usually do so as a result of family networks breaking down. If they are to secure education, training and employment, they need stable accommodation and, in some cases, their healthcare needs must be attended to. As the Minister mentioned, we know that young offenders who are homeless on release from custody are twice as likely to reoffend as those who have accommodation. Youth offending teams need our support in this area. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some of the reassurances that I seek this afternoon.
4.23 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I declare an interest as a commercial and residential landlord. I very warmly welcome the Bill this afternoon. More households are now in temporary accommodation than at any time since the late 1970s. They number 70,000, with 40,000 in London alone. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has already told us that there has been a tripling in the number of people staying in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. They now amount to 11,000.
I want to concentrate on the experience of homelessness for some families and its consequences for their children. Thus, I hope to underline my support for the Bill. I recently visited a Barnardo's project in Brixton for families in temporary accommodation. I was introduced to Vian, who is from Iraq. Her brother left Iraq and she was consequently imprisoned with her mother by the authorities there for a few years. While in prison, she conceived a child. She escaped from Iraq to Syria and there obtained from the British vice-consul documents certifying her experience.
However, when she arrived in the UK, those somewhat tatty documents were found to be insufficient for the Home Office. For 10 months she
390
lived without any income support whatever. She resides in the living room of a one-bedroomed flat with her brother and his partner. Through the help of Barnardo's she has managed to obtain a bed for the floor. She is at loggerheads with the partner of her brother. It must be very difficult for that partner to have a two year-old child sharing such a confined space. Clearly, there are also many experiences from her past with which she needs to come to terms. She was crying when she described them to me.
I also want to mention another mother, Astrid, who is from Ecuador. Without the help of Barnardo's, she would not have been able to obtain the vouchers that she needs. For a long while she was helped by her friends, who have supported her tremendously since she arrived in this country. Her son, Camillo, is about four or five years-old. It was his birthday recently. The advice worker said that, normally when visiting a family, one has to be careful not to trip over the toys. There are no such problems when visiting that family. Astrid's friends clubbed together to buy her son a present for his birthday so that he would have at least one toy. That is the type of pressure under which the families whom we are discussing are living.
On Friday I met Danny at the annual conference of Voice for the Child in Care, of which I am a patron. It provides advocacy services for children in care. Danny had run away from his foster home and had spent three months during the winter in a shed. He had been found and was then obliged to return to his foster home. He was not happy with the situation, but that is how matters stood. Although he is still a very young man, he now has a partner and a young child. He works with the Care Leavers Association, visiting prisons and talking to care leavers about his experience. He tries to help them in some way. Danny said to me, "I have never experienced happiness in my life". I hope very much that he comes to do so.
He and his new family must be very much the type of people whom we have in mind with regard to this legislation. I very much hope that it will work towards meeting their needs. However, we must imbibe the truth shared with us by my noble friend Lord Best that in many areas sufficient housing is simply not available. None the less, strategic planning of the type encouraged by the Bill must be very welcome.
I also want to mention the work of the Rough Sleepers' Unit under its director, Louise Casey. Three years ago I met a young man at Piccadilly Circus. He had his crack pipe by his side and talked at a manic rate. He had a long beard and grime was deep in his skin. While I was speaking to him a young woman who had been begging in the subway came up and said to him, "Have you enough money to share with me so that we can buy some drugs together?" The RSU has been targeting such people, who are the so-called famous faces—those who have been on the streets for many years. It has already achieved its target of reducing the number by two-thirds. New homeless people arrive on the streets all of the time but the achievements are a tremendous commendation of the work of Louise Casey, of the charities involved, including Thames Reach and London Connection,

391
and of the Government, who have provided the resources to help people who have been on the streets for so long to get off the streets and into accommodation. There is much more work to be done in terms of supporting them when they have arrived in accommodation—that point was touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock.
The point about the regulations and the new qualifications for priority needs has already been covered. Those provisions are most welcome—particularly the extension relating to care leavers aged between 18 and 21. There is concern about allocations. I am glad that the Minister went to some lengths to offer reassurances in that regard. We shall examine the matter carefully in Committee.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, I was concerned to learn of the families in the article in the Observer. I make it absolutely clear—the noble Baroness alluded to this—that the ability of the parents in those families to parent their children was not in question. The fact that they were threatened with losing their children was simply a question of housing—one recognises the strains that local authorities are under.
Sometimes it appears that in this country we are not very good at valuing children. In view of the care system, the fact that 80 per cent of staff in residential care homes have no educational qualifications whatever and the remuneration that such staff receive, one begins to wonder what value we place on children, particularly when one compares the situation in this country with that on the Continent.
We cannot afford not to value our children. That is perhaps more true now than it has ever been. Noble Lords will be aware of the so-called demographic timebomb—we are becoming older as a population and there are fewer young people. We need to invest in young people. The Chancellor is keen to ensure that those working in industry—our workforce—can contribute to our economy more fully. Children may be looked after because their parents are not available; parents may be very worried about their children's housing and financial conditions and may not be able to give their children the good start in life that they need and which would enable them in the long run to be confident and resilient contributors to our society.
I warmly welcome the Bill, which I hope has a speedy progress through the House. Before I conclude, I repeat the point that was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. I hope that we shall soon see new regulations relating to houses in multiple occupation, which is a serious concern. I have spoken with mothers who have complained to their landlord about the state of hygiene of the lavatory. They have to take young children or babies into the lavatory with them. The landlord says, "That is how the tenants leave the facilities". That is not good enough. The new regulations will be most welcome. If the Minister could say when they are likely to be published that would be welcome.
4.34 p.m.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, one of the objects of the Bill is to require local authorities to make a serious commitment to providing affordable housing for all those in priority need. Others—notably, the single and the childless—are currently entitled only to advice and assistance from local authorities. The evidence of Shelter is that the standard of that advice and assistance varies greatly and in some cases is wholly inadequate. In many cases applicants are simply given a list of bed-and-breakfast hotels. The Bill enables authorities to secure accommodation for those of the homeless who are not in priority need and will allow them greater flexibility to assist non-priority homeless families by providing housing for such applicants where they have the scope to do so.
More than 11,000 homeless households—if a homeless person can, without irony, be called a householder—are currently housed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Long stays in bed-and-breakfast hotels, whose standard is often low, can have a deleterious effect on the well-being of families and in particular on the health and education of children. The establishment of the Bed and Breakfast Unit to work with local authorities in reducing the number of homeless who are so accommodated is welcome, but that issue should be given real priority across central and local government. Bedsit and single-room tenants are six times more likely to die from fire than people living in properties that are occupied by single households. Illnesses that we supposed to be evils of the past, such as tuberculosis, recur.
Another of the Government's aims is to reduce the number of people sleeping rough by two-thirds by April 2002. The Rough Sleepers' Unit is currently consulting on future strategy in that area. To meet the Government's manifesto commitment to keep the number of rough sleepers as low as possible, future work must focus on meeting the needs of vulnerable groups—in particular those with drug and alcohol problems and, above all, those with fragile mental health. Street sleeping is highly deleterious to health, even in fit people.
The poor administration of housing benefit causes tenants to build up arrears and, in some cases, to be evicted from their homes. Therefore, the steps taken by the Department for Work and Pensions to improve administration are welcome. London has high levels of poor-quality housing and at the same time the number of people living in temporary accommodation is at an all-time high. More than 2.7 million people live in overcrowded or even dangerous accommodation across the country and in London the problem is acute. Living in poor quality "bed and breakfasts" can have a severe effect on the health, education and well-being of homeless families, especially on children. Bronchitis, colds and flu are commonplace. Children can suffer from mood swings, over-activity and impaired development. There can be few noble Lords who have not seen people—generally mothers and children—coming and going from that kind of accommodation and invariably appearing hopeless, demoralised and sometimes desperate. In the United

393
Kingdom in the 21st century no citizens in a British city should look as if they were refugees from their own country. It is bad enough that such conditions should prevail in other, less fortunate, parts of the world.
Apart from the human and emotional aspect of that kind of living, bed-and-breakfast accommodation is expensive, costing as much as three times more than housing people in the private sector. It is obviously a stopgap solution, bringing with it often very little more than a literal roof over a homeless person's head.
But will local authorities be equipped to implement the new laws? For their success it is crucial that all agencies, including local and central government, housing associations and the voluntary sector work together to ensure that the solutions that are offered in the Bill come into force. The experience of Shelter, gained over 32 years, of offering advice and advocacy to individuals and families facing the prospect of losing their homes is invaluable; and seeking its help and counsel should be a priority with local authorities, particularly those in London. For instance, the Bayswater Families Centre, which is an independent facility, provides support to families in temporary accommodation in W2. A Shelter caseworker who is based at the project for four days a week provides impartial information on housing options, practical help for clients and, if necessary, advocates on their behalf with the local authority and other service providers.
Shelter's Piccadilly advice centre is a leading supplier of advice and support for homeless people in the centre of London and is ideally placed to help people who are homeless and who are, at present, forced to sleep on the streets of the capital. Positive results of its work are that out of 60 casework clients, a quarter were permanently housed with the rest temporarily accommodated or awaiting housing. Last year, Shelter helped more than 3,500 people from Westminster. All of Shelter's services in London are underpinned by Shelterline—Britain's first 24-hour, free, national helpline. Set up in 1998 with the aim of providing information and housing advice to those who are often desperate, it had taken more than 200,000 calls by last summer.
Helplines could be another weapon in local authorities' armouries to fight against homelessness and help to achieve the Government's strategy. Such helplines keep people in the picture and reduce the lonely, hopeless feeling of being forgotten. At present, Shelter is taking the highest number of calls in Westminster, although calls come from every London borough.
We must hope that the Government's national homelessness strategy, due to be published soon, will take seriously the problem of the growing number of homeless people. The development of that strategy creates an unprecedented opportunity to complement the statutory framework set out in the Bill. It should raise the profile of homelessness across central and local government.
394
Perhaps even more important is the need to promote greater awareness among the public of what it means to be homeless—its causes and complexities. At present, far too many people dismiss being without a roof over one's head as fecklessness. I have heard people say not only that it is their own fault that people are homeless but that they like or prefer it instead of understanding that homelessness is often the result of a succession of unfortunate but unavoidable circumstances. It is important that the public—the passengers on the bus who pass street sleepers—are awakened to the right of everyone to have a decent home to live in.
4.41 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this Second Reading debate on an important Bill. The aim is to reform the legislation on homelessness and the allocation of social housing. That is clearly to be applauded. One of the most shaming sights in recent years has been the presence of individuals—many clearly in need of social care—sleeping rough on the streets of London, one of the world's richest cities. There are not only the obviously homeless but many others, often very young, occupying unsatisfactory, sometimes overcrowded and insanitary accommodation. In his excellent maiden speech, the noble Lord, Lord Fearn, movingly highlighted the plight of many such people. The Bill attempts to address those needs.
However, I should like to raise an issue which probably affects only a minority, but which is nevertheless important to the people concerned. I refer to the problems that can sometimes affect same-sex couples concerning the right of succession to a tenancy agreement. There have been cases—one of which went as far as the European Court of Human Rights—in which the surviving partner of a same-sex couple has been rendered homeless. That case concerned a couple one of whom had devoted much time to caring for an ailing partner. When that partner died, the local council took steps to repossess the accommodation that they had shared. No alternative accommodation was offered to the remaining partner.
As I said, the case went as far as the European Court, where it was unsuccessful. The local council was judged to have acted within its rights and to have been under no obligation to offer alternative accommodation. I gather that that is not possible in the case of a heterosexual couple, and can happen only in the case of local authority or social housing—where the remaining partner is unlikely to have the resources to opt for private accommodation. The case of a private tenancy was decided in favour of the remaining partner by the House of Lords. The private landlord seeking possession in that case failed.
It is true that local authorities can grant joint tenancies to same-sex couples, so that the surviving partner can succeed to the tenancy, but there is no obligation upon them to do so. There appears to have been a change of attitude recently, but the survey conducted by Stonewall—to which I am indebted for its briefing—suggests that some local councils still

395
have no policy on the matter. Same-sex cases are generally still dealt with on an individual, discretionary basis—unlike those involving unmarried heterosexual partners.
That does appear to be an anomaly, which could be rectified by a simple amendment to the Bill to give to same-sex partners the same rights as now exist for unmarried heterosexual partners in terms of entitlement to succeed to a tenancy. There are safeguards in existing housing Acts to deal with problems of under-occupation that may arise on the granting of a right to succession. Ground 16 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1985 provides that landlords may seek possession if they believe that the dwelling to which a family member succeeds is too large for him or her and that they can provide suitable alternative accommodation. Ground 9 of the Housing Act 1988 gives landlords a general right to seek possession on the grounds that suitable alternative accommodation has been provided.
I therefore hope that the Government may be prepared to take the opportunity provided by the Bill to put right that small anomaly. Incidentally, I understand that the law in Scotland has recently been amended to provide exactly the rights for same-sex couples that I seek.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I rise to follow the example of my noble friend Lord Listowel by talking about the relationship of homelessness to children. Homelessness leads to parental stress and family breakdown; to ill-health and to children's absence from school. It makes parenting well nigh impossible. Children who do not attend school do not get jobs, have nowhere to live, get involved in crime and drugs and suffer ill-health and unemployability.
Not only the homeless themselves suffer. Tremendous damage is done to society as a whole. The social cost is huge. When I was preparing for this debate, I found on my shelves a report published by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors—I declare an interest as a fellow of that institution—entitled, The Real Cost of Poor Homes. It is dated 1996, so it may be a little out of date. It states:
"It has been estimated that more money—as much as £2 billion—is being spent each year on treating illness arising from poor housing conditions than is spent by local authorities on their own housing stock."
The Minister may have more recent figures.
The report goes on to highlight my next point. It states:
"Substandard housing conditions—whether in the form of overcrowding, noise pollution, cold and damp conditions or inadequate facilities—clearly have the potential to influence children's social and educational development. This can occur in several ways."
To paraphrase, the report goes on to say that that affects children's ability to attend school and their health, and can affect their social relationships, because they are often moved from school to school as
396
accommodation changes. It is often difficult for them to form satisfactory social relationships with their peer group because they tend to be stigmatised.
The Government's understanding of those and associated problems led them to set up the Social Exclusion Unit, on which they deserve to be congratulated. I was glad to hear the Minister say that he is considering the Shelter report, which says that many social service authorities are now routinely refusing to provide assistance for families as a whole and limiting their assistance to offering to take children into care. Of course, some families are unable to look after their children, but in those circumstances, children should still be taken into care by the proper route. However, if authorities are taking children into care simply to save money and avoid housing the parents, that is outrageous. I look forward to hearing from the Minister. I am grateful for his promise to sort out that matter and tell us what is really happening.
I turn for a moment to 16 and 17 year-olds. This is a tremendously vulnerable group involving young people without the support of their families. Social and personal support for this group is essential as an adjunct to housing, whether it is short-term housing—as it normally will be—or long-term. It is needed to help young people access training, stay with the training, and subsequently access work and stay with that work. They need to be picked up when they fail and encouraged to try and try again.
It is also necessary to help them to learn how to be householders; how to be adequate tenants and manage their personal affairs in relation to their housing. It is to be hoped that the Government's Connexions scheme will solve that problem by providing mentors. But I have honest doubts as to whether enough suitable people will volunteer to be mentors. Helping people of that age is a trying and exacting job.
Finally, I want to speak briefly about the fundamental challenge; that is, creating more affordable decent homes. Successive governments have tried and failed. But affordable housing tends to be treated as something that "we" provide for "them" or, from the homeless person's point of view, something that "they" provide to "us". Here I want to follow the well-known tradition of Miss Marples and make a comparison with my own village, which has more general application.
Around 15 years ago there was a move in my village to build a village hall. The Government, through one agency or another, were prepared to provide 80 per cent of the cost; 10 per cent of the cost was secured from a charitable foundation and it was left to the village to find the other 10 per cent. It became a tremendous enterprise. People in that village who had not spoken to one another for 20 years were standing shoulder to shoulder in an effort to raise the money for that village hall. The Government set up a committee to consider active communities and the family. Perhaps the Minister will draw my story to the attention of his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who I believe is chairing that committee.

397
There may be ways of drawing communities into the provision of housing or the repair of derelict stock. It might even be possible to enable some homeless people to contribute to the solution of their problem. That would not only increase the stock of habitable affordable housing, but also give back to those people their self-respect. Such a programme could help to build communities as well as build houses.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it is a joy and a pleasure to take part in this debate on a subject which is very dear to my heart. I detect that all contributors speak from their own experience, as I do also. Of all the legislation for which this Minister may be responsible, I hope he will be remembered most for the impact of the legislation before us today. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, mentioned changing the title of the Bill because of its wide-ranging interests. I thought perhaps the Minister would rather it was called the "Homelessness" Bill rather than the Homelessness Bill!
I look around the Chamber and I see a number of Peers with similar experiences to my own; that is, as former Members of Parliament from all sides and all constituencies. Of all the issues with which I had to deal in the years that I had the honour to represent Edmonton, the one that caused me the most personal distress was housing. I listened to people who were in anguish, in shock, miserable and who brought their children with them not least because if they did not, they would not be able to come and talk to their local Member of Parliament. I can tell the House that on two occasions, when I had finished my surgery, I went out to my car and sobbed. I cried because of the helplessness that I felt about my ability to help people in that situation.
All those connected with homeless people, not just Members of Parliament but members of councils also, experience a terrible feeling of hopelessness. If the Minister is able to advance on any of the fronts raised today, he will be doing a great service, not only for this Government, but also for hundreds of thousands if not millions of people.
The point was made more than once that the solution is to have more houses. I have always smarted at the fact that under the right-to-buy legislation our ability to solve that problem was diminished. I am not against people owning their own home; I have owned mine for 40 years. But it was ludicrous, at the same time as wanting to house people, to take away the council housing register—there are other registers now—and the social ability to house people. I do not take kindly to people who complain that, as a result of the right-to-buy, we have fewer houses available to house homeless people.
I can remember on one occasion a counsellor called Stone in Westminster took me to a house in Paddington in multiple occupation. It was an eye-opener to me. He was trying to find support for some aspects of housing. He asked me to go along and see
398
the problem. I saw a room on the ground floor and there could have been 50 people squashed into it. One lady said, "Will you come and see where I live?". I said I would and we went up to the third floor. She lived with three children and her mother—five of them—in one room.
The landlord was receiving five rents because the rent was not charged per room; it was charged per individual. He was making a fortune, paid for by the rate payers and taxpayers of the country. All that benefit went to one person who had been clever enough to buy that house. The Chamber will understand that a number of businesses have sprung up which profit from the misery of people who are made homeless. Anything the Minister and his colleagues can do to tackle that problem will be welcomed.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, the noble Lord, Lord Laing, and myself are members of the board of trustees of a body called Charis. It is a charity in the Mile End Road which attempts to deal with drug and alcohol dependency. That organisation has a solution which works. Instead of a local authority spending money on taking people who are in the gutter off the street, drying them out, sending them out with a grant, and saying, "On your way", they say to the local authorities, "If you want us to do a job you will have to support us in it for at least 12 months". In that 12 months there is an educational programme. A relationship exists between that organisation, local employers and the local authority. When these sad men or women are rehabilitated, when an opportunity is found and they are given a job and find accommodation, they leave. That costs a lot of money but it is better than money being wasted on short-term palliatives.
We have heard about what I call "best practice" from the Cross Benches. My noble friend Lord Best—he has been my noble friend for a long time—is an eminent person in the field of housing and will make a great contribution. He underlined that the basic solution, with all the efforts we are making, is to build more houses. He made a point of which I am well aware. Sadly, we now build fewer houses in this country, private or council, than we have since 1924. Fewer home are now being built. Yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, points out, the need to form housing units for families is growing all the time. That is a real problem and the Minister has a real challenge.
Colleagues in this House will know of my long association with the Co-operative Movement. Perhaps I may point out that there are co-operative solutions to many of these issues. In a paragraph entitled, "Opening up the empties", the annual report of Co-op Home Services states:
"CHS is now the biggest user of temporary social housing grant in the country. The development of short-life housing is the origin of our work and remains a central activity. This enables us to produce dwellings quickly and cheaply and to provide a rapid service of new lettings available primarily to local authorities …
"One of our central beliefs is that people should take on the rights and responsibilities of controlling their own housing. For people unwilling or unable to achieve individual ownership, co-ops offer the most effective way of achieving such control. We

399
emphasise the requirements of people in housing need who, for various reasons, are likely to rely on social housing. Their prospects for breaking out of the dependency and patronage that social housing can bring provide part of the motivation for our operations".
I am sure that the Minister does not need me to draw to his attention the enormous range of ways in which the housing of people in this country can be improved. In desperate times, however bad the economy—this is a desperate time—priorities have to be made and balances struck. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and I are heavily involved in the welfare of park home owners. Often, people are driven out of what might be called better or more attractive accommodation and find themselves in park homes. That is not a bad thing. However, if one has a bad landlord or a bad site owner, that is indeed a great problem.
The Minister has an opportunity to encourage a number of initiatives. Some 40 years ago, when I was on the council in Enfield, one of the things we did when we came to power was to begin to buy up private properties and use them for council social lettings. At the time, that was frowned upon. However, we are looking for ways in which this problem can be eased, and perhaps that is something that the Minister will encourage. It was called "pepper potting". One house would be picked from one street and one from another. That was not liked, except by the people who were housed, who thought that it was great.
The greatest gift that the Government can give to hundreds and thousands of couples is to enable them to become tenants and eventually, when they climb the ladder, owner-occupiers. I hope that the Minister takes heart from this debate. There is not one speaker who has not spoken from the heart. My noble friend Lord Fearn spoke sincerely, as always, passionately and from his own experience. We have all had experience. I hope that the Minister will make use of such collective experience as the Bill passes through this House.
5.5 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, on the day that the Bill completed its passage through another place, the Minister answered a Written Question from my honourable friend the Member for Winchester, with regard to the number of homeless people in each of the past three years. The Minister announced that those accepted as eligible for assistance, unintentionally homeless and in priority need—it will not have escaped your Lordships' notice that this must have been, under the legislation, unamended—for the year 2000–2001 amounted to 114,350 households. As stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, "households" is not the aptest term in the circumstances. That means far more than 114,000 individuals.
My noble friend Lord Fearn spoke movingly. He has often made me laugh. However, this is the first time I have been moved in such a way by a speech of his. He spoke about his experiences with the Simon Community. That is an organisation with which I have had the honour—I do not use that term lightly—to be associated for some years. Like my noble friend, I
400
question the value of talking about these issues rather than "doing". Our job is both to talk and ensure that the outcome of our talking is to produce the best legislation. That is the tool that we have.
As my noble friend Lady Maddock stated, we welcome the Bill. We welcome the emphasis on the prevention of homelessness. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, stated, we must address the causes. It is worth emphasising the reliance which the Government place on local authorities. That is right, but we must also remember that local authorities cannot perform their strategic role without the means to do so. I make that point knowing that the local government settlement is not far away. It is right that strategies must involve social services, as the Bill accepts, plus education, health, and so forth. There is a whole list which, to use a phrase for which I do not care, amounts to "joined-up services".
Local authorities are the first resort of, among others, the many asylum seekers we wish to welcome into our communities. Perhaps I may give a flavour of the scale of the problem. I was struck by a figure that I saw recently relating to Southall in west London. That is a town with a population of between 60,000 and 70,000, which has had to accommodate about 12,000 refugees. Perhaps that is an unusual case, but it is a stark illustration of what we need to do for those who come into the country, not just those who have been here for some time.
When briefing myself for the Bill, I was surprised to learn that housing associations do not yet fund 50 per cent of the housing stock, though they will soon do so. I was also surprised to learn from Shelter that the right to buy is still such an issue. I share the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. I thought that so much was already bought that, in a sense, the problem had passed. In 1999–2000, four times as many properties were sold under the right to buy as were built by housing associations. I know that it would be invidious to end that right and disqualify those who have not yet bought, but I am not yet convinced that it would not be for the greater good.
As we all know, and as so many noble Lords have said, the real issue is the amount of stock; it is not a question of the identity of the landlord. However the cake is divided up, if it is not big enough there is a problem. As regards cash, I had hoped that the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, might have been present today to add her considerable argument to the debate. We must use all the mechanisms available.
Perhaps it is not a matter for today, but I am aware that the Minister's responsibilities also include planning and that we await a planning Green Paper. By all accounts, it will focus on the interests of business. I hope that soon the Minister will prove us wrong and tell us that it will assist with the provision of affordable housing. That would not go amiss.
While making it clear that we support the role of local authorities and housing associations, we are aware of the variability in letting policies. That matter was raised in another place. A figure which staggered

401
me—I shall therefore impose it on your Lordships—showed that in 2000 more than 26,000 possession orders were made by social landlords. That was an increase of 12 per cent on the previous year and the figure has more than doubled in the past six years.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, referred to another area in which there are inconsistencies and variabilities; that is, the treatment of same-sex couples. If she tables amendments to the Bill to deal with that, she will certainly have the support of Members on these Benches. I checked with my noble friend Lady Maddock before saying that and she reminded me that we brought forward such amendments in 1996.
The position of many tenants is fragile. I recently read that 25 per cent of tenants in RSL accommodation are in full-time work with an average household income of £168 a week. One third of social housing tenants live in the most deprived 10 per cent of local government wards. Compare that with 85 per cent of mortgage holders who work full time and have an income of more than £600 a week.
In London—and here I declare an interest as a member of the Greater London Assembly—the imbalance is an issue in the work being undertaken on the special development strategy. It would be so easy for there to be a preponderance of housing in one part of London, in the east, many parts of which are ripe for regeneration. A lack of balance would threaten the sustainability of the whole of the capital. The west needs affordable housing, too. Examining the scale of need in London has made members of the Greater London Authority question whether the construction industry has the capacity to provide what we know we need. That matter was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Best.
The supply of affordable housing needs support through the private rented sector. We welcome the steps which the Government will be taking with regard to licensing houses of multiple occupation, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell. Inevitably, there have been references to housing benefit today. Many authorities are creakingly slowly managing to improve its administration. It is not an area in which the private sector, engaged by local authorities, has distinguished itself. Clearly, it is not a matter which local authorities are uniquely unable to deal with.
There has been much reference, in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, to the inter-relationship of housing provision with the Children Act 1989. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that he would come back to the House on that issue before the Bill finishes its passage here. I hope that I can press him to come back early enough for us to use the Bill in order to right any problem which appears to need to be righted by legislation. Furthermore, I suspect that the local authorities in question, whatever one might think of the effect of their decisions and the court cases, acted as they did because of the pressure on their housing stock. We must not forget that.
402
Last weekend, the Observer followed up the reports on the problem with reports on runaway children, too many of whom are running away from violence and abuse and need help. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred to 16 and 17 year-olds but children leaving care comprise another category which must concern us. Listening to a debate in your Lordships' House two or three weeks ago about the educational needs of children in care made me realise that their lack of educational attainment must be part of a wider need. Finally, as regards young offenders, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, if we mean anything by "prevention" we must have regard to that group.
The debate has covered inconsistencies in allocations and the differences in approach to "unacceptable behaviour". We shall return to the details of the circumstances and the use by different authorities of their assessment of behaviour. The right reverend Prelate mentioned the revolving door and we must try to shut it with people on the right side of it. I remember that the variable standards of advice and assistance was also an issue for debate five years ago.
The Bill is endorsed, as it must be, with the usual ministerial statement that under the Human Rights Act it is,
"compatible with convention rights".
It is clear that the view that a decent home is a basic human right is shared throughout the House. We welcome the Bill at last. I say "at last" because those of us who sat through the legislation in 1996 heard a good deal about how after the election in 1997 things would be put right. I am pleased that now that is the case. We shall work to ensure that the Bill better meets the human rights of all our citizens. And because the subject stirs our passions, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, we shall use our heads and our hearts to get it right.
5.17 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fearn, on his maiden speech. We, too, welcome the Bill and we welcome its emphasis on the prevention of homelessness. I want to touch on a few issues which were raised today and follow the noble Lord, Lord Best, in examining some of the underlying causes. They range from a lack of available housing to unemployment, to touch on only two.
I shall begin with housing benefit, a subject raised by a number of noble Lords. It needs reviewing as regards the minimum standard of its administration. We all know that practices vary from local authority to local authority, so perhaps the Minister will tell the House whether he is satisfied that the Government are successfully monitoring the delivery of the service relating to housing benefit. We would all agree that faster decisions are needed.
What do the Government propose to do about local authorities that appear unable to make satisfactory progress? It has been suggested that housing benefit should be brought under the remit of the Benefits Agency in order to get it right. The noble Baroness,

403
Lady Hamwee, mentioned that the private sector has been involved but decisions taken with regard to housing benefit also relate to the availability of houses and accommodation in the area. Faster and better decisions would also encourage private landlords to make more housing available.
A number of factors influence the amount of housing. There has been almost a chaotic situation in relation to adjudications in asylum cases, with large numbers of people coming here, and the need to deal with the backlog has made life difficult. The more asylum seekers there are in this country the less social accommodation is available. I am always concerned about the lack of progress by the Home Office in asylum adjudications. The more bogus asylum seekers there are in this country clogging up the system the more difficult it is to deal with genuine refugees who need accommodation. It is extraordinary that often families arrive in this country having passed through six or seven so-called safe states in the European Union. They are determined to come to this country rather than stop in those so-called safe countries on the way.
Another issue concerns offenders who are released into the community. Should they register for housing where they have previously lived or, for example, where they have just been released? Can one imagine the situation if all those released from prison on the Isle of Wight registered for housing there? That would place a strain on the system in that area. There are concerns about offenders who come back into the community and jump the gun. Can the Minister confirm that that will be dealt with by regulations? There is a separate problem for those in social housing who want to move. It is quite difficult to move from one area of the country to another.
Another issue that presents difficulties for local authorities is provision for the mentally ill. We are concerned that some of those who are mentally ill have been turfed out onto the street, often because of overcrowding in mental health institutions. The charge has been made that care in the community has aggravated the problem. I believe that care in the community worked in principle but it should not have meant that local authorities cut investment so that people were put on the street when perhaps they should not be there. We are all disappointed about this ongoing issue. I hope that the Government will address that factor which also affects homelessness. This has always been our concern. The Government must be disappointed that the health service in this country has not made the improvements that they have promised over the past five years.
Young people are a particularly vulnerable group. We should like to know where they are on the list of priorities. It is extremely important to have a policy to deal with those who are subject to community orders or are involved with the Probation Service so that that service and the police liaise with local authorities. Often young people's involvement with drugs has encouraged the kind of behaviour that has led them to
404
become homeless. Concerns were raised about the Children Act. We shall deal with those matters in Committee.
One of the major factors in homelessness is the lack of available houses, built or repaired, or buildings t hat can be converted. I recall that about 10 years ago I asked an official in the Department of the Environment what was the first principle in planning. He replied with a completely straight face that it should be simple and easy. After that I never had much faith in the planning process. Sadly, the process is not simple and has never been easy; it is complicated and expensive The Government must have a policy to encourage the development of brownfield sites. I am aware that the Government have tried to do that, but there must be more houses in places where they are needed and also different kinds of accommodation. One would have thought that, with mortgage rates as low as they are, it should be possible to encourage much greater building in the private sector.
There are far too many empty houses in public and private ownership. The figures have been referred to this afternoon. We believe that there should be incentives for investment in run-down areas There should also be increased incentives for private landlords. One is always surprised when one visits various towns in the country and sees whole streets boarded up, yet the houses themselves are in quite good condition. They do not require rebuilding to bring them back into the system but repairs. Often there have been terrible social problems in the area, but it should be possible to do that. I am aware that the Government have tried to involve housing associations. I hope that they will do more because housing associations have been very successful in this area. Mention has been made of the right to buy. I believe that that should be further encouraged because it frees up money which councils can then use to invest in new housing projects.
I am afraid that not all the steps taken by the Government over the past few years have improved the situation. The change in mortgage tax relief and discounts on the right to buy council houses has not helped; nor has the increase in the rate of stamp duty. The Government should also do more to encourage the building of houses for multiple occupation which help to provide very low-cost accommodation. I hope that the Minister will look into that.
We have much to deal with in Committee. I cannot emphasise more strongly that it is extremely important for your Lordships to see the draft guidance—so many of the issues are dealt with in that guidance— before they deal with those matters in Committee. If we are to look at the Bill carefully we must do that. We need to keep families out of bed and breakfast accommodation. As the noble Baroness said, that is a very expensive way to house families. There are not enough homes in London and the South East where people want to live and we must deal with that.
In conclusion, the Minister could himself make a huge difference to the problem this afternoon. All he needs to do is to announce the demolition of that dreadful building the Dome and its conversion into affordable housing.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I begin by referring to the exceptional maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Fearn, in what has been an exceptional debate— exceptional because of the passion that has been evident and the information that has been supplied to the House. But the noble Lord's speech stood out from all others as being both informed and run through with passion for the particular subject. It is plain from his speech that he will make a major contribution to the deliberations of this House, not I suspect just on homelessness—although plainly he will do so in that area—but on a whole range of other issues. I am sure we all agree that it was an incredibly impressive maiden speech.
As far as concerns the debate as a whole, I adopt what has been said by noble Lords, in particular by my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton. He said that all speakers when referring to housing and seeking to come to a practical solution spoke from the heart. We have a role to talk but also to try to promote some "doing" in relation to it. I extend that tribute specifically to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, on the Opposition Benches. I welcome her to her place in relation to this debate. She made some specific points in relation to the Bill, with which I shall deal in my reply. I detected a practical understanding of the problem from her time as leader of a significant local authority in this city and an appreciation that something needed to be done about it. Her speech started with reference to the increasing number of people in unsuitable accommodation. She specifically and rightly referred to the fact that the number of people in bed and breakfast accommodation had increased to 11,000 by the last quarter; that the cost was phenomenal; and that increasing the priority needs—to which she did not object—will increase the pressure. I think that the speech of the noble Baroness showed a real understanding of the problem and a real desire to do something about it.
Perhaps I may deal with some of the specific points made by the noble Baroness. She referred to the removal of the housing register. The Bill removes the requirement to have a register but local authorities will still have the power to operate a register if they want to for any of the reasons that she indicated.
The noble Baroness and a number of other noble Lords emphasised the importance of trying to have both regulations and guidance available to the House before the Bill completes its passage. Perhaps I may quickly set out the position in relation to that. The draft priority needs order, which is made under Section 189(2) of the Housing Act, has already been published and consulted on. We are now considering responses. That is already available.
The draft code of guidance on allocations and homelessness is in preparation. The part on allocations is to be sent out for consultation before the end of this year. The part on homelessness will be sent out early next year for consultation.
A copy of the draft code of guidance on reviews and strategies is available in the Library of the House and in the Library of another place. It will go out for
406
consultation before the end of this year. Quite a number of the documents for which the noble Baroness asked are already available in draft. They are not all available. I shall write to the noble Baroness in relation to any that I have missed.
The noble Baroness referred, as did a number of other noble Lords, to the licensing of houses in multiple occupation. That was an important commitment made in the Government's last manifesto and also in the 1997 one. Noble Lords will know better than I that licensing will require primary legislation. So far we have not been able to obtain time for that primary legislation. We accept all the arguments advanced in favour of it. It is simply a question of finding time. Noble Lords will know better than I the pressures on legislative time at the moment.
The noble Baroness referred to the requirement for a homelessness strategy that would connect in with other strategies relating to housing. I entirely agree with that. In many cases it would be sensible for local authorities to have a strategy that deals with homelessness and other housing issues. She raised the issue of what will happen to the Rough Sleepers Unit. It still has to reach its target by April 2002. But it is perfectly plain that that what the Rough Sleepers Unit has achieved so far is immensely impressive. We need to make sure that what it achieves is consolidated; that we do not have another cohort of rough sleepers moving on to the streets; and we must also check that it continues with preventive measures. We shall be considering the next stages in the near future.
The noble Baroness raised the issue of improvements in housing benefit. Housing benefit is a real issue. We all agree with that. What has been done in relation to housing benefit? The priority of the Department for Work and Pensions is to work with local authorities to drive up standards of service, tackle fraud and error and promote work incentives. A help team was established in March. It has visited a large number of local authorities to help with their particular problems. The administration subsidy for housing benefit has gone up and up. By 2003–04 it will have increased cumulatively by £24 million.
The three-year settlement process in spending reviews helps local authorities to plan how to deal with housing benefits in the long-term. The Department for Work and Pensions is developing a new performance framework for the future. It is a set of consistent national standards which will, for the first time, provide a clear basis for assessing local authority performance. That is an important issue. It takes time. But we have introduced as many measures as we possibly can to make progress in what is one of the great problems in the system—that is, making sure that housing benefit is better administered.
I turn to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. I was grateful for her support on the Bill. She congratulated us on our speed in bringing it forward since the general election. I thank the noble Baroness for that. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, having given us that congratulation, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, then took it away by

407
saying how slow we were to produce it. Anyway, we have it now. Let us get on and make it as good as possible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, raised the question of preventing people from being considered for accommodation who were deemed ineligible from the start because of their bad behaviour. That is an important issue. We take the view that, subject to appropriate safeguards, certain households in which there has been persistent misconduct in the past and where there has been no reform should become ineligible for consideration. That will happen only in very serious cases. However, we believe that there are such serious cases.
The noble Baroness next raised the question of accommodation for those whose rejection for housing is being reviewed by the local authority. The problem is that if one allows the county court to review whether or not accommodation should be provided while the review is going on, one in effect removes the local authority's discretion. That is what we are concerned about. Obviously the local authority's discretion has to play a part in the allocation of short housing. It must make judgments about that. In the area we are talking about it is dealing with people whom it has decided to reject. The question is whether the county court should then interfere with the exercise of its discretion as to whether it should provide housing while a review of that rejection continues. Quintessentially that is a matter for the local authority's discretion. It has quite difficult choices to make in those circumstances.
The question of a reasonable time within which to consider whether or not to accept offers of accommodation was then raised by the noble Baroness. That will depend on the circumstances. Sometimes when a good many offers have been made it is reasonable for it to he a short period of time. On other occasions, when a long pause has gone by before an offer is made, it may be more sensible to give a longer time. It will depend on the circumstances in a particular case. The noble Baroness said that she would welcome an opportunity to discuss that and other issues before the Committee stage. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss that and a whole number of other issues.
Along with a number of other noble Lords, the noble Baroness raised the question of the Children Act 1989. Basically, the question was: is it true that social services departments or housing authorities are now more willing or feel more able legally to separate children from their parents when dealing with the issue of homelessness? It is said that there are two court cases which have made it easier for local authorities to do that. They are acting on the basis of those court cases. It is a point that has been picked up by Shelter and raised with myself and the Department of Health. We are being told that those two court cases do not effect any change in the law. What we need to look at is whether there is any change in practice. We are in the process of investigating that. I give no assurance as to what I shall come back with, except that I assure your Lordships that we shall look to see what the practice is. I shall report back to the House before it is too late
408
for something to be done. It is a difficult issue. We should be careful not to change the law unless there is a proper basis for it.
The noble Baroness also referred to domestic violence. She was keen to ensure that any regulations dovetail with the Bill. I entirely agree with that. She also referred to the Supporting People proposals and said that it is important that they be effective and properly funded. The purpose of Supporting People is to provide a unified funding stream for the supporting of vulnerable people by local—
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. What concerns me about the Supporting People programme is the various rumours we hear about not being able to accept the total amount of money that is needed for it. I should be grateful if the Minister could reassure us that there will be enough money. That is the big fear of all the people involved in making that work. As other noble Lords have said, the programme is absolutely crucial for keeping homeless people in their tenancies once they are found for them.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I understand totally the importance of the Supporting People programme over the long term. The funding streams that Supporting People will bring together will deal with many of the categories covered in our debate today. Recently we published a consultation paper setting out how the sums are to be calculated. The best way forward for those with particular concerns is to respond to that detailed consultation which sets out with some degree of precision how we intend to calculate the amounts for the funding stream.
The noble Baroness also referred to the publication of the national homelessness strategy. I cannot guarantee that it will be ready by December, but if we produce a Bill that puts a duty on local authorities to produce their own homelessness strategies, then it is incumbent on central government to set out with some degree of precision what they intend to do in this area.
Perhaps I may turn to the contribution of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford. He set out the reasons underlying homelessness and expressed his support for a strategic approach by local authorities and central government. We endorse that with enthusiasm. He raised a fear that housing policy has been a Cinderella service in social provision. All noble Lords who have participated in the debate are well aware of the importance of housing. Although it must be considered in conjunction with the provision of other services—health, education and community services—it is an immensely important element when dealing with people who have a range of problems.
The right reverend Prelate also raised concerns about the provisions in Clause 13 covering unacceptable behaviour. I dealt with that point in my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. However, plainly this is a matter that will need to be discussed in Committee. I thank the right reverend Prelate for what he described as his warm welcome to

409
the Bill and his good wishes for its success. He described it as "good news for vulnerable people". That is absolutely right.
I have already referred to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Fearn. It was truly excellent. Perhaps I may pick up on one point that he made. The noble Lord said that resolving the problems of homelessness will not happen unless more resources, including the best people to solve young people's housing needs, are provided. When addressing the problems of homelessness, resources will always be an issue. Sometimes it is said that the Government do not provide sufficient resources; at other times congratulations are offered. However, the Bill before the House today seeks to provide a structure within which the problems of homelessness can be addressed. Of course I agree that as many resources as are reasonably practicable should be made available, but here we aim to set out a structure to tackle homelessness, which will be with us for some time to come and which, as several noble Lords have rightly pointed out, is likely to rise in terms of cases accepted by local authorities because of the widening of priority needs. I take note of the noble Lord's comments as regards resources, but in the meantime the Bill sets out the structure for dealing with the problems.
My noble friend Lady Massey of Darwen quoted a report produced by Shelter:
"This Bill, if implemented, offers the best opportunity in a generation"
to deal with the problems of homelessness. I am grateful to her for that quotation. My noble friend also referred to the problem of children who are separated from their parents by local authorities when carrying out their duties either under the Children Act, in the case of social services authorities, or under homelessness legislation in the case of housing authorities. I have said that we shall consider this matter and seek the right course to address it.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, brought the debate firmly down to earth by citing a few figures which make it clear that, if estimates of the number of new households being created are correct, a significantly larger number of affordable homes will need to be built in order to meet the problem of homelessness. From those figures, it is quite plain that homelessness is going to be with us for some considerable time to come. For that reason, it is necessary to ensure that the safety net works well and that all those involved in providing that safety net play their appropriate part.
As regards the issue of affordable housing, we have increased significantly the funding being allocated for new affordable housing investment through the Housing Corporation. That funding will rise to over £1.2 billion in 2003–04, which is almost double the current level. Some 10,000 key workers in high demand areas will be helped to purchase a home through the Starter Homes Initiative. Total capital allocations for local authority housing are being increased from £1.2 billion last year to £2.5 billion by 2003–04. Those are significant increases but, to be frank, they do not reach the level of housing starts
410
referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Best. Nevertheless, it marks an important start to addressing the issue. Because of the inevitable gap between the number of new houses being built and the number of people who require them, the need for the housing safety net to function effectively is extremely important.
The noble Lord, Lord Warner, referred to the position of young offenders. I can give the noble Lord an assurance that we shall include in guidance the point that youth offending teams should be included among the consultees regarding homelessness strategies. We shall consider in guidance whether those young offenders who need to move to avoid hardship will fall into the "reasonable preference" category for the allocation of housing. "Reasonable preference" does not equate with "vulnerable" and thus would not reflect the same priority for allocation, a point which I explained in my opening remarks.
The speech of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, was moving and impressive. He described the lot of those who live in poor quality, temporary accommodation and referred in particular to two families in a way that brings us down to earth as regards what we are trying to achieve by way of improving the relevant legislation. He also described a conversation with someone living in that kind of accommodation. That person had never experienced happiness in his life, which serves to underline the importance of ensuring that decent long-term housing is provided.
The noble Earl also drew attention to the Rough Sleepers Unit, and in particular to the work of Louise Casey. I am sure that all noble Lords would agree that the achievements of the unit are very impressive. Their hard work serves to illustrate that, in dealing with that particular kind of homelessness—as well as homelessness in general—we must roll up our sleeves and get on with doing the job, as well as persuading all the relevant players to co-operate in providing solutions to the problem. He also cited the article in the Observer and the question of whether children would now more easily be separated from their parents. He said that:
"Sometimes it appears that in this country we are not very good at valuing our children".
That is a sentiment which we should all consider when dealing with homelessness. He also referred to the issue of houses in multiple occupation. I believe that, in responding to the points put by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, I have already reiterated our commitment to dealing with it, subject to legislative time being available.
My noble friend Lady Rendell of Babergh drew attention to the problems faced by vulnerable groups. She mentioned in particular the poor administration of housing benefit, a point I believe I have already dealt with. My noble friend also referred to the problems surrounding the provision of bed and breakfast accommodation, a matter raised at the start of our debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. It is a very expensive system and it must be possible to find better ways of dealing with homeless families. Bed and breakfast costs a great deal and I am sure that all noble Lords would agree that such provision has an

411
extremely detrimental effect on families. As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, pointed out, bed and breakfast accommodation then leads to hugely increased costs in other areas. My predecessor in the post of Minister for Housing, Mr Nick Raynsford, established the Bed and Breakfast Unit, which is now in operation. It is looking urgently at ways in which the problem can be addressed. My noble friend also commented that the statutory framework we are putting in place may provide a good opportunity to deal with homelessness. I am grateful for her remarks.
My noble friend Lady Turner of Camden asked about the position as regards single-sex couples; whether they are suffering from an anomaly. On the basis of the briefing material before me, I am not in a position to deal with that particular point. I intend to write to my noble friend and respond to her comments.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, speaking from the Cross Benches, dealt eloquently with the cost of poor housing. I do not have to hand the up-to-date figures for the 1996 report from the RICS, to which the noble Lord referred. I shall seek to gather together those figures and write to the noble Lord. I am sure that all noble Lords would agree that a huge cost is borne in that respect. The more effectively we can deal with the issues of homelessness, the more we shall reduce that cost.
The noble Lord drew attention to the Observer article covering the separation of families by local authorities and also pointed out that it is not only a question of housing but also of offering support to young people. The noble Lord drew attention to the Connexions service, which is seeking to give that support. We are very conscious of the fact that we need to provide support to prevent, for example, tenancy breakdown, which frequently occurs with young people who have been on the streets for long periods before they are put into tenancies.
Dealing with homelessness is a fundamental challenge, not only in relation to the provision of more affordable homes but in preventing people with social problems from ending up homeless. It may help such people to stay in tenancies if we provide them with more support. I undertake to write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and inform him of the "village hall" experience. Perhaps that will inform his approach in relation to the active communities.
I should say to my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton that I do not want the Bill to be called the "Domelessness Bill"; I am more than happy for it to be called the "Homelessness Bill". I agree that every contributor has spoken from the heart. My noble friend spoke impressively about the fact that people who are homeless are people in anguish; that they are people who need help. He described how, when he was an MP, people came to his surgery and brought their children with them because otherwise they would not have been able to speak to their MP. Like my noble friend, I hope that the Bill will make a real difference to the plight of homeless people.
My noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to the right to buy. We are sticking with a right-to-buy policy, and the problems of
412
homelessness have to be looked at within that landscape. Yes, of course we would like to build more houses. As I said, we have made more money available than in 1997 and 1998, but it will take a long time to reach a point where the numbers are high enough.
My noble friend referred also to co-operative solutions. I agree that they are well worth looking at. Indeed, shared ownership can make a real impact on the homelessness problem. As to a system of "pepper-potting", which was used by my noble friend's council in Enfield, he is right to say that that is somewhat out of fashion at the moment and is said to lead to problems. However, I agree that we need to address the problem of what kind of accommodation local councils should provide to deal with those who are temporarily homeless. Is it right that bed and breakfast is used so often, or would it be better if there were more properties—for example, in the private rental sector—which could be used to house the homeless?
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, underlined the importance of—she did not like the word—"joined-up" services. We agree that there is a need for joined-up services, not only between local authorities, particularly in London, to ensure that they work together to help the homeless, but between central government, local government and the statutory services in providing help for those who are homeless.
The noble Baroness referred to the 26,000 possession orders that have been made. There is a problem in breaking down the causes of possession orders. We are in discussion at the moment with the Lord Chancellor's Department, which deals with the courts, in an attempt to get under the headline figures and to see whether or not we can break down what causes people to have possession orders made against them, and what more we can do to help them.
The noble Baroness also referred to the issue of young offenders. I believe that she supported the Government's proposition that the more you help young offenders to settle into a home the less likely they are to reoffend.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, raised a number of issues, but he broadly welcomed the Bill. He spoke about the issues of lack of affordable housing and housing benefits, to which I have already referred. He referred to asylum seekers making the problem more difficult. Your Lordships will know that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place has made an announcement about reforms for dealing with asylum seekers once they are here. We agree that the quicker one is able to deal with claims, the better it will be for the genuine asylum seekers.
The noble Viscount raised the question of where offenders register. They register where they have a local connection. People do not establish a local connection in an area by reason of being placed in prison there; they register where they have a local connection. He also raised the issue of "jumping the gun", by which I think he meant going up the housing ladder. As I said in opening, we believe that they should be treated as a priority need as homeless people. That does not mean that they are entitled to

413
permanent housing quicker than other people—for example, families who have been waiting for some considerable time.
The noble Viscount raised the issue of the mentally ill. Those who are vulnerable by reason of mental illness are already a priority need group under existing legislation. As to young people, it is proposed that the priority needs order should be extended to include all 16 and 17 year-olds, all 18 to 21 year-olds who come out of care or the Armed Forces, or who are young offenders.
It has been an excellent debate. Every noble Lord has contributed from the heart and from a desire to make a difference. I very much look forward to the Committee and Report stages, where I hope we will all agree and try to make it a better Bill.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

European Communities (Finance) Bill
5.56 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Bill is to enable the United Kingdom to give effect to the new own resources decision amending the arrangements for financing the Community budget. This decision reflects the conclusions of the Berlin European Council of March 1999 and was signed by the Council of Ministers in September 2000. All member states are now required to ratify this decision, in line with their respective constitutional requirements, by 31st December 2001.
The own resources decision sets out the system for financing the budget of the European communities, the own resources system. This system allows for four types of own resources; first, customs duties, including those on agricultural products, secondly, sugar levies—these two elements are known as traditional own resources—thirdly, VAT-based contributions, and, fourthly, gross national product-based contributions.
Each own resources decision runs for a set period. The current one, agreed in 1994, came into effect on 1st January 1995, and the one we are considering today is due to come into effect from 1st January 2002, with some retrospection to 1st January 2001 for changes relating to traditional own resources collection costs.
The Berlin summit delivered an excellent outcome for the United Kingdom, meeting our key objectives of bringing European Union spending under control and retaining the own resources ceiling at its previous level.
Bringing EU spending under control was a major achievement for the Berlin summit. The previous agreements on EU spending, in 1988 and 1994, allowed for real increases of 17 per cent and 22 per cent over the respective planning periods. The Berlin agreement will stabilise spending through the EU budget and, for the first time, spending in the existing
414
member states will be lower in real terms at the end of a financial perspective—the planning period setting ceilings on EU expenditure—than it was at the beginning. By stabilising overall expenditure as a proportion of GNP over the financial perspective, the agreement paves the way for a successful enlargement.
The Berlin deal also maintained the UK's abatement in full, and maintained the maximum amount of EU expenditure—the overall ceiling for Community Own Resources—at a constant 1.27 per cent of EU gross national product, ensuring strict budget discipline and control of EU spending. UK contributions will not increase as a result of the new own resources decision.
Other changes agreed at Berlin have a neutral financial effect on the United Kingdom. Overall, the new own resources decision is a very good outcome for the UK, leading to no increase in our contributions and keeping the abatement—not a euro more, not a euro less.
The other elements of the Berlin conclusions are also advantageous to the United Kingdom. The tight controls on common agricultural policy spending which we negotiated will mean a fall in the price of cereals, beef and milk, bringing benefits of £1 billion a year in Britain—about £70 per year for the average family of four.
Berlin also secured reforms of the EU's structural and cohesion funds, which streamlined the categorisation of funds and which maintains a level of funding for UK regions amounting to £10 billion over the period 2000–06. These funds are addressing structural difficulties in qualifying regions, assisting economic development and promoting skills throughout the UK.
Clause 1 of the Bill provides for the new own resources decision to be added to the list of Community treaties in Section 1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. This addition will allow payments made by the United Kingdom pursuant to the decision to be charged directly to the Consolidated Fund under Section 2(3) of the European Communities Act 1972.
Clause 2 simply cites this Act as the European Communities (Finance) Act 2001 and repeals the European Communities (Finance) Act 1995, which it supersedes.
The new own resources decision itself is little changed from the 1994 own resources decision. Any changes made to the decision are financially neutral for the UK. Our net contribution to the EU budget will not change as a result of what we are considering today.
As well as maintaining the ceiling for own resources at 1.27 per cent of EU GNP, the main changes to the decision—which are rather technical in nature—are as follows. They allow for an increase in the amount that each member state can retain against the cost of collecting the traditional own resources. This amount was increased from 10 per cent to 25 per cent. They allow for a staged reduction in the maximum call-up rate of the VAT based resource from the current 1 per cent to 0.5 per cent in 2004. They simplify the steps

415
needed to calculate the United Kingdom's abatement—removing unnecessary and redundant calculations—but as the recitals to the own resources decision make clear,
this simplification has no impact on the determination of the amount of this correction [the abatement] granted to the United Kingdom".
They adjust other member states' shares of the financing of the UK's abatement in order to meet the concerns of Germany, the Netherlands, Austria and Sweden, with no effect on the UK.
In line with previous precedent, the own resources decision also reflects the UK's agreement to forego "windfall" gains arising from the changes to the financing of the EU budget and from a change in the treatment of pre-accession aid which will occur on enlargement. We achieved a position that was, as I have quoted the Prime Minister as saying,
"not a euro more, not a euro less",
and ensured that amounts currently abated will remain abated under the new decision.
The Berlin European Council was an important step forward for the European Community and for the United Kingdom. It makes several important reforms, preparing the EU for the challenges of enlargement, securing no increase in the own resources ceiling, and bringing EU spending under control.
These decisions are vital for the future of Europe, and for Britain as well. Half of the UK's total trade —£132 billion— is with Europe, with 3 million jobs in three-quarters of a million companies affected by that trade. Getting the economic future of Europe right matters for Britain: it is in our interests to see Europe extend its single market, from the 375 million people it includes today, to the nearly 500 million it could include in future. It is in Britain's interests for Europe to make the economic reforms needed if the single market is to expand. So it is right that Britain is one of the leaders of reform in Europe and in the ongoing debate on Europe's future.
Enlargement is the greatest challenge that the EU will face over the coming years. It will bring great economic benefits to eastern Europe, providing an opportunity for growth, development and prosperity. EU membership will help to raise standards of living and spread education and employment opportunities for people in the east.
Expanding the single market will also benefit the west. It will mean increased trade, cheaper inputs, improved access to a larger labour market, greater economies of scale, and more productive investment. As the Prime Minister said in Warsaw,
"Enlargement to the East may be the EU's greatest challenge, but I believe it is its greatest opportunity".
The Berlin summit saw the most radical reform of the common agricultural policy since it was created. We achieved significant price cuts for cereals, beef and milk, bringing cereal prices closer to world levels and lower prices for consumers. Although we should like to see these cuts go further, they are still a significant
416
victory for the United Kingdom. They will see spending on the common agricultural policy declining in real terms from 2002.
The summit also introduced the CAP's "second pillar". This increased focus on rural development is a significant and welcome advance. It moves the CAP away from production-based subsidies and towards support for agri-environment and rural development schemes, removing some of the anomalies of the traditional CAP mechanism.
The Berlin conclusions are not only good for Britain; they are also an important part of the ongoing process of reform in Europe—a process that t he UK is leading.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, my noble friend referred to the common agricultural policy and to enlargement. I strongly support the idea of enlargement. Is it government policy to proceed with enlargement even without the major changes in the common agricultural policy that are clearly necessary?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lord, the major thrust of what I have been saying is that many of the changes in the common agricultural policy will take place in the period between 2002 and 2006. As I said, we should like some of them to go further, but, these changes have been agreed by the 15 existing members of the European Union, and, as the noble Lord rightly said, there are essential pre-conditions for enlargement.
At Lisbon, Europe's governments signed up to economic reforms to enhance labour market flexibility and capital and product market modernisation and reform, bringing more open markets and greater competition. At Stockholm the EU pressed ahead with measures to meet the strategic goal: to raise the EU's productivity and employment performance beyond the best in the world by 2010. These measures will complement this Government's domestic efforts to raise Britain's productivity, and we shall continue to support this reform agenda: completing the single market in utilities, energy, telecoms and financial and professional services. And a reformed Europe must be outward looking rather than inward looking—actively pursuing multilateral trade liberalisation and closer transatlantic trading links, through the launch of a new world trade round.
The Government fully support Neil Kinnock's reform programme which will modernise the administration of the Commission. We are also working to reform the institutions and administration of Europe, most recently through the establishment of the new European Anti-Fraud Office, as proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with independent powers to seek out and investigate fraud against the EU budget resources system.
The Berlin conclusions are an important step in the ongoing process of reform in Europe. They shop that by taking a leading role in reform, and by working together with other member states, we can achieve outcomes which are good for the United Kingdom and good for the European Union. This Bill, ratifying the

417
deal agreed at Berlin, will mean stronger controls on EU spending, the beginnings of a more effective agricultural policy, and no increase in the own resources ceiling. The agreement is good for the United Kingdom, and it is an important step for the European Union. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
6.9 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, this is a modest Bill, dealing with a modest set of decisions taken at the Berlin summit.
As regards the narrow question of the composition of own resources, we welcome a move to an increasingly GNP-based system. Moving away from VAT and customs payments introduces a fairer system, one that is more transparent and less susceptible to fraud.
One of the most striking aspects of the EU budget is the modesty of its size and scope compared to that of the nation states that make up the European Union. We are talking about a budget which has a ceiling of 1.27 per cent of GDP, compared to public expenditure within the UK which is within a percentage or two of 40 per cent of GDP. So, in the context of overall government expenditure, we are talking about a relatively modest amount.
I refer to the other matter which I consider striking with regard to the nature of the EU budget. Despite the fact that it relates to a market which is subject to cyclical variations and however much the market may collapse and recessions occur when we might wish to spend more on structural funds, for example, we have in effect a cash limit set for five years ahead. So, what we are dealing with here—perhaps I say this in part to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, who gets a little worried about the powers of the EU—is a modest budget and one which operates in a very different way to that of a nation state and a budget which, for all the Government's trumpeting of the changes at Berlin, is susceptible to staying as it was. As regards the expenditure side, over the period 2000–06 there is virtually no change at all either in the levels of expenditure for the EU or, indeed, in how that expenditure is divided up.
Much has been made of reforms to the CAP and they are welcome but they are exceptionally modest. To hear the Minister speak, one would think that the CAP expenditure was going to suffer a major fall. In fact, whereas in 2001 CAP expenditure accounted for 45.5 per cent of the overall budget, even after the reforms, in 2006 it will account for 45.8 per cent. Therefore, there may have been some changes and we may find that some goods are now slightly cheaper but overall the place of the CAP within the EU budget has not been substantially affected by the Berlin decisions.
We on these Benches believe that much more radical reforms are needed. In saying that I accept that it is difficult in terms of practical politics to make reforms at all. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, has already
418
referred to the question of enlargement and how the EU budget will cope with that and the whole question of the CAP. It is not just in the context of enlargement that we need to look carefully at the composition of the CAP and the whole question of production and export subsidies, but we must also look extremely carefully at the implications of the operation of the CAP on the discussions in Doha.
If there is one single area where the developing world feels that it is being short-changed by the EU it is in terms of its failure to compete when exporting to the EU due to the CAP. The developing world's domestic agricultural sectors often suffer through the operation of CAP export subsidies. That situation clearly requires much further change and before enlargement can take place that change will have to be implemented. At the moment the UK Government's attitude towards that further change is unclear.
In terms of the broad span of Community activity, another criticism that we on these Benches have is that there is a tendency for the EU to adopt a proliferation of initiatives under which a small pot of money is allocated to a big issue, huge amounts of paper are created but we simply do not see any substantial follow through. On a whole raft of issues there is a question mark over whether the principle of subsidiarity is in operation and whether the EU is not attempting to do too much not very well rather than a relatively limited range of things extremely well.
That brings me to the question of fraud and mismanagement which the Minister raised. We were, of course, extremely pleased that Neil Kinnock had a reform agenda. We had hoped that that would lead to substantial and relatively speedy change. I think it is fair to say that we, along with him and his team, feel disappointed at the pace of change. The recent report of the Court of Auditors which showed fraud and mismanagement amounting to £2.5 billion—some 5 per cent of the EU budget—is another episode in a catalogue of examples of mismanagement at EU level. As noble Lords are well aware, what we are seeing is expenditure being either fraudulently applied or mismanaged across a raft of areas, certainly across the structural funds, the aid budget and the CAP. It was extremely instructive to hear the comments last week of John Wiggins, the British representative to the Court of Auditors. He pointed out that the problem is not on the whole that of individuals putting European money wrongly in their pockets but of national and regional administrations helping themselves to European money when they are not entitled to it.
Therefore, the onus is very much on the Government and on governments of the EU at national and regional level to look to themselves to put right what is one of the major criticisms—and correctly so—of the way the EU is currently run. There is a whole raft of audit controls currently in the process of being implemented but we are told that they will not produce results until 2003. One can only hope that we do not see another £2.5 billion worth of fraud next year and in 2003.

419
This is a modest measure. We in this House have no option but to approve it, but we shall certainly look for much more fundamental reform when we discuss its successor in a few years' time.
6.16 p.m.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, looking at the list of speakers for the Second Reading debate I wonder whether we have achieved a record low for the number of speakers during the passage of a Bill through your Lordships' House. That may be due to the quality of the three Front Bench spokesmen. However, I prefer to think that it may be due to the fact that the Government, while explaining that they want a more democratic House of Lords, have shown in their proposals for reform of your Lordships' House that they plan not to increase the powers of a more democratic House but, certainly in the area to which the Bill refers—finance—to reduce them.
In accepting a total absence of scrutiny of the Bill in your Lordships' House the Government hide behind a power granted to them by a statute nearly 100 years old; namely, the Parliament Act 1911. Is it not time, while your Lordships' House examines the future of the House, that we consider demonetising money Bills, so allowing the expertise on all sides of your Lordships' House to be brought to bear on the scrutiny of the nation's finances, as it is on all other aspects of our public life?
Turning to the Bill, we on these Benches welcome European enlargement, and the Berlin agreement is, to our mind, in itself not unreasonable. Nevertheless it is important to remember that what the noble Lord, Lord Newby, describes as a modest little Bill —which deals only with 1 per cent of GDP, as opposed to 40 per cent of GDP on public spending and so on—will effectively give our approval to all of last September's EU Council decisions, including those important proposals contained in Clause 16 of the EU document. At some point this evening I should be grateful for an explanation of the Minister's understanding of what Clause 16 is all about. My understanding is that it does not empower the levying of new European taxes but it seems to invite proposals to do so and to review the British abatement. Does he agree that the existence of the clause puts down a marker for things to come? I shall return to that in a moment.
This Bill, although short, has some rather obscure possible meanings. For example, taking the simple question of who pays whom, the Minister said that the UK contribution will not increase. I believe he said that we would keep our abatement and that our net contribution would not change, all of which may be true. However, in our debate last week on the Barnett formula, he and most noble Lords agreed that the key issue on that funding was not the level of increase but the absolute level—it was called the baseline—to which amounts are added or subtracted. Perhaps I may refer the noble Lord to that area for a moment.
When we talk about the amount that this country contributes to or receives from the European Union it seems extraordinarily difficult to arrive at an agreed
420
figure. Estimates vary greatly. It is important to distinguish between the gross contribution and the net contribution that the United Kingdom makes to the European Union budget. One calculation shows that this country sends £1.2 million every hour to the European Union. From that the Minister, being the statistician that he is, will quickly deduce that the sum sent each day is £29 million and that, therefore, more than £200 million per week goes from the United Kingdom taxpayer to the European Union.
I stress the words "from the United Kingdom taxpayer to the European Union" because the Government do not have any money of their own. We are talking about British taxpayers and their net contribution appears to be more than £3 billion a year. Will the Minister confirm that figure?
Another example concerns the use of GNP figures in the document. About which GNP figures are we talking? Are we talking about the official figures or, as in compliance with the Maastricht Treaty, GNP figures in which an allowance is made for the size of the black economies, which differ greatly among member states? The figures used make a material difference to the calculations.
How does the Minister respond to the comparison of the absolute level of the United Kingdom and France? France's gross contribution has been £9.2 billion versus our contribution of £7.3 billion. But refunds to France amount to £8.5 billion versus £3.8 billion to us. The net effect is that France pays £750 million compared with the United Kingdom's £3.2 billion. Why is that when the French economy is broadly comparable in size to that of Britain? Will the Minister justify the difference for us?
Up until this point I have at least been talking about gross or net contributions which governments might or might not agree to make in their own national parliaments. However, is the Minister aware that the Belgian Prime Minister recently outlined a route for bypassing altogether the problems of national parliaments? He recently called for a direct European Union tax to pay for the European Union. He thinks that this tax should be levied directly on all European Union citizens. He is backed by the Belgian Finance Minister and by the German Finance Minister who argued for a European Union-wide tax on 14th June this year. Is it good enough for the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in another place to say that,
"any change to the tax regime in Europe is a matter for unanimity … we do not accept the need to introduce new taxes".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/7/01; col 143.]?
If that is so, will the Minister tell us why the Government agreed to the insertion into the Council decision announced in September 2000 of words that certainly do open up at least the prospect of autonomous revenue-raising powers for the European Union? I refer to the Commission communication entitled Tax Policy in the European Union—Priorities in the Year Ahead. It stated that,
"while it remains the Commission's view that a move to qualified majority voting at least for certain tax issues is indispensable, the legal basis will, for the present, remain unanimity".

421
I should be grateful if noble Lords would note the words "for the present". The communication continues:
"Given the difficulties in reaching unanimous decisions on legislative proposals, which will be compounded by enlargement, the community should also consider the use of alternative instruments".
What are those ominous-sounding alternative instruments? Perhaps I may draw your Lordships' attention to what the European Commission spokesman said on 31st July of this year. European Union Commissioner Schreyer was asked about any autonomous European Union resources that might be planned. She said:
"An objective could be to replace the existing financing system of the European Union's budget"—
that is a system in which our Parliament has a say, as it has today—
"with one or more European taxes".
That would be a system in which we in this Parliament would have no say.
Perhaps we can now see why there have been so few speakers today. Not only are we impotently debating a Bill which, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said, we cannot amend and have no alternative but to approve, it is also a Bill which will become law tomorrow after about 30 seconds of Committee, Report and Third Reading stages. If the ideas that I have described come true, the whole of the UK Parliament will be in the same position as your Lordships' House is today— bypassed on money matters by directly levied EU taxes.
There is a widespread and understandable anxiety on the part of many people that we are heading for new direct revenue-raising powers for the European Union. If those new powers flow from the passage of this unscrutinised Bill, it will be, I am sure the Minister will agree, to the great discredit of the Government. The Minister will shortly reassure us that the fears I describe are groundless and that none of this will happen. Many of us fear that it will. I believe that the concerns are genuine. They are frequently expressed. I hope that the Minister will heed them.
6.26 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the care they have taken in responding to the Bill. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that it is a modest Bill. It is a Bill which sets out the basis on which contributions not only from this country but also the 14 other member states will apply to the European Union budgets for the next six years. The noble Lord is right to say that 1.27 per cent of GNP is a small figure in comparison with national budgets. Of course that is the case. It demonstrates, as I am sure he will agree, how far we are from the scare talk of a federal Europe which is the characteristic of the Benches immediately opposite—and of only some of those noble Lords, I suspect.
422
The noble Lord referred to the common agricultural policy and seemed to suggest that I was saying that somehow expenditure on the common agricultural policy was going to suffer a major fall. That is not what I was suggesting. I was suggesting that although there will be a fall, the major change is the transfer from production subsidies to expenditure on agri-environment and rural development. We would all like to go further. I agree with him on that. I think that all three parties would agree on that. But what has been achieved is significant and worthwhile. I join with his party in saying that we would want more radical reforms.
On enlargement, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, has not stayed for an answer although perhaps he was so satisfied with the immediate answer I gave him that he did not feel it necessary to listen to the rest of the debate. When we consider the proposals for enlargement very strict caps on pre-enlargement expenditure are provided for in the Berlin settlement.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, referred to export subsidies. There is indeed provision for export subsidies. But there is no provision for direct aid to farmers in the accession countries to compensate them for any decrease in prices. I think that he would agree that that is a well worthwhile distinction.
The noble Lord referred to fraud. None of us will be happy about fraud. I am not sure to which report of the Court of Auditors he referred. A Court of Auditors report is being presented tomorrow. I understand that it has been on the website of the Court of Auditors for the past half an hour. That means that I have not had a chance to see it. I do not suppose anyone else has had a chance to do so.
Lord Newby: My Lords, it is amazing how the newspapers get hold of such things.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there have been various leaks, but it is not at all clear, other than what the UK member of the Court of Auditors said, what reliance can be placed on them. I shall not pretend to any noble Lord that the Court of Auditors is satisfied with progress in reducing fraud. It is likely that the Court of Auditors will say that it will make the same qualifications to the accounts that it has made in the past. However, I am sure that it will make the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that a large part of the shortfall is not fraud, as such, but error and mismanagement and particularly over-claiming by national and regional governments.
The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, who is fascinated by an earlier settlement of 1911, adheres to his view that we should overturn the 1911 Parliament Act and that this House should retain responsibilities for financial matters equal to that of the House of Commons. Otherwise, I cannot imagine why he is so worried about the lack of scrutiny in this House of a Bill that has been subjected to substantial scrutiny—a long Second Reading debate, lengthy Committee proceedings and subsequent proceedings—in the House of Commons. That is as it should be. He accuses the Government of accepting the lack of scrutiny

423
today as shown by the fact that there are fewer speakers. I would like to have seen more speakers, but I suspect that the lack of speakers reflects not the lack of interest by Members of the House of Lords in financial matters, but their acceptance and approval of the Parliament Act 1911. Long may that continue.
I welcome the support that was expressed for enlargement. In my response I set out the extent to which the Berlin agreement, and therefore this Bill, provide caps on the preparation for enlargement between now and 2006. I shall not add to what was said about fraud, because I do not believe that that added to what the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said.
At first I was puzzled by the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, to Clause 16 until I worked out that I believe he means Recital 16, which is referred to in Article 9 of the own resources decision. That article simply replaces Article 10 of the 1994 own resources decision and is no different from the article that it replaces. It allows the European Commission to undertake a review of its own resources system and to put forward proposals for modifying that system as necessary. That has been the case for the past six years and no change is proposed in the new own resources decision. As the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said, it remains the case that proposals for modification put forward by the Commission would have to be considered and unanimously agreed by all member states. There is no qualification and he was right.
The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, went on to talk about UK contributions and the distinction between net and gross contributions. I do not accept that gross contributions are not a worthwhile consideration because the benefit that this country receives from its membership of the European Union is not confined to its receipts from the European Union. It includes our membership of a single market of 375 million people. That is estimated to have increased output across Europe by 1.5 per cent and that alone would more than pay for our net contribution before any of the other benefits are taken into account.
I remind the noble Lord, as I said earlier, that last year UK exports to the single market were worth £97 billion; that trade with the rest of the UK supports up to 3.5 million British jobs; and the single market brings inward investment into the United Kingdom that created 50,000 jobs last year in the UK alone.
The noble Lord also asked me to make a distinction between the gross contribution and the net contribution, which I am happy to do. I cannot weed out a column of figures, except to say that taking the years between 1995–96 and 2003–04, at current prices, in the first year the figure was just under £4 billion; in the second year, 1996–97, just over £2 billion; in 1997–98, £2.5 billion; in 1998–99, £4 billion; in 1999–2000, £3.3 billion; and in 2000–01, £4.3 billion. In addition, we forecast for 2001–02, £3.4 billion; for 2002–03, £3.5 billion; and for 2003–04, £3.8 billion. Of course, more figures will be produced at the time of the pre-Budget report.
The point is that there were substantial increases in European Union expenditure that continued under the Conservative government. They have now been kept
424
under control, and, together with the continuation of the abatement, for which the noble Baroness. Lady Thatcher, deserves substantial credit, that should dominate the debate.
The next point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, concerned the euro tax. He still appears to believe that because the Belgian Prime Minister and some German politicians want a euro tax, that somehow it is coming closer and closer. Nowhere in the decision that is the subject of this Bill does that appear. Decisions on EU taxation of savings, for example, at the Feira European Council, marked a turning point. The UK did what we have always wanted to do which is to embrace co-operation rather than harmonisation in tax matters. At ECOFIN on 10th July Ministers put forward the idea of a euro tax, but it was not just our Chancellor, but also other finance Ministers who rejected it. As the Chief Secretary said on 3rd July in the debate on this Bill,
"We do not support such a tax and such matters should be decided by national Parliaments, accountable to national populations for the tax decisions that they make".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/7/01: col. 167.]
Putting a gloss on it, but without disagreeing with it, fundamentally that means the elected House.
I am grateful to noble Lords for the seriousness with which they have treated this matter. Although it is not controversial, that does not mean that it is modest. I believe that this is an important step forward in our relationships with Europe and I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.

National Trust
6.39 p.m.
Lord Patten Lord Patten rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the legislation governing the National Trust in England and Wales is in need of modernisation.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am glad of the opportunity to ask this Question about the legislation governing the National Trust, which may seem to some to be in need of some modernisation. Others speaking later in the debate will do so with much greater knowledge and experience than I have. I look forward to their contributions, in particular that of the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, whose distinguished service to the National Trust began as chairman back in 1975, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, whom we welcome back to his place. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, who is answering for the Government, will remember, as I do, that in another place when people came back after a break in service they were referred to, somewhat coarsely, as "retreads". We shall have to find a better word for those who come back into the service of your Lordships' House. I look forward very much to what the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has to say.
I come pretty fresh to the subject. I am a friendly outsider, if you will. To raise any questions about that august body, the National Trust, might seem mildly

425
improper, rather like questioning the purposes of his Holiness the Pope—something that one does not quite do. The original purposes of the National Trust are not only entirely proper, but absolutely laudable, and I applaud them. However, the duties and burdens laid down by statute as long ago as 1907 in a body of legislation growing through five Acts of Parliament, last reviewed more than 30 years ago, may be a challenging load because of the scale of the task that faces the modern National Trust.
The distinguished social theorist, the Anglican canon and the London solicitor who set up the National Trust in late Victorian England and our predecessors in this and another place who passed the statute in Edwardian England could not have foreseen what a landed leviathan it was to become. The National Trust has accumulated holdings that no Whig magnate in our House in the 18th century, even after a couple of bottles of port, could have dreamt of accumulating. It has more than 600,000 acres of land, 575 miles of coastline and nearly 250 monuments and buildings, ranging from great baroque palaces to ex-council houses, I am told. I applaud that and the care and taste that go into those houses. I shall not speak about matters of taste or tenantry, which may interest some in your Lordships' House.
However, perhaps necessarily, the largest private landowner in England and Wales is largely run from London, though with an army of volunteers to whom I pay tribute. It is unregulated. Some people—not me—say that it is out of touch and remote from time to time. Perhaps that is a matter of the simple scale of the National Trust and how large it is.
The present scale and organisation of the National Trust seems inconsistent with the modernising agenda of the Government, with which I have some sympathy from time to time—I do not want to alarm the Government Front Bench. Devolution and local accountability are increasingly part not only of regional rhetoric, but of regional reality. So perhaps it is our fault and that of another place that some key issues have not been addressed, and in particular that legislation does not accommodate reasonable demands for a regional or local voice to be heard within the National Trust, whether that voice is of the paid-up member or simply of the interested or disinterested outsider who might be affected in some way, such as a tenant.
That was to be my theme when I discussed the Question with the usual channels a few weeks ago. However, since this Unstarred Question went down on the Order Paper, I have received, by my modest standards, a veritable snowstorm of correspondence and faxes, not only on the regional deficit to which I have just referred and to which I shall turn more fully later, but on a perceived democratic deficit in the electoral affairs of the National Trust, particularly in the use of what one might term the block vote. Some have represented to me that, because of that block vote, the inner circles of the National Trust are becoming a bit too close to a self-perpetuating
426
oligarchy for comfort. I do not know whether that is true; I simply speak as an interested and sympathetic outsider.
The disputed system seems to have been a fairly recent invention. It came about only after the report on the constitution of the National Trust by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, back in 1993, which I have looked at with some care. The complaint, in brief, is that the National Trust council turns out a list of those standing for election, putting an asterisk next to the names of those whom it favours. If those people do not get enough votes directly cast—a system that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, and I are used to from the many normal, direct democratic elections that we have faced in the past—the block vote is used by the National Trust to get them home and dry even though they do not have a majority of the popular vote as expressed by those present in the hall and those exercising their undoubted and proper right to vote by post.
As has been widely reported, that happened at the National Trust annual general meeting in October this year. Some of those standing were clearly elected by the popular vote of those present or using the postal ballot, but, after a second or two of glory, they were then promptly indirectly unelected by the use of the block vote.
Kafka could not have made this up. He would have been proud. At the 2000 annual general meeting, a motion against the block voting system was proposed and seconded by two QCs—I do not know them—and supported by 10 silks in all. The motion was supported by a majority of the direct votes of those present and those who had filled in their postal ballots, but then—yes, you have guessed it, my Lords—that vote against the block vote was promptly overturned by the use of the block vote.
With respect, the National Trust might like to look at the practices of the National Trust for Scotland, which are wholly democratic. There is no block vote and only votes that are properly accounted for in person or through the postal ballot are taken into account. That strikes me as a thoroughly democratic system—the sort of system that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, and I are used to in general elections when facing the electorate.
On this issue, I have seen correspondence sent to me from Mr Henry Keswick, who is obviously held in great esteem by Her Majesty's Government. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, wrote to him in September this year in the most generous terms, thanking him for what he had done for the National Gallery over the past 19 years. He has subsequently written to the National Trust chairman over what he sees as these electoral eccentricities or oddities. The chairman wrote back on 10th October to say that the council had decided to see, after the most recent AGM,
"whether a review of election procedures was desirable".
In my view it is not just desirable, but urgent. There should be an inquiry conducted by someone entirely independent of the National Trust. If not, I fear that pressure will grow on the Minister and the Government.
I conclude on the matter of the regional and local voice where I had intended to begin my speech before I learnt about these troubles in the National Trust. The trust is unregulated. Despite being set up by statute for the benefit of the whole nation and its citizens, not just for paid-up members of the National Trust, there is no one to whom complaints can be made by an aggrieved tenant, for example, save the deciders of those who should or should not get an asterisk—the wielders of the block votes that I have referred to. Perhaps the Minister will give some consideration to the need for greater public transparency and accountability to those who are not necessarily members.
Does the Minister also agree that, just as there might be a case for the council of the National Trust reaching out more to its own members, so the National Trust as a whole might reach out more in a truly inclusive way to people in the regions and localities? There are regional councils of the National Trust, but they are nominated by the centre and there is no local election to them. That seems wrong. Take the recent cause célèbre—some would say scandal—over the Golden Cap estate in the National Trust's care in Dorset. The local Blackmore Vale Magazine reported to me:
"Local Trust members are aggrieved at the lack of consultation".
I am told that the story is repeated time and again across the country.
That regional democratic deficit can be put right by having proper elections to regional councils, reflecting the devolutionary spirit of the times, or, perhaps more radically—I bet that this will come by the end of the present century, which has some way to go—by going further and breaking up the National Trust into a series of regional trusts. Such trusts for the South West, for the eastern counties, or for the Lakes could be more truly accountable on a range of matters. In its electoral practices and its regional structure, the legislation governing the National Trust is in need of modernisation. I wish it well and I hope that it tackles the task vigorously.
6.50 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, in 1994 the National Trust celebrated its centenary under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, whom I, too, welcome back to this House. I believe that the trust then enjoyed almost universal support as a greatly respected and much loved national institution. It was a shock to me when, not long ago, I attended a meeting of around 200 people in the Midlands. Those people were concerned about the future of the countryside. One of the speakers mentioned the National Trust and, quite spontaneously, from all parts of the hall, which was filled with people whom I would have considered to be the natural supporters of the trust, came hissing and booing.
In the space of a few years, the trust has ceased to be seen as a part of the countryside and has begun to be seen by rather too many as something of a threat to it. All who care for the trust—I count myself as one of them—should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patten, for initiating this debate. In recent years, since
428
1996, the style and direction of the trust's leadership has changed. What has gone wrong—and something has gone very wrong—needs to be debated not only in the carefully orchestrated confines of stage-managed AGMs but publicly and in Parliament.
I declare my interests. I am a long-standing member of the trust and, since 1998, I have been a supporter of the Friends of the National Trust—a group of other members who were as distressed as I was by what was going on. In essence, and if one had to put it in a sentence, the trust appears, perhaps as a result of its own success and its growth, to have stopped listening to locals, to its tenants, to its members and to its volunteers. It has become over-centralised. over-bureaucratic and unresponsive.
Central decision-taking means that the regional committees, which could and should ensure that local requirements are properly reflected in decisions, are effectively powerless. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, who carried out the last major review of the trust's constitution in 1993, recommended that those committees should he given greater autonomy. But I can see no sign whatever that that has happened; indeed, the very opposite appears to be true.
There is a problem—the noble Lord, Lord Patten, has referred to it already—in the way in which the National Trust manages its membership and the members' views through the existing voting procedures of the AGM. Quite rightly, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, made it clear that membership resolutions cannot be binding on the council. How could one manage an outfit of the size of the trust if it were run in such a way?
However, he made it clear that he saw the AGM as a way in which, by debate and by members' resolutions, members could seek to influence council decisions. Therefore, he recommended no change to the voting procedures either for the membership of the council—half of which is elected—or for the resolutions. But he cannot have anticipated how the existing provisions would be used under the chairmanship of Mr Charles Nunneley, who took over in 1996.
Mr Nunneley has indicated in correspondence as recently as 11th April 2000 that past chairmen—I am somewhat timorous about saying what past chairmen did because two of them are present—tended to say, when asked, that it was their normal practice to distribute their proxy votes in the same proportion as the votes cast directly by members. But he added,
"My own experience as Chairman has led me to take a different line from my predecessors".
He began to use the proxy votes to support candidates for council whom he preferred and to oppose resolutions which were critical of the way in which his council had dealt with issues.
After many years of pressure, this year at the AGM the numbers of those proxy votes and how they were cast have for the first time been made public. It makes disturbing reading because it is clear that for some time the council has managed to defeat critical resolution after critical resolution. I give one example of the

429
Golden Cap estate, to which reference has already been made. A motion by members critical of the trust's handling of that estate was defeated by 1,500 votes. But when the matter is examined, of the members who cast their votes themselves, 42,000 voted against the council's handling and 19,400 in favour of the council. But by throwing his 24,861 proxy votes behind the council, the chairman was able to defeat his critics. So much for the AGM providing the forum for members' complaints.
Of course, until this year the composition of the council, too, effectively was determined by the chairman because his proxy vote ensures success for any candidates whom he chooses to support. This year, following last year's resolution, to which reference has been made, we are told that the chairman appointed a small sub-committee from his council to interview the candidates and to make recommendations. Those recommendations appeared on the face of the ballot paper that each member received. Over 10,000 discretionary votes were then used by the chairman to secure the election of all the candidates whom the council wanted as fellow members. It is right to say that one of them had come one from bottom in the original poll. So much for the members having the opportunity to choose half of the council by election.
In reality, the council is chosen by the chairman through the small sub-committee that he has set up in the past year. He has chosen the successors of those who, in due course, will have the job of determining who will chair the council. It is a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation. Examination of what has been going on indicates that one of the greatest charities in our nation deserves a better constitution.
Before the debate began, I was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, whether it was to be a debate about hunting. I told her that it was not. However, I must mention hunting because it is a matter that has soured relations between the trust and a considerable section of the rural community, and it continues to do so. In doing that, I declare an interest both as a supporter of the Devon and Somerset Stag Hounds and also as president of the Countryside Alliance.
The debate is not about hunting but it is about breach of trust. The Holnicote estate in Somerset, which I know well, was given to the trust on the clear understanding of the donor, Sir Richard Acland, that stag hunting should continue there until it was outlawed by Parliament. He understood the importance of stag hunting to the local community to which he belonged. He continued to say so until his death in 1990. Over and over again, the excellent director-general of the trust, now Sir Angus Stirling, made it clear in writing and elsewhere that the trust would respect its donor's wishes until and unless Parliament decreed otherwise.
Perhaps there is no time now to go into the history of the matter, but it is a sordid history and there is no other way to describe it. A report was commissioned by Professor Bateson. The hunt's consent and cooperation in obtaining samples for the scientific material was obtained on a promise that the hunt
430
would be shown the draft report before it was presented to the trust and would be given an opportunity to comment. In December 1996, Professor Bateson told the master of the local hounds that she had nothing to fear.
In January 1997 a meeting took place at Cambridge between officials of the trust and Professor Bateson. The details of that meeting have never been published, but its result appears to be that Professor Bateson went back on his undertaking to show the report to the hunt. It was sent to the chairman in March that year. He did not distribute it to his council members until the day before a meeting which had been convened to discuss the report. On the day before that meeting he held a press conference in which he made it clear that he would recommend to his council that a ban on stag hunting should take place.
Since then, of course, much further scientific work has cast the very gravest doubts on some of the most basic findings of that report. But, in relation to a resolution in 1998 asking the trust to reaffirm its commitment to observe donors' wishes, the chairman once again put his proxy vote behind the opposition to that resolution in order to support his own position. There is therefore bitterness.
Whatever one's views of the rights and wrongs of hunting, that matter was handled appallingly. Richard Walker, who had to deal with the matter in the High Court back in 1997, made that clear. The resentment continues, particularly in the West Country, where the trust is now regarded as a bad neighbour. It is regarded not as part of the rural community but as something set apart. I very much hope that the new director-general, Miss Fiona Reynolds, of whom we all have the very highest hopes, will take steps to establish what can be done to put matters right. I fear that the founder of the trust, Octavia Hill, would not be pleased by what has happened during the past six years.
7 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I hope that I may start on a personal note. It is a pleasure to be back in your Lordships' House—quite unexpectedly, too—not least because of the warm welcome I have received from the police, the Attendants and many noble Lords. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patten, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, for their kind remarks. I do, however, feel just a little rusty, although I hope that I am not a retread. I was chairman of the trust from 1991 until 1996, I recently attended its annual general meeting and I keep in touch with it.
When I was thinking about what I should say this evening, I was a little puzzled. I wondered why the noble Lord, Lord Patten, should be interested in the somewhat arcane matter of the National Trust Acts. Even more, I wondered why he should expect the Government to be interested in them. In the event, his agenda was rather different, although not all of it was unexpected.
I want to touch on one of the main thrusts in the noble Lord's interesting speech. He said that the trust should be more regional and should, in effect, be split

431
up—that was his ultimate aim. That, of course, is not a new idea; it has been around for quite a long time. My immediate observations are threefold. First, the trust is a national trust. Its importance and influence are much greater if it is national and not split up into regions. Secondly, important economies of scale can be gained in terms of the expert advice and specialist advisory services that are offered. My third observation involves a more profound problem; that is, the weight of the trust's membership is very largely in the South East, whereas disproportionately much of its expenditure is in the North, the Lake District, Wales, Northern Ireland and Cornwall, which are relatively poor in terms of trust income. If there were, for example, a hugely rich and independent south-eastern national trust, I doubt whether it would be frightfully interested in subsidising the Lake District, Northumbria, Wales, Northern Ireland or Cornwall. There is a problem in that regard. The noble Lord may have a point in that a more federal structure might begin to emerge through the new structure which is just about to be introduced.
Incidentally, I say to the noble Baroness that although it is true that my noble and learned friend Lord Oliver suggested that the regions should be strengthened, he was not in favour of elections. I wish that I had time to deal with all of the other points—there were many—in her speech.
I shall try to answer the question that I raised earlier; namely, why is the noble Lord interested in the National Trust Acts? I shall put the question slightly differently. Why does a private charity have to have its own Acts of Parliament? The answer is that the National Trust was founded in 1895 as a company limited by guarantee. That is still a popular vehicle for setting up charities. Later, Parliament gave it the power, which only Parliament can override, to declare land and property inalienable. That required legislation that was provided in the first Act—the 1907 Act. By doing that, the original company-type constitution was, in effect, simply put into the Act. As a result, it includes much of what I should call constitutional housekeeping. To take just one example, it includes in Section 17 provisions for the vacation of office by a council member who fails to attend meetings. That is scarcely the stuff of primary legislation. The legislation is a private Act, and it was last updated, as has already been noted, in 1971. We have a somewhat odd arrangement, which is cumbersome but relatively easy to live with and it would be relatively expensive to change.
If that curiosity had been the main point of the noble Lord's Unstarred Question, I should have been sympathetic. However, I would have reminded him of the wise words of the American mechanic: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
That is why the trust was set up with its own Act. In all other respects, the trust is subject to charity law, fiscal and otherwise, and is the responsibility of the Charity Commissioner in the same way as any other charity.
432
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the noble Lord, Lord Patten, referred to my noble and learned friend Lord Oliver of Aylmerton. Eight years ago he carried out a comprehensive review of the trust's constitution and his report is the main point of my departure. He devoted considerable length to matters such as voting on resolutions and elections at AGMs. I shall concentrate on that because it was a contentious issue in 1993, and it has evidently become a contentious issue again.
On the question of the chairman's proxy vote—the noble Lord, Lord Patten, called it a block vote—the argument, as the noble Lord rightly said, was that members who gave the chairman their votes without specifying how the chairman should vote put too much power in the chairman's hands. My noble and learned friend commented on that. He said:
"There is no convincing argument that it could be of any conceivable benefit to the working of the Trust to deprive a substantial part of the membership of the option, which they clearly value, to delegate to another member the decision of an issue on which they are invited to vote".
It was the practice then and I believe that it is the practice now, although the noble Baroness obviously does not agree, for the chairman to cast his unmandated votes on resolutions in accordance with council policy and not, except on rare occasions, to use his proxy votes in elections. I very much doubt whether that has changed. On that, my noble and learned friend said:
"that the Chairman of the day has exercised the judicious use of that power in respect of a handful of individuals over the years is, in my view, perfectly proper and not a ground for criticism".
All of that is well known.
Since then there have been procedural changes, which were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the noble Lord, Lord Patten. I do not want to go over that ground again because I do not have much time. I invite the noble Baroness and the noble Lord to study the Oliver report again. It seems to me that they have not really addressed the arguments of my noble and learned friend. He stated, in paragraph 80 of his report:
"On balance, I can find no compelling reason which would lead me to recommend that the voting system at general meetings, either on resolutions or on elections, should be substantially altered. Similar criticisms to those raised in the present inquiry appear to be have been raised both at the time of the Benson Review and of the Arkell Review. In neither case was it thought right to recommend any alteration in the system of proxy voting".
Both the Benson report—I believe that it was produced in 1968 and that the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, was a member of the relevant body—and the Arkell review touched on the constitution and took exactly the same line.
Neither the noble Lord, Lord Patten, nor, in particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, can reliably draw conclusions from the figures that the noble Baroness cited regarding recent motions because neither she nor anyone else can know how those who gave the chairman their discretionary vote would have voted if such discretion had not been available. With due respect to the noble Baroness, I do not think that her conclusion is logically valid.

433
I must bring my remarks to a conclusion. I regret that I have not had time to discuss other important constitutional matters—or, indeed, to answer the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. I must content myself with a final quotation from the final paragraph of the report of my noble and learned friend Lord Oliver of Aylmerton. He said:
"it is with administration of a charity that this inquiry has been concerned, and I have heard nothing in the course of it which has persuaded me of the necessity for, or desirability of, any substantial alteration in the basic constitution as it was conceived by the founders of the Trust."
Nothing that I have heard today, or during the intervening years, suggests to me that the conclusion is not still valid.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Patten has given us a great opportunity this evening to consider this issue, and we are grateful to him. I must also say what a pleasure it is, as both the other noble Lords who have spoken said, to see the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, in the Chamber this evening and to have the benefit of his experience as chairman of the trust.
I, too, should declare an interest as a member of the National Trust and a supporter of the marvellous work that it does. I have been a member for many years, although, I must admit, not an especially active one. Perhaps I should also declare my interest as a board member of the Countryside Alliance—an organisation that has not always agreed with every one of the trust's decisions but has always recognised and usually supported the trust's role as one of the United Kingdom's largest landowners.
It has become clear to me—I have received this message from many quarters during the past few days—that all is not well with the National Trust. The trust has a vast bank of goodwill on which to draw; but there is a growing feeling—which, I think, led to my noble friend's Question—that the account in that bank is getting a little low.
I perceive problems in two specific areas. The first is the way in which the trust is and is seen to be managed at the top; the second lies in respect of the trust's relation with its tenants, neighbours and supporters in the countryside—as opposed to its supporters who do not live in the countryside.
As someone who sits on the board of a large countryside organisation with a large and occasionally difficult membership, I am well aware of the difficulties of managing such an awkward creature, but I also know that if I were on the council of the National Trust, I would be extremely worried. First and foremost, I know how almost impossible it is to run such an organisation with a council—in other words, a board—that has 52 members. It is a difficult position, and if day-to-day management is delegated to an executive committee, as in the trust's case, that is far smaller but still representative of that board, while some problems are solved, others are multiplied. I do not know whether the size of the council is laid down
434
in the Act—I think that it may be—but until the number on the council is substantially reduced, any management problems are bound to increase.
It was not until I looked in detail at the way the chairman uses his proxy votes to ensure the election of pre-selected candidates, regardless of the votes of the membership, that I realised what a complete mess he has got into, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said. That way of packing the council is completely unsatisfactory, almost as unsatisfactory as are the Government's proposals for this House. I listened carefully to the quotation from the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, cited by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, but he wrote that report before those activities—that way of managing the council—occurred. The noble and learned Lord would not have written what he did if the council was being managed in that manner at the time. A big change has taken place.
The National Trust is not a campaigning organisation, nor can it operate like one. Some years ago, when the animal rights movement decided to move in on the trust and turn it into a political football, I remember the enormous headache that responding to those circumstances gave the chairman of the day, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. He spent a lot of time and energy trying to pour oil on troubled waters, and with a mixture of tact and gentle persuasion sought to steer his ship through some tricky waters. Some of the problems that the trust faces today stem from that era, and I would be interested to know, whether, with the benefit of hindsight, the noble Lord would have taken an even more robust line than he did, or whether that was possible.
However, I am certain that the way that the present chairman is leading the trust has exacerbated rather than soothed the situation. In particular, the manner in which the chairman has used proxy votes—what my noble friend Lord Patten referred to as block votes—at AGMs to bolster his own policy decisions and prevent dissent, is a tactic that, while it may be acceptable in a commercial setting, is totally out of place in a charity. The first rule of management in a publicly accountable charity is transparency. That has been lost, and with it a good deal of support.
Of course it is difficult to run a democratic organisation when most members are detached from day-to-day problems, and especially when within the membership are smaller groups of activists focused on their own area of concern. However, the solution is not to avoid the issues and seek to stifle dissent—especially when the price for following that course of action is the alienation of supporters and those with whom the trust works on a daily basis.
The second problem concerns the trust's relationship with its tenants and—although to a much lesser extent—with its neighbours. In preparing for today's debate, I spoke to as many people as I could—in particular to tenants. What I found did not comfort me. Clearly, I could not speak to a representative number, but I spoke to enough of them to realise that the National Trust is a landowner in serious danger of

435
losing the confidence and support of its tenants; in some areas, it has already done so. If that were to continue, it would be catastrophic, and it must not be allowed to happen.
I am fully aware that one of the most difficult things to do is to communicate with large groups of people—be they tenants or members—and that the cost of such communications may be prohibitive, but there is clearly a serious problem of lack of constructive dialogue within the trust itself and between management and tenants. Indeed, my conversations with senior management within the trust were completely at odds with what I learned elsewhere. I do not believe that there is complacency as such, but I suspect that in some areas management simply cannot see the wood for the trees and do not realise that, with respect to their tenants, they are sitting on a time bomb. It may also be that some of the management of the trust are following a policy that everything is all right. If so, they are sorely mistaken, because it is not all right.
The unhappiness of tenants in the West Country on Exmoor is well known—the noble Baroness talked about it a few minutes ago—but it is not isolated. As my noble friend Lord Patten said, a substantial group of members and supporters of the trust in west Dorset proposed a resolution at the last AGM criticising the trust's management in respect of its activities on the Golden Cap estate. I do not know the ins and outs of that issue, but one thing is absolutely clear. The issue, which I am sure is difficult—such issues always are— has been hopelessly mismanaged by the trust.
One swallow does not a summer make, but two swallows and several angry resolutions are too warm for comfort. I have no doubt that each issue can be explained away, but what cannot be explained away is an unpleasant feeling of malaise, which is beginning to surface more than it should. This is not a happy evening for the National Trust; if it is wise, it will take notice. As I said at the outset, I do not know whether the legislation governing the trust needs to be updated, or whether this is an issue of style of management.
If your Lordships conclude that further legislation is not required—if it is, I cannot see it being proposed for a long time—it may well be that the only solution is a change at the top. There is no doubt that a focus for the issues that we are discussing has been the manner in which the council is run and the way in which the AGM is chaired—both of which are entirely unsuited to a trust operating in this day and age. A chairman with the best interests of the National Trust at heart might well conclude that he should step aside and let someone else take on the task of rebuilding the bank of goodwill to which I referred, before that bank account slips into the red.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, I find myself in difficulty in that I retired as chairman of the trust 15 years ago—I took it on 25 years ago—and do not recognise in the criticisms that have been made this evening the trust as
436
I knew it. I shall not try to defend it from those criticisms; I have no knowledge of the facts. I regret that but cannot help it.
I want to talk about the word "modernisation". The trust has not been dilatory in modernising itself. When I joined the executive committee 40 years ago and became chairman 10 years later, the trust did not feel it ought to do anything except manage historic buildings and care for the landscape which had been entrusted to it for public enjoyment. In those days there was never any question of becoming involved in public arguments unless the issues directly affected the trust's properties. Many local questions did so. But the trust did not become involved, and did not feel that it should in the great public questions in which it is involved today.
I applaud that change. I am sure that the new director-general will take it further. She is a natural campaigner. We in the trust never used to campaign. But the world has changed and the trust has changed enormously. The context in which it operates has also changed and we can foresee further changes in the trust. If the complaints made by noble Lords are right, then I have no doubt that nobody is better qualified to correct them than the new director-general who, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, we all regard with esteem.
Looking back—old men are allowed to look back— over the past quarter of a century, when I became chairman we had recently had the Benson report, which led to the Act of 1971. We then had the Arkell report in the early 1980s, and my noble and learned friend Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, a former Lord of Appeal, produced a report in the 1990s. There has been no lack of the trust looking at itself and changing accordingly. Certainly my noble and learned friend Lord Oliver did not recommend what he called "tinkering" with the constitution. But the trust would not be opposed to further legislation if, in the course of the continuous review, it was felt to be necessary.
I have asked about the current review and am told it is quite far-reaching. There is no question of the trust being broken up into regional units. That would be a mistake. In all large organisations—certainly any with which I have been connected—tensions exist between the centre and the outlying parts. That is certainly true in business and it is a perennial problem. But if the organisation is well managed, a balance can be reached where the differences are tolerated and dealt with. However, they will always exist.
I do not know what one should do about the trust as it increases in size. I do not believe that it will take over any more historic houses. Owners can now set up their own trust, so that is unlikely. In the past few years it obtained Chasleton, where there was no money for the use of the private owner and it was not subscribed to sufficiently by the public, though it is a wonderful house. But I do not think that will happen too often in the future. There will always be more land. And the new idea of the trust showing what happened to middle and working-class families is a laudable idea.

437
The recently published three-year strategic plan of the trust promotes three strands. It wants to lead the cause of countryside regeneration; it wants to stress the importance of lifelong learning and education; and it wants to deepen the general understanding of our landscape and historic heritage. Those are laudable and enormous aims, and quite a different type of trust, if it succeeds in those aims, will emerge.
The trust wants to broaden its appeal, and I applaud that so long as it is not done at the expense of standards of presentation and curatorial expertise. There is always that danger. It happens with museums when they try to broaden their appeal that something is lost in terms of standards. That wants watching and I am sure the trust will try to monitor it.
I can understand why people resent the voting system. However, I was persuaded by the Oliver argument that if I, as a member of the trust, cannot attend a meeting and want to transfer my vote and give a proxy to another member who can—it may be the chairman—it is not undemocratic that I should be allowed to do so. My noble and learned friend referred to the disproportionate power that the chairman is said to have because of that. But he pointed out that it was only disproportionate because a proportion of members had decided to make it so. He asked why they should not have the right to do that. I can understand the frustration it causes. But as a member of the trust, which I still am—I am a life member—I do not want to give up my right to give a proxy. I never attend the annual meetings. If the consequence is that the chairman has a lot of proxies which enable him to determine the matter, then presumably that is what the members who voted in that way want. It may be frustrating to people who feel that those members have not heard the arguments, but it is not undemocratic.
I do not have much more to add. I enjoyed my chairmanship of the trust more than any other job I have ever done. I hate to hear the trust attacked as it has been this evening. I hope that those problems can be put right. I am too old to take part in the process, but I commend the trust to your Lordships as an example of a charity which, taken over its lifetime, has done a fantastic job.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Patten for introducing this important debate. I declare an interest as a member of the National Trust and the Countryside Alliance. I wish to point out, like my noble friend, that I am generally a great admirer of the institution and the work it has done in protecting our building heritage. A particularly shining example near to where I live has been Uppark in Sussex, where the restoration after a serious fire has been magnificently achieved. Also, its work to protect our coastline deserves high praise.
438
The trust's latest 2000–01 report contains some interesting statements. The chairman, Charles Nunneley, says at the very start of his commentary:
"The least welcome change has been the decline in the fortunes of the farming community … the trust has been working with all our farm tenants throughout the year and with the Government at national and regional levels … The council receives progress reports on agricultural and rural matters at every meeting. The future of the countryside remains at the top of our agenda".
The director-general, Fiona Reynolds, stated in her review that the trust must be seen,
"showing leadership in attacking the problems affecting the countryside".
She went on,
"Our relations with our farm tenants have never been better".
From my experience as an investment fund manager I have seen how complacency can creep into large companies and organisations and how leading executives can make impressive generalised statements where, in reality, the situation on the ground is rather different.
In some ways I believe that the trust is a victim of its own success. It has grown enormously in size and as a result has become increasingly bureaucratic. For example, a trust tenant locally in Hampshire was visited by no fewer than 15 different trust advisers when he required some building work to be done. That was before the builders were involved.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that there are many other examples of this cumbersome officialdom, which demonstrates how centralised the trust management style has become. As was stated by many speakers, at council level it appears that Charles Nunneley, the chairman since 1996, has centralised the council's role, taking upon himself and a few senior officials major powers and using the council as a rubber stamp. I shall seek to demonstrate that by reiterating the story of the Acland Estate in Devon.
Sir Richard Acland left his property, Holnicote, to the National Trust nearly 60 years ago. He was well known for his love of hunting and made it clear in a memorandum of wishes that he wished stag hunting to continue on the estate unless or until outlawed by Parliament. He was advised that it was not necessary to specify that in the deed handing over the property as he put faith in the National Trust to honour his wishes. Indeed, at all times until April 1997 the National Trust stated in clear and unequivocal terms that the express wish of donors in favour of hunting would continue to be honoured in relation to gifts of land made to the National Trust.
As has been stated, in July 1994 the trust commissioned a report by Professor Bateson into the effect on deer of deer hunting, which concluded that the sport was cruel. As stated by others, the report was undertaken in great secrecy. Even the local hunt was not allowed to comment on its conclusions prior to publication. From reliable written evidence I have seen, the succeeding chairman, Charles Nunneley, kept the conclusions of the report under wraps until the very day before asking the council to approve it. It had not enough time to study it in detail.

439
Even though subsequently an independent study replicating experiments on which Bateson had based some of his key findings came up with results so different that he was forced to radically water them down, the chairman pushed through the report and the council was denied the opportunity of obtaining the opinions of other animal physiologists critical of the Bateson report and its conclusions. The council has since refused to change its mind. That meant that a traditional country sport, which has not been declared illegal by the law of the land, is now banned from the property despite the strong wishes of the former landowner. It has alienated all the local tenant farmers who are now faced with a massive increase in the local deer population, thus damaging their crops, fences and woodlands. As a result, relations with the National Trust are far from the halcyon situation reported by Fiona Reynolds in the annual report. The farmers are angry at being deprived of their legal sport and are having to shoot the deer. That has meant far more wounded animals, which the hunt has then been asked to destroy. The trust should not interfere in that sort of matter when it is not illegal.
Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Davies, this question. Should not the National Trust Acts be amended to prevent the trust from passing its own laws on its properties which run contrary to the law of the land or against the legitimate wishes of the donor? Also, should the Acts be altered to prevent the chairman using his proxy votes in such a way to overturn the wishes of its voting membership?
Another example already mentioned by several speakers is the case of the Golden Cap estate. A motion deploring the sacking of a long-established warden sponsored by the Dorset region was carried on the direct vote of members by some 23,000 votes but was defeated when the chairman used his proxy vote of no fewer than 24,861 to overturn it.
Another case of using proxy votes occurred at the annual general meeting this year, the date of which is not listed in the annual report. As has been stated, the chairman once again used his proxy votes against what appeared to be the views of the membership. When direct votes of the members were counted, Robin Page, the farmer and journalist, was 7,000 votes ahead of Elsie Owusu but the chairman used his proxy votes to ensure Miss Owusu's election.
Finally, to further confirm the trust's centralising tendencies, it has been announced that the head office and three regional offices are moving from Queen Anne's Gate to Swindon in 2004 except for the director-general and 40 others. According to the Daily Telegraph of 26th August, that has caused dismay among its 120 staff and is likely to mean that as many as 80 per cent will not stay. The article states:
"Senior staff arc furious. They fear they will lose contact with the academic institutions and contacts that are essential for their work. In particular they resent the double standards apparently being applied by Mrs Reynolds and her immediate staff who will stay in London".
In conclusion, I repeat my opening views that I am a great supporter of the trust as originally set up. However, some of its actions in the past seven years
440
have caused me great concern. I do not know whether such actions can be corrected by legislation. Like my noble friend Lord Mancroft, I suspect that it is the chairman that needs to be changed.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I hope I shall be forgiven for intervening briefly in the gap. I should declare an interest as a member of the north-west regional committee of the National Trust. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, would no doubt regard that as questionable. I am also an ordinary member of the trust but I am not a member of the council or the executive.
I found it difficult to recognise the trust from some of the comments that have been made tonight. The tremendously strong membership, the number of people who visit the properties and the kind of spontaneous, general public support for its work illustrate its high standing among many people in this country. It is also important to keep in mind that the trust takes seriously its responsibilities, one of which it sees as protecting wildlife and the natural resources for which it is responsible. When it considered the Bateson report, it felt it had no alternative but to take action on red deer because of the suffering which, that report established, was beyond question. Therefore, it acted and did what it believed was required of it in terms of its statutory responsibilities.
I should like to say more, but I shall make one further point. I have worked half my life in voluntary agencies. I have often held out the trust as a model of an organisation which has huge responsibilities. which takes its work seriously and which also has a popular membership. How many other charities in this country have a popular membership which can participate in an annual general meeting in the way that happens in the National Trust? As has been said, if as an ordinary member I decide voluntarily to give the chairman the right to act on my behalf, why should not I be entitled to do that? Why should I be debarred from doing that by people who turn up at the annual general meeting when, for a whole host of reasons, I may be unable to attend?
In conclusion, I believe that a sledgehammer has been taken to tackle a nut in this debate. I am sure that all the points which have been made will be taken seriously by the trust. However, the chair of the trust said at the last AGM—why has this not been mentioned in the debate? —that the trust is undertaking its own review of its governance. Surely that is what we should applaud and support.
7.39 p.m.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene briefly. For the past 31 years I have had the honour of representing a constituency in which some of the greatest problems and tensions of the National Trust have recently arisen. For 25 of those years, during the chairmanships of the two noble Lords who have spoken, I had no difficulties. I have watched with great distress the way

441
in which an organisation which I much admire has got itself into this appalling mess over hunting. Hunting is a difficult issue, with which I have lived for many years. There are strong feelings on both sides. It was the silliest move possible for the National Trust to get right ahead of the game and of Parliament and to get itself involved in this issue.
Out of that has come a more searching inquiry into the way in which the decision was taken. I say simply that I can confirm the details given by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, about the way in which the matter was handled. It was a tragic misjudgment by the then chairman of the National Trust and it brings into question the way in which the organisation is run.
7.40 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I was fortunate enough earlier to speak briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Patten, who has been kind enough to introduce this important debate. He told me about his plans to talk about regionalisation and he has drawn to our attention other matters about which he has learnt. The questions he asked about regionalisation have been dealt with well by two distinguished former chairmen the noble Lords, Lord Chorley and Lord Gibson. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Patten, will be satisfied with that.
I did not detect an intention to question the independence of the National Trust as a charity registered by Royal Charter. I hope that I am right in saying that. Furthermore, I did not detect a suggestion that there should be direct government intervention in the affairs of the trust. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House that the Government have no intention of doing so. I believe that such intervention would be bad.
Charity law is rigorous in protecting the independence of charities. They can reach agreements with governing bodies, and that might involve taking into account what the Government say and advise. After all, the Government are powerful and sometimes it is in the interests of bodies to seek their advice and guidance. I do not know whether we have reached that point in this case; the National Trust has taken a battering today from various noble Lords.
Although I listened to and took on board the points eloquently made by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and others, I liked the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gibson. It seemed to be fair-minded and, as one would expect, full of expertise and optimism for the future of the trust. There is no doubt that the trust has changed a good deal over the years, but its characteristics have been copied by many countries. By and large, it has not had many ups and downs. It has had mostly "ups" but, if we believe what noble Lords say, it appears that we are experiencing if not a "down", the prospect of one.
The noble Lord, Lord Gibson, spoke of proxy votes and I thought that his comments were fair and correct. If members do not choose to exercise their proxy votes, what is unfair and undemocratic about the chairman
442
using them? Surely the remedy is with the body to ensure that more members use their votes rather than allowing them to be used as proxies.
I have read some of the press comment about recent events in the National Trust. Since the days of Octavia Hill and Peregrinations on his Bicycle by James Lees-Milne a great deal has taken place. It is no longer merely a question of persuading people to hand over their houses, gardens and great areas of coastline to the care of the National Trust. As noble Lords have said, the National Trust is now an enormous body; it has grown beyond what was imagined some years ago. Noble Lords have given the number of houses, monuments, farms and other properties for which it has responsibility; and until recently, all appeared to go swimmingly.
Like many other noble Lords, I have worked for large organisations. I know that when they reach a certain size they do not necessarily become bureaucratic, but they begin to have a vision of their role and they become keen on communicating it to the world at large. The National Trust has done that. However, large organisations often do not see that communication within the institution is as important and that it should take priority before they go out and promote their ideas for radical changes. The fact that the proposed move to Swindon from its charming headquarters close by was rejected by 80 per cent of its staff shows a singular lack of communication within the operation.
Although it has not been mentioned today, we read about various sackings of guides, and strange and "East German" ways of taking on volunteers. Those stories may or may not be true, but the press has latched on to them. I do not believe everything I read in the press, but there must be a seed of truth there somewhere.
I hope that all that gives support to my argument that improving communication within the National Trust needs to be one of the first jobs of the new director-general. He comes highly commended and has rightly been praised today by noble Lords. However, we may be alarmed about the press picking up the announcements made by the trust as a change of direction; we have heard a number of quotations from its members which have almost the vernacular of class conflict, which I find most disturbing.
Of course large houses should contain a proper display of the "downstairs" as well as the "upstairs" areas. In saying that, perhaps I may recommend to your Lordships the new film, "Gosford Park", which is about just such matters. There is no problem about the National Trust making a great effort to pay attention to the promotion and restoration of workhouses, factories and other industrial sites and to the role of servants, prisons and so forth. I do not believe that James Lees-Milne would have fallen off his bicycle had he heard that such developments were about to take place.
This is a moment of great change for the trust— indeed, apart from anything else, it is a moment of great change for tourism in this country—and for the

443
way in which people perceive their history. Unfortunately, history is no longer a priority and one of the roles of the trust is to regenerate an interest in history. It will do that by doing what it says it intends to do, but, for heaven's sake, I hope that it does not enter into a confrontational argument with various sections of our community about whether or not certain issues are politically correct. Let us have some common sense. We are going through a change and people are seeing things differently. Surely the National Trust is big enough to be able to make a change without upsetting all kinds of people and other bodies.
An organisation such as the National Trust is by nature conservative in the non-political sense. It is difficult to change, but change will happen. That is all I have to say on the subject and I wish the trust well.
7.48 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Patten for introducing the debate. He began by describing himself as a friendly outsider. Perhaps I may describe myself as a friendly insider and declare an interest as an ordinary member of the trust. Indeed, I enjoyed a walk across trust land only yesterday.
Every organisation needs regularly to review whether it is still meeting the needs for which it was established and in a way which is effective, appropriate and fair. My noble friend is right to raise a debate about an organisation governing one of our great national institutions and whether it is in need of modernisation. He has chosen an interesting and appropriate time to do so.
In November of last year the National Trust began an organisational review in order to reallocate its staff and resources. As we have heard, last month it commissioned a review of its corporate governance. I was surprised to learn from the National Trust briefing that this is the first time in over 30 years that the trust's management structures have been looked at. I am surprised that the trust escaped the obsession in the 1980s with management restructuring and reviews. I was pleased to read in the brief prepared by the trust that the review of its governance will be significant and will consider, among other options, whether detailed changes to its statutes are desirable or necessary.
I believe that my noble friend's debate tonight will provide valuable input to the trust's review of its governance, and I hope that it will take very careful note of your Lordships' views.
The National Trust has a proud history as a guardian for the nation in the acquisition and protection of threatened coastline, countryside and buildings. As my noble friend Lord Patten said, more than a century later it still cares for nearly a quarter of a million hectares of countryside throughout England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, pointed out that the trust had a unique statutory power to declare land inalienable and that
444
such land cannot be voluntarily sold, mortgaged or compulsorily purchased against the trust's wishes without special parliamentary procedure.
Whether or not we are members, all of us look to the National Trust to be a contemporary organisation which cares for our past so that we treasure it but do not seal it in aspic. It must be a living legacy which we can all enjoy now and make sure that it is left for the enjoyment of others in the future.
My noble friend Lord Northbrook said that on 23rd October of this year the National Trust unveiled changes in its regional structure and the location of its regional offices. The press release that accompanied that announcement stated that,
"The move is part of a wider organisational review aimed at boosting the way the trust's 4,000 staff and 40,000 volunteers carry out the charity's diverse work—from preserving historic buildings and monuments to helping its tenant farmers weather the current agricultural crisis".
It goes on to say that regional offices which provide advice and support to trust properties on everything from conservation to marketing are being changed. I note that as part of the change to its boundaries and regional offices Devon and Cornwall are to become a single region. Although the regional offices at Killerton and Lanhydrock will continue, I wonder how that was received in the South West. I am aware from my work on tourism of the fiercely independent spirit in both counties. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said that on some occasions in the South West the National Trust is now seen as a bad neighbour. That is indeed disturbing.
Tonight we have heard of discontent with the manner in which the trust has operated recently and the fact that it has omitted to make some of the reforms which my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, believe are vital to the success of the careful management of our national heritage. Some concern has been expressed that perhaps the trust has become too centralist in its approach. My noble friend Lord Mancroft spoke about the way in which important questions of policy were decided by the council. He referred to the management problems which follow from a council with as many as 52 members, thereby delegating authority of action to the executive committee. My noble friend Lord Patten and others have expressed concern about how members of the council are elected. He said that perhaps the needs and views of some regions are currently not being given due weight by that body. My noble friend Lord Patten encapsulated the problems very effectively by referring to the regional and democratic deficit.
It is vital that national organisations are sensitive to the needs of different regions and adopt policies which enable them to have the flexibility to respond to those needs. That may mean changing the way in which representatives of the regional voices are heard at national level, and perhaps weighting voting systems so that they can have a direct impact on national decision-making when it affects a particular area either solely or in some special way.

445
As to the democratic deficit, many noble Lords have spoken about the practice of vast numbers of proxy votes being controlled by the chairman at the AGM. I hope that that practice comes under close scrutiny in the trust's review. My noble friend Lord Mancroft questioned whether that method of operation was right for a charity. All I say at this stage is that perhaps one avenue that may be explored is whether a cap should be placed on the number of proxies that any one person can control. That would meet the very proper view put forward by some noble Lords this evening that individuals should be able to appoint proxies to act on their behalf. That is part of our democratic system. But it would also reflect the process which I am aware takes place in parliamentary elections, for example the right of people who live overseas to a proxy vote here. Someone who exercises that right is subject to a cap on the number of votes that may be so exercised.
I can understand that members may feel remote from the trust's decision-making processes, and that is a danger for all national organisations, however well or ill run they may be. It is the duty of every national organisation to resolve the problems that stem from the feeling of isolation and alienation. If they do not do so they threaten their own viable future. The review currently being undertaken by the trust is, therefore, both welcome and, it appears, necessary.
I understand that the trust is independent of government, but I look forward to hearing the views of the Minister on the progress made by the trust so far, how the Government anticipate that the trust may develop the review and over what timescale they believe it is reasonable for the review to be completed. In particular, we look forward to hearing the Minister's response to the suggestion of many noble Lords that perhaps there should be an independent review, as my noble friend Lord Patten suggested, of the rules governing the voting systems used by the National Trust.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patten, for introducing the debate this evening. The debate has attracted not only a number of very penetrative contributions but, for an Unstarred Question, has secured the attendance of an extraordinarily large number of Members of your Lordships' House with an interest in the subject.
I believe that perhaps the most pertinent question was put by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. I intend to answer it directly because that sets the context for the rest of my contribution. He asked whether the independence of the National Trust as a charity was likely to be infringed or challenged, and whether there was any intention on the part of the Government to intervene. The answer to both questions is no. It would not be right for the Government to intervene in these terms. The National Trust is set up under statute, but it is an independent charity whose rights are set in that
446
framework. That greatly constrains the nature of the contribution that I make this evening. The National Trust is in no way in receipt of taxpayers' money.
At this point I declare an interest. I am one of the 2.8 million members of the trust. Perhaps that is why the question of proxy voting arises to some degree. I cannot conceive of any hall which would accommodate all of the members if they wished to attend the annual general meeting. I hear the criticisms which have been made of the way in which the chair of the National Trust has exercised proxy votes. I have no doubt that the one great benefit of the debate this evening is that the limited framework within which the National Trust operates has been brought before Parliament. We do not have the power to decide any of these issues or reach definitive judgments on them.
But the noble Lord, Lord Patten, has taken advantage of this opportunity to table the debate in which others have joined. Therefore, if there are anxieties about the way in which the trust conducts its business, that is an important point to bear in mind. However, I join with the former chairmen of the National Trust, the noble Lords, Lord Chorley and Lord Gibson, and my noble friend Lord Judd, who stoutly defended the work of the National Trust. We all greatly value the work of the trust. It is one of our cherished national institutions with an immense responsibility. Sixty million visits are made to the trust's properties by our fellow citizens, many of whom are not members. The trust is concerned to protect a large amount of land, including 582 miles of coastline, 20,000 vernacular buildings, over 200 houses of historic interest, 164 gardens, 75 landscape parks, 1,000 scheduled ancient monuments and over 40,000 sites of archaeological interest. It may be that the debate this evening reflects the fact that the National Trust in some way struggles with the problems of success given the size of the enterprise in which it is involved. It is important therefore that the trust pursues its affairs effectively and with responsiveness to its members.
The trust should make sure that it meets changing times. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Patten, and other noble Lords who have expressed some anxiety as to whether the trust is up-to-date in the year 2001 that it is. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred to the fact that its management structures have not been reviewed during these past 30 years. It may therefore be thought to be timely that that is taking place at the present time. The reviews that are being conducted are clearly of the greatest import.
Some recognition has been made today by noble Lords to the energy and commitment of the relatively recently appointed director-general, Fiona Reynolds. She has the reputation of getting things done and of being concerned that the organisation should match up to the demands made on it.
There was some criticism of the National Trust. The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, suggested that perhaps the movement of staff away from London was not meeting with total support within the organisation. By the same token, it is also argued—it was strongly

447
pressed by a number of noble Lords on both sides—that the National Trust should not be so London-centred. There should be greater devolution. Perhaps the issue with regard to location of staff is symbolic of some of the difficulties which occur when change is necessary. That issue is envisaged by many major organisation of that kind.
The National Trust is fulfilling not only its long-cherished obligations with regard to property and land; it is also playing a full and important part in contemporary problems. For example, the trust is deeply involved in national debates on the future of farming. It is playing a leading role in the Government's Rural Task Force which is guiding strategies to encourage rural recovery post foot and mouth. Many rural businesses and crafts are accommodated in trust properties.
By developing links between trust properties and rural and urban schools, colleges and communities, it is promoting life-long learning and education. That is an important dimension. It is an interest which I know the noble Lord, Lord Patten, as a former Secretary of State for Education, has, and which he shares with me, in terms of the important role that the National Trust can play in life-long learning in these terms. It also aims to deepen people's understanding and broaden the appeal of the landscape and historic events. All noble Lords who contributed to the debate today recognise the ability of that work.
The trust is undertaking an organisational review. I was asked for assurances on the extent of it. The review is to enable the trust to protect and manage its properties better and to play a full part in the wider conservation and environmental arena. The review will also cover the corporate governance of the trust, including the workings of its council, the central and regional committees and the relationship with its membership, centres, associations and volunteers. There are clearly a number of options available to the trust for implementing changes recommended as a result of these reviews, including perhaps a review of the legislation. I hasten to add there that this would be a private Bill and not a government one if change were to be contemplated and effected. Until the reviews are completed it is not possible, or particularly helpful perhaps, to speculate on the need for revision of the legislation, particularly as there is every sign that, at present, the trust is finding it possible to modernise within the framework of the existing legislation.
The trust has launched many initiatives and projects to demonstrate how heritage can be made more relevant to communities and how it can play a central role in delivering rural and urban regeneration. That is further helped by the amendment to the boundaries of the trust's administrative regions, and the reduction in
448
the number of regions from 15 to 11 to achieve broad consistency with the boundaries of other organisations. It includes the Government's regional development agencies, with which the trust needs to co-operate and to work. The trust believes that this structure, under three "territory" directors, each responsible for approximately one-third of the regions, will provide a better way of providing national consistency while recognising particular local and regional needs and will be better than a "federal" system of autonomous regions, such as the noble Lord, Lord Patten, I think has in mind.
In concluding his contribution, the noble Lord said that he wished the trust well and hoped that it would tackle its problems and challenges vigorously. Those are sentiments that I endorse. It is not for me from this Despatch Box to comment upon the particular criticisms which have been made by noble Lords. some of whom are members of the National Trust. It is for that body to address itself to those challenges, questions and problems. What has been common throughout the debate is the recognition that challenges have been laid down. The National Trust is certainly at the present time involved in responding to those challenges. They will be pursued with vigour. That is obvious from the nature of the debate tonight.
It may be perhaps that I detect an undercurrent which was reflected by the noble Lord, Lord King—the undercurrent of the particular problem with regard to hunting. The noble Lord will recognise that it is not for me to comment on whether the National Trust has handled that issue in the best possible way. That is its business and that of its membership. Certainly, the matter of hunting is likely to remain an issue of some salience in the countryside. It is fairly obvious that, as my noble friend Lady Mallalieu indicated, some of its actions in the past in relation to hunting have not won total approval among its membership—my noble friend is herself a distinguished member—and the trust needs to look at the way in which it handles these issues.
But, as was fairly reflected by the noble Lord. Lord Northbrook, hunting is a mighty challenging issue. It is one of the greatest controversy. Therefore, the National Trust, with its enormous landholding, is bound to be involved in that debate and facing difficulties which are not unknown to your Lordships.
The debate has served a useful purpose in airing some anxieties about the way in which the trust has carried out its business. At the same time it has paid great tribute to the enormous contribution which the trust makes to our national life and to its success. As the noble Lord, Lord Patten, suggested, we wish it well and hope that it will respond vigorously and promptly.
House adjourned at nine minutes past eight o'clock.

  Magistrates' Courthouses: Closures
  Magistrates' Courthouses: Closures
  Freedom of Expression
  Freedom of Expression
  Northern Ireland: Police Recruitment Policy
  Northern Ireland: Police Recruitment Policy
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission: Proposed Bill of Rights
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission: Proposed Bill of Rights
  Northern Ireland: Human Rights Provisions
  Northern Ireland: Human Rights Provisions
  Sierra Leone
  Sierra Leone
  Asylum Seekers: Use of Smartcards
  Asylum Seekers: Use of Smartcards
  Young Offenders
  Young Offenders
  Treason Offences: Prosecutions and Penalties
  Treason Offences: Prosecutions and Penalties
  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Nursing Home Residents: Free Nursing Care
  Nursing Home Residents: Free Nursing Care
  Stem Cells
  Stem Cells
  Welsh Sunday Licensing
  Welsh Sunday Licensing
  English Heritage: Employment of Children's Education Officers
  English Heritage: Employment of Children's Education Officers
  DEFRA: Receipt of Rural Recovery Report
  DEFRA: Receipt of Rural Recovery Report
  DEFRA: Exeter Office
  DEFRA: Exeter Office
  British Bird Population: Effects of Slug Pellets
  British Bird Population: Effects of Slug Pellets
  Nitrate Vulnerable Zones
  Nitrate Vulnerable Zones
  Badger Culling: Trials and Audit Reports
  Badger Culling: Trials and Audit Reports
  Import Inspections
  Import Inspections