Sitting of 17 April 2002

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  MERSEY TUNNELS BILL (By ORDER)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Wednesday 24 April.

Oral Answers to Questions
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked —
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    Afghanistan
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: If she will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. [46040]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): The humanitarian situation in Afghanistan remains fragile. That is the consequence of 23 years of conflict and three years of drought, and the fact that some areas of the country are still inaccessible. The latest estimate by the United Nations and the Afghanistan Interim Administration is that approximately 9 million Afghans, including more than 1 million internally displaced people, will be in need of humanitarian assistance this year.
    Mr. Grieve: What extra resources have been made available for United Kingdom humanitarian aid following the earthquake in northern Afghanistan? Can the right hon. Lady tell the House anything about the role that British peacekeeping forces may have had or might have in distributing that?
    Clare Short: The UK is providing £60 million this year in humanitarian aid and in starting to bolster the capacity of the Interim Administration. The question is not the availability of resources but reaching the people in greatest need. That is of course the nature of the crisis following an earthquake. The UK is famous for being able to move rapidly, and we deployed into the area in order to provide assistance and help. I am not aware of troops being involved, but I might not be right about that. Many people have lost their homes, and 800 people lost their lives. There is a big effort, in which we are involved,
    558
    to provide help for those people who, on top of all the other suffering in Afghanistan, have now suffered the consequences of an earthquake.
    Mr. Khalid Mahmood: What efforts are being made to destroy the poppy fields in Afghanistan? What attempts have been made to compensate the farmers by providing alternative crops?
    Clare Short: The implication of my hon. Friend's question is right: there has been a lot of planting of poppy by people who are very poor and have no other means of making a living. Obviously, that engenders criminality and instability in Afghanistan, as well as the exporting of drugs that will endanger neighbouring countries and the rest of the world, including our country. A big effort is being made. The Interim Administration have declared that no poppies should be planted, but the job is both to eradicate the crop and to provide alternative livelihoods for the people. We have learned across the world that, otherwise, people continue planting, because they have no other chance to make a living. We are working very hard to try to provide them with that chance.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: The Secretary of State will be aware of numerous schemes to repatriate Afghan refugees. Although we welcome their eventual return, I am sure she would agree that reports of insecurity in Afghanistan, and the lack of housing and of basic provision, seem to indicate that such schemes might be premature. Will she assure the House that repatriation with British aid money will happen only when it is in the best interests of refugees and not because of the political pressure of donors?
    Clare Short: We had this argument about Kosovo. It is not for the hon. Lady, me or anyone else to tell Afghan refugees when it is best to go home. We should facilitate their choices, and we see very wise choices—[Interruption.] The mass of Afghan refugees are in neighbouring countries—probably about 4 million of them. Families usually send a young male home to see how things are, and some families then go home.
    About 180,000 Afghans have decided to return. They deserve help to do so when they make the decision, and facilities and equipment to rebuild their houses. Some Afghans have moved out of the country; it depends on the area, the problems of drought, the earthquake and so on. We will back people's choices and empower them to decide when it is right for them to return home.
    Joan Ruddock: There have been many promises made by Governments, including our own, about the involvement of women in humanitarian aid, but Oxfam notes in its latest paper that
    "planning, implementation, and evaluation meetings are attended primarily by men."
    Will my right hon. Friend do everything she can to ensure that women become involved in those programmes? Will she pay particular attention in the delivery of those programmes to the special needs of the many widows in Afghanistan?
    Clare Short: Yes, indeed; I can give my hon. Friend that undertaking. The situation is not as bad as Oxfam

    559
    implies—if that is what it is saying. Girls across the country are returning to school, women are able to teach again and the Women's Ministry, for which my hon. Friend fought so hard, is up and running—although obviously it needs to be strengthened. Only 11 per cent. of the Loya Jirga that is about to established and to decide the future of the country will be women, but that is an unprecedentedly large proportion for Afghanistan.
    The World Food Programme, which is providing food for work across the country, targets women as organisers of schemes because they are so reliable and close to people. Of course, Afghanistan has a long way to go, but women there are moving forward and I promise my hon. Friend that we shall do everything we can to back them.
    Mrs. Spelman: Is the Secretary of State aware of reports that pledges made by foreign donors of some £1.8 billion to help Afghanistan with reconstruction have, in some cases, failed to materialise? As this is Budget day and the Chamber is so well attended, can she say whether the British pledge made in Tokyo has now been delivered, and what action she is taking to get the unpaid pledges matched with hard cash?
    Clare Short: The UK is famous for delivering on its pledges and for delivering fast. Many other countries grandstand promises in the media, but the money does not come through. The other problem is that it is easier to promise money than to get it spent effectively in a failed state. The UK committed £200 million from my budget over five years, so that money has not all been disbursed yet. We have disbursed £60 million this year, and we are well on the way to disbursing all of it. That is above what we have promised for future years. The UK, as ever, acts fast and has fulfilled its commitments, but others are slower. We will of course work to try to ensure that all the money is disbursed as rapidly as possible.

    Primary Education
    Helen Jones: What recent discussions she has had on improving access to primary education in developing countries. [46041]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): One in five children in the world are not in school and 800 million adults are illiterate. The UN millennium assembly committed the world to get all children into primary education by 2015. On current trends, that target will be met in most of Asia, but not in Africa. We are working, through our own programme. UNESCO and the World Bank, to gear up the whole international effort to ensure that the target is met.
    Helen Jones: I am sure that the House will acknowledge my right hon. Friend's commitment to resolving that issue, but she will be aware that, on current trends, by 2015 some 75 million children will not be receiving basic education. Only 2 per cent. of the aid budget goes on education. Will my right hon. Friend therefore give a commitment that she will try to persuade the World Bank to address that financing gap in education? As it is clear that those countries that obtain debt relief then spend more on primary education, will
    560
    she do all she can to encourage our international partners to give greater debt relief to those countries that have proper education plans in place?
    Clare Short: I agree with the points that my hon. Friend makes. The point of the millennium targets is not to describe current trends but to increase the international effort. She is right to say that on current trends we will not meet the target, but it is achievable. The biggest problem is in Africa. Part of the problem concerns the commitment of the Governments of developing countries to primary education. In poor countries, elites are powerful and they tend to spend their budgets on education for the elite, not primary education for all. The international community cannot put that right except through international pressure.
    My hon. Friend may be interested to learn that we spend 20 per cent. of our own budget on primary education. I shall attend the World Bank meeting this weekend at which this issue will be on the agenda. I assure her that we will make a greater effort.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: The right hon. Lady will know that I have just returned from a visit to Sudan with the all-party group. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is far too noisy.
    Dr. Tonge: The Secretary of State will also know that two generations of children in southern Sudan have missed out almost completely on education because of the civil war there. In view of the fact that 80 per cent. of southern Sudan is at peace some or all of the time, will not she reconsider her Department's policy and start investing in the future of southern Sudan by providing primary education projects?
    Clare Short: No, the hon. Lady and all who advocate that policy are wrong. It is to pretend that development can take place around an ongoing war that is killing millions, displacing people and destroying an economy. We are trying to improve the humanitarian effort, and that should include education for displaced children, but pretending that development can be promoted around a moving war is to belie the truth.
    Sudan is a desperately poor country that can have peace. There is a real call for peace in that country, which became independent in 1956 and has been at war for all but 10 years since. I assure the hon. Lady that we will try to improve the humanitarian effort and the education that goes with it, but the way to provide education for all the children in southern Sudan is to bring the country to peace.
    Mr. Hilton Dawson: As another-Member who had the privilege of taking part in the visit of the all-party group to Sudan, I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to the peace process, which is alive but needs greater emphasis and greater effort. Hope will bear fruit. Is there not a place for education in a society where basic education might just help people engage further in civil society and in the development of a democratic society for the future, rather than being drawn into armed factions on either side?
    Clare Short: Of course there is a place for education for all children in the world, and especially children who

    561
    suffer as a consequence of war. The reality in Sudan, and especially southern Sudan, is that people have been displaced. They have lost their land; they have lost everything; they have lost their family members; children are not in touch. It is not the truth to pretend that we can organise sustainable educational systems without resolving the war.
    As I have said, we should do everything that we can to ensure that displaced and refugee children have access to education. Pretending that there is peace or that more development round the war is possible is misguided. There is a chance of peace in Sudan, and I know that my hon. Friend agrees. We must try to grab the chance of peace, as well as improving the humanitarian effort in the meantime.
    Tony Baldry: As the Secretary of State will know, the members of the Select Committee on International Development recently went to Ghana. I think that we were all extremely impressed by the commitment of the Government of Ghana, and of communities, families and teachers to ensuring that there is universal primary education in Ghana. Does the right hon. Lady agree that every penny that is spent on primary education in a country such as Ghana is money well spent? Sometimes we can all become rather depressed by the failures in the international community, but sometimes we should celebrate achievements.
    Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is right. All research shows that the most powerful development intervention that can be made in any poor country is ensuring that a generation of children are educated, especially girls. As such a generation grows up, it can transform the prospects of a society in terms of child survival, access to education, health care and incomes. With Ghana's previous Government, we worked hard to try to achieve a commitment to a universal primary education programme, and did not have much success. Under the new Government, these things are looking much more hopeful. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is important to celebrate.

    Millennium Development Goals
    Roger Casale: What steps she is taking to build international consensus around the mechanisms and resources needed for the achievement of the millennium development goals. [46042]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): We have worked hard since 1997 to get the international system focused on the systematic reduction of poverty. We now have unprecedented international consensus throughout the United Nations system, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the regional development banks and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. It is focused on meeting our agreed targets of halving world poverty and improving education and health care for all. On present trends, we shall achieve the halving of world poverty target. That means a billion people lifting themselves out of poverty between 1995 and 2015. However, on present
    562
    trends, Africa is set to become poorer. We are determined to do better, and we are working throughout the international system to that end.
    Roger Casale: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the joint statement issued last month by a group of British and Italian Members of Parliament in preparation for the next G8 summit and in support of the work that she and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer are undertaking to double the international resources available for development world wide? Does she agree that it is now time for parliamentarians, non-governmental organisations, Church groups and other groups in civil society to double and redouble our efforts to build international consensus on development issues, so that we sustain and extend the international action that will be necessary to make globalisation work for the world's poor?
    Clare Short: I agree with my hon. Friend. The greatest threat to future safety, stability and sustainability in the world is poverty. One in five of humanity are living in absolute poverty. Half of the whole of humanity lives on less than the equivalent of $2 a day income in the United States. We know how to make progress. With greater effort, we could speed up that progress. We need much more consensus in our political systems to the effect that that is a priority and not something for the charity box while mainstream politics is taking place.
    We had a great gain at the UN Monterrey conference—an extra $12 billion a year from 2006 towards international development assistance. If we effectively targeted the $50 billion a year that we have now on the poor and on backing reformers, its value would increase by 50 per cent. We are making progress but we could do a lot more. It is a great priority on which I am strongly focused.
    Mr. Andrew Rosindell: Will the right hon. Lady join the Opposition in welcoming the generosity of the United States of America in increasing its aid budget by $5 billion? Will she commit herself to putting continued pressure on her European counterparts to do the same?
    Clare Short: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman, who does try, does not seem to listen to the whole story. The US is the meanest donor by far among the OECD countries. In the run-up to the UN conference on financing for development, the European Union committed itself to an extra $20 billion by 2006 and an extra $7 billion a year thereafter. That had some leverage on President Bush.
    In the preparations for the meeting, the US had said that aid is useless and capitalism is the answer. I notice a change in the atmospherics from the other side of the House—perhaps Opposition Members are waiting for later. Because President Bush had committed to President Fox of Mexico to go to the conference, and given the international atmosphere and the EU performance, he then committed to finding $5 billion a year extra from 2006. That is important, as it represents a reversal of the decline.

    563
    I hope that it will be the precursor of more, so that the US pays its share of the international development effort, as I am sure it should.
    Mr. Piara S. Khabra: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what percentage of the Export Credits Guarantee Department's budget is spent on the export of arms?
    Clare Short: I am sorry—I do not have the precise answer in front of me. The percentage is quite high. Speaking from memory, I think that it is approaching a third. I shall write to my hon. Friend.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: The Secretary of State said that the African countries are getting poorer. One understands some of the problems, but is it not time there was an international consensus to tackle them more effectively than hitherto? The right hon. Lady speaks of some countries grandstanding; we already have an insight into the ways of the United States. Can she name the other countries that grandstand instead of coming to the aid of the underdeveloped countries?
    Clare Short: May I correct the hon. Gentleman? I did not say that the United States grandstands; on aid, the US has not bothered to compete. However, there has been a change, and the US is at least joining and trying to make a commitment to increasing its aid. That is welcome. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the prospects for Africa are very serious. At current rates of population growth and economic growth, the continent is set to become steadily poorer, yet 50 per cent. of its population is already abjectly poor.
    One of the things that we must do to change the prospects of the continent is resolve some of the conflicts. We are living at a time when the conflicts in Sudan, Congo and Angola are all moving towards a resolution. If those three massively resource-rich countries could be brought to peace, it would transform the prospects of the continent. We have reformers on the continent: Uganda, Mozambique, Ghana and others are achieving the sort of economic growth and improved performance in health care and education that the whole continent needs. We must use the new partnership for African development to achieve that across the continent.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Given my right hon. Friend's strong commitment to the poorest African nations, does she agree that in order to reach the millennium development goals, the issue of debt must be tackled more deeply and more widely, even beyond the HIPC agreement? Will she and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor pursue that view in Washington at the important spring meeting of the International Monetary Fund next week?
    Clare Short: I agree with my right hon. Friend. Twenty-six of the 40-odd heavily indebted poor countries have qualified for debt relief. That has leveraged major reform, better economic performance and better public services focused on the poor. However, because world commodity prices are still declining—coffee, cocoa and so on—and oil prices have been rising, many of those countries have not exited from their debt problem, as their earnings from exports have declined. Many of them need
    564
    extra help. Many of the other countries that have not yet qualified—Sudan, Burma and the Democratic Republic of Congo among them—must be helped towards peace so that they can qualify for their debt relief, but we need more generosity because of the change in world commodity prices.

    Export Credits Guarantee Department
    Mr. Simon Thomas: What discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry regarding the encouragement of sustainable development in developing countries by the Export Credits Guarantee Department. [46043]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): My Department worked closely with the Department of Trade and Industry during the 2000 review of the ECGD. We supported the development of the ECGD's new set of business principles which make clear its commitment to sustainable development.
    Mr. Thomas: Does the Secretary of State agree that, if the ECGD can really take on board sustainable development, there is a huge opportunity for it to work with her Department in achieving real development in developing countries, such as the strategy set out for sustainable energy in the World Wide Fund for Nature's international paper? In particular, will she use her good offices to press the DTI to bring forward the ECGD strategy paper on sustainable development?
    Clare Short: I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman, not just with regard to the ECGD but on international trade and business. The old ways of selfish, corrupt business that did not benefit poor countries and often got them into debt should be put behind us. They need trade and exports and loans so that they can invest in clean water, sanitation and proper energy sources, which will enable them to grow sustainably and improve the lives of their people. I hope that the reforms that are being put in place in the ECGD will make it a leading-edge player, showing that responsible, ethical business can be good for people who are employed in our own country and can promote development for the poorest people. A change is taking place and we need to ensure that it is taken forward.
    Hugh Bayley: When export credit guarantees go wrong, they eventually turn into debt and then to debt relief when they become part of this country's overseas development assistance; so will my right hon. Friend ensure in her discussions with the Department of Trade and Industry that when export credits are first issued to developing countries, the development consequences, including for the poor people in those countries, are considered in case they turn into debt and then into aid?
    Clare Short: My hon. Friend is fundamentally right. Much of the debt that has been written off for all the heavily indebted poor countries—I think that it is about 50 per cent. across the world—involves our ECGD or equivalent departments in other countries, and that shows bad lending in the past, often with lots of corruption on both sides of the equation. As well as writing off debt to

    565
    give countries a chance to go forward with proper economic reform and a better future, we must tighten up on our own export credits and the worldwide use of export credits. That effort is on, but it is difficult. There is a lot of resistance and any help that the House of Commons can give will be gratefully received.

    Zimbabwe
    Mr. Charles Hendry: What recent discussions she has had with leaders of sub-Saharan African countries regarding democracy in Zimbabwe. [46044]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): Both my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Foreign Secretary are in regular contact with a number of African leaders about the situation in Zimbabwe. The damaging impact on the economy, including severe food shortages, is profoundly worrying in a country where 75 per cent. of the population live in poverty and one in three adults are HIV positive. We continue to provide humanitarian aid.
    Mr. Hendry: Does the Minister accept that the election result in Zimbabwe poses serious questions to the viability of the New Partnership for Africa's Development? Is he proposing changes to the scheme in the light of that result? Will he also make it clear in any dealings that he has with leaders of sub-Saharan countries that silence in response to the election result is simply not an option, and that a failure to condemn absolutely the conduct and the result of the election will amount to complicity with Mugabe and his wicked ways?
    Hilary Benn: The Southern African Development Community and the Commonwealth, the UK, the European Community and others have made clear their view that the election in Zimbabwe was neither free nor fair. I would not agree that the future credibility of the New Partnership for Africa's Development is under threat. It represents the best hope for the future of sub-Saharan Africa, and its most important element is the commitment of the leaders of sub-Saharan Africa to taking responsibility for dealing with the problems of the continent. We need to support them in that process because it offers the best way forward, not only for Zimbabwe but for the whole continent.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does the Minister realise that hon. Members in all parts of the House have relatives and families in Zimbabwe? What is he doing to ensure that UK aid workers in particular are protected from Mugabe's thugs and that UK aid reaches those in need and does not go to Mugabe and his henchmen?
    Hilary Benn: The most important thing is to ensure that we work through NGOs, Churches and others to make sure that the humanitarian aid that we are rightly continuing to give gets to the people who need it. When concerns are expressed about interference in the process, we must ensure that they are investigated thoroughly, just as they are being investigated by the World Food Programme in relation to two or three incidents. The
    566
    people of Zimbabwe are not responsible for the Government they have, which is why they continue to rely on our support and we continue to give it.

  The Prime Minister was asked —
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. John McFall: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 17 April.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.
    Mr. McFall: I welcome the Wanless report, which was published this morning, and the ensuing debate. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best insurance policy for all citizens is a publicly funded NHS that is free at the point of use? Will he strive to maintain and build on the consensus that has existed since 1948 and which saw the NHS as a clear, enduring and practical expression of our values as a country? Does he accept that the Government have to demonstrate that change must be effected on the ground with results? Will he not be put off by the discordant voices that are trying to say that the NHS cannot or will not work? Is not the best thing that can be done for the country that the Leader of the Opposition—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to say that I agree with all that. In fact, I probably agree with what my hon. Friend did not say as well as with what he did say.
    As I am sure my hon. Friend understands, the foundation is a strong economy with low inflation, low interest rates and now the lowest unemployment of any major country in the world today. On that basis, we can invest in our public services like the national health service and make the changes that are necessary. The reason why it is important to make the investment in our health care system is that that is indeed the best insurance policy that people in this country can have.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Does the Prime Minister agree with the former Labour donor Lord Haskins, who said about the Department of Health's contract for smallpox vaccine:
    "I see no reason why a tendering process for these vaccinations should not have been transparent from beginning to end"?
    The Prime Minister: No, I do not agree with those comments. The contract was given entirely in accordance with the normal rules and in a proper way.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: These comments follow the Prime Minister's comments yesterday that concerns about speed and protecting national security are the key and that containing this matter behind a secret wall is somehow important. Can he now explain why the United States was

    567
    able to protect its own citizens and national security, hold an open procurement process and deploy is vaccine more quickly than we have in the UK?
    The Prime Minister: Again, I do not agree. The advice was quite clear that, in line with national security, it was important that the details of the contract were not dealt with through public procurement. However, many companies were asked to tender, and the company that was chosen and recommended by officials was chosen entirely in accordance with the proper rules. This is just the latest smear from a Conservative party that has absolutely nothing whatever to say about the serious issues of the day.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Methinks the Prime Minister protests too much. Does he not understand that hiding behind national security, as he has again done today, simply fuels people's suspicions about his motives? Given that the head of PowderJect has given this Government their largest single donation since the election, should that not have set an alarm bell ringing in Downing street signalling that the procurement process needed to be even more open, not less open? So instead of sending his Cabinet Ministers out like sheep bleating about the sudden need to find state funding for political parties, is not the real solution that we need an open and transparent Government?
    The Prime Minister: On the process, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the permanent secretary to the Department was consulted, and he said that that was indeed the right thing to do for the country and its needs. However, in talking about openness and transparency in funding, let me remind the House that during 18 years of Conservative Government, we had no openness or transparency and nothing was said about funding. The only reason why these allegations can be made is because we have indeed published the names of those who donate to the Labour party.
    Let us put the matter to the test. We as a Government, under the law that we introduced, have said exactly who has donated to the Labour party in our time in office. The right hon. Gentleman is now the leader of the Conservative party, so let him go back through the records of 18 years of Conservative Government and publish the names of the donors and the amounts donated, and the countries that they came from. He has that information in Conservative party central office. He wants openness and transparency, and this Government have given it. Let him stand at the Dispatch Box and pledge it for his party.
    Vernon Coaker: A new breast cancer unit, a new neurology department, a new cardiac centre and new wards at Nottingham City hospital have all been made possible by this Government's record investment in the NHS. Will my right hon. Friend recognise, however, that it is not buildings but staff who make the NHS? Will he look at the pay and conditions of porters, cleaners, nurses and doctors, and see what we can do about recruitment and retention problems in the NHS?
    The Prime Minister:What is obvious from any consideration of alternative systems around the world is that we have a capacity problem in the British health care system. We have insufficient doctors, consultants and
    568
    nurses, and for that reason we are expanding numbers—including, for example, some 14,000 extra nurses in the past year alone. However, we also need to ensure that we open up greater training opportunities for doctors, consultants and nurses, and we are doing that in every area. I believe that it is right to say to people in this country that, if we want to improve our health care system, we have to pay for it. The fairest and best way of doing that is through the national health service, funded in the way we have described.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Can the Prime Minister explain why the Chancellor was able to announce in the pre-general election Budget tax reductions for next year of £3 billion, given that we have been told to expect tax increases in today's Budget? What went wrong in between?
    The Prime Minister: What the Chancellor also did in the last comprehensive spending review was to announce the biggest sustained increases in health and education spending that we have had. Indeed, the reason why our education system is now among the top eight in the world is precisely because of the investment. As the British Medical Association and others have said, the reason why real improvements are now happening in the national health service is because of the extra investment.
    Mr. Eric Forth: No one believes that.
    The Prime Minister:The right hon. Gentleman says, "No one believes that," but I think that most people prefer to listen to those who work in the health service, rather than to a Conservative party that has a strategy of denigrating and running down the health service at every turn. However, we do of course need to sustain those improvements in this spending settlement, and that is precisely what we want to do.
    Mr. Kennedy: I am sure that a lot of people in the country will agree with that last sentiment so far as the Conservatives are concerned. However, is it not a fact that, at the last election, the Liberal Democrats argued for honest and fair taxation and for more investment in the health service? We would welcome that, but does not the Prime Minister regret the fact that he did not have the courage to do the same?
    The Prime Minister: It was clearly important to strengthen and stabilise the economy and to achieve the current strong economic situation, and, on that basis, to invest. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman might say that the Liberal Democrats would have invested more. In fact, in 1997 they asked for an extra £500 million for the health service, but in the last Parliament we put in £5 billion.
    The trouble with the Liberal Democrats is that they are very good at making spending commitments but less good at controlling numbers. For example, they have recently asked for more money for personal care, teachers, doctors, nurses, police, dental services and more hospital beds. They asked for the abolition of prescription dental and sight charges, the scrapping of all tuition fees and the reintroduction of all student grants. They also asked that benefits be given to all students during the summer

    569
    holidays and for an increase in housing benefit; the payment of no-fault compensation, compensation for Gulf war veterans, greater spending on debt aid relief, and the giving of greater subsidies to small and medium-sized farmers. [HON. MEMBERS: "More."] Of course they want more—they always want more—and that was just this month's spending commitments. If we are talking about integrity and honesty, to pretend that we can get that much spending out of that 1p of tax is not a very honest way of conducting matters.
    David Taylor: The national minimum wage is one of our finest achievements so far. Does the Prime Minister agree with me as a fellow Christian socialist that currently low hourly rates are neither ethical nor egalitarian? Does he hope that today's Budget at last meets the nation's needs for progressive policies so that there is a radical redistribution?
    The Prime Minister: I can agree that that is important. The minimum wage should be seen alongside other measures such as the working families tax credit, which not only increased people's pay dramatically but provided an incentive to work. There is a reason why we have managed to secure such low unemployment in this country—there are 1,250,000 more jobs—at the same time as introducing a minimum wage, which the Conservative party told us would destroy 1 million jobs. In addition, we did that on the basis of ensuring that we take measures to stimulate business and enterprise. It is the combination of those two achievements together that gives us the economic position that we have today.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: My constituents learned this morning that the Prime Minister spent £28 million on an empty dome that is inaccessible to the public. Does he realise that they would have welcomed just a few of those millions being spent on the provision of national health service dentistry in Market Harborough, where there is none, and on the building of the new hospital, which was supposed to be completed by 2005 but, owing to NHS financial shortages, will not now be completed until well into the next decade?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly say that it is important that we make additional investments in the national health service. I hope, therefore, that he makes it absolutely clear later today that the Conservative party supports the additional sums for the national health service. What is beyond any doubt, however, is that the one group of people who simply cannot criticise health service spending in this country are those who, when in office, underfunded the national health service and do not support the extra investment now.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the James Paget hospital, which serves my constituency, for more than meeting the targets for reducing waiting times for in-patients and out-patients? With record levels of investment going into that hospital, resulting in more beds, a new accident and emergency unit, new operating theatres and a new maternity unit, does not that show that
    570
    the best and fairest way to fund the health service is through general taxation, not charges and private insurance, as favoured by the Conservatives?
    The Prime Minister: I congratulate all those in my hon. Friend's constituency who have worked so hard in the health service to secure those improvements. However, the position that he describes is replicated in many constituencies up and down the country. Of course we still have a long way to go to make the improvements that we need in the national health service, but as the report by the NHS chief executive showed just a couple of weeks ago, substantial improvements are happening. We need to build on those. The investments over the past few years have yielded results, but they need to be deepened and strengthened until the national health service is once again what people want it to be—the pride of this country and the envy of the world.
    Andrew Selous: What does the Prime Minister have to say to the nine of my constituents who have had to leave Rothwell House care home in Leighton Buzzard because it cannot afford the new £30,000 lift required by the Care Standards Act 2000 when all the residents can use the existing stair lift quite happily?
    The Prime Minister: What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that that is precisely why extra investment is required in social care. [Interruption.] No, I am sorry, the answer to the problems of social care in this country is not to diminish the standards necessary to provide decent care. The answer is to keep those standards high, to improve them, and to put additional sums of money into social care, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be supporting what the Chancellor says today, rather than opposing it.
    Brian White: The Prime Minister will be aware that one of the main obstacles to furthering the middle east peace process is the widespread perception that when outrages such as Jenin happen, the western response seems to be muted, whereas there would be loud condemnation if they happened in any other country. What is he doing to dispel that perception and move the middle east peace process forward?
    The Prime Minister: We have made it clear throughout that Israel should withdraw from the occupied territories. We have also made it clear, however, that the Palestinians should cease their acts of violence and terrorism. Both those things need to happen. Without repeating all the things that I said in the House last week, I say to my hon. Friend that I believe it is essential that we relaunch a genuine political process that binds not only the main two parties to the middle east peace process but the Arab world, the European Union and the wider international community. I hope that such a process can be relaunched soon, because it is the only way. Irrespective of all the things that are happening in the immediate term in Israel and in the Palestinian territories,

    571
    it is absolutely obvious that without relaunching a proper political process, there is no prospect of bringing hope or peace to that region.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Will the Prime Minister tell the House by how much council tax has increased in Sedgefield this year?
    The Prime Minister: The average council tax for people in Sedgefield is round about £740.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Council tax in Sedgefield is up by more than 13 per cent., which is six times the rate of inflation. Band D council tax in the Prime Minister's constituency is now the highest in the country. It is the very highest council tax that anybody is paying. As a council tax payer in Sedgefield, will the Prime Minister now tell us who he blames for this—the Labour council or the terrible Labour Government?
    The Prime Minister: First, the right hon. Gentleman talks about band D in relation to Sedgefield. That is a rather typical Conservative thing to do, because only 6 per cent. of the properties in Sedgefield are in band D. If we take 100 per cent. of the properties there, the average council tax is well below many of the high council tax averages that we find in Conservative areas. If the right hon. Gentleman does not want councils to spend this money, perhaps he will tell us what services he wants them to cut.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: That is rather typical of the Prime Minister. He did not really want to answer that question. Perhaps he has a vested interest. Simply put, both the Labour council and the Labour Government are to blame. The Labour Government are the ones who have increased the costs to councils, through the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Labour councils cost people more across the board. In Labour council areas, band D council tax is at least £135 more than in Conservative council areas. [Interruption.] I do not know why the Liberal Democrats are looking so smug. It is at least £160 more in Liberal Democrat council areas. Does not that show that Labour councils, and their Liberal friends, cost more and deliver less?
    The Prime Minister: No, it does not. I pointed out a moment ago that only 6 per cent. of Sedgefield properties are in band D. It is necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to concentrate on that 6 per cent., but perhaps I can concentrate on the other 94 per cent. The average council tax in Sedgefield is actually well below those of many Conservative authorities.
    I return to the point that I made a moment ago. We have increased by 20 per cent. the real-terms spending for social services in Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat council areas, whereas it was cut during the last few years of the Conservative Government. If the right hon. Gentleman wants us to provide the extra services that his hon. Friends are calling for, surely he should support us in increasing the investment in social services and in the national health service. Of course, what he wants to do is complain about the council tax on the one hand,
    572
    and complain about services being depleted on the other, yet he refuses to back the extra investment necessary to build those services up.
    Mr. Ben Chapman: Although I of course welcome today's news that unemployment has fallen again, my right hon. Friend will be aware that manufacturing still faces problems as regards exchange rates in general and the euro exchange rate in particular. No matter what is done about productivity gains, efficiency gains and new understandings between management and unions, our exporting manufacturers still face a barrier that is sometimes difficult to surmount. Can my right hon. Friend tell me what the Government are doing to help manufacturing in those circumstances?
    The Prime Minister:First, it is important that we welcome the fall in unemployment, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for doing so.
    Manufacturing industry has been through a particularly difficult time for the reasons that he gives, although there are recent signs of some improvement. The most important thing for manufacturing industry and for the economy as a whole is stability and growth. It is precisely because of the way in which the Chancellor has managed the economy that we have ended up in a situation where this country has effectively weathered the potential economic downturn better than any other country of a similar size in the world. We now have the lowest inflation and the lowest interest rates that we have had for many, many decades. [Interruption.] Conservative Members are talking about recession. Under this Government we have had growth; under them we had the two worst recessions in living memory.
    Mr. Roger Gale: Given the Prime Minister's sudden but touching personal interest in the subject, will he tell the House realistically how long he thinks that Mr. David Beckham would have to wait for an operation on his foot under the national health service?
    The Prime Minister: I must say to the hon. Gentleman that if anything indicates the state of the Conservative party today, it is that question.
    Chris Ruane: The Prime Minister will be aware of the £6.5 billion upgrade of the west coast main line and is probably aware of a proposed £6.5 billion new route from Edinburgh to London. Will he ensure that there is fairness in the allocation of scarce resources in transport and therefore support the upgrading of the Crewe to Holyhead line, which is hopefully to be electrified, to ensure that we get the tourists, investors and freight that are so necessary to our north Wales economy?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot give my hon. Friend all the commitments that he wants for that individual line, but certainly the additional investment in transport will mean that we can considerably upgrade our rail network in every part of the country. I am afraid that I shall have to delay for some time before being able to make any commitments on his particular line.
    Mr. Peter Luff: Were the six Parliamentary Private Secretaries who

    573
    yesterday voted against Government education policy, and said that specialist schools should be forced to reduce the proportion of pupils that they can select on ability, right?
    The Prime Minister: No, I believe that the position of the Government was right.
    James Purnell: Last summer, one of my constituents lost her partner in a car crash. The Teachers' Pensions Agency is refusing to pay her a pension because although she lived with her partner for 10 years and they had children together, they were not married. Is my right hon. Friend aware that almost 90 per cent. of private sector pensions would pay out in those circumstances, but less than a third of public sector pensions do so? Will he put pressure on the trustees of our public sector pensions to rectify that clear injustice?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend raises a valuable and important point. I express my sympathy to his constituent for her loss.
    The Government have made it clear that we are ready to extend benefits in the event of death to unmarried partners in any schemes where members wish that and are prepared to meet the cost. Obviously there is a limit to how much can be funded by the taxpayer, but we are trying to facilitate it within the circumstances of individual schemes.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Is the Prime Minister aware of the growing concern in Northern Ireland about the thought that prisoners—not prisoners, but terrorists on the run—might be returned under special conditions at a time when nothing is being done to restore the exiles who have been put out of the Province by the IRA?
    Is he also aware of the great concern that although the president of Sinn Fein-IRA can hold a commemoration dinner and prepare a memorial for terrorists slain in the campaign, the British Government apparently expect soldiers' relatives to pay £100 for memorials for their soldiers who have been slain?
    The Prime Minister: We will come forward with proposals about the so-called on-the-runs at the proper time. I have nothing further to add to what I said about that a moment ago. I understand the position of the relatives of those who lost their lives in the service of the RUC or the armed forces in Northern Ireland. They performed a brave and courageous service and we are well aware of our debt of gratitude to them.
    I shall look into the specific point that the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) made, but we have tried to make significant financial provision. I understand the sensitivity of the issue at this time in Northern Ireland and we will concern ourselves with all the matters that he raised.
    Martin Linton: Will the Prime Minister ensure through the action group on street crime that Operation Safer Streets continues not only for the rest of the year but with the same number of police officers? Figures that were published today show that has already succeeded in reducing street crime by 17 per cent. in
    574
    Wandsworth in March compared with the same month last year and by 20 per cent. throughout the safer street boroughs. Will he include Wandsworth in the street crime initiative areas that are to pilot the new powers under section 130 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 to detain 12 to 16-year-olds who commit crimes when on bail?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that Wandsworth is one of the 10 areas that have been chosen for the initiative. We want to ensure that street crime is comprehensively tackled because although crime overall has fallen, there has been an epidemic of street crime, often linked to mobile phones, by very young offenders. We are trying to ensure that we get the proper measures for the police and the courts to deal with it. My hon. Friend is right to say that we need to ensure that the investment is also there. Perhaps he will be patient about that.
    Richard Younger-Ross: Some Conservative Members would have the Prime Minister go to war with Iraq before the Chancellor can finish his Budget speech; some Labour Members would have Saddam Hussein round for tea and crumpets. What is the Prime Minister's thinking? Will there be a debate on a motion in the House before there is any conflict in Iraq?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that that question did not take long to prepare. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to describe those who believe that Saddam Hussein presents a genuine threat as warmongers or those with hesitations as friends of Saddam Hussein. There is a serious issue to debate. We have made it clear why we believe that Saddam Hussein poses a threat and that weapons of mass destruction are a serious problem. However, I have also said many times that we will proceed carefully and deliberately, not precipitately, and that we will ensure that the House is properly consulted.
    Hugh Bayley: If the British people want better health services, they know that they will have to pay more through charges, private insurance or taxation. Does my right hon. Friend agree with the Wanless report that charges or private insurance would be more expensive for middle-class families than taxes, and would provide poorer services for them and for poor people who could not afford to pay charges or go private?
    The Prime Minister: The report that was published this morning is not the only one. There is also the report from the King's Fund and the BMA report, which was published some time ago. All made it clear that they believed that if we accept the need for more resources for health care, the fairest and most efficient method is through the national health service. It is important that those who support alternative systems spell out their costs. The social insurance system of France and Germany, where there are enormous problems because of rising costs, and the American system, whereby people have to pay a large sum of money out of their own pockets and

    575
    pay charges without getting the necessary health insurance in many cases, mean a heavy cost on the individual. We are not considering whether we should fund our health care system better; everyone accepts that we need to do that. We must consider the fairest and best method. We believe that it is through the national health service.
    Mr. John Greenway: On jobs and manufacturing, does the Prime Minister know that Bright Steels, a specialist steel manufacturer in my constituency, recently made 60 workers redundant? That is a large proportion of a small firm's work force. It blames the recession in manufacturing and the proposed import tariffs by the United States on British steel. Does he understand that people in manufacturing in this country will judge the Chancellor's Budget on the support it gives the manufacturing base? Will he continue to press President Bush not to include specialist steels in the proposed import tariffs?
    The Prime Minister: Of course I shall continue to make that case very strongly to President Bush. I also say to the hon. Gentleman that I sympathise very much with his constituents who have lost their jobs in being made redundant. However, the problems of manufacturing have been acute over the past number of years because of the very strength of the pound against the euro. What is important is to recognise that, for manufacturing industry and, indeed, all industry in this country, the single best thing we can do is never return to the days of boom and bust, where in the early 1990s—[Interruption.] Well, I am glad that Opposition Members shout at that, because it gives me an opportunity to remind the House of what it was like when they were in charge of the economy. We had interest rates of 15 per cent. for a year, interest rates of 10 per cent. for four years, millions of manufacturing jobs were lost and unemployment was over 3 million. Fortunately, with this new Labour Government, those days are long gone.

Orders of the Day
  WAYS AND MEANS

    Budget Statement
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Before I call the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it may be for the convenience of hon. Members if I remind them that copies of the Budget resolutions will be available in the Vote Office at the end of the Chancellor's speech.
    3.31 pm
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Five years ago, this Government's first Budget set out long-term objectives and far-reaching reforms to achieve economic stability and higher employment. And today I can report that, in the last year, Britain has experienced the lowest inflation and the lowest interest rates for 40 years; for the first time for half a century, unemployment in Britain is lower than in America, lower than in Japan and lower than in the rest of Europe; and in the year just ended, Britain had the highest growth of any of our major competitors.
    And just as in 1997, we had the strength to set a course, not just for a year, but for a Parliament, so too in this Budget—the first of the Parliament—our task is to address, through reform, three major long-term challenges: the challenge of enterprise, with new incentives to raise investment and to reward entrepreneurship; the challenge of family prosperity for all, with a new child tax credit paid to mothers for all families with incomes up to £58,000; the challenge of renewing our public services, with, for a reformed NHS, a secure long-term financial foundation.
    And with those whose priority is fairness recognising the need for enterprise, and those whose priority is enterprise accepting the need for fairness with strong public services, I believe that, just as Britain built in the last Parliament a national consensus for stability and employment, Britain can in this Parliament build a consensus that we should advance enterprise and fairness, and do so together.
    I turn first to the economic outlook.
    From growth in 2000 of 3½ per cent., the G7 economies as a whole grew by just I per cent. in 2001.
    World trade, which grew by 12 per cent. in 2000, failed to grow at all in 2001. Manufacturing output fell across the world, falling by 3.6 per cent. in the G7 countries, 4.3 per cent. in America, 7.6 per cent. in Japan and in Britain by 2.3 per cent: it was a decline all round that started in the American information technology and electronics sector, mirrored in Britain by a 45 per cent. fall in semiconductors output and a 54 per cent. fall in telecommunications.
    Last autumn, in the wake of 11 September, the world saw a fall in business confidence, declining markets and volatile oil prices—major and simultaneous challenges to the stability and continued growth of the British economy.
    In the past, when the world faced a downturn, it was Britain that usually entered weaker and suffered longer with higher unemployment—successive Governments unable to sustain economic growth because they were constrained by already high inflation and high borrowing.
    578
    This time, however, from a platform of low inflation and fiscal discipline, both delivered through a new monetary and fiscal framework, we have been able to steer a steady course of stability. The Bank of England has been able to adjust policy at the right time and in the right way, last year cutting interest rates seven times. Supported by a fiscal policy, we have, despite the difficulties, been able to safeguard both stability and growth.
    At the last Budget, we forecast that growth in 2001 would be within a range of 2¼ to 2¾ per cent., and we based our public finance projections on 2¼ per cent. I can tell the House that, while Germany grew by only 0.6 per cent., America by 1.2 per cent., the euro area by 1.5 per cent. and Japan contracted by 0.5 per cent., Britain grew by 2.2 per cent.
    I have written today to the Governor of the Bank of England stating that, in 2002, we will continue to pursue a symmetrical inflation target of 2.5 per cent.—a target that, because it takes deflation as seriously as inflation, is not only pro-stability but also pro-growth. Monetary policy will continue to be backed by a sound and long-term approach to fiscal policy. Nothing that we do or propose in this Budget will undermine that platform of stability.
    At the time of the pre-Budget report, we drew attention to the downside risks to world recovery, not just from the possibility of further terrorist incidents and instability in the oil price, which has since December ranged from $17 to $27 per barrel, but from the durability of the US recovery. I said then that, while it was important to remain vigilant, we were cautiously optimistic.
    Increasingly, independent forecasters now expect the world economy to grow faster—the United States to grow by 2.6 per cent., the euro area by 1.3 per cent., Japan to contract by more than 1 per cent., but the G7 to grow by 1.6 per cent. overall. We hold to the cautious optimism of our forecast of November—that, while meeting our inflation target, Britain will achieve growth from 2 to 2½ per cent. this year, rising in 2003 to growth of 3 to 3½ per cent., with growth in 2004 from 2½ to 3 per cent.
    Over the last few years, independent forecasters have revised upwards the trend rate of growth of the British economy, with the majority suggesting a range of 2.5 to 2.8 per cent. The International Monetary Fund's forecast is at the upper end of this range. The Treasury now estimates trend growth at 2¾ per cent. but, as before, we will continue to base our public finance forecasts on a more cautious assumption for economic growth-2½ per cent., which the National Audit Office has audited as "reasonable and cautious".
    While the British economy has been stable, it can and must be stronger, its growth not only sustained but more balanced. In the last year, as world trade fell, consumer spending and public investment supported growth in the British economy. Now, as world trade turns around and industrial production rises, our forecasts show consumer spending returning closer to trend as we achieve more balanced growth.
    We expect in 2002 world trade to grow by 2¼ per cent., and in 2003 by 8½ per cent. UK manufacturing output returned to growth in February and, while global risks remain, we expect further rises in the coming months. Business investment is expected to follow, with growth in investment rising in 2003 to between 5½ and 6¼ per cent.

    579
    I now turn to the public finances. Our fiscal rules are set not for a year or even two years, but for the entire economic cycle. And because from 1997 we tightened fiscal policy by 4.5 per cent. of national income, we have been able to reduce debt well below 40 per cent., not just in one year but across the economic cycle.
    Thus, while the pre-Budget report showed that tax receipts were £7 billion less last year—and £10 billion less this year—than forecast because of the global economic downturn, the underlying state of our public finances remains strong.
    In the year to last April, we repaid £37 billion of debt. In 1997, net debt was 44 per cent. of British national income. Last year, it was down to 30.4 per cent.—in contrast to 41 per cent. in the US, 53 per cent. in the euro area and nearly 60 per cent. in Japan.
    As we approach the decisions of this Budget, Britain's debt has been reduced to the lowest level of national income in the G7 countries and the lowest of all our major European competitors. Debt interest payments were running at £29 billion a year when we came to power, with more money paid on debt interest than was spent on all our schools. I can now report that debt interest, which fell to £26 billion in 2000, fell again to £22 billion in 2001 and we expect it to fall again this year to £21 billion—just 2 per cent. of our national income.
    So, just as we paid off more debt in one year than all previous Governments paid off in all the previous half century, so this year debt interest payments will take less of our national income than at any time in nearly a century—since the beginning of the first world war.
    In the early 1990s, imprudent assumptions about debt and related mistakes in fiscal policy contributed to the boom and bust that did so much damage. So today I propose to reinforce our commitment to stability and sustainable public finances by committing, now and for the future, to publish figures for core debt, prudently adjusting debt for the effects of the economic cycle.
    Our approach since 1997 also includes cautious assumptions about equity prices, oil prices, unemployment and VAT receipts. And while some have suggested that, having established a prudent approach in the last Parliament, we no longer need to plan on the same rigorous basis for this Parliament, I can tell the House that, in the coming spending review, we will maintain our cautious assumptions and meet our rules, even on the cautious case.
    Indeed, today, we will do more than that.
    In the interests of fiscal discipline, I will not only maintain our cautious rules and lock in the tight fiscal stance this year and over the next two years that we set out in the pre-Budget Report, but I will go further and implement—compared with the pre-Budget report—a small tightening of the fiscal stance over the next two years.
    After all the measures that I will announce today, the current budget, which was £10.6 billion in surplus last year, is projected to be in surplus this year by £3 billion, and in future years by £7 billion, £9 billion, £7 billion and £9 billion.
    Net public borrowing was £1.3 billion last financial year and is projected to be £11 billion this year and, in successive years, £13 billion, £13 billion, £17 billion and
    580
    £18 billion, as we borrow to invest well within our sustainable investment rule—that debt be at or below 40 per cent. of national income over the cycle.
    Debt, which was 30.4 per cent. of national income last year, is projected to be 30.2 per cent. this year, and, in the following financial years, 30.4 per cent., 30.4 per cent., 30.7 per cent. and 31 per cent.
    All my budget and public spending decisions will be made within this framework of fiscal discipline.
    By keeping a steady and firm hand on our public finances, and by keeping debt and debt interest payments low, we continue to free up more resources for our public services.
    And after all the Budget measures that I will announce today, I am able to meet our fiscal rules even on the cautious case and set a new public spending envelope for the years up to 2006, while being able to release an extra £4 billion for public spending next year.
    Precise allocations for departmental expenditure limits will be made in the forthcoming spending review, but as we make provision for increases in public spending, we will set three conditions. First, money must be matched with modernisation that will lead to results. Secondly, just as sustained economic growth demands responsibility in setting private sector pay, so a sustained commitment to better public services demands responsibility in setting public sector pay. And thirdly, at all times—now and in the future—we will never compromise our commitment to meet our fiscal rules and disciplines.
    The monetary and fiscal figures that I am publishing today also show that we are well within the Maastricht criteria for the euro and, as the House knows, the Treasury is undertaking the preliminary and technical work necessary to allow our assessment of the economic tests.
    Our first long-term challenge is, through higher productivity and investment and a stronger national consensus on the importance of enterprise, to build a more prosperous Britain.
    Now, as we press ahead with the supply-side reforms to remove barriers to growth—the new competition policy, the new approach to physical planning policy, new rules for work permits, our education reforms—my focus in this Budget is on two further sets of measures that encourage higher levels of innovation and investment, and that help small and growing businesses.
    Over recent years, British business investment levels have risen significantly, from just over 10 per cent. of national income to nearly 14 per cent.
    And to encourage higher levels of investment we have, in past Budgets, cut corporation tax from 33p to 30p, the lowest in our history.
    In this Budget—specifically to help British manufacturers invest in the technologies of the future—I have decided, following consultation, that we will legislate, for large companies, for a new volume-based research and development tax credit. That rate will be set at 25 per cent., and it is a £400 million boost to innovation and research in Britain and to modern manufacturing in our country.
    To continue to build a modern corporation tax regime for British firms, operating as they are in a global economy, I will exempt companies from corporation tax on the gain from the sale of substantial shareholdings,

    581
    benefiting businesses by £150 million a year. I will modernise the tax treatment of intellectual property, giving further long-term savings to business of £200 million a year.
    The UK's current treatment of branch capital means that some profitable foreign companies operating in the UK pay little or no tax on their profits here. So from 1 January, at a revenue gain of £350 million in its first full financial year, I will bring the treatment of capital for UK branches of foreign companies into line with international practice by applying similar corporation tax rules as America, Germany, France and most other major countries.
    Small businesses account for half the economy's output and for 55 per cent. of all jobs in the private sector—over 10 million jobs in all. And the small firms of today can be the big firms of the future.
    We want to see a more enterprising Britain where, in every region, more small businesses are starting up and where you can work your way up a ladder of opportunity—from employment to self-employment, from micro-business to growing business—with Government on businesses' side, as firms hire for the first time, as they invest, as they seek equity, as they export and as they grow.
    A sound economy and low inflation provide the stability that people need to start a new enterprise. This Budget seeks to build from this a culture of entrepreneurship in every community.
    In 1997, we cut the small companies tax rate from 23p to 21p. And then in 1998 we cut it again to 20p, and introduced a starting rate of 10p.
    I propose in this, the first Budget of the new Parliament, to go further. The small companies tax rate will be cut yet again—from 20p to 19p. And I propose to do this with immediate effect, for this tax year 2002–03.
    And to send out the strongest signal about the importance that we attach to small businesses and the creation of wealth I propose to reduce the 10p starting rate of corporation tax—also with immediate effect—from lop to zero.
    Small companies with taxable profits of less than £10,000 will pay no corporation tax.
    With the starting rate of tax cut from 10p to zero and the small companies rate down from 23p in 1997 to 19p, this is now the most favourable corporation tax regime for small companies in any of the advanced industrial countries.
    The Finance Bill will match this by legislating for a cut in capital gains tax, from this April, to 20 per cent. for business assets held for one year or more.
    And for business assets held for more than two years, capital gains tax will be cut to 10 per cent.
    In 1997, all transactions were subject to a 40p rate. From this year, three quarters of taxpayers with business assets will pay only a 10p rate, rewarding entrepreneurship and giving Britain overall a capital gains tax regime that is more favourable to enterprise than that of the United States.
    Small firms have scarce resources and, having cut corporation and capital gains tax, I now propose to reform the administration of valued added tax for small businesses to abolish a set of regulations.
    582
    I start by removing, for thousands of small businesses, the burdensome requirement that has been in place since 1973 when VAT was introduced of having to record the VAT charged on each individual purchase and sale.
    So, with immediate effect and for a total of half a million small businesses with turnovers of less than £100,000 a year, I am introducing a new flat-rate calculation for VAT payments. Rather than them filling in forms, we will introduce a flat-rate calculation that will save a typical small business hours of administration every year.
    I can announce that, from next April, I plan to extend this scheme further to include almost half VAT-registered firms: in total 700,000 small firms with turnovers of up to £150,000 will be able to save time and form filling by making flat-rate VAT payments.
    My second measure concerns automatic fines imposed by Customs and Excise. They are a source of grievance because they are often applied regardless of circumstances. So, for the same 700,000 small businesses, we will abolish automatic fines for late payment.
    Thirdly, importers incur £175 million a year in unnecessary costs because they have to make up-front payment of VAT on goods imported into Britain even before they sell them to customers.
    To cut those compliance costs and improve cash flow for businesses, I propose a new system—on the detail of which I will consult—under which we will allow approved companies to defer paying VAT on imports until they submit their VAT return.
    Fourthly, automatic relief from VAT on bad debts is a persistent request from the small-business community, and until now no Government have responded. When a business has to account for VAT on a sale to another company but that company does not pay up, VAT recovery has proved difficult. It is costly, and it is time-consuming. I therefore propose a new rule for bad debt relief to give businesses an automatic entitlement to recover the VAT after six months.
    Fifthly, I will offer small companies direct help with administration of their tax and payroll. The Carter report recognised the strong long-term case for small firms bringing their payroll systems online, and the equally strong case for cash help to enable them to do so. So we will set aside £40 million in the first year, and £110 million in the two subsequent years—£420 million in all—to give direct cash help to small firms going online, as we move in stages over the next eight years to universal e-filing.
    Last month, we accepted the Competition Commission's recommendations for more competition in banking services—and, in the interim, for free banking services or interest paid on current accounts to small businesses—but we can do more to help not just the start-up firm but the hard-working family business, by creating a level playing field in every respect.
    Thousands of employers are unable to recruit the skilled staff they need because training is so poor. Employees, employers and the Government must each accept their responsibilities, and we will finance pilot projects where, in return for Government's providing free access to training courses and support for wage costs, participating firms give staff time off to gain new skills. I can today respond to joint work by the CBI and the TUC

    583
    by announcing an additional £30 million so that more small businesses in our country can now reach "investor in people" standards.
    Small businesses are the motor for future growth everywhere, but nowhere more than in high unemployment areas where, starting in our schools curriculum, we must do more to ensure that an enterprise culture can flourish. By supporting new business activities for people and places that prosperity has so far passed by, we will advance enterprise and fairness together. So in 2,000 designated enterprise neighbourhoods we will supplement the small business tax cuts I have just announced with two further tax cuts.
    In the pre-Budget report, I implemented the first stage of stamp-duty relief in 2,000 of our high-unemployment areas: the abolition of stamp duty on all home and business property transactions up to £150,000. Now, for commercial transactions, I will seek state aid approval to abolish this limit—and, therefore, stamp duty in these areas—altogether.
    And from this month, to match our other measures to regenerate local high streets and urban estates—the 5 per cent. VAT that we have for residential conversions, the 100 per cent. first-year tax allowances for converting vacant space above shops into flats, and the accelerated 150 per cent. tax relief for cleaning up land that is contaminated—we will introduce a new community investment tax credit backed up by a community development venture capital fund that will provide an additional £40 million to invest in our most deprived areas.
    There is also no necessary conflict between growing the economy and protecting the environment. There is a huge potential for British firms, small and large, to capture new world markets by investing in environmentally friendly technologies and creating new businesses and jobs as a result. We now propose a series of new incentives for businesses investing in energy efficiency. I can announce that, to boost the use of combined heat and power in all areas of the country, we will exempt all electricity produced by this technology from the climate change levy. Electricity generation from coal methane offers new employment opportunities as well as environmental gains, and this summer it will be exempted also.
    I can now extend capital allowances for further investment in green technologies at an enhanced rate of 100 per cent. that will strengthen, not weaken, our economy as we meet our Kyoto targets and make Britain a leader in this vast new global market that is emerging for green technologies. To encourage more environmentally friendly fuels I will, from next year, introduce a fuel duty incentive for sulphur-free fuel. Having already cut fuel duty for projects on hydrogen, biogas and methanol, I am now inviting British business to come forward with further proposals for pilots that would encourage new fuels in our country, and which we would support with fuel duty cuts and exemptions.
    I am also announcing a cut of £55 in the licence fee for the least polluting vans, cuts of £30 for the least polluting cars, and cuts of up to £35 for motor cycles. Hauliers from overseas should pay their fair share towards the cost of using our roads, and I propose to go ahead with a road
    584
    user charge for lorries that is distance-based, with offsetting tax cuts for the UK haulage industry. The Financial Secretary will consult with the industry on the precise details of the scheme.
    North sea oil is vital to Britain. For North sea oil, my aim is to deliver a tax regime that promotes long-term investment while giving a fair return to the British people, so the Finance Bill will legislate for two changes. To raise revenues, I will introduce a supplementary charge at a rate of 10 per cent. on North sea oil profits. At the same time, to support new investment, I will raise first year capital allowances from 25 per cent. to a full 100 per cent. and, subject to consultation, we will set a date for abolishing in its entirety the royalty on North sea oil, so we can create a stable long-term framework into the next Parliament for the next stage of the development of the North sea.
    While in each Budget I have proposed the abolition of one tax, in this Budget—in addition to abolishing North sea royalties—I propose for consideration extending the successful betting and pools tax regime to bingo, to tax only the profits and not the players, so that I can abolish the tax paid by millions of bingo players in this country.
    To encourage one group of small businesses, the nation's small breweries—often village pubs, some two centuries old—I have decided that the duty paid on their own beer will be halved. This is a cut equal to 14p off each pint, to be implemented for village pubs and small breweries by this summer—in time for the World cup. It will also be available in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
    From 28 April, premium package coolers which contain spirits not wine will be taxed not as low-alcohol wines, but as they should always have been, at the same rate as spirits.
    To ensure fairness for taxpayers and businesses, we will act to close tax loopholes and be vigilant against tax avoidance. I have decided to act, with immediate effect, on the avoidance of stamp duty on property, to put an end to three artificial schemes for VAT avoidance, and I am reviewing the complex rules on residence and domicile.
    At the very core of creating a more enterprising and fairer Britain is our policy of moving people from welfare into work, and this morning's unemployment figures confirm that, since 1997, there are now 1.5 million more people in work in our country, giving Britain the best unemployment figures for 25 years. In the mid-1980s, 350,000 young people aged 18 to 24 had been unemployed for more than a year. Today, the figure is just 4,700.
    Having weathered the world downturn of the last year, Britain is moving closer to our goal of full employment than for a generation. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and I are agreed that we must not relax, but accelerate our efforts in pursuit of that goal.
    Starting two weeks from now, in six, and by December in 20, of Britain's high-unemployment areas, the introduction of the StepUp scheme will oblige the long-term unemployed to accept a guaranteed job which will offer, instead of the dole, secure waged employment. I can announce also that we will, in London and selected cities, match this new regime by introducing mandatory work preparation courses for the long-term unemployed.
    Many who have come on to the unemployment register recently have a history of not being able to hold down jobs, so starting in pilot areas, unemployed people who

    585
    are recurrently in and out of work will now come within the same rights and responsibilities of the new deal. In return for new obligations, there will be new opportunities to ensure that work will pay significantly more than benefits.
    Building on the increase in the minimum wage from October, working families with children will now have a guaranteed minimum income of £237 a week, more than £6 an hour for a 35-hour week—£97 more than income support, and substantially more even when all benefits are taken into account.
    Lone parents working 16 hours will be guaranteed £179 a week, as well as help with child care. Working full-time, they will be guaranteed £237 a week, making work pay £70 a week more than income support.
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will shortly announce the details of a national campaign jointly with employers, lone parent organisations and Jobcentre Plus to make single parents aware of the jobs on offer, the higher income now possible and the child care help available, backed up by a new mentoring scheme for lone parents. A single person with a disability moving into work of 35 hours will be guaranteed £194 a week, £22 a week more than today.
    I want also to announce the details of the next reform to make work pay: to extend the benefits of the working families tax credit, currently received by 1.3 million families in this country, 450,000 more than received family credit.
    For the first time, single persons and couples aged 25 or over without children will be eligible for in-work support that makes jobs pay. We know the problems that particularly those over 50 face not just in getting work but in the doubts they express about whether it is worth their while working. The working tax credit now tackles this problem. Couples with wages of less than £280 a week, or £14,000 a year, and single persons with wages of less than £200 a week, or £10,500 a year, stand to gain from the new credit.
    For a couple with no children, full-time work will pay not just the minimum rate of £130 a week under the minimum wage but £53 more than that at £183 a week. For a single person, work will pay at least £154 a week. So, in return for the responsibility to take up the opportunities that are available, the working tax credit now fulfils our promise that we will make work pay.
    I turn now to pensions. Last November, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and I set out the new financial measures to ensure pensioners have dignity in retirement. No matter what the rate of current inflation, the basic state pension will increase by at least £100 a year every year, and this year it is rising by even more than that: £3 a week for single pensioners, £4.80 for couples.
    From next year, 5 million pensioners stand to gain in addition from the pension credit by on average £400 a year more per household: that is £8 a week extra. For the poorest single pensioner, extra help will guarantee a minimum income of £98.15 this year and at least £100 next year.
    For pensioners who have occupational pensions, small earnings or savings and who pay tax, I am also able to do more with my announcements today. The age-related personal allowance will be raised in 2003–04 far faster
    586
    than inflation. An elderly taxpayer will be able to set the first £6,610 of their income against tax, and the first £6,740 for those aged 75 or more. As a result of this rise in personal allowance, 170,000 pensioners will no longer be liable to pay income tax. As we maintain the free television licences for all pensioners aged 75 and over, the winter fuel allowance will be paid this year at £200 and in every year of this Parliament. With the minimum income guarantee, the new pension credit and the new pensioner tax allowances, the average pensioner household is now £1,150 better off even after inflation than in 1997.
    Following this period when we have been so powerfully reminded of the enduring contribution of public service by our older generation, we are determined to give more opportunities for community service, especially among young people. Later this year, the Home Secretary and I will publish a joint discussion document on fiscal and other changes we can make to promote volunteering and community service.
    Gift aid now provides a 28 per cent. addition to every donation by taxpayers to recognised charities, and that is designed to encourage more giving. I can announce that taxpayers will be able to carry back tax relief on their donations to the previous year and, from 2004, taxpayers filing a return will be able to direct the Inland Revenue, which will send any refund to a charity of the taxpayer's choice.
    Amateur sports clubs are the mainstay of local sports in our country and they are the pride of every strong community. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I are determined to do all we can to support sport throughout the whole country, so, backdated to 1 April this year, there will be new tax reliefs, the details of which are published today, to enable amateur sports clubs to reduce tax bills to gain additional benefit from donations that are made by local supporters. To boost local sports further, we will match that tax relief with an extra £20 million for renovation and improvement of local sports club facilities.
    This Budget is about building a Britain of greater enterprise and greater fairness, and nothing is more important to an enterprising, fairer Britain than that, through education and through support for the family, we invest in the potential of every single child in our country.
    A family friendly tax and benefit system should be founded, as Beveridge wrote in his 1942 report, on the principles that nothing should be done to remove from parents the responsibility of maintaining their children, and that it is in the national interest to help all parents to discharge their responsibility properly. But for years there was no recognition in the tax system even of the existence of children or of the sheer costs of bringing them up, and our tax and benefit system had ceased to reflect our values.
    This Budget applies the Beveridge principles to the realities and needs of modern family life. Today, many families rely on two incomes and most women work. Some of the greatest pressures that parents face were almost unknown to Beveridge's time: the loss of income because one parent ceases employment and is at home or works part-time after the birth of a child, and the costs of child care when the mother goes out to work.
    A tax and benefit system that puts families first in the modern world would recognise not just the family as the bedrock of society and the rights and responsibilities of

    587
    parents, but the very real pressures that parents face right up the income scale. It would materially help them balance the needs of work and family, and it would be generous enough to ensure for each child a good start in life.
    To create a truly family friendly tax system, we must integrate tax and benefits. Instead of the old argument between those who favoured only universal benefits and those who supported narrow means-testing, our reform ensures one seamless system that supports all families through universal child benefit, recognises the costs of raising children that middle-income as well as lower-income families face, and gives most to those who need it most—those on the lowest incomes.
    I have decided that, in line with universal child benefit, all of this support will be paid to the main carer, normally the mother—the best way to support families, to get money directly to the children and to tackle child poverty. To support that, I will make one of the biggest single investments in children and families since the welfare state was formed in the 1940s.
    I propose £2.5 billion of extra support for families—a family tax cut that will help nearly 6 million families. As a result, the direct tax burden on a family on average earnings with two children will be below 20 per cent.—lower than it was in any previous year since 1979. I can now give the details.
    Because the tax system should recognise all the everyday pressures on middle as well as lower-income families when bringing up children, the new child credit will be available right up the income scale for families with incomes of £58,000 or below, and for the first year of a child's life, families earning up to £66,000 will receive some help.
    With our maternity reforms, including the rise in maternity benefits to £100 in April 2003 and the extension of maternity pay to 28 weeks, families will receive up to £2,000 extra to help cover the costs of the first year of a child's life. Because the test is now overall family income, the income of one-earner families is treated in the same way as two-earner families, and 90 per cent. of families will benefit from the new system.
    In recognising the pressures on families, I have decided on additional help for child care as part of the new system. To deal with a particular grievance of parents who work irregular hours or have disabled children, I have decided that support for child care costs should include help with approved child care in one's own home. Under the new tax credit system, a family on £35,000 a year with two children could receive child care help of as much as £50 a week.
    In return for that, we will also do everything to ensure parental responsibilities to children are met. Where there are lone parents under 18 who cannot live with their family, the policy is that, instead of independent tenancies, they will have supported housing that combines accommodation with counselling and help with child care. In the minority of cases where a parenting order has to be imposed, checks will be made to ensure that, as well as proper supervision, parents are meeting their children's basic practical needs. With these changes, I can now set a rate for the new child credit which, introduced in April next year, will give proper recognition of the costs of raising a child.
    588
    For all families with overall incomes of £50,000 or less, the child tax credit with child benefit will be £1,400 a year—or £26.50 a week—for the first child. This compares to just £11.05 in 1997. For those in the £50,000 to £58,000 range, minimum support is £800 a year, maximum support is £1,400.
    Our changes will mean that, from next April, mothers who wish to leave work and be with their children at home, but have found it financially difficult to do so will now find it financially easier. For single-earner families, more help is now available and for those on incomes between £43,000 and £58,000 help is now available for the first time—an essential part of a more family friendly tax and benefit system.
    And for 2 million of the poorest families in this country, child support—which was just £28 a week in 1997—will now be £54.25. That is for the first child, and it is a near doubling of support since then. Support for a two-child family will be £92.75. And because the child credit must ensure that the poorest families share in rising prosperity, our policy will be to raise these child rates at least in line with earnings for the rest of the Parliament.
    As we pursue our goals, all families will receive more support for bringing up their children. Families who need it most will receive most help when it is most needed. This is a policy for fairness to families throughout our country.
    I turn now to our public services. With debt and debt interest payments down, it has been possible, even with lower than expected corporate revenues, to maintain our three-year spending plans for hospitals, schools, transport and public services, and to respond to the challenges of foot and mouth in rural areas and, since 11 September, to meet the challenges at home and abroad while still meeting our fiscal rules and disciplines.
    Since 11 September, we have made provision of £50 million for domestic security responsibilities and, over the last year, £950 million for defence. We will continue to meet our responsibilities internationally and to the armed services of this country. In the last year, an additional £120 million has been allocated for the work that the Secretary of State for International Development does in providing emergency aid.
    This summer we will set spending plans for every Department until 2006 and, in the coming spending review, education will receive the priority to deliver further substantial improvements, not just in our schools but also in our universities and colleges. Having raised the share of education in our national income during the last Parliament, we are pledged to increase significantly the share of national income devoted to education over the course of this Parliament.
    In advance of the announcements in the spending review, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills is announcing today that, for this year, additional payments for investment will be made direct to every school in the country and every head teacher. For a typical school, total direct payments to secondary head teachers will rise from £98,000 last year to £114,000 this year. And payments to a typical primary school will rise from £33,700 last year to £39,300 this year—money that can be spent on the school's priorities, by the school and by the head teacher and the staff themselves.
    Overall levels of crime have fallen in the last five years, according to both the police recorded crime statistics and the British crime survey. But there is a serious problem

    589
    with levels of street crime and associated offences of violence. No kind of crime, and no level of crime, is acceptable. And it is not acceptable that repeat offenders are continually bailed or, when convicted, not given appropriate sentences through lack of prison places and secure accommodation for juveniles.
    For street crime, policing and counter-terrorism, £100 million more has been drawn down from the criminal justice reserve, and another £180 million on top of that is being allocated this year, including £110 million extra from the reserve.
    I now turn to the NHS. The fundamental long-term choice that our generation must make is whether the national consensus that existed for the last half century for an NHS freely accessible to all is to be renewed for the years ahead. What we decide will not only determine the condition of our public services but define the character of our country.
    The report by Derek Wanless states that the NHS needs, in support of reform and modernisation, a long-term sustainable financial framework, and it sets out the financial needs for the next two decades, starting with a five-year period of high and sustained growth and, once we have tackled decades of underinvestment, moving to lower rates of growth—4.4 to 5.6 per cent, then in the next five years 2.8 to 4 per cent., and then in the final five years 2.4 to 3.5 per cent. a year in real terms—for the three five-year periods after 2008.
    The NHS 10-year reform plan proposed the local devolution of power and, in time, 75 per cent. of NHS budgets, to primary care trusts; new national standards for treating cancer, heart and other diseases; a modern system for evaluating new drugs; a commission for health improvement, reporting on performance; proposed new contracts for consultants, family doctors and an agenda for change for nurses and other staff; and in partnership with the private sector, 71 major hospital developments are either completed or are now being planned and built.
    Reform and investment will bring booked appointments also for operations and are reducing maximum waiting times in stages from 18 months, then to 15, then to 12 and then six and three months. I said at the time of the pre-Budget report that the pre-condition of new resources was reform. And, in furtherance of the NHS plan, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will announce tomorrow for England the following: new financial incentives for hospital performance; greater freedom for high-performing hospitals and trusts; powers and resources devolved to front-line staff in primary care trusts; reform of social services care for the elderly; and a series of measures increasing choice for patients.
    In order to make sure that money invested yields the best results, for the first time in the history of the NHS the Health Secretary will enshrine in statute independent audit, independent inspection, and independent scrutiny of patient complaints—with a duty to account and report to the public on money spent and standards achieved.
    In considering reforms I have also considered the hypothecation of revenues to the NHS. But I have concluded that it would make the public services subject to the ups and downs of the economic cycle and unpredictable changes in revenues. And it might achieve the opposite of what its supporters and the NHS needs: a sound long-term and sustainable stream of funding.
    590
    It is right, however, to show where money is spent and the results achieved. In future an annual report to Parliament, prepared by the new independent auditor, will account for the money allocated to the NHS, where it has been spent and what the results of the expenditure have been. This will be accompanied by local reports stating, for each local community, the link between money spent and results attained.
    Everybody agrees—indeed, there is an all-party consensus—that in the years to come we, as a nation, will have to spend more on health care and the question is not whether we have to pay more but how we pay more. While we believe that the best provision is through general taxation, the alternatives are social insurance, private insurance, or charging where people would still pay but pay directly. There is no free way of increasing health service spending and the question for Britain today is whether a case has been made for moving to paying through social insurance, private insurance or charging.
    The Budget and the review's documents published today contain very detailed information on alternative systems of financing: funding by private insurance where, in the case of the USA, family premiums average around £100 a week and are set to rise next year on average by £13 a week, and because of its cost it is a system that insures only some of the people for some of their care; funding by social insurance whose narrower base for contributions means—in France, for example—the typical employer pays £60 a week: and charging for clinical services which also means patients paying rising bills for individual operations and treatments—basing our health care system on medical charges would, in my view, mean the sick paying more for being sick.
    There is another consideration as we look to the long term. With advanced technology and life-saving drugs, the cost of treating one individual falling ill can today run into tens of thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands, of pounds. Because none of us knows when costs could overwhelm our family budgets—if we had to pay privately—we seek to pool risks and, more than ever, it is important to have health coverage with the minimum of ifs, buts and small print, and exclusions from that insurance.
    So it is the Government's view not just that the NHS system of funding is the most equitable, but that a reformed NHS, by offering the most comprehensive insurance policy to meet the rising costs of medical advances, can give British people the greater security they want. Although meeting the challenges and costs of future health care does cost money, it is my hope that we can renew a shared national consensus around an NHS freely accessible at the point of need, paid for from taxation, not for its own sake but for the purpose of delivering for British people a better public service. It is therefore my duty to set out what we, as a nation, need to pay in tax to fund, for the long term, the health service that we want.
    Since 1997, by cutting debt, unemployment and waste, I have transferred £7 billion a year to the NHS and public services and I can announce that, in the year 2002–03, I am able to transfer on top of that an additional £1 billion through cutting debt and unemployment.
    Prudent management and economic stability and growth have also made it possible to spend an additional £5 billion more each year on the NHS. Rising costs of technology and rising expectations mean that, if we are to

    591
    put the NHS on a sustainable foundation for the long term, we as a nation will need to invest more than that. I know that as Chancellor I have not just to assure the British people that everything has been done to ensure prudent finances, but to ensure proper value for money, and to show that any tax paid is linked to the benefits received, and that it is fair.
    Having agreed NHS reforms, including a new audit system that will link the money paid to benefits received, and having also resolved after deliberation to exempt the elderly and vulnerable, I have decided that, for the year 2003–04, there will be a freeze of the non-pensioner income tax personal allowance and national insurance thresholds at £4,615.
    From April next year, there will be an additional 1 per cent. national insurance contribution from employers, employees and the self-employed on all earnings above £4,615. All other national insurance and income tax allowances will be indexed in line with inflation. Save for this 1 per cent. contribution, the ceiling of £30,420 remains in place and will be indexed in line with inflation to £30,940. But I believe it is right that when everyone—employees and employers—benefits from the insurance provided by the national health service, everyone who can should make a fair contribution.
    The two tax changes that I have announced will mean that a full-time earner on median income of £21,400 a year—£410 a week—will pay £3.70 a week: those on higher incomes will pay more, those on lower income less. Those on 150 per cent. of median income£32,100—will pay £5.75 a week. Those on 50 per cent. of median income—that is, £10,700—will pay £1.65 a week.
    Employers will contribute a similar amount per employee. Families with children will pay less than that because of the introduction at a cost of £2.5 billion of the child tax credit. For single-earner families from £35,000 to £50,000, currently excluded from the maximum children's tax credit, the 1 per cent. on national insurance will be reduced, or more than eliminated, because they as families with children receive up to £10 a week extra. After taking national insurance increases into account, a single-earner family on £21,400 with two children will be £3.90 a week better off. Taking national insurance and the child tax credit together, half of Britain's families with children will be better off as a result of the tax and benefit changes in the Budget.
    To budget effectively for our long-term spending plans, including our major commitments to the NHS, I have also to make major decisions about other taxes. I have to make this year's decision on duties on beer, spirits and wine: I have decided to freeze them. My decision on cigarettes is, for public health reasons, to go ahead with the annual inflation increase at a cost of 6p per packet of 20.
    Today all estates below £242,000 are not subject to inheritance tax. From today I am exempting all estates below £250,000, and 96 per cent. of estates will pay no tax.
    I have also to make a decision for this year for fuel duties. I said in the 2000 pre-Budget report that I would respond to rises in oil prices and, given the high and volatile oil price, I have decided to freeze fuel duties this year.
    I have also to make a decision on licences for cars, vans and lorries, and I will freeze them too.
    592
    The overall effect of the tax and other decisions I have made today is to raise net revenues by £6.1 billion in 2003–04, £7.6 billion in 2004–05 and £8.3 billion in 2005–06.
    I am now able to set the envelope for public spending commitments for the years to 2006. I propose to raise current public spending from £390 billion this year to £420 billion next year, to £444 billion in 2004–05 and £471 billion in 2005–06.
    I propose to raise our historically low levels of net public investment, which were at only 0.6 per cent. of national income in 1997, to 2 per cent. by 2005–06.
    Because of the modernisation programme we have agreed in health and social services, I am able to announce that resources will follow reform. Social services have been, for too long, a neglected part of the caring services, and to finance better care for the elderly and to reduce pressures on the NHS, I propose to raise the rate of real-terms growth of social services to 6 per cent. a year.
    Details will be given tomorrow on this and other changes by the Secretary of State for Health. Separate announcements will come for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
    In the last 20 years real-terms rises in UK health spending have averaged 3.6 per cent. a year. I propose to raise UK national health spending by twice as much every year, on average by 7.4 per cent. in real terms each year—an annual cash rise to the NHS of 10 per cent.
    But to put our health service on a secure long-term and sustainable footing, and to give the NHS the long-term security it needs, I propose—within our rules—not just a three-year financial settlement but a five-year settlement.
    With year-on-year rises, UK health spending will grow from this year from £65.4 billion to £72.1 billion, to £79.3 billion, to £87.2 billion, to £95.9 billion, and then to £105.6 billion in 2007–08—even after inflation, a 43 per cent. rise over five years, and, since 1997, a real-terms doubling in national health service spending.
    With the scale of long-term reform to be advanced tomorrow by the Secretary of State for Health matching the scale of long-term investment agreed today, we now have the best chance in a generation to secure our NHS, not just for a year or two but for the long term.
    UK health spending will rise from 6.7 per cent. of national income in 1997 and 7.7 per cent. this year to 8.7 per cent. by 2005–06 and to 9.4 per cent. by 2007–08—rises year on year well into the next Parliament.
    I have always said that our prudence was for a purpose. Last year we invested £2,370 for the average household in the NHS. By 2007–08 we will be investing £4,060 per household—after inflation, a 48 per cent. real-terms increase.
    We have made our choice. This is a Budget to make our NHS the best insurance policy in the world. The NHS is a British ideal, free at the point of need, for everyone, in every part of Britain. Fairness and enterprise together.
    I commend this Budget to the House.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Under Standing Order No. 51, the first motion, entitled "Provisional Collection of Taxes", must be decided without debate.

    Budget Statement

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

      (a) Rates of tobacco products duty (motion No. 2);

      (b) Vehicle excise duty (cars registered on or after 1st March 2001)(motion No. 14);

      (c) Vehicle excise duty (motorcycles) (motion No. 15)—[Mr. Gordon Brown.]

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

  Budget Resolutions

    AMENDMENT OF THE LAW
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    (1) That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance.
    (2) Subject to paragraph (3) below, this Resolution does not extend to the making of any amendment with respect to value added tax so as to provide—

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

    (b) for refunding an amount of tax;

    (c) for any relief, other than a relief that-

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

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

    (3) Paragraph (2) above does not exclude the making of amendments with respect to value added tax providing for relief on the acquisition from another member State of any goods in relation to which, if they were imported from a place outside the member States, relief would be given by an order under section 37 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994.— [Mr. Gordon Brown.]
    4.31 pm
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: May I begin by congratulating the Chancellor on delivering his Budget in his usual manner? As ever, what he omitted to tell the House is as instructive as his statement.
    I must start by welcoming one announcement: his taking up of a Conservative proposal that he has rubbished over the past two years on a Brit disc for commercial transport. We are always willing to welcome a sinner that repenteth, even if it is at the eleventh hour.
    However, there is a real issue here and things in the Red Book that he did not mention. First, this country is now running a deficit for the first time in four years. [Interruption.] Well, Labour Members have not read the Red Book; there is no question but that they do not know what they are talking about. The Chancellor did not mention that public investment dropped by El billion last year compared with his estimate at the time of the pre-Budget report. He promised a lot about manufacturing and said that it would return to growth, but he did not say that manufacturing output is forecast in the Red Book to contract this year—it states that
    "manufacturing productivity has fallen back"
    so those were empty comments from the Chancellor. Neither did he mention that, as the Red Book shows, Britain's export performance is falling behind yet again. Whereas in the Red Book world trade is set to grow by 2.25 per cent. this year, the Treasury figures show Britain's exports rising by only 1.75 per cent.
    The Chancellor did not bother to tell us any of that. That is why we will have to look very carefully at his proposals for corporation and capital gains tax, and his new research and development credit.
    Unlike the markets, the Chancellor's past record is a very good guide to his performance. This is the Chancellor who has turned small print into a fine art. Everyone on the Opposition Benches, and I hope, on the other side of the House, remembers his IR35 tax on the

    595
    self-employed, which he never announced, and his abolition of the married couples allowance, in respect of which he failed to tell anyone that there would be a year when all married couples received no tax relief at all. It is amazing to hear him criticise the tax system for not recognising children, when he was the one who abolished the last such recognition in earlier Budgets. We will study this Red Book very carefully. [Interruption.] One thing we do know is that the Chancellor— [Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. It is customary that the Leader of the Opposition's reply to the Budget statement is heard with the same respectful silence as that which is given to the Chancellor.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: After today's Budget, they are scared stiff about what will be reported in tomorrow's papers.
    One thing that we learned from the Chancellor today is that he has already broken one major election promise by putting up national insurance, which is a tax on income. He has previously said:
    "National insurance is a tax on ordinary families."
    Only 10 months ago, during the election, he and the Prime Minister assured the country that they were not going to raise national insurance. [Interruption.] Oh yes they did. At the last election, he denied as smears the charge that he would raise national insurance, but today he has raised £6 billion a year by adding 1 per cent. to national insurance for every employee and employer in Britain. This Government said that they would not raise income taxes at all—they do not like being reminded of that, but it is the truth—but everyone knows that this is a tax on income. The Chancellor has added a penny in the pound to income tax, and he has broken his promise to the British people.
    The Chancellor also claims today to have reduced corporation tax, but in fact his increase in national insurance contributions for employers is equivalent to a rise of 3 per cent. in corporation tax. That dwarfs everything else that he has previously done. Now, someone on average earnings will be £15 worse off every month, a nurse-consultant earning £34,000 will be £24 worse off every month, and a police inspector earning £37,000 will be £27 worse off every month. So much for the Chancellor's great help for all those employed in the public services who are trying hard. Frankly, after this no one will ever believe another word that he says.
    To listen to the Chancellor, one would think that this is the first time he has ever raised taxes. In fact, he has spent the past five years and six Budgets raising taxes, yet all the time public services are getting worse. He has simply opened people's wallets, while closing his own mind to change and reform. British people and British businesses are already paying £100 billion more a year in tax than they were in 1997, when Labour took over. Each of his first five Budgets raised taxes, save one. That was—surprise, surprise—the Budget before the last election. I wonder why?
    Every man, woman and child in this country is paying £1,600 more in tax since the Chancellor delivered his first Budget. He thought nothing of taxing pension savings by £25 billion, and he has hobbled British business with
    596
    £6 billion a year in extra taxes. Of course, the Labour party does not like hearing about the extra tax on pension savings because it is opposed to savings on pensions and always has been.
    Today's measures for business are very small compensation. They are like taking £10 from someone's wallet, giving a pound back and saying, "You should be grateful." Grateful for what? What do people have to show for all these tax increases? The Chancellor says that he needs to tax more and to spend more to make public services better, but violent crime and street crime are reaching epidemic proportions. Teacher vacancies doubled last year and truancy is rising. The trains have descended into chaos. Welfare bills are increasing faster than money is going into schools and hospitals, and they will continue to do so even after today. Perhaps the Prime Minister does not remember his promise to cut the bills of social failure to pay for rises in health and education spending. He has not cut them.
    All that is bad enough, but the saddest and most acute failure is the state of our national health service. In the past five years, the Chancellor has increased NHS spending by almost a third, so where has all the money gone? Waiting lists are rising, accident and emergency waits have grown longer and hospital beds are blocked because care home beds have been lost. Regardless of what he announced today, in terms of that loss the real problem is, as we have heard, the extra regulation that he has imposed on care homes.
    The odds of surviving cancer in Britain are among the worst in Europe. Worst of all, the Government's failure is forcing patients to go to other countries for treatment. Their health service is letting people down, especially the elderly and the vulnerable.
    Last year, as a result of the Chancellor's mismanagement, 250,000 patients had to pay for their operations out of their own pockets. More people than ever before have had to do that under this Government. People should not have to use their life savings—[Interruption.] No, they should not have to use their life savings to save their own lives, regardless of what the Chancellor says. We had hoped for a little humility and, better still, a more imaginative approach to the problems of the NHS, but today his Budget missed that opportunity.
    All the right hon. Gentleman is offering is more of the same—more talk, more tax—but that will not save the NHS from failure. He failed to recognise that although Scotland spends as much as Australia and Holland on health and that Wales and Northern Ireland spend as much as France, the treatment of patients here is far worse. Waiting times are increasing and all the Chancellor can suggest is more tax and no change.
    Britain is further away from the ideals of the NHS than at any other time in the history of the health service. The NHS should, as we all agree, offer people the best treatment, regardless of their ability to pay. The Chancellor's NHS, however, does not do that. It is a two-tier service, and more people pay for their treatment than ever before.
    No other advanced country runs its health service the way we do. If the Chancellor had bothered to visit some other countries, he might have seen that for himself. Germany has no national waiting list and Danish patients have a legal right to treatment within four weeks of seeing

    597
    their general practitioner. The Chancellor cannot be bothered to go to such countries; we have, and he should read what we have written about the matter.
    Britain needs to spend more on the health service, but it is not enough to spend money to keep the NHS running the way it is today. By raising all the money that it will ever need simply from higher and higher taxes will not give this country the standard it has a right to expect. The NHS needs change as much as it needs money. All the people who work in the health service know that and they have told the Chancellor that. The public know that and the Conservative party knows that. The only person who does not know that is the Chancellor.
    The right hon. Gentleman has closed his mind to the idea that he could learn anything from those beyond the channel tunnel. He commissioned Derek Wanless—oh yes, the Wanless report—to conduct a study of future health care and the financing of health plans, but he had already told him what to say. The Chancellor has finally seen fit to publish that report today, on precisely the same day that he announces his conclusions. He said, "We must have a national debate on the NHS." Apparently, that opened at 9.30 this morning and closed at 3.30 this afternoon. Perhaps he can tell us whether that debate extended as far as 10 Downing street, which I doubt; or did it exist only in the mirror of his home at 11 Downing street?
    There is no third way, only one way—the Chancellor's way—and today we know what that amounts to: more talk, more taxes and more failure. He not only refuses to take lessons from abroad about how to make public services better, but refuses to acknowledge that competitor nations are lowering their taxes at a time when he is raising ours. That is why Budget day is the only day on which Labour MPs really smile, because it lets them do the only thing they enjoy—raising taxes.
    Some people will like the Chancellor's Budget, but they are all sitting on the Labour Benches. We can see them loving every minute of it. Countless millions of British people will end up paying for it by using public services that are getting worse and by paying higher taxes. He is planning to spend public money faster than the nation can earn it over the next four years. The fact is that not only has he raised taxes in his first five Budgets and again today, but now taxes will go up next year, the year after that and the year after that. The truth is simple: the sun goes down, the tide goes out, and Labour raises taxes. British people deserve much better. They deserve better than the increase of nearly £300 in council tax that the Chancellor has imposed on them. They deserve far better than his proposals, which add up to more talk, more tax and more failure.
    The Chancellor's record speaks more eloquently than his rhetoric ever can. We always know where we are with one of his Budgets. He never listens and he never learns. He centralises everything. Civil servants, administrators and public service workers know that the way to get on is to follow orders from Whitehall rather than to trust their own judgment. That is why they are demoralised and leaving in droves. That is why so much of the money that has been taken in tax over the past five years never gets to where it is meant to go. That is why billions of pounds are wasted and left unspent each year. Through his public service agreements, the Chancellor tries to be the head teacher of every school, the manager of every hospital and the desk sergeant in every police station.
    598
    Through his complicated tax credits, the Chancellor wants to tell every family how to live their lives. More complication is proposed today. Many children will not get any of his tax credit because of the complicated forms that he insists on making them fill out. That is a further waste of their time.
    The Chancellor thinks that life would be so much better if we all lived our lives like he does. That is why his whole agenda of reform begins and ends at his office. As early as March 1998 he promised:
    "Investment and reform go hand in hand."—[Official Report, 17 March 1998; Vol. 308. c. 1097.]
    But he did not reform; he centralised. In March 2000, he said that
    "more resources must mean more reform and modernisation".
    There is no reform, only centralisation. At the time of his pre-Budget report last November, he said:
    "There will not be one penny more until we get changes to let us make reforms."
    And today we have had his great soundbite "enterprise and fairness". But no one believes him any more. No one will ever believe him, because saying the words does not make them true.
    The Chancellor has centralised our services and closed his mind to all ideas except his own. He will not let anybody else try a different formula or idea. "Investment and reform" has just become old-style tax and spend once more, and, one way or another, everyone in the country will pay the price. They are paying for more talk, more tax and more failure. Even after his announcements today, the corporate tax burden on British business—something that he did not want to tell us about—is among the highest of our industrial competitors, which threatens jobs.
    More complicated tax structures are putting up taxes at the very moment when other countries in Europe are reducing theirs. Over the last five years, Britain's ability to compete in the world has slumped, as we will find in the Red Book. What the Chancellor did not say is that our productivity growth used to be faster than that of the United States; now it is slower. Five years after Labour came to power, the USA is overtaking us again.
    UK businesses groan under more and more regulations, to the point at which some spend as much as one and a half working days each week filling in forms. What the Chancellor also did not tell us—among myriad other things—is that our share of world exports has fallen. Not only has our balance of trade been in deficit every month for the last four years, but it has actually been widening in 2001.
    Over the past five years, this Chancellor has also punished people as they try to prepare for their retirement. He did not want to tell us too much about what he has done, but Conservative Members thought he had a cheek to talk today about occupational pensions, when he is the one who raided them with a tax of £5 billion a year. More than a third of our largest companies have closed their final salary schemes to new members, thanks to the measures that he introduced.
    The stakeholder pension is also a mess. Only one in 10 of those whom the Chancellor targeted has taken it up. Millions will therefore be disappointed that he has failed to abolish the annuities rule. They will have absolutely no flexibility in retirement and they will be punished twice.

    599
    The Chancellor also failed to inform us that the Red Book shows that family income put aside for savings has collapsed since 1997 from 9.5 per cent. to a projected 3.75 per cent. in 2002. Savings are collapsing and people's futures are being destroyed by a Chancellor who does not care. Next year, two out of every five families in Britain will depend on means-tested benefits.
    More talk and more tax will not prepare this country for the challenges that lie ahead. Today people are more worried about their prospects for retirement than they have ever been before.
    The Chancellor would have us believe that raising taxes is the same as reforming public services. If that is so, why have the Government both raised taxes and reduced the quality of our public services? Our taxes continue to rise, and he is undoing the things on which business success is built. The money to pay for quality public services depends on successful business. Not only will his course of action not work, but it is ultimately self-defeating. In his hands, "investment and reform" has become Labour-speak for old-style tax and spend.
    So what is new Labour for? When the history of this Government is written, the dominant theme will be the unprecedented opportunities that they wasted. They had it all: the best economic legacy ever left by a predecessor; massive Commons majorities; the trust of the British people; the promise of reform; and a mandate for change. Yet in the space of five years and six Budgets, they have frittered it all away.
    If the Chancellor had listened to the people, if he had visited other countries and if he had opened his mind to change, as we have, this could have been a very different Budget—one that offered genuine hope to the millions who rely on the NHS and need it to improve. Instead, his closed mind and refusal to change have condemned the British people to second-class public services. They deserve better.
    4.53 pm
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: I begin by congratulating the Chancellor—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to pause for a moment. Will right hon. and hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber please do so quickly and quietly?
    Mr. Kennedy: I begin by congratulating the Chancellor on his characteristically lucid and commendably brisk presentation of his Budget statement, in contrast to the speech that we just heard. I say unequivocally on behalf of Liberal Democrat Members that there is a great deal in the Budget to welcome, and that we should say so. There is a clarity about its proposals. I was not sure where, if anywhere, the clarity lay in relation to the Conservative party's positioning on these matters.
    As we said during Prime Minister's Question Time earlier, we have long argued for increased investment in the health service and in public services generally. It would therefore be churlish not to welcome the progress
    600
    that has been made. The Chancellor is investing in services that urgently need it; that is a genuine breakthrough. However, we can point out that the Liberal Democrats made the case for that approach in two general election campaigns. We made honest and transparent tax proposals—contrary to the Prime Minister's teasing earlier.
    Many authoritative voices in the country, leaving aside those that are party political, say that if some of the investment had been raised honestly since 1997, and the funding had been going in for five years, some of the problems that the Chancellor mentioned today would have been ameliorated much earlier.
    Let us be truthful. Of course, the increase in funding for the health service will be welcome, but for many patients it is up to five years too late. Five years of sustained investment would have been better than two years of spin and double and treble counting, following two to three years of sticking to Conservative spending constraints.
    The Chancellor said that there was "no free way" of investing in the health service. That reminded me of a phrase that many Liberal Democrat candidates used every hour of the day, every day of the week during the general election campaign last year: "You can't get something for nothing."
    Although we welcome the convert to the cause, I have searched in vain for Labour party proposals in the general election campaign for the taxation increases. I examined the Labour manifesto, but no. I watched the launch of the Labour manifesto. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I watched the television interviews with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I looked at the election rallies. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I watched the Labour party election broadcasts. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I looked at the morning press conferences. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] By Jove, they kept it quiet.
    The debate on funding for the health service cannot end with the Chancellor's statement this afternoon. He has expressed his professional and intellectual misgivings about specific earmarked taxation for the health service. I believe that that debate should be revisited across the party political spectrum. We cannot take this afternoon's statement as the last word on the matter. I hope that the Conservative party will also embrace the debate, although judging by Conservative Members' current utterances, they seem psychologically incapable of making such a worthwhile contribution to a big national debate.
    If we assume that the money will at last go to the health service, what should the priorities be? We need to examine the detail of the statement of the Secretary of State for Health, but the priorities should be set by doctors and nurses. The Chancellor has made a welcome suggestion that he will ensure that the money and the decision making reach local level. Given the Administration's five-year track record, that will take a shift in the culture and mindset of those in and around Whitehall, both elected politicians and their much-vaunted political advisers. We will keep a close eye on that. We need more power locally and more devolution of budgets to go with it.
    The response of the leader of the Conservative party was deeply ironic. We got to know each other when the right hon. Gentleman was first elected and we spent many a long night debating the Maastricht treaty. Now he

    601
    suggests that the Government should go round continental Europe to appreciate how well things are done there. If it had been left to him at the time of the Maastricht process, we would not even be part of the European Union, never mind learning anything from it. We need resources, and the training and recruitment for the doctors and nurses whom we urgently need should start now.
    On the social services side of the equation, we also need urgent priority to be given to the haemorrhaging in the residential care homes sector. There is not a Member of any party who cannot cite chapter and verse the problems locally: the lack of funding locally; the insufficient provision locally; and the accompanying human misery for families. Dealing with those problems must be an absolute policy priority.
    On health, there is the preventive agenda. I wrote down what the leader of the Conservatives said and, again, they seem to be arguing that there is no point in spending all this money because it will fail. Theirs is a calculated agenda for failure for the national health service, despite the extra funding, and the right hon. Gentleman cites Scotland in that respect. He and I are both Scots. I am not always the best advertisement in lifestyle terms, but we must both acknowledge that the structures of health care delivery in Scotland are not the only providers of discouraging indices—the lifestyle of many Scots cannot be divorced from those. Although we can blame the Chancellor for many things, we cannot necessarily blame him for that reality, as he well knows. [Interruption.] All right, we have been too generous. If in doubt, blame the Chancellor. The Prime Minister does it all the time.
    There was one crucial issue on which the Chancellor chose not to dwell. He made only a teasing reference to the euro, rather than displaying leadership on it. As he well knows, the Liberal Democrats have long argued that it is high time we set a proper timetable for getting this country, post-referendum, into the single European currency. The reason why we must do so is precisely that to which the Chancellor and, indeed, the Conservative leader referred—the weakness of the manufacturing base caused by the strength of the pound.
    One day we have got to win a referendum, but if we at least lay down clear guidelines and a timetable, that in itself, with the Government expressing an aspiration, would do much to reduce the value of sterling in the interim and stop the haemorrhaging of jobs right across the manufacturing sector.
    We are very disappointed with the failure to show leadership and the conflicting smoke signals that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister all too often give out on that issue, but the Conservatives cannot with any intellectual or political rigour decry the decline in our manufacturing base while saying that they will positively deny the people a referendum and not join the euro at all. On that basis and policy prescription, the Conservatives cannot offer anything approaching a solution to the problems that have so badly afflicted the manufacturing sector.
    There are modest, but what appear to be welcome, changes for the small business sector, although the burden of bureaucracy on so many of our small businesses remains excessive. Once we have studied in more detail the proposals put before us by the Chancellor, we must see whether more can be done to advance the argument still further in the interests of the small business community.
    602
    The Chancellor referred to pensions. Many of those who are expert in the field agree that his credits, his innovations and his developments Budget by Budget have produced a fiendishly complicated system. He has added to that complication again today, although the support that he is suggesting may in itself be welcome. Many pensioners find that, because of the sheer complexity, they do not access or take up the help that could otherwise be at their disposal. We shall have to look with great care at what has been suggested this afternoon, because it seems to add further complication to the system.
    Had the Chancellor announced, for most pensioners, an extra £5 on the basic pension for the over-75s and an extra £10 for those over 80, that would have been fairer, more effective and less complicated. It would have done more to help those most in need, particularly at the higher end of the age spectrum.
    This would have been a really good Budget five years ago. That does not stop it being, in many respects, a welcome Budget now, but the Government have lost a lot of credibility and opportunity in the intervening five years. There have been too many broken promises, too many misleading targets, too much double or treble counting and too much spin, and not enough delivery and investment where the public really wanted it.
    Let us welcome what we have so far. This is an extremely significant moment in the history of the last five years of British politics, because we now have a clear recognition by the Government that there should be a more transparent, honest and fairly funded approach to tax policy so that people can see that their priorities are being served as a result. A clear ideological divide has now opened up in British politics between the Government and the Liberal Democrats on one side, and the incoherence of the Conservatives on the other. If there is one issue on which we find ourselves in agreement across the Floor of the House, it is this. The Chancellor talks about Beveridge. It was a Liberal set of ideas, principles and values, which a Labour Government proceeded to implement, that gave us the basis of the welfare state and the health service. We are seeing something similar happening with some of the Chancellor's announcements today. Those of us who do not have the in-built advantages enjoyed by both the other parties in this place and outside it—some of us who were none the less willing, over several elections, to tell the story as we saw it—are right today to claim some of the credit for the progress now being achieved.
    5.7 pm
    Mr. Ken Purchase: May I start by congratulating the Chancellor on a truly remarkable Budget? His announcements on the national health service, although widely trailed, are none the less breathtaking in their scope and vision. Talk of opportunities wasted is a travesty of the truth. In what must have been the dullest and most inept response to a Budget made in this place for many years, the Leader of the Opposition never really got to grips with the detail, generality and politics of this extremely important Budget.
    The Chancellor and the Government deserve our congratulations on their management of macro-economic policy. It is the best report that the House has heard in many years, particularly given the downturn in world trade that has been with us for a considerable time.

    603
    The Chancellor referred to the difficulties, particularly in the high-tech sector in the United States, which then thread their way through the world.
    Inflation is the lowest that we can recall; interest rates are now converging—my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will not be pleased to hear—with European rates; unemployment is now becoming manageable and making a serious contribution, in that we no longer have to meet considerable unemployment benefits; growth is outstripping that of the G7 generally; and we have stability that has not been matched for a long time.
    The Chancellor tells us that growth in the G7 was 1 per cent. World trade has been down and manufacturing worldwide is down, and that is the background to the remarkable figures that the Chancellor has presented to us today. On his predictions of 2.25 per cent. to 2.75 per cent. growth, he reports 2.2 per cent. actual growth, against the doom and gloom in all the financial papers.
    David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that it was simplistic in the extreme for the leader of the Liberal Democrats to link the undoubted difficulties of the manufacturing sector to the value of the pound when the great proportion of its problems have been caused by worldwide recession?
    Mr. Purchase: My hon. Friend may know my position on the question of the euro, and I shall not fall for that silly little trap that he has set for me.
    Let me continue in the same vein. The predictions of the financial press, which was filled with doom and gloom, have been exceeded. The Chancellor has been pessimistic and cautious in his predictions, but, none the less, to report actual growth of 2.2 per cent. in this circumstance is truly remarkable. The current forecast for the G7 is 1.6 per cent., and, for the UK, 2.5 per cent., which, again, is cautious. Given the most recent figures from America, where hope of a recovery is rising—with a genuine baseline from which to work and to develop the American economy, notwithstanding its disgraceful decision to increase and raise tariff barriers against steel products—there seems a real possibility that the American economy will pick up. Just as it is true that if America sneezes the world catches a cold, equally, if America is feeling well, the rest of us feel a darned sight better, too. That seems to give real hope.
    The return of growth to the manufacturing sector is a most important signal. As someone representing a west midlands seat, I witnessed and was part of the horror of the 1980s, when, in a very short time, 400,000 manufacturing jobs were lost. It has been an increasing worry that, under my party's Government and their policies, which have been more sensitive to manufacturing than those pursued by the early Conservative Government in the 1980s, the manufacturing sector has still been haemorrhaging jobs. It is therefore welcome to see a sign that manufacturing is returning to growth. It must be said that everything that we hope for in public services is clearly predicated on improving our performance in terms of what we can export abroad and how we pay our way. An improving manufacturing output—I mean output, not just productivity—is at the root of being able to finance the improvements that we desperately want.
    604
    Many of the fiscal results that the Chancellor was telling us were well trailed and well understood, but they are worth repeating to congratulate the Chancellor on his performance. Debt has been reduced massively. Tax receipts are down at the same time, unfortunately, but an underlying strength in our economy has meant that we have continued to deal effectively with the mountain of debt with which this country has been burdened for many years.
    In fact, £21 billion of debt has been repaid, bringing the proportion down from 44 per cent. to 31 per cent. of national income. Interest payments are down to £22 billion and, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said, that leaves room for improvement in our public services without the need for corresponding increases in taxation. A surplus is predicted, not a deficit, and debt as a percentage of total national income is expected to remain stable. That is worth noting. The Chancellor has presented a set of figures that, in the present circumstances of world trade and economic conditions, amounts to a truly remarkable report.
    I turn now to supply-side measures. I have a continuing concern about education. There is no doubt that investment has gone into education, and that our primary schools have improved, according to the measures that were set for them. However, my concern is that we place too much emphasis on the training element of school life, at the expense of education.
    It remains my belief that our first and most important duty to the generation of young people in our charge is to ensure that their education—in the English language and in literature, in the sciences and mathematics—is first class. What my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has announced today in respect of instilling more enterprise in schools' ideas needs careful thought, especially with regard to delivery. Teachers already complain—rightly, and with some justification—that there is little room left in the curriculum for yet more new measures, especially when those measures do not directly improve our young people's educational standards. That is especially important in connection with the generation now in secondary schools.
    My right hon. Friend the Chancellor stated that 55 per cent. of all jobs—10 million jobs in total—are now in the small and medium-sized enterprise sector. Corporation tax is to be reduced by 1 per cent., and that is a very welcome measure.
    Last week, I met a number of clothing manufacturers in my constituency of Wolverhampton. They accept that useful measures have been taken, but they complain that the requirements on employers to implement social legislation are a considerable burden. They claim that meeting those requirements takes them away from producing economically and efficiently, and they are looking for a reduction in that administrative burden.
    However, I believe that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has met those complaints, at least in part, with the new measures that he has announced, and especially with the changes in respect of VAT. The VAT regime has been a nightmare for small companies, especially for those without administrative back up. In such cases, the employer—usually the owner of the company—has to deal with all the administration of tax and VAT, and often has to burn the midnight oil to get the returns in on time.

    605
    People in that situation will be pleased that the charges for late returns are to be dropped, but the simplification of the VAT regime will be widely welcomed by small companies. My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on his response to the problems experienced by many small companies.
    The new tax credits available for investment in research and development by large companies are clearly to be welcomed. There is no question in my mind but that the beginning of the end for British manufacturing was evident in the 1960s and 1970s—and certainly in the 1980s—when investment in research and development and blue-skies research plummeted.
    Our universities were stripped of any incentive to carry on with the vital work of research and development. As a result, there were fewer of the inventions that need to be made before innovations and developed products can be brought to market. In the absence of new ideas, British industry as a whole was failing to compete. As investment in research fell away, we became unable—except in a very few instances—to claim that we had world-class companies.
    That is now starting to change. The British have always been good at innovation—at invention, rather. I should not have got those two words mixed up, should I? The British have been very good at invention, but have failed to bring their products to market. Now, however, we are seeing the process involved in innovation more clearly, which will enable us to compete on a much stronger basis in world markets.
    It worries me that the British share of export markets is falling, however slightly it may be falling. Imports must be paid for by exports. We can fill a gap with national wealth for a time, but ultimately imports must be balanced by exports, and exporting must be the nation's forte.
    I want to say something about the health service in particular. It is surely right that it is receiving record investment, and also right that the Chancellor recognises that attracting and retaining staff is a critical—if not the most critical—element of a good strong health service.
    I have experience of my own health authority, and I served on health boards and other such bodies in various capacities for nearly 30 years. I believe that, given the pace of change demanded by health service workers, targets must be set with current working practices very much in mind. People need a period of calm, a period of stability, a period during which they can deal with the enormous changes that we have asked them to make over the past few years. That will help them to settle into a better routine, and to understand their jobs better. It will help us to retain vital staff, and will ultimately attract more people into the health professions.
    I hope that the same message, about the provision of time in which people can settle down, will be conveyed to those in education, particularly further education. Good lecturers are leaving because the rate of change, and the amount of intervention in teaching practices, has become more than they can cope with. They feel that they are failing their students by having to deal with so much administration rather than dealing directly with teaching. I think that we are now learning the lessons—we must, if we are to improve our public services.
    I applaud the Chancellor's decision to deal with stamp duty. I congratulate him on opting for what I consider to be a far better way of flattening and cooling the hottest
    606
    parts of the property market than a general increase in interest rates, which would hurt those on the first and second rungs of the housing ladder. I also welcome the lowering of small firms' corporation tax to zero for the first 10,000 of profit, which will be very helpful.
    Let me now say something about the working families tax credit, and the general principle of tax credits for those in work. I was among the sternest critics of the 1970–74 Heath Government when they introduced family income supplement. I felt that, in general, it would he seen as a substitute for low pay and would encourage employers to keep workers on low pay, knowing that the state would step in and act as a wage payer. I am still concerned about our system of tax credits. Employers are tending to rely on state intervention to make up wages that should really be paid for by efficient, effective, economic working—smart working, rather than old-fashioned working. The advent of the minimum wage and this week's welcome increase have taken the edge off my reservations, but having nailed our colours to the mast of tax credits, which are generally welcome, we should keep our eye on them.
    Overall, this is as good a Budget as the House and I have heard for many years, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor deserves congratulations from us all.
    5.25 pm
    Mr. John Redwood: I have declared my interests in the register.
    I am glad that Government Members like the Budget. We are told that it is billed as an honest Budget, because the present Chancellor for the first time openly confesses to raising taxes. Of course, Labour Members should have liked all his previous Budgets too, because they have all been about raising tax after tax. More than £100 billion of extra taxation is being raised this year compared with the starting point five years ago—that is about £2,000 annually from every man, woman and child in the country. That is a colossal sum.
    Quite a bit of that money has gone into public services, but the public are asking how so much money can be taken away from them to so little effect. My constituents ask why there are no more policemen on the beat—indeed, they think that there are fewer now than there were five years ago. They ask why waiting times and waiting lists for the local hospital are often more difficult to negotiate and longer than they were five years ago, and why there are not more beds open in the local hospital. In fact, there are fewer beds open in the local hospital. My constituents ask why local schools find it difficult to recruit and retain teachers, and why teaching morale is so low. The problem is not only all the instructions and directives from the Department for Education and Skills, but one of money, especially in areas such as mine.
    The mystery that the British public want resolved is how so much money can be taken off them in Budget after Budget to so little effect. During this year's lengthy Budget debate, we must explore whether any better results might conceivably arise from the forthcoming big surge in spending than have arisen from the colossal increases in taxes and spending of the past five years.
    One reason why there has been so little benefit from so much increased spending is the Government's choice of priorities. Had the money been spent on more nurses, doctors, teachers and policemen in my constituency and others, we might have been a little happier; instead, those

    607
    do not appear to be the priorities that apply when the Budget measures announced are implemented. We read the headline announcements of various extra sums of money, but then we see the money being spent on other things.
    The health service has had to announce that there are now more administrators in the NHS than there are beds serving patients. In the education service, more circulars than ever before are being sent out by the Department for Education and Skills, but they do not appear to be resolving problems of teacher morale and pay in hotspots throughout the country.
    Mr. Tom Harris: I am surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman's commitment to raising taxes to spend on the health service. Does he remember writing that the NHS was
    "a bureaucratic monster that cannot be tamed",
    and that the principle of charging should be extended to
    "create a national health insurance scheme separate from the tax system."?
    Are those still his views and are they accurately reflected within the shadow Cabinet?
    Mr. Redwood: I am delighted to be reminded of some sensible remarks I made some years ago. If he has been following the debate, the hon. Gentleman will know that my current view and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench is that we must review the whole question because there must be both a better way to spend the considerable sums of public money now committed to the NHS, and a better way to channel in more money from outside.
    We think that a great deal of private money can be brought into health care in general by backing choice and giving people more opportunities. We think that health service money could be much better spent by devolving power and authority to those in hospitals and doctors' surgeries who daily have to make difficult decisions when dealing with patients than by spending so much on the army of administrators, many of whom stand well back from the action in the surgery or hospital ward. We therefore need reform. The reforms proposed by Her Majesty's Government will not be nearly big enough to deal with the problem. Indeed, I would go further and say that, from what we have heard today, the problem will be exacerbated.
    Rob Marris: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Redwood: If I can make my point, I will give way. The problem will be exacerbated by the Chancellor's proposals, which may be fleshed out a little tomorrow by the Secretary of State for Health.
    We are told that the main reform will be a new army of auditors ticking bits of paper and inspecting forms to see whether every penny and every pound that the doctor or nurse is spending is well spent. I dread to think what the health service will look like if, on top of the 200,000-odd administrators we already have, and all the internal and external auditors, we have a beefed-up audit function, perhaps intervening day by day or hour by hour.
    608
    That would not be a productive way of spending the money. I suspect that it could even get in the way of patient care. The Government should learn to back off a little, to decentralise a bit, to start to trust some of the people who are running the service. If they do not trust the people running the service, they should get rid of them and appoint people whom they do trust.
    Mr. Gregory Barker: Has my right hon. Friend ever met a nurse, doctor or consultant who said that what their hospital needed was more auditors?
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend makes a strong point. He is correct. Cuts are sometimes made at the end of the year, even under this Government, because they discover that their hospitals do not have enough money. The cuts always seem to be in patient care. They never seem to be in paper clips, bits of paper and administration, which is perhaps where they should look.
    Mr. Mark Hendrick: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the audit process is necessary to establish whether we can get value for money? His party peddles the mythology that the health service and other services are getting worse. Is it not necessary to show the facts, instead of living off the anecdotes that he puts over?
    Mr. Redwood: I have not been giving anecdotes but describing the day-by-day experience of my constituents as patients, or friends or relatives of patients, and, more importantly, the experience of the nurses and doctors who work under great pressure at the local hospital and the local surgery, who tell me that the problem is a shortage of nurses, doctors and bed spaces, not a shortage of auditors, administrators, paper clips and bits of paper.
    Of course, there needs to be audit. I had assumed after five years of a Labour Government that satisfactory audit arrangements were in place. Indeed, I thought that the Conservatives had left satisfactory audit arrangements in place. If they are not satisfactory, they should be revised and changed, but I warn the Government against a massive expansion of the audit function in the belief that that will automatically improve the service on which the money is spent. The reason why money is being badly spent is because the system is top-heavy. It still has too much bureaucracy, too many administrators—more than when the Conservatives left office by quite a large margin. The Government need to allow more local control by a few good managers in each locality.
    Gareth Thomas: Can we take it therefore that the right hon. Gentleman now regrets the implementation of the internal market, which his Government introduced, which was responsible for a huge mushrooming of unnecessary government, and which this Government have abolished?
    Mr. Redwood: I liked the idea of GP fundholding. One of the good things about it was that we introduced it in a permissive way. We did not say to every GP on day one, "You must be GP fundholders." We said, "If you would like it, this is extra freedom you can use." We discovered after quiet beginnings, with an awful lot of opposition from Labour, that a lot of GPs signed up and found that it was extremely good for them and their patients. It is a

    609
    great pity that many of the freedoms that GPs enjoyed have been taken away. They have been put under a much bigger bureaucracy in the new primary care trusts that are emerging.
    The hon. Gentleman should not hate choice so much. I want the NHS to offer far more choice to the people who need to use it: we the taxpayers, the patients or potential patients. It would make so much difference to the NHS if people had real choice about which doctor, surgery or consultant they went to, when and where they could have their operation, and proper advice and help about the range of options available.
    Because the system is so short of medical and clinical capacity, and because it is so centrally driven by Ministers and their bureaucratic supporters, we do not have that choice and freedom, which I am sure my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition would love to extend to people. It may emerge in one form or another from the policy review that is under way in the Conservative party.
    One of the things that this country needs is a big injection of choice, enterprise and private capital into a range of public services. That can be even better illustrated in transport than in health. This Government have proposed a much delayed and over-inflated plan to invest—they call it investment, although a lot of it is spending and not true investment—£180 billion over 10 years in the transport industries. They have of course left out the main way of getting around the country—by motor vehicle—because that is handled by the private sector and there will be massive investment in that industry as people conclude that, given difficulties on parts of the transport system in which there is much more public involvement or public investment, the car is the best way to travel.
    Within that £180 billion, the Government are aiming only for some £55 billion of private capital. That is a tiny sum compared with, say, the £180 billion that the British public are likely to spend on new cars alone over the same period. It is a poverty of expectations, but probably realistic, or even a little optimistic, given the way in which the Government are handling the transport industries.
    Insisting on putting the main rail-owning company into administration will put people off producing private investment for the rail industry. Insisting on going through four or five years of rows with the Mayor of London and terribly convoluted studies on how we might get private capital into the tube, and coming up in the end with a scheme that lumbers the taxpayer with enormous risks while raising only about £4 billion of private capital, will make it a struggle even to get £55 billion of private capital over 10 years for all the transport industries.
    If the Government were prepared to be a little more open and to secure proper private involvement, with some choice and freedom, in the railway and tube system, we could secure many more billions of pounds of capital investment without the same requirement on the taxpayer—estimated in the 10-year plan at more than £120 billion, and likely to spiral well above that given the way in which the Government bungle their handling of the transport industries.
    The Government's public spending plans have already been gravely damaged by putting Railtrack into administration. A few hundred million pounds would probably have got the Government through the financing problem that Railtrack brought to their attention, but they
    610
    decided to put that profitable company into administration. As a result, we have a bill for several billion pounds, and we still have not got to the end of the matter, as we do not know when Railtrack will come out of administration.
    This Budget should have addressed that central problem, but we know that the Chancellor is at loggerheads with the Transport Secretary. He must be deeply embarrassed by the damage that the Transport Secretary has done to relationships with the private sector, the City of London and the people who are likely to produce the investment. We know that the Chancellor has had to keep quiet about that massive area of public-private investment, which is crucial to our country's future. Given how his colleague the Transport Secretary has handled the transport industries, the Chancellor has had to be pessimistic about how much strain the private sector can take.
    I urge the Government to put that right and to revisit all their transport plans with a view to aiming for, say, £100 billion of private investment. That is a perfectly realistic target if all the main companies involved are in the private sector, and they are seen to be fairly regulated—not over-regulated—and to have some support and sympathy from a Government who realise that private companies are the best way to get the trains on the move again, the tube sorted out and the transport industries operating much more smoothly.
    It is noticeable that where an industry is largely unencumbered by Government ownership or specific Government involvement—the private motor vehicle industry, the vans, cars and lorries—there is massive investment. No one has to debate in this place how we would make good the investment shortfall in that industry. We do not have day-long debates on how we can deal with lorry, car or van shortages for local enterprises. Yet owing to regulation—and, now, public ownership of the main Railtrack enterprise—we must debate how to deal with the shortage of freight wagons and track for them to run on.
    The Government should understand the history of the railways. All capital for the rail network in the 19th century was raised in the private markets. The rail industry expanded massively throughout the 19th century, and into the 20th century, on the back of private capital. As soon as it faced serious opposition from the motor vehicle, the Government took it under regulatory control and subsequently nationalised it, and then it was all downhill to the point when it was privatised. There was a massive slide in its use and share of the market, and there have been great difficulties in financing and investing in it. As soon as it was privatised, the trends reversed. We saw a 25 per cent. growth in passenger usage and a. 30 per cent. increase in freight. We saw the beginnings of a big investment revival and then the Government, out of pig-headed ideology, decided that that was not allowed. They now have a big black hole in the middle of their Budget plans.
    The Budget should address the central point that if we want, as we surely do, much more investment in health, transport and several other areas where the public sector dominates or has a big influence, we need to relax the controls more. We need to be more inviting to the private sector and allow it to play a bigger part. The difference in health spending between this country and other advanced countries is far more marked in the amount of private money spent than in the amount of public money spent.

    611
    I am the first to defend the proposition that if people are ill and need free care, that is their right under the pledge of the NHS. They, or other people, pay enough in tax, and I would not wish to take that right away from anybody. If people need care, it should be available free at the point of use. However, why stop people using their own money if they want different types of care to be made available and why not give them some encouragement for that? The Labour party is immensely hostile to the idea that people might wish to spend more of their own money in that way, and to any scheme that might promote or encourage that, albeit at a considerably lower cost to the taxpayer than if those people required all their care to be provided by a completely publicly financed system.
    Mr. Tom Harris: The right hon. Gentleman sets great store by the need to increase private investment in the NHS. Can he not welcome, in a bipartisan spirit, the huge increase that the Chancellor has announced for the NHS in the next five years, which represents a 100 per cent. increase since 1997? Surely his party would welcome that. Will he take this opportunity to commit his party to matching that increase?
    Mr. Redwood: I do not welcome sums of money: I welcome results. If, in three or four years' time, there are no waiting lists in my constituency, the local hospital has many more beds and the nurses and doctors tell me that they have a more realistic work load, I am a big enough man to acknowledge that improvement. I might take the precaution of doing so the day after the election rather than the day before, because I am also a politician, but I would not mislead anyone about it. If that is delivered, everyone in my party would feel great about it, but my worry is that it will not happen. We have had five years of promises and it is always jam tomorrow. All we actually get is a traffic jam, not the benefits of better health services or transport.
    I will wait. I will welcome results, but not the spending of huge sums of money in itself. I certainly do not welcome the tax increases that it necessitates. If all the money goes on auditors and paper clips, I will not welcome it at all, and the Government have some serious questions to answer about where the money will go and how quickly they can spend the money wisely by recruiting the nurses and doctors and building the bed spaces and wards that are so clearly needed in many parts of the country.
    The big issue in the Budget is tax, tax and tax. After five years of huge tax increases, we get the whopper tax increase. It is the tax increase that is so big that not even this Chancellor thinks that he can get away with it without telling people. It is the first tax increase that he has not attempted to introduce by stealth.
    The Chancellor's record on tax increases shows that he began by deciding to tax savings, prudence and old age. He put a massive tax increase on pension funds. When we objected to that, we were told by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister that because the stock market was rising, it would not hurt anybody and nobody would notice it. The stock market was making magic money and the Chancellor wanted to take a bit, while leaving people mysteriously better off. In the past two years, the stock
    612
    market's performance has been very bad, and people's pension funds have fallen in value year by year. The Chancellor did not apologise or say that his argument no longer applied so he was going to take the tax off the pension funds—even if he could not go so far as to rebate the money that he should not have taken in the first place.
    That cruel tax on old age, prudence and savings is now doing real damage to people's pension prospects. The Labour party gets angry because companies are closing down final salary schemes, but they are too expensive and do not have enough money left in them. One of the biggest culprits is the robber Chancellor who has taken quite a bit of the money out.
    The next big tax from the Chancellor was the huge telecom windfall tax, from the so-called auction of licences, which was another tax that was meant to go unnoticed and inflict no pain on anyone. It cost £22 billion for the mobile phone companies to stay in business. The auction was cleverly designed and I give full credit to the Chancellor and his advisers, who worked out a perfect system under which not enough licences were on offer so the phone companies had to make crazy bids. Of course, disaster followed. The Chancellor now refers to the collapse in the telecom and high-tech industries, but he does not say sorry. He does not admit that taking £22 billion out of the industry had a had impact.
    Mr. Hendrick: The spectrum that was sold is a finite resource. It was not a form of taxation. A finite resource has to be sold, not given away for free. The state of high-tech and telecom companies is a reflection of America sneezing and industries across the developed world catching a cold, not the sale of the spectrum to British telecom companies.
    Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman does not understand the magnitude of the sum of £22 billion. It was a prosperous leading industry, but that is a colossal sum of money. The German Government followed the British example and took another £28 billion, making £50 billion of tax. It was a tax. The companies were using the airways free of charge, but the Government saw an easy opportunity to raise some money. Now, of course, the Government do not want to admit that they were part of the cause of the collapse of that industry. I do not claim that the Government were the sole cause, but the hon. Gentleman must concede that taking £22 billion out of the industry had a serious impact. It dried up the cash flows and meant that the companies had to keep prices higher. They could not pay wages, recruit extra staff or expand the networks as quickly as they would have liked. That was the Chancellor's second tax that did a lot of damage.
    Mr. Chris Bryant: The right hon. Gentleman is giving away his whole argument. He argues in favour of more private intervention in the health market, but then he says that when auctions were used as a largely market-driven answer to how to allocate a scarce resource—the spectrum—that somehow became a tax. He is confused.
    Mr. Redwood: I am not confused. The spectrum was available freely until the Labour Government designed a system that was bound to lead to a supertax, because of the bidding rules and the number of licences on offer. If the Government had offered a realistic number of

    613
    licences, the prices paid in the auction would have been more sensible and affordable. The Chancellor had no understanding of how much damage such a colossal price would do even to a relatively successful industry, which the telecom industry had been until that point.
    I come to the Chancellor's third tax. He decided that it would be a good idea, under the cover of greenery, to impose far more taxes on motorists, especially on fuel. He brought the haulage industry to its knees, major bankruptcies were threatened and some haulage companies even decided to give up on Britain and set up on the continent where the tax regimes were more benign. The damage that tax caused got through to the Chancellor, because it led to a mass protest, and—up to a point—he apologised and announced that he would make some reductions in duty after all. He has continued that apology in the Budget by announcing that there will be no immediate further increase in the tax.
    I am glad that the Chancellor has learned from that case, but why does he now think it a good idea to impose a tax on jobs? He has tried everything else. He has wrecked the pension funds and the motorists.
    Sir Robert Smith: Has the right hon. Gentleman spotted that yet again the Chancellor is talking the right talk about charging foreign lorries to use our roads? But page 125 of the Red Book shows that such charging will not happen for several years to come. The promise has been made since the protests.
    Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman is right. The right hon. Gentleman, as a high-taxing Chancellor, could have put equal or higher taxes on foreign competition. He did not even do that to help the domestic haulage industry, which made the protests even more intense.
    The Chancellor has tried to wreck several industries. He has been successful in helping to do enormous damage to telecoms, to haulage and to people's savings for pensions. Now, he has decided to tax jobs. That is especially disappointing because he made his reputation in Opposition in campaigning against every job loss that was ever announced under a Conservative Government. Now that we have him in power, he seems to ignore the thousands of redundancies that take place week by week in manufacturing industry under his stewardship of the economy. He is taking the incredible risk of placing an even greater burden upon employers and employees by raising the cost of employment.
    I am sure that there are quite a few successful and prosperous parts of the economy that will be able to pay the bill. They will not enjoy paying it but they will manage. However, there will be a serious impact on marginal parts of the economy. The most likely area to be badly damaged is relatively labour intensive and often quite low-wage parts of the economy in manufacturing. That is the area that is most at risk already from all the other Government policies of high tax and high regulation and the current exchange rate. It will now face an additional imposition from the Chancellor. For a Chancellor who has always rightly said that he wants more jobs, more enterprise and more prosperity, it is a great pity that he has now decided to raise so much money in the form of a tax on jobs and enterprise.
    There are some clever ideas in the Budget to produce modest relief at the margins for business in response to business lobbying. I agree with these ideas and I am
    614
    pleased that the Chancellor has introduced them. However, they are swamped by the massive tax on jobs. It is no good for the business community if it receives little pieces of relief here, there and everywhere if it has to pay for them three or four times over because of a massive tax on jobs, which I fear we have.
    Mr. Howard Flight: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the Red Book, after boasting of the recovery in employment, forecasts that the improvement will not continue?
    Mr. Redwood: That is a valuable point. I hope that the forecast is wrong, but it is wise of the Chancellor to be cautious. He is placing a considerable imposition upon jobs and job generation.
    What would have been a better Budget? It would have been one that recognised the huge contribution that private investment and private money could make to our public services. It would be one that mended fences with the private sector, especially in transport, rather than preserving them in their broken form. It would have been a Budget that contained some humility about what had been achieved so far with large increases in taxation and spending, and one that contained more careful thinking about how we might secure the real improvements that we need in a crucial area such as health.
    The Chancellor has gone ahead with the eye-catching headlines on large sums without thinking about how he can find nurses, doctors and other important care workers who so obviously need to be recruited. As a result, we may see more of the same—that is tax and waste—that has characterised the Government's first five years.
    5.54 pm
    Mr. John McFall: I do not recognise anything that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) was talking about. I have been in this place since 1987, and I was on the Opposition Benches when the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Cabinet. We then had 3 million unemployed; inflation was in double digits and we had what have been referred to as three booms and busts. They were deep economic troughs. That is the history of the right hon. Gentleman when he was a practitioner in government. He is a clever man, but there is a meanness of spirit in every political utterance that he makes. He offered not one good comment on anything that the Government have done— [Interruption.] Apart from that, he is fine—there is always some good in everyone.
    Let us consider what the Government have achieved. We have the lowest unemployment for more than 20 years; since 1997, an extra 1.5 million have been in employment. We have the lowest rate of inflation for 20 or 30 years. For the first time, we are paying back more of our debt than any other British Government since the second world war, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said. There must be something good about what the Government have done.

    615
    I would like the right hon. Member for Wokingham to intervene to say that a teeny little thing that the Government have done is good; he refuses to do so.
    Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman did not listen to my speech. I said that I thought that some business tax reliefs were welcome, but that it was a great pity that business had to pay for them several times over.
    Mr. McFall: That is a right hand and a left hand answer. It seems that there were some good things but they were taken away quickly. Let us pass on that issue.
    I judge the Budget on four themes. The first is economic stability, the second is fairness, the third is strengthening public services and the fourth is our presence on the international stage.
    Let us take economic stability first. We have that stability because we learned lessons from the past decades. I have mentioned the Tory record in the 1980s and 1990s. Labour Governments had records in the 1960s and 1970s. It could be said that we had jam straight away with Labour Governments, but bread and water for the ensuing few years.
    My right hon. Friend the Chancellor said in 1997 that that approach would have to be changed. His brave act, against all the odds, was to give the Bank of England independence. Monetary issues have been taken away from politicians and placed with economists. As Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, I know that Sir Eddie George and his colleagues on the Monetary Policy Committee are accountable to the Chancellor and Parliament through our Committee. That is much healthier than having monthly meetings between a Chancellor and a Governor of the Bank of England.
    There is independence for the Bank of England, and a symmetrical inflation target has been set, which has been a guiding principle in the economy. The MPC has met that target consistently since 1997.
    I was in Brussels yesterday for a meeting of the European Parliament's chairpersons' budget committee. We are not in the eurozone, but our monetary and fiscal policy framework is delivering towards the stability and growth pact that the EU is setting down. It is striking that we have low and stable inflation compared with many other European countries. We have the fastest growth in the G8. If we go into Europe, after a referendum, we will be well placed; I shall not go into that debate in more detail.
    The MPC is well placed to respond quickly to risks to the symmetrical inflation target. We have a sound model with the Bank of England, which I would not like to see jeopardised. We must be careful in the run-up to the referendum in Europe to ensure that the lessons that we have learned in the United Kingdom are taken on board by the rest of Europe.
    My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has adhered to his fiscal policy. Indeed, he announced today a tightening of that policy by a few billion pounds. The code for fiscal stability has ensured that. In the next few months, the Treasury Select Committee will undertake an inquiry into Europe and fiscal policy to evaluate the lessons that can be learned from the monetary
    616
    and fiscal framework that was established in 1997, and how that can be affected by our entry, or otherwise, into Europe.
    There are five characteristics of fiscal stability: transparency, stability, responsibility, fairness and efficiency. These serve us well in the medium and long term. They ensure that spending and tax impact fairly. That is a big issue, especially when it crosses generations. Currently, we have a pensions problem. The problem is not unique to the United Kingdom. Germany, Italy and other countries have enormous problems in that regard. It is important to treat today's pensioners fairly, but we must also treat tomorrow's adults and pensioners fairly. There is an inter-generational aspect to the problem. The framework established by the Chancellor contains a long-term element and will serve present and future generations well.
    We must recognise that a large savings gap exists. Various figures have been bandied about and the sum of £27 billion has been mentioned. That means that each individual should be saving an extra 9 to 18 per cent. for his or her pension provision. As a Government, we have a responsibility to ensure that people do that. I am a little concerned about stakeholder pensions. Although the Government say that there has been a good take-up, employers are responsible for making the scheme available to employees, not for ensuring that pensions are taken up, so there are a number of empty schemes, as they are called.
    The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), as Chairman of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, knows much more about the matter than I do, but I recognise that it is a major issue. I would suggest to the Chancellor that if the voluntary method is not working, he should consider the compulsory route. I see the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire indicating his approval.
    On economic stability, it is important that we stand by the fiscal rules laid down by the Chancellor. The golden rule is to borrow only to invest over the economic cycle. The second rule is to ensure sustainable investment and make sure that our net debt is well below 40 per cent. over the economic cycle. I am pleased to see today that the Chancellor has fulfilled that.
    The second element that I mentioned was fairness. I noted the Chancellor's remarks that he would review the rules for residents and domiciles, and I am a little disappointed. There are glaring examples of individuals who live in the country but pay no British tax. That conflicts directly with the fairness agenda of the Labour party. I ask the Chancellor to examine the issue carefully. Last week The Guardian highlighted the case of an individual worth billions upon billions of pounds, yet there were little or no net tax receipts to the Inland Revenue. It would be helpful if the Chancellor's review were speeded up.
    I am pleased by the Chancellor's approach to small businesses. As he said, they are responsible for 50 per cent. of output, and we must assist the nurturing of small businesses. In my constituency, when I was elected in 1987, there were a number of large firms. Those were the norm in the 1950s and 1960s. Now, most large firms have departed and the future is for small firms. Particularly in disadvantaged areas, such as mine, it is important that the

    617
    maximum help is given to small businesses. I welcome the Chancellor's measures on VAT, corporation tax and research and development.
    On research and development, the tax credit announced a few weeks ago for large firms is extremely welcome. We experience a phenomenon known as the branch economy, where we have inward investment and companies coming in, but the brain of the company is located elsewhere. A research and development tax credit could help to ensure the stability of such companies in particular areas and the long-term affiliation with those areas.
    Reducing red tape and compliance costs for small businesses and exempting some from stamp duty must be welcomed. Competitiveness was mentioned by the Chancellor in passing. The Competition Commission's report on banks was published a few weeks ago. Small businesses feel greatly disadvantaged in that regard. In the next few weeks my Committee will be inviting the banks to tell us what they have done post-Cruickshank to ensure that small businesses get a fair deal. I would say that to date a level playing field has not been established and an awful lot of work remains to be done.
    Competition and productivity go hand in hand. The productivity targets that we have set since 1997 have in many cases not been realised. Productivity levels in our country are still disappointing compared with the rest of Europe and especially compared with America. A study of productivity undertaken by McKinsey in America concluded that the driving force for improved productivity was competition. We can learn from that. We must support small businesses through the Competition Commission's proposals. I and my Committee will be doing that.
    In accordance with the fairness agenda, we must support families and build a fairer society. I agreed with the Chancellor 100 per cent. when he spoke of the importance of making work pay. The measures introduced by the Chancellor—the child tax credit, the child allowances and the working tax credits for those with and without children—are extremely important. The more people that we get to work, the better for the individuals, communities and society. From April 2003 the working tax credit will guarantee a minimum income of £183 a week for a single-earner couple without children working full-time on the minimum wage, and £237 a week for a family with one earner working full-time on the minimum wage. That is a big increase which is very much to be welcomed.
    There has been some criticism from outside bodies, not least the Institute for Fiscal Studies, that tax credits are a disincentive to savings. I hope that the Chancellor will look into the matter. As long as he is providing satisfactory levels of minimum income, some people may not consider it necessary to save. The Government should consider whether their measures create a barrier to savings.
    The third issue of the Budget is the strengthening of the public services. The Chancellor and the Prime Minister recognise that a debate on the subject is needed. A number of hon. Members to whom I have spoken since the Chancellor announced his Budget called his statement
    618
    very brave. In this Budget, what you see is what you get. The Chancellor said explicitly that if we want a good health service, we must pay for it.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: It has been paid for, but it has got worse.
    Mr. McFall: The reason why the health service and other public services are not as good as they should be is that we have had decades and decades of underfunding. The present Chancellor is brave enough to recognise that and say that if we are to have high-quality public services, we must pay for them.
    The right hon. Member for Wokingham, like his colleagues, said that he did not agree with the way that the Chancellor was going, but together with most people in this country, I do not know where the Conservative party is going. I have been on platform after platform with Conservatives, from shadow Secretaries of State down, and what do they tell me? They are studying the matter. We are not studying it. We are implementing a new proposal. The extra £4 billion to be provided this year will be very welcome.
    My guiding principle is that if we want a health service, we must have one that is for all of the people all of the time. From what I can gather, the Conservatives are looking at other forms, which will be for some of the people some of the time, or for some of the people all of the time, but never for all of the people all of the time. I stick by the maxim that the NHS should be for all of the people all of the time. The Government will be able to challenge all the other proposals that have been put forward and win the ensuing debate, and that is important.
    Let me reflect on the figures announced by the Chancellor today. There is to be a 7.4 per cent. average annual real-terms growth in UK NHS spending for five years, putting the NHS on a sustainable long-term financial footing, and a rise in NHS cash spending per household from £2,370 in 2001–02 to £4,060 in 2007–08, a 48 per cent. real-terms increase and a doubling for every household. Who in this Chamber would not welcome that?
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The hon. Gentleman makes a serious and sensible speech, with much of which I agree, but we must be careful not to increase people's expectations of the spend. The increases are welcome, but the King's Fund has been at pains to say that if politicians are going around rightly saying that the money is coming, the expectations will increase faster than the rate at which the money comes, and there is a problem about that.
    Mr. McFall: I always agree with my friend and that really worries me. I shall not fall out with him now, because I agree once again. My next point was that the resources that we are putting in must ensure delivery on the ground. At the last election, many people voted for a Labour Government on condition that we would get things right. We said that we had had four years, it had been tough, but we had the proposals in place, and we asked for another term to get it right.
    Mr. Tom Harris: My hon. Friend said that the Conservatives would not tell him their plans for the health

    619
    service. Perhaps I can enlighten him, because the shadow Secretary of State for Health has talked about a four-phase plan, the first phase of which is to break the link between the NHS and health care, and the second phase of which is to convince the people that the NHS will not work and cannot work, and will eventually result in self-pay by NHS patients.
    Mr. McFall: I was coming on to that.
    The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire referred to the King's Fund. It stated that the NHS has been overwhelmed with well-meaning policy directives, investment targets and structural changes. In many ways that has been the problem. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. First, because of departmental underspends we must find the knack of teaching the civil service how to spend money, and, secondly, we must aim for decentralisation, so that there is no central command. The hon. Gentleman is right and I welcome the Chancellor's announcement today, but it will be a big job to get things right during the next four or five years.
    Mr. Redwood: Does the hon. Gentleman not see that for people to have to pay £4,000 instead of £2,300 is not an inviting prospect? They want to know what they will have for the money, not how much extra they will have to pay. For example, can he tell us when people in my constituency will not have to wait for a hip replacement operation when they need one? That would be interesting to know.
    Mr. McFall: I have never been to the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, but I am happy to acknowledge that there has been a problem with waiting lists. However, the Chancellor acknowledges the problems and is putting in place a structure whereby huge changes can be effected. That is the reality of the situation. I well remember the manifold problems under the right hon. Gentleman's Government. The internal market was a disaster and it took the Labour Government their first four years to correct that. The debate in the NHS will go on and will reverberate over the next few years.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) said, the shadow Secretary of State for Health has four themes and the big issue behind them is to convince people that the NHS cannot and will not work. What a cynical ploy. That adds up to playing about with people's lives. That will not work and we must counter that argument head on. I am delighted that the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) and his colleagues will join us in doing that.
    I come now to the international stage and the important work of the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development. I applaud the Chancellor's Marshall plan speech in Ottawa and his proposal that the international community should provide an extra £50 billion a year. I also applaud the 2015 targets that were agreed. Already, in Uganda, the Government have doubled primary school enrolment and cut class sizes.
    However, in other areas we have not been so successful and we must engage in the great debate in the IMF and the World Bank about the future of aid and development.
    620
    The Treasury Committee was in Washington in January when we met representatives of the IMF and the World Bank. The United States proposes that we give countries grants not loans. Development agency representatives spoke to us on that subject, but we should not get hung up on the issue of loans as opposed to grants. In many ways I agree with the United States that we must have effective change on the ground, but the plan on which we should concentrate is developing a long-term approach to investment in developing countries. That is the big issue to which the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development should turn their minds.
    I see one of my colleagues on the Treasury Committee in the Chamber and we have expressed concerns about the effectiveness of the IMF and the World Bank. In the next few months, we will have the opportunity of questioning Horst KÖhler, the managing director of the IMF, on that issue. However, we must remember that those institutions combined have annual expenditure of more than $30 billion. We have a seat at that table and it is important that we should put our point of view across.
    One of the big surprises for me in the past four or five years has been how much interest ordinary people have in the subject of writing off international debt. In my constituency I communicate reasonably regularly with about 2,000 people who have written to me on the subject and want to be kept informed. That is a cross-party issue. The work of the Select Committee on International Development and others on that has been good and I look forward to continuing that work with them.
    However, the big issue facing the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development is trade. We should be considering using trade as a force for poverty reduction. The rich countries spend $1 billion every day on agriculture subsidies and the resulting surpluses are dumped on world markets, undermining the livelihoods of millions of small farmers in poor countries. When developing countries export to rich countries they face tariff barriers four times higher than those encountered by rich countries.
    Those barriers cost the poorer countries $100 billion a year—twice as much as they receive in aid. We are giving with one hand and viciously taking away with the other. The rules of the World Trade Organisation on intellectual property, investment and services which protect the interests of rich countries must be looked at again and I ask the Chancellor to take that matter up when he meets his colleagues in the international forum. Most of us who have travelled abroad in the poorer countries realise that many of them have one commodity that keeps them going, but that the international community has failed to address the problem of low and unstable commodity prices that have consigned millions of people to poverty. For example, coffee prices have fallen by 70 per cent. since 1997, costing exporters in developing countries $8 billion in lost foreign exchange earnings. We must tackle trade if we are to bring everyone into the global economy.
    I shall finish on that issue. It is always said that we have a global economy, but I contend that we do not, as half the people in the world are excluded. Half of them live on less than $2 a day, and a quarter cannot have a glass of clean water. Every minute, a woman dies during childbirth in developing countries. That is the reality that

    621
    we face. If we are to tackle the issue of globalisation and bring people into the global economy, we must start with the other half of the world population.
    We must also recognise that globalisation and terrorism are linked. As ex-president Bill Clinton said in his Dimbleby lecture last year, we can look forward to our children growing up and growing old—say, to 90 years of age—but we do not want them to grow up behind barbed wire. Globalisation has taken the walls down, which means that there will be less security if we do not collectively pursue proper policies. That is our big responsibility, which is why I welcome the Chancellor's statement and urge him to maintain a stable economy, give us high-quality public services, provide fairness to families and increase employment in this country. I urge him to ensure that our voice on the international stage is recognised and that we as a country do a lot for the other half who are not included in the globalisation process.
    6.22 pm
    Mr. Andrew Tyrie: I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). At first, I struggled to find anything with which I agreed, but as he got going I started to find common cause on one or two points.
    I agreed especially with what the hon. Gentleman said about the Washington institutions, both of which are in a mess. The World Bank is in a dreadful mess, with a huge bureaucracy out of the control of the shareholders, or even senior staff. That is why, as he knows, I believe that there is scope for an Anglo-American parliamentary initiative. Congress knows better than us what a mess those institutions are in and has been looking for allies for a long time to secure fundamental reform, to cut out waste and to ensure that the institutions use more effectively the huge resources that are available to them. I have suggested an initiative in which two committees of the respective Parliaments come together and issue joint proposals. The involvement of America and Britain, possibly with allies from continental Europe, would make a dramatic impact in an area in which there is now great popular interest, not merely among the balaclava-clad brigade but among much more reasonable people who are trying to think how best to deploy resources in the institutions. So there is something on which I can agree with the hon. Gentleman.
    The hon. Gentleman asked whether my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) could find anything in the Budget with which he agreed. I can certainly find some things with which I agree, although on the whole, for reasons about which hon. Members will hear in a moment, I think that the Budget is very concerning. I support the reduced small company corporation tax rate; the ending of automatic fines for late payment of VAT and the ending of the requirement for small businesses to write down every VAT transaction in order to reclaim; VAT relief on bad debts; and the backdating of tax relief on charitable giving. I also support the direct payments that are being made to schools, although I am not sure whether the Government have thought through the long-term implications of bypassing local education authorities and increasing such sums—an approach that betokens a profound transformation of the way we fund education. We need to think through the structures more carefully. Incidentally, I welcomed some years ago the granting of independence to the Bank of England. Indeed, I would have liked the Chancellor to go further in those reforms.
    622
    So, there are some things that the Chancellor has done with which I agree, but I do not think this is a good Budget, although it could become a crucial Budget in the political landscape of Britain. I want to explain why in the remainder of my speech.
    Budgets should ultimately be about improving and sustaining the long-term economic performance of the country. Everything should be subordinate to that end, even when we are firefighting in an economic crisis. Distributive aims, including getting money to the poor, are not an alternative policy, because if long-term economic performance is not sustained, there will be no money to distribute.
    The background against which all Labour Budgets have so far been announced is the crucial fact that after 19 Conservative Budgets, Britain had been turned from a basket-case economy into one of the leading economies of the world. Every step that the Conservatives took on that road was opposed by Labour. It opposed tax reduction and reform, privatisation, almost all deregulation and the removal of most protection in the economy. The whole lot was opposed. By the early 1990s, even when Britain was in a severe recession, caused partly by a global cyclical downturn and partly by policy mistakes, the British people wanted to stick with those policies and voted the Tories back; they voted to stick with the new economic consensus.
    The 1992 shadow Budget was Labour's last great effort to challenge that market-based consensus and get back to tax and spend. It did not succeed in breaking the consensus, but broke itself. That shadow Budget, with its commitment to tax and especially to national insurance contribution rises—not that dissimilar to the Budget proposals announced today—was the main reason why Labour was defeated so decisively in the subsequent election, which took place a few weeks after its announcement. It was at that moment that new Labour was conceived in the minds of the current Chancellor and Prime Minister.
    Mr. Hendrick: What happened at that time was very different, as there was a proposal to lift the ceiling on national insurance. The hon. Gentleman will know from today's statement that that ceiling has not been lifted.
    Mr. Tyrie: The Chancellor has raised national insurance contributions, and several rises in NICs have been introduced by Labour in its other Budgets. Is the hon. Gentleman saying now that he has found another way to raise a bit of money from national insurance contributions and that that is all right? Is he implying that if he had made such proposals in 1992, they would have looked any better to the electorate? I very much doubt it. The fact is that it was those commitments to rises in national insurance contributions that broke Labour in 1992 and led to the creation of new Labour.
    Rob Marris: The hon. Gentleman talks about the political and economic situation in 1992. Does he think that it is better to tax and spend or to do what happened between 1992 and 1997, when the national debt doubled: flog off the family silver, borrow lots of money and spend?
    Mr. Tyrie: Those comments will lead me into a digression, but I shall try to deal with the hon. Gentleman's point. He suggested that the Conservatives got out of their difficulties in 1992 merely by racking up debt. In fact, they took very tough decisions to bring order back into the public finances in extremely difficult circumstances. As I said, those circumstances were created not only by the global economic downswing—other countries had similar problems—but by policy mistakes, mainly in monetary policy. I agreed that those mistakes were made.
    The hon. Gentleman is wrong about the overall debt record; indeed, the Chancellor uses sleight of hand whenever he makes such points. In fact, if he looks at the figures for 1980–1995—they do not vary much from those for 1979–1997—he will see that Britain was the only country of any significance that succeeded in reducing its debt as a proportion of GDP. Every other country experienced a sharp increase in debt as a proportion of GDP: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the United States, Sweden, Spain, the Netherlands—the lot. One way or another, all were hit by the same kind of crisis, and all racked up debt. Contrary to the impression that the Chancellor gives, we were the only country that coped successfully without racking up debt. Of course, he has been able to reduce debt because the economy is sufficiently strong to enable tax revenues to pour in. Combined with the windfall to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham referred, that has allowed him to bring down the debt burden.
    Jim Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Tyrie: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not prolong this part of the debate. Otherwise, I will not get around to making the speech that I want to make.
    As I was saying, Labour was defeated in 1992 because it said that it would tamper with national insurance contributions. It was elected in 1997 after committing itself to adopting the new economic consensus lock, stock and barrel—even to the extent of accepting Conservative spending plans Department by Department. Until it did so, the country was simply not prepared to trust it with power. The big question now, which will reverberate for the rest of this Parliament, is the extent to which this Budget breaks with that consensus.
    Beyond the Chancellor's customary rhetorical fog, I detect that not new Labour but the whole Labour party—including the "borrow, tax and spend" Labour party of yesteryear—is behind this Budget. Perhaps I might illustrate the point with a few words on each of those elements.
    On borrowing, the figures might not look too bad, but careful inspection of the Red Book shows that off-balance sheet finance is growing every year. As page 229 shows, if off-balance sheet finance already made is added to planned off-balance sheet finance, we arrive at a figure of £44 billion. According to old accounting principles, in the 1980s and 1990s such expenditure would have scored in the year in which it was incurred. The private finance initiative and public-private partnership are creating huge bills for taxpayers to pay in years to come. Of course, that off-balance sheet finance would have been in the bottom line for borrowing. Borrowing is understated in the Red Book.
    624
    In any case, borrowing should be all right at this point in the cycle. In fact, it is not that bad, but even so borrowing of £25 billion is proposed over the next two years, and the situation is certainly worse than the figures suggest. Exactly how bad it is I cannot tell, and I do not think that anybody can be sure. I doubt whether anyone in the House—even the Economic Secretary—really has a grip on the numbers in the Red Book. Even as someone who at one time tried to help draft parts of a Red Book, I find it incomprehensible. Changes to definitions of the accounts are mesmerising, and it is impossible to work out what is going on without a degree in Balls-Brown economics.
    To ensure clarity, we desperately need to sort out these numbers. We need a fiscal policy committee, independent of the Government, akin to a small version of the congressional budget office. Such a committee, for which I have called for a long time, needs only a dozen people or fewer. Their job should be to draw up truly independent and authoritative accounts, to vet the Government's accounts, to create agreed definitions and to scrutinise the forecast in depth.
    Tony Baldry: Does my hon. Friend think that we should adjourn each year's Budget debate for a couple of days, to enable us to study the Red Book? Trying to have a public debate is ludicrous when the Government obscure so much bad news by hiding it away in the Red Book.
    Mr. Tyrie: Parliamentary scrutiny of the Budget is in need of wider reform, and my hon. Friend's idea, which has much to commend it, should perhaps form part of that reform. In the 48 hours after a Budget, the Treasury Committee should engage actively and intensively with it and produce a report in language that parliamentarians can understand, so that they can judge the Budget for themselves. Unfortunately, that is not the way that things are done. I am not even sure that an instant response should be made to a chancellorial statement, which should be treated as a statement. In fact, it is not a statement, even though it is described as such. People should be able to cross-examine the Chancellor on the spot and we should then have a 48-hour delay, after which the debate should begin. I do not feel that strongly about the matter, however, and many might say that that would be a shocking innovation for a process that has been going for some time.
    The Government and the Chancellor claim that they are vetting the numbers to which I was referring: after all, they are giving them to the National Audit Office. However, that is little more than baloney. The NAO itself put it on record that it takes little more than a cursory look at the assumptions. It said that, in total, it spends £20,000 on the job. 'When I asked the Bundesbank what it spends to vet assumptions in the German Government's accounts, it said that the resource cost amounts to between £1 million and £2 million. Of course, huge resources are spent on vetting draft American budgets by the congressional budget office. So we should remember that, in saying today that the NAO has concluded that the audited assumptions are reasonable and cautious, the Chancellor said virtually nothing at all.
    So much for borrowing and the bottom line, but what of tax and spend? Here, evidence of a change in policy seems overwhelming, with a move away from the

    625
    previous five Budgets and the economic consensus of the 1980s and 1990s, and towards an earlier position. Taxes are up by 2.5 per cent. of GDP, excluding questionable items such as the working families tax credit, which should be reclassified. Page 216 of the Red Book seems to suggest, at least, that the Government are going to concede ground on how it should be classified. Over the equivalent period in the last two cycles, the Conservative Government managed to reduce the tax burden. Of course, reducing the tax burden is partly a cyclical phenomenon: the Labour Government are putting it up by 2.5 per cent. during an upswing, but we managed to get it down. That is a significant change; in statistical terms, it is quite dramatic.
    Jim Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Tyrie: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall make a little more progress. Perhaps he can intervene a little later.
    Five years ago, people thought that, under Labour, taxes and the tax burden might at least be stable. They did not hope for tax cuts, but they thought they would not get tax rises. That was when they were listening to new Labour. The Prime Minister told us time and again that he had no plans to raise taxes.
    A little over three and a half years ago—just before a Labour party conference—he suggested in an interview that he wanted to get taxes down, not up. That was definitely new Labour speaking, but I do not think that new Labour was speaking today.
    Before 1997, the whole of Labour's policy—of which the Chancellor and the Prime Minister were key architects—involved shedding the electoral millstone of a commitment to high taxation and spending. In the Chancellor's earlier Budgets, when taxes came they came by stealth, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham pointed out. However, this budget is brazen about tax rises. That is certainly not new Labour speaking, but old Labour.
    Spending has risen very sharply under Labour—from £341 billion in cash terms to a projected £470 billion in 2005–06. That is a huge increase of £130 billion. Spending is rising so fast that the Government cannot get rid of the money, hence the underspend. Even where it is being spent, much is being wasted in so many areas.
    Let me give an example. What happened to the £280 million spent on cancer care in the so-called NHS cancer plan? We have a Select Committee report on that. In evidence to the Committee, Professor McVie said:
    "I think there is still some mystery about where some of the money is and whether the cheque got lost in the post or whether it has been absorbed like creosote into the fence post of the administration of the health service".
    He went on:
    "I would have thought that seven-eighths of the resource has not yet got out there".
    The problem is that it is the same story in many other aspects of public spending. Much attention is paid to getting out announcements on increases in spending, but little care is given to thinking how best to deploy and use that money.
    When the Conservatives increased NHS spending by 6 per cent. in real terms for several years—something that is often forgotten—they allied those increases to radical
    626
    changes in the structure of the NHS. As a result, there were huge productivity gains, measurable in output terms and available as public statistics. I am prepared to wager that we will see little in the way of productivity gains over the next few years from the new spending increases. I am sure that if we keep a constant series going—I would not mind betting that the Government are trying to find a way to end that series—we will still see a fall in productivity.
    So far I have talked about financial policy—getting monetary and fiscal policy right. However, the supply side is at the heart of improving economic performance, and new Labour has never taken on board that part of what is required to make an economy successful.
    Jim Knight: I question the premise of the hon. Gentleman's argument about breaking the consensus. I put it to him that the Conservatives cut spending dramatically, leaving the Labour Government to inherit an under-resourced and under-invested health system. The Conservative party now seems to agree that we need to increase spending on health, but thinks that the money needs to come from people's pockets in a different way. That is what the debate is now about. If the hon. Gentleman wants to go back to the 1990s, we can talk about boom and bust and the 22 tax rises. Let us instead move the debate on and discuss how to rebuild and reinvest in our NHS.
    Mr. Tyrie: The hon. Gentleman attempts to make an honourable intervention, but he does not know many of the facts. The NHS saw a real-terms increase of 3.2 per cent. a year on average throughout the time of Conservative government. Health spending grew faster than the increase in gross domestic product for the same period, which was nearly 2.8 per cent. In other words, the NHS absorbed a steadily increasing share of GDP throughout an 18-year period, which is a long time. The hon. Gentleman is wrong about what went on.
    The question before us is whether Labour has learned the lesson that increased taxation can easily and dramatically reduce economic performance. That is the heart of the matter. Has it learned that spending alone does not solve problems? Like spending in a business, it is the quality of the investment that counts. That is what determines whether extra spending is translated into better and more services.
    Let me return to supply-side reform—I have been slowed down by intelligent distractions from various quarters. Supply-side reform is at the heart of improved economic performance and Labour has never had its heart in that. The plain fact is that the economy is being clogged up with intervention and subsidy everywhere. Over the past five years, subsidies have come from all quarters. There have been subsidies for the coal industry, the airbus, the car industry, for films and much else. There has been a massive increase in regulations on the utilities, financial services and employment bureaux. There is a new body of regulations for everything.
    The public sector has been given the same treatment. Hon. Members only have to go to their local schools and ask about the increase in regulations to know that. Indeed, the same story is given by those who run primary schools. I was going to spare the House an anecdote about a school in my constituency, but I am beginning to enjoy myself. A school with an experienced headmaster got no fewer

    627
    than six questionnaires, each of which he said would take him several hours to complete. They were sent by central Government via the local education authority and came with a note saying, "Congratulations. You've been chosen at random to help us find out more about how to improve the education system." He was sick of filling in forms and worked out that it would take him many man hours to complete them, so he pinned them together and wrote back saying, "Congratulations. You have been chosen at random to receive these unanswered. What I want to do is get on with some teaching." I have every sympathy with him.
    The structure of the tax system is crucial to an efficient economy. A huge number of distortions has been put into the system. The hard work of nearly 20 years of simplifying the tax system has been put into reverse. Hon. Members should not take my word for it—the British Chambers of Commerce said a while ago about capital gains tax:
    "The CGT system is now so complex as to be almost unworkable. Many businesses say they and their accountants are just unable to work out their CGT liabilities."
    That is not a satisfactory state of affairs, but so it goes on. It is the interference with, and distortion of, the millions of micro-economic decisions throughout the economy that will ultimately reduce the economic performance in this country. That is what is so pernicious.
    On tax above all else the Chancellor has explicitly abandoned the crucial plank of something to which the public thought Labour was committed. They thought that Labour had learned its lessons on tax and they believed the Prime Minister when he said that he had no intention of increasing taxes. Today, however, the Chancellor made it clear that he is prepared to raise tax, and by large amounts.
    New Labour came into existence out of the decision by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister in opposition to abandon tax and spend, but the Chancellor has now put up national insurance contributions, the very tax commitment that sank them exactly 10 years ago. It is almost 10 years to the day since Labour's 1992 election defeat.
    It looks as if the Chancellor may have taken the word "new" out of new Labour. It is for that reason above all others that the Budget could come to be seen as a turning point in British politics. This day may come to be perceived as the one when Labour broke with the consensus of the 1980s and the 1990s. It may be the day when new Labour returned again to being just the Labour party.
    6.48 pm
    Mr. James Plaskitt: The Chancellor referred to the three main challenges that he was aiming to address in the Budget. The first was boosting enterprise, the second was securing family prosperity and the third was improving public services. The enterprise objective was rightly set first. It is, after all, the foundation for achieving progress on the others, and it is on that aspect that I shall focus my comments.
    We have spent much time on the Treasury Committee and elsewhere considering the productivity challenge that the British economy faces, and my hon. Friend the
    628
    Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), who chairs the Committee, mentioned that in his contribution. There certainly is a challenge for our country in terms of the productivity gap. There is also something of a paradox because many of the things that need to be in place to secure a productive economy are already in place in the British economy. We have, for example, a high level of employment. Indeed, that has risen even further since 1997 and now stands at an historic high.
    We have a relatively flexible labour market, which is another important precondition for productivity. Our economy is very successful at attracting inward investment—indeed, it is the most attractive centre for such investment in the whole of the European Union. All those important preconditions for productivity are present—they have improved further since 1997—yet there is still a productivity gap between our economy and those of our major competitors.
    The important question for us to address in this Budget, as in all Budgets, is what we are going to do to help to close that productivity gap and so boost the prosperity of our economy. The first essential element to have in place is economic stability. Without that, any amount of measures targeted specifically at increasing productivity simply will not do the trick. Economic stability is crucial to business confidence, critical to secure investment and important to secure enterprise.
    The fundamentals for economic stability are clearly in place. We put a key one in place when we came into office by giving the Bank of England its operational independence. That has delivered low, stable interest rates, which play a crucial role in delivering a stable economy.
    Mr. John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman spoke of a paradox. Does not the real paradox involve wanting to stimulate enterprise in the way that he describes—he mentioned inward investment—while at the same time wanting to interfere and to regulate? I shall give him one example, which was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie): the ever more complex tax system. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the tax system for small and medium-sized enterprise in this country will be simpler or more complicated as a result of this Budget?
    Mr. Plaskitt: The performance of the small and medium-sized business sector speaks for itself, and answers the hon. Gentleman's question. Shortly, I shall cite some surveys that show exactly how the small and medium-sized enterprise sector is performing in our economy, compared to the economies of our main competitors. Those surveys paint a very encouraging picture of the British economy. That simply would not be so if the hon. Gentleman's accusation that the sector was overburdened with regulations were true. I will return to that point shortly.
    Jim Knight: Prior to being elected, I was the manager of a small business in Wiltshire. I know that the 2,000 small businesses in my constituency will be delighted with the changes in VAT in the Budget. The flat rate for VAT for businesses whose turnover is currently less than £100,000—extending to 750,000 in April—is tremendous news for our small businesses.
    Mr. Plaskitt: My hon. Friend is right. That proposal will be widely welcomed. As a point of contrast, and to

    629
    pick up the point made by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), we could have a debate about the scale of regulation in particular areas, but it all pales into insignificance when we recall the cost to businesses of the 15 per cent. interest rates that they had to endure when the Conservatives were in government.
    Mr. Hayes: I appreciate the experience of the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) in these matters. I was the director of what became a medium-sized business—clearly it was a more successful company than that of the hon. Gentleman—so I have some experience of these matters as well. Speaking of things paling into insignificance, the changes announced today that were positive for small and medium-sized enterprises are greatly outweighed by the increased national insurance contributions that employers in that sector will have to pay as a result of the Budget.
    Mr. Plaskitt: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is reflecting sufficiently on the reasons for the national insurance contributions being increased. Is he really saying that there is no return whatever for any business—small, medium or large—from a greatly improved national health service? There most certainly is, and it is perfectly right and proper that businesses can contribute to that just as much as individuals can.
    I was in the process of listing the fundamentals that need to be in place to tackle the productivity agenda, and I mentioned monetary policy. Interestingly, there is now very little argument in the House about the positive contribution that has resulted from introducing the independence of the Bank of England, although there was at the time of its introduction. Fiscal discipline has also played a key part, and continues to do so. This has been reinforced by the measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor today. Low rates of business tax also play an important part, and a combination of all these factors has resulted in an end to the boom and bust cycle. That cycle did more harm to business stability than anything else.
    The British economy has now had nearly 10 years without a single quarter showing negative growth. We need to go an awfully long way back into history to find circumstances such as these. The Chancellor's forecasts announced today suggest at least another four years of these economic conditions. This is a platform of stability that British business has not enjoyed for a generation.
    Mr. Redwood rose—
    Mr. Tyrie rose—
    Mr. Plaskitt: The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) stood first, so I shall give way to him.
    Mr. Redwood: Does the hon. Gentleman see the irony of Labour Members urging the private sector to greater productivity when it is their Government's policy to ensure that there is a massive decline in the political classes by saying that MPs cannot do the job and that we need all sorts of other elected people all round the country to do part of the job for us? Does he also see that lower productivity—or lower output per person—is sometimes desirable, because it is the Government's policy to have
    630
    much shorter working hours for doctors, which will naturally lead to much lower productivity in the health service, rather than producing better working conditions?
    Mr. Plaskitt: I would willingly take any point that the right hon. Gentleman made on productivity if his party had had a record, when in office, of being able to turn the magic key on productivity. In all of its 18 years, however, it did not. The right hon. Gentleman should have a little more patience with our measures, and show more understanding of what is resulting from our efforts, given that lamentable record.
    Mr. Tyrie rose—
    Mr. Plaskitt: Because the hon. Gentleman serves on the Treasury Committee, I will give way to him, then I want to make some headway.
    Mr. Tyrie: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He said that we had now had 10 years of steady upswing. Does he not therefore concede that the foundations for what he has described as the end of the boom and bust cycle must have been laid some time during the early 1990s or earlier?
    Mr. Plaskitt: No, that does not follow. Many of the other factors that were present at the end of the first four or five years of growth, in 1997 when his Government left office, were threatening the continuation of that growth. Rising inflation and the very high level of debt alone suggested that that growth might well have come to an end unless important measures were implemented, such as those that we introduced when we came into office. There is therefore an error in the hon. Gentleman's logic.
    The conditions that I have outlined were necessary to secure an increase in productivity, but they were not in themselves sufficient. It is therefore right that we should do more to promote enterprise, to improve the skill base of the economy and to promote investment and innovation. I was pleased to hear that my right hon. Friend had something to say about all those important areas in his statement. The Budget needs to be judged in part—probably in substantial part—on the basis of the contribution that it makes to those objectives.
    I understand, because of the obvious concentration on it, that most of the debate about the Budget may well revolve around the national health service. That is entirely understandable. In acknowledging that, I would like to point out that we should not overlook the question of productivity in relation to the NHS. Productivity is just as important there as it is in other parts of the economy. I would encourage Members to read the section of the Wanless report that debates the issue of productivity in the national health service—it is paragraph 5.31, if Members want to have a look at it. It shows the impact of achieving our health service objectives in terms of getting the productivity question right.
    Wanless has as his central case a projection that health spending will rise to 11.1 per cent. of gross domestic product by 2022. He points out, however, that if health service productivity is 1 per cent. per annum worse than his forecast, spending would have to rise to 13.1 per cent. of GDP in 2022 to achieve the same health service output.

    631
    Conversely, if productivity in the health service is 1 per cent. per annum better than his central case, the same health service output will be achieved with spending having to rise only to 9.4 per cent. of GDP. In other words, over a 20-year period a 1 per cent. fluctuation up or down in productivity inside that important public service amounts to a 3.7 per cent. of GDP differential—at today's prices, £35 billion, all resting on getting the productivity equation right inside the NHS. If that is true of the NHS, one can imagine how true it is of the whole economy, including the private sector. Small alterations and improvements in productivity performance can have a huge impact on the economy's overall performance. It is therefore right to make enterprise the first priority and to do what we can to promote it.
    Small companies are very important in this context. There are about 5,000 in my constituency alone, and nationally they contribute about 45 per cent. of total output. The number of small businesses has grown every year over the past five years, and there are now 40,000 more than in 1997. The Government have already taken several measures to help small businesses, including the reductions in small business corporation tax introduced in recent years, the shortening of the capital gains tax asset taper and the introduction of the Small Business Service.
    In 2000, when the Economist Intelligence Unit surveyed the 60 largest economies in the world to assess how good they were as a place to do business, the United Kingdom economy came second. Another survey by the Fraser Institute ranks the UK second overall in terms of business freedoms. I urge Conservative Members, who are fond of raising concerns about so-called over-regulation, to ponder the conclusions of those surveys. The Fraser Institute puts the UK economy third out of the world's 22 largest in terms of its use of markets and first in terms of property rights. All those factors are vital in delivering improved productivity. Such findings belie the charges that are made with monotonous regularity about an over-regulated business sector.
    Given that those are important targets to aim for, my right hon. Friend's Budget contains some very welcome measures, including the extension of the research and development tax credit, further exemptions on capital gains tax, intellectual property recognition, further reductions in corporation tax, especially targeted at the small business sector—the basic rate goes down from 20 per cent. to 19 per cent. and the starting rate goes down all the way to zero—the simplification of VAT and help with payroll. All those measures will he warmly welcomed by small businesses in my constituency and throughout the country.
    To make further progress on productivity, it is vital to do something about the skill base in the economy. It is a knowledge-driven economy; increasingly, the ability of people in work to perform effectively is the determinant in improving productivity.
    I welcome the further announcements on education investment, which is a capital investment in tomorrow's economy. We have made good progress in primary and secondary schools on literacy, numeracy and increased standards, but a big challenge remains as regards the existing work force. The report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reminds us that the UK has a higher proportion of low-skilled workers
    632
    than any of our major competitors. Reskilling those currently in work plays an important part in developing the skill base that we should not overlook. I therefore welcome the measures to increase the scope for learning provision for employees by giving financial support to employers who release members of staff to take up training opportunities. It will be interesting to see the outcome of the employer training pilots in different parts of the country. They could make a significant contribution to increasing the skill base in the economy.
    The whole question of investment is crucially linked to meeting the productivity challenge. The UK has a history of under-investment, although that is improving. In 1997, investment as a share of gross domestic product was 17.2 per cent. It is now about 19 per cent., so it is moving in the right direction, but it must go further if we are to meet the productivity challenge. Much has already been done to help to stimulate investment, including the research and development credits for small business—now extended—the planning reforms, which were particularly welcome in areas in need of regeneration, the stamp duty exemptions and the single pot funding for the regional development agencies that was introduced earlier this month.
    It is important to deal with the innovation gap. A paper by the Institute for Fiscal Studies largely attributes the UK's productivity gap to the greater levels of innovation secured by our competitors. Promoting research and innovation is vital to meeting the productivity challenge. I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend announce additional investment in universities and colleges, because they are often crucial centres for securing innovation, which flows out into industry and is taken up and turned into investment, in turn boosting productivity. It is therefore vital for the Government to invest in the research base in our universities.
    I sound a note of warning to the Treasury about that, and I shall listen with care when the detailed announcement is made. How evenly spread will the additional money be? There has been a tendency to concentrate additional investment for university research on the top 20 or so universities, which, although they are the top universities for academic attainment, are not always the most appropriately placed geographically for spinning off innovation into industry. I enter a plea for colleges and universities in the west midlands, many of which—including Coventry university and, in my constituency, Warwickshire college—have developed strong links with the automotive industry. They have a considerable record on innovation that has been picked up by that industry and used to help it to promote its products and win markets, to the benefit of the whole economy. Nevertheless, they, and others like them, find that their research funding is declining. I hope that that process can be reversed. Will the Minister take that on board and talk to his colleagues about how the welcome increase in overall funding for innovation will be spread around? We will get a better return on it if it is directed towards educational centres that have already established proven, close links with manufacturing industry in particular.
    Of course, higher taxes were announced in today's Budget—higher levels of national insurance to fund the national health service—but set against that is the contribution made by the sound fundamentals of the economy, which play a much more significant part than the increase in one tax. Total spending on the NHS, which

    633
    is currently £65 billion a year, is scheduled to rise to £105 billion by 2007. A rise of that scale would be nowhere near possible if we had not put in place the sound fundamentals of the economy. Most of that additional investment is delivered by the strong performance of the economy, not by the one particular tax increase that was announced today. It is only possible and can only continue if we go on putting the enterprise objective first.
    The Budget does that. It helps us to meet the productivity challenge and thereby to deliver greater fairness. Enterprise and fairness have gone hand in hand under previous Labour Budgets since 1997. Together they have taken a further step forwards today, and that should be broadly welcomed.
    7.9 pm
    Tony Baldry: I have entered my various interests in the Register of Members' Interests. I suspect that the Budget will be remembered as the bingo Budget; the Chancellor probably hopes that it will mean, "No. 10, Tony's den." However, it will require more than fiddling around with bingo prizes and reducing tax on beer in time for the World cup to persuade the country that the Chancellor has its best interests at heart.
    Let us consider the Chancellor's intentions for small brewers. They are a classic example of giving the impression of helping a specific sector on Budget day when the small print shows that it is not being helped. The Hook Norton brewery is based in my constituency. It is an excellent, small, independent family brewery. I predict that the Budget proposals for brewers will not help it at all.
    I suspect that the Chancellor told his policy advisers to go away and think the unthinkable for the Budget. Indeed, for many small and medium-sized businesses, the Budget is unthinkable not least because of the substantial extra tax burdens that they will have to bear. I shall examine with interest the unemployment figures in the constituencies of Labour Members who spoke in the debate. It will be interesting to watch unemployment increase there year after year through the impact of the burdens on business.
    The problem is not so much what the Chancellor does as what he persistently fails to do. He said repeatedly that he supported an enterprise economy. I was struck by recent statements from the Treasury and Downing street. Last month, in an interview with the Financial Times, the Chancellor claimed that he would act
    "by encouraging people not just to make the most of their opportunities in education and employment but helping start businesses and being on the side of people as they strive to become self-employed or create a business".
    To whom was the Chancellor referring? I am afraid that his affirmation does not chime with the experience of most business people in north Oxfordshire. Indeed, they are struggling with mounting piles of red tape and ever more detailed micro-regulation of their companies.
    I recently conducted a survey of every small and medium-sized business in my constituency. Almost all businesses complained to me about the excessive amounts of red tape that they have to tackle. Almost all believed that their businesses would be better off without the Treasury's burdensome intrusiveness. I commend to hon. Members three comments by business men in the Cherwell valley.
    634
    A well known international food manufacturer and an important local employer commented that
    "red tape impacts on every employee. Approximately 5 to 10 per cent. of work time is spent on red tape."
    No wonder our competitiveness is falling behind that of other countries in the European Union and elsewhere.
    Another employer finds the forest of bureaucracy so daunting that he asserted:
    "If I tried to understand all the legislation it would take all my time. I therefore ignore it all and run my business in a professional, fair and honest way and hope that we work within the law".
    How can the Chancellor claim after today's Budget that the Government are encouraging enterprise? The comments of another director of a small business in my constituency show the stranglehold and constraint of red tape. He said:
    "at least two thirds of my time is wasted dealing with this. Without it I could be a much bigger company, generating significantly more taxable revenue".
    Surely that is the sort of entrepreneur that the Government claim they are out to encourage: a good, caring employer.
    I have cited the comments of employers from the Cherwell valley and north Oxfordshire, one of the most successful economic areas in the United Kingdom. If employers and businesses in my constituency are experiencing such difficulties, what must it be like in other parts of the country where there are greater problems for industry?
    Notwithstanding the simplification of VAT forms for small businesses that the Chancellor announced, a massive void gapes between the fact of running businesses under the Government and the fantasy of the Chancellor's wild claims of help for employers.
    Although I welcome the incentives that the Chancellor announced for employers who allow employees time off for training, they will sound hollow to many employers and people involved in training when they reflect on the experience of individual learning accounts. We have been here before, and not long ago. Individual learning accounts were scrapped because they were so successful and the Treasury discovered that they were costing more than they thought.
    Mr. Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Tony Baldry: No. I want to make progress and many hon. Members wish to speak.
    The Chancellor presents a load of gimmicks, which resemble baubles on a Christmas tree. He hopes that they will appear attractive, but also that they will not be used or that they will prove so complicated that no one will work out how to use them a few days after the Budget statement. I suspect that they are intended to look good only in one of those little boxes in a newspaper. Like the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt), they give the impression that the Government are doing something. The hon. Gentleman's local newspaper will be able to say that the Government are doing something for Warwick university. It is not clear what they will do for universities, but that will not matter in a week because the right Budget headline and soundbite have been obtained.
    One has only to glance at the latest growth rates for the UK to realise how sorely stimulus for business is needed. I understand that when the Chancellor took over at the

    635
    Treasury, overall growth in the UK was, at 3 per cent., second only to that of America. It was twice that of the eurozone's slightly dismal 1.5 per cent. It has now fallen by a significant 0.5 per cent. The UK has failed to keep up with America and the average growth of prosperous Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. We have even been overtaken by that notorious shire horse of an economy, France.
    The gulf that has grown between financial services and the manufacturing sector is especially worrying for businesses in north Oxfordshire and elsewhere in the country. Financial services have prospered better under the Chancellor's Budgets than manufacturing, but neither has prospered much.
    Little in today's Budget will alter the decline in manufacturing industry. That is especially worrying for all businesses in the Cherwell valley and elsewhere for two reasons. First, it proves what they already know: not all parts of the UK economy have been doing well. Despite the Chancellor's mantra of no more boom and bust, there has been bust in manufacturing.
    The Government produce their Red Book only on the day of the Budget. It is a pity that we do not have time to study it for longer. However, those who have had the opportunity to give it the most cursory glance know that the Government's Budget forecast makes it clear that even they expect manufacturing output to continue to contract and exports to continue to fall. We are a global trading nation; we have traditionally exported more per head of population than any other country in the world with the recent exception of Japan. If UK exports continue to decline, that is bad news for employment and all our constituencies, but especially for marginal seats represented by Labour Members. Those hon. Members may find that their seats become more marginal as a consequence of the Budget, which does not contain significant initiatives to redress the decline properly.
    The second and more significant reason for manufacturing industry's poor performance under the Chancellor is that manufacturing businesses have too often borne the brunt of the Treasury's increasing burden of tax and bureaucracy.
    May I give a simple example? One of the larger employers in my constituency is General Foods, which makes Maxwell House coffee. Over the years, it has probably invested millions of pounds in making its plant energy efficient. Notwithstanding that, it is still hit by the climate change levy, which is simply a tax on business and competitiveness.
    We must read the small print, but the Chancellor announced that there will be help for those who invest in energy efficiency equipment. However, he must know that most major energy users have already invested substantially in such equipment. The policy sounds good, but take-up will be minimal because businesses such as General Foods have already invested in energy efficiency. Again, the contribution to their competitiveness is meaningless.
    A recent Sunday Business article points out that legislation relating simply to taxation runs to more than 6,000 printed pages, and I sense that the north Oxfordshire business community is deeply concerned that financial services will suffer under the same burden of bureaucracy
    636
    as manufacturing. I ask the House to consider a letter from a financial services director, which responds to my pre-Budget survey by saying that
    "the entire financial services industry is about to suffer further regulation … this action is going to cause massive upheaval, with vast sums of money being wasted for regulation's sake. This action will inevitably cause more confusion for the consumer … at a time when the Government is meant to be encouraging free trade and the expansion of small businesses, this legislation is totally contradictory."
    Again, the difference between the fact of running a business and Government fantasy is striking.
    Independent forecasters such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies have said that productivity is down, investment is down and competitiveness is down. Thus, consider three other concerns of the Cherwell valley business community: corporation tax and capital gains tax, petrol tax, and stamp duty and national insurance contributions. I shall deal briefly with them, as they were dealt with by the Chancellor.
    Candidly, corporation tax and capital gains tax have not recovered from the decisions taken by the Chancellor in previous Budgets, and clearly businesses needed a significant cut in both in this Budget. On the face of it, employers got that, but we see that it is not all that it seems if we look more closely. I am particularly concerned that the tapered system for capital gains tax introduced by the Treasury, rather than encouraging enterprise as intended, has stifled it with yet another convoluted and complicated tax system. So, while I welcome today's capital gains tax cut, the complicated resource-sapping system remains.
    On corporation tax, advance corporation tax is perhaps the most recent concern, as the Government ended the tax credit system in a previous Budget. Clearly, the effect is "profound", as the Financial Times observed:
    "For a start, the hit to pension funds will be serious … those with personal or deferred contribution pensions will have to accept lower pensions or contribute more".
    The Budget has not adequately addressed employers' pension problems, and I shall return to what I believe is a genuinely straightforward part solution to that serious difficulty. It strikes me that the issue of tax on business is becoming one of lack of balance.
    The Chancellor also said that he is doing something for research and development. Again, we must read the small print closely. On research and development tax relief and an approach by Treasury advisers, I ask the House to consider the fact that one company—a significant investor in research and development—said that
    "the sad and almost tragic reality is … none had realised the financial implications … and realised that 17 per cent. of the credit would go to one company and 60 per cent. to the top ten".
    Had the advisers done so,
    "they may almost certainly have given a different response".
    In a few weeks or perhaps months, it will be interesting to see who has benefited from what the Chancellor said today about research and development benefits. Interestingly, he referred to larger companies, but I suspect that they do not need assistance. Often, fledgling, growing companies need research and development tax help.
    On petrol tax, the Chancellor's approach is cynical. The Budget freezes fuel duty, but we know that the Exchequer will maintain revenues from the tax because of rising oil

    637
    prices. The plain fact is that petrol tax is disproportionate to that in eurozone countries, so it is perhaps no surprise that our growth is declining compared with theirs.
    Stamp duty, which the Chancellor has removed in deprived areas, is effectively a mobility tax. Constituencies such as mine are desperately trying to attract key people to work in the public services—nurses, police officers and teachers—but stamp duty is simply a further tax that deters them from moving to such areas, where house prices are high. Therefore, the tax that must be paid on buying a house is also high, so it is perverse of the Chancellor to remove stamp duty from economic black spots. He should consider reducing or removing stamp duty in areas such as mine, because those who want to come and work in key sectors of the economy are finding that very difficult.
    Mr. Hendrick: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that reducing stamp duty in constituencies such as his would increase house price inflation and make moving there even more difficult?
    Tony Baldry: No, not at all. Stamp duty is simply a tax on mobility. It deters people from moving and is, in many ways, ludicrous and anachronistic. Frankly, if I were an officer in Thames Valley police wanting to move to Banbury or a nurse wanting to move to Oxford to work at the John Radcliffe, I would not be particularly happy that people in some parts of the country are being let off stamp duty while I would have to pay a hefty sum. As days go by, Labour Members will begin to regret the inclusion of such divisive measures in the Budget.
    Mr. Kevan Jones: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that in constituencies such as North Durham, where it is difficult to get certain sites developed, abolishing stamp duty will allow development that would not otherwise take place? Therefore, abolition will help to regenerate the economy of such areas.
    Tony Baldry: For a number of years, I was a Minister at the Department of the Environment, and I had responsibility for the construction industry for four years. I am bound to say that I cannot recall a single occasion on which someone in the construction industry said to me, "We are not going to develop areas such as Durham, the north-east and elsewhere unless you remove or reduce stamp duty." That just did not happen.
    It was widely predicted and widely trailed that national insurance contributions would rise. We now know that they will rise by at least 1 per cent. —a tax hike. It is difficult to calculate by how much tax will increase as a consequence of the Budget, so we must look to page 14 of the Red Book. Through some swift maths, my rough and ready calculation is that the tax burden will increase by £8 billion in the financial year 2004–05 alone. That will not come out of thin air; it will be a burden of taxation on individuals and businesses.
    Mr. Plaskitt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Tony Baldry: Yes, but for the last time.
    Mr. Plaskitt: If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the tax burden, has he also noted on page 218 of the Red
    638
    Book a table showing total current receipts to the Government at 40.1 per cent. of GDP this year, but at 40.2 per cent. in 2004–05?
    Tony Baldry: As one of my hon. Friends said earlier in the debate, the only time the Labour party is really happy is on Budget day, because it can put taxes up. The hon. Gentleman clearly does not appreciate that taxes have to he paid for by someone—by businesses and individuals. Perhaps tomorrow he will appreciate that an £8 billion tax hike in a single year must be paid for, and will come out of the pockets of individuals and businesses in his constituency and in mine.
    That leads me to the second comment by the Prime Minister that I found striking in the build-up to the Budget, when he asserted that we could not have world-class schools and hospitals unless we were prepared to pay for them. I suspect that over the next year we shall find that the real problem of the Budget is that the delayed and disfigured tax hikes will not provide a clear and delineable view of which taxes are spent where and when on public services, even with an annual report to Parliament. It will take some time for that money to get through to public services. People will expect public services to improve and I am sure that next winter I shall still be receiving as many letters from constituents in Banbury, Bicester and the villages of north Oxfordshire expressing concerns about cancelled operations, waiting lists and inefficiencies in the NHS. Those problems are not the fault of NHS staff, but next year people will feel even more frustrated because they will be paying more in tax but still not getting a better service.
    Today's Budget raises taxation substantially, and much of the burden of that taxation will fall on businesses. Such taxes make businesses less competitive and less able to create jobs. No wonder the Prime Minister was so keen, at Prime Minister's questions, to trumpet the fall in unemployment. He knows—indeed, the Red Book tells us—that the Government now expect unemployment to increase. Never in the history of this country has the state taking more, taxing more, spending substantially more and controlling more led to greater individual and collective wealth and happiness.
    I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie): the Budget is a turning point that—let me return to my earlier analogy of a bingo Budget—in due course will mean that No. 10 is longer Tony's den.
    7.33 pm
    Mr. Mark Hendrick: I welcome the Budget. As the Chancellor said, it has been drawn up in an environment of the lowest inflation and interest rates that this country has seen for 40 years. For families and home owners in my constituency, in Preston, Walton-le-Dale and Bamber Bridge, it is a tremendous boost.
    Unemployment in this country is lower than in the rest of Europe, Japan and the United States. While there have been some job losses in manufacturing in my constituency, those jobs are being replaced by new jobs, and millions of pounds are flowing into it.
    The Budget has shown that Labour is the party of enterprise. I am the first Labour Member in Lancashire to be an honorary vice-president of the central and west Lancashire chamber of commerce. I am as proud of that as I am to be a member of the GMB trade union.

    639
    Labour is also the party of fairness, and today's Budget is one for the public services. Millions of people throughout the country will benefit as we generate an economy that brings prosperity to the country as a whole.
    The decision to give the Bank of England independence on interest rates was bold and courageous. As the Chancellor said, since then, there have been seven cuts in interest rates. Let us contrast that bold move with the recent statement by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who said:
    "We think it was a big mistake. We opposed it at the time. We said no good would come of it."
    The facts speak for themselves: interest rates are at their lowest for many years.
    Many people believed that the events of 11 September and the war against terrorism would cause a great deal of economic instability, not only in the United States but throughout the developed and developing world. What we have seen since then is a testament to the management of our economy by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. Worries about future growth and stability have already all but disappeared. The world economy will grow, but stewardship of our economy has shown that it will grow more in the UK than elsewhere. In the past year, we have seen growth of 2 to 2.5 per cent. and we expect growth of 3 to 3.5 per cent. next year and 2 to 2.5 per cent. the following year. Those healthy low-inflation growth rates are consistent with a stable economy.
    As someone with my eye firmly on the conditions for joining the euro—I look forward to a referendum in this country—I am pleased to see that debt is now considerably less than 40 per cent. of GDP. Given that debt stands at 30.4 per cent. of GDP and that the Government have repaid some £37 billion of debt, we are in a tremendous position and will be the envy of many of our European partners. I was struck by the concern of the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) about exports. I share that concern but believe that if we joined the euro, we would win considerably more exports and see an even greater recovery in manufacturing.
    The Chancellor announced £4 billion extra in public expenditure. That will help Preston, which is a new, proud city that is central to the provision of public services for the whole of Lancashire. Its first-class hospital will benefit from increased NHS funding, and it has some first-class schools and an excellent police force. Preston is looking to the future. However, that money will need to be matched with expenditure on modernisation and reform. Despite the good provision of services in Preston and the rest of Lancashire, there is no room for complacency. We must have modernisation and reform to make those services even better, and I look forward to seeing that in my constituency.
    Business investment has increased from 10 per cent. of GDP to 12 per cent. That shows business confidence, and confidence in the Government's handling of the economy. Corporation tax has gone down from 33 to 30 per cent. Research and development tax credits will bring some £400 million extra to our R and D companies. As a former scientist and engineer, I recognise the importance of R and D to the development of new products, trade and economic growth. My constituency has people employed in aerospace, nuclear power, software and computing, and
    640
    the country's eighth largest university, which spends millions on research and development. The proposal is very welcome.
    My constituency also has many small businesses, and their tax rate has gone from 23 per cent. down to 21 per cent., 21 per cent. down to 20 per cent., and, now, down to 19 per cent. As the Chancellor mentioned, the starting rate is now not 10 per cent. but 0 per cent. Capital gains tax has also been cut. I am sure that small firms in Preston, Walton-le-Dale and Bamber Bridge will all welcome that.
    I was surprised to hear comments from Opposition Members about red tape when, today, the Chancellor has again made proposals for simplifying VAT that will benefit all businesses. The flat rate will not just be for companies with turnovers of less than £100,000 but for those with turnovers of less than £150,000. The flat-rate system will greatly reduce the amount of form filling, and the deferred VAT payments will significantly reduce the complexity of making VAT claims. Firms are to be encouraged to go online—e-finance, which is known in Lancashire as "ee ba gum" finance—to which I am sure firms in my constituency look forward. The introduction of 2,000 identified enterprise areas, which will receive 0 per cent. stamp duty status, will be a tremendous boost. There are still many areas up and down this country, which were and still are industrial areas, that need investment.
    I also welcome credits for firms developing green technologies. The university of Central Lancashire has done excellent work in that area, and I am sure that firms around Lancashire will do a great deal in it in future. Beer duty will be halved for small breweries; although there is no small brewery in my constituency, I shall still have a celebratory drink in the Strangers Bar afterwards.
    The working families minimum income guarantee for full-time workers will be increased to £237, which is £70 more per week than income support. That is a tremendous change. We are now looking forward, for the first time, to a three-figure state pension for a single person, which will be a tremendous psychological and financial boost to pensioners up and down this country. For those with occupational pensions, personal allowances will be raised, and we look forward to tax credits for future pensioners, too. The Chancellor has provided £2.5 billion for families—Labour is now firmly the party for the family.
    On public services, huge direct payment increases will go to every school. That will be good for schools in my constituency such as Moor Nook primary school, which I visited a few weeks ago. I was shown photographs by the head teacher of what it looked like six years ago, and, seeing it now, it has undergone a total transformation. Schools such as Corpus Christi high school will also benefit, as ambitious construction work is being carried out there.
    I was surprised to hear from Conservative Members that they do not agree that there should be a consensus on the national health service. That consensus has existed since the war, and the Conservative party agreed to it, at least until the election of Mrs. Thatcher. That national consensus will come back—people want investment, reform and a five-year programme of high growth. The criticism that too much of the NHS is centralised is

    641
    immediately defused by the fact that 75 per cent. of budgets will go to primary care trusts, which, as everyone must accept, is decentralisation.
    The financial incentives, the reform of care for the elderly and the money going to primary care trusts are important. The independent audit and scrutiny of the performance of the health service is also important, for two reasons. First, as I said in an intervention, we need to make sure that we get value for money in the health service. Secondly, it will debunk all the myths thrown out by the Conservative party, which wants to denigrate the services provided in this country and the people who work in them and to leave an impression that things are far worse than they really are.
    Mr. Hugo Swire: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments on long-term care for the elderly. Which part of what the Chancellor has said to date in relation to looking after the elderly in the long term does he most welcome?
    Mr. Hendrick: As I shall say in a moment, there will be a 6 per cent. increase for social services. As county councils and unitary authorities up and down the country administer social services budgets, that money can be spent on those services, as it can on other things.
    An annual report on how much is spent, where it is spent and what is achieved is an excellent part of the Chancellor's proposals. As I said, the Conservative party does not want that, as it prefers the myths and anecdotes that we have heard today rather than the facts from an independent audit body.
    We have heard a great deal about the increase in national insurance contributions, which has been referred to as if, in some way, it is income tax. It is not income tax. National insurance is what the name implies—insurance. Many companies up and down the country are happy to pay for private health insurance for their workers. The Chancellor has made it plain that the money that is raised in this way will be invested not in private health but in public health and public health provision. I am surprised that that should be presented as anything other than what it is. If we remember why national insurance was originally introduced, it was to pay for pensions, health and benefits. Let us not forget that or try to present the increase as something that it is not.
    There will be a freeze on beer, wine and spirits, a freeze on fuel duties, a freeze on vehicle licences and, as I said, 6 per cent. extra for social services. UK health will benefit from a 7.4 per cent. increase each year, and my health authority—North West Lancashire—will welcome that, despite its recent statement that the 10 per cent. increase in its budget was still insufficient, even though that increase is five times higher than inflation. I believe that the doubling of expenditure since 1997 over the next five years will turn the Royal Preston hospital into, if not the top hospital, one of the top 10 hospitals in the north-west of England. I look forward to that investment.
    This is a Budget for enterprise and for fairness, for investment and for reform. It will be a huge boost for the people in my constituency, and I commend it.
    7.48 pm
    Hywel Williams: Apropos of the comments of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick), I have every reason to feel protective towards national
    642
    insurance, as I represent the seat once held by David Lloyd George. I find it difficult, however, to distinguish between national insurance and income tax, as, I am sure, do many other hon. Members.
    The Chancellor has often reaffirmed the Government's commitment to ending child poverty—in the pre-Budget statement and in the publication, "Tackling Child Poverty", issued in December last year. He is right to do so again today because poverty blights so many lives, particularly in my constituency. Many people suffer from poor health in Wales, for example, specifically because they are poor.
    The Chancellor highlighted the child and working tax credits, and I want to concentrate briefly on the principles of those tax credits. My colleagues in Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party will consider other issues in the debates over the next few days. The Government emphasise the need to make work pay, and they emphasise that there should be a seamless system. Again, the emphasis is on work, but my party and others are worried about the impact of tax credits in areas of high unemployment, such as my own, where the work is not available, and in rural areas with small populations and scant public transport. In such areas, the costs of owning a car are highly significant.
    The Red Book shows that a fund of £5 million will be established to help with travel costs. I have some reservations about that, as my area suffers from severe out-migration by people who otherwise would be economically active and contributing to the local economy. I am afraid that I may be hearing an echo of the phrase "on yer bike".
    The working tax credit will guarantee a higher income from work than from benefits, and it is targeted according to income. It is not means-tested in the conventional sense, but there are inevitable concerns about the disincentives to take-up. I am sure that the House would be interested to know the projected percentage take-up of the tax credits, for example in comparison with the take-up of universal benefits, which is very high.
    The House will also note that people under 25 are again excluded from the tax credit system. That is yet another example of how age discrimination is becoming entrenched.
    We in Plaid Cymru remain uneasy about the lower wage subsidy implicit in tax credits. That possibility will now affect all workers, including those without children. We fear that credit levels will become the ceiling for wage rates, rather than their floor. We in the north Wales travel-to-work areas have some experience of that. The results of the little noticed top-up experiments introduced by the previous Conservative Government do not convince people familiar with them that the new system will be much better.
    Child tax credits will be paid to the carer, typically to the mother. That is very much to be welcomed. However, the emphasis on payments to the first child risks masking the costs arising from other children, especially as they grow older. It should be remembered that those costs are recognised in support levels. The House will note too that universal child benefit levels again hardly rated a mention today.
    The extension of tax credits to students and student nurses is to be welcomed. As a university lecturer, I have experience of the real hardships faced by some students

    643
    on low income. Also, uprating benefits with earnings is a principle that could be commended in respect of other benefits.
    A significant feature of the child tax credits regime is the recognition of the costs of child care. However, we in Plaid Cymru have serious concerns about the lack of child care in some areas, especially in rural areas. Often, they are areas of high unemployment, or of high underemployment.
    Child care is not available extensively in Wales, and to some extent the solution to that problem is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales. We have a national child care strategy, and I hope that my colleagues in the Assembly will take the matter up. I hope too that the Labour party will produce some joined-up government in Westminster and Cardiff, so that people will be able to take up work because proper child care is available.
    I note with interest that the child care element will now cover those approved to provide child care in people's homes. The important word in this connection is "approved": what does it mean? The payments in the past have been called, pejoratively, "grannies' wages" or "nannies' wages". We will see how approval is worked out, but I note that the Department for Education and Skills is to consult shortly on the regulation scheme. Let us hope that the scheme fits in with patterns of family care in rural areas such as my constituency.
    A change in income could affect the maximum credits available. I see that an increase in income of up to £2,500 will be ignored. However, when income falls, will claimants be required to contact the Revenue? People dealing with the difficulties and sometimes chaos caused by income change will have to decide to reapply. We know that the Revenue will be there to help, but I am not casting aspersions when I say that ordinary men and women facing the chaos and difficulties of income change will not, as a first instinct, reach for the telephone to call the Revenue.
    Underpayments will be remedied immediately, but what about overpayments? Document No. 10 accompanying the Red Book states:
    "The Inland Revenue's approach to dealing with overpayments will be set out in a code of practice, which will be published in draft for wider consultation later this year."
    Why later this year and not now? People should be told.
    Given the variations in income due to seasonal factors that affect agricultural areas such as my own, where there might not be much employment available in the hard winter months, does the new system of tax credits fit the real world of work better than the working families tax credit? I have my doubts.
    Further ominous words about a fall in income appear in the document dealing with tax credits, which states that people who take a fall in income will be able to reapply. However, taking a fall in income to stay in work sounds rather like pricing oneself into a job. Many people have bitter recollections of what that means.
    May I be the first this evening to welcome the reduction in the taper on tax credits to 37p in the pound? However, the level is still too high to provide the soft entry into well-paid work that has worked so successfully in countries such as Ireland. There is concern about the effect of the taper when it is combined with the respective tapers for housing benefits and for council tax.
    644
    We in Plaid Cymru welcome the extension of the new deal and the introduction of personal mentors, but we hope that the system will not be oppressive, especially in areas of high unemployment. However much people in those areas are mentored, the jobs are not available.
    The tax credit system emphasises targeting, but there is the risk that targets will be missed. That compares with the high degree of success that universal benefits achieve in terms of reaching targets. Child benefit is very much the ghost at this particular feast. Targeting individual families also draws attention away from the value of universally available public services, especially in connection with those services—such as the provision of free school meals—that are significant for poorer families.
    Finally, I note that the BBC is reporting that the Government underspent last year to the tune of £11 billion. I regret that that underspend extends to the poorer, deprived areas of Wales, which cannot afford it.
    7.59 pm
    Rob Marris: I welcome this Budget. Ending poverty and improving public services in this country calls for bold action. Before 1979, there was a measure of consensus between the parties. That consensus was broken by a Conservative Government, who argued that wealth should trickle down to the poor. That dishonest cant hit the real impact of that Government's tax and benefit changes. The very poor faced tax increases—which included VAT being whacked up to 17.5 per cent—and falling incomes, while the very rich enjoyed almost unbelievable benefits.
    In their first term, the Conservatives' single-minded dedication to shadowing the money supply needlessly pushed unemployment beyond 3 million and devastated British manufacturing, particularly in the west midlands, which I am proud to represent. In their second term they massacred the housing budget, cutting it nearly in half. They removed rent controls, and trapped hundreds of thousands of council tenants on housing benefit—they could not take jobs because they would not be able to pay the new higher rents. In their third term, that Government froze child benefit again. They also introduced the poll tax, the most regressive tax in the history of the United Kingdom.
    During the 13 years between 1979 and 1992, the incomes of the bottom 10 per cent. in our society fell by 17 per cent. in real terms, not just in relation to the incomes of the rest of society. Between 1992 and 1997, the national debt doubled.
    Many of our constituencies contain disadvantaged estates, but they did not appear magically, whether in 1997 or in 2001. Those estates fell into poverty in the 1980s and 1990s, when many people—particularly in my area in the west midlands—were thrown out of their jobs by the Conservative party's monetary policy. That was a direct result of the unnecessary viciousness of the party's economic and housing policies—policies from which the poor on those estates suffered for 20 years.
    So what is the situation now, five years into a Labour Government? I have to say that it is very hard for the official Opposition. We have magnificent figures on inflation, which is at its lowest for about 40 years. We have magnificent figures on interest rates, also at their lowest for about 40 years. Unemployment has come tumbling down, and is now lower than it is in the United

    645
    States and Japan—and, as the Chancellor said in his statement, lower than the European Union average. As he pointed out, in the past year growth in the United Kingdom has been faster than that in any other G7 country. The national debt has come tumbling down as well.
    Mr. Boris Johnson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that those excellent statistics obtained in large measure at the time of the 1997 election?
    Rob Marris: No. It is not possible to say, as I have just said, that we have the lowest inflation for 40 years and then to say that it was just as low in 1997. That is clearly not the case. If the hon. Gentleman is trying to suggest, as some of his colleagues have, that the figures are simply the result of some golden legacy from the Conservative Government, I will gladly deal with that point.
    Mr. Swire: While the hon. Gentleman is conducting his tour of the history of the latter half of the 20th century, may I ask him why Britain was considered to be the sick man of Europe in 1979, and 15 years later was attracting record inward investment?
    Rob Marris: I did not set out to conduct a tour of the second half of the 20th century, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, and I shall continue with what I am saying.
    In 1997, the national debt was 44 per cent. of gross domestic product. It is now less than 31 per cent. of GDP, and is projected to remain so until about 2007. That will mean a tremendous change in the legacy that we shall leave to our children and grandchildren, and to future generations.
    I shall leave it to others to talk, as some already have, of the measures to assist families and pensioners. Let me say something about the measures—which I support—to help the environment. I am thinking of changes in vehicle excise duty for motor cycles and vans, measures to promote cleaner vans, the freezing of vehicle excise duty for buses, and new rates for low-carbon cars. The most efficient cars will attract £100 a year less in vehicle excise duty than the least efficient, which is a great step forward.
    Further support for business will be provided by exemption from the climate change levy for electricity generated by good-quality combined heat and power stations, and from coal mine methane. We should do more to encourage such moves, which are beneficial to our environment. The same applies to the fuel duty differential that will apply to sulphur-free petrol and diesel from next year.
    Manufacturing industry is dear to my heart, as I represent Wolverhampton, an industrial town—or city, as I should say now—in the west midlands. I welcome the changes in corporation tax, especially those affecting small business. They represent a major step forward, as I hope Opposition Members will be big enough to accept. I refer to the cut from 20 to 19 per cent., and the cut in the initial rate from 10 per cent. to zero.
    I particularly welcome the £400 million for research and development that has been announced as a result, partly, of representations made by a joint—I stress the word "joint"—CBI-TUC productivity working group. Research and development has been lacking in this country, although it has started to pick up recently. I also
    646
    welcome the £30 million provided for small firms to attain "investor in people" status. A community such as mine, where GDP per capita is about 82 per cent. of the national average, must welcome the community investment tax credit and the launch of the £40 million community development venture fund in May. They will be of real help to my constituency, which still suffers from the history of the Tory years.
    Conservative Members bang on about regulations, and the way in which business is tied up in regulations. They have done it again today. I sympathise, but when I have asked them what regulations they would get rid of—as I have done here, and in the Standing Committee considering the Employment Bill—I have received no answers. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) mentioned the climate change levy, but it is not a regulation. It is a tax, and one that I support.
    I hope that in future Budgets the Chancellor will provide more help for research and development. I would like him not just to assist the development of the green technology which, as he said, represents a growing world market, but to encourage the development of medical equipment technology. That too represents a growing world market. Moreover, it is not price-sensitive. We in the west midlands could do very well in that regard, given our history of innovation, working with metals, research, and building machinery. That is high-tech stuff.
    I was disappointed by the lack of any announced increase in finance for education and, in particular, the further education sector. Wolverhampton college is partly in my constituency. Nor was there any announcement of the abolition of higher education student tuition fees. Wolverhampton university is the fifth largest university in the country; it is even larger than the one mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick). It needs such action so that it can continue its great work in tackling social disadvantage. It has the best intake figures in the country in that context. That is, indeed, a Government priority, and I wish that there had been more announcements about HE funding in the Budget. Such funding would push us, as other measures in the Budget will, towards the high-wage, high-skill economy that I hope all Members want. I hope that the measures I have mentioned will feature in next year's Budget.
    Sadly, there was no announcement that we would move substantially nearer to fulfilling the United Nations target for international aid to constitute 0.7 per cent. of GDP. During the past five years of the present Government, we have seen big increases. I hope that they will continue, but I wish we could move closer to that target.
    As for the reply given by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), perhaps he has been reading The Guardian. The paper said this morning that the Budget was to do with how much it would cost to fix Britain's creaking public services. I do not accept that proposition—I do not accept that our public services are creaking. I do not accept what was said by the Leader of the Opposition and some of his hon. Friends, who suggested that public services were getting worse all the time. "More talk, more taxes and more failure", the right hon. Gentleman said. That might describe the Government he served as a Back Bencher, the Government who were in power from 1979 and so on, but I do not accept that the paradigm exists now.

    647
    I do not think all public services are getting worse. Of course we need to improve them, but they are not getting worse. When I travel around my constituency, I see things improving. Naturally I would like them to improve more, but they are already improving visibly. School roofs are not leaking as they used to in 1997, for instance, and we have a new accident and emergency department for children. A £44 million cardiac centre is to come on-stream, as is a £13 million state-of-the-art radiology centre. Some of those changes are still in the pipeline, and others have already happened. I do not accept that public services are getting worse—the official Opposition are completely wrong about that.
    The Leader of the Opposition is wrong to say that the Labour party was opposed to savings for pensioners. Labour in government has introduced the pension credit to reward thrifty pensioners and to encourage future pensioners to save. The right hon. Gentleman said that investment and reform is old-style tax and spend, but it will not surprise the House to hear that I do not accept that; nor do I accept the pejorative use of the phrase "tax and spend". How on earth are a responsible Government to spend unless they tax? The answer lies in part in the fact that the national debt doubled between 1992 and 1997. Conservative Governments before 1992 had flogged a lot of the family silver, so that was no longer an option; instead, the Conservative Government bumped up the national debt and spent. They refused to behave responsibly and increase taxes, as the Labour Government and this Budget have done.
    Taxes will increase slightly, and I support that. Page 218 of the Red Book shows that, on an accruals basis, the proportion of GDP accounted for by current taxation receipts in the tax year just started is 38.7 per cent.; in the years following it will be 39.9 per cent., 40.2 per cent. and 40.4 per cent.; and in 2006–07 it will be 40.5 per cent. In that five-year period, taxes will rise by about 2 per cent. In the same period, NHS spending is projected to increase 43 per cent. in real terms—a 43 per cent. increase off a 2.5 per cent. overall increase in the tax take. That is responsible service delivery. The key issue facing us all is delivery of public services, and the Government are taking great steps. Of course more could be done—that is always true—but we are moving in the right direction. Consideration is being given to management issues, whether in the health service or education, or even transport.
    I do not accept the Leader of the Opposition's assertion that the corporation tax burden in this country is among the highest in the group containing us and our competitors. Let me cite some figures from the Trades Union Congress brief, which itself quotes figures from other sources. The CBI business submission in respect of the budget talks of "taxes affecting business behaviour". The briefing gives figures for various countries: France 15 per cent., Netherlands 9.5 per cent., Germany 9.4 per cent., United Kingdom 8.9 per cent., and the United States 7.5 per cent. The figure for the UK is only 1.4 per cent. higher than that for the US, and we get better public services.
    Looking at the figures for the share of corporate income tax and employer social security in GDP, we see that the UK is way down the list of OECD countries. In 1999, the Czech Republic topped the list with a figure of 15.1 per
    648
    cent. The figure for the UK was 7.3 per cent., and a host of our European Union competitors appeared above us in the list, with higher shares. The figure for the United States, which Conservative Members will no doubt want to know, is 5.9 per cent.
    In the list of top corporate tax rates in the OECD, the UK figure is 31 per cent., but that is only the top rate. We have learned today that the starting rate is to fall to zero—it was 10 per cent. —and the rate for small businesses is to fall from 20 to 19 per cent. Let us compare our top rate with that of other countries. The top rate in Germany—one of our major competitors—is 54 per cent. In both Canada and Japan—fellow G7 countries—it is 46 per cent. We are way down the table with a rate of 31 per cent.
    The figures for employer social security contributions are found in a table from the US Bureau of Labour Statistics. The UK figure is 13 per cent., less than half the figure for France, which tops the table at 32 per cent. The figure for Belgium is 30 per cent.. The United States figure is 21 per cent. The Office for National Statistics Economic Trends figures on international profitability—that is, the rate of return—are 12 per cent. for the UK, 17 per cent. for Finland, 8.4 per cent. for Canada, 3.6 per cent. for Germany, and 9.2 per cent. for the United States.
    ONS figures on UK corporate profit records for five or 10-year periods from 1965 onwards show a figure of 12. 3 per cent. for all companies for the period 1997 to 2001, whereas for the period 1965 to 1971 it was 11.6 per cent.; for 1972 to 1981, 8.3 per cent.; for 1982 to 1991, 11.3 per cent; and for 1992 to 2001, 11.9 per cent. Under the Labour Government, that figure has increased to 12.3 per cent. I repeat: I do not accept the Leader of the Opposition's assertion about the UK corporate tax burden. It is simply not true.
    The truth is that despite their investigations, research, travels abroad and other endeavours, the official Opposition do not like the NHS and they do not like Government spending. That is why they use "tax and spend" as a pejorative expression. They would prefer either to borrow money on the sly and let future generations pay, or not to have the services at all. As the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), said on 7 October, slightly more than six months ago:
    "The lower we can get public spending as a proportion of GDP the better."
    The Labour party does not accept that principle. The official Opposition do. They have lost two elections on the back of it, and we will win the next general election as well on that division between us.
    8.16 pm
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: It is interesting that—merely in passing—the Chancellor mentioned that the economy was well within the Maastricht criteria. Given the importance that many Labour Members attach to the potential for this country's joining the euro, he could have dealt with the subject rather more thoroughly. After all, the decision has been taken in principle; it merely awaits an assessment based on the tests. I could understand the Government's sensitivity if they had bucked a decision in principle—if such a decision had yet to be taken; but given that the decision has already been taken and it is merely a question

    649
    of assessing economic convergence, I expected the Chancellor to take the opportunity to discuss the convergence criteria in greater depth.
    The Chancellor mentioned in passing one or two statistics. For example, he said that the growth rate in the eurozone was 1.5 per cent., whereas our own growth rate was much better at 2.2 per cent. That begs important questions about the rate of convergence. It would have been interesting to hear the Chancellor's assessment of whether it is suitable for our economy to enjoy a growth rate so much greater than that of the eurozone that we anticipate joining and with which we anticipate sharing an interest rate. It begs the question what differential effect an interest rate suited to an economy with 1.5 per cent. growth would have on an economy with 2.2 per cent. growth. I suggest that it would make us much poorer. I would have welcomed the Government's assessment, but the Chancellor bucked the opportunity.
    With great flourish and rhetoric, the Chancellor advertised his decisions on corporation tax on small businesses, but there is a trick: for small businesses to benefit from a reduction in corporation tax and from a new corporation tax regime, they have to be making a profit. That is the difficulty facing many of our small businesses. The critical factor is not the tax they pay on their profits, but whether they are able to make a profit as a consequence of the regulatory environment in which they exist. The key thing that the Chancellor and those on the Treasury Bench can do in determining the profitability of small businesses is to alleviate the regulatory regime; it is not to change the corporation tax rate.
    I take one example. One industry has been literally decimated by regulation: the intermediate care industry, or residential nursing homes. In the past four years, we have lost 10 per cent. of capacity—10 per cent. of the beds. From my experience in my constituency, that has arisen as a consequence of the stifling regulation that has been imposed on the industry, and the determination by the Secretary of State for Health to control that industry from the centre.
    When he set up the NHS, Bevan said that he wanted to hear a bedpan in a provincial hospital drop in his office in Whitehall—such was his determination to control his new creation from the centre. It has taken until this Secretary of State to deliver that centralised control. What business can it be of the Secretary of State to determine the widths of the doorways of a residential home in Milford on Sea? What business of his can it be to impose a regulatory regime that determines the number of baths and the size of the rooms? These regulations are not important to me. They are measurements that are easy to make but by and large they do not measure the important things that determine the quality of care in a home. However, if those regulations were important to those on the Treasury Bench—
    Mr. Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Swayne: Let me develop the point. If they were important to the occupants of the Treasury Bench, the way to achieve them would be to pay a premium to homes that met the requirements of those regulations. The market would quickly follow.
    The regulations were introduced with no regulatory impact assessment. Standing here, I asked the Minister what they were going to cost and he admitted that he had
    650
    no idea. No assessment had been made of the cost. I can tell hon. Members what they have cost: 10 per cent. of capacity at care homes. As a consequence, there has been a huge effect on the health service itself. As a result of those beds being lost, elderly people with nowhere else to go have occupied acute care beds—some 7,000 at any one time on an average stay of six weeks.
    The knock-on effect of that is the cancellation of some 78,000 operations. In order to expedite the turnover in beds, where there is somewhere else for someone to go, they are taken out too early. As a result, we have the shocking statistic that nearly 500,000 people had to be readmitted to hospital within months of their discharge, presumably because they were discharged too early. We see the enormous consequence of the determination of the Secretary of State to get his way by regulation. Reductions in corporation tax will not retrieve the situation.
    Rob Marris: What has happened is a concern to many hon. Members. There seem to be two ways forward. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will agree, or perhaps he will disagree. One is to get rid of the Care Standards Act 2000, which appeared to be his approach. although he can clarify that. The other is that, in order to meet the increased costs for residential care home owners—I have talked to some in my constituency—of complying with the standards, which I support, the social services budget could be increased by, for example, 6 per cent. a year in real terms, which the Chancellor has already proposed in his Budget. We can either increase taxes and Government spending to deal with that problem, or we can dilute or abolish the standards. Which would he like?
    Mr. Swayne: I made my approach clear on Second Reading of the Care Standards Bill. I said that I did not believe that the standards were important. I predicted entirely what subsequently happened.
    Mr. Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Swayne: I will answer the point that has been made before I take another intervention.
    There was no suggestion from the Chancellor this afternoon that the proposed increases in social services budgets will be used to carry out the structural changes that are required at care homes in order to make extra beds available. If the right hon. Gentleman wants a way out of the problem, he should remember our approach at the last general election.
    I have concentrated on the effect of the regulations on the structure of the industry. Another underlying problem is that social services departments have been unable to fund clients in residential care homes sufficiently. In other words, the argument must be that there should be greater expenditure on social services budgets.
    Our proposals at the last general election would have dealt with that. Paradoxically, the best way of assisting acute care is to readjust the budgets so that some of the expenditure goes into intermediate care, which would unblock many beds. An amelioration could have been delivered without an increase in overall expenditure.
    Mr. Hendrick: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously think that it is not important for an elderly person in a care

    651
    home to have enough space in which to move around? In some cases, one can just about fit a bed into the room—the person is almost like a rabbit in a rabbit hutch. Is it not important that a wheelchair can get through a door if one of the people at a care home happens to be disabled? Is it not important that there are minimum nutrition standards, so that people are fed properly and not starved, as a minority have been in some of the worst-run care homes—although most of them are run very well? Is it not the Government's job to govern?
    Mr. Swayne: It is appropriate that there be an inspection regime that stamps out abuses—a light regulatory touch. The hon. Gentleman is right. It may be very important that a particular doorway accommodates a wheelchair but in a significant number of the homes in my constituency there are no wheelchairs, so there is no requirement for those doorways to accommodate a wheelchair. By and large the buildings are very old, so changing the width of the doorway would present a major structural problem. There is no reason to do that.
    The nonsense is that the decision is made in Whitehall. It has a disproportionate and catastrophic effect in Milford on Sea. That is the problem with the regulatory regime that the Government have designed.
    I come to the main thrust of the Chancellor's Budget. He himself defined it is a question of how we deliver the expenditure to provide world-class public services. He concentrated on the NHS. As hon. Members will accept, we have heard some distortion in categorising the different positions of the parties. We must be honest and mature about the debate. By and large, there is a consensus. The consensus is that we want a comprehensive health service providing services that are available to those who need them and not based on the ability to pay. There is generally an acceptance of that principle. The difference between us is how we deliver that situation—what policies we pursue to achieve that ideal.
    We do not serve the profession of politics well by pretending that that consensus does not exist, and by categorising our respective positions as a determination to destroy that ideal, rather than to achieve it. We may differ profoundly about the means by which to achieve it, or there may be shades of grey about the way in which to pursue the ideal, but it is monstrous for Labour Members to suggest that the Conservative party is determined to destroy the NHS and to create something different in its place.
    I do not think that the electorate are taken in for one moment. Some of the turn-off from politics that ordinary people experience is to a great extent a consequence of the way in which we sometimes conduct our arguments—painting a bleak picture of one party vis-à-vis the other. We would do the debate and the public much greater service if we concentrated on a proper argument about how to deliver the services that we generally agree the electorate should have.
    Rob Marris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way again. I salute his search for common ground between the two main parties—indeed, between the three main parties and the smaller parties represented in the House—but Labour Members,
    652
    who uniformly support the concept of the NHS, find it difficult when confronted by statements such as that made earlier by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who seemed to suggest that there should be a much greater role for the private sector in delivering private medicine.
    I am not talking about the kind of arrangements, such as contracting-out operations, into which the Government have recently entered. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that it would be a jolly good thing if more people were treated privately—in contradistinction to the Leader of the Opposition, who seemed to decry the fact that there were 250,000 private operations last year. Those mixed messages from the Conservative party confuse Labour Members and make it more difficult to find what common ground there might be.
    Mr. Swayne: I welcome choice for patients as I welcome choice in any market: 250,000 people deciding that they want to pay for their health care would be very different from the situation that we face. My constituents are writing to me complaining—precisely as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said—that they have had to use their life savings for life-saving or life-changing operations. They do not want to do that, but in the current environment they are having to do so. I share the hon. Gentleman's desire for a national health service that provides a comprehensive service that is available to those who need it, not on the basis of whether they can afford it, but if we simply continue the present funding structure exclusively for the NHS, we shall put it and that ideal in much greater danger than if we explore other possibilities.
    The Chancellor largely pre-empted such a debate by having the Wanless report published this morning and then launching into his Budget speech clearly having made his mind up about the way in which we will proceed. Indeed, when he addressed the Social Market Foundation a month ago, he made it clear that there would be no debate or discussion about how we fund the NHS. Mr. Wanless may well be right—I do not know the answer to the question—in his assessment that a publicly funded system from taxation is the best and most efficient. I doubt it very much, but it might be the case. I want to have that debate and to test all the arguments. I want to examine and be open to other possibilities. The Government are trying to close down that debate, but the nation and, potentially, the NHS would benefit greatly from it.
    Effectively, we are saying that, by and large, with a measure of modernisation here and there, the only problem that the NHS faces is underfunding and that it has been underfunded for too long. However, hon. Members will know from the five Budgets at which they have waved their Order Papers in delight that we have been spending a great deal more on the NHS for some time. Indeed, the Chancellor said that spending has increased by a third. The estimate of ordinary people is that that has not done the trick—indeed, that things are marginally worse in some respects. It is a great leap of faith simply to say, "Let's double spending, and that'll do the trick." My belief is that it will not. It will be interesting to see whether at the end of this Parliament it has delivered the improvements in services that we want.
    Mr. Hendrick: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct about the extra sums of money that have gone into the

    653
    NHS, but does he not recognise that, for their first two years, this Government stuck to the previous Government's spending proposals and that in the two and a half years since then, we have increased investment? He knows as well as I do that it takes four years to train a nurse and six years to train a doctor. Although there have been improvements in buildings and in much of the health service infrastructure, it will take time for that extra investment to come through. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that simple point?
    Mr. Swayne: The hon. Gentleman is right that the Government accepted for their first two years the plans that had been laid down by the preceding Conservative Government. As a consequence, expenditure on the NHS significantly increased, as was the plan. Of course that has been added to since, and spending has increased by a third. Of course it takes time to change things, but we are still running into enormous problems of loss of capacity as people become exhausted by the pace of modernisation. The last thing hospital staff are looking forward to is yet more change as a consequence of what the Government call modernisation. Staff are already exhausted by it.
    The experience of my constituents as a consequence of increasing the health service budget by a third is a bleak one. We still wait three years in New Forest, West for a hearing test. If someone in New Forest, West, has a stroke, suffers dysphasia and as a consequence is in intensive need of speech therapy, they cannot have it unless they are over 65. That example is from the letters of complaint about the level of service in the NHS that I have received in just the past seven days.
    As I said at business questions when the Leader of the House was trumpeting the heroic achievements of the NHS with respect to waiting lists, a lady wrote to me only last week to complain that she has been waiting for an operation in excess of the very sensitive figure of 18 months. She was telephoned by a Southampton trust and told that because she had been waiting in excess of 18 months, the operation could be carried out by the Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch hospitals trust. She agreed, but some four months later when she rang to ask why she still had not had the operation, she was told by the Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch hospitals trust that, as she had been waiting only four months, she did not have a prayer. The trick is to start the clock the moment that she moves trusts. Then, lo and behold, the target has been met because no one has waited for more than 18 months. That is not an isolated case. We saw what happened at Derriford hospital. When the executives who were responsible for the extraordinary system of hidden lists lost their jobs as a consequence, they tipped up elsewhere in the NHS executive in better-paid jobs. That sends a powerful signal to executives throughout the NHS.
    We have also heard of examples of people being offered appointments when they have gone on holiday so that the trust can say that as they did not turn up for the appointment, they do not count on the waiting lists. The holiday dates were solicited and the appointment offered after the person had set off. It is shocking that such things should happen at this time.
    Those examples characterise a malaise in the NHS structure that we have delivered. I should like to explore alternative ways of fixing the problem to simply throwing more taxpayers' money at it. I am prepared to accept a
    654
    debate that comes to the conclusion that the only solution is to throw more taxpayers' money at the NHS, but we have not yet had the debate and the Chancellor has already made his decision to throw the money. It will be interesting to see what happens.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, I would point out that time is running out and several hon. Members wish to catch my eye. Unless contributions are a little shorter, some will be disappointed.
    8.40 pm
    Gareth Thomas: This is not just a good Budget, it is a very good Budget. It is a courageous Budget and it is an important Budget because it will set the course for the Government for the remainder of this Parliament and, I hope, well beyond. It has a greater significance because it throws into stark relief the dividing lines between the Labour and Conservative parties. The Conservatives are committed to a decline in the size of the state, a low tax economy, tax cuts and the destruction of the NHS as we know it. On the other hand, the Labour party accepts the need not so much for tax and spend as for tax and investment in our public services, combined with a process of reform.
    We know that in the general election of 1997 and last year, when the Conservatives ran on a policy of tax cuts and were comprehensively beaten, the great British public did not give us a blank cheque to spend their money. We must ensure that the outputs justify the increases in taxation. Labour Members accept that taxation is the price that we pay for living in a civilised society and I do not apologise for being fulsome in my praise of the Chancellor.
    As well as being courageous, the Budget is also redistributive. The social measures, including the working tax credit and the child tax credit, will be of tremendous value to millions of poorer households and it is clear that the Chancellor has balanced the need to raise further taxes with the need to ensure an end to child poverty and the aim of lifting more people out of poverty.
    The increases in public expenditure are substantial. The increase in the NHS budget between 2003 and 2008 will be 48 per cent. in real terms. That will make a difference, although we cannot be complacent about the need to ensure that the uses to which the money will be put will be considered carefully. That is why the Government are right to redouble their efforts to ensure that the process of reform continues. The Wanless report makes it clear that that is exactly what is required. We need a sound, long-term and sustainable programme of spending in the NHS if it is to remain a service that commands the respect and affection of the British public.
    This is a Budget for the NHS, although additional spending will go into the other great public services, including education, policing and transport. As a Welsh Member, I am of course aware that we have created a democratic institution in the National Assembly for Wales and I hope and expect that it will wish to use the extra money for a drive to improve standards and cut waiting lists. I also hope that it will make those tough decisions

    655
    that are sometimes necessary if we are to reform the NHS. I emphasise that the public will expect us to achieve results, and in that respect the Budget is courageous.
    I turn to the measures that are, in my view, designed rightly to help fulfil the Government's commitment to creating an enterprising and fair society. Those terms are not mutually exclusive. We know that they have been a theme of the Chancellor's Budgets over the past five years, and it is a theme that I applaud.
    I welcome the measures to promote enterprise, especially for small businesses. I welcome also the changes to corporation tax, which will be of great significance, as will be the changes to VAT and the research and development tax incentives. These measures will, as I have said, be a great help to small businesses, which are a considerable feature of the Welsh economy.
    The welfare-to-work proposals build on the measures that the Government have already introduced. They will make a considerable difference to many of my constituents.
    The Budget steers a clear course. It builds upon the record of a strong economy and our desire to create a fair and enterprising society. I welcome it greatly.
    8.46 pm
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: We have had a good debate and I shall make a brief contribution to it. I am aware that colleagues are waiting to participate.
    First, I shall deal with process. Secondly, I shall talk briefly about poverty, and thirdly, I have a constituency point that I shall share with the House.
    The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), a fellow member of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, complained that he had not received big announcements about education expenditure. It occurred to me that we have come a long way from the old days. Perhaps I have been in this place for longer than is good for me. In those days, Budgets used to be about raising revenue, not about spending. I accept that a November pre-Budget statement is good, because it gives us an idea of what is coming up. A comprehensive spending round announcement will come in July, and there will be another round of spending announcements. Many tax measures are announced for implementation in a year or two's time and, as a result, the situation becomes extremely complicated to follow. I accept that modern life is complicated, and we are a sophisticated democracy. I am not complaining about that.
    The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), the Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, made an interesting and sensible speech. He talked around some of the new ideas for Budget scrutiny that are being exchanged. That is a long way round saying that we should be thinking more seriously—the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) mentioned this—about how we cope with complicated Government financial announcements. The Chancellor makes the most of them politically, and we would expect that. He does it with some style, as he did this afternoon. But the House needs to think more carefully about how we scrutinise the work that the Government are doing and how we explore spending and revenue raising.
    656
    I think that tax raising and spending should be done all at once. There is a case for making announcements of spending and revenue raising at the same time. We should try to make it easier for Members better to understand the Red Book, taxation forecasts and other press releases. We would serve our constituents more effectively if we did that.
    Complexity is another important part of the process issue. Those on the Treasury Bench should think seriously about some legislative consolidation. I know that in the past the Treasury Select Committee has considered disaggregating some of the technical tax changes and introducing a tax Bill every year, which would be for the real anoraks. That could be safely parked on one side while the rest of us could get on with a sensible debate about issues that affect our constituents directly. That would be helpful.
    One complaint that I would make about the Budget is that the complexity of what the Chancellor is doing is loading complication upon complication. The social security system has been sucked into the Treasury purlieu in a way from which it may never recover, I fear. Some of the new tax credit ways of developing and delivering services are certainly interesting. However, they risk complicating the benefit situation in a way that makes it ineffably complicated.
    There is also an irresistible temptation for all Governments to seek to centralise power in Whitehall. That might seem a strange view, coming from someone who welcomed the devolution to the legislatures of other nation states in the United Kingdom and the Greater London Authority, but I believe that there is still a propensity in Whitehall to seek to control. For the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state in one of his rhetorical flourishes the pounds, shillings and pence that he plans to send to every school seems to me to be ridiculous—as someone said earlier, Ministers like listening to the sound of bedpans. Ministers are for ever trying to influence local agendas, whereas we should be content to set limits, thresholds and ceilings for expenditure and let the decision-makers at a much lower level get on with the job.
    Finally on process, the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick), who made an interesting speech, said that the penny increase was nothing more than a slight change to the national insurance system. In my view, the national insurance fund is now completely redundant. The Government have made no secret of the fact that they have been making substantial changes to the way in which they deal with the contributory benefits system. The national contributory system has been substantially changed by the Chancellor's announcement this afternoon. If that happens entirely by default, it is a shame. The Beveridge contributory system has served us well. I am a little old-fashioned about that. To make such changes and to increase national insurance as the Chancellor has done—it is an income tax increase by any other name—is a shame. It is a retrogressive move in many ways.
    Mr. David Rendel: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as I know that he is trying to speed up. Has he taken on board the point, which has not yet been mentioned in the House, that not only is that an income tax increase, but it is tax increase on income worth 2p—1p from the employer and 1p from the employee? It will

    657
    affect most of all those with smaller incomes, because there is a cut-off for employees' national insurance contributions.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Indeed. I am happy to concur with that view. There are unintended consequences that will start to unfold in terms of the increase in the employers' contributions. National insurance contributions have a specific focus and incidence, and I would have been much happier to use the income tax system, which is more transparent and more progressive. It is a great shame that the Government have decided to use the national insurance machinery to increase resources, but, then again, about time too. I have been waiting for this day since 1997. Some Labour Members reflected that in the euphoria of their reaction.
    There are, however, some concerns about the Chancellor's statement. I welcome the expenditure, but I am worried about households that are in abject poverty. Of course I understand that the national health service deserves and needs expenditure, and I support the Government in the creative measures that they have introduced to change the culture of those who are on benefits for many years and who as families have been locked into benefits for long periods.
    The move towards Jobcentre Plus and the concept of welfare to work is right and appropriate, but I worry for those who in the immediate future will get nowhere near the labour market. I know that the child tax credit will make some inroads into that, but I worry about some of the unintended consequences of the working tax credit. The emphasis on people who are in work and on subsidising low-paid work can stigmatise people who are a long way removed from the labour market and in abject poverty. The Child Poverty Action Group and other pressure groups are right to say that we need to give the poor a voice. We must also try to define poverty more clearly. I hope that there will soon be a consultation paper from the Government about how they assess their success in floating people out of poverty. That is an important issue.
    Minimum income standards are used to great effect by sister European countries to measure the performance of Governments in terms of the reality of people's earnings—not just relative poverty and all the other difficult statistics, and how the weekly budgets of people who are nowhere near the labour market are affected. That is a group of people about whom I have real concerns. The Government did not do enough for such people in today's Budget.
    There are further real concerns about the working tax credit and the way in which it is implemented. It can have perverse incentives within households where there is a working member and a non-working member and, if we are not careful, there is real opportunity for collusion with employers about introducing fraud into its implementation. Depending how the tapers are played out, people can be frozen into the tax credit and that diminishes the opportunity of a later career at a higher wage level than that set by the working tax credit.
    The working tax credit poses many difficulties. I am prepared to consider the concept carefully, but we must be careful that we get its implementation right and that we do not forget that if families do not get into the labour market they cannot take advantage of many of the welcome announcements made this afternoon.
    658
    I repeat the point that I made to the hon. Member for Dumbarton about the NHS and the King's Fund. In many parts of the UK the NHS is not in a fit state to take big sums of cash and spend them sensibly in the short term. We shall have to deal with that and we must be careful about containing people's expectations about how long big sums will take to come through before they can make a difference to ordinary people.
    I was slightly taken aback to learn about the effect of fuel duty rebate on local bus services in rural areas. Indeed, I was astonished to learn from my constituency of the adverse effect that the absence of fuel duty rebate was having on local bus service providers. There has been a strenuous effort in the Scottish borders to reduce social exclusion, both for those who lack access to basic services due to age, infirmity and limited means, but also for those who are physically a long way removed from central services and who are geographically isolated.
    Some 30 per cent. of border households do not have a car and they have been particularly hard hit by the imposition of fuel duty on local bus services. Although fuel is duty free on trains—though the borders have no railways—ferries and air services, local bus operators are required to pay fuel duty, only part of which can be reclaimed.
    What surprised me was the estimate that local bus operators in my constituency now pay some £320,000 a year in unreclaimable duty. Against that figure, only £193,000 is provided to the council through the rural bus fund, so public transport users in the borders region contribute more to the Exchequer than is received back in public transport support. I do not know whether that makes the region unique in the UK.
    The cost of fuel duty is obviously directly reflected in the fares, which as a result are among the highest in Britain. The tax falls on those least able to pay and increases the isolation of most rural communities and the social exclusion of the most vulnerable. That scarcely represents a joined up social or environmental policy.
    If that is not bad enough, it is particularly harsh that school transport bus contractors must pay fuel duty in full. In a rural area, where a high proportion of pupils qualify for free school transport, some children face daily journeys of up to 60 miles. The council makes every effort to co-ordinate school and public bus services, but most school services get no rebate on fuel duty. Any efforts made locally to encourage more parents to send their children to school by bus so as to reduce road traffic and improve pedestrian safety at the school gate, are frustrated by the high cost of fares. The estimated cost of fuel duty on statutory school transport amounts to about £115,000 a year, some 4 per cent. of the council's school transport budget.
    Those are important issues which I hope that those on the Treasury Bench will note and take to heart. I understand that there is a wider strategy with an environmental dimension, which is very important, but if we are dedicated, as I am sure that we all are, to trying to eradicate social exclusion in our rural areas, such issues will have to be addressed.
    9 pm
    Mr. David Kidney: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). Like him, I think that we need better

    659
    scrutiny of the economic and financial decisions that are taken or approved of in this place. I also believe, however, that departmental Select Committees could do more about departmental budgets if they wanted to in conducting their scrutiny. I am sure that they are all very busy, but there is also a feeling that such work is for anoraks—just as he felt about people interested in tax legislation. That is a shame; it is a perception that we should try to change by pointing out the value of such scrutiny.
    I want to remind myself of the position when I spoke at the same stage in last year's Budget debate. At a time when we faced the general election in which I made my first attempt to be re-elected to Parliament, I was able to praise the position that the Chancellor had achieved. The sound and sensible work that he had done in all his previous Budgets had put Labour into a strong position in which it could implement a Budget that would stand it in good stead for the coming election. Lo and behold, the election was successful. The result was very good for Labour and we looked like achieving something that we had never achieved before: two full consecutive terms in government. I was returned to Parliament, so who am I to complain? Indeed, I am one of the dozens of Labour Members who took seats in 1997 that Conservatives had held for decades, and I do not think that I was untypical in then improving my majority in the 2001 general election. All that is a tribute to the sound economic work that Labour did in government in those first four years.
    The Chancellor has run out of stealth taxes, and has determined on taking the necessary risks in the decisions that he has made today. He is taking two particular risks. First, on the very high-profile taxation for investment in our public services, the public must see improvements in the next few years, otherwise they will object to having had to pay the higher taxes. To some extent, I am relaxed about that, as it does not matter what we say in the Chamber: it is the experiences of voters and residents in our constituencies that will determine whether they perceive those improvements. Nothing that we can say will change that. The second risk is that the public do not want to pay higher taxes. The opinion polls tell us that people are willing to pay more for better public services, and we are now going to put that to the test, as they will be paying higher taxes in a year's time to fund such services.
    The Government's economic strategy has moved on. In those first four years in office, it was clearly based on stability and fairness. They have now moved on to enterprise and fairness. That is not to say that they have given up on stability, but that stability has put in place foundations on which they can be more ambitious and start to tackle some more deeply rooted problems such as the productivity gap between us and our main competitors. Again, it is a credit to what we did in those first four years that we can now move forward and deal with problems in enterprise and productivity.
    The Chancellor mentioned the Enterprise Bill, which has just started its passage through the House. The Bill is a worthwhile development because it takes politics out of competition decisions—an echo of the bold decision in 1997 to take the politics out of monetary policy. I wish the Government as great a success with the current decision as they achieved with the 1997 one. The Bill
    660
    also introduces criminal sanctions against cartels, better protection for consumers and some improvements in insolvency measures.
    We heard in today's announcement about improved work force skills and reductions in some tax rates, especially for smaller companies. The Chancellor reminded us that only a month ago, he responded to the Competition Commission report on bank services for small businesses. I suspect that the best announcement today for small businesses was the introduction of the flat-rate VAT scheme for companies with a turnover of less than £100,000 this year—and £150,000 next year—which will apply to more than 500,000 companies. Large companies will of course be delighted that, like small and medium-sized enterprises, they will benefit from a research and development tax credit.
    That is all to the good for the enterprise and productivity agenda, but it is worth mentioning as a footnote my attendance at last week's conference at Staffordshire university, where I spoke on the subject of starting up a new business. My message was factual—in dealing with the support available—rather than party political, and after giving it, I was able to sit back and listen to the other speakers. About half the audience were undergraduates thinking about their first job, and about half were people in work and thinking about career changes. Two messages came across. First, self-employment and starting up a business is not a soft choice but a tough one that might also prove rewarding and satisfying. The economic climate in which to take such a decision has been very benign for some time, and the future also looks reasonably benign. Secondly, the Government are giving good support to people who run small businesses, and to those who want to start them up. The impression came across that things are much better than in the past, which is reassuring in terms of this Government's enterprise and productivity agenda.
    On the fairness agenda, it is clear that improvement in public services is at the heart of today's Budget. Although the national health service has understandably taken centre stage, it is worth reminding ourselves that the Chancellor did not overlook other public services. He had things to say about our defence forces, law and order and the law agencies and education. Although education occupied only a small part of the speech, he said something very significant about it: the Government remain committed to increasing substantially the proportion of GDP that is spent on education services. It is important not to overlook such statements, even though our attention is on the national health service.
    It is a matter of equity and fairness that strong public services are available for everybody when they are needed, without the worry of being able to pay for them. As the Chancellor and the Wanless report have stressed, with money must come reform. The same is true of the national health service. We have already witnessed national examples of reform such as NHS Direct, national call centres, walk-in centres and more nurse consultants. Consultation is also taking place on wider prescribing by nurses and pharmacists. In terms of money, such reforms are reflected locally. Improvements have been made to my local hospital's accident and emergency, medical assessment and intensive care units. Improvements have also been made to GP surgeries, all of which now have a social worker attached. More courses from nurses and therapists are available at GP surgeries, and improvements have been made to our mental health hospital services.

    661
    With the money has come reform. I witnessed a good example of that in March, when I visited the new eye centre that the local hospital trust has set up in my Stafford constituency. Back in 1997, the biggest proportion of the many complaints that I received about health services concerned waits of 15 to 18 months for cataract operations. All such services were provided under contract at a hospital outside the district. My local hospital took advantage of the Government's offer of a modernisation fund for cataract treatment by accessing that fund and setting up the local eye centre that I visited in March. It is modern—it has just been built—run in modern ways, and ophthalmists can refer patients directly. The service is fronted by nurses, and patients have a single assessment to check whether they are suitable for a cataract operation. Their operation is booked then and there. During my March visit, operations were being booked for May. Instead of waiting 15 months, patients are getting their operations within 15 weeks. That example shows how money and different working methods can be combined to improve service. I now receive glowing letters of praise from constituents about cataract services when I used to receive letters of terrible complaint. An hon. Member asked about operations to replace hip joints. To complete the picture locally, Stafford wants to establish an orthopaedic surgical unit that gives people the same service as the orthopaedic unit. We will look to the Government for help from the modernisation fund to do that.
    I do not want to get carried away with how rosy everything looks because there are still dreadful problems, some of which are noticeable in my constituency. One of the three pilots for drug testing of offenders who are arrested by the police and charged with an offence is taking place in Stafford. Just under half the people tested have proved positive for drug dependency, which makes it a health problem. Most of them say that they would like help with that dependency, but when the police and the referral service turn to the health service, the support is not available to the extent that it should be.
    The problem of access to NHS dentistry is not unusual in Stafford and is experienced throughout the country. For the elderly, there remain the problems of delayed discharge, lack of domiciliary care help and difficulty in adapting people's homes. More needs to be done and the way forward for the NHS is set out in the Wanless report. The money is earmarked for reform. It is not meant to pay for services when people are sick, nor to go towards private insurance schemes or even a social insurance scheme. No hon. Member would propose that employers pay more in social insurance contributions than they are going to be required to make under national insurance.
    At the end of my speech last year, I made three points that are valid today. I berated Departments for underspending their budgets. It appears that a year later the situation is the same. They are letting the country down if they do not spend the money that is allocated.
    My second point related to the unfair distribution of education money by central Government to local authorities. The Government have now made the commitment to change that system for next year. I just hope that this summer's comprehensive spending assessment contains enough money for education to level up the money that is paid to local authorities so that everyone gets a fair and decent amount from the Government.
    662
    My third point concerned the attempt to eradicate poverty. I am delighted that the Chancellor disclosed the rates for the child tax credit next year. Ally that with the national minimum wage, the universal child benefit and the new working tax credit and I am confident that the attack on poverty will make great advances in the next four years, never mind the next 15.
    9.13 pm
    Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: My party welcomes the additional initial investment in the national health service, which for Northern Ireland means a total of £2.7 billion extra over the next five years. In 2003–04, we will get an extra £73 million, rising to £1 billion in 2007–08.
    I note the Chancellor's proposal for the appointment of an independent auditor for the NHS in England. I hope that that measure will be replicated in Northern Ireland. It is important that we get proper scrutiny and accountability of how money is spent on health because we think that we are not getting value for money. The appointment of an auditor in Northern Ireland would be welcome.
    I want to enter a note of caution. Northern Ireland spends more per capita on health than England. In fact, our health care spending is on a par with that of France, yet we still have among the longest waiting lists in the United Kingdom. As Opposition Members have said, it does not always follow that additional expenditure on the health service equals reduced waiting lists. That has been our experience in Northern Ireland, which is why we need to look at bureaucracy in the health service and take steps to ensure that the extra money gets to the point of delivery and reaches our constituents at the point of need. The key test of the success of this welcome investment will be the extent to which waiting lists are drastically reduced in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom.
    On families and children, we support the Chancellor's measures to introduce a new child tax credit from 2003, and to increase the working families tax credit from June 2002. In addition, the child care element of the new working tax credit, which will allow families to receive extra tax credits to meet up to 70 per cent. of their eligible child care costs, is a significant improvement which will especially benefit families who are most in need. In Northern Ireland, these reforms should see some 250,000 people benefit to the tune of £600 million from next April, and we welcome that additional investment in the family and children.
    Staying on the theme of children, we welcome the additional capital investment for expenditure in our schools. I note that this money will go directly to the schools, but the £2,500 for a typical primary school and £7,100 for a typical secondary school will not go far. The primary and secondary schools in my constituency will not find it difficult to spend that extra money, and I would have liked to see more capital expenditure made available for schools throughout the United Kingdom.
    On business, the economy in Northern Ireland is heavily dependent on small businesses, which are at the heart of our economy. I welcome the proposal to reduce the small companies corporation tax rate from 20p to 19p, and to consider further steps to reform and modernise the corporation tax regime. Although I welcome the additional reliefs on capital gains tax for business to

    663
    encourage investment and entrepreneurial activity, and the proposals to simplify VAT for small businesses, more needs to be done to help the business sector in Northern Ireland.
    The new tax credit for research and development will also help Northern Ireland companies, which have an excellent record for innovation. The Ulster Unionist party has been concerned at the lack of investment in R and D by some of the larger companies in the Province, and we hope that this new tax credit will be an incentive to those companies to invest in research and development for the future.
    High transport and energy costs continue to impose a disproportionate burden on business in Northern Ireland, in comparison with other parts of the United Kingdom. The freeze on fuel duty rates is welcome, but it does not go nearly far enough to ease the situation. The high fuel duty rates in the UK seriously disadvantage the road haulage industry in Northern Ireland, and the cost of this is inevitably passed on to business and, ultimately, to the consumer. With a land frontier next to a eurozone country whose fuel duty rates are much lower than ours, our retail petroleum industry has been devastated by the differential between those rates. As a result, fuel smuggling has increased substantially in Northern Ireland, and the result of that has been the closure of a large percentage of retail petrol outlets in the Province. We would therefore have welcomed a decrease in the fuel duty rate in the United Kingdom, which would have helped Northern Ireland's road haulage and retail petroleum industries.
    We welcome the announcement of the introduction of a distance-based lorry road user charge that will make foreign lorry operators pay towards the costs that they impose in the UK. Obviously, as Northern Ireland has a land frontier with the Irish Republic, we will see the benefit of that. However, I cannot understand why the Government are delaying the introduction of the new charge to 2005 or 2006. The British road haulage industry wants those reforms to be introduced at the earliest opportunity, and that is especially true in Northern Ireland, where our haulage industry is under enormous pressure. I urge the Chancellor to reconsider the timetable for the introduction of the new charge and to implement it at the earliest possible opportunity. We shall monitor the proposed consultation process with the road haulage industry and shall want firm action to be taken to alleviate the pressures on that hard-pressed industry.
    The decision to increase duty on cigarettes will once again increase the likelihood of cross-border smuggling in Northern Ireland. That will undoubtedly have a detrimental impact on the tobacco industry in the Province and throughout the United Kingdom. The black market in smuggled cigarettes and fuel in Northern Ireland is booming, primarily filling the coffers of the paramilitary organisations that are at the heart of such smuggling and racketeering. We need the Government to take action to deal with that, not only by tackling crime, but by reconsidering duties on those products. Smuggling must be deterred, not encouraged. Such encouragement may be inadvertent, but it is the end result. The problem must be addressed by reforming the duty regime for those products. That will be a key element in closing down the smuggling that is the scourge of our economy in Northern Ireland.
    664
    We welcome the Chancellor's announcement that in Northern Ireland the proposed tax relief for aggregates in respect of processed products will be backdated to 1 April 2002 on receipt of European Union state aid approval. That is to ensure that no levy is paid on aggregates that are used to make such products in Northern Ireland in the tax year 2002–03. My party has lobbied hard to gain recognition for the special circumstances of the quarry industry in Northern Ireland, and the announcement of further relief is a welcome step in the right direction. Nevertheless, we shall continue to press the case for consideration of those special circumstances and for further relief to be given to the quarry industry in respect of the introduction of the aggregates tax.
    We welcome many of the provisions in the Budget, but it remains to be seen whether the tax increases to enable additional investment will result in the substantial improvements in health care and other public services that give people confidence that their taxes are being well spent. My constituents will measure the Budget's success by the extent to which it results in shorter waiting lists, increases the number of hospital beds available and delivers the best health care to them at the point of need. The final verdict on the Budget may have to wait until the people can make that judgment for themselves.
    9.23 pm
    Jon Trickett: In the very limited time available to me, I want to reflect on the national health service.
    Last year, my father was taken into hospital twice with an eye condition, and he eventually lost the affected eye. On two other occasions he was taken in, with blue flashing lights, for a broken femur. At Christmas, my mother was taken into hospital, where she was finally diagnosed as suffering from brain cancer.
    I have spent hours every week in hospitals—great NHS hospitals—in the city of Leeds, and I think that I know as much about the NHS and how it works, from a patient's point of view, as is possible. I have met hundreds of patients, doctors, consultants, nurses and others, and I can speak with some knowledge about their feelings about the NHS.
    I feel a moral obligation to a woman who died from brain cancer to argue for the national health service. It is apparent to everyone who uses it that it does not need reform, the private sector or any of the other remedies that are being discussed. The NHS is suffering from a simple lack of resources. The top and bottom of the matter is that there are not enough resources to make people better sufficiently quickly.
    I congratulate the Chancellor on commissioning the Wanless report, which clearly and starkly states the extent to which the NHS is under-resourced. It estimates that we need an extra 300,000 staff, including 62,000 additional doctors and 108,000 more nurses, to reach the average standard for an acceptable NHS by 2022. Wanless demonstrates that people in this country are dying younger than they should because the NHS is suffering from a lack of resources. He uses a sinister phrase—"PYLL" or "potential years of life lost" because of an inadequately funded health service. Wanless compares us with many similar countries and shows that people in the United Kingdom die younger because of inadequate NHS funding.

    665
    I have taken a special interest in cancer because of my mother's cancerous tumour. According to Wanless, 10,000 people a year die needlessly of cancer because the service is underfunded when compared with the European average. If we moved to the standard of the European best, 25,000 people a year who currently die of cancer would live. That shows the scale of the crisis in the NHS. It is simply wrong to suggest that there are systemic, structural or managerial failures in the health service. The problem is underfunding.
    I will not join a conspiracy of politicians from any party to imply that better results can be achieved through reform. Wanless demonstrates that people in this country have to wait an average of 4.3 months to see a consultant when people in Germany can see a consultant the same day. The average waiting time to see a general practitioner in some of the comparator countries is 14 minutes, whereas in this country, 25 per cent. of patients have to wait a minimum of four days.
    The NHS suffers from underfunding and underresourcing, and Wanless shows that clearly. It is wrong for us not to spell out the facts to the nation, which, in any event, already understands them. I believe that 25 million patients a year go to see a GP. The figures are staggering, and people understand that the NHS is under-resourced.
    Conservative Members make a fundamental misjudgment about our political culture at the turn of the millennium when they assume that they can appeal to the perhaps natural desire of people to keep more of their money in their pocket rather than paying tax. The country has moved on from the Thatcherite years. People want our services, especially the NHS, to expand, and they are prepared to pay for that. I congratulate the Government on finally taking the bull by the horns with today's Budget.
    I have listened carefully to the debate. I left the Chamber only for a five-minute comfort break when an hon. Friend was speaking and I have therefore heard every Conservative speech. Not one Conservative Member made a positive comment about the NHS or the increase in expenditure. Opposition Front-Bench Members have not argued for an expansion of a publicly funded health service. That is lamentable; they fundamentally misunderstand the country's mood and the daily experience of families such as mine who have been through a crisis.
    How shall we pay for the health service? My family, who are reasonably well off, could not possibly afford the care that they received from the NHS when my father lost his eye and then broke his leg, and my mother developed brain cancer. It is beyond our capacity, as a middle-class family, to pay for such services. There is only one way that middle-class families such as mine can pay, and that is through a publicly funded health service.
    The Tories misunderstand the nature of the British people, who clearly comprehend that, although it is possible to pay for minor operations such as cosmetic surgery and perhaps possible to pay for a new hip, paying is beyond the capacity of many people when a mother or a father suffers the acute traumas from which my parents suffered.
    I believe that among the various strata, apart from the super-rich, there is a broad social coalition that the Government should encourage. Those people say that there is only one way adequately to fund a health service that is currently inadequately funded, and that is by general taxation of one sort or another.
    666
    The Chancellor has constructed an interesting taxation package, which is a mixture of measures on national insurance and holding down personal allowances. That is progressive to some extent, as poorer families will pay less than wealthier ones, but I would prefer an honest, straightforward income tax increase, which is progressive. After all, many families can afford to pay and would gladly do so. They understand that the strong should help the weak and that the rich should help the poor. That ethos, I believe, runs strongly through our country.
    In a nutshell, there is a strong case for overcoming the new Labour fear of a middle-class revolt over tax. It is possible to build around health socialist policies that argue for progressive taxation and provide the massive injection of additional funds that is clearly necessary to develop the health service.
    I feel passionate about this issue and I want to say much more. I have been through some horrendous experiences and I have seen miracles—people brought back from the dead by the skill of nurses, doctors and consultants. I have seen the most amazing things, which I would have liked to describe to the House. Perhaps the opportunity will arise in the next few weeks, but the Whip is indicating that I should sit down.
    9.32 pm
    Mr. Boris Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in the debate. It is a strange comment on our parliamentary system that, although we are about to raise £8 billion in revenue from the British people, only about eight Government Members have bothered to turn up to defend that conduct.
    I welcome, very sincerely, some measures in the Budget, in particular the plan to alleviate the burdens on rural breweries, although I note that nothing has been done to de-tax Brakspear's 2.5, which is a fine brew. One can drink three pints without being over the limit, so it would be nice to have fiscal recognition of the benefits that that beverage can provide to the rural economy.
    I also congratulate the Chancellor on getting rid of some ridiculous tax breaks that the Labour Government instituted for the film industry. Well done, at last. However, bigger announcements were made today, and I turn to those— [Interruption.] I hear the word "disaster" coming from the other side of the Chamber. Well, well, well—dissent.
    I turn to those announcements, because most Members will agree that this is an important political Budget in which the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, finally felt confident enough to raise taxes openly. He has done so by stealth over the past five years, raiding pension funds, for example, by £5 billion. This is the moment at which he has decided to raise taxes without anaesthetic, to use an NHS metaphor. The thought is not original, but that must reflect some power shift on the Labour Front Bench between No. 10 and the Treasury. It was the essence of Blairism—the unique selling proposition of Tony Blair—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must use the correct terminology when referring to Members of the House.
    Mr. Johnson: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I meant the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was the Prime Minister's unique selling

    667
    proposition that he could improve public services without raising taxes. Labour Members may recall the gigantic posters that sprouted up all over the country with images of the then Leader of the Opposition—with his signature appended, the better that we might believe his pledge. It is interesting that the Chancellor has today made nonsense of that promise. I agree with the analysis that we heard earlier from my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) that this surely constitutes a power grab by the Chancellor.
    I can see why there was so much cheering and waving of the Order Paper on the Labour Benches. Like the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) and others, I have listened carefully to the debate. It has been wonderful to behold those on the Labour Benches, because this is what they came into politics to do: tax and spend. It is what they like doing. They want to take money away from the productive sectors of the economy and give it to public sector special interest groups, which they largely represent.
    Labour Members may have missed two points in their discussion of the national insurance hikes: first, that those raises will hit the very public sector workers whom they hoped would benefit from the Chancellor's spending plans; and, secondly, as the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) rightly said, that the national insurance increases are regressive, and someone earning £32,000 will pay exactly the same as someone earning £132,000. That may be why Labour Members were so jubilant: we all know that they are now fat cats and MPs, and will not be as hard hit, relatively speaking, as many of their constituents.
    Lynne Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman advocate a more progressive rate of income tax for those on higher incomes? If that is his policy, I agree with it.
    Mr. Johnson: I merely point out that it is ironic that Labour Members should cheer a regressive tax.
    Those regressive taxes are expected to go a very long way. The Chancellor said that he would increase public spending from £390 billion to £470 billion in about four years' time. I hope that I heard him correctly. If his growth projections are wrong, someone will pick up a large bill, and I expect that it will be the taxpayer.
    It is the judgment of the Chancellor, the hon. Member for Hemsworth and many others who have spoken tonight that the time is now propitious to raise taxes and that the taxpayer is willing—
    Sir Robert Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Johnson: I will, but I am conscious that other hon. Members want to speak.
    Sir Robert Smith: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed the sleight of hand in the Chancellor's statement? While the ceiling remains for most levels of national insurance, it will not remain for the 1 per cent. level. In effect, therefore, the Chancellor has taxed income right up through the scale—except unearned income or income
    668
    from investments, which will not contribute to the national health service—despite saying that he did not want to increase income tax.
    Mr. Johnson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out.
    The Chancellor hopes to take a huge amount of money from the public and he thinks that the time is right to do that. Labour Members may be right that the public are in a generous mood and are prepared to pay more in taxes. What the public want more evidence of, however, is that those taxes, if taken and spent exclusively by the Government, will deliver a better health service. We have had umpteen health service reforms, and we now have more health administrators than beds. More people are on waiting lists than when the Government came to power and we are now driven to the crazy expedient of using taxpayers' money to send patients to France and Germany in the hope that they will be cured there. I wonder how the Chancellor can call the NHS the envy of the world, or whatever fatuous phrase it was that he used, when people are driven to go to South Africa for cataract operations and to India for heart surgery. More people than ever before are now being forced to use their own resources to pay for operations. That is not because the Labour Government have been particularly kind to private medicine; on the contrary, when the Government came to power they took away the tax break for private health care for the elderly, with the result that 200,000 people immediately gave up their policies. People are being driven to use private medicine in despair at the NHS. There should be no shame in pointing that out.
    It should not be sacrilegious to say that the NHS is failing. I think that Nigel Lawson said that the NHS is the religion of the British people, and, to some extent, that is true. We all sign up in a general way to the objectives of the NHS. I think that the Chancellor said today that the NHS amounted to a definition of the character of this country. It is all very well to treat the NHS as a religion, but it is legitimate for some of us to point out that, in so far as it is a religion, it is letting down its adherents very badly.
    It is wrong of the Chancellor to set his face against the experience of other countries that have a far better record of health care provision, a far better life expectancy, and a far better record of dealing with cancer and coronary heart disease. Those countries do so not just because they spend more money on health but because they do not rely exclusively on a top-down monopolistic health service of the kind that we have in this country. The Chancellor has decided that there is only one model for health care in this country—the NHS model—and he has decided that it is unimprovable except through the addition of more taxpayer's money and platoons of auditors to swell the ranks of the administrators. The best auditors of health care in this country should be the patients, and it would be far better if they were given more control over how money was spent for their health care.
    We have had five years of bluff about the Labour Government's tax and spending intentions. Now, at last, we are getting the reality—in their hearts they are deeply wedded to tax and spend, and they have no more imaginative prescriptions for the NHS than those outlined by Labour Members today. All the froth, the candy floss and the spin of new Labour have finally been blown away. People such as the hon. Member for Hemsworth have

    669
    been revealed in their true colours as taxers and spenders and believers in the NHS unreformed and as it is—monolithic and monopolistic. They think that that is the only way to improve health care in this country. I hope that they are right; I fear very much that they will be proved wrong.
    9.43 pm
    Fiona Mactaggart: In the previous Labour Government, the Chancellor achieved through, first, independence for the Bank of England, and, following that, low and stable interest rates and growing employment, an important reversal—that of Labour's reputation for economic incompetence.
    I hope that this Budget will mark another change—a change in the way that politics works. For some years, we have experienced a sort of ersatz politics, in which politicians have become so expert at presenting policies in the best light that people have begun to believe that all politicians are interested in treating them like fools and patronising them. The consequence has been a growing distrust of politicians and an abandonment of the political process. Many politicians have wanted to make politics easier and simple to understand; instead, we have made it simplistic and confusing. We have implied that one can have extra investment in public services without paying for it, and have then faced the wrath of people when they realise that they are paying for it through so-called stealth taxes.
    Let me take this opportunity to nail the myth that stealth taxes were invented by the Labour party. I recall the 22 Tory tax increases between 1992 and 1997 imposed by Conservative Chancellors.
    Mr. Barker rose—
    Fiona Mactaggart: I will not take any interventions. I have sat here all day and am the first woman to speak, but I have only eight minutes.
    No one likes paying tax. We all think—usually correctly—that we are the best judges of how to spend our money, but there are some things, such as public transport, that we cannot provide for ourselves. Other provision, such as health care, is much cheaper and better when provided collectively.
    I know that because I remember vividly when my mother required a kidney transplant. The private health insurance company, on which she had depended for half a century, abandoned her. Because of her growing ill health, it put her premiums up to thousands of pounds a year. When my uncle lay dying in a British hospital, his daughter told me that, despite the pile of empty cardboard boxes by the lift and the lack of a carpet on the floor, the quality of nursing care that her dad received was fantastic. It was much better than the care that her mum received in a very posh private hospital in Florida.
    We must not doubt that the quality of care that NHS patients receive is unmatched. Because we can hold the institution of the NHS accountable, we can deliver a better service. That will always be hard for an individual to achieve.
    Another sign of the growing maturity of politics is a willingness to invest in the long game, when results will not be seen before the next general election. Research
    670
    shows that that long-term investment is worth it when it comes to children: every pound spent on a child under seven results in savings of £7 later in that child's life. The investments that have been made in the child tax credit or in innovations such as sure start will not show a return for 10 or 15 years, but other beneficial effects will be evident—women will continue to participate in the labour market, children will have a better start in life and be able to achieve better skills, and so on.
    The Budget's emphasis on directing resources towards mothers is really important. Women have done better than men out of Budgets under this Government since 1997. That is sensible politics, as it recognises who is the responsible person in a family. The mother is the one who invests in the children and protects the needs of the family.
    Fear and despair are the greatest destroyers of real politics. People are afraid for their children's futures and for their own health. A third great fear that destroys politics locally is the fear of crime. I was glad to hear that the Budget will devote some extra investment to the criminal justice system. More will have to be done, however: people can buy their way out of the consequences of crime by acquiring gates and security guards, but the criminal justice system cannot be privatised.
    Am I right in thinking that the Budget could deliver a new integrity in politics? For politics to work, people have to engage in debate. They have to respect each other, and I admired what the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) said—I rarely do that, but the hon. Gentleman said that the Opposition should not be treated as scoundrels. He suggested that we should accept that Opposition Members want to do their best for people, and that their proposals are worthy of examination.
    I was terribly disappointed that, when he responded to the Budget statement, the Leader of the Opposition did not rise to the challenge laid down by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to create a national consensus on the health service. Instead, the right hon. Gentleman asked what we had to show for the extra investment in education. Well, I shall tell the House what my constituency has to show for that extra investment.
    When I was selected to stand for the Slough constituency, half of all children leaving the primary schools there were unable to reach a basic standard in reading. That proportion is now 25 per cent. It is still too high, but the number of pupils leaving our primary schools who are unable to read properly has been halved. That is the difference that the extra investment has made.
    We should not just consider British standards, however. We should make international comparisons, as we have with the health service. During the same period, Britain has moved from the bottom quartile to eighth in international comparator tests relating to literacy and numeracy.
    If we invest well and base our investment on good research, we can improve standards. The Budget gives us the chance to do that if we build a national consensus, but we cannot do it if we adopt the approach of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). He was right to say that it is not the amount spent but what it delivers that counts, but he went on to justify everyone's cynicism about politics by observing that if it did deliver in the health service he might say "Well done", but he would

    671
    say it the day after a general election rather than the day before. If we engage in politics like that, we let down the British people. We betray them, and we betray the duty that we bring to this House of Commons.
    I urge the Chancellor, however, to make it easier for people to understand the set of processes involved. I have two degrees, but I do not understand my tax return. I do not think I am alone in that, although I may be alone in admitting it. We must make it easier for people to see where the money comes from, as well as where it goes. A number of suggestions have been made today—the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), for instance, made precisely this point in terms of scrutiny of the Budget—but we certainly need to ensure that the context of people's tax take is much clearer to them.
    I welcome the simplification of small businesses' VAT, and I feel we should keep working to make the operation of tax credits more comprehensible. I understand why the Chancellor rejected the idea of a hypothecated tax for the NHS, but I think he should continue the investment in a way that enables people to see where the money comes from.
    The Chancellor should invest in a way that will deliver change. He should ignore the counsels of despair from Opposition Members who say that that is not possible with public investment, and ensure that public investment delivers the reform and the improvement that we require.
    9.52 pm
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), and I thank her for allowing me time to speak. I agree with her about the need to make the whole tax system simpler. Since the present Chancellor took office, Tolley's tax guide has got bigger and bigger. I do not think this was the Chancellor's intention, but the system has become more complicated and less easy to understand. As the hon. Lady said, roll on the day when we can deal with our own tax returns again.
    I found parts of the Budget very encouraging. There were a number of plus points. The Chancellor spoke of a ladder of opportunity for businesses and said that the Government were on the side of business. I welcome the research and development tax credit, which he said would be worth £400 million a year, and the reduction in small companies' corporation tax by 1 per cent. to 19 per cent. However, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), many small businesses do not make a profit at all. I wonder how many of them will benefit.
    On the plus side, I welcome the changes in capital gains tax and the VAT regime. On the minus side, the increase in national insurance contributions—as the Leader of the Opposition said—is equivalent to a 3 per cent. increase in corporation tax. It will lead to a tax take of £6.1 billion. Furthermore, as well as hitting companies and largely undoing the good done by the corporation tax reduction, it will hit the pockets of senior nurses, police officers, hospital radiographers and senior post office sorting staff. Many of them do not have a large income, yet they will be about £29 a month worse off. They—the people on the front line of public services—are exactly the sort of people we need to deliver better public services, but if their morale is damaged they will not be in a position to do so.
    672
    There is nothing in the Budget about reducing the burden on small businesses. Last Friday in my constituency I attended a chamber of commerce lunch at which every business man I spoke to mentioned the increasing burden on small businesses. A recent survey of 600 members of the Institute of Directors reveals that 84 per cent. feel that excessive bureaucracy is worsening. The British Chambers of Commerce estimates that the costs faced by business have increased by £15 billion.
    Some of the burdens are home grown—the current Employment Bill has been mentioned—but there are various European directives as well. The end of life vehicles directive will oblige car makers to assume financial responsibility for scrapping old cars from this year onwards. If it is strictly enforced, that directive could wreak havoc on this country's car industry. There are 26.5 million cars on our roads: if it costs £300 to deal with each car under the directive, the overall cost will be £7.95 billion.
    The problem is not only red tape but the growing tax burden on businesses. The CBI estimated that the Labour Government had increased business taxes by £5.8 billion. Business taxation as a whole in this country was moving in the right direction in terms of the supply side of our economy vis-à-vis that of other countries. That movement has now been arrested, and it might even go into reverse as companies have to pay more tax. That will mean that Britain's competitive position will continue to slip—we were ninth in the world, now we are nineteenth—and our productivity, which was better than America's, will continue to fall. I am concerned that there is not more in the Budget to help small businesses and to reduce the burden of bureaucratic red tape.
    Much of the Chancellor's speech was devoted to the national health service. There have been large increases in NHS expenditure, but I can see no real evidence of improvement. I spent four years out of Parliament. When I was last a Member of Parliament, I received about one letter a week from constituents complaining about NHS matters. I should say that they were not complaining about the staff, the management or the nurses, who we all know are entirely dedicated and do a superb job. Now, however, I get five or six letters a day from constituents complaining about, for example, cancellations of operations or long waits. Two days ago I received a letter from a constituent who has had a serious stroke: he must wait 14 weeks for an MRI scan, even though his consultant believes that there is blood on the back of his brain and he needs a scan immediately.
    My local hospital in King's Lynn, the Queen Elizabeth hospital, has a severe shortage of consultants in key disciplines, including radiology, pathology, histology and dermatology. The hospital recently recruited 80 Filipino nurses; they are extremely caring and hard working, but that is not a long-term solution. There has been a large increase in emergency admissions, but our number of acute beds per head of population is less than the average. The number of beds in the hospital has fallen from 602 eight years ago to 504 last year.
    That is not all the fault of the last Conservative Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West pointed out, the bed-blocking problem is entirely the fault of the Labour Government. The Opposition will support increased funding for the NHS, but only in a framework of structural changes to the NHS. In every other European country that is spending more on

    673
    health than we do, there is a mature mix of private and public health provision. The only way to bring our expenditure on health up to the European average is to secure a bigger role for the private sector. Yes, we need more public expenditure on the NHS, but we also need a genuine partnership between the public and private sectors.
    Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Caplin.]
    Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  Alban Gashi
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Caplin.]
  10 pm
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the case of Alban Gashi. I raise it in two contexts: first, the injustice that I believe has been perpetrated on an individual constituent and, secondly, the Government's policy on deportations and removals.
  I begin with the constituent's case. Alban Gashi arrived in this country in February 1998. On the same day, he applied for asylum. He was a single Kosovan. I do not complain that the merits of his case were not justly considered, or that his application was eventually rejected. That is not the point of this complaint.
  More than two years after Mr. Gashi's application, the Home Office arrived at the conclusion that it should be refused. During those two years, he lived in Maidstone in my constituency. He had a stable address in a local vicarage, the vicarage of St. Michael and All Angels. He had a stable job interpreting for West Kent magistrates court.
  The reason why I rehearse those facts is that there is no doubt that, from day one until his removal, Mr. Gashi's whereabouts were known to the authorities, and he pursued lawfully the correct processes of an asylum application.
  Mr. Gashi appealed against the refusal. Again, I do not wish to rehearse the merits of his appeal but it is common ground between me and the Home Office that the appeal was received, considered and in February 2001 rejected.
  Allegedly, notification was then sent to Mr. Gashi that his appeal had been refused, and giving him the opportunity—it is a crucial point—to appeal beyond that to a tribunal; but in order to appeal to the tribunal, he had to receive notification of the refusal of the appeal and to comply with time requirements. He never received notification.
  It is not unfamiliar for Members of Parliament to hear people claim that they have not received this or that inconvenient document that was sent to them through the post by the Government, but this case is different for two reasons. First, Mr. Gashi was resident in the vicarage. The priest, whom I know well, has confirmed that throughout that time he, the priest, got all the post, as he has always done. He was the first to see the post and would have known whether anything had come. However, way beyond that, and more importantly, Mr. Gashi began to wonder, as did the priest, why he had not heard anything.
  In July, with the assistance of the priest, Mr. Gashi wrote to the Home Office giving his address as the vicarage, stating again that he was working with West Kent magistrates court. Again, his whereabouts were well known. No reply was received to his letter.
  That letter should have alerted the Home Office to the fact that Mr. Gashi had not received notice that his appeal had been turned down. After all, there was no other purpose in his writing that letter with his address on it telling everyone where he was. There was no reply to that. Twice more, Mr. Gashi—and the priest confirms this not from belief but from personal knowledge—telephoned the

  675
  Home Office with the help of the priest to ask what was happening to his appeal. On both occasions, he was told, "Don't worry, it's in the system." Because from the Home Office point of view Mr. Gashi had not appealed against the rejection of the independent adjudicator, the Home Office decided that he was removable.
  I should say here and now that, although I take severe exception to the way in which my constituent was dealt with, I have had absolute courtesy from the Minister of State, Home Office, Lord Rooker, who has made himself available to me throughout this case, and who indeed did me the courtesy of sending me a copy of the envelope involved in the case. All that the envelope shows is that a postman ticked a box which said that the addressee had gone away. Mr. Gashi had never gone away. He was notifying the Home Office almost monthly that he was still at his address and waiting for a result. There was never any question of his having gone away.
  On the basis that the appeal documents had been correctly served—which clearly they had not—Lord Rooker decided that the removal should go ahead. That is a gross injustice. When it became apparent that Mr. Gashi's repeated requests of the Home Office for a resolution had been ignored, and that if the Home Office had responded to those requests it would have been clear that there had been confusion about the serving of the rejection of the appeal, the clock should have started running again and he should have been able to appeal to a tribunal had he so decided.
  Mr. Gashi seems to have been a very sensible man. He arrived in this country when the situation in Kosovo was anything but settled. He arrived at a stable address, he took stable work and decided not to appeal on the grounds of human rights because in his view that was a waste of time.
  Mr. Gashi was contacted by the Home Office in January. Home Office representatives said that they would like to come to see him. That was a rather coy expression. He thought that they were coming to see him at long last to respond to his various representations, either to ask him further questions or to give him some result. Instead, when he opened the door, there were two policemen and an immigration officer. He was arrested on the spot and subsequently removed. I believe that to be profoundly wrong. As I say, I shall not argue about the merits of the case or that I have not had due access to Ministers. I argue that that constituent was appallingly treated.
  There is a larger dimension to this matter, however. I have often said that this Government are ineffective about the number of removals from this country, and that one of the biggest magnets to those who abuse our asylum system—as opposed to magnets for those who go lawfully through the processes—is the ease with which one can disappear in this country. Because we have no identity cards and, thank God, we do not have an oppressive police force carrying out raids and checks every five minutes, it is very easy to disappear into our black economy.
  The Government have responded by saying that they have set themselves an ambitious target for removals. This case shows that they are up to an old trick. I do not even say that it is exclusive to this Government. By going for all the soft targets, they can bump up the numbers and ignore the really serious cases. So, instead of looking for
  676
  those who have disappeared and trying to track down those who have failed to report, this Government are turning up on the doorsteps of people who are known to the authorities; who have a stable address and a stable job; who are complying with every procedure with which they have ever been asked to comply; and who are reporting on every occasion on which they have been asked to report, because it is easy to roll up and arrest them and say, "Lo and behold, a removal."
  There was no need for a removal in this case because Mr. Gashi was known, and would have left the country when asked. Indeed, when the time came for him to go, he turned down the opportunity of a judicial review and the opportunity to appeal on human rights grounds, because he is a sensible man.
  I have another case—of which I cannot give details because it is not the job of Members of Parliament to make representations against their constituents—on which I made muted representations to Ministers. I shall not give the name of the person involved, but he came to the notice of the authorities when he was detained for a criminal offence, of which he was subsequently convicted. He failed to report, abandoned his appeal and was then detained. When I made muted representations about that—remarking to my staff. "The Minister will look at that and laugh"—I was appalled to learn that my constituent had been released. However, Mr. Gashi, who has done nothing wrong and who stuck to all the procedures, was arrested and deported. Whatever sort of lunatic sense of priorities is that?
  I say to the Minister, first that Mr. Gashi was badly treated; and, secondly, that it is easy to bump up removal figures if one goes for soft targets. Members of Parliament should be alerted by this case to the way in which those removal figures are being calculated. Thirdly, I advocate a situation in which all new applicants are routinely held in secure reception centres and all treated equally. However, the Government seem to have some odd criteria by which to pick and choose who to release and who to deport. I am grateful for the way in which the Minister's colleagues have dealt with the matter and I look forward to hearing her reply.
  10.11 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Angela Eagle): I note the issues that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has raised about the case of Mr. Alban Gashi. I would like to set out the essential background to the case.
  Mr. Gashi entered the United Kingdom illegally on 3 February 1998. He was detected by immigration officers at Dover, along with 20 other illegal entrants, in the back of a lorry that had just disembarked from a ferry from Calais. When Mr. Gashi was interviewed he claimed that he had come to the United Kingdom because he was fleeing persecution in his own country. He was given temporary release by the immigration service while his asylum claim was processed.
  On 3 April 1998, Mr. Gashi's legal representatives submitted a five-page signed statement setting out the basis of his claim to asylum in the United Kingdom. That included claims about his treatment between 1995 and 1998 at the hands of the authorities in his home country. Inquiries carried out by the Home Office, under the

  677
  provisions of the Dublin convention, revealed that Mr. Gashi in fact had applied for asylum in Belgium on 7 November 1994, his application being refused on 23 October 1997—he had been free to remain in Belgium during that period. Mr. Gashi made no mention of claiming asylum in Belgium in his five-page, signed, written statement to the Home Office of 3 April 1998.
  Mr. Gashi was asked to attend for interview in Croydon with regard to his asylum claim on 10 May 2000. The letter inviting him was also sent to his legal representative. Mr. Gashi failed to attend the interview or to provide subsequently a reason for his failure to attend. His asylum claim was considered on the basis of all the available information before the Home Office, and refused in a letter dated 19 May 2000. In the letter refusing his claim for asylum, it was noted that
  "the risk of persecution to the ethnic Albanian majority by the authorities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has been removed with the establishment in Kosovo of an international peace-keeping force, KFOR. Indeed, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has been organising the repatriation of refugees back to Kosovo since 28 June 1999 and as of 30 July 1999 some 800,000 ethnic Albanians, representing 90 per cent. of those who fled Kosovo in 1998 and 1999, had already voluntarily returned to Kosovo. Consequently the Secretary of State has concluded that your fear of persecution is not well-founded."
  Mr. Gashi's legal representatives lodged an in-time appeal against the decision to refuse him asylum.
  Mr. Gashi was notified by the Immigration Appellate Authority that his appeal had been listed for substantive hearing on 7 November 2000. He appeared on the day, but informed the special adjudicator that his representative had informed him that morning that she could not attend due to a family bereavement. The adjudicator adjourned the appeal hearing until 19 December 2000, when there would be a pre-hearing to ascertain whether Mr. Gashi and his representative were ready to proceed. The special adjudicator asked Mr. Gashi to arrange for his legal representatives to fax the IAA to explain why they had not attended the appeal hearing.
  Mr. Gashi faxed the IAA on 12 December 2000, seven days before the re-arranged hearing, to say that he had been unable to get in touch with his legal representative and that three other legal representatives that he had approached had declined to take on his case. He said that he had approached two other reputable organisations with the same result, though he then went on to note that one of these organisations would he able to deal with his case after January 2001. He asked that the pre-hearing scheduled for 9 December be put back to February 2001.
  The IAA then received a fax from Mr. Gashi's legal representatives on 18 December 2000 to the effect that he had informed them that he wished to represent himself at the appeal hearing on 19 December, and that they were no longer representing him. At the pre-hearing on 19 December, the appeal was set for substantive hearing on 5 February 2001.
  The appeal went ahead on 5 February 2001, with Mr. Gashi representing himself. He gave evidence and made a submission to the special adjudicator, relying upon his earlier statement but admitting that he had claimed asylum in Belgium.
  In his written determination dismissing Mr. Gashi's appeal, the special adjudicator made the finding that
  "the appellant has not established that any additional risk factors apply in this case, which would differentiate him from the 850,000 Kosovars who have already returned home voluntarily. Nor has he
  678
  established that there is a reasonable chance that he would on return now face persecution either from the Serb authorities, or from individual Serbs, or from anyone else."
  Mr. Gashi had therefore failed to make his case for being granted refugee status in the United Kingdom. Consideration was also given by the Home Office as to whether he should have been granted leave to remain in the UK exceptionally. The right hon. Lady will know that that ground is exceptional and that rarely do single men qualify.
  The written determination was promulgated by the IAA by first-class post on 8 February 2001. A copy of the determination was sent to the address given by Mr. Gashi at his appeal hearing. The right hon. Lady has said that he lived at that address in a stable way for two years. The determination was returned to the IAA by the Royal Mail with the words "Not at this address" written on the envelope in biro, and with a Royal Mail sticker marked "Addressee has gone away."
  The Royal Mail has confirmed that a first-class letter would be delivered to the address shown unless a person at the address told the postman when he tried to deliver it that the person did not live there. The postman would then write on the envelope that the person was not at that address and return the envelope to the sorting office and attach the Royal Mail sticker, thereby returning the envelope to the sender.
  Alternatively the postman would have delivered the letter and someone at the address marked the envelope to show that the person did not live there, and then returned it to the Royal Mail, which would again attach its sticker and return the envelope to the sender. Either way, it seems extremely odd that Mr. Gashi resided at the address before the determination was posted to him and was picked up subsequently by the immigration service, as the right hon. Lady has said, at the same address after non-receipt of the letter, the Royal Mail having been informed that he did not live there.
  On 10 January 2002, Mr. Gashi was picked up by members of the immigration service and detained at the Port of Dover detention centre.
  Miss Widdecombe: The Minister has performed a jump from what happened when the appeal letter failed to be delivered for whatever reason and the arrival of the immigration officers on the doorstep. Will she comment on the letter that was written in July and on the telephone contacts that were made and witnessed from Mr. Gashi to the Home Office?
  Angela Eagle: I shall be frank with the right hon. Lady. In my briefing for the debate, I have been given no knowledge of those contacts. I shall go back with the information that the right hon. Lady has given me tonight. I am sorry to give her such a disappointing reply, but I do not intend to freelance on the Floor of the House, unbriefed. The right hon. Lady has given me the details and I promise her that I shall go back and have the immigration and nationality directorate check its records for those contacts.
  As I said, Mr. Gashi was picked up and detained at the port of Dover. Representations were received on 11 January from the right hon. Lady on behalf of Mr. Gashi. Those representations related to the fact that he was still awaiting the determination of his asylum

  679
  appeal, and expressed concern over the conditions in which he was being detained. Assurances were given to the right hon. Lady that Mr. Gashi would not be removed until the issues relating to the serving of the determination had been resolved. As Mr. Gashi was liable to be removed from the United Kingdom, his detention was maintained.
  The original and subsequent representations made by the right hon. Lady were responded to by my noble Friend Lord Rooker—I thank her for her comment on the usual graciousness with which he deals with such issues—in two letters dated 14 and 15 of February and by a telephone conversation between the right hon. Lady and my noble Friend on 14 February. Acting on the advice given by his officials, Lord Rooker confirmed that there was no legal basis for Mr. Gashi to remain in the United Kingdom, and that removal action would continue.
  During his period of six weeks in detention prior to his removal, Mr. Gashi did not ask to see a copy of the determination of his appeal or seek the free legal advice
  680
  that was available and signposted in the IS96R notice which is given to all detainees on arrival at removal centres. That notifies them of their bail rights and the available free legal advice and contains the relevant telephone contacts to access it. On 21 February Mr. Gashi was removed by plane from the United Kingdom.
  We are considering the implications of the technical issue of non-receipt of the determination by Mr. Gashi, despite the fact that it was clearly delivered correctly by the Royal Mail to the last known address. The right hon. Lady may be pleased to know that the Home Office is piloting schemes involving the hand delivery of determinations by officers from the IND to appellants. Such a scheme would ensure that the problem experienced by Mr. Gashi will not be replicated for others. If the right hon. Lady wishes to discuss the implications after we have considered them, Lord Rooker would be happy to do so.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Ten o'clock.

Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Dairy Industry
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Angela Smith.]
9.30 am
Mr. David Heath: This is a welcome but rare opportunity to talk about agriculture. Since the election, farming and agriculture seem to have been almost obliterated from the parliamentary vocabulary. It is a good opportunity for those of us who represent rural Britain to put a few thoughts on to the record about the current state of the dairy industry.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there has been no full debate on agriculture in Government time since the Queen's speech and that on one of the days the debate was not about agriculture per se? Should that not he put right?
Mr. Heath: Absolutely. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that observation. I am doing my bit to put it right by initiating the debate.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heath: It may be over the top to give way before I have finished my opening remarks.
It is still desperately important for many of our constituents that we discuss the farming industry. We could be talking about almost any sector in the agricultural industry, as they are all facing difficulties. The arable sector is suffering especially at the moment, as I know from my constituents who are involved in various aspects of it. I want to concentrate on dairying, simply because in Somerset we have the finest dairy land in the country and therefore in the world. Views may differ from Cheshire and elsewhere, but I believe that Somerset wears the crown of the dairy industry.
We are engaged not only in farming. Processing is a key part of the local economy, and there are retailers throughout the country. It is important that we consider the industry in the round, as those sectors are interrelated. The key to the success of any part of the industry is the vitality of the whole, which I want to explore today.
I understand from the Minister's replies that he believes that dairy farmers' income is increasing—indeed, has doubled—and that the industry has a rosy future. The industry does not share that view. His belief is belied by the experience of almost everyone who is trying to make a living from dairy farming. In recent months, we have seen yet another reduction in the farmgate price of milk. That is having a devastating effect on the profitability of many farms. The price is
172WH
now well below 22p per litre, which is a reasonable assessment of the cost of production. Seven authorities would reduce or increase that sum by a few pence.
The industry is still suffering the after-effects of BSE and last year's outbreak of foot and mouth disease. The outlook is extremely bleak. The key is the producer price of milk. Unless we can achieve a sustainable farmgate price for milk, there will be a lack of investment in the industry and, sadly, many more people will decide that they can no longer continue the unequal struggle to maintain their living through dairying. There will be many losses in the industry.
The average producer price, which the National Farmers Union and others currently estimate at about 16.5p per litre, is simply unsustainable. We were saying that the price was unsustainable when it was higher. During the past year there have been attempts to do something about it, but they have not worked. With the seasonal fluctuations, we are in danger of approaching the all-time low of 14.6p per litre—the price in May 2000. If that happens, it will spell bad news for many producers.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Does not the hon. Gentleman find it supremely ironic that the farmer-producer milk price is dropping so significantly at a time when supermarket profits have risen so much? Tesco posted a £1.2 billion profit only recently. Will he take this opportunity to condemn the use of milk as a loss leader by supermarkets and urge the Government to address the problem, as the Prime Minister promised during one meeting with farmers when he said that the supermarkets had the farmers by the throats?
Mr. Heath: As the hon. Gentleman may have suspected, that is the underlying script of my speech. We must address the problem at the point of retail.
Some would argue that the processors have a case to answer too, but their position is much more complicated. They also operate in a competitive sector and are under price pressure from buyers. Although there has been some criticism of processors who have achieved volume sales at the expense of price, and that has had a knock-on effect on the primary producers, they are nevertheless working in an extremely competitive field. There is a variety of uses for raw milk, and the producers are competing with each other. The net result is an unsustainably low milk price at the farm gate.
Mr. John Burnett: My hon. Friend has painted a vivid picture of an industry that is facing catastrophe. What is his prognosis for the dairy industry now that we have details about future pricing? Will he also comment on the fact that the spot price of milk was about 11p per litre at Christmas and is about 7p per litre now?
Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend is right. The problem is that there is no light at the end of the proverbial tunnel. Producers cannot see how the situation will improve within a time scale that would allow for sensible financial planning. The difficulties with downward competitive pressures on milk pricing are exacerbated by the bizarre fact that the sector is overproducing,

173WH
particularly in the organic sector. Indeed, the organic sector has possibly suffered most, because the premium has almost completely disappeared as a result of a flow of milk into the sector. Some producers have put in sterling efforts. The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) mentioned Yeo Valley recently. His remarks were perhaps misinterpreted, because Yeo Valley has done a sterling job in protecting the organic milk producers, as has the Organic Milk Suppliers Cooperative, OMSCO. However, despite those efforts, it is clear that that is not the solution to the problems faced by many milk producers.
We need a clearly negotiated and policed, sustainable and stable price for milk. The Government will have to play their part and, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) said, the Prime Minister promised as much when it was politically expedient for him to do so. He promised to take an active interest in the matter, but there is less evidence that that has happened.
With regard to the way in which the supermarkets appear as a bloc, I simply do not accept that milk is a sensible loss leader. In fact, I do not believe that the consumer buys milk on a price basis. I have talked to a great many of my constituents about this subject, and I do not believe that people go into supermarkets, look at the price of milk and decide that they will go to Sainsbury's this week rather than Tesco down the road on the basis of a penny more or less. People do not buy milk in that way, so why do we allow the dairy industry to be crucified by the way in which retailers structure their market? I believe that it achieves no tangible results in retailing, processing or primary production. That nonsense needs to be addressed.
Coupled with that, we need to be much more active in our marketing of locally produced milk and milk products, such as cheese and yoghurt, because those products happen to be superior to those available from elsewhere. I have always maintained that we are bad at marketing the brand—in our case, the west country and Somerset—for wholesome produce. There should be a clear duty in this respect on retailers and those who advise them. That brand should be much more visible.
Another problem that the Government need to address is the structure of the market, which is very complicated. Unsustainable assumptions are made about the internal monopoly in this country. In fact, we are competing not only with other European countries, but in the wider world market. It is a mistake to consider Britain in isolation, to put up barriers to the vertical integration in the industry that we wish to see, and not to encourage the co-operative ventures that should play a big part in the industry.
Why is there a lack of recognition of the fact that we work in an international market and that, currently, intervention is not beneficial to the United Kingdom industry? It benefits the shareholders rather than the producers. The Curry report recognises that self-evident fact in the dairy industry. Why are we not building on its recommendations?
My next question is about agrimonetary compensation—this is a well worn track. We saw the end of the traditional agrimonetary compensation system as of the end of 2001. However, the Government
174WH
claimed £79 million for the dairy industry in 2001, and they have until the end of the month to make a subsequent claim, which may be worth about £51 million.
I understand the Government's problems with agrimonetary compensation in its current form and the difficulties occasioned by the Fontainebleau rebate. It has acted to the enormous detriment of the agricultural industry ever since it was signed. Whatever its merits in other respects, it has done a poor job of encouraging Government support for the agricultural industry. However, I ask the Minister to be clear about whether his Department intends to apply for that pull-down of European funds, because it comes at a time when the dairy industry desperately needs it.
Mr. David Laws: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he agree that today offers a good opportunity for the Government to explain their approach to agrimonetary compensation, given that they have made payments and draw-downs of agrimonetary compensation in the past? Does he agree that this is a good opportunity for the Minister to explain the logic behind individual decisions? As we shall meet later today to hear the Chancellor's Budget, in which he is expected to announce a surplus for the current financial year on the Government's accounts, does my hon. Friend agree that it is a particularly good time to make a claim for agrimonetary compensation as it appears that the money is there in the UK's own accounts?
Mr. Heath: I agree with my hon. Friend on all those counts. It is not a huge amount of money in global terms, and I do not pretend that it would make a huge difference even to the industry, but it would provide some support at a time when the industry desperately needs it. For that reason alone it is worth claiming. I see no reason why the Government should not wish to use European funds, to which they have already contributed, to provide support for our industry in a way that other countries would have no compunction in doing.
Mr. Bill Wiggin: A constituent told me that agrimonetary compensation made up 50 per cent. of his profit for the whole year. While the hon. Gentleman was modest about what he felt it would achieve for dairy farmers, does he not agree that it is a tremendously important support to the people concerned in that industry?
Mr. Heath: It is important, but the fact that it represents 50 per cent. of the profits is testament to the poor profitability of the dairy industry. The amount of money involved is modest. Perhaps the Minister can tell me—although if he does it will break a pattern set by all the previous Ministers I have questioned on this subject—whether the Government have at any time tried to set up a replacement scheme within the UK for agrimonetary compensation. The reasons why we have an agrimonetary compensation scheme persist. Britain still has a currency that floats free of the euro. Although a green currency is no longer necessary for those countries within the eurozone and it is arguably not necessary for Sweden and Denmark, given that their

175WH
currencies are effectively pinned to the euro, it is necessary for British agriculture which has to contend with more extreme currency fluctuations.
At this point it is perhaps appropriate to talk about the exchange rate because the exchange rate between the pound and the euro is a problem for the whole of British agriculture. That problem besets the entire manufacturing industry. There are things that the Government could and should do. As many hon. Members know, I am not a great advocate of joining the euro, but I believe that there is a need to do something about the valuation between the pound and the euro to make our manufacturing industries, including agriculture, more competitive. The Government have neglected that issue over the last year or so and it needs to be addressed now if we are to have any hope of retaining a competitive aspect to our major industries.
While we are talking about overseas markets, we still have a great way to go to redevelop our overseas markets, including our European markets, which are important traditionally. There is a strong connection between our meat exports and the dairy industry. They are not divorced from one another. While we see the blatant protectionism that goes on in France, against any scientific or legal advice that the French Government could or should have been given, it is legitimate to ask whether the rules of the European Union do anything to ensure the free passage of trade and goods that the entire structure of the European Union was designed to promote. We need to address that as a matter of urgency.
Other hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate and so I will try to make the remainder of my remarks brief. I mention in passing the difficulties that the industry in my part of the country is still experiencing from bovine tuberculosis. It is becoming a problem for many farms in the west country because of the threat of tuberculosis as a disease and because of its knock-on effect on the mobility of stock, its effect on markets and the difficulties of regulation. Those are the inevitable results of a recurrence of the disease in Somerset and the west country.
I am anxious that there is still no experimental evidence to connect bovine tuberculosis and badgers. The Krebs experiments were put on hold; they are no nearer to completion now than they were a year or so ago. As a result, we do not know whether the connection is substantiated. It is desperately important to have that evidence so that appropriate measures can be taken. Many farmers in my constituency urgently need to do something to eliminate tuberculosis, or they will continue to have great difficulties.
I have to strike a pessimistic, if not apocalyptic, note. I have never been more concerned about the future of farming in my county. There is little cause for optimism in most sectors, including the dairy sector, in the immediate future. Small and medium farms throughout the country, especially in my constituency, will continue to be lost. What have traditionally been called small farms are moving up. Figures for disposal sales show that it is not herds of up to 100 cattle that are being disposed of; herds of 200 or 300 are under the auctioneer's hammer. Profitability and investment are lacking, so people say, "Why are we sitting on this
176WH
realisable asset when we are in a difficult job requiring great dedication, which does not provide any reward for us?" More and more people are fleeing the industry.
I am most anxious about the tenant farmers who have no capital, and no way out. The Government are remiss in not tackling the issue with retirement schemes that will allow people to leave the industry with dignity, to find a new role. People will continue to leave the industry simply because they do not have the opportunities that they would wish for. That begs the question about the structure of the rural economy and of land use. There is a limit to how many rich people from London can come down, buy farmhouses and keep a few ponies in the paddock. Something must happen to the land between those farmhouses, which is the most productive in the country, but I do not know how that will come about unless the Government and the industry deal with the matter urgently.
Huge changes are on the way; the common agricultural policy must be reformed and we are only at the beginning of the process. I was hoping for more progress, particularly in the dairy sector. However, what the agriculture Ministers could agree, the Heads of Government were able to shelve at an early opportunity. They need to return to the negotiating table to achieve much faster progress on the issue.
There must be a greater focus on farming, the dairy industry, the needs of farmers as primary producers, the processors and even the retailers—I am prepared to bring them in from the cold. Unless there is a structured approach to the entire industry to make it profitable again, primary producers will be lost, processors will have supply difficulties and retailers will have to rely on overseas imports. That will not be in the interests of our constituents, the national economy, or the retailers themselves.
9.54 am
Mr. Bill Wiggin: I start by criticising the Office of Fair Trading report on supermarkets. I recognise that supermarkets compete with one other, but the report does not recognise the power of the purchasing tail and its effect on the price of milk.
Will the Minister look further into the intervention price? I was informed that it stands at 16.3p per litre, but that the UK does not have enough processing power to turn the milk into milk powder, which would allow us to be intervened upon. I also draw the Minister's attention to the cost to the dairy farmer of the nitrate vulnerable zones, which the Ministry has seriously underestimated. I support the plea of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) for the second tranche of agrimonetary compensation, on which dairy farmers in my constituency depend. As I said in my intervention, although it makes up 50 per cent. of their income, it remains extremely low. I was informed that £8,000 is more accurate than the Government estimate of £32,000 as the average dairy farmer's annual earnings. The Government figure clearly does not apply in Herefordshire.
I shall refer to bovine tuberculosis, as Herefordshire is one of the test areas. Although the number of restricted herds is falling, the number awaiting tests has risen dramatically and the backlog continues to grow. The total is a horrendous figure, with about 27,000 herds

177WH
awaiting testing. This year alone, the Ministry is slaughtering up to 1,000 cattle a month, although last year the figures appeared to dip because of the foot and mouth crisis. Between 1 January and 28 February, 2,077 cattle were reported to have been slaughtered.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): It might help the hon. Gentleman if I explained that as part of dealing with the backlog, we targeted the highest risk "hot spot" areas. It is not unusual to see a higher rate of incidence because the targeting is distorting the figures. I am not complacent and would not say that TB is not increasing, but I caution Members about drawing conclusions from the current figures, which do not provide a clear picture.
Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful for the Minister's intervention, but we must also bear in mind the number of cattle slaughtered during the foot and mouth outbreak, some of which may well have been TB reactors. I accept that the Minister would not know about that, but will he talk in his response about research into bovine tuberculosis? With herds being closed across the country because of foot and mouth, the disease may be spreading through wildlife. If wildlife is carrying it, we must face up to it. Badgers are a particular favourite of the Minister and are the most protected animals by law in the whole country, possibly even the world. However, we must face up to what is happening. As soon as a cow reacts, the farms are closed and cannot trade. They can continue to produce milk, but not buy or sell calves. That problem must be confronted because the number of farms being closed is rising dramatically. Some arguments suggest that it would be possible to continue to buy and sell calves that had not reacted.
TB costs about £7 million a year in direct compensation alone. The research bill is more than £21 million. The livelihoods of 27,000 farmers awaiting results are at stake. I hope that the Government's statistics, which prove that TB is threatening to snowball and that at least three herds a day are succumbing to the disease as hitherto free areas become infected, will persuade the Government to address the problem more effectively. There was no testing for bovine tuberculosis in 2001, but as the backlog of farms is growing, an injection of cash should be considered. This may be a great day to call for money to be spent on increasing the speed and number of tests. It adds insult to injury that a farmer, after his morning milking, is expected to test all day without extra support and then do his evening milking. The number of cows that need testing has now grown to such an extent that it is not feasible to expect a farmer to undertake testing by himself. I draw attention to a lovely quote from Eisenhower that was also used in Don Curry's report:
"Farming seems mighty easy when your plough is a pencil and you're a thousand miles away from the cornfield."
Given the statistics on bovine tuberculosis, that seems to be the case. I hope that the Minister will bear it in mind.
People are also at risk. There are about 40 cases a year of mycobacterium bovis—the bovine TB—in human beings. Obviously, most tuberculosis is caused by the
178WH
other bacterium—mycobacterium tuberculosis. Bovine TB cases are rare and are usually found in people who have caught it abroad or in elderly people who had probably caught it from drinking unpasturised milk. Some cases may have occurred in people who work closely with infected animals. At this stage, however, there is no direct evidence that people have caught the disease in that way, but the risk to farmers and others in frequent close contact with cattle is well recognised.
The Krebs report said that the best prospect for the control of TB in the British herd is to develop a cattle vaccine. The focus for finding a decent, long-term solution must be in a vaccine that will not only prevent it from being caught by cattle, but prevent badgers—the prime suspects—from carrying it. When a virus appears in a closed herd, the badgers in their setts on that farm are not tested. They need to be tested quickly and effectively because the number of badgers that we see in Herefordshire by the side of the road is growing every day. Those badgers are diseased, too. If the Minister has a passion for those animals—I believe that he does—he owes it to them as much as to cattle to find a cure for the disease. Any increase in funding and research that will lead us to a vaccine would be more than welcome. It is essential that a vaccine is found.
The closed herd at Ode Court in my constituency has recently suffered a bovine TB outbreak. The herd were home-grown fed and had no contact with other cattle. My constituent, Matthew Oliver, was left to watch and weep as his suckler cows were shot as tuberculosis reactors. Recently, Mr. Oliver told Farmers Weekly:
"I am definitely not anti-badger, but if cattle are not to disappear from some areas, we simply cannot afford to wait for the results of the badger trial … On farms where there are reactors, sample animals from badger setts must be trapped and tested. All animals in infected setts should be culled … Animal rights people will object, but they were not standing on the yard as my cows, six of them in late pregnancy, were destroyed."
That clear message should not be ignored. Mr. Oliver continued:
"We cannot go on taking knock after knock. My family has been here since 1880. I am the fourth generation and I have never wanted to do anything else but farm. But if we keep getting reactors I might decide to sell the land in small blocks to people from the cities … It is time for the Government to listen to cattle farmers and veterinary surgeons and have the courage to do whatever is necessary to halt the spread of a disease"
The problem has caused so much debate in Herefordshire that a former president of the British Veterinary Association, Francis Anthony, said:
"In Herefordshire we have cases of bovine tuberculosis coming out of our ears … It goes against every principle of disease control to cull one species and do nothing about a proven feral pool infection."
Reactors are now found on 70 per cent. of farms tested in Herefordshire. We cannot continue waiting for the results of the badger tests, yet have measures such as the Minister's Bill on animal health. There is a gross imbalance. If we are to take an aggressive and draconian approach to a future foot and mouth outbreak, as the Minister proposed, we should take the same approach to bovine tuberculosis, and deal especially with badgers.

179WH
I hope that the Minister will answer my questions and perhaps pledge, after today's Budget, to invest more for research on this extremely serious disease.
Mr. Nigel Beard (in the Chair): I call Mr. David Drew.
Mr. Simon Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Beard. I know that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) has a genuine and sincere interest in these matters and that he will make a valuable contribution. However, he was five or six minutes late for the debate. As I am well known in my constituency for my lateness, I would appreciate a ruling on whether that is in order.
Mr. Nigel Beard (in the Chair): I shall take that into account.
10.4 am
Mr. David Drew: I apologise for my lateness. I was stuck on a train because I had an engagement in my constituency yesterday—I am sure that that has happened to us all. I apologise profusely to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who introduced the debate. He gave us an invaluable lesson on why we should discuss such issues in this Chamber. As I am the only Government Back Bencher present and it is important that we hear from such quarters, I hope that the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), who quite rightly picked me up for my lateness, will give me the chance to speak. I shall keep my remarks brief to allow him the chance to contribute to the debate.
I share many of the worries expressed by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, although I missed his initial comments. The picture that he paints is gloomy, and no Labour Member would pretend otherwise. We face the double bind of pressure on prices and over-production. That has other consequences such as lower returns to farmers, and there is a clear indication that processors are not doing well either.
I declare an interest because I am about to achieve the biggest dairy in the country at Severnside, with which I am in regular contact. I have represented its point of view before and when it is seen as the bad guys—it is certainly not always the good guys—it argues that its price pressures are considerable because retailers force prices down. The supermarkets are regularly put in the frame. I shall not be an apologist for them because their recent performance before the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs left more questions unanswered than not about the way in which they saw the future of food and farming, although we gave them a hard time. We must be realistic. Milk and milk products are up against many other products, and the real price of food is at its lowest level for a generation. However, after taking subsidies into account, I argue that the price of food is not as low as some people would have us believe.
The future for organic milk is especially sad. As the Minister knows, I was able to act as a conduit to allow OMSCO—the Organic Milk Suppliers Cooperative—to talk to the Government. It is unacceptable that organic milk is pumped into the mainstream supply. Something is wrong with the structures of both the organic milk market and the overall milk market while that occurs.
180WH
I take a slightly different position on where we should go from here. A debate is needed, although this Chamber is not the only place in which it will be heard. Like the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), I visited New Zealand with the Select Committee as part of our current major investigation on food and farming. One is struck by the contrast between our methods and those of the people of New Zealand in the 1980s. I shall not draw simplistic conclusions or pre-empt our report, but several points are worth making. New Zealand has chosen a different route from ours by using a pasture-led approach. If the proof is in the eating, that has merit. Although there is an argument that our climate and countryside is not as suitable as New Zealand's, it is fair to say that people who regularly visit our shores and give us advice are querulous about the degree to which we have gone along the subsidy-based, high-input and intensive farming route that we have used for dairying. They urge an alternative route, which the Select Committee will examine carefully.
I have alluded to subsidies. There are questions about not just the subsidy approach but the way in which it has become integral to the operation of the CAP. I am not saying that we can cut subsidies overnight. Everyone talks about getting rid of measures such as the milk quota, which is, in a sense, a form of control based on subsidy, but I am worried that the only answer that we come up with is more subsidy. Although the World Trade Organisation is calling for all countries to consider a different approach, we are, in all our negotiations about the CAP, loading ourselves with more of the same. We must break away from that system.
I am not a free marketer but a good old Labourite who will consider intervention when it is necessary and appropriate. However, the industry has been wrecked by the subsidy constraints that have been put upon it. That is true not just of this country but of the rest of Europe.
Mr. Heath: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's basic thesis, but does he agree that some of the countries that act as the great apostles of free trade and non-subsidy, such as the United States, subsidise their dairy industries to the eyeballs? That is particularly so in states such as Vermont, where farmers receive a great deal of money in state aid.
Mr. Drew: Those countries not only cheat covertly and overtly, but their farmers do some horrible things to their animals. Scientific understanding would shed some light on and expose some of the acts at which this country quite rightly takes umbrage, such as including bovine somatrophin in milk and hormones in beef. They are highly questionable practices. We should move towards a more subsidy-free regime, if that is not a contradiction in terms, but one which also demands high standards of hygiene and welfare.
Mr. Simon Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is making some important points on the future of the industry. Does he agree that the role of the supermarkets will be vital in moving towards what he calls a less subsidy-dependent future, and in avoiding a knee-jerk injection of crisis funds into the dairy industry? He mentioned organic milk. Surely it is foolishness to pump organic

181WH
milk into mainstream milk when we are importing organic milk in significant quantities from countries such as Denmark. The Government must tackle the supermarkets and the market itself in order to move towards a less subsidy-dependent future.
Mr. Drew: I largely concur with the hon. Gentleman. I am a great believer in intervening in markets, but we must have consumers on our side. One problem is that, for various reasons, consumers are not buying enough fresh organic milk. We must consider how to market it, and how to bolster consumer demand.
We must restructure our interests. New Zealand did not lose as many farmers as was thought when it claimed to cut away subsidies. There is a question about the degree to which it did so, but from the evidence that we obtained it seems that it is as near to a subsidy-free regime as it can get. We must understand that loss of subsidy will imperil smaller farmers in the short term. We must consider how to restructure the industry fairly and reasonably. We cannot go on the way we are, and I think that that is what the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome and for Ceredigion were saying. We must consider the costs of undertaking a major reform. We must also take other parties—both in the European Union and the rest of the world—with us, and that will not be easy. Some countries make noises about market liberalism but do not necessarily practise it.
Undoubtedly there is market failure, and that causes its own problems when structures are palpably wrong. That is shown most clearly by the debacle of the way in which we restructured intervention arrangements by moving from the milk marketing board to Milk Marque and then to individual successor co-operatives, which now want to combine. We all knew what was wrong, but there was a failure to come up with suitable policies to deal with the problem.
As a member of a co-operative, I believe that we must learn from the successes of other countries and build a genuine co-operative arrangement between producers and processors, even if that means changing the monopoly arrangements. Supermarkets are virtually monopoly suppliers, yet people who contribute to the food chain are subject to pressures within not only this country, but the rest of Europe. We must re-examine those structures and ensure that we get the benefits of economies of scale, research and so forth, which can be achieved only by building new arrangements. That would do a lot of good because it would overcome some of the bitterness—there is no other way to describe it— between producers and processors, which has done immeasurable harm to the way in which the industry operates.
There is no parallel sector in which virtually every six months, processors go out to producers and try to persuade them that a price cut would be beneficial. The industry operates in that way. To pre-empt the eventual pricing, people are encouraged to take a price cut that is based on crazy currency arrangements and the fact that there is over-production at present, which is not always the case.
We must also protect smaller farmers and recognise that that can be achieved only by building new arrangements. As someone who has already had two
182WH
Adjournment debates on the future of county farm estates that have the most vulnerable tenant farmers of all, I take no lessons on why they are the most vulnerable group. We must persuade tenant farmers of the benefits of new co-operative ways of working—sharing machinery, milking and input costs, which will require representatives and colleagues of those people asking them to look at new methods. That is hard, because the independence of the tenant farmer is probably stronger than that of any other group of farmer. They pride themselves on their independence, but that must be mitigated by all the reasons why smaller farmers will not survive, such as capital costs and the cost of land, stock and so forth. We must ensure that we get those people to work together to overcome some of the problems.
The debate can no longer be avoided. It must be taken forward on the back of the Curry commission, although it is separate and more urgent because dairy farmers are in an extremely vulnerable position. There is something special about milk and the way in which the sector operates that means we must do something radical and urgent. We must persuade people that the common agricultural policy is not working.
Bovine tuberculosis affects my constituency, as it does the constituencies of the hon. Members for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) and for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton). Too many farms are closed. However, we cannot pretend that there are easy solutions. There is no scientific explanation for bovine tuberculosis, although it is subject to huge dollops of research money and a great deal of research is going on. The accusing finger is pointed at the wildlife vector, but let us not be fooled—other contributory factors have yet to be excluded, such as husbandry techniques, the genetic disposition of the herds affected and the locations involved.
The hon. Member for Leominster shakes his head, but if he were to talk to anyone who knows anything about the subject, they would share with him the problems. That is also true of the international scene. The hon. Gentleman calls for a cattle vaccine, as I have done many times, but it would involve the same problems as the foot and mouth vaccine. People question the practicalities and ethics of using vaccine. The best way forward would be to breed out tuberculosis, whether in cattle or in wildlife, which would not be easy. That would be the ultimate, and anything that we can do to achieve that is important.
This vital debate is all about how we rebuild an industry under enormous pressure. I urge everyone not to accept the same old compromises. We must be much more radical and ensure that the industry survives.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Nigel Beard (in the Chair): Order. We have approximately 15 minutes before the winding-up speeches and four hon. Members wish to speak, so if they limit their remarks, they will all have an opportunity to speak.
10.19 am
Mr. Roger Williams: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) for securing the debate. It is taking place at a critical time for the dairy industry. On a bright

183WH
and beautiful spring morning such as this one, dairy farmers should be on top form and looking forward to the summer, with their cows about to be turned out to grass. However, the mood in the dairy industry is one of despondency and despair.
I wish to reflect on the state of the dairy industry in Wales—and, in particular, in my constituency. Brecon and Radnorshire is the largest constituency in England and Wales and therefore, as one would expect, it is also the most agricultural. Unfortunately however, the number of dairy farmers in the area has declined to such an extent that the situation is now almost terminal. At the last count, there were fewer than 10 dairy farmers in Brecon, and probably only five or six in Radnorshire. At one time, there were many dairy farms in the Usk and Wye valleys and in the Radnor area, but almost all of them have now given up milk production. That has contributed to another problem: when such farmers give up milk production, they go into beef and sheepmeat production, and that puts even more pressure on those sectors, which are also always struggling.
I wish to mention the last person in my area who came to me to say that he was giving up milk production. Like the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), he went into milk production through the county council smallholding scheme, which enables people to enter farming with limited capital. However, with great determination, skill and commitment, people such as him could make a living. He raised a family, and sent his three children to college. He was able to do that because he had great skill in grassland management and the breeding of stock, and, more importantly, because he was prepared to put a huge amount of work and commitment into the business. However, he has now decided that he gets no return for that commitment and skill—and no return on his capital. Therefore, like so many other dairy farmers, especially tenant dairy farmers, who have little capital behind them, he is taking the opportunity to disperse his stock to farmers who have been taken out in the foot and mouth epidemic: he is cashing in his only capital asset to ensure that at least he has some money for his retirement.
Between 1989 and 1999, the number of dairy farms in Powys fell by 30 per cent. That trend has accelerated, due to the problem of pricing. We have already heard that the average price for milk this year is likely to be 16.5p per litre, when the break-even price is about 21p per litre—and 24p per litre, if one wishes to ensure that re-investment takes place. Evidence given to the Welsh Affairs Committee showed that the code of conduct that four out of the five major supermarkets signed up to has been toothless, with regard to ensuring that a fair price is given to producers. That problem must be looked at again.
The problem with the pricing of milk can be traced back to the abolition of the milk marketing board and, subsequently, the dissolution of Milk Marque. Farmers are now trying to put back into place some of the co-operative aspects of the organisation of their industry that Milk Marque established. The Welsh Affairs Committee has also heard evidence that the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission have been much harder on indigenous co-operatives than on foreign ones. Milk First gave us evidence that, when it purchased a cheesemaking plant in Aberaeron, it had to go through a rigorous regulatory process that cost it a
184WH
lot in professional fees, whereas co-operatives based outside the country, such as on the continent, or in New Zealand, are able to operate in the United Kingdom without having to pay for and implement the same regulatory processes. That is, therefore, a real problem.
I turn finally to the agrimonetary compensatory allowance for which the Government can apply before 30 April. The Government have an opportunity to show that they understand the dairy industry's problems and can make a commitment to it. I understand that the average dairy farm, with about 80 cows producing 480,000 litres of milk, would receive about £1,700. In terms of the size and scale of the business, that is not a lot of money, as we have heard, but it is a lot in terms of the profit being made at the moment. It may be the difference between a business surviving and it going to the wall, and we call on the Government to act immediately.
10.25 am
Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: I am grateful that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) secured the debate. As he rightly points out, it heightens the problems in Somerset, four of whose five Members of Parliament are present. The fifth is on his way back from other duties.
The hon. Member kindly alluded to organic farming in my constituency. In many ways, organic farming was seen as the great white hope. It was going to be the thing that boosted farming so that we could be more eco-friendly and eco-adjustable. However, in the past few months we have witnessed the wholesale collapse of the organic milk price, which has gone from 30p to 24p, and may go even lower. I suspect that the Minister will discuss how to foster an organic industry.
Yeo Valley Organic works throughout Somerset, in all our constituencies—Somerton and Frome, Taunton and Wells. It is this country's prime and biggest producer of organic yoghurt and cream. It is honouring its contracts. It still pays 33p a litre and subsidises organic producers with whom it has contracts. It does so for two reasons. First, it has contracts and wants to honour them. Secondly, it wants to maintain the quality and purity of the organic milk that it buys. It cannot afford not to be able to buy high-quality organics as that is its market.
The company is part of the Organic Milk Suppliers Co-operative, which it helped set up in 1994. It knew about the possibility of over-supply because of the experience with wild boar, ostriches and the many other diversifications that crashed. It wanted to ensure the possibility of holding the market together and that the market did not collapse to that extent. The farmgate price in 1996, when OMSCO started, was 29.5p. It is now down to 24p. The company's contracts run for five years. It has extended them for a further two. Its commitment to its producers is total.
The other problem that we face is that the average dairy income is now £9,500. The agrimoney would work out at £1,700 per farmer. The problem is, therefore, on both sides. Organic producers such as Yeo Valley are trying to increase their coverage and buying power—indeed, they are trying to sell to this place, too; I notice that we do not have many organics here—in order to be able to put forward the case specifically for organics for the longer term.

185WH
Farmers are leaving organic farming because they can no longer afford it. They cannot afford the milk or the income that they receive from organic produce. Where, then, will we get the organic milk and, if I may go slightly further—I realise that we are discussing the dairy industry—the strawberries, for example, to put in the yoghurt?
Unless organisations such as Yeo Valley are specifically helped, the economics involved mean that they will be unable to continue to support farmers in the way that they do. They will do so if they can, but they will need direct help—organic subsidies or money from bodies such as the Environment Agency or the Countryside Agency.
Mr. Adrian Flook: My hon. Friend mentioned the Countryside Agency. Is he aware of the report "Rural Proofing in 2001–02", which has just come out? Rural proofing is intended to ensure that the Government think rural. Is my hon. Friend aware that DEFRA has the worst record of all 11 Departments on the implementation of rural proofing? Although it has widely circulated a checklist, established a contact point and liaises regularly with the agency, it has not embedded rural proofing in its policy-making procedures, promotes neither proofing nor the checklist, has established no rural targets for monitoring and has not enhanced rural awareness.
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: I am not surprised in the slightest. I am interested to note that the Cabinet Office has managed to do better than DEFRA. One wonders how many gardens and farms there are in 10 Downing street.
Yeo Valley and other organisations are not cutting their prices; they are trying to stay where they are. I ask the Minister to see what he can do. Yeo Valley is a shining example of excellent practice in the dairy industry, and such organisations are going out on a limb to support the dairy industry. People such as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) and I depend on such organisations to hold the farming industry together in counties such as Somerset.
10.31 am
Hywel Williams: I am pleased to be called, given the extensive dairy industry in my constituency and in those of my hon. Friends the Members for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) and for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price).
I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on securing this debate. It is very timely, given that the National Farmers Union in Wales calculates that the industry there is in danger of losing up to £45 million due to the current price cuts. That danger was confirmed to me in recent discussions with dairy farmers in my constituency. One told me bluntly and briefly that milk production was high early in the season, price competition was fierce, prices were low and unstable, planning was difficult, investment was threatened and dairy farming incomes were under grave threat. He said that many local dairy farmers were considering their futures.
186WH
The pound and imports are high. I was told yesterday that last year 40 per cent. of our butter came from abroad. Some 385.000 tonnes of cheese were made in the United Kingdom, but 273,000 tonnes were imported. The industry faces competition from all parts of the world, and the liquid milk flows in.
I have discussed with local dairy farmers what options they have. Advised by successive Governments, they have invested and modernised, and herds are now larger and yields have increased beyond all recognition. Can dairy farms in my constituency grow bigger? A constituent recently told me that he had just about been able to bring up his family in the 1960s and 1970s with a herd of fewer than 30 animals, but that he could not do so now.
Can dairy farms in my constituency grow their way out of the present crisis? The industry in my constituency faces the pressure of increased prices when buying and renting land. Indeed, it seems that local prices often reflect not the economic value of the land, but its amenity value to people who are not solely or even mainly engaged in agriculture. That clearly limits the possibility of expansion for smaller holdings and any possible gains from economies of scale.
We have heard about the organic option, but if everyone turns organic, any price advantage will be lost. I recently bought some organic milk. The packaging said that it was organic in very large letters, but that it was produced in Denmark in rather smaller letters.
It is not only producers who are feeling the pressure. A successful farmer-owned co-operative in my constituency, Hufenfa De Arfon—South Caernarfon Creameries—has worked hard to carve out a niche at the quality end of the market, and it has had considerable success. It produces butter and liquid milk, and it supplies a well known, high-quality retail chain. It makes a very popular, high-quality cheese, Hen Sir, which is as good as one will get, but perhaps I am biased. It also makes Monterey Jack, a cheese made to an American recipe, and even succeeds in exporting it to America, along with its other products. This year, it won an export award. Hufenfa De Arfon has always been very good in paying its producers—among the top 25 per cent. and sometimes much better. However, even that highly successful and forward-looking venture feels pressure to reduce the price that it pays to its members, thereby reducing the vital money that it pumps into the local economy. If companies such as Hufenfa De Arfon, the very best, are feeling the pressure, what hope is there for the rest?
Dairy farmers in my constituency are well aware of price instability and the pressure on their industry. They know all about uncertainty and falling incomes, and many are considering their future. They know that they need a higher price for their milk. The National Farmers Union called for 22p per litre just to cover costs and 24p per litre to have a viable industry. Dairy farmers deserve a better, more secure future, and Welsh rural life cannot afford to lose them.
10.35 am
Mr. Colin Breed: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on initiating the debate. As many hon. Members have suggested, there has been

187WH
much debate on the issue in our constituencies but not in the House. Our farmers have been constantly contacting us with their tales of woe, which have been amply expressed by several Members this morning. I shall not repeat what they said but add just a few more comments.
On the strength of sterling, whatever the arguments for going into or staying out of the euro, sectors of our industry will be permanently disadvantaged if we stay out. As the principal reason for not going in is likely to be the exchange rate, it will have an effect. If the Government are never going to apply for what is left of our agrimonetary compensation or introduce their own scheme, we need to know. Farmers need to know whether they will ever receive compensatory payment for the clear problem of the exchange risk, so that they can plan their businesses accordingly. Pleading on each individual occasion—I add my voice to the plea that the Government make application—is not the way that an essentially long-term industry wants to plan its business.
One of the things coming up next year, which was made clear by previous Ministers, is the review of quota in 2003. We have not heard much about the Government's position on that. Will they press for the rapid end of quota? Some people thought that it would happen in 2003; if not, when will it happen? If we could press our European Union partners to agree to an end to the milk quota system, which is a clear constraint on the development of an efficient and market-focused industry, there is little doubt that it would do a significant amount of good to the UK dairy industry.
Much has been said about supermarkets. The OFT found cause for an investigation, which was carried out by the Competition Commission. Many of us thought that it was a whitewash and a total waste of £20 million. The voluntary code that has been referred to is totally inadequate to regulate properly the whole of the industry chain. We must also remember that there have been some changes in the way in which consumers purchase milk and milk products. We all know that doorstep deliveries have declined significantly and, as a result, the prices have increased. As consumers shift to supermarkets, the price in the supermarket declines. It is an escalating situation, in which more and more milk is purchased by the supermarkets. Therefore, there is a clear competition issue, which was not grasped properly by the Competition Commission, which looked at excessive profits over the whole range of activities, rather than examining individual products.
There has been growth in new dairy products such as cheese, yoghurt, dairy desserts, fromage frais and so on. Foreign companies and imports have driven many of those developments. We must really try to organise ourselves to be much more competitive in that field, so that we process our milk into those value-added products and start to displace some of those imports. That is an important way in which we can support the dairy industry in the future.
On organic farming, many organic farmers have told me that, although they appreciate the Government's support at conversion, most European competitors continue to receive support post-conversion. That is extremely beneficial to them. Our organic farmers, once converted, are playing on an uneven field of competition because other organic farmers continue to receive support post-conversion.
188WH
I turn to bovine tuberculosis, which is a huge problem in Devon and Cornwall. The figures state that it more than doubled between 1995–2000. A Krebs trial is taking place in my constituency, and I understand all the problems of that. However, the feeling is that even at the end of the Krebs trials, which have been delayed because of foot and mouth, and the spending of £35 million, the findings will be inconclusive—yet we shall probably have seen a significant further rise in TB.
TB is going to be the next BSE or foot and mouth. It is a real and creeping problem. If we sit back and rely on the evidence of the Krebs trials to guide us on what to do, we could be sitting here in two or three years with the same dilemma, while more farmers are subjected to TB problems and more compensation is paid.
On animal movements, farmers are still extremely careful after foot and mouth, and there is the odd scare. However, the current animal movement restrictions are putting an increasing burden on their businesses. They want to know what the long term is to be. Are we going to keep the 21-day animal movement restriction, or is that a temporary measure? Will it be replaced by something else? Farmers need to know the longer-term Government policy in that area.
10.41 am
Mrs. Ann Winterton: Thank you, Mr. Beard; it is nice to see you in the Chair.
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on his good fortune in securing this morning's debate. We have almost all been singing from the same hymn sheet, and I hope that that will send the Government a clear message about the unanimity of view on what is happening in the dairy industry at present, and how vital it is for the problems to be tackled.
The past year has brought dairy farmers varying fortunes, with the fluctuation of milk prices and the onslaught of foot and mouth, one consequence of which was to reduce significantly the UK breeding herd. However, we all remain concerned that the commitment shown by dairy farmers is not reflected in the prices that they receive for their produce. The dairy sector probably has to fund more capital investment, place more emphasis on animal health and assign more commitment to its work than most other sectors in the agricultural industry. It is an outrage that dairy farmers work longer than the average working week and yet take home less than the minimum wage.
At the beginning of 2001, higher prices led to a sense of confidence and an enlargement of scale in the dairy sector. Milk producers had previously seen a decline in incomes for almost three years. However, there has been a notable and ongoing decrease since the end of last year, continuing throughout this year and this month. The National Farmers Union estimates that the average producer price in April will be 16.5p per litre. If those trends continue, together with seasonality, producer prices may be further depressed, perhaps as far as the trough of prices in May 2000. That would be seriously bad news.

189WH
Our milk producers receive the poorest prices in Europe, yet continue to abide by the highest health, safety and hygiene standards of all member states. The Milk Development Council announced on Monday that it intends to commission a survey to investigate why there is such a price difference between the UK and the rest of Europe.
Our dairy farming industry should not experience, and cannot stand, yet another prolonged period of uncertain and depressed prices. Some factors are uncontrollable. For example, world commodity prices have dropped, and the United Kingdom's milk production during the past few months has been greater than expected, which has led to increased competition and has pulled prices down.
As in every sector, UK dairymen remain disadvantaged by the value of sterling in comparison with the euro. This year, £97 million of agrimonetary compensation is available to the agriculture industry, although that is the maximum and the European Commission has yet to rule on the official sum. Approximately £51 million of that figure should be available to the dairy sector. When he replies to the debate, will the Minister indicate the Government's approach to agrimonetary compensation, and whether he recognises the part that that plays in sustaining dairy farmers' profitability?
It is crucial—this has been said several times—that milk prices are maintained at retail level, and that a fair and just proportion of the price is reflected in producer gain. At the time of the April 2001 retail increase, the National Farmers Union was inundated with calls from the public who sought assurance that price rises would mean more money for dairy farmers. Every call made it clear that there was no problem with paying a little extra for milk so long as that extra money was returned to dairy farmers. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) that I shall continue to buy Yeo Valley organic products, which I have done since I visited Yeo Valley when I served on the Select Committee on Agriculture. They are excellent products, and I was delighted to hear that the company is being honourable by continuing to honour contracts to its producers. Long may that continue.
However, all of that could prove of little comfort to producers. It remains clear that the allocation of the final retail price needs further investigation. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) that many believed that the conclusions of the report by the Office of Fair Trading were totally unsatisfactory. Other members of the food chain must recognise that farmers should receive a better and fairer share of the retail price.
The recent Curry report highlighted the need for farmer collaboration, and endorsed the findings of the milk taskforce report. I quote:
"We strongly believe in the potential of collaborative ventures for all farmers large and small. We encourage the competition authorities to consider the wider market context, particularly the consolidation of international suppliers, when looking at new or expanding collaborative ventures."
190WH
DEFRA has highlighted the contrast between UK farmer control of production and that in the rest of the world. It states that in 2001, the UK's largest milk group controlled a mere 16 per cent. of production, compared with Sweden's 61 per cent., New Zealand's 90 per cent. and Denmark's 92 per cent. The latter figure impacts strongly on the UK market, because Arla Foods is the company that uses that milk.
Farmers are already doing their utmost to help themselves through the prolonged crisis, but dairy co-operatives are another valid way forward. In some recent mergers, farmers' co-operatives have expressed the hope that they will be able significantly to cut administration and transport costs, and the objective to raise capital and invest in processing, which will allow members to benefit from the added margins between the farm and consumer. What is the Government's view on co-operatives raising money to invest further up the supply chain? Do they have a view on the restrictions and costs that must sometimes be met by those ventures? If those are to be encouraged, that problem should be considered.
Conservative Members are keen for an improvement in honesty in labelling, and would like to see all milk and milk products labelled with the country of origin and the system of production of all major ingredients. If milk is imported, we do not want that information in tiny figures at the bottom of the label. We must enable consumers to choose British milk and British dairy products, which they know that they can trust. Yesterday, I went to the launch of White and Wild, which is a new, high-quality premium product. It is organic milk that comes from farms that have a whole farm biodiversity plan, and it is being sold in about 60 supermarkets from next Wednesday. That is one way forward, and let us hope that the British public will buy that milk, and encourage that movement.
Along with the general decline in milk prices, bovine tuberculosis is a real threat and a constant worry for farmers. In its January 2001 report, the Agriculture Committee called for Government action on farmers' "growing sense of desperation" at the continued spread of the disease. TB testing has been delayed because of foot and mouth disease, but the provisional Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs statistics for the period between December 2000 and February 2001 show that 2,231 cattle were compulsorily slaughtered as reactors or contacts. As a result of foot and mouth, we cannot assess the situation from last year's statistics on TB reactors but the release of figures from the most recent batches of testing is imminent, and will prove extremely telling. I have no doubt that they will highlight the sheer extent of the desperation that the Government's strategy against TB is causing among farmers.
I have raised a few issues currently facing the industry. As always in this debate one has to gallop up to the final winning post, as it were, but I leave that for the Minister to do. I am trying to leave him sufficient time to do so. It is in everybody's interest in the United Kingdom that a sector as suited to the UK climate as dairy farming should continue and prosper. However, the Government appear prepared to see that asset squandered, and their lack of action seems almost a refusal to defend it or to instigate a recovery in a very fine sector of our agricultural industry.
10.51 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): In the time left to me, I shall try and cover the range of points raised by hon. Members. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on raising the issue. Dairy farming is important in Somerset and the issues that he has raised are important nationally. I certainly agreed with much of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and the hon. Members for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin), for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams), for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger), for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) and for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton).
It may be useful if I stress some of the things that the Government have been doing. Although many points have been very fair, I take exception to the last remark that the Government are not doing very much about the industry. The Prime Minister has been directly involved at all levels concerning agricultural issues. He was at the seminar of the Food and Farming Commission. He has taken a close interest in the action plan on organic farming, which I have been asked to chair. The first meeting was constructive and useful. The food chain centre is in the process of being set up, led by the Institute of Grocery Distribution. A code of practice has been introduced. Of course, if people feel that it is not delivering what it is meant to deliver, we will keep it under review. There is a mid-term review of the common agricultural policy. I can confirm that we are opposed to quotas—we believe that they should go.
One of the problems of the dairy industry is that the impact of the various support mechanisms and subsidies, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, is a complete mess. It works against the interests of the industry. We must make progress on the mid-term review. We are supporting co-operatives and collaborative marketing in a range of ways. I recently had a meeting with OMSCO. I have been to Yeo Valley, and I confirm that it is doing its best to assist the organic sector and its customers. OMSCO is acting in a principled way, and is a first-class organisation in respect of products and operations.
It might be useful if I set out some of the reasons for the problems faced by the dairy industry, and explain what we can and cannot do. I do not want to mislead hon. Members about the Government's role concerning market intervention. We concede that it is a difficult time for the dairy industry. I accept all the points that people have made. It recovered in 2000 and that continued into 2001, but since then prices have fallen back to what we accept is an unsustainable level. The latest figures show that the farmgate price of milk is around 18.33p per litre, and there is a danger that it may drop further.
It is of course unfortunate that that has happened in the wake of foot and mouth, when many farmers are beginning to restock and recover. The fall in prices has happened for a number of complex reasons. It is, however, certainly a result of strong UK supply combined with weak demand, especially on world markets. During foot and mouth, there were fears that the cull of dairy cattle would lead to shortages of milk, and some foolish claims were made about a likely drop in milk production. We at DEFRA said at the time that
192WH
we were not concerned about milk production because we did not think that it would be a major problem. Although there was a brief dip in production, farmers reacted to higher prices and the threat of a quota superlevy by increasing their levels of production. Furthermore, although 160,000 dairy cows were culled during the outbreak, the June 2001 census shows that the number of dairy cows in the UK fell by only 80,000 because animals that might otherwise have entered the over-30-months scheme were kept on for additional lactation. Despite losses early in the quota year, production for 2001–02 has exceeded that of the previous year, and production levels in the past few months have been at their highest for more than 10 years. That is a classic market supply situation in relation to production and demand.
At the same time, the situation on the world markets could hardly be worse. Markets were already weak because of economic problems in some key importing countries such as Brazil, and they collapsed further in the wake of 11 September. That had a noticeable effect on exports of dairy products from the European Union. The uncompetitive effect of the common agricultural policy on unsubsidised world markets has led to retention on EU markets, which already have a structural surplus of products that would otherwise have been exported. The effect has been to depress the price of butter and skimmed milk powder, which is a point that has already been made, to intervention levels across the EU—an intervention level in the UK is the same as that anywhere else in the EU. As a consequence, some producers have switched from making those products to producing cheese, which in turn has depressed that particular market. The whole thing is a problem.
What can the Government do? I accept that that is a fair question, but we also have to accept—I do not want to mislead hon. Members or the industry—that we do not run a command and control economy, and the Government cannot intervene to set prices. Price setting and price negotiation is rightly a matter between producers and purchasers, and the Government have a limited role. Of course, we accept that the dairy sector is part of a highly structured, interventionist industry. Since we came to power, we have reduced dairy farmers' costs by waiving cattle passport charges, removing dairy hygiene charges and abolishing the weight limit on cattle entering the over-30-months scheme. Furthermore, since 1999 we have paid more than 100 million in agrimonetary compensation to dairy farmers, both in 2000, when prices were low, and last year when the sector faced the particular threat of foot and mouth.
We made it clear, however, that that support should be regarded as short-term, transitional aid, which is the current agrimonetary position. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome was fair about that because he mentioned the Fontainebleau agreement and understands what the problem is. The idea that there is a pot of EU cash for which we can apply is totally wrong. It is not there for us because it was negotiated away as part of the rebate agreement. All we can do is apply for the right to pay subsidy through agrimoney, which we have to find ourselves. The sector must

193WH
therefore compete not only with other priorities, but with other groups in the agriculture sector that have no such opportunities, such as the pig sector.
Mr. Breed: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Morley: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have only two minutes left and I am struggling as it is.
Agrimonetary compensation is a short-term option, not a sustainable, long-term interventionist policy. That is why, incidentally, the previous Government not only opposed it in the Council of Ministers, but did not pay it in 1996, when they could have done so.
In the one minute left, I have to say that I recognise that there is a terrible problem with TB. Please do not think that the Krebs experiment is focusing just on the issue of badgers and cattle. We are also working on vaccines and management, and we will make an announcement about other measures in May, but we have taken many tough decisions to keep that experiment on track. It has not been knocked off course by foot and mouth. We believe that it will produce important information about combating the disease. We take the matter seriously. We are combating the disease and we will continue to work with the industry to try to reduce it and minimise its impact.

Sure Start Programmes
11 am
Ms Meg Munn: I am delighted to have this opportunity of a debate on sure start programmes. It is not unusual for families to experience problems and finding ways to help them is vital if we are to develop a strong society. I want to begin by looking at the sorts of problems and difficulties that some families face.
Let us take a hypothetical example put together from some of the experiences that I have seen families face. It involves a young couple with a baby. The mother, a young woman in her early 20s, was brought up by her father following the death of her mother. The father, also in his early 20s, was brought up in a household where his father drank and he was more likely to get a clip round the ear than a kind word. He was already developing a drinking habit of his own and the arrival of a baby boy into the family brings its own stresses and strains.
Before the little boy is very old, the family comes to the attention of social services. There were a few unexplained bruises and an unhappy child. The health visitor becomes concerned about his well-being. A few weeks later, the mother, frightened for her baby's safety, contacts social services. She tells the social worker that on returning to the house she found the baby crying and distraught with bruising around his mouth. He was a difficult feeder and when he would not take his bottle, his father forced it into his mouth.
After a long period, the baby is taken into care and later adopted. A year later the couple, having begun to resolve some of their problems, approach social services saying that they want to have another baby but are worried that it would be taken into care. With help and support over a number of months, the couple have a baby who remains at home and thrives. Through contact with a number of agencies they have learned how to look after a child, what needs it has, what behaviour to expect at what age and how to love the child and encourage it to learn from an early age. How much better for all concerned if that young couple had been able to get the help, support and advice on child care from the start without feeling that they were failing by asking for help.
Many situations are not as stark or as tragic as that. The child who enters school never having been given a book to look at, not knowing how to hold a pencil, never having learned how to play with other children, is held back from the start. Parents who had bad experiences at school may feel unable to approach a school. Perhaps the child misses out on the benefits of playgroup or nursery. When the child goes to school, the lack of parental support—from fear and mistrust—create difficulties for her and soon she begins to feel as negative about education as her parents did.
Of course, it is wrong to say that help is not available to families. All children receive visits from health visitors and, where problems are identified, other support is usually found. Such support is often scarce, however, and help is often available only for the most severe problems. As I outlined in my hypothetical example, that is sometimes too late for a child and a family. Many families struggle for years to support their

195WH
children and it can often be much later when problems arise. Children who have failed to gain the basic skills of reading and writing will struggle in school. They are unable to take part fully in educational activities and so may become disruptive or withdrawn. As they get older, they may opt out of school altogether. That dislocation from education can also be at the root of offending by young people.
Significant research also indicates that strong emotional links in families help children to grow up with a sense of their own worth. A respect for their community starts with the feelings engendered in the family. Many of the complaints that hon. Members receive are about the problem of young people creating disruption in their community. All our communities will benefit if we can find a way to prevent that from an early age.
It is often difficult to change the behaviour of young people by the time the education welfare officer, social services or the youth offending team become involved. It is easy to feel that it is too late for the young person. The costs to society and the young person are often great: additional costs are involved in trying to assist the young person once the problems have arisen. Common sense tells us that to invest in the support of families when children are young will save money when dealing later with the problems of young people and adults. We have evidence from the prison population. Many prisoners have difficulty with basic reading and writing, come from broken homes or have been brought up in care. None of that information is new, nor is it especially difficult to understand. However, doing something about it has been another matter. I therefore applaud the introduction of sure start, which is providing extra money to some of our most deprived communities to give all children a good start in life.
The importance of investing in families early in life has been known for years. It has been impossible to divert resources from dealing with older young people to preventing the next generation from suffering the same problems. The Government have not only recognised that, but through sure start are investing the additional money needed to begin to break the cycle.
The first benefit of sure start programmes is the ability to begin to intervene at an early stage. However, there are several other benefits. Sure start programmes bring together a range of support for children. A holistic view of the needs of children and their families is at the heart of the approach. I welcome the fact that the sure start objectives include the social and emotional development of children, their health, their ability to learn, and the wider importance of strengthening families and communities.
Sure start programmes need to bring together professionals from all the relevant areas to help families in a holistic way. It is vital that health professionals work with educationalists, who need to work with professionals from social services. The importance of voluntary organisations already working in the area must also be recognised. Sure start recognises the importance of the local community. It also recognises the significance of locating its programmes in the local community. From the start, communities must be encouraged to see the programme as theirs, and one that seeks to meet needs that they, as well as others, have defined.
196WH
The recently submitted delivery plan for the Gleadless valley sure start programme in my constituency sets out those aims clearly:
"The programme will…seek to combat poverty and unemployment, breaking the cycle of deprivation and giving the community confidence to engage in the regeneration of their area … The programme has a strong emphasis on engaging with local people and empowering them to contribute in the development of local services."
The Woodthorpe estate in my constituency is another good example of how the programme is working in practice. A couple of weeks ago, I visited a group of young mothers who are developing their own support group called "Survivors". The group was originally brought together through the neighbourhood support fund, which is supported by another local community organisation. The young women found the group beneficial, providing the help and advice they needed and enabling them to support each other. Through the group meetings, they realised that they were not on their own; there were other young women in the area with the same problems.
When I visited them a few weeks ago, they told me that not only did they feel more confident as parents and as women but, for the first time, they were able to tell other people what they needed. They knew their estate, its problems and the solutions for young women like themselves. They had made contact with their local sure start scheme and could say what services and support they needed.
That is an excellent example of people in the community helping to develop sure start, and of initiatives that help them to work together. Often, pots of money are given to different projects without there being a clear, overall strategy. On their own, such projects may have little impact, but by joining up the work of two different projects a lasting difference can be made to the lives of young women and their community.
The key to joining up those initiatives was not policy makers or local authority officers but putting power in the hands of local communities. Communities do not think like departments, they do not have the boundaries of budgets, structures and hierarchies; they see the issues and the problems and they begin to find their own solutions.
Sure starts provide the means to build on existing services that are working in the community. In Sheffield, home start is part of the sure start programmes. Home-Start is a national body, which is organised at a local level, providing volunteer support by mothers to other mothers—in some places, by parents to other parents. As a social services manager, I had a key role some years ago, in developing a home start for the area in which I worked. Using the model of local volunteers who had experience of bringing up children under five, parents experiencing difficulties with their own under-fives were able to receive support. It is recognised that everyone with small children needs support, but it is not always readily available to every parent. The service did not have the stigma associated with other services for families with problems and that is an essential aim for sure start projects.
Another feature of that home start project, which was funded through city challenge money, was building up the skills of volunteers to take a more active role in their community in their own right. It was successful in that

197WH
aim, with many volunteers building on the training that they received through home start to take on courses or paid employment. Some went on to be committee members for the local home start and for other community organisations. If sure start programmes are also able to achieve that, they will help children to have a better start in life and communities to become stronger and develop ways of meeting their own needs.
It is important that sure start is not linked only with voluntary organisations. One of the benefits is that Government and local government departments can work through programmes to meet their aims and targets. For example, in Sheffield, the health authority's strategy for improving oral health included co-ordinated initiatives with sure start, providing funding for children up to two years old to have feeding cups, toothbrushes and paste by giving packs to parents.
There are many other good examples of sure start programmes throughout the country—we will no doubt hear more about them this morning—where services are working together to break down barriers between health, education and social services to ensure that all families and children get the support that they need, as early as possible.
I especially welcome the essential evaluation process that is built into all sure start programmes. It will produce information about initiatives that work and where sure start really makes a difference to families and children. The information will ensure that we know that the money currently allocated to sure start is doing what it set out to do; there will be an extensive body of knowledge of the different ways in which sure start programmes have sought to meet the shared objectives. There will also be knowledge of good practice and, most importantly, we will build up information about what really works.
On that point, I want to put some issues to the Minister. Sure start has, rightly, been widely welcomed. Few people could disagree with its aim and objectives. The additional finance to develop the programmes has been welcomed with open arms, with areas bidding for many more programmes than the Government have been able to fund.
I have set out today why I believe that sure start should achieve its aims and objectives. If it proves to be an effective model, how will the Government ensure that the lessons that are learned can be used in other areas? It is unlikely that there will be funding for every area that wants sure start or we think might need it. However, every area already has agencies working with families: health visitors, social and educational services, and community and voluntary organisations. How can those existing services learn the lessons to achieve the aims of sure start, and of all of us, for the development of all young children? In short, how can the sure start approach become mainstream provision for the benefit of all children?
Sure start rightly tries to move our society away from the situation in which, from the day a child is born, we can look at their family and neighbourhood and have a good idea of what chance they have of succeeding in life. However, we do not want sure start to create further divisions or children living on a sure start-supported
198WH
estate to have a better chance than those on a next-door estate that does not have such an initiative. The Government should be commended for developing the sure start programme, but I want it to make a difference to an even greater number of children. If that can be achieved, we will be on our way to giving more children real chances in life and to building stronger communities and society.
11.17 am
Caroline Flint: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) on securing the debate and adding to the number of women Members of Parliament in south Yorkshire in the 2001 election. I am pleased to be able to take part today because I am on the board of the Denaby sure start programme, which now includes Conisbrough. When the Denaby sure start first began as a trailblazer project, we were just part of a local authority ward. We have now been extended to cover the whole of the ward and include Conisbrough, which raises new challenges.
My hon. Friend is right. The Government's priority is to recognise that Governments can play a supportive role at the earliest points in children's lives, not by nannying, but by meeting the needs of parents in the community. We must recognise that parents play the most important role in a child's life and that they need support as well.
I welcome today's debate and I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my fellow board members, with whom I have shared the ups and downs in trying to get the project off the ground in the past few years. I congratulate our director Julie Warren, who has just gone on maternity leave, and wish good luck to Jane Stanley, who has just been appointed as deputy and will cover many of her duties. I congratulate all the sure start staff and the volunteers from the community who have put so much effort and support into making the project such a success, in particular with the parenting group that we have formed in our board.
Our board made the early decision that it would consist of a third each from statutory agencies, community representatives—of which I am one—and parents. That brings its own challenge in bringing people together from different backgrounds and ensuring that they all have an equal say and stake in decisions.
I am sure that the Minister would agree that now is a good time to raise questions, some of which she may not be able to answer when she sums up today. With the roll-out of more sure starts—Doncaster will shortly have five—it is an opportune moment for hon. Members to talk about their experiences and views, which might be helpful in these pioneering days to the ongoing development of this policy area.
I realise that other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall just raise a few issues. First, funding is important. Sure start has a good funding basis on which to develop, but the reality is that other funding is in force in the communities where sure start is located. Conisbrough and Denaby, for example, have neighbourhood renewal, health action zone and housing management programmes, a town centre partnership, the Wellgate community project, the community composting network, the organic community farm and more.

199WH
Additionally, we have the crime and disorder partnership, which covers Doncaster, the early years child care development partnership and more. Those are all worthy projects and it is proper that the Government should fund them.
In several respects, however, those projects are dealing with the same issues as sure start, albeit with a different focus. One issue in common is the regeneration of communities, which is about social as well as economic regeneration. I represent a former mining constituency, as does the Minister, which has just one working pit today. Several generations have not worked down the mine and are not part of the old welfare network that the National Coal Board and the unions provided for the mining communities. Today, communities are grappling to find a new sense of social cohesion for the future. New jobs and skills for the future are an important part of that.
Many of the neighbourhoods in which sure start was piloted, is situated or will he coming on line soon have different pockets of funding without much cohesion: the issues need to be brought together. The Government, the Minister and other Ministers must recognise that we must encourage linkage between the different regeneration groups.
Jane Stanley, the deputy director of our sure start, found out by chance that a community group wanted to develop a training centre. Child care, education and training are, alongside health support and everything else, an important part of sure start's ethos. The truth is that poverty is at the root of the most vulnerable families' problems. Education was probably hit and miss for many families and the thought of going back into education holds its own challenges for many.
Here is an obvious linkage: one community group could lead on that issue, but sure start should be part of the process. Funding may be available through objective 1 or neighbourhood renewal, but joined-up thinking about the linkage of issues is necessary. The last thing that we want is community groups, whether development groups or trusts, doing all the leg work in competing for funding, when there could be more cohesion and working together. That is important for sure start, which has received funding to pay for staff. Many other community groups do not have staff, but work purely on a volunteer basis.
We must ensure that sure start is not viewed as the big sister with all the money, staff and professionals somehow undermining the other voluntary groups. That is not good for people management or working together. We do not want the volunteer groups to feel intimidated by another organisation taking over. Our board has to grapple with issues as important as linkage, but there are lessons for other sure starts in Doncaster and throughout the country.
It is important to consider management. In Doncaster, we have five sure starts. Two of them—Conisbrough and Denaby sure start, with which I am involved, and Mexborough sure start—will be under the Doncaster West primary care trust. The other sure starts will come under NCH management. Clearly, if we have five sure starts in Doncaster, there will need to be an overall Doncaster liaison group through which they can work together. As other parts of south Yorkshire come online, there will be the potential for sub-regional liaison.
200WH
I hope that people will not misunderstand me. I do not want to create a mammoth bureaucracy, but the situation needs to be considered, and Government help would be useful with regard to ideas about how it can be managed. We want to avoid a revolving-door situation, in which the same people are always going to ever more meetings.
The chair of the early years child care and development partnership, Trevor Finch, attends our sure start board meetings. However, with five sure starts in Doncaster, how will that partnership meet the needs of all five? The answer may be to have a representative on the liaison group and somehow feed into that.
My next point concerns baseline data. At least one sure start was knocked back because of a poor business plan. A key element was whether the base data on the population's needs were accurate. That was not my scheme, but having been through the process, I have some sympathy. The collection of accurate data is fraught with difficulty. Much of the local authority data is not broken down within a ward—it is only on a ward basis—so trying to break data down into smaller communities is difficult, particularly when one is trying to set targets. In addition, I understand that information on child minders is hampered by data protection legislation.
In practice, not only sure start, but probably every regeneration bid—whether from the Home Office side, the Department for Education and Skills, or wherever—relies on a group or partnership spending a year auditing or drawing together data on crime, poverty and income. In that case, why not have a central information unit collate and update that information for each locality to stop everyone reinventing the wheel? All those different projects rightly have to assess the outcomes that they are achieving as compared with when they started, and a unit such as I have described would avoid the need for individual groups to scrabble around to pull information together.
On resources or support for family support strategies, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley about mainstreaming. As I have said many times, we have five sure starts in Doncaster. I like to think of them as five pebbles in a pond. They are all in different locations. I hope that the effect of their work will ripple outward, the ripples will at some point converge, and the whole of Doncaster will eventually be covered by the innovation and ideas that sure start brings to the discussion about supporting family strategies.
There are other issues. Within my sure start, health visitors have adapted their work. Some health visitors have seized that opportunity. Previously, they did not have the opportunity or funding, but now they have. Others have found it more difficult to make the transition. They have worked in a certain way and are not ready and I imagine that that is probably the case in a number of other fields that involve working with families, such as social services and education.
There are lessons to be learned about how we can take the new ways of working forward. That leads into the modernisation of the national health service and social services. The question is how we can take ideas from the new ways of working in sure start and apply them to national qualifications and training for all workers in

201WH
those different fields. Some of the best practice from sure start could be integrated into the national training accreditation for health visitors in future. That would be one way of mushrooming up some of that best practice.
Likewise, before sure start, we traditionally had family centres in Doncaster, and we still have them. Much good work is done in those centres, but they are sometimes not helped by the perception that they represent an old model of local government delivery in this field. There are some fantastic people working in those centres, who, without the funding of sure start, are trying to do what it is doing. How can we embrace them in our family support network? How can we give them a chance to reinvent themselves, even if, in many cases, they are doing very good work?
On links with common health messages, sure start deals daily with drugs and teenage pregnancy. Many groups and organisations, and those involved with healthy living and healthy schools programmes, should talk to sure start about what is happening to the people whom they meet. Those groups are often not consulted or brought into the loop, although their input is valuable to the bodies and organisations that lead the way in such subjects. Government funding should require sure start to become one of the partners, or at least a consultee on such subjects, when that is appropriate.
The Government are achieving a lot and are prioritising family support, although every family is different. It is difficult for the public to get a total picture of what is going on, as there are so many initiatives and projects. Families do not fit into nice neat boxes or have, for example, only pre-school children. They may have both children at primary school and teenagers, and grandparents may be involved. Our sure start is meant to be for pre-school children, and it is, but we often have to engage all members of the family so that they can understand what we are trying to do and how we can bring them in. There are also those families in the community, particularly of an older generation, that no longer have children living with them.
Now is a good time to take stock of sure start and how it links with the national child care strategy. I am delighted that we have a full-time day nursery as part of our sure start building. However, that is not the end of the matter; we need to have all the other services in the community as well. The building is one thing, but it is the services outside the building and how we link them up with other services that support families that are important. That is a challenging piece of work. I have gained tremendously from being involved in my sure start project. I congratulate the Government on the initiative, and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley for arranging the debate.
11.32 am
Mr. Hilton Dawson: I join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) on initiating this important discussion. It is nice to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) because we paupers in the 175 square miles of Lancaster and Wyre do not have a single sure start project. I fervently wish I did; I am here partly to ask why we do not have one, as we need several.
202WH
I have managed family centres and child minders, have been part of local education authority partnerships, and have worked in community development, and I am particularly envious of places that have sure start programmes. They are a classic example of how the Government are working to attack poverty and some of the most difficult and entrenched problems associated with it. Sure start is the epitome of good community development. It is an anti-poverty strategy that empowers families and enables generations to move out of the cycle of deprivation lasting decades, and it enables them to improve their communities and their lives.
Sure start programmes are a way of transforming the ghastly self-serving bureaucracies with which the public sector can become engaged. The public sector can challenge them and change them into powerful agents on behalf of communities. They seem to me to be a radical way of approaching service development, and of ensuring that such services strongly reflect the needs, views and ideas of the local communities that they serve. Such projects are needed if we are going to establish responsive services that listen to and learn from the people on the ground who experience the daily reality of their communities' poverty and deprivation. They are also needed if we are going to attack the professional and organisational boundaries that often get in the way of the provision of really good services to people.
There is not a sure start programme in my constituency, but I am married to someone who managed one until a few months ago—I sometimes felt that I was married to a sure start programme—and that has left me with a good impression. Sure start works. It is a model to which communities respond. People understand what it is trying to achieve; the residents of places that have suffered most from long-term unemployment, poverty, poor services, community breakdown and deprivation recognise that a programme that will focus on the needs of a new generation can help their communities to escape from the isolation and alienation that they have experienced and that, therefore, it is worth supporting. Such communities recognise that what is needed is a long-term approach to difficulties that have been created over the long term—difficulties that are inter-generational.
Some of the problems that I have come across are caused by the difficulties of establishing sure start in areas that have several levels of local government. That produces disadvantages and they are particularly acute where a shire county council links with a district county council.
Other messages that I have received point to things that need to be worked on as a sure start project develops. Many of them refer to the quality of local people's commitment to sure start; it is important that there is a strong local partnership to enable sure start to get under way, and it is essential that Government and the sure start organisation—and all of us, in fact—ensure that the true partners are working coherently, so that sure start works.
I have heard about some of the difficulties that have been created when partners have not been prepared to take responsibility for crucial issues, such as the insurance of staff. I have also heard about partners who do not face problems and issues together, but pass the buck on to others, and about partners who have felt that they did not need to continue their investment in other

203WH
services, because there is a sure start project in the area. That entirely belies what sure start is trying to achieve. I have also heard about poor communication between partners.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley was talking about several subjects: the sort of information that is needed; the impact of sure start; and the needs of particular communities. Although those are extremely important, politicians might have a different perspective and feel the need to show success, which is not always helpful to people working on the ground. Several problems with which projects are engaged are deep-seated, profound and long-standing. Even with the best will in the world, all the resources in the world and the skills and experience that go into the projects, the problems will not be addressed immediately. Dealing with the problems requires a great deal of confidence and relationship building, in addition to the empowerment of powerless communities and the building of their resources.
My impression of all this is that perhaps too much information is sought and that attempts are made to measure success too early in the process. Given the high standard of quality and commitment of the people working in sure start whom I have met, perhaps we should relax, empower and help those people and trust their professional abilities a little more. The model is good and there is a good way of working that is tried and tested. There are clear ways forward.
My hon. Friend mentioned what happens if some parts of an area have a sure start programme while others do not. As I said, I feel that acutely. Although it might be unrealistic to think that we could have a sure start programme in every community that needs one, the example of sure start should help us to transform our general services. We need services that focus on the needs, wishes and feelings of people in the community. We need services that listen to children and young people. We need services that are not interested in professional boundaries and barriers, but that are prepared to work together throughout disciplines and organisations to focus on individuals in need in our communities. There must be modernisation of the public services that deal with such issues, and projects such as sure start must be involved in early years partnerships, regeneration opportunities and a holistic emphasis on community development.
I want a huge transformation of local government services. I would like children's departments to be re-established and transformed to bring together not only local government services, education and social services, but aspects of health services. The way in which sure start operates is a good model for the future, but we can progress further and build on the success that has been achieved.
11.44 am
Mr. Mark Todd: I do not want to repeat the eloquent praise of the concept of sure start that we heard from the previous three speakers. I want to focus instead on the precise selection of communities that would be served by sure start. If my hon. Friend the Minister who is to respond to the debate has a long and detailed memory, she will remember that I raised that matter some years ago. My constituency is mainly rural,
204WH
with small towns. The concentration of deprivation that is usually a sign of a requirement for a sure start programme is difficult to establish. Such deprivation is often concentrated in a corner of a rural ward or in a small village, and the sure start programme is not well adapted to deal with that requirement.
That position has now changed substantially and, last week, I moved ahead of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) because we now have a mini-sure start programme that is funded within south Derbyshire. That is excellent news and we are all delighted about it. It will be located in the area where local councillors, the local infants school, community groups that serve the estates and I lobbied for it initially. We are celebrating.
However, it is extremely difficult to get such schemes off the ground. It was not our first attempt to establish a scheme. We tried earlier and one of the difficulties that we faced was that the mini-sure start scheme offers only two years of guaranteed funding. That is an intimidating barrier for a low-income community. It means that, after two years, the services to be gained from sure start will not necessarily be funded by the public purse; they may have to be funded through a variety of means that will involve payments from the local community or additional well-resourced, fund-raising activity that is targeted through the new opportunities fund or other sources of funding.
Many lottery projects in my constituency face that difficulty. The resources of volunteers who can put together well-organised, fund-raising schemes are scarce, and to be faced with yet another large bill in two years put them off the initial project. They said that they could not proceed on that basis and did not want to land themselves with a liability that they might later regret.
There were further hurdles this time round. Although many encouraging noises were made about the early years partnership that was sponsoring the project, there was a block on the money coming through. I commend Derbyshire county council for its endorsement of the project. It loaned money to the partnership to purchase the site adjacent to the nursery that was being erected by private funds in Woodville to ensure that the project was kept on track. It also retained the builders working on the nursery, which will be finished in August, to erect the building for the mini-sure start programme in the area. The council played a critical role and provided the sellotape to ensure that the project goes through to its eventual outcome in January of next year for 200 local children and their parents in the Woodville and Hartshorne area of south Derbyshire. It will be of huge benefit.
I am not trying to make out that my constituency is the most deprived in the country. I am pleased to say that it is not. However, Woodville and Hartshorne certainly have a higher concentration of unemployment and poor health indicators than elsewhere in south Derbyshire. They are on the edge of the Swadlincote urban area and that has a higher concentration of young parents, too, which is typical within Derbyshire. Those are all reasons why a mini-sure start programme would benefit the community and I am grateful that one has been established. It has proved hard to obtain. In some ways, those difficulties resulted in a tougher and more resilient process than might have existed in other circumstances.

205WH
An important private sector partnership is involved. Hermitage Day Nurseries is constructing a building that will provide 90 places locally, 48 of which are reserved for the local community. A close relationship is expected with the sure start programme, which will run from the building next door. The early years partnership and its members played a critical part in pulling together the scheme and making it work. As I said, the county council has been critical in trying to ensure that the scheme stays on track in spite of hiccups and difficulties.
The local infant school and the pre-schools are heavily involved in making the scheme a working reality in the community. I am certain that it will be a tremendous success and I shall be delighted to see progress well beyond the two years for which it is guaranteed. However, such projects require a support mechanism to ensure their continuity, provided that they meet our performance targets. In my area, the mechanism that should be considered is support for the early years partnership, to ensure some continuity of funding for the project into the future.
It would be a tragedy if, having won what is a small victory in the greater scheme of things but a large success in such communities, that victory were snatched away in two years' time, when significant progress was obviously being made to meet our goals. That progress involves improving parents' skills and the expected outcomes of children served by the project, and, as has been said, increasing the local community's resilience through witnessing a success in their midst that is brought about and managed by their own efforts. That must not be placed at risk by short-term, pump-priming funding, however well intentioned that model might be. I hope that the Minister will offer some thoughts about how that support can be maintained in future.
11.52 am
Ms Candy Atherton: I am pleased to be taking part in the debate and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) on having secured it. I have two sure start programmes in my constituency and want to make the case for a further one. I therefore have some way to go to emulate my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint).
The first programme was in the Camborne area. Shortly after the 1997 election, I visited the Trevu centre—a former school that had become a derelict building—and walked into a school holidays club. Cynthia Watmore and others present said, "What we'd really like, Candy, if your Government is really committed to tackling the problems of the Grenville estate and the Camborne area, is something that starts before the child is born, and goes right the way through, rather than waiting to tackle the problem until the child gets to school. Wouldn't it be great if we took this building and did something really creative with it?" I look at it now, and it is amazing. I wish that my hon. Friend the Minister could come and see it, perhaps on a visit to Cornwall. It is a true inspiration and shows what can be done when public authorities have turned their back on a building, saying that they can do no more with it. We have changed it.
206WH
Just over year ago, when the Trevu site was being regenerated and rehabilitated, it was brought home to me how such a project can impact on people. I went to the Grenville estate in Camborne. Sitting in one of the front gardens was a group of young women, most of whom were pregnant and had children at their feet. I went up to them, as one does in politics, and said, "Hi, I'm Candy. Will you be going out to vote?" They said, "No. Why should we? You never do anything for us." I pointed over to the school site and said, "You go in there in a few months. See what a difference there is and be part of it."
One young woman was quite unpleasant to me, if the truth be known, which is why she sticks in my mind—such people tend to. Amazingly, when I went back to the Trevu centre a few weeks ago to open the toy library, she was helping to run it. She was smarter and brighter and her child was engaged and actively involved. She was also there on a subsequent visit, taking a leading role.
Sure start is about taking and helping a person to emerge almost chrysalis-like from someone who sat in front of the television watching "EastEnders" all the time to someone engaged in the community and taking part in computer training, which is tremendous. The Government should be congratulated. Instead of her child growing up in an environment in which nothing ever changes, both child and mother have an opportunity and expectation for the future. Good on the Government—that is what I say.
The sure start in Camborne links into other programmes introduced by the Government, such as the working families tax credit, the health and education action zones and wider regeneration of the community. I genuinely believe that children's expectations and horizons grow when one's neighbourhood and opportunities are improved.
My second sure start is still at an embryonic stage. It is based in Penryn and the Beacon estate in Falmouth, of which I hope the Minister will be aware. Although Penryn is further down the line, people who know about the subject are aware that Hazel Stukley and others in Falmouth have done some trailblazing work around which sure start and home start have begun. They started their work during the previous Tory Government because they were so frustrated that nothing was happening in one of the poorest wards in the whole country. They said, "Enough is enough. We must start turning this around." As health visitors, they started programmes that built on others, pyramid-like. Dentistry came into the estate for the first time. Eating problems were tackled. Things happened incrementally and grew.
When I look at the Beacon estate now, there has been a remarkable change. I visited a couple of weeks ago and pay tribute to Councillor Gerald Quin Chee, Mary May and Lesley Trenchard, who are doing so much in the community. I used to be a social worker and I do not believe in putting sticking plaster on social problems, which is one reason why I went into politics. We must solve the problems at their foundations and roots. Sure start is all about that. It is not sticking plaster. It says, "Let's tackle deprivation and problems and make a real impact on social and health care, employment and your child's expectations." I am bowled over by what is happening.

207WH
One area of my constituency is not part of the wonderful scheme. As the Minister will know, my constituency is one of the poorest. We "enjoy" objective 1 status—the highest level of structural funding in Europe—because we are among the poorest. It is even mooted that, because the rest of the country is soaring away and Cornwall is doing great things, we are lagging further behind and, despite enlargement, we may qualify for objective 1 in the next round, which is very depressing. There is a feel-good feeling in the county, we are moving forward, but despite that, we still lag behind. In north Kerrier, one of the poorest parts of the poorest county, are the Redruth and Pool areas, which link across to Camborne. Camborne, Pool and Redruth are former tin-mining communities in the lee of the Carn Brea hills. Allegedly, the people of Camborne do not talk to the people of Redruth, and vice versa, although that is changing, but the communities share high unemployment and great social deprivation.
I understand that Redruth is one area being considered for that status in the last round, and I make a plea to the Minister for it to be included, to tackle problems in the foundation way that I have discussed. I strongly urge her to look sympathetically at Redruth's needs. I thank her and the Government enormously for everything else that is going on.
12 noon
Richard Younger-Ross: May I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) on instigating the debate. I hope that the Minister will listen to many of the comments that she and other hon. Members have made. Although the Liberal Democrats have praised the sure start initiative from its inception, problems arise from it and there are issues to be addressed. Many of those have been referred to.
Ensuring that children have the very best start in life has always been a central plank of our policy. My background is in architecture. I know that the foundations of a building have to be down before the superstructure can be put up. What happens in early years is like those foundations, and the best foundations are required. We have always given great prominence to the importance of identifying at the earliest possible age children with particular needs and providing remedies with the potential to meet those needs so that they can move forward with their peers and take the fullest possible advantage of their education and social opportunities.
That should mean that many children who might otherwise face considerable difficulties have the chance to grow up as well-rounded and productive members of society. For as many years as I care to remember, we have argued for the integration of care and education, and multi-agency involvement in the early support of a child and its family.
Another principle dear to us is that decision making should happen at the lowest possible level. Sure start meets all those criteria. It is a well-founded scheme in its planning and delivery and it is making real differences to the lives of many children and families. I hope that it will go on to benefit many more. The Government must be praised for that. For too long, Governments of all colours have tended to tell people what is good for them,
208WH
whether they like it or not. Some parts of the Government still tend to do that, although not in this case. The requirement to involve local people, especially those who will benefit from sure start schemes, in the planning and delivery of services as far as possible departs significantly from that tendency. The extensive consultation required, and the fact that users of the services all over the country are involved, should be a great source of satisfaction to the Government.
Of course, it is difficult to get such people involved in what may be an intimidating experience for them. It must be very difficult for a layperson to sit on a committee of health care and education professionals, planning the delivery of multimillion-pound schemes. However, on the principle that large oaks from little acorns grow, it is hoped that, once service users get the taste for being able to influence directly what is on offer, many more will wish to be involved.
As an aside, it is worth saying that the Government should pay attention to what is happening in that respect and extend the principle to other areas of their policy. All over the country, Liberal Democrat councillors have found that consulting and involving local people in decision making makes the quality of service provision, as measured by its relevance to the lives of local people, rise considerably. Long may that principle continue at all levels of government.
One criticism of sure start is that it was originally concentrated in urban areas. The Government responded to that criticism, however, and the problem has been tackled. Sure start projects have recently been introduced in rural areas and about 50 schemes are in operation or at the planning stage. We welcome that significant improvement in the extension of sure start ideas, but with one or two reservations. In particular, the level of funding is rather low and the duration of the schemes is rather short.
The Liberal Democrats have often drawn attention to the fact that considerable deprivation exists in many rural areas and we are pleased that the Government have recognised its existence—particularly since the foot and mouth disaster, which has had such an impact in many remote areas. The nature of such areas means, however, that it is often more difficult and expensive to deliver the quality services necessary. Remote areas have transport difficulties and problems of isolation affect precisely those families who are most likely to benefit from sure start. In addition, consulting and helping such people is an order of magnitude more difficult.
That is not to say that innovative schemes have not been devised or that local people have not been involved. Dedicated and creative people have done a great deal of significant work to overcome shortcomings. The sure start unit approved an interesting scheme that was developed in north Allerdale, in north Cumbria—an area that was devastated by foot and mouth disease. In the light of the large and scattered area covered by the project, the local steering group decided that it would be difficult, if not impossible to avoid the stigma of sure start provision to the disadvantaged. It has therefore devised a scheme to seek external funding to make services available to all the children and their families. That has meant raising the same amount of external revenue funding as is provided with sure start and a considerable amount of

209WH
extra capital funding. That will greatly benefit all the children and families in the area and provide extra specialist help for target families. It is a credit to the sure start unit that it recognised the innovative nature of the north Allerdale scheme and gave its approval. I am sure that the scheme will be closely watched and that lessons will be learned from it.
I referred to the problem of funding for small sure start programmes and more needs to be done in that regard. The small schemes are funded for only two years, and there has been no indication of whether funding will continue after that initial period. It makes little sense to devise a programme to support children from birth to three years old, only to end it after two years. That contrasts with the full sure start schemes, which run for 10 years and receive considerably more funding. Funding for small sure start programmes may have been intended to cover the period until the end of the current comprehensive spending review and may be extended in the next review—I certainly hope so. It would be a great shame and a disservice to rural areas if schemes were cut just when they were becoming effective.
Much of the criticism of time scales would disappear if the Government gave a commitment to extend the schemes beyond the current two-year period. Could the Minister give such an undertaking? If so, small sure start schemes would take their place alongside the full schemes as effective and innovative solutions to long-term pressing problems. Without such an undertaking, however, they will be short-term fixes only with a lasting impact on only relatively few children.
12.8 pm
Alistair Burt: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) on initiating a good debate in what has been a pleasant atmosphere. The concerns and criticisms that have been expressed have been sufficiently benign for the Minister to he quite relaxed when she replies. By and large, she has responsibility for what we all consider to be a good programme. We all want improvements to be made to it, but she will recognise that it is well supported and has great practical effect, judging from the local examples that we have been given.
Sure start is a key part of the Government's anti-poverty strategy, and I shall remark on that as well as on sure start itself. That we seriously consider poverty and recognise the complexity in putting forward solutions and ideas is self-evidently a good thing, but it is fraught with hazards. Among those, is the party political approach that seems to deny that anyone else cares about the subject, or that anything was done before certain key dates, which normally coincide with the election of parties to Government. Another hazard is to become too attached to particular policies as "the answer", although the evidence might be piling to suggest that it is not.
What depresses all of us, whenever the issue is addressed, is to recognise that the map of areas of relative deprivation throughout the United Kingdom shows little change over a century. In a country that has become progressively wealthier, material poverty is
210WH
markedly different from that of previous generations, but the poverty of hope, aspiration and achievement is perhaps more acute now than ever before; that so much of it seems to be concentrated in children and young people is doubly hard to bear.
There have never been such opportunities—and many people grasp them—but what is it that prevents some from even dreaming of the heights to which they could aspire, let alone achieving the steps along the way? My background in the subject is that I was a Minister in the Department of Social Security with responsibility for low-income benefits and poverty issues between 1992 and 1995. Between 1994 and 1997, I had responsibility for city challenge projects in Hulme in Manchester, in Bolton, in Blackburn and in Wigan. I was therefore able to make judgments at the time, and to have made them since, on which national and local policies have been successful. Nothing has yet convinced me that there is one simple answer, as others who have described the long-term nature of the problem have confirmed this morning.
Sure start has always struck me as a sensible initiative. To bring together a variety of bodies that are concerned with the welfare of the child at the earliest stage, in places associated with poor expectations and outcomes, has obvious merits. I look forward to hearing further about the evaluations when completed. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley gave graphic examples of why the scheme was necessary in her area. She described family breakdown, those in difficulty with their children, parents who find the most basic things difficult, and the lack of knowledge about what to do in every possible circumstance. She also spoke about delinquency. All in all, sure start has made a difference to her, and the way in which she described that suggests that she wants the lessons learned to be accepted elsewhere.
The hon. Lady was followed by the hon. Members for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) and for Teignbridge (Richard. Younger-Ross). In various ways, they described how the scheme could be reformed or how some schemes could be introduced to particular places. I was pleased that a couple of hon. Members mentioned the problem of trying to deal with indices of poverty in areas that are generally well off, but which have poorer pockets. I suffered from that, as you will recall, Mr. Winterton—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but in this place I have a particular title that has been hard-earned over many years—additional Deputy Speaker.
Alistair Burt: Mr. Additional Deputy Speaker, I shall place both knees on my chair to address you so that I strike the right pose. You will recognise, as you are from the north-west, that one can represent an affluent constituency, but still find pockets of deprivation within it. We would all be pleased if better targeting dealt with that.
The sure start initiative seems to pick up one of the key lessons learned from initiatives such as city challenge: attending to the bricks and mortar of environmental improvements is only one part of

211WH
complex jigsaw. The more difficult part is to affect hearts and minds, to change attitudes and expectations, and—with sympathy and great effort—to work on changing people.
The initiative must also take note of the second most important lesson, which, as the hon. Member for Teignbridge said, is one that the Government sometimes find hard to take in: control must be relinquished to allow people as much power as possible to effect the most important changes in their lives. It was noticeable that hon. Members who spoke of successful schemes thanked those who were involved locally and gave credit to people who were the inspiration behind several of the initiatives.
We also need to be honest about the time scale. It is unfashionable for politicians to admit that anything they want to achieve will take longer than the term of a Parliament; hon. Members referred to that. Let me be doubly courageous. First, The Prime Minister was courageous and right to break the rule when he talked about ending child poverty over a 20-year period. Secondly, even that time scale is not long enough. It will take longer than that for certain changes really to take root, and they have to last more than one generation.
I am reminded of the need to work for a longer period by an article that appeared in The Times today about Bob Holman, whose name is familiar to many of us who deal with poverty issues. I first went to see Bob on his estate in 1992, when I had responsibility for benefits, and saw some of his work. Ten years later, he is still doing essentially the same work and demonstrating the benefit of continuity. The newspaper article includes a quote from him:
"Our work is long term. You cannot solve problems in three years here. You have got to grow up with people. You have got to grow up with families. It just doesn't seem to be within the grasp of politicians who want it now and who want to work on short-term targets. It's a different ball game."
I get the glimmer of a sense that dealing with poverty issues is not a short-term game. All hon. Members can agree on that, and that is welcome.
However, may I briefly flag up two areas of concern, both of which might undermine the child poverty reduction initiatives, of which sure start is such an important part. I alluded to the first earlier; namely, the danger of being overly attached to certain policies, despite the evidence. Last week, the Government published data on child poverty that revealed that they had failed to meet their claim to have taken 1.2 million children out of poverty in their first term. I refer to a press release from the Child Poverty Action Group:
"The Government has failed to meet its target for reducing child poverty, official figures published today reveal. The figures, which give a snap shot of child poverty before the last election, reveal that child poverty fell by only 500,000 between 1996/97 and 2000/01. This is against the measure of poverty which the Government has consistently used in setting its targets."
Without dwelling too much on that, may I suggest that one reason for that is the myriad changes to low-income benefits, particularly an over-reliance on tax credits.
The Minister will be aware of criticisms that have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who is particularly concerned about the way in which tax credits have been used. They have not
212WH
fulfilled the objectives that we would all like to achieve of relieving child poverty and contributing to anti-poverty measures.
For example, between 1999 and 2003, the Government will have successively abolished family credit, introduced working families tax credit, introduced disabled persons tax credit, introduced child care tax credit, introduced employment credit, abolished married couples allowance, introduced children's tax credit, introduced baby tax credit, abolished working families tax credit, abolished disabled persons tax credit, abolished children's tax credit, abolished baby tax credit, introduced child tax credit, abolished employment credit and introduced working tax credit. In all, between those years, the Government will have introduced five new tax credits for families, scrapped four of them and then introduced two new ones in April 2003.
It is no wonder that, A, people are confused, B, the take-up has not been as good as it should be, C, some of the benefits are not going to the most needy and, D, there is a worry about introducing more tax credits, because they are not actually doing the job that they are designed to do. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed the issue and explained where it fits in with the present anti-poverty strategy. Perhaps it is time to review it.
My last point is even more difficult. I introduce it gently, but it is very important. At some stage, any serious attempt to lift children out of poverty will have to examine the damage caused by broken relationships and reconsider the promotion of marriage. No one doubts the emotional and financial damage done to children and families through the breakdown of relationships. However, strong evidence is emerging from a series of studies that points to the advantage of marriage over all other forms of relationship for positive outcomes for children in relation to health, achievement, propensity to crime and so on.
Let me be very clear about what I am and am not saying. We have moved on from taking the side of marriage from a moral-authoritarian point of view that one ought to marry because it is right, and one should be condemned if one does not do so. I do not advocate that attitude. Those who advocate marriage are not simply putting forward a rosy, starry-eyed view. Marriages are rarely perfect, but successful ones weather the sort of storms in which other relationships may break down, in which case the most vulnerable are left more vulnerable still.
Can people have successful relationships outside marriage? Yes, of course they can, and that is their choice. Can children be brought up successfully in relationships outside marriage? Yes, of course they can. There is, however, growing evidence that the best outcomes for children come from married relationships. If we are really serious about the issue, it is time not for a particular political party to claim that idea, but for all of us to recognise that strong families, which can exist with good values from any class or background, need support and advocacy.
Bearing that in mind, will the Minister say why the Government have withdrawn their support for national marriage week, which the Lord Chancellor's Department has previously supported? It could easily be

213WH
supported within the Government's existing policy of not distinguishing between different forms of stable relationship. If we are looking at what works and what works best, the evidence is growing in favour of marriage as the most secure base for children. It is time that we all re-examined our attitude to that in a non-pejorative, rational, straightforward manner. With that, and the continuing successful work being done by sure start, the future for anti-child poverty measures in this country is quite bright.
12.21 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) on securing this debate and choosing to raise an issue that is immensely important to young children and their families, and will continue to be important to them for many years to come.
It is a great privilege to work on the sure start programme because it has immense support throughout the country, and it is clearly supported by Members of Parliament of all parties. It is unusual when the most hostile question that one gets from MPs is, "Can we have one in my area, please?" That is a tribute to the immense amount of work that is being done throughout the country by the sure start programmes. I also pay tribute to Naomi Eisenstadt, the head of the sure start unit, and her team, which does an immense amount of work on a new programme that is difficult because it requires a new way of working. We sometimes overestimate how easy it is to do things such as sure start that have so much support because everybody wants to do them and thinks that they are valuable.
Sure start produces a lot of challenges in local areas and it requires many changes in the way in which things are traditionally done. It is an immense tribute to the huge amount of work that is being done in those areas that the sure start programme is gaining so much support. Some of the most powerful evidence is the anecdotal information that one hears when one visits sure start programmes. I was given a scrapbook that had a series of pictures and images that local children and parents had collected. It included the phrase, "Please, please keep our sure start going because it has changed my life."
I have heard very strong statements from parents. I visited the Nottingham sure start, where one woman said that she had been on the housing transfer list for a long time. She had been waiting for many years and had just been offered a house in another area. She had been desperate to get off her estate for a long time, but because sure start had arrived she rejected the move because she wanted to stay. Having sure start facilities and sure start support on her doorstep was making a huge difference to her family life, and a huge difference to her wanting to stay in that area. That is powerful testimony to what sure start is doing. Of course, it is not all that easy. There are real challenges, and many hon. Members raised issues that we need to address. However, sure start is working and making a real difference to family lives.
Sure start was established in April 1999 after work in the comprehensive spending review showed that there were alarming disparities between the life chances of
214WH
children in poverty and those living in more affluent circumstances. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley described many of the problems that sure start aims to address. One key issue is the difference in life chances for those growing up on a low income compared with everyone else, which can be observed in children when they are as young as 22 months. One can see the differences in what is happening to children very early in their lives, and then see those differences widening as they grow up. It is also about recognising that universal mainstream services often do not do well enough at supporting those in poverty in the lowest income areas, who often do not receive the same services as everyone else. We must recognise that it is part of a broader strategy, as many hon. Members suggested, to abolish child poverty altogether.
Abolishing child poverty is about not just raising family income, but addressing and raising opportunities. The key elements of sure start are: focusing on the under-fours for the first time, focusing on parents and communities, and what parents want in their local areas, focusing mainstream services on deprivation and integrating services, while ensuring that they are universal and non-stigmatising. We have set clear targets for sure start for social and emotional development, health, the ability to learn, and strengthening families and communities. During the first five-year period, 1.4 billion is going into sure start. That will set up 500 sure start programmes-437 have been announced already and 259 of those programmes have been approved. We expect to reach about a third of children under four who are living in poverty.
I accept the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) in favour of a further sure start for Redruth. I also understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) was seeking more sure start support for his constituency. Hon. Members will understand that the way in which the sure start programmes are targeted is to recognise areas of deprivation and concentrate on them. The sure start programmes that are already up and running are having an impact on the increasing number of child care places and other related issues.
It takes a long time for sure start to have an impact. Ultimately, we are concerned with making an impact on children in 10, 20 or 30 years. We have a substantial research programme to monitor and evaluate sure start programmes—not just what they are doing during the next couple of years, but what they will do for the long term. We will need to learn those lessons.
I particularly want to deal with the points that many hon. Members have made about where sure start goes next. The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) said that there were problems about sure start that had to be addressed. They are not necessarily problems; I think that they are limitations of the existing sure start programme. We must recognise that the programme cannot do all of the things that we want it to do. The question is, what are the next steps for the programme?
We must recognise the issues identified by my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) as regards areas where there are smaller pockets of deprivation. What can one do about the situation in Doncaster, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member

215WH
for Don Valley (Caroline Flint)? There are four sure start programmes there already. How do we link them up to cover all of the areas in between? How do we reach children living on low income who do not live in areas of concentrated deprivation, which are the most suitable areas for the current model of sure start?
We have already examined how one might build on the model of sure start by considering the rural pilots, for example. We are taking sure start into 13 rural areas, and four more are being developed. Those areas face different types of problems, which are not about simply taking parents and children to sure start services. We need to take sure start and mainstream services to parents and children in those rural areas. I accept the points that hon. Members have made about the mini-sure starts. Those must consider the long-term issues, not just a two-year period. The programme that we have set up so far is not the solution to the problem of small pockets of deprivation. It is a £22 million limited-pilot programme, from which we will learn lessons.
We know that there are people who live in small pockets of deprivation that we cannot reach through the existing sure start programme. We must learn how to reach them. Our long-term aim should be to provide sure start support for all children who are living on low income, wherever they may be. The challenge for us is to establish how to do that. One method is the mainstreaming programme, which is relevant to the situation in Doncaster. Pilot areas in Birmingham, Manchester, Leicester, Sunderland, Southampton, North Tyneside and Rochdale are looking at trying to mainstream the lessons from their sure start programmes and spread them across the whole area. They will pick them up in the mainstream services. I can certainly send my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley more information about those because she rightly raises some complicated issues.
The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) raised a series of tangential issues concerning child poverty and marriage. He should take those up with the relevant Ministers. Sure start should support all families, whatever their background and status. We must learn from what sure start is doing at present. A lot of progress is being made. We have many lessons for the future too.

Larne Magistrates Court
12.30 pm
Mr. Roy Beggs: I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise the issue of the future of Lame magistrates court and to comment on the Northern Ireland Court Service's consultation document, "Court Accommodation in Northern Ireland 2001–2010". I wish to focus on the need to retain the Lame courthouse, which, among others that I cannot speak about from personal experience, is under consideration for closure.
I first want to record my appreciation of the willingness of the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) in accepting my invitation to visit Larne courthouse. The interest she showed when she met the mayor of Lame, Councillor Fleck, chief executive Colm McGarry and the courthouse staff who provided a conducted tour and answered her probing questions was much appreciated. The consultation document has succeeded in stimulating discussion and public debate on court accommodation in Northern Ireland. The aims listed in paragraph 1.3 of the consultation document will have broad support. The Northern Ireland Court Service should plan to provide high-quality court accommodation in Northern Ireland; it should give the public value for money in the overall cost of building and refurbishment programmes; it should use resources sensibly; it should improve the quality of facilities for everyone who uses the courts and ensure that courthouses are reasonably accessible.
I am concerned that the burden of expense that would transfer to the least well off clients served by Lame courthouse could not be justified by a caring Government who claim to defend those least able to defend themselves in society. I challenge the assertion that facilities at Lame courthouse are poor and that there is little room for improvement. The special needs of children, families and the disabled within the justice system can be best served only by retention of Lame courthouse. It has the essential facilities to meet local needs and other desirable facilities could be added at modest expense.
I have served as an elected councillor in Larne, in the buildings opposite and adjacent to Lame courthouse, since 1973. I have never had a single complaint about the courthouse facilities. However, I cannot say the same about the medicine prescribed by the resident magistrates for those found guilty in court. Solicitors and barristers who use Larne courthouse regularly do not consider the current facilities to be sub-standard. When I contacted local legal practices for opinions on the consultation document, I received supportive replies. O'Rourke, McDonald and Tweed solicitors told me:
"In all our time of using this Courthouse, we have not had any complaints from our clients in relation to the facilities at the courthouse. As solicitors, we also do not have any problems with the facilities at the courthouse and have had no difficulties whatsoever carrying out duties there. Given that neither our clients nor ourselves nor, as far as we understand, our local colleagues, have had any problems with the facilities, we would suggest that, even though it is not a modern courthouse, its facilities are more than adequate for members of the public and professionals alike."

217WH
A representative of Johnston and Courtney solicitors agreed with that statement, as did McAllister, Keenan and Co. solicitors, whose experience of Lame courthouse is definite. McAllister, Keenan and Co. told me:
"As regular practitioners within this Court, we have never had any complaints from any of our clients in relation to any of the facilities. There may be a way in which the Courthouse facilities could be extended…[and] …some extra space could prove to be useful."
However, their next observation is significant:
"It is our experience that no matter what the facilities of any given building, people and products expand in order to consume the space available."
Although Lame is not a modern courthouse, the facilities are more than adequate for members of the public and professionals alike. The question has been asked locally whether the Northern Ireland Court Service is writing off Lame as not important enough to have its own courthouse. Life-long residents, runners into Lame like myself who have worked in the borough for more than 40 years, and the borough council, which represents the whole community, feel strongly that it is a matter of civic pride that Lame should retain its courthouse. The borough's population is increasing and continued growth is predicted.
At present, the courthouse handles a wide range of work daily and the staff provide a friendly service to all who have business to transact. Due to the geography of the borough, people who live outside the town already have to travel many miles, from Carnlough and Glenarm in the north of the borough and Islandmagee in the south, to attend Lame courthouse. There is a matrimonial court, a criminal court, a family proceedings court, a small claims court and a juvenile court, which all provide accessible local justice and other services.
Approximately 560 people per month use Lame courthouse, and the proposed closure and transfer to Antrim would cause immeasurable hardship, distress and inconvenience. Clients and professionals would be required to travel a further 20 miles, and there is no direct train or bus service. To get to Antrim for a 10 am sitting would mean catching the 6.53 am train from Larne to Belfast central station in order to catch the 8.5 am connecting train to Antrim, arriving there at 9.4 am. People living outside Lame town would be unreasonably inconvenienced and could be travelling from 6 am to get to Antrim for 10 am. The cost of a return ticket, at £11, would be like another small fine.
Bus travel would involve some risk of being late for a 10 am court sitting in Antrim. It would mean an early 7.35 am start from Lame to Belfast and then taking the 8.45 am connecting bus from Belfast to Antrim. A return ticket costs £10, with £3 for a taxi between the station and the courthouse, while a single taxi fare from Lame to Antrim costs £20.
Mr. David Trimble: My hon. Friend's point about the poor quality of public transport and the impact of the proposals on people who do not have access to cars—many people who are involved in the court proceedings do not have such access—relates to
218WH
my concern about Banbridge magistrates court. In drawing up the proposals, the court service does not seem to have taken proper account of the transport difficulties, which is partly why we in Banbridge are concerned that our courthouse is retained as well.
Mr. Beggs: As I pointed out, I personally know the details of how my constituents will be affected in Lame, and as my right hon. Friend noted, there will be comparable situations in other areas, including Banbridge. The proposals would adversely affect specific areas in Northern Ireland, and we want those matters to be considered further.
Most people who pay fines do not have bank accounts or chequebooks, and there could be major defaulting on payment of fines if the court moved to Antrim. That would put extra pressure on Antrim court, as warrants would have to be issued. Regrettably, police time would be wasted in serving them at a time when there is an acute shortage of police in most police stations.
Maintenance is paid into and out of Lame court to estranged wives and children, and is an important service. That money provides part of an essential weekly income and any disruption to regular payments into and out of the court would cause hardship.
Finally, press reporting in local papers of court sentences for crimes committed against society names and shames offenders, and in a small way may deter others from criminal activity. Readers of Lame newspapers do not purchase Antrim newspapers, so local accountability as a result of local reports of the workings of the criminal justice system would be lost. If our Government and the Northern Ireland Court Service care for clients who use court services in Lame and elsewhere, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to convince those of us who also care by withdrawing the proposal to close Larne courthouse.
I also ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider how more desirable, although not essential, facilities can be installed at a reasonable cost to the public in the existing courthouses in Lame and Banbridge.
12.42 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton): I congratulate the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) on securing the debate. He has campaigned vigorously on the issue on behalf of his constituents. I thank him for his kind remarks about my visit to Lame, which I will talk about later in greater detail. I listened carefully to all the points that he made so eloquently, but I will start by outlining some of the background to the changes that are proposed in our consultation document.
As hon. Members know, the Northern Ireland Court Service's accommodation strategy for 2001 to 2010 was issued for public consultation on 7 December 2001. The consultation document was circulated to an extensive range of court users including staff, the judiciary, the legal profession—the hon. Gentleman made several comments about the response that he received from local members of the profession—interested parties such as MPs and Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and local councils.

219WH
Copies of the document were also sent to a wide range of groups outlined in the Northern Ireland Court Service's equality scheme, such as victim support groups and citizens advice bureaux. The document is the result of an internal review by the Northern Ireland Court Service and outlines a strategy to improve the overall quality of court accommodation for court users.
I should like to reiterate the important principles that guided the review. We believe strongly that all court buildings should be high quality and meet modern requirements, in line with health and safety, fire, energy conservation and environmental regulations. Cases should be shared out as evenly as possible between each court division. Services to court users should be efficient and high quality and we should make the best possible use of existing facilities. Court buildings should be easily accessible for disabled people and meet the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Child witnesses and victims of crime should have modern specialist waiting facilities and trials involving children charged with serious offences need to be held in surroundings consistent with the principles set out by the European Court of Human Rights. Maximum advantage should be taken from advances in modern information technology and courts should be located, wherever possible, within reasonable travelling distance of users.
The strategy details the future of court accommodation in Northern Ireland and proposes the closure of a number of courthouses that currently have inadequate facilities. That means the subsequent transfer of business to other more suitable and better-equipped venues. The venues identified as having inadequate facilities are Larne, Banbridge, Limavady, Cookstown, Clogher and Kilkeel. Business will be transferred elsewhere; in the case of Larne courthouse, the business will transfer to Antrim, a newer and in many ways better appointed building.
The consultation period closed on 29 March. I have visited four of the venues proposed for closure; Larne, Banbridge, Limavady and Cookstown. I have viewed the alternative facilities to which the business is proposed for transfer; Antrim, Newry and Londonderry. I have also seen the new courthouse at Dungannon and I plan to visit Clogher and Kilkeel shortly. It is important to see all the courthouses myself to gain a first-hand knowledge of the facilities.
As the hon. Member for East Antrim mentioned, I visited Lame courthouse on 22 January and met the mayor of Lame council, David Fleck, and the chief executive of Larne borough council, Colm McGarry. I much appreciated the warm welcome and the frank discussions that took place then. On the same day I visited Banbridge courthouse where I met the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) whose intervention highlighted the travelling difficulties likely to result from the closure of the courthouse. I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman has taken every available opportunity to press the case for the retention of the Banbridge courthouse. The detailed plans that he has provided have been most helpful, but I hope that he will take advantage of my officials' offer to meet the architect and discuss his plans.
220WH
My officials have also arranged a series of meetings with members of local councils to discuss our proposals in order that I have as much local feedback as possible. I want the consultation process to be open and transparent so that we have as much information as possible before we take a decision.
The Government are committed to providing a high standard of court accommodation in Northern Ireland, as I hope we have proved by the significant investment to improve the court estate; about £63.8 million in the last 11 years. The new Laganside court in Belfast, which was constructed under a public-private partnership arrangement, represents a capital investment of £22.4 million. We have made future provision for capital expenditure of £20 million for the period to 2006. I hope that that reassures hon. Members that there is a commitment to ensuring a high standard of court accommodation.
The public consultation period produced more than 50 responses, eight in relation to Larne courthouse. My officials in the Northern Ireland Court Service are at present undertaking a detailed analysis of those responses. During the consultation period, an independent survey of court users was undertaken by the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, at Lame, Banbridge, Cookstown and Limavady courthouses. The results of that survey will be the subject of detailed analysis. Initial results suggest that although there is a high level of satisfaction among persons using Lame courthouse, people who were probed about specific issues such as waiting areas acknowledged that the accommodation provided was less than satisfactory. I have asked for an equality impact assessment to be undertaken in respect of each of the courthouses concerned under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. That will include outreach work where necessary. I expect the results of these assessments by the end of April.
Larne courthouse is used for magistrates courts business and occasional county court and small claims business before the district judge. Court statistics show that the work load at Larne is, at present, diminishing. Magistrates courts sittings totalled 87 in 2001, a reduction of 29 when compared with the figure for 2000. Between 2000 and 2001, there was a 22 per cent. reduction in the number of adult defendants dealt with. County court business was minimal, with only seven sittings in 2001.
The administrative office at Lame courthouse is located on the upper floor and accessed by an internal staircase. There is at present no lift for disabled access. However, when I visited the courthouse, despite the difficult working conditions, I noticed the dedication and enthusiasm of the court staff. We should take every opportunity to praise the staff, not least for their cheerfulness, and I hope that my words will be passed on to them.
In approaching any proposed courthouse closure, I have to bear in mind that all users of court buildings deserve an efficient service that is delivered in well-equipped and secure buildings. The venues under consideration for possible closure have been identified as lacking necessary facilities, such as secure prisoner accommodation and separate waiting areas for victims and witnesses.
Lady Hermon: The Parliamentary Secretary will know from the court accommodation strategy document that it was proposed that Bangor courthouse in my constituency should close. Will she confirm that it is now not listed for closure and explain to my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) why Lame cannot gain a reprieve as well?
Ms Winterton: We gave a strong commitment that Bangor courthouse would close only when we had built a new courthouse to replace those of both Bangor and Newtownards. I hope that that answers the hon. Lady's question. If I can give her further information, I will write to her, as I am conscious of the time.
It is important to have basic accommodation standards. Court users can reasonably expect that in the 21st century. However, I note all the comments made by the hon. Member for East Antrim—particularly about travelling difficulties—and by local solicitors. We have to balance the need for accommodation improvements against factors such as the availability of local transport and accessibility. The hon. Gentleman set out in great detail some of the difficulties that would be encountered. I will certainly pay close regard to those very relevant considerations before reaching any final decision on the future of the courthouse.
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. I know that this is an important issue and I emphasise again the importance that I place on full and effective public consultation. As I said, the results of the consultation exercise are being analysed, as the results of the court user survey and equality impact assessments will be. I shall not rush to judgment, because I want to balance all the points that have been made, including in today's debate. There is no doubt that some points will be conflicting. When reaching a conclusion, we will have to balance all views, but I hope that it will be possible to make a decision before the summer recess.
I again congratulate the hon. Member for East Antrim on securing the debate and on the hard work that he and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann have put into representing their constituents and ensuring that I am aware of those considerations. I am also grateful for the warm welcome that I received when I visited Northern Ireland. As I said, I will certainly write to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) if I have anything to add about Bangor courthouse. I hope that that provides some reassurance that we are considering this issue carefully and that we will take into account all representations that have been made by Members of Parliament.

Robin Hood Gate, Richmond
1 pm
Mr. Tony Colman: I thank Mr. Speaker for allowing this debate after my earlier requests in January, February and March The issue may appear to some to be parochial, but wider and important matters arise from it. The wall of the organisations involved that I have come up against has led me to pursue a new direction and, as Richmond park is a royal park, I contacted His Royal Highness, the Prince of Wales, and asked him to comment on the situation. As a keen environmentalist and, more importantly, someone who has acknowledged the role of a decent, clean and safe urban environment, I hope that he will respond.
I have advised the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) of the debate as the park is in her constituency. However, the relevance and importance of the issue for me is its undoubted impact on my constituents, especially those in Roehampton. I shall explain why the proposed closure of the Robin Hood gate—the main access from the A3 and Roehampton vale—has attracted such criticism and will delve briefly into the history of the decision, but only so far as to draw useful lessons for the future on consultation and decision making.
The criticism of the proposal stems from a concrete event; the foot and mouth epidemic of last year. During that period, as was to be expected, Richmond park was closed to all vehicles in line with the standard safety procedures throughout the United Kingdom. The resulting displaced traffic—families, commuters, dog walkers and the thousands of others who frequently drive through the park—were obliged to use routes around the park. Predictably, that caused problems on all the surrounding roads and areas and affected local residents, schools, businesses and those travelling through the area.
The side roads off Roehampton vale and Roehampton lane were havens for rat running, and the main roads were gridlocked. The gridlock extended down to the Upper Richmond road and the south circular. Pupils arrived by bus at the Paddocks school on the Lennox estate after 10 o'clock in the morning. I even contacted Transport for London to see if the Upper Richmond road was wide enough to install a bus lane between Roehampton lane and Priory lane but, regrettably, the road at that point is too narrow. So the chaos continued, only to disappear as soon as the gates of Richmond park were re-opened after the end of the foot and mouth epidemic.
What for some in the countryside was a nightmare proved an equally salutary lesson for those living in Roehampton. With that in mind, I was incredibly surprised to hear the Royal Parks agency's proposal to close the Robin Hood gate to Richmond park, among its other plans such as closing the central car park and the introduction of a land train. I was telephoned about the decision to close the gate just before Christmas 2001. I spoke immediately to William Weston, the chief executive of Royal Parks, and asked him why he had not consulted me before making the decision. He said that he had no statutory requirement to do so and that the Minister, Baroness Blackstone, had spoken to the hon. Member for Richmond Park, who had raised no

223WH
objection. The hon. Lady has told me subsequently that she had not endorsed the proposal for the closure. I spoke to the Minister who agreed that the permanent closure proposal should be replaced by a trial period of five months, but she did not agree to drop the proposal.
We have at our disposal loot and mouth traffic data, which provides an almost perfect test period for the closure of the gate and highlights the problem that will arise following a closure. That data predicts that some 700 extra cars an hour will be on the roads through Roehampton when the gate is closed. At the time of the original December 2001 decision, no traffic data from that time had been made available to Royal Parks from either Kingston or Wandsworth councils. Royal Parks would not wait for the information, which surely would be not only helpful but essential for an informed decision. Equally extraordinary, up to last week, Wandsworth council had still not, according to Royal Parks, sent the full foot and mouth traffic data.
According to Wandsworth council in an e-mail that was sent to me this week, after weeks of my asking for such information, the traffic reports were passed to Peter Brett Associates, Royal Parks' consultants, on 5 March. As if that were not late enough, I was told in the same e-mail that
"we were not in a position to pass them the base data as this was funded by the Transport for London".
I am afraid that I have not had time to find out from Wandsworth council the technical difference between the traffic reports and the base data.
The base data was passed to Transport for London on 16 May 2001. I do not know why that information was never passed to Royal Parks to help it make its decision; that seems ridiculous, as the plans for the park have been in the air for several years. To be deprived of such excellent comparative data is extraordinary and does not speak wonders for Wandsworth council's long-term thinking. If it was that worried about the closure of the Robin Hood gate, why did it not pass on key data before March? It smacks of publicity-seeking to rush to a judicial review.
At the end of March, some two months after Royal Parks announced its proposals, Wandsworth council finally debated the matter and opposed the closure. With two days to spare, it threatened Royal Parks with judicial review because consultation on the closure of the gate had not been separated from other matters that Royal Parks wished to pursue about the park. Royal Parks gave in and agreed to a fresh consultation, which ends in June 2002. Royal Parks is adamant that the closure must still go ahead. That has always been the case; indeed, the original consultation carried no option for residents to vote for retaining the status quo until I insisted on it.
I understand that the status quo was a very popular option, although that appears to have made little impact on the decision-making process. Why? Those who answered the consultation questionnaire handed out in early 2001 overwhelmingly wanted all the gates to be left open as they are now, with the same opening hours as now. However, Royal Parks says that the status quo was never an acceptable option. Change was essential so as to better preserve the quality of the environment; the flora and fauna in the park. That is laudable, but no park such as Richmond stands apart from its surroundings, nor does traffic in the park stand alone as an issue.
224WH
As a practical and keen environmentalist, I chaired London Agenda 21 between 1994 and 1997, and I look forward to going to the world summit for sustainable development this summer. However, when there is a trade-off between the environment inside and outside the park, we must look for a balance. Changing the status quo and closing the Robin Hood gate would affect my constituents disproportionately.
We must consider the longer-term view by making the roads to the park safer for cyclists, improving the public transport infrastructure for those going to and through the park, and changing to vehicles that run on liquefied petroleum gas or zero-emissions vehicles. We should encourage people to shop locally and to educate their children in the high-quality local schools in the Roehampton and Putney area, thus eliminating the school runs through the park. I would love it if Richmond park were without traffic. It is my local park, and I have visited it in the past 30 years with my children. However, without the necessary infrastructure surrounding the park, I do not believe that that is an option.
The balance, in terms of quality of life and extra pollution outside the park, would be hugely weighted against my constituents if the closure went ahead. The suggestion that the closure of the Robin Hood gate would protect the environment also sits strangely with Royal Parks' next proposal. It is for the development of a new golf centre, complete with floodlit driving range, a large car park and banqueting suites in the area between the internal south-north road and the Alton estate; that is, the Roehampton estate. The golfing centre is accessed by the A3, Roehampton vale and Norstead place. It would open the Chohole gate to the public and build over Silver hill, Hyde Park nursery, and Kings Farm plantations. Currently, all of them are open areas. With this proposal, Royal Parks is not following what appears to be its usual practice, which is to attempt to protect the environment.
Although nobody could object to speed bumps on park roads or a 20 mph speed limit, Royal Parks has told me that a reduction from 30 to 20 mph would require primary legislation. Surely, that cannot be the case. Will the Under-Secretary clarify that?
I mentioned other changes to traffic arrangements in Richmond park. Chief among them is the proposed closure of Pen Ponds car park. That has caused outrage, not only from Putney constituents, but from across south-west London; a petition has already gathered 10,000 signatures, and it is swiftly gaining more. Royal Parks has now proposed to allow the elderly, and people with disability stickers for their cars, to continue to park in that central car park and to allow everyone else to park there outside peak times. However, that appears to be another muddle, and I ask Royal Parks to scrap its plans, and to think again.
What lessons can be learned? First, Royal Parks and the Under-Secretary should consult with Members of Parliament, and authorities that represent people who will be affected, before any decisions are taken. Secondly, all statistical data that can be made available—in this case from Wandsworth council and Transport for London—must be handed over to Royal Parks with in a time scale. With regard to that, in this case I exonerate Royal Parks because it has been asking for that information since last September, and it has not

225WH
received it. Moreover, Wandsworth council says that it did not pass the relevant information to the traffic consultants until 5 March, which was three months after the announcement of the proposed closure of the gate.
Thirdly, if such data are not available, any decision should be deferred until the information is made available. Fourthly, any future plans for the park should look at all angles of sustainable development—not only at the environmental consequences within the park, but at the social consequences, and the right of the people who live around the park in Roehampton to live without the extra traffic pollution and gridlock that would result from the closure of the Robin Hood gate, as happened last spring and summer. Fifthly, Royal Parks should consult with the local decision-making bodies, such as Transport for London, on the impact of in-park policies; it is narrow-minded not to hold such consultations, and that must be avoided in the future.
Finally, I wish to correct the misleading impression that might have been picked up by those who have been watching the edited television and radio coverage of this issue in recent days. They might think that I see it as a people versus animals issue, and that I would support the people every time. Not only do I have a clear commitment to all forms of environmental concerns, but this issue was never so black and white. I believe that the existing balance with regard to access for cars should continue and, if that were maintained, it would go a long way towards protecting the environment of Richmond park.
I am grateful that the Under-Secretary is present, and I look forward to his response.
1.13 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Dr. Kim Howells): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on drawing the Chamber's attention to this important subject. I pay tribute to his efforts on behalf of those of his constituents who will be affected by the proposal to close the Robin Hood gate in Richmond park. With regard to that, he has made a strong case for proceeding with great care.
I wish to set the issue in context. It is important to remember that the royal parks are a national asset. They are paid for out of central Government funds, and taxpayers in Richmond in Yorkshire contribute as much towards their upkeep as do the residents of Richmond-upon-Thames; or, indeed, people in Macclesfield or Pontypridd.
The royal parks have been given to the nation in trust by the Crown to provide open spaces where people can enjoy the open air, and get away from the pressures to which they are subjected on every day of their urban lives. I am not sure that I like the phrase "urban lives", but you know what I mean, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The parks are special places that form part of our cultural heritage, and in managing them we are committed to maintaining high standards of care and maintenance and taking the lead in good environmental and horticultural practices. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney, who has been a doughty and imaginative fighter for the incremental advances in environmental protection and understanding that we need.
226WH
By the same token, roads in the royal parks are not public highways. They are not the responsibility of local highway authorities but are maintained by Royal Parks to provide access for those living and working in the park and for people visiting the park. The parks have not escaped the inexorable rise in the volume of traffic on the country's roads over the past 30 years, and drivers have increasingly taken to using the parks' roads. Those roads were never intended to make up for the inadequacies of the local road network, and Royal Parks is entitled to try to reduce the intrusion caused by thousands of additional vehicles taking short cuts through the park.
Richmond park is unique. It is an internationally regarded park and a grade 1 listed historical landscape. In addition, because it has been managed as a deer park for 300 years, it has evolved a unique habitat that has made it home to species of insect and plant life not found anywhere else in the region. It has been designated a site of special scientific interest, a national nature reserve and a European special area for conservation.
The inspector responsible for the first review of the Richmond-upon-Thames unitary development plan said that the
"difference in status between Crown Roads and public highways must carry substantial weight in assessing the role of the parks in the functioning of this important and cherished part of the Borough."
Royal Parks is considering how to reduce traffic in Richmond park not on a whim but as part of a process that started several years ago. Indeed, it has been conducting an exercise that all local authorities are now required to do: to consider how to reduce traffic on their roads, which is a clear Government objective.
In 1991, the Government set up a series of reviews of all royal parks, chaired by Dame Jennifer Jenkins, to find out how they were managed and set out principles on which they should be managed for the foreseeable future. The review group considered each park separately and invited stakeholders in all the parks to contribute to its reports. In addition, stakeholders were given an opportunity to comment on the final draft before the report was published.
In 1996, the review group, which contained, among others, the leader of Richmond council, published its report on Richmond park, which states:
"On the basis of wide consultation, traffic is by far the most contentious issue affecting Richmond Park."
It also states:
"This stretch of countryside within a world city, in itself quite extraordinary, is undermined by noise, pollution, congestion and danger from cars, all aspects of the great city which most park visitors have come to escape".
It noted that
"the need to reduce the impact of traffic … rates high priority".
The Government accepted the review group's recommendations.
In 1998, Royal Parks addressed the first issue raised in the report and carried out an origin and destination study of traffic using the park. That established that more than 95 per cent. of traffic in the park on a weekday—and about 80 per cent. at weekends—was through traffic, with almost 4,000 vehicles entering the park in peak hours.

227WH
Following that, a working group that comprised agency management, police, traffic engineers and landscape architects produced a paper on which the agency consulted during the autumn and winter of 2000–01. The proposed range of options for reducing through traffic in the park included: making the park roads one-way only; introducing speed humps, road width restrictions and other traditional traffic management measures; introducing a 20 mph speed limit; introducing a road toll for through traffic; and closing the roads in the middle of the park to prevent through traffic during rush hours, although that would allow park users to drive into the park.
The agency carried out a thorough consultation involving the distribution of 30,000 questionnaires throughout local communities. It held five public meetings and 10 separate public exhibitions. The whole exercise generated around 1,000 written representations. Following the agency's consideration of the responses to its consultation, it produced the report that it presented to local authorities on 17 December 2001.
If Wandsworth borough council had responded to the agency's request in August 2001 for traffic data to help the assessment of the effect of different options, the matter might have been settled by now. It was important for my hon. Friend the Member for Putney to state that clearly in his speech. One would have thought that a big, powerful and famous borough would have bothered to notify the agency about crucial traffic figures as part of the consultation. However, it chose not to; one wonders why.
Despite what those who would support unrestricted access to the park for traffic might believe, the agency clearly took account of views expressed during the consultation. Indeed, it was praised for the way in which it did that at the presentation of its report to local authorities on 17 December.
Mr. Colman: The current access arrangements do not allow unrestricted access to the park. I do not want unrestricted access, but a continuation of the current arrangements, which provide a balance, especially during the dark hours of winter.
Dr. Howells: I take my hon. Friend's point, and I shall try to deal with it in a moment or two.
The agency rejected many of the original options, and it is worth explaining the reason for that. It did not close Ham gate because that would have led to additional traffic on the already overcrowded roads to the west of the park. It rejected the use of speed humps and other traditional traffic calming measures because they are designed for urban streets and are inappropriate for a park. A one-way system was considered to be unsafe because it might encourage speeding and tempt drivers to perform dangerous overtaking manoeuvres. Options to close link roads in the park were rejected because that would affect the routine and daily lives of people and businesses. The agency decided to try to work with local authorities to assess whether it was possible to control traffic in the park by using measures outside the park.
The fact that the suggestion to close Robin Hood gate was made at one of the public meetings is proof, if that were needed, that the agency took account of the
228WH
consultation process. That option was chosen because Robin Hood gate offers only limited access; this may address some of my hon. Friend's points. The gate is already one-way because a driver may not enter the park through it. It closes at dusk in the winter months and, therefore, it is unavailable during the evening rush hour for several months during the year.
Wandsworth borough council was reluctant to come forward with traffic figures at the time of the consultation. That is inexplicable, given the importance of safety on roads, especially in the urban areas about which my hon. Friend is concerned. Nevertheless, the council is rightly concerned about the effect of the closure on traffic in the area. However, it gets little credit for quoting figures that apply to a time when all park gates were closed to traffic because of the foot and mouth outbreak. The agency has no wish to avoid consultation as its efforts over the past two years have clearly shown. It did not, technically, consult on the closure because it was not a stand-alone option in the original consultation paper.
Royal Parks has withdrawn its proposed closure of Robin Hood gate in order to consult the local authorities and Transport for London and I assure hon. Members that it will not make a decision on the closure until after that consultation. I hope that that gives my hon. Friend some comfort.
It is estimated that the closure would reduce through traffic in the park by some 5 per cent. That may not seem much, but given the level of opposition to options that would produce more significant reductions, the agency would be satisfied with that amount until further options were investigated.
A 12-month trial is proposed. The period must be long enough to take into account the effect of seasonal variations in traffic volume and usage, and to allow time to measure the full effect of the resulting re-assignment of traffic. It is well documented that, when a road is closed, drivers gradually disperse over a wider area to find more convenient routes. That is more likely to happen with longer-distance traffic. Some 60 per cent. of park traffic is from outside the three neighbouring boroughs, so it is unlikely that all of it would go through the immediate neighbourhood, about which my hon. Friend is rightly concerned. However, to satisfy the local authorities, the agency has agreed to carry out an initial review after six months.
Of course, I cannot say whether the effects of the proposed closure will be as severe as the council claims, which is, after all, why the agency proposes to close the gate for a trial period. The actual effects can then be measured rather than relying on the outcomes of desk-top exercises. The royal parks are important assets. They are a recreational resource for those who live nearby, historic landscapes and wildlife habitats, and tourist destinations for visitors from the United Kingdom and abroad.
From time to time, the agency needs to take measures to preserve the character of the royal parks that makes them such special places; such desirable places to be neighbours with. My hon. Friend is right to be primarily concerned about the health, safety and welfare of his constituents in the neighbouring streets. Nevertheless, I am sure that he would agree that it would be absurd and unreasonable if the agency were never allowed to do

229WH
anything that might affect people living outside the park. I thank him for the opportunity to clarify the position taken on this important matter by my noble Friend Baroness Blackstone and by Royal Parks.

St. Bartholomew's Hospital
1.29 pm
Mr. Mark Field: It is nice to be here and, although there are not many hon. Members present, several interested parties are here to listen to the debate.
I am honoured to lead this brief debate this afternoon. Although the debate concerns the future of St. Bartholomew's hospital, I will briefly dwell on its history. It was founded as long ago as 1123, and was the first hospital in what is now the United Kingdom. It received its royal charter from Henry VIII in the 1540s, and anyone who walks through West Smithfield will see his statue. Exactly 100 years ago, it became the first teaching hospital in the country. In all that time, it was endowed and supported by the local community; indeed, that local support was integral to its continued existence for centuries.
Barts, as local residents affectionately know it, is internationally renowned for its medical excellence. Institutionally, it is equally well known across the nation. I would not mind betting that if we asked people anywhere in the United Kingdom to name one hospital other than their own general hospital, Barts would be mentioned more often than any other hospital.
The national health service was founded in 1948. It is ironic that, today of all days—when the Chancellor of the Exchequer will extol the virtues of Labour's health service—we must remember that St. Bartholomew's hospital happily operated without the health service for 825 of its 879 years. I am afraid to say that it has only been in the 54 years since the nationalised health service came into being that the hospital's future has been threatened.
I take no pride in confessing that it was my party—the Conservative party—that sought to implement the Tomlinson report when it was last in government. The report was, in my view, predicated on user figures that applied in the depths of the early-1990s recession and which were manifestly not borne out. It is a great regret that my party put in place some of the reforms that have affected Barts and which have upset not only the residential population of the City of London, but people across London and much of the UK. One thing that has become evident to me, even though I became a Member of Parliament only nine months ago, is the strength of feeling throughout the UK among people who have great reason to thank the staff at Barts or who simply see it as one of those institutions that have been undermined over the years.
The Minister and I must have an eye on the decades to come, rather than simply the past. Independent bodies have made projections about the City fringe working population. The Minister may know that the figure was 550,000 in 1999 and that is envisaged to rise to about 695,000 by 2016. A further 150,000 people are therefore expected to start working in the City fringe area in the next decade and a half.
We must also consider the residential population of the City of London; my constituents. In the past decade, the population has increased for the first time in more than two centuries. As many people will know, roughly 160,000 people lived in the City of London at the time of

231WH
the first census in 1801. As of last year, the figure was 6,500 and rising. The City of London is now a very attractive place to live. The Minister will be aware of the Barbican, which is no more than a stone's throw from the West Smithfield site, but there are other new developments. There is a thriving residential community in the City of London.
There are difficulties with congestion in central London, and Mayor Ken Livingstone is putting his congestion charge in place in the next nine months. It is only a couple of miles from the eastern fringes of the City of London down Whitechapel road to the London hospital, but the journey can take a perilously long time because of the congestion that is part and parcel of life in central London.
In several debates about London in Westminster Hall and the Chamber, I have said that we must recognise that London remains the economic powerhouse of the United Kingdom. The London Development Agency, under Ken Livingstone, recognises that. We have a crisis with our infrastructure in the capital, and that seems likely to remain for some time. Health is only one relatively minor aspect; transport, which has been much in the headlines, and other areas, particularly housing, are also part of the difficulty for central London in ensuring that highly-qualified public sector staff work here.
I work closely with several Labour Members, Liberal Democrat Members, and the cohort of 13 Conservative Members in London. There is agreement across the political divide to ensure that we avoid the idea of a zero sum game, which the Government have all too often tried to impose on London. For example, there is an idea that for Barts to get better health care, other places must suffer; the Homerton and Whittington hospitals, or others in London's five rather large health authorities, must get fewer resources. The argument is that if more money goes to central London, the suburbs must suffer, but I entirely reject that reasoning. London remains the economic powerhouse, and it has great difficulties, which include an increasingly large residential population and a large daytime population.
The events of 11 September were a wake-up call for us all. The threat of a terrorist attack is in the forefront of people's minds in central London. It applies not just to the City, but to Canary Wharf and this part of London—Westminster—which is the political capital of the country.
The lesson of what happened in America was that hospitals in New York were close at hand to cater for the relatively few casualties; tragically, there were few casualties, but many outright deaths on that day. If we were to have a similar incident in central London, I believe it would cause utter chaos for our infrastructure. As I mentioned, the two-mile journey from the City of London to the London hospital would be an enormously difficult obstacle to overcome.
There is no necessity to build a new hospital in central London. We have the facilities, and, as many know, enormous investment less than a decade ago went into the Barts site; some £15 million was spent on six new operating theatres, many of which have been under-utilised during the past nine years. At the same time, the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich
232WH
(Mr. Raynsford), the Minister for London, has written a letter to several central London Members of Parliament, which recognises:
"The NHS does not have the reserve capacity maintained for the purposes of major incident management."
He had obviously been contacted by a number of the hardworking residents' groups that have fought a long-standing battle in relation to St. Bartholomew's. After 11 September, they had clear concerns that difficulties could exist.
I understand that the rumours are true and that a further £18 billion or £25 billion—it depends on which paper one reads—will be injected into the national health service in the coming years. Even if the Government do not feel that they can bring back a fully-fledged accident and emergency unit, I should like the Department of Health to consider doing as much as it can for this unique part of central London. Could we have heralded admissions with a receiving room to take account of what I accept, as I am sure does the Minister, is the skewed daytime population of central London? Many people are aged between 18 and 45, and they have particular health needs that are different from those that apply to the suburbs or other parts of the south-east. In Scotland, where accident and emergency units have closed down in city centres, there is some authority and experience of having heralded admissions with a receiving room to take particular account of local circumstances.
I shall not go on much longer, because I should like the Minister to respond at length. The issue of Barts is not a narrow, constituency interest, although there is a growing residential population in the City of London, which has understandable concerns about the relatively long journeys in terms of time—by London standards—that they are expected to take to the Whittington, Homerton or the London. Barts is, and has been since its foundation almost 900 years ago, an asset for all Londoners who rely on the City of London services daily for their work and pleasure.
I want to salute the hard work of several people, particularly Wendy Mead, who is in the public gallery here today, as well as many members the Corporation of London, who have fought a long-standing campaign over the years. I have come to the campaign relatively recently, having been elected for the first time last June, though I was made well aware during my 18 months as a prospective candidate that the issue required significant highlighting.
Today, we understand that there will be an announcement of significant new investment in the national health service, which will be funded by many of those taxpayers who make up the daytime population of the City of London. I call upon the Minister to explain how he will ensure that the voice of St. Bartholomew's hospital is allowed to express itself during the ongoing discussions concerning the expenditure of the colossal sums that we envisage being injected into the health service.
1.41 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) on raising this issue, and for the spirit in

233WH
which he deployed his arguments. I would never accuse the hon. Gentleman of pursuing narrow constituency self-interest, although I suppose that there is nothing wrong with that. However, he has not done so, and that will not form any part of my response to his points.
He has a perfectly legitimate concern, which he has expressed very eloquently, about the ability of the national health service to respond to circumstances such as—heaven forbid—those which occurred in New York city on 11 September. I want to deal with the concerns that he has raised. I will explain the issues that we have addressed, or tried to, since 11 September, and how we have approached the problem and challenge of dealing with that type of emergency planning scenario in the City of London.
The hon. Gentleman made several points at the beginning of his speech about funding. He referred to a zero sum game and objected to a process that promised development and enhancement of services in some parts of the capital only at the expense of others. I should make it clear that that is not how we do things. We are not funding or securing the development of services at Barts by starving other parts of the national health service in London. On average, most health authorities throughout London received a cash increase of about 10 per cent. About £500 million of additional NHS capital investment is going into the city this year in addition to the £600 million of additional revenue support. It is not true to say that development in Barts, or any other part of the NHS in London, is funded only at the expense of reduced allocations to other parts of the NHS in the city.
I want to deal specifically with the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. As a Minister, I have had the good fortune to visit Barts on several occasions. In fact, I was there only last week. I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman's description of Barts. It is a building of exquisite beauty with an unrivalled history in the development of medical sciences in our country. I agree with him that our challenge is to secure its future. There is a very lively debate taking place in the Corporation of London and elsewhere in the hon. Gentleman's constituency about the future of accident and emergency services. The challenge for us today is to think about how we develop the long-term future of hospital services on that site, and that is where I want to start my comments today.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that developments at Barts will be at the centre of a huge capital scheme, worth £620 million, to build a major new teaching hospital at the Royal London hospital, Whitechapel, and secure the development of Barts as a specialist cancer and cardiac centre. I should point out the scale of that to the hon. Gentleman: it is the largest hospital development scheme in the United Kingdom today. I believe that the scheme will secure the long-term future of the hospital. It will not bring what the hon. Gentleman has described, but it is a significant moment in Barts history because it will bring major opportunities to contribute for decades to come to the health and well-being of the people of east London and the City.
Following the London review led by Sir Leslie Turnberg in 1997, Barts and the London NHS trust, together with other local NHS organisations, began to
234WH
develop plans to modernise hospital services throughout the trust. In January 2000, the Department of Health gave formal approval to plans for a 10-year programme of development and improvement to health services. Since that time, the trust's plans have been developed further, and advanced work is due to commence at St. Barts this summer. The planned development is a combination of refurbishment and new build that will increase by 100 the number of beds throughout the two sites, creating a total of around 1,285 beds, of which 900 will be at the Royal London hospital and nearly 400 at St. Bartholomew's.
As well as modernising hospital services for east London and the City, the project will also help to regenerate the area by addressing employment, education and environmental improvements. We sometimes lose sight of the fact that the NHS employs about 150,000 people in London and contributes 6 or 7 per cent. of the capital's gross domestic product. It is obviously a major provider of health care services, but it is also a significant partner in the economic development of the City about which the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster has spoken. As well as cancer and cardiac services at St. Bartholomew's, a range of services will be provided, including diagnostic imaging, pathology and pharmacy services, as well as a patient hostel. The minor injuries unit will also remain fully functional.
The hon. Gentleman did not raise today the issue of whether an open-access chest pain clinic should be provided at St. Bartholomew's as part of cardiac services, but he has raised it with me before. Local health services already have two chest pain clinics at Homerton hospital and Newham hospital. Those locations were chosen because their local population has the greatest need for those services. Chest pain clinics are generally regarded as general hospital clinics, and as cardiac services at St. Bartholomew's are regarded as tertiary services, the advice that I have received is that it would not be appropriate for such a clinic to be located at St. Bartholomew's hospital.
Mr. Mark Field: I appreciate that in the raw terms of population the decision on chest pain clinics makes sense. Clearly the population is based around the East Ham area and, indeed, Hackney. However, does the Minister not recognise—I am sure that he does and I should like to hear his comments—that there is a large daytime working population? When it comes to consideration of such clinics, Barts should be treated as a different, and in a sense unique, case. As I mentioned in my initial comments, there is a daytime population, rather than a full-time residential population, for chest pain clinics of more than 500,000 in the City and its fringes.
Mr. Hutton: I obviously accept the hon. Gentleman's point. It is the responsibility of local NHS organisations and the new director of health and social care for the capital to keep such considerations under the most careful review. The question is not whether there should be additional services, because I am convinced that there should be and I am hopeful that we will continue to receive the investment to allow such development to take place. The difficulty in all those cases is to decide where the investment should go.

235WH
On those issues, I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that we in the Department of Health always try to act on the best clinical and medical advice. It is very important that that remains so because that is the proper discharge of Ministers' responsibilities. He and other Opposition Members frequently criticise us for meddling in the affairs of the NHS, and I would take issue with him on that, although not on this occasion. Generally speaking, such decisions need to be informed by the best medical, clinical and scientific advice, and we act on that. If any such advice were different from that that I have received it would be a factor to which I should pay the most careful attention.
Returning to the developments at Barts, the first stage is the £21 million upgrade of the west wing and Kenton and Lucas block using public as well as charitable funds. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the west wing is a grade 1 listed building currently accommodating out-patient clinics and support offices. The greatest care will be taken to maintain historic features while adapting the space for new clinical use. Work is due to commence this summer, and we hope that it will be completed by the end of 2003. Once refurbishment is completed, the breast care unit will be located in the west wing, allowing all those facilities to be centralised together in a new, modern environment.
Refurbishment work at Kenton and Lucas block, a grade 2 listed building, will begin this summer and once completed in 2004, slightly later, will accommodate an integrated rehabilitation unit, sexual health clinic and fertility clinic. Other moves that have already taken place at Barts include the provision of better nursing accommodation for nurses previously housed in Queen Mary wing, which will now be redeveloped to make best use of the space for clinical services. The remainder of the developments at Barts will progress alongside the developments at the Royal London hospital.
In February this year, I announced approval for Barts and the London NHS trust to seek private finance partners to implement the development proposals. The trust advertised in the Official Journal of the European Community in February 2002. It is expected that work will begin on that scheme in 2004.
I want to say a few words about whether full accident and emergency services should be provided at Barts, which I think is the main theme of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He has raised with me before his concern that the reviews informing the decision to close the accident and emergency department at Barts were based on old data and that in the climate following 11 September workers in the City need to be reassured that there is emergency provision nearby. I fully understand that. He has asked me to reconsider the decision taken in 1993 to close the accident and emergency department at Barts.
When I last met the hon. Gentleman to discuss those issues, in October, I explained that the decision to close that department would not be revisited. That remains the Government's position. The decision was based on the best clinical advice from the royal colleges and I am not aware of any convincing new evidence, since the decision was made, that would lead me to conclude that it should be reconsidered.
The closure of the accident and emergency department at Barts was supported in the Tomlinson report back in 1992 on the ground that accident
236WH
and emergency services at Homerton, Guy's and St. Thomas's, the Royal London and University College hospitals were all within easy travelling distance of the population local to Barts and accessible in the event of a major incident. Those services remain in place and continue to be accessible.
Mr. Mark Field: As I understand it, one difficulty in looking at the 1992 Tomlinson report is that the projected figures for daytime population were drawn up at the absolute depths of the last recession, as I mentioned in my initial comments. Even in the seven or eight years since then, we have seen an explosion of the daytime population in London. We envisage that that will continue, in a fairly uniform way, for the next decade and a half. Some of the basic statistical premises made to justify the closing down of the accident and emergency department in 1993 seem, therefore, to be faulty, if not entirely out of place.
Mr. Hutton: I perfectly understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and was hoping to come on to it in a few moments. I do not dispute for a second that matters have changed since 1992. They clearly have. I am on this side of the Chamber and the hon. Gentleman is on the other. That is one change, one of the more welcome ones, but that is not a theme for today.
I do not dispute the hon. Gentleman's fundamental point that accident and emergency services in London and elsewhere might need to expand as the population grows and as the working population in parts of the country expands. It is the responsibility of the national health service to make plans for that. Clearly, if the population increases, we will need more beds in hospitals and more nurses and doctors. That is axiomatic. The argument, in relation to the points about Barts and the wider points that the hon. Gentleman has made, is about where those extra services, if they are needed, should be located. I shall return to that point in a second.
Since the accident and emergency department at Barts closed, the number of accident and emergency attendances at the four hospitals to which I just referred has risen as capacity has increased. In particular, attendances in accident and emergency at Homerton hospital have increased by a little more than one third. That lends support to the view that there is adequate accident and emergency capacity available for the people of east London and the City. Patients are being attended to in those departments well within the time limits that we have set as national targets.
If there were a mismatch between capacity and demand, the length of waiting times in those four accident and emergency departments would be rising significantly. They would certainly not be beating our target of 75 per cent. of patients being treated and discharged or admitted within four hours. Throughout those four departments, more than 90 per cent. of patients are admitted, transferred or discharged within that four-hour target.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the accident and emergency department closed in March 1995, and the minor injuries unit opened at exactly the same time. In 1997, as part of the London review, Sir Leslie

237WH
Turnberg re-examined the St. Barts hospital closure and considered views from as wide a spectrum as possible. That will continue to be our approach.
The hon. Gentleman asked how the people of east London and the City will be able to have a say in decisions that affect health service provision. We certainly need to improve the way in which we communicate with, consult and involve patients and the public in all areas of decision making. I hope that the new primary care trusts, supported by the strategic health authorities, will be able to do that. New legislation in the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill will take patient and public involvement in the NHS to a new level.
We are actively trying to encourage a climate in which decision making is as open and informed as possible. I certainly do not take the view that has been put to me on occasions by other right hon. and hon. Members that the NHS operates as a secret society. I understand why the criticism is sometimes made, but it is profoundly damaging to the NHS if such allegations have any legs. It is the people's service, and the people must be fully involved in the decisions. They may not always agree—that is the problem—but I certainly share with the hon. Gentleman a very strong desire to involve them fully. It happened on this occasion, and we will ensure that it does in the future.
The previous Conservative Administration's decision to close St. Barts was overturned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) when he was Secretary of State for Health, but he upheld the decision in relation to the accident and emergency department. It was and remains the right decision.
At the Royal London hospital in Whitechapel, the trust has a comprehensive major incident plan that centres on accident and emergency services. Following events on 11 September, the plan has been updated and was tested as recently as February. The London Ambulance Service co-ordinates a well-rehearsed plan for the transport of patients to several receiving hospitals in the capital in the event of a major incident.
238WH
The trust's day-to-day accident and emergency service is run from the Royal London hospital, which has a trauma centre and a dedicated children's accident and emergency department. A 24-hour comprehensive emergency service is provided seven days a week, including on-site senior accident and emergency staff. In fact, the accident and emergency department at the Royal London hospital is unique within London and the United Kingdom in its provision of a resident accident and emergency consultant 24 hours a day, Monday to Friday. That is not the case anywhere else. It has some of the best clinical outcomes in the UK for patients who undergo surgery following emergency admission.
The minor injuries unit continues to operate at St. Barts. It is open from 8 am to 8 pm, Monday to Friday, and will be retained as part of the new development. There is no prospect of its disappearing. In the event of a major incident in the City, which is the hon. Gentleman's concern and should be a concern of us all, there is an escalation plan for the walking wounded who might arrive at St. Barts, but the hospital would not receive any patients directly from the London Ambulance Service. That is a clear protocol.
Two new walk-in centres were developed at the Newham and Royal London hospitals during 2000. They will offer fast and convenient access to local NHS advice, information and treatment seven days a week without an appointment.
The hon. Gentleman rightly raised the question of the future of St. Bartholomew's hospital. The Government are committed to modernising health services and ensuring that patients receive treatment of the highest quality that is fit for the 21st century. The development of St. Bartholomew's and the Royal London is part of the commitment and will modernise services for patients and staff in east London and the City. After years of deliberation, the future of the hospitals in those areas is now clear, as the modernisation and rebuilding plans for both sites reach the final approval stages. I say to the hon. Gentleman with the greatest respect that the debate needs to move on, so that we can focus on ensuring the success of the exciting plans to redevelop the NHS in east London and the City.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Two o'clock.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council (1) how many staff were involved in each of the last three years in preparing draft answers to written parliamentary questions; [49142]

  (2) what the cost was to his Department of answering written parliamentary questions in 2001; and how that cost was calculated. [49100]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  In the parliamentary Session 2001–02 beginning on 9 June and up until 29 January 2002, 41,366 parliamentary questions were asked to this Government, at a cost of answering of over £5 million.

  For the average cost of a parliamentary question, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Financial Secretary, on Thursday 11 April 2002, Official Report, column 582W.

  Each Department has a parliamentary section responsible for co-ordinating the preparation of draft answers to written parliamentary questions, drawing on the input of departmental officials.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Contracts
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the(a) number and (b) value of contracts awarded by her Department to (i) Arthur Andersen, (ii) Deloitte Touche, (ii) Ernst and Young, (iv) KPMG and (v) PricewaterhouseCoopers accountants in each year since 1997. [34986]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA came into being on 8 June 2001. The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) which non-accounting and non-information technology external organisations which previously held contracts with her Department(a) won new contracts at the culmination of the existing contracts and (b) won new contracts after a period of inactivity with her Department in each of the past five years; [38751]

  (2) if she will list the 30 largest contracts awarded by her Department from (a) May 1997 to April 1998, (b) May 1998 to April 1999 (c) May 1999 to April 2000, (d) May 2000 to April 2001 and (e) May 2001 to the latest date, indicating in each case the values of the contracts and the companies with which the contracts were placed; [38752]
  928W
  (3) which non-accounting and non-information technology external organisations have won new contracts with (a) her Department and (b) executive agencies in each of the past five years. [38750]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: DEFRA came into being on 8 June 2001. The information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the 30 largest contracts awarded by her Department from(a) May 1997 to April 1998, (b) May 1998 to April 1999, (c) May 1999 to April 2000, (d) May 2000 to April 2001 and (e) May 2001 to the latest date for which figures are available, stating in each case the values of the contracts and the companies with which the contracts were placed. [43676]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA came into being on 8 June 2001. The information requested can only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what is the level of radioactive technetium found in boreholes within the vicinity of Sellafield. [36001]

  Margaret Beckett
  I understand that sampling and analysis of groundwater from nine boreholes on the Sellafield site and from one perimeter borehole has indicated the presence of technetium-99. The highest level found at an on-site borehole was 290 becquerels per litre. The level in the perimeter borehole was 0.2 becquerels per litre. An assessment has been made of the potential radiological impact of the presence of technetium-99 in groundwater and the Environment Agency is satisfied that this would be insignificant. The Agency and the Health and Safety Executive are working with BNFL to establish the source of the contamination. The regulators will then need to consider what further measures need to be taken.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when a substantive reply will be given to Mr. H. P. Atkinson's letter of 16 July 2001, concerning the 20 day movement restrictions. [36838]

  Mr. Morley
  I am sorry for the delay in replying to the hon. Member's letter. A reply was sent on 16 April.

  Equipment Leasing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the equipment leasing arrangements entered into by her Department in each of the last four years; and what the cost to public funds in each case is. [38937]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA came into being on 8 June, 2001. The information requested can only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  PFI/PPPs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what the total
  929W
  external spending by her Department was on public-private partnership consultants in each of the last four years; how many full-time equivalent consultants were employed over this period; how many billed consultancy days there were per year; what the implied average cost of each PPP consultant was; how many consultancy firms were used by her Department over this period; and if she will make a statement; [43199]

  (2) if she will list the functions of her Department that have been (a) market tested and (b) outsourced in each of the last five years, specifying the (i) money saving and (ii) percentage saving in each case; [42996]

  (3) what the difference was between the price offered in reaching preferred bidder stage and the final contract price for PPP contracts let by her Department in each of the last four years; and if she will make a statement; [45615]

  (4) what the difference was between the price offered in reaching preferred bidder stage and the final contract price for the five largest PFI contracts let by her Department in each of the last four years; and if she will make a statement. [45600]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: DEFRA came into being on 8 June, 2001. The information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) on how many infected premises slaughter was completed within 24 hours of a clinical diagnosis of the disease during the foot and mouth epidemic; [47605]

  (2) on average how long after a clinical diagnosis of the disease slaughter was completed on the contiguous farms during the foot and mouth epidemic. [47602]

  Mr. Morley
  Information regarding the time taken to slaughter on infected premises is presented in two charts, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  When looking at the charts the following should be taken into consideration:
  The charts show the percentage of infected premises culled out, on a weekly basis, within the 24-hour target and the number of infected premises culled out, on a weekly basis, within the 24-hour target.
  The 24-hour target policy was based upon the time from which suspicion of disease was first communicated to DEFRA offices, not the time and date of clinical diagnosis. The time to slaughter has been calculated as the difference between this time and date and the time and date by which all animals on each premises had been slaughtered.
  Premises which presently have missing dates, negative times to slaughter and times to slaughter greater than 500 hours have been excluded. The charts have been created from the data within DEFRA's Disease Control System Database and they may be subject to change as the data cleansing exercise is carried out.
  The charts are based on a majority of data held on DCS and give a representative picture of the times taken to slaughter.
  Although a total of 2,026 infected premises (IPs) were reported in the UK, the "time to slaughter" charts do not include IPs that were previously Dangerous contacts or slaughter on suspicion cases. These premises have not been included since, at the time, it would not have been identified that a 24-hour target was to be
  930W
  worked towards. The charts are based on around 1,500 premises, the final difference being down to missing dates and negative times to slaughter.
  The percentage target hit, on its own, does not reflect the number of premises that were having to be dealt with——a 50 per cent. hit may be representing a figure of two cases or 200.
  The charts do not give context to the underlying data. They obviously do not give any information regarding the reasons why culls may have taken longer than 24–48 hours, and cannot describe the practical difficulties faced by regional offices attempting to slaughter premises quickly in often extremely difficult circumstances. The count of premises slaughtered does not take into account the number of animals involved (size or herd) or the species.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make representations to the European Parliament inquiry into foot and mouth to include Somerset in their programme of visits. [49038]

  Mr. Morley
  It is a matter for the European Parliament Temporary Committee to decide their programme of visits.

  Part-time Employees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many and what proportion of the staff of her Department are part-time employees. [47171]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Leslie) on 10 April 2002, Official Report, column 50W.

  Chemical Weapons
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement about the number of chemical weapons dumped at sea and the potential risk they pose. [48889]

  Dr. Moonie
  I have been asked to reply.

  Detailed inventories of chemical weapons and other munitions disposed of to dumpsites at sea are no longer available, as many records were destroyed after the disposals as a matter of routine custom and practice. Where records of the disposals do remain in existence, they have been released to the Public Record Office. Information on the locations of sea disposals of chemical weapons has also been placed in the Library of the House. As to the potential risk posed by chemical weapons, the long-held consensus of international scientific opinion is that munitions on the seabed present no significant risk to safety, human health or the marine environment, provided they remain undisturbed.

  Laying Hens (Welfare)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she intends to lay the order for the laying hens welfare code; and if she will make a statement. [48836]

  Mr. Morley
  The laying hens welfare code will be laid before Parliament at the same time as the English regulations to implement the Welfare of Laying hens Directive 99/74/EC.
  931W
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether her Department intends to make proposals for the introduction of the Laying Hens Welfare Code which go beyond those stated in the 1999 EU Directive on Welfare of Laying Hens 1999/74/EC; and if she will make a statement. [48837]

  Mr. Morley
  A new Welfare Code for Laying Hens will be published to accompany English regulations to implement the Welfare of Laying Hens Directive 99/74/EC. It is intended that the Directive will be implemented in England without being added to in any way. The Code focuses on the welfare outcome for the birds.

  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she intends to carry out a full public consultation on changes to the Welfare of Laying Hens Directive. [50344]

  Mr. Morley
  A full public consultation on domestic Regulations to implement Council Directive 99/74/EC has already taken place. Any further proposed changes to the Regulations or Directive will be subject to another public consultation exercise.

  Development (Special Urgency Provisions)
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how often in the last three years, and for what purpose, her Department has applied the special urgency provisions in paragraph 22 of circular 18/84 (Development by Government Departments). [48946]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: The Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (and before 8 June 2001, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food) has not applied the special urgency provisions in paragraph 22 of Circular 18/84 (Development by Government Departments) over the last three years.

  Floods
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what sources of EU funding are available for flood relief and prevention measures from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund; what the total is of such funds for which the UK is eligible in 2001–02; and what the total is of such funds which her Department has(a) applied for and (b) been allocated in 2001–02. [48984]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: No significant financial assistance is made available by the European Union to assist member states in the provision of flood and coastal defences.

  Pet Passports
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on when she intends to allow the use of pet passports for the USA and Canada; and how the scheme will operate. [48803]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 April 2002]: In January 2001, the Pet Travel Scheme was extended to rabies-free islands, including Hawaii. Mainland USA and
  932W
  Canada have not been included in the scheme as it was concluded that doing so would increase the risk of importing rabies.

  However, the Government undertook to review the position of these countries. We have received a further assessment on the risk of importing rabies and a report on other zoonotic diseases which could be introduced to the UK if the scheme was extended to the USA and Canada. Both reports are being reviewed and evaluated. I hope to make an announcement on the conclusions of these reports shortly.

  The import of dogs and cats from the USA and Canada, along with other third countries, would become subject to EU rules if agreement is reached on a proposal from the Commission for a regulation on the animal-health requirements applicable to non-commercial movement of pet animals. This proposal will be discussed at the meeting of Agriculture Ministers on 22 and 23 April.

  The Government will need to take account of this proposal before reaching final decisions.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her Department's answer of 24 January 2002,Official Report, column 632W, on the Insolvency Service, what progress the Insolvency Service has made in centralising its administrative functions in areas of (a) lower growth and (b) high unemployment. [42224]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Insolvency Service will continue to seek to make best use of its existing estate and, wherever possible, to reduce its costs. The movement of work from areas and offices where there are pressures on accommodation or difficulties with recruitment or retention of staff to other offices is carried out where appropriate and the service has piloted a successful scheme to enable flexible, remote working by staff in its London office. The redevelopment of the service's IT systems over the next few years will increase the capability and capacity for such remote working and enable further savings in accommodation costs to be made.

  Overtime Payments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is on overtime payments for staff in her Department. [49122]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department is clear that overtime should be an exception. If regular overtime is required, management should consider how the work can be accomplished in ways other than by continued overtime.

  Where overtime is necessary, all staff below the senior civil service are entitled to receive payment, or time off in lieu, or both, for work carried out in addition to weekly conditioned hours (41 in London and 42 hours outside London).

  Staff in the senior civil service are not entitled to receive payment for overtime.
  933W
  For all staff working part-time, payments are made for additional hours worked up to the weekly conditioned hours. Payments for hours worked beyond net conditioned hours are available as above.

  Small Businesses
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many smaller enterprises have benefited from the regional venture capital funds on an annual basis in each of the regions since the inception of the scheme. [49860]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The first regional venture capital funds only became operational in January 2002 so the information requested is not yet available.

  Claims Direct
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many Claims Direct franchisees paid for their franchises with loans supported by her Department; how many such Claims Direct franchisees with such loans have become bankrupt; and if she will make a statement. [48745]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme has assisted eight Claims Direct franchisees to set up their business. To date no claims have been made under the guarantee.

  Ministerial Training
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much has been spent by her Department on training by the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art for Ministers and officials in each of the last five years. [48879]

  Ms Hewitt
  The majority of the Department's training budget is allocated to individual directorates. Each directorate has responsibility for managing, monitoring and evaluating attendance at training events in line with the departmental business and training plans. Disproportionate costs would be incurred to collate the data centrally for the purposes of answering this question.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much has been spent by her Department on training in leadership skills for Ministers and officials in each of the last five years [48880]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department centrally funds some leadership training. These figures, available for the last three years, are detailed in the table.

  £

  1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002

  1592,064

  1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

  380,449

  1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000

  276,444

  1Provisional

  However, the majority of the Department's training budget is allocated to individual directorates. Each directorate has responsibility for managing, monitoring and evaluating attendance at training events in line with the departmental business and training plans. Disproportionate costs would be incurred to collate the data centrally for the purposes of answering this question.
  934W
  The Department also encourages the use of in-house mentors, coaches and job shadowing as a means of developing staff. Although recognised in terms of staff costs, this does not have a direct cash cost.

  Costs
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much has been spent by her Department on voice coaching for Ministers and officials in each of the last five years. [48878]

  Ms Hewitt
  The majority of the Department's training budget is allocated to individual directorates. Each directorate has responsibility for managing, monitoring and evaluating attendance at training events in line with the departmental business and training plans. Disproportionate costs would be incurred to collate the data centrally for the purposes of answering this question.

  Construction Industry
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the names of those organisations which have made representations to her about the operation of the Construction Skills Certification Scheme. [48757]

  Mr. Wilson
  Approximately 30 landscape firms, plus the British Association of Landscape Industries, have made representation about the operation of the Construction Skills Certification Scheme (CSCS).

  Representations have also been received about the Major Contractors Group and their policy on the CSCS.

  Healthcall
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answers of 11 March 2002,Official Report, column 671W and 10 April 2002, ref 48035, what penalties have been levied on Healthcall for (a) failure to provide reports fit for purpose and (b) reports delivered beyond 28 days targets. [49328]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department is unable to comment on the financial details with Healthcall as they are commercially confidential. However, the Department has worked very closely with Healthcall from the start of the scheme to ensure that services are being delivered efficiently and effectively. The proportion of MAP reports returned as "not fit for purpose" is being closely monitored and is falling. The figures in the answer of 11 March referred not just to "not fit for purpose" returns but included also substantive queries on the medical content of the reports.

  Rail Safety
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with highway authorities to ensure that contractors accessing pylons under construction are not endangering road bridges over railways. [50031]

  Mr. Wilson
  I would expect the National Grid Company and its contractors to comply with the requirements of the highway authorities, for whom I am not responsible.

  Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many SMEs are operating in Barnsley, East and Mexborough. [49986]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Within the Barnsley, East and Mexborough constituency there were 1,140 businesses registered for VAT with 1–249 employees in 2000, the latest year for which VAT statistics are available. Local labour force statistics provide an estimate of a further 3,000 self-employed individuals operating with no employees.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many private finance initiative projects have been subject to refinancing after the contracts have been signed; and what has been the financial effect in each case. [50284]

  Ms Hewitt
  None of my Department's PFI projects has been refinanced.

  Construction Quality Mark
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what her Department is doing to make the public aware of the construction Quality Mark; [50013]

  (2) what her Department is doing to encourage UK builders to apply for a construction Quality Mark. [50012]

  Mr. Wilson
  I announced on the 12 March 2002,Official Report, column 891W, that the scheme will be rolled out across the country over a 3–4 year period. A Quality Mark Shadow Ownership Group has been set up and, at its first meeting on 19 April, will begin developing a comprehensive implementation strategy and detailed business plan. An announcement about the next stages of the roll out is expected after the first meeting.

  The DTI is working with a number of reputable trade bodies to fast-track their members into the Quality Mark scheme. Following recommendations in the pilot review, the scheme will be developing recruitment mechanisms, including subsidised registration costs, until a critical mass has been achieved.

  The DTI is also working with local authorities, financial services groups, consumer groups and others to promote the scheme to tradesmen and encourage the participation of the latter wherever possible.

  The national launch of the Quality Mark at the Ideal Home Show produced extensive television and radio coverage and articles in regional newspapers. The scheme is already being marketed successfully to consumers in Birmingham and Somerset through a variety of media, including Yellow Pages and Thomsons directories, household leaflet distribution with advertising and editorial coverage in a number of local papers and radio stations. Further targeted marketing will follow in new areas once sufficient numbers of builders and tradesmen are registered.

  There has been considerable interest from firms operating outside of the existing Quality Mark regions in England, Wales and Scotland. In these cases we have advised (and we will continue to advise) firms that there is nothing to stop them applying for the scheme.

  Pay Gap
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make it her practice to collect and publish data relating to the pay gap between men and women by constituency. [45862]

  Alan Johnson
  The Office for National Statistics publishes data on the pay gap between men and women in the New Earnings Survey. However, in the case of some constituencies, the data is not sufficiently reliable for publication.

  Current trends in women's individual incomes have been explored in two studies published last year by the Women and Equality Unit (WEU). Copies of these reports are available on the WEU website.
  "http://www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk/research/publications/research_and_publications.htm")

  WEU Gender Briefing, which provides statistical briefing on the position of women compared with men in the labour market, is also available on the website.
  ("http://www.womenandequalityunit.gov.ukhesearch/gender_briefing/home.htm")

  There are no plans to commission further research into the gender pay gap by constituency.

  Scroby Sands Offshore Generating Station
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will announce her decision on Powergen Renewable Offshore Wind Ltd.'s application to build a 76 MW offshore generating station at Scroby Sands, off Great Yarmouth. [51287]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have today granted consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to Powergen Renewables Offshore Wind Ltd. for the construction and operation of a 76 megawatt offshore windfarm at Scroby Sands, off Great Yarmouth.

  This development marks a significant step forward for the wind industry. It is the first offshore windfarm development to be approved from the 18 potential sites identified by developers who successfully pre-qualified last year for Crown Estate seabed leases. Offshore wind in the UK can make a major contribution to climate change objectives, to secure electricity supplies, and to our economic well being through job creation and exports. I am very pleased that this potential is beginning to be realised.

  Copies of the Press Notice and the decision letter and consent are being placed in the Libraries of the House.

DEFENCE

  Project Sponsorship
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which of his Department's projects have received sponsorship since 1997, including(a) details of the sponsor, (b) the nature of the project, (c) the date of the project, (d) the total cost of the project and (e) the amount of money involved in the sponsorship deal. [48395]
  937W
  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 11 April 2002]: In line with the Government's commitment in their response to the sixth report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, it is the Department's intention to publish details of individual amounts of sponsorship valued at more than £5,000 concurrently with the departmental performance report.

  Press Office
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total cost of running the Department's press office was in(a) 1996–97 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available. [46803]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Figures for 1996–97 are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. For financial year 2001–02, the cost of running the Ministry of Defence's central press office was £981,000.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many press officers there were in his Department on(a) 1 May 1997 and (b) the latest available date. [46890]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Information for 1 May 1997 is no longer available.

  As at 15 April 2002, the Ministry of Defence's Corporate Communications division employed 20 press officers in its headquarters press office and in its regional network. In addition, Defence agencies, the permanent joint headquarters and the single service commands and units also employ personnel with a press officer function, some as a secondary task to their main role.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received in the past 12 months regarding arms exports to Sri Lanka from representatives of the Tamil people. [49338]

  Dr. Moonie
  None.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent meetings he has had with representatives of the Tamil people to discuss human rights issues in Sri Lanka. [49341]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Secretary of State for Defence has had no meetings with representatives of the Tamil people.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received in the last 12 months regarding(a) arms exports to Sri Lanka from Britain and (b) their subsequent effect on the Tamil people; and if he will make a statement. [49333]

  Dr. Moonie
  There have been a number of approaches by UK companies in the past 12 months seeking marketing advice for potential sales to this region. We have given advice on these on a case by case basis making it clear that the advice given does not prejudge the outcome of an export licence application. All such applications are considered against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria. We will not issue an export licence where there is a clear risk that the goods might be used for internal repression or international aggression or to undermine regional stability.
  938W
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many times he has met representatives of the Government of Sri Lanka to discuss arms exports in each of the past five years; [49336]

  (2) when he will next meet representatives of the Sri Lankan Government to discuss arms exports; and if he will make a statement. [49342]

  Dr. Moonie
  There have been no such meetings in the past and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has no current plans to meet with representatives of the Government of Sri Lanka. The Government welcome the progress being made to achieve peace in Sri Lanka. Should we be asked, we would of course give positive consideration to any initiatives that might assist this process.

  Shoeburyness
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints have been received in each of the past five years from households in the Tendring peninsula relating to alleged damage to their properties as a result of the activities at the Shoeburyness ranges. [45113]

  Dr. Moonie
  Our records are not in a form that readily enables provision of the information as requested. I will write to my hon. Friend following further analysis of the data and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Subsistence Payments
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what subsistence payments are payable to service men and women carrying out duties in the United Kingdom away from their base. [50040]

  Mr. Ingram
  Service personnel who incur extra expense for food or accommodation while on temporary or detached duty in the UK are reimbursed via range of UK subsistence allowances. In the first instance, every effort is made to accommodate personnel in service messes where food and accommodation costs are paid direct by the Ministry of Defence. If service accommodation is used, £1.50 per 24-hour period can be claimed for incidental expenses.

  If service accommodation is unavailable, the preferred option is to arrange hotel B&B accommodation through MOD's Central Hotel Booking Service (CHBS) that make bookings within a set cost ceiling. Personnel can also book hotel accommodation direct and are then entitled to claim the cost up to a set ceiling of £50 per night. Personnel staying in a hotel may claim a total of £22.90 per 24-hour period to cover additional costs incurred for lunch, dinner and travel, and incidental expenses such as telephone calls or laundry. Alternatively, personnel may choose to stay with family or friends and claim £27.90 per 24-hour period to cover food, and other expenses.

  If no overnight accommodation is required and service messing is not available, then a daily subsistence rate of £4.25 for over five hours and £9.30 for over 10 hours can be claimed for meals. This range of subsistence

  939W
  allowances is designed for periods of up to 30 days after which a different set of accommodation allowances are normally used.

  Service Accommodation
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate has been made of the funds being spent on the repeated repairs to service accommodation over the last five financial years. [36824]

  Dr. Moonie
  The defence estate currently consists of around 64,000 buildings. The information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Type 22 Frigates
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to sell Type 22 frigates to Chile; what discussions his Department has had to this effect, and if he will make a statement. [49743]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are no current plans to sell surplus RN Type 22 frigates to Chile because of the lack of available vessels to offer in the immediate future. We have nevertheless maintained dialogue with the Chilean authorities over ship disposal issues to establish future possibilities.

  Submarines
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many fleet submarines will he in service in 2009. [49749]

  Mr. Ingram
  On current plans there will be nine fleet submarines in service in 2009. In the early years of the next decade this will increase to the SDR approved force level of 10. However, the introduction into service of the new ASTUTE class submarines and the arrangement of the long-term refit programme will enable sufficient submarines to be available to ensure that the Royal Navy is able to meet its standing commitments and fulfil contingent tasking prior to the establishment of the planned force levels.

  Tornado F3
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Tornado F3 are fully operational with AMRAAM missiles; and what the operational inventory is of Tornado F3. [49755]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are currently 94 Tornado F3 aircraft fully operational with AMRAAM missiles. The Tornado F3 Required Operating Fleet which is defined as the theoretical number of aircraft needed to support the operational task is 93.

  Firearm Deaths
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 947W, how many members of HM armed services have (a) died and (b) been injured as a result of the discharge of firearms on or near military property (i) in Great Britain and (ii) overseas in each of the past eight years; what the results of (1) internal investigations and (2) coroner's inquest for each fatality
  940W
  were; where other soldiers were involved what disciplinary actions were taken; where papers were passed to the CPS, how many weeks were taken to reach a decision on prosecution; and what the result was. [48677]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of members of HM forces who have died as a result of the discharge of firearms in the last eight years is as follows:

  Army

  Navy

  RAF

  Year of death

  UK

  Overseas

  UK

  Overseas

  UK

  Overseas

  Total

  1994

  8

  15

  1

  1

  1

  1

  27

  1995

  14

  5

  ——

  ——

  1

  ——

  20

  1996

  9

  8

  ——

  ——

  ——

  ——

  17

  1997

  4

  ——

  ——

  ——

  1

  ——

  5

  1998

  1

  ——

  ——

  ——

  ——

  ——

  1

  1999

  4

  3

  ——

  ——

  ——

  ——

  7

  2000

  1

  8

  1

  ——

  ——

  ——

  10

  2001

  5

  4

  ——

  ——

  ——

  ——

  9

  Total

  46

  43

  2

  1

  3

  1

  96

  Note:

  Figures exclude the territorial army, reserves, foreign service personnel and the Gibraltar regiment.

  It is not possible to provide details of the exact location of each of these deaths or the results of the related coroner's inquests as this information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Nor is it possible to provide details of the number of injuries, owing to the current unreliability of data held as a result of the under reporting of sickness and injuries; this situation is, however, currently being addressed. I am withholding information on the result of internal investigations or any resultant disciplinary action in accordance with Exemption 12 of the Code of Practice of Access to Government Information.

  Naval Manpower
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the Royal Navy's manpower is committed to operations. [49758]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 3 April 2002,Official Report, columns 1019–20W.

  Refits
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when HMS Talent's refit will commence; and how long it will last. [49747]

  Mr. Ingram
  HMS Talent's refit is planned to start in spring 2003 and will last until early 2006.

  Cadet Forces
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many cadets there are in(a) maintained schools and (b) independent school detachments; [50523]

  (2) how many combined cadet forces and single service cadet detatchments there are in (a) maintained schools and (b) independent schools. [50524]

  Dr. Moonie
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Sea Harriers
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether Harrier GR7 has a gun capability; and if it is planned that Harrier GR9/A will have a gun capability. [49752]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Harrier GR7 does not have a gun capability, and we have no plans to give a gun capability to the GR9/A.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many sorties were flown by(a) Harrier GR7 and (b) Sea Harrier in operations over Sierra Leone in 2000. [49751]

  Mr. Ingram
  Between 11 May 2000 and 6 June 2000 inclusive, Harrier GR7 and Sea Harrier flew 147 and 134 sorties respectively, while deployed in support of operations in Sierra Leone.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the integration work on Sea Harrier for ASRAAM has been completed; and at what cost. [49763]

  Mr. Ingram
  The work to integrate Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM) on Sea Harrier has been terminated in the light of the recent decision to withdraw the aircraft from service by 2006 which is earlier than originally planned.

  Expenditure on the ASRAAM integration programme did not exceed £1.2 million.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Harrier GR7 will be operational with(a) Brimstone and (b) Storm Shadow. [49754]

  Mr. Ingram
  Following the upgrade of Harrier GR7 to GR9 standard, it is intended that the Brimstone anti-armour weapon will enter operational service on it in 2006.

  We do not currently intend to integrate Stormshadow on to Harrier GR9. The operation of Harrier GR9 from the CVS with Stormshadow will not be practical, due to the size and weight of the missile. In addition, it is not currently considered to be cost effective to integrate Stormshadow on to Harrier GR9 solely for land-based operations; this capability will be provided by Tornado GR4.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received from the Indian Government about the purchase of Fleet Air Arm Sea Harriers. [49761]

  Dr. Moonie
  Officials within the Ministry of Defence have received inquiries from representatives of the Government of India regarding the future availability of surplus Fleet Air Arm Sea Harriers. As part of its marketing strategy for the sale of these aircraft, the Disposal Services Agency will follow up all expressions of interests accordingly, subject, of course, to the normal export controls.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what modifications need to be made to the Harrier GR7 for sustained operations at sea. [49753]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 13 March 2002,Official Report, column 1166–67W.

  Balkans
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on future plans for British military involvement in the Balkans. [50003]

  Mr. Ingram
  NATO is currently undertaking a major review of its operations in the Balkans, entitled the "Joint Operational Area Review", the outcome of which will be discussed by NATO Foreign Ministers in May 2002. We welcome the review and remain committed to maintaining the military contribution to NATO peacekeeping in the Balkans. No decisions have been taken regarding the form that British military involvement will take following implementation of the review's findings.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Press Office
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the total cost of running the Department's press office was in(a) 1996–97 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available. [46805]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The total cost of running FCO's News Department in 2000–01 was £1,746,000. Comparable information for 1996–97 is not held as new costing software was introduced during the course of that year. The total cost for 1995–96 was £971,000 and for 1997–98 was £1,342,000.

  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 25 March 2002,Official Report, column 610, if he will place in the Library copies of the evidence possessed by Her Majesty's Government in respect of the status of programmes aimed at developing weapons of mass destruction respectively by (a) the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, (b) Iraq, (c) Libya and (d) Syria. [48252]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 16 April 2002,Official Report, columns 861–62W.

  Sunset Clauses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Bills introduced by his Department in the last five years have contained sunset clauses; and what plans he has for the future use of such clauses. [49615]

  Mr. Straw
  None.

  Uganda
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in how many cases in the last six months the high commission in Uganda has refused to see people who had interviews; how entry clearance officers at that high commission handle appointments; and if he will make a statement. [48893]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  In response to the events of 11 September, and in the light of the specific security situation in Uganda, access to the visa section at the British high commission premises can only be granted to
  943W
  people who hold satisfactory evidence of their identity. I regret the need for this requirement but it is temporary, for the safety of our staff and members of the public and is necessary and proportionate in response to the perceived threat.

  Satisfactory identity documents are:
  a valid national passport,
  a verified refugee document issued by the Directorate of Refugees of the Office of the President of Uganda,
  a verified laissez-passer issued by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

  No record has been kept of the numbers of people who had appointments and who have not been able to enter the high commission. However, many of the applicants affected are relatives seeking family reunion with refugees who have settled in the UK, and others.

  Around 360 family reunion cases are outstanding in Kampala. Few of these applicants appear with satisfactory evidence establishing their identity or relationship with the sponsor in the UK and they have to be referred to the Directorate of Refugees or UNHCR.

  Following necessary inquiries with the Home Office, applicants who hold satisfactory documents of identity are offered the next available date for interview. In cases involving couples with children, if after the interview the applicant has still not been able to satisfy the entry clearance officer about the claimed relationship, DNA testing may be offered to avoid unnecessary refusal. Priority will be granted to applicants in cases involving genuine compassionate circumstances. Applicants unable to attend pre-arranged appointments as a result of the restrictions currently in place will be afforded priority consideration once the restrictions have been lifted.

  The security situation is kept under review and further announcements will be made if and when it changes.

  Military Plutonium
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress made in respect of each of the three disposition projects for surplus military plutonium in Russia agreed in the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy non-Proliferation Working Group. [49492]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The European Union Joint Action for surplus weapons-grade plutonium in Russia involves seven projects in all.

  In the first project, 'Safety Regulations', Gosatomnadzor of Russia (GAN) is to establish new safety regulations covering the use of surplus weapons-grade plutonium as mixed oxide fuel in Russia. Of the total budget of 500,000 euros, contracts have been signed for 300,000 euros, and draft contracts to the value of 200,000 are being discussed, with signatures expected in May this year.

  In the second project, on a trial use of mixed oxide fuel, preliminary steps have been taken towards the loading of three lead test assemblies in a pressurised water reactor at Balakovo. Of a total budget of 1,300,000 euros, a contract has been signed for 5,000 euros, and the remaining contracts are under discussion.
  944W
  The third project is a study into the transport and storage of surplus weapons-grade plutonium in Russia, with a budget of 200,000 euros. Contracts are being prepared and should be placed around September this year.

  In the fourth project, a study of future high temperature reactors and ex-weapons plutonium disposition in Russia (in particular particle coated fuel burn rates), contracts are being prepared and should be signed around September this year. The budget for this project is 300,000 euros.

  The fifth project is a continuation of work on 'Safety Regulations'. In total, the EU Joint Action will finance the preparation of 12 to 16 regulatory documents. The budget is 1,300,000 euros. Draft contracts are being discussed for around 500,000 euros, and signatures are due in June.

  The sixth project is a continuation of the trial of mixed oxide fuel, with a budget of 1,500,000 euros. No contracts have yet been placed but all are due to be signed before June 2003.

  A seventh and final project, on 'Immobilisation', awaits progress in bilateral discussions currently taking place between Russia and Germany.

  Convention on the Future of Europe
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans are in place to ensure that a public discussion takes place on the Convention on the Future of Europe. [50032]

  Peter Hain
  Since the Nice Declaration, the Government have been seeking a wide range of views on the future of Europe through regional visits, seminars, radio phone-ins and interviews. I have personally spoken to trade unions, businessmen, academics, students and other members of the public about the future of Europe. I have also undertaken a number of regional visits, including Cardiff last October, Edinburgh last November, Northern Ireland in February and South Yorkshire in March. That listening process is continuing, in parallel with the "listening phase" in the Future of Europe Convention. The coming months will see me making further regional visits, including to Birmingham in May and Liverpool in July. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs plans to visit the Devolved Administrations. There will be other activities focusing on the future of Europe, including a Youth Convention and Europe Day. In addition, a dedicated website providing for open and public discussion on the future of Europe will be established and open for contributions by the summer.

  Nepal
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Nepal. [50440]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are increasingly concerned about the Maoist insurgency in Nepal. We strongly condemn the Maoists' violence and intimidation against the Nepalese security forces and civilians. We are particularly concerned about recent attacks on food, water and electricity supplies and other economic, development and
  945W
  infrastructural targets. We urge the Maoists to disarm, renounce violence, and rejoin the peace process in good faith.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards peace in Sri Lanka. [50439]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We warmly welcome the progress which the Sri Lankan Government and the LTTE have made towards a peaceful settlement of the conflict in Sri Lanka. As we have made clear to all concerned, the UK fully supports the Norwegian-facilitated peace process, and we look forward to the start of direct talks in the near future. We call on all sides to work together in the interests of all Sri Lankans. Any solution must satisfy the aspirations of all communities.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what recent meetings he has had with representatives of the Tamil people to discuss human rights issues in Sri Lanka; [49340]

  (2) when he will next meet representatives from the Sri Lankan Government to discuss human rights issues and the state's policy towards the Tamil people; [49334]

  (3) what representations he has received in the last 12 months regarding human rights issues in Sri Lanka concerning the Tamil people; and if he will make a statement; [49335]

  (4) what representations he has received in the past 12 months regarding human rights issues in Sri Lanka from representatives of the Tamil people; [49339]

  (5) how many times he has met representatives of the Sri Lankan Government to discuss human rights issues in each of the past five years. [49337]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have raised human rights on a regular basis over the last five years with the Sri Lankan authorities at both ministerial and official level and will continue to do so. In March 2001, the Prime Minister and the then Foreign Secretary, discussed the situation in Sri Lanka with President Kumaratunga and then Foreign Minister Kadirgamar. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is planning to meet the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister in July. We are also concerned about human rights abuses committed by the LTTE, and welcome their recent announcement that they will cease recruiting under the age of 18 and that they are addressing the concerns of the Muslim community. We are in close touch with UK-based Sri Lankan groups, human rights organisations and representatives from all communities in Sri Lanka, including the Tamil community.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet his Spanish counterpart in the next round of the Brussels process. [48851]

  Peter Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on 27 February 2002,Official Report, column 1306W.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of income was spent on administration by the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts in the last financial year. [48881]

  Mr. Caborn
  Figures for the last financial year, 2001–02, are not yet available. NESTA's published accounts for the financial year to 31 March 2001 show that 9.9 per cent. of income was spent on operating costs.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans exist for the future funding of the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts. [48882]

  Mr. Caborn
  Plans for funding NESTA will be considered alongside other options for the future use of lottery funds.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment has been made of the return or investment made by the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts. [48876]

  Mr. Caborn
  In accordance with the National Lottery Act 1998, NESTA's endowment is managed by the National Investment and Loans Office on behalf of the National Debt Commissioners. The endowment is invested in Government Bonds and Treasury Bills whose performance reflect prevailing base rates. Since establishment, the endowment has produced an annual average return of 5.25 per cent. The interest on the endowment is invested separately by NESTA in an equities and bonds portfolio managed by Schroders Investment Management. Since establishment, this fund has produced an annualised average return of 3.4 per cent.

  NESTA's performance will be considered in its Quinquennial Review in 2004–05.

  Sport
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action she is taking to encourage people to participate in sport; and if she will make a statement. [48915]

  Mr. Caborn
  School sport is a priority for the Government and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is working closely with the Department for Education and Skills to improve the quality of and access to PE and sport in schools and links to clubs. Sport England's Active Sports programme involves 8 to 16-year-olds across the country in sport through a national network of 45 sports partnerships, while Sport Action Zones encourage participation by all age groups in some of the most deprived areas a the country. Sport England has now awarded over £1.5 billion of Lottery funding, the majority of which has been used to provide facilities for local community sport.

  Sports
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time sports coaching staff (i) her Department and (ii) its agencies have funded in each of the last seven years broken down by sport; and if she will make a statement. [48916]

  Coaches funded by UK Sport

  Sport

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Athletics

  ——

  ——

  ——

  22

  22

  Badminton

  ——

  ——

  11

  11

  11

  Curling

  ——

  ——

  ——

  ——

  12

  Equestrian

  ——

  21

  31

  51

  71

  Fencing

  ——

  ——

  ——

  32

  32

  Gymnastics

  ——

  ——

  ——

  ——

  101

  Ice skating

  21

  21

  21

  21

  31

  Judo

  31

  41

  41

  41

  41

  Modern pentathlon

  ——

  ——

  41

  41

  51

  Orienteering

  11

  21

  21

  21

  21

  Rowing

  ——

  ——

  ——

  111

  111

  Sailing

  ——

  ——

  ——

  ——

  51

  Trampolining

  ——

  ——

  ——

  ——

  11

  Triathlon

  ——

  ——

  ——

  ——

  41

  Waterskiing

  11

  21

  21

  21

  21

  Wheelchair basketball

  11

  11

  11

  11

  11

  1 Full time

  2 Part time

  Coaches funded by Sport England

  Sport

  Number

  Athletics

  38

  Basketball

  168

  Cricket

  167

  Football (girls)

  282

  Netball

  228

  Hockey

  148

  Rugby Union

  191

  Swimming

  67

  Tennis

  80

  Sport and Physical Education
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received from parents in Bristol regarding the distribution of New Opportunities Fund grant to local schools for the purpose of improving facilities for sport and physical education. [48752]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department has received no such correspondence.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which(a) secondary schools in England and (b) local education authorities have received New Opportunities Fund payments to improve sport and physical education facilities; and what the total amount was in each case. [48751]

  Mr. Caborn
  Local education authorities (LEAs) have received notification of their allocation under the scheme and bids are being developed. The deadline for LEAs to submit their stage 1 applications is the 22 April. Funding allocations are made up of a baseline allocation (based on the size of the school population in the LEA) and levels of deprivation in the area.
  948W
  Mr. Caborn
  My Department does not fund coaching staff directly. The majority of public funding for sport is channelled through UK Sport and Sport England. Comprehensive information on the number of coaches funded from Sports Council grants is not held centrally. The following tables are drawn from records kept by UK Sport and Sport England.

  The allocation figures for each LEA area are given in the following table.

  £

  Total England allocations

  495,163,000

  Note:

  Isles of Scilly have been allocated a de minimus allocation of £25,000; this is not based on the school population size.

  LEA area

  Allocation (£)

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire

  2,571,000

  Cambridgeshire

  2,879,000

  Essex

  9,068,000

  Hertfordshire

  5,684,000

  Luton

  2,008,000

  Norfolk

  6,358,000

  Peterborough

  1,855,000

  Southend-on-Sea

  1,303,000

  Suffolk

  4,701,000

  Thurrock

  1,619,000

  Eastern England total

  38,046,000

  East Midlands

  Derby

  2,712,000

  Derbyshire

  6,097,000

  Leicester

  4,996,000

  Leicestershire

  3,355,000

  Lincolnshire

  4,987,000

  Northamptonshire

  5,034,000

  Nottingham

  5,080,000

  Nottinghamshire

  7,358,000

  Rutland

  203,000

  East Midlands totals

  39,822,000

  Inner London

  Camden

  2,460,000

  City of London

  53,000

  949W

  LEA area

  Allocation (£)

  Hackney

  4,259,000

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,560,000

  Haringey

  3,775,000

  Islington

  3,796,000

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,338,000

  Lambeth

  4,362,000

  Lewisham

  3,817,000

  Newham

  5,425,000

  Southwark

  4,286,000

  Tower Hamlets

  4,204,000

  Wandsworth

  1,448,000

  Westminster

  1,758,000

  Inner London totals

  42,541,000

  Outer London

  Barking and Dagenham

  3,082,000

  Barnet

  1,776,000

  Bexley

  1,874,000

  Brent

  2,965,000

  Bromley

  1,906,000

  Croydon

  2,376,000

  Ealing

  2,978,000

  Enfield

  2,995,000

  Greenwich

  3,886,000

  Harrow

  1,029,000

  Havering

  1,684,000

  Hillingdon

  1,403,000

  Hounslow

  1,573,000

  Kingston upon Thames

  678,000

  Merton

  903,000

  Redbridge

  2,131,000

  Richmond upon Thames

  849,000

  Sutton

  1,176,000

  Waltham Forest

  3,481,000

  Outer London total

  38,745,000

  London totals

  81,286,000

  North East

  Darlington

  1,075,000

  Durham

  7,335,000

  Gateshead

  3,057,000

  Hartlepool

  1,510,000

  Middlesbrough

  2,264,000

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  4,338,000

  North Tyneside

  2,364,000

  Northumberland

  2,972,000

  Redcar and Cleveland

  2,208,000

  South Tyneside

  3,031,000

  Stockton-on-Tees

  2,407,000

  Sunderland

  5,377,000

  North East total

  37,938,000

  North West

  Blackburn with Darwen

  2,562,000

  Blackpool

  2,362,000

  Bolton

  3,475,000

  Bury

  1,704,000

  Cheshire

  4,816,000

  Cumbria

  4,607,000

  Halton

  2,337,000

  Knowsley

  3,194,000

  Lancashire

  11,987,000

  Liverpool

  9,217,000

  Manchester

  8,823,000

  Oldham

  3,362,000

  Rochdale

  2,873,000

  Salford

  3,922,000

  Sefton

  3,331,000

  St. Helens

  3,092,000

  Stockport

  2,150,000

  Tameside

  3,363,000

  950W

  LEA area

  Allocation (£)

  Trafford

  1,634,000

  Warrington

  1,807,000

  Wigan

  4,310,000

  Wirral

  4,448,000

  North West total

  89,376,000

  South East

  Bracknell Forest

  530,000

  Brighton and Hove

  2,246,000

  Buckinghamshire

  2,599,000

  East Sussex

  3,589,000

  Hampshire

  6,634,000

  Isle of Wight

  1,371,000

  Kent

  10,535,000

  Medway

  2,165,000

  Milton Keynes

  1,455,000

  Oxfordshire

  3,329,000

  Portsmouth

  1,450,000

  Reading

  920,000

  Slough

  1,057,000

  Southampton

  2,310,000

  Surrey

  5,297,000

  West Berkshire

  811,000

  West Sussex

  3,925,000

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  721,000

  Wokingham

  812,000

  South East total

  51,756,000

  South West

  Bath and North East Somerset

  965,000

  Bournemouth

  1,283,000

  Bristol, City of

  4,458,000

  Cornwall

  4,518,000

  Devon

  3,953,000

  Dorset

  2,082,000

  Gloucestershire

  3,663,000

  Isles of Scilly

  25,000

  North Somerset

  1,170,000

  Plymouth

  3,154,000

  Poole

  630,000

  Somerset

  3,062,000

  South Gloucestershire

  1,261,000

  Swindon

  1,363,000

  Torbay

  1,832,000

  Wiltshire

  2,163,000

  South West total

  35,582,000

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  16,919,000

  Coventry

  4,529,000

  Dudley

  3,244,000

  Herefordshire

  1,084,000

  Sandwell

  5,526,000

  Shropshire

  1,514,000

  Solihull

  1,945,000

  Staffordshire

  5,839,000

  Stoke-on-Trent

  4,547,000

  Telford and Wrekin

  1,747,000

  Walsall

  3,959,000

  Warwickshire

  3,358,000

  Wolverhampton

  3,963,000

  Worcestershire

  3,100,000

  West Midlands total

  61,274,000

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Barnsley

  3,993,000

  Bradford

  8,035,000

  Calderdale

  2,003,000

  Doncaster

  4,746,000

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  2,196,000

  Kingston Upon Hull, City of

  4,212,000

  951W

  LEA area

  Allocation (£)

  Kirklees

  4,821,000

  Leeds

  7,712,000

  North East Lincolnshire

  1,965,000

  North Lincolnshire

  1,319,000

  North Yorkshire

  3,421,000

  Rotherham

  3,832,000

  Sheffield

  6,010,000

  Wakefield

  5,000,000

  York

  818,000

  Yorkshire and Humberside total

  60,083,000

  Digital Television
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assistance will be provided to those who are unable to take up digital television in Suffolk on the grounds of(a) affordability, (b) access and (c) reception. [50584]

  Dr. Howells
  The Digital Television Action Plan, posted on www.digitaltelevision.gov.uk and agreed by stakeholders, sets out a framework of actions to be taken by Government and industry, in partnership, to enable the take-up of digital television and achieve the tests of accessibility, availability and affordability announced in September 1999. The Government are committed to ensuring that terrestrial analogue broadcasting signals are maintained until those tests are achieved.

  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she is taking to maintain diversity in the ownership and provision of digital television services. [49794]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: The Independent Television Commission is responsible for licensing commercial digital television services in the UK. One specific criterion to which the commission must have regard when awarding the multiplex licence is the capacity of the digital programme services proposed to appeal to a variety of tastes and interests. The Government's consultation paper on media ownership proposed that specific limits should not be placed on the ownership of digital services. Competition law should ensure that there is effective competition between digital platforms and the Government will continue to act to ensure open access to gateways on these markets.

  Television Licence Payments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions she has had with the Director General of the BBC on the guidelines for enforcement by the Television Licensing Authority of television licence payments. [49083]

  Dr. Howells
  I have had no such discussions. The BBC has statutory responsibility for the administration and enforcement of the television licensing system. As Licensing Authority, it is for the Corporation to set enforcement guidelines for its agent TV Licensing.

  National Lottery
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she had with Camelot on the new National Lottery logo; and if she will make a statement. [49929]
  952W
  Mr. Caborn
  The National Lottery logo is owned by the National Lottery Commission. There is no new logo, although Camelot have been discussing with the commission minor modifications to the current design. Camelot have recently introduced a new corporate logo; that is wholly a matter for them. The Department has not been involved in either matter.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to her answer of 28 February 2002,Official Report, column 1539W, on National Lottery funding for football and rugby stadiums, if she will break down the 2001 National Lottery expenditure on Rugby League stadiums by (a) type of work undertaken and (b) venue. [48647]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: Since my answer of 28 February to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens South, Official Report, column 1539W, Sport England has informed me that the National Lottery funding for Rugby League in 2001 was £512,142. The breakdown requested is as follows:
  Leeds Rugby Ltd. (Leeds Cricket Football and Athletic Co) at Headingley——lottery award of £53,617.
  Safety/security control box that serves the rugby and cricket grounds.
  Batley Bulldogs RLFC at the Heritage Road ground——lottery award of £200,000.
  Retaining walls, bases and foundations; concrete terracing and apron; structural frame and front handrail; roof and wall cladding; seating for 2,410; and disabled toilet block.
  Hull Kingston Rovers FC at the Craven Park ground——lottery award of £58,525.
  Turnstile replacement; turnstile monitoring system; additional safety rails; enhancement to perimeter fencing; undercroft conversion; public address system upgrade; safety signage; control room shutters; and other small works.
  Leigh Centurions (Leigh at Hilton Park Ltd.) at the Hilton Park Ground——lottery award of £200,000.
  Public toilets to the south stand and under the north stand; replacement of wooden seats with plastic moulded seats, public toilet refurbishment throughout the stadium; provision of turnstiles; upgraded public address system and closed circuit television system; provision of perimeter lighting and safety barriers; upgrade to the car park surface; reconstruction of a boundary wall; overlay concrete terracing in the east stand; and the provision of directional signage.

  Coin Machines
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the value of transitions through coin-in coin-out machines in unlicensed premises. [50011]

  Mr. Caborn
  We have made no such assessment.

  Better Quality Services Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which of the services of her Department have not been reviewed under the Better Quality Services Initiative; and when they will be reviewed. [50324]

  Dr. Howells
  So far reviews of 8 per cent. of departmental services have been completed. A recent project carried out jointly with the Treasury and the Centre for Management and Policy Studies will lead to the completion of reviews of core support functions by 2003. IT technical support in the Department will be
  953W
  reviewed by 2004. The Department is on course to meet its service delivery agreement target of conducting Better Quality Services reviews of 50 per cent. of its activities by the end of 2004. Other services do not form part of the programme under the current service delivery agreement and a programme of reviews post 2004–05 has yet to be drawn up.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to her answer of 25 March 2002, regarding replies to parliamentary and public correspondence, what percentage of letters(a) from hon. Members and (b) from members of the public were answered in 2001–02 within 18 working days. [50550]

  Mr. Caborn
  Provisional figures for the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 indicate that 90 per cent. of letters from hon. Members and 93 per cent. of letters from members of the public were answered within 18 working days. Final figures will not be available until the beginning of May.

  Part-Time Employees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many and what proportion of the staff of her Department are part-time employees. [47175]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 11 April 2002 by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, Official Report, column 553W.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many special advisers there were in her Department; and what their salaries were in each of the last five years. [46957]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The Department has one special adviser in post at 12 April 2002. On salaries, I refer the hon. Member for West Chelmsford to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 10 April 2002, Official Report, column 11W.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoners (Children)
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the placing of children of imprisoned fathers and mothers into care with special reference to the length of time they spend in care. [42942]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is not possible to identify this information from the data collected.

  Job Sharing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the extent of job sharing in his Department. [41044]
  954W
  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on 10 April 2002,Official Report, column 336W.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the policy of his Department is towards age discrimination. [42584]

  Angela Eagle
  The Home Office has made a commitment to provide staff of all ages and backgrounds with opportunities to maximise their skills and achieve their potential. This is incorporated into our employment policy on discrimination and is set out in our new equal opportunities statement. Continuing work to promote a diverse work force will include monitoring of recruitment, selection and appraisal statistics to ensure that age discrimination is not taking place.

  The Department has recently completed a comprehensive review of its age retirement policy, resulting in a change in age retirement policy throughout the Home Office (including agencies), except for the prison service which is carrying out its own separate review. The new policy, which will come into force on 1 April 2002, will allow staff in all grades below the senior civil service to retire at any point between the ages of 60 and 65.

  The Home Office (including agencies but excluding the prison service) has also changed its recruitment policy as of 1 April 2002, to allow the recruitment of staff up to the age of 64 subject to their meeting normal standards of health. Provided that there is an expectation of a reasonable period of employment and a return on recruitment and training, the primary criterion for selection will be the ability of a candidate to carry out the duties of the vacant post. If the most suitable candidate happens to be over sixty years old, this should not prevent a candidate being offered the post.

  In making these various changes, the Home Office is implementing the recommendations of the Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) report "Winning the Generation Game".

  Drugs
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans to tackle drug taking and drug-related crime in(a) Wales and (b) the north-west. [44050]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  My right hon. friend the Home Secretary has an overarching role in monitoring progress against the United Kingdom drugs strategy, taking account of differences in approach where responsibility is devolved. The National Assembly for Wales has devolved responsibility for setting the strategic direction in Wales and monitoring its progress.

  Criminal justice policy, however, is not devolved and I am pleased to report that arrest referral schemes and drug testing and treatment orders——both of which aim to help break the link between drug misuse and crime by helping offenders access treatment services——are now available throughout Wales.
  955W
  Also, to help the police and local communities in England and Wales tackle neighbourhood drug problems and the crime associated with them, the Government have allocated "Communities Against Drugs" funding worth over £220 million over three years. Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships will use this money to finance locally determined actions, including in Wales.

  In the north-west, there are 22 drug action teams implementing a wide range of measures to address problems of drug misuse at a local level.

  These include:
  The drawing up of young people's substance misuse plans to deliver better and integrated services for young people;
  Arrest referral schemes in all five police forces;
  The roll-out of drug testing and treatment orders across all five probation service areas;
  The development of treatment plans, in conjunction with Drugs Prevention Advisory Service and the National Treatment Agency, to reduce the time in accessing treatment and expand the range of support provision within each drug action team area.

  Police Officers
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police officers and (b) special constables there were in (i) Wales and (ii) Lancashire in each year since 1997. [44046]

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

  Wales

  Lancashire constabulary

  Year1

  Police

  Special Constable

  Police

  Special Constable

  1997

  6,952

  1,142

  3,247

  483

  1998

  6,617

  1,097

  3,257

  489

  1999

  6,646

  1,088

  3,245

  449

  2000

  6,632

  835

  3,179

  382

  2001

  6,927

  789

  3,255

  360

  2001

  7,134

  775

  3,288

  325

  20022

  7,116

  n/a

  3,316

  n/a

  1 As at 31 March

  2 Figures are those for 31 January 2002

  UK Security
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reviews of UK security he is undertaking; and when he expects to report on them to Parliament. [44691]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Government keep all aspects of the security of the United Kingdom under continuous review. My hon. Friend will appreciate that it would not be appropriate to make the details of these matters public. However, the provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 are both subject to independent reviews and the reports arising from these reviews will be laid before Parliament.

  Irish Terrorism
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many incidents connected with Irish terrorism, excluding murder, have taken place in Great Britain between 1969 and 10 April 1998 for which nobody has been convicted; and if he will list them; [44333]
  956W
  (2) how many murders connected with Irish terrorism have taken place in Great Britain between 1969 and 10 April 1998 for which nobody has been convicted; and if he will list them. [44332]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 20 March 2002]: The answer to this question can be provided only at a disproportionate cost. However, from March 1973 to 31 December 2001, there were 371 devices in London, and 17 shootings. In the rest of Great Britain there were 583 devices and 34 shootings. A total of 164 arrests were made in London and 261 in the rest of Great Britain during the same period. I understand that Deputy Assistant Commissioner (DAC) (Alan Fry) of the Metropolitan police would be happy to meet with you to discuss these matters if you wish.

  Extradition
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those people subject to extradition proceedings for offences committed in Great Britain in connection with Irish terrorism before 10 April 1998; and for what offences extradition is being sought. [44334]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 20 March 2002]: It is not our policy or practice to list the names of those who are the subject of extradition proceedings. I understand from the Attorney-General that the United Kingdom has sought the return of three fugitives under the backing of warrants arrangements in place as between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Those cases involve charges of conspiracy to murder; conspiracy to cause explosions; escape from lawful custody, and unlawful wounding.

  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the processes are of(a) recruitment, (b) training and (c) assessment of the welfare of the Criminal Cases Review Commission's expert staff. [45574]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  At 31 March 2001, 47 Case Review Managers (CRMs) were in post; 50 CRMs are expected to be in post at 31 March 2002. During 2001–02, eight CRMs will have joined the Commission, together with one recruited from within, and six will have left; a net increase of three.

  Salary scales affect the Commission's ability to recruit, motivate and retain CRMs, and other staff of appropriate standards, against growing outside competition. Discussions have been held within the Commission and with the Home Office concerning the current scales.

  One of the Commission's two Legal Advisers left at the end of September 2001, and recruitment of a successor is under way.

  Process Improvement Project 3 is concerned with the development of an integrated training programme for all staff. Particular developments include training on induction and mentoring, and for the roles of Assigned Commission Member and of Reviewer in the Commission's Personal Development Review programme.
  957W
  The Commission will continue to ensure that its diversity policies are in line with best practice, and ensure that diversity issues are included in its integrated training programme. It is conducting a staff attitude survey the results of which will be available early in 2002–03.

  Victim's Charter
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who the special representative of road traffic victims is on the main Victim's Charter Implementation Group. [46490]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Victim's Charter Review and Implementation Group does not include a special representative of road traffic victims. However, RoadPeace, Brake and the Campaign Against Drinking and Driving are each represented on the Road Deaths and Injuries Working Group, a subsidiary group considering the inclusion of road traffic victims within the scope of the Victim's Charter.

  The Victim's Charter Review and Implementation Group receive periodic updates on the progress made by the Working Group and fully recognise that the specialist knowledge and experience of the voluntary organisations should strongly influence any emerging recommendations on how best to meet road traffic victims' needs. This is achieved through the subsidiary group.

  More generally, the Home Department is setting up a separate and permanent Victims' Advisory Panel in order to advise on all current and future developments for victims. The terms of reference and membership of the panel are currently being actively considered, and an announcement will be made later this year.

  Life Prisoners
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases regarding life prisoners who maintain their innocence referred to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission have been rejected; and if he will make a statement. [48654]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The specific information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. It is possible to provide figures relating to those with convictions for murder where it might be assumed that a life sentence was involved. The latest available figures show that there have been 59 such referrals since the establishment of the commission. Of these, 31 are awaiting an appeal hearing. Of the 28 appeals against a murder conviction that have been heard, the conviction was quashed in 19 cases, and judgment reserved in one case. Of the eight such convictions that were upheld by the Court of Appeal, one went on to the House of Lords where it was quashed.

  Legislation requires the Court of Appeal to allow an appeal against conviction if they think the conviction is unsafe and to dismiss such an appeal in any other case. In each case the Court of Appeal's written judgment sets out the reasons for their decision on the safety of the conviction.

  Almost all of those applying to the Criminal Cases Review Commission to have their convictions reviewed do so because they are maintaining their innocence.
  958W
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with members of the Criminal Cases Review Commission about the treatment of life prisoners who maintain their innocence; and what the outcome was of these discussions. [48650]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  There have been no such discussions. Since the establishment in 1997 of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has had no role in the review of alleged miscarriages of justice. The commission is an independent body and it would therefore be inappropriate for the Home Secretary to intervene in this way.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Job Advertisements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will list the job advertisements placed by her Department in the last 12 months specifying where the advertisements were placed and the cost in each case. [39054]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: Staff in my own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, are on secondment from other Government Departments and external advertising is not used.

  As for the Departments for which the Attorney General is responsible, details have been placed in the Library.

  Energy Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on energy costs incurred by her Department in each of the last 10 years. [42437]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 14 March 2002]: Details of the figures available on energy costs incurred are as follows:

  Year

  £

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  2001–02

  8,215.24

  2000–01

  8,153.13

  1999–2000

  5,881.02

  1998–99

  6,787.19

  1997–98

  5,964.01

  1996–97

  9,035.55

  1995–96

  9,218.11

  1994–95

  8,362.24

  1993–94

  10,695.19

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  2001–02

  49,100.92

  2000–01

  44,169.90

  1999–2000

  27,529.55

  1998–99

  47,010.24

  1997–98

  49,394.66

  1996–97

  58,686.60

  1995–96

  46,588.50

  1994–95

  56,704.83

  1993–94

  60,827.63

  Government Property Lawyers

  2001–02

  14,167.71

  2000–01

  8,961.50

  1999–2000

  15,400.33

  1998–99

  16,191.88

  959W

  Year

  £

  1997–98

  16,631.20

  1996–97

  18,010.56

  1995–96

  18,965.60

  1994–95

  19,679.48

  1993–94

  19,361.91

  The Government Property Lawyers ceased business in September 1999. Since then the building they occupied has been let and fuel costs are recovered from the tenants.

  Year

  £

  Crown Prosecution Service

  2001–02

  949,191

  2000–01

  867,796

  1999–2000

  842,962

  1998–99

  842,137

  1997–98

  874,934

  1996–97

  1,117,690

  1995–96

  875,393

  1994–95

  913,832

  1993–94

  945,084

  1992–93

  802,949

  1991–92

  813,625

  Serious Fraud Office

  2000–01

  64,514

  1999–2000

  69,932

  1998–99

  64,926

  1997–98

  71,049

  1996–97

  93,160

  1995–96

  98,814

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will list the number and expected cost to her Department of special advisers in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [43265]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: None of the Departments for which the Attorney-General is responsible employ special advisers.

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Solicitor-General, pursuant to the answer of 23 January 2002,Official Report, column 878W, on stolen equipment, whether the computer equipment stolen from her Department was (a) new and unused and (b) used; and what was the nature of the data stored on such items in each case. [42644]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 20 March 2002]: I am not aware of any equipment having been stolen from my Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, since 1 May 1997.

  In the Departments for which the Attorney-General is responsible, details are as follows:

  Crown Prosecution Service

  Since May 1997, six computers and one printer have been stolen from the Crown Prosecution Service. Details of the equipment stolen are as follows:
  1998–99

  One computer——new and unused.

  One laptop computer——used——contained administrative data.

  960W
  1999–2000

  Two computers——used.

  (i) Court link PC——no data retained on PC.

  (ii) Typist PC——case related data retained on PC.

  One laptop computer——used——contained management data.

  One computer——used court link PC——no data retained on PC.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  Computer memory chips stolen from the Treasury Solicitor's Department in 1997 were new and unused.

  A laptop computer stolen in 2001 had been used, but contained no data other than the standard office word processing package.

  Serious Fraud Office

  A password protected computer stolen from Counsel's chambers was in used condition.

  The data contained on the computer were case related, consisting of miscellaneous lists, statements and documents. The loss was considered by the Case Controller and its impact was assessed as insignificant.

  PFI/PPPs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will list the(a) private finance initiative and (b) public private partnership projects which have been delayed. [44890]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: My own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, the Treasury Solicitor's Department and the Serious Fraud Office have not entered into any public-private partnerships or private finance initiatives.

  No private finance initiatives or public-private partnership projects entered into by the Crown Prosecution Service have been delayed. The CPS's private finance initiative IT project, 'Compass', has been managed well and is on track. A new PFI contract was agreed with Logica plc in December 2001.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the difference was between the price offered in reaching referred bidder stage and the final contract price for the five largest PFI contracts let by her Department in each of the last four years; and if she will make a statement. [45680]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: My own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, the Treasury Solicitor's Department and the Serious Fraud Office have not entered into any public-private partnerships in each of the last four years.

  The Compass project, which is a private finance initiative, is the only relevant contract let by the Crown Prosecution Service in the last four years. The price for the Compass project at preferred bidder stage and the final contract price were identical. There is an allowance of 1 per cent. built into the contract price to take into account any findings arising from a further period of due diligence. The actual contract price is subject to commercial confidentiality.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the percentage level of income recovery was in 2001–02 from clients of the Treasury Solicitor's Department within 30 days of their receipt of a validated invoice. [47889]
  961W
  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 9 April 2002]: Information about progress on PSA targets will be published in the Department's 2002 Departmental Report.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the annual budget for communications activities, including press, public relations, marketing and internal communications, was for her Department for each financial year from 1997–98 to 2001–02. [39919]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The figures for staff, administration and related costs are as follows:

  £000

  1997–98

  12,540

  1998–99

  12,891

  1999–2000

  3,386

  2000–01

  3,971

  2001–02

  3,945

  1 Prior to 1999–2000 the internal communication function was subsumed within other parts of the Department, and costs cannot be identified separately.

  Expenditure from the Department's central advertising and publicity budget is as follows.

  £000

  1997–98

  10,879

  1998–99

  13,426

  1999–2000

  9,902

  2000–01

  14,595

  2001–02

  11,688

  In addition to expenditure from this central budget, expenditure from budgets allocated to individual programmes will also include spend on publicity related activity. It is not possible, except at disproportionate cost, to separately identify all such publicity related expenditure. It is possible to identify expenditure on advertising and on public relations drawn from all budgets and this is as follows:

  £000

  Advertising

  Public Relations

  1997–98

  9,992

  0

  1998–99

  15,673

  549

  1999–2000

  11,900

  88

  2000–01

  29,066

  794

  2001–02

  17,665

  655

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many special advisers were employed by her(a) between 1 May and 31 December 1997 and (b) in each year from 1998 to 2001 inclusive; and what the total amount spent on special advisers by the Department was for each of those years. [41259]
  962W
  Estelle Morris
  From May 1997 to June 2001, up to three full-time equivalent special advisers have been in post at any one time; from September 2001 this dropped to two.

  In relation to special adviser costs I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 10 April 2002, Official Report, column 11W.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the number and expected cost to her Department of special advisers in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [43266]

  Estelle Morris
  My Department has two special advisers in post as at 13 March 2002.

  In relation to special adviser costs I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 10 April 2002, Official Report, column 11W.

  Departmental Contracts
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the 30 largest contracts awarded by her Department from(a) May 1997 to April 1998, (b) May 1998 to April 1999, (c) May 1999 to April 2000, (d) May 2000 to April 2001 and (e) May 2001 to the latest date for which figures are available, stating in each case the values of the contracts and the companies with which the contracts were placed. [43675]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  This information could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Creche Facilities
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what creche facilities are provided by her Department; and at what cost. [44854]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department for Education and Skills is committed to promoting equality of opportunity for its staff and supports a range of child care provision, which helps staff balance family and working life.

  100 full-time work place nursery places are available to staff working in Sheffield and Runcorn; 112 full-time playscheme places, operating during the school holidays for children in full-time education aged up to 12, are available to staff working on all DfES sites. In 2001–02 these arrangements were provided at a cost of £230,000.

  IT Contracts
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many contracts her Department has with ICT suppliers; how many ICT suppliers have contracts with her Department, and what the names of these ICT suppliers are. [49930]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis

  (a) The Department has 60 contracts with ICT suppliers;

  (b) 47 ICT suppliers have contracts with the Department;

  (c) The names of the Department's ICT suppliers are shown in the following table.

  963W

  No.

  Supplier

  Number of contracts

  1

  4S Systems Ltd.

  1

  2

  Advanced Data Services Ltd.

  1

  3

  AXIOS Systems Ltd.

  2

  4

  Baltimore

  2

  5

  British Telecom

  1

  6

  Cap Gemini Ernst and Young

  1

  7

  COLT Ltd.

  1

  8

  Custom Communication Consultants

  1

  9

  DE TE WE

  1

  10

  Epixtech

  1

  11

  Forvus

  2

  12

  Graphical Data capture

  1

  13

  Hi Tech (Laboratories) Ltd.

  1

  14

  Information 1st

  1

  15

  Initial Electronic Security Systems Ltd.

  1

  16

  Integrated Environmental Solutions

  1

  17

  ISIS Ltd.

  1

  18

  Knightridder

  1

  19

  Leake and Spencer

  1

  20

  LOTUS (IBM)

  1

  21

  Mattel Interactive

  1

  22

  MFT Computer Systems

  1

  23

  Microsystems Software

  1

  24

  MIKROFAX

  1

  25

  Network Associates

  1

  26

  Network Designers

  1

  27

  Network Unlimited Network Products Ltd.

  1

  28

  NICO MAK Computing

  1

  29

  NISS

  1

  30

  Northern Realisations Ltd.

  1

  31

  Novell

  1

  32

  Dell1

  1

  33

  Vodafone2

  1

  34

  Global Crossing3

  1

  35

  Oracle

  4

  36

  Peoplesoft

  1

  37

  Progressions Ltd.

  1

  38

  QAS Systems Ltd.

  1

  39

  Quality Forum

  1

  40

  Raxco Software

  1

  41

  Research Group

  1

  42

  Sanderson MSL Ltd.

  1

  43

  SPSS

  8

  44

  Surf Control pic

  1

  45

  Trustmarque Solutions

  1

  46

  Videoconferencing Worldwide

  1

  47

  Xansa pic

  1

  Total number of contracts

  60

  1 via Office of Government Commerce GCAT 2 Catalogue

  2 via Office of Government Commerce GTM Catalogue

  3 via Office of Government Commerce MTS telecoms service

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many times Ministers in her Department have travelled abroad at taxpayers' expense since March 2001; what countries they visited; and what the total cost of each visit was. [47118]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 11 April 2002, Official Report, column 552W.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 25 February 2002,Official Report, columns 722–3W, on
  964W
  statutory instruments, what assessment she has made of the cost effectiveness of each of the statutory instruments listed in the document placed in the Library. [50017]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Costs associated with regulatory proposals are considered at the policy development stage. A Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) is completed for regulatory proposals unless there are no or negligible costs, and sets out the impact, in terms of costs, benefits and risks of the proposed regulation which could affect businesses, charities or the voluntary sector. RIAs are available from the Libraries of the House.

  Departmental Underspend
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 3 December 2001,Official Report, column 81W, regarding end year flexibility, if the remaining sum was spent in 2001–02. [50333]

  Estelle Morris
  £530 million of the underspend remained available on 3 December 2001. £130 million of this amount has been drawn down for use in 2001–02 and the remaining amount will be carried forward for use in 2002–03 or later years.

  NVQ Level II Funding
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of the 26 March 2002,Official Report, column 902W, regarding NVQ level II funding, what steps her Department has taken with the Department of Health to ensure that all those individuals who qualify for (a) grants and (b) funds have knowledge of and access to them; and if she will make a statement. [50564]

  Mr. Timms
  This Department and its partners such as the Learning and Skills Council, education and training providers, local authorities and the Connexions Service take a wide range of steps to ensure that individuals have knowledge of, and access to, grants and funds to pursue education and training at all levels. Examples include: local marketing strategies developed by partners to reflect local needs and priorities; national leaflets on financial support while studying; other national and local marketing and careers material; advice and guidance from the Connexions Service and other information and guidance services; and the national learndirect telephone help-line.

  The Learning and Skills Council and other partners are working with the Department of Health, the Training Organisation for Social Care (TOPSS) and social care employers to ensure that the maximum number of care staff receive supported NVQ training.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 26 March 2002,Official Report, column 902W, regarding NVQ level II funding, what (a) funds and (b) grants are available to individuals over the age of 24 years to obtain NVQ level II. [50560]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government provide 75 per cent. of the standard national course costs to the Learning and Skills Council to pass on to colleges. Additionally, students in further education can seek financial help towards the additional costs associated with study, ie transport, fees, books and equipment, and exam costs
  965W
  from the discretionary Access Fund, if they can demonstrate particular need. It also helps with short-term child care and, to a limited extent, emergency payments for living expenses. The Childcare Support Fund offers help to lone parents and others who are on low incomes with the cost of registered child care while studying. Career development loans are also available to individuals undertaking vocational courses, to cover the cost of fees and associated costs which are not supported from other sources. However, colleges at their discretion may remit some or all of the tuition fee for adults where there is financial hardship or they may offer access to a college hardship fund.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  High Court Judges
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what measures are being taken in Northern Ireland to ensure that more women and more members of the ethnic minorities become High Court judges. [46368]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Arising from recommendations in the Northern Ireland Criminal Justice Review, the Lord Chancellor, in December of last year, appointed Mr. John Simpson as Commissioner for Judicial Appointments for Northern Ireland. The Commissioner will oversee the development of a strategy of equal opportunity and outreach designed to broaden the pool of potential applicants for judicial office. Particular emphasis will be placed on the introduction of measures designed to encourage applications from sectors of the community that have been historically under-represented or where applications have been disproportionately low. All appointments, however, will continue to be made on merit and merit alone. The Commissioner will publish his first annual report to the Lord. Chancellor early next year.

  Marriage and Relationship Support
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much money was awarded under the Government's marriage and relationship support programme to(a) National Marriage Week, (b) the Family Matters Institute and (c) the Lesbian and Gay Foundation, in the two most recent annual rounds. [48859]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Total funding under the Marriage and Relationship Support Grant Programme was £4.5 million in 2001–02 and is £5 million in 2002–03.

  National Marriage Week 2001–02 was supported through the grant of £31,500 paid to Oasis Media (the PR company employed by Futureway Trust). Oasis Media and Futureway also received advisory support and guidance from officials in the Lord Chancellor's Department. The bid for 2002–03 did not score sufficiently highly against the published grant criteria to receive funding.

  The Lesbian and Gay Foundation was supported for the first time in 2002–03 with a grant of £48,000.

  Family Matters Institute has never received funding from the Marriage and Relationship Support Grant. It applied this year, but did not score sufficiently highly against grant criteria.

  Court of Protection
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement about delays at the Court of Protection; whether they derive from the recent re-location of that service; and whether its filing systems have been affected by the move. [48734]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Court of Protection, which is the Judicial 'arm' of the PGO, continues to deal with any work that it receives very speedily. In 2001–02, over 90 per cent. of submissions received from the PGO were processed within five working days. However, there have been recent delays in the PGO (which provides the administrative support to the court) which have impacted on the overall service delivery received by the court's clients.

  It is correct to say that the recent relocation of the court and the PGO, which is now complete, has been a contributing factor to the cause of the delays. The PGO is very conscious indeed of the need to improve its services and reduce delay and much work is being done to address this.

  All 25,000 plus case dossiers were moved from the PGO's old location to Archway and the new filing system has taken some time to bed down. A pilot of an electronic file scanning system, using bar codes, is about to start which it is hoped will considerably improve the ability to manage records more effectively. This will be a precursor to the development and implementation of the new electronic case record management system ('MERIS') which is due to be operational within the next 18 months and will ultimately reduce reliance on paper dossiers.

  Press Office
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the total cost of running the Department's press office was in(a) 1996–97 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available. [46810]

  Mr. Wills
  The Lord Chancellor's Department's communications functions were incorporated into a new group in 1998. The annual costs for arrangements before 1998 are no longer available. The total cost of press office activity for FY 2001–02 which includes indirect costs to 31 December 2001, salaries and other staff costs, and expenditure on press office services is £503,135.

  This figure does not include the costs of any work undertaken in other parts of the communications group on publications, internal communications and the staff journal, the LCD website and general administration activities.

  Parental Leave Directive
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimate she has made of the(a) financial costs and (b) benefits to her Department of the Parental Leave Directive. [42486]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Staff in the Lord Chancellor's Department and agencies have always benefited from generous flexible working and leave arrangements, and have been able to take unpaid leave and career breaks with the agreement of local managers. We have incorporated the employer's obligations under the
  967W
  Parental Leave Directive in our flexible working policies, and staff are able to take up their entitlement under the directive. We keep no separate record of this and therefore have not recorded costs separately.

  Flexible Working
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many and what proportion of the staff of her Department are(a) job sharing, (b) term working and (c) engaged in another form of flexible working. [42427]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  (a) 2,291 staff currently work reduced hours, a large proportion of whom are engaged on a job-share or job-split arrangement.

  (b) While some staff may arrange to work term times only, we keep no separate central records for staff working that particular arrangement, as it would be recorded centrally as an individual working reduced hours.

  (c) There are a number of other alternative and flexible working patterns that employees are welcome to take up under the Department's work-life balance policies, such as flexi-time, home working and compressed hours. The flexibility of the pattern is decided in conjunction with local management to suit an individual's need and the needs of their work. Other than those working reduced hours (see (a) above), no central records are kept of these arrangements.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what his Department's policy is towards age discrimination. [42570]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department has incorporated age into its equal opportunities policies, and is reviewing its employment policies in line with the recommendations in the Performance and Innovation Unit Report, "Winning the Generation Game".

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will take steps to improve the response time to parliamentary questions. [47716]

  Mr. Wills
  In its response to the Public Administration Select Committee's Second Report of Session 2000–2001 on Ministerial Accountability and Parliamentary Questions, the Government made clear its commitment to providing prompt and accurate answers to Parliamentary Questions. This continues to be the Government's position.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  London Development Agency
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans the Government have for the role of the London Development Agency in promoting a model of economic 968W
  growth that would discourage further in-migration from (a) the regions of the UK and (b) overseas into London. [50051]

  Alan Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  None. The London Development Agency is a functional body of the Greater London authority, reporting to the Mayor of London. It is for the Mayor to approve and publish the London Development Agency's strategy, which sets out the agency's objectives and regional priorities.

TREASURY

  Forms P85 and P85S
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many completed versions of forms(a) P85 and (b) P85S the Inland Revenue has received in each of the last five fiscal years; and if he will make a statement. [38261]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I regret the production of such statistics in a form which would enable me to say how many completed versions of forms(a) P85 and (b) P85S the Inland Revenue has received in each of the last five fiscal years would involve disproportionate cost.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many special advisers were employed by the Treasury(a) between 1 May and 31 December 1997 and (b) in each year from 1998 to 2001 inclusive; and what the total amount spent on special advisers by the Department was in each of those years. [41255]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 11 February 2002,Official Report, column 115W and 16 April 2002, Official Report, column 857W, and the answer given to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on 11 May 2001, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many special advisers there were in his Department; and what their salaries were in each of the last five years. [46943]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by the Prime Minister on 10 April 2002, Official Report, column 11W. I also refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 16 April 2002, Official Report, column 857W.

  Children's Tax Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families have applied for the children's tax credit; and how many of these applications have(a) been successful and (b) failed. [42518]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue have invited claims for the children's tax credit from PAYE taxpayers. They have received about 3.7 million forms to date and it is estimated that 3.3 million taxpayers have CTC in their tax codes. The latest survey data suggest that around
  969W
  3.7 million families might be expected to claim through PAYE and that an additional 900,000 taxpayers will be expected to claim the CTC later, via self-assessment.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families are in receipt of the children's tax credit, broken down into(a) those who receive the full credit, (b) those who receive a partial credit because they have a comparatively small tax liability and (c) those who receive a partial credit because they earn too much to receive the full credit. [46472]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is estimated that about 3.3 million taxpayers have the children's tax credit (CTC) in their 2001–02 tax codes. On(c) about 0.1 million have a reduced value in the code adjustment because it is estimated that they are on the CTC taper. On (b), it is not known for how many families the CTC eliminates the tax deducted from their earnings; this depends on their total earnings in the year.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are expected to apply retrospectively for the children's tax credit for 2001–02 because they are self-employed. [46473]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is estimated that there are about 0.8 million families with income from self-employment who will benefit from the children's tax credit.

  Landfill
  Ian Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider changes to the landfill tax to support the achievement of the Government's waste policy. [47161]

  Mr. Boateng
  The landfill tax contributes to the achievement of the Government's waste targets by making waste producers take account of the environmental costs they impose when they discard waste to landfill.

  Efficiency Savings
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the target has been in each of the last five years for efficiency savings as a percentage of total running costs for each of the non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible; and if the target was met. [49639]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not responsible for any non-departmental public bodies that set their own efficiency savings targets.

  Office for National Statistics
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many different questionnaires were sent out to(a) UK companies, (b) manufacturing companies and (c) distribution and services companies by the Office for National Statistics in 2001. [48926]

  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 Whittingdale, dated 17 April 2002:
  As National Statistician I am responding to your recent question concerning statistical questionnaires sent to businesses by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). (48926)
  970W
  Of the 1.57m forms issued to UK companies in 2001, 29% went to the manufacturing sector and 66% to the distribution and services sector.
  Sector definitions have been based on the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)(92)).

  Taxation
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated annual loss to the Exchequer arising from(a) tax avoidance and (b) tax evasion in offshore jurisdictions. [49296]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: I regret that this information is not available.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost was to his Department of answering written parliamentary questions in 2001; and how that cost was calculated. [49105]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer the President of the Council and Leader of the House gave him on 17 April 2002,Official Report, column 929W.

  Press Conferences
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 4 March 2002,Official Report, column 10W, on departmental events, if he will list the press conferences which have taken place on departmental premises in each of the last five years; and what was the purpose of each of them. [50547]

  Ruth Kelly
  Information in the format required could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Offshore Investments
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated total of UK assets invested in offshore jurisdictions. [49295]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: I regret that this information is not available.

  Wanless Report
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he received the final Wanless report. [50664]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Derek Wanless formally submitted his final report to the Chancellor on 15 April. The report was published this morning.

  Annuities
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many responses he has received to his consultative document "Modernising Annuities"; and if he will list those who responded and place copies of the responses in the Library. [50021]

  Ruth Kelly
  The number received up to 12 April was 615. Responses are still arriving. The list of respondents and copies of the responses will be placed in the Library in due course.

  Structural Funds
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what(a) discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues and (b) representations he has received from the National Assembly for Wales, regarding securing (i) the full amount of European Structural Funds for the National Assembly for Wales above the Welsh block grant and (ii) full public match funding for the projects over and above the Barnett formula during the period of the next Comprehensive Spending Review. [49813]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Treasury Ministers hold discussions with their ministerial colleagues on a variety of matters, and receive representations from the National Assembly for Wales on a range of issues. Funding decisions taken in this year's spending review will be announced in due course.

  Westfield Shopping Centre Company
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations his Department has received from the Westfield shopping centre company since 1997. [48809]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  HM Treasury can find no trace of any representations from Westfield shopping centre company since 1997.

  Non-domicile Status
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have been granted non-domicile status by the Inland Revenue in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [38259]

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the impact on jobs in the City of London of a change in the taxation arrangements of those who reside in the United Kingdom but who are domiciled overseas; [49472]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact on the Baltic Exchange of a change in the taxation arrangements for those who reside in the United Kingdom but who are domiciled overseas; [49474]

  (3) if he will make a statement on taxation arrangements for those who reside in the United Kingdom but who are domiciled overseas. [49475]

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of the potential effect on inward investment were the UK to cease to grant non-domicile status to UK taxpayers; and what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) reviewed in respect of this matter; [49291]

  (2) how many UK residents enjoyed non-domicile status for tax purposes in (a) 2001, (b) 2000, (c) 1999, (d) 1998, (e) 1997 and (f) 1987; [49286]

  (3) on how many occasions since 1992 the Inland Revenue has (a) rejected and (b) approved an application by a UK resident to be given non-domicile status; [49289]

  (4) how many UK taxpayers have enjoyed non-domicile status for (a) more than five years, (b) more than 10 years and (c) more than 20 years; and for each category, what percentage of those enjoying non-domicile status this constitutes; [49287]
  972W
  (5) what estimate he has made of the potential income tax revenue lost in each of the last five years as a result of the granting of non-domicile status to some UK taxpayers; and what research he has (a) commissioned and (b) reviewed in respect of this matter; [49290]

  (6) how many UK taxpayers with non-domicile status were (a) born in the United Kingdom and (b) carry British passports; and for each category what percentage of those enjoying non-domicile status this constitutes. [49288]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answers 15 April 2002]: We announced today as part of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget statement that we are reviewing the residence and domicile rules as they affect tax liabilities of individuals. I refer to Chapter 5 of the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 2002, paragraph 5.83.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if the target for the percentage of days on which all cheques of £100,000 or more are banked on the day of receipt by the Accounts Offices of the Inland Revenue was met in 2000–01; [49049]

  (2) if the target for the number of inquiries taken up in relation to individuals, as referred to on page 13 of the Inland Revenue's report 2001, was met in 2000–01; [49055]

  (3) what recent assessment he has made of whether the PSA target for the Inland Revenue to have identified annual savings of at least £5 million per year on estate spending by 31 March was met; [49087]

  (4) how much assessed and self-assessed tax was overdue for over three months in 2000–01; [49063]

  (5) what percentage of (a) assessed and (b) self-assessed tax due was collected in 2000–01; [49059]

  (6) if the target for the percentage of Inland Revenue inquiry centre callers without appointments attended to within 15 minutes was met in 2000–01; [49091]

  (7) if the PSA target for the Inland Revenue to further the electronic procurement programme has now been met; [49045]

  (8) what assessment he has made of the performance of the Inland Revenue against its Public Service Agreement target to ensure the effective transfer of staff from the Benefits Agency to deal with the extra claims for tax credits arising from the introduction of the working families tax credit and the disabled person's tax credit; [49067]

  (9) if the target for the percentage of self-assessed cases dealt with accurately by the Inland Revenue was met in 2000–01; [49051]

  (10) if the targets for the percentages of notifications of National Insurance contributions recorded by (a) 31 December and (b) 31 March, as referred to on page 14 of the Inland Revenue's 2001 report, were met in 2000–01; [49057]

  (11) what recent assessment he has made of whether the PSA target for the Inland Revenue to review at least 60 per cent. of its services by value by March was met; [49089]
  973W
  (12) what the meaning is of the performance indicator Quality-% score on page 13 of the Inland Revenue's 2001 report; [49061]

  (13) if the target for the percentage of repayment claims in Inland Revenue offices processed within 20 working days was met in 2000–01; [49093]

  (14) what recent assessment he has made of whether the PSA target for the Inland Revenue to deliver cumulative efficiency savings of at least 10 per cent. of the 2001–02 Departmental expenditure limit by 31 March was met; [49085]

  (15) if the target for the percentage of compliance inquiries/reviews worked to a satisfactory or better standard, referred to on page 13 of the Inland Revenue's 2001 report, was met in 2000–01; [49053]

  (16) if the target for the percentage of non self-assessed schedule E work dealt with accurately by the Inland Revenue was met in 2000–01; [49050]

  (17) if the target for the number of reviews taken up in relation to employers, as referred to on page 14 of the Inland Revenue's 2001 report, was met in 2000–01; [49056]

  (18) what recent assessment he has made of whether the PSA target for the Inland Revenue to increase the availability of electronic communications between taxpayers and the Department to at least 30 per cent. of potential dealings by 31 March was met; [49088]

  (19) what the target was for reduced sickness absence in the Inland Revenue in 2000–01; and if it was met; [49064]

  (20) if he will make a statement on the PAYE in year weighted target for percentage employer payments as referred to on page 13 of the Inland Revenue report for 2001; [49060]

  (21) if the target for the percentage of calls answered at Inland Revenue switchboards within 30 seconds was met in 2000–01; [49092]

  (22) what recent assessment he has made of whether the PSA target for the Inland Revenue to reduce staff sickness absence by 2003 will be met; [49084]

  (23) if the PSA target for the Inland Revenue to increase the proportion of key designated procurement postholders with or working towards, a graduate level procurement qualification has now been met; [49046]

  (24) if the target for the percentage of self-assessed tax returns received by 31 January 2001 was met; [49052]

  (25) if the target for decisions in five working days on completed applications for working families tax credit was met in 2000–01; [49058]

  (26) if the target for the percentage of post fully dealt with within 15 working days by the Inland Revenue was met in 2000–01; [49090]

  (27) if the PSA target for the Inland Revenue's prompt payment of undisputed in voices has been met; [49044]

  (28) if the target for the number of inquiries taken up in relation to companies, as referred to on page 13 of the Inland Revenue's 2001 report, was met in 2000–01; [49054]
  974W
  (29) what recent assessment he has made of whether the PSA target for the Inland Revenue to achieve a roll out of at least 50 per cent. of the call centre strategy contained in the overall agreed programmes by 31 March was met; [49086]

  (30) if the target for the percentage of days on which 99 per cent. or more of all cheques are banked on the day of receipt by the Accounts Offices of the Inland Revenue was met in 2000–01. [49048]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Information on PSA performance and against targets generally is set out in the Inland Revenue Annual Reports 1999–2000 (Cm 5029) and 2000–01 (Cm 5304). Information on progress against PSA, targets in 2001–02 will be published in the Revenue's forthcoming spring Departmental report. Full details of performance in 2001–02 will be contained in the Revenue annual report which will be published later this year.

  Delegated Legislation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Amusement Machine Licence Duty (Medium-Prize Machines) Order; and if he will make a statement; [50167]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Insurance (Fees) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50147]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Climate Change Levy (General) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50179]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Tax Credits Scheme (Miscellaneous Amendments No. 2) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50128]

  (5) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Tax Credit Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Northern Ireland) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50117]

  (6) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 Regulated Activities Order; and if he will make a statement; [50124]

  (7) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Capital Gains Tax (Annual Exempt Amount) Order; and if he will make a statement; [50119]

  (8) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Climate Change Levy (Registration and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50163]

  (9) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Aircraft Operators (Accounts and Records) (Amendment) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50180]

  (10) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Value Added Tax (Consideration for Fuel provided for Private Use) Order; and if he will make a statement; [50154]

  (11) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Air Passenger Duty (Designated Region of the United Kingdom) Order; and if he will make a statement; [50150]
  975W
  (12) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the National Savings Bank (Amendment) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50143]

  (13) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Social Security Contributions (Amendment No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50122]

  (14) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Value Added Tax (Passenger Vehicles) Order; and if he will make a statement; [50153]

  (15) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Recognition Requirements for Investment Exchanges and Clearing Houses) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50162]

  (16) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Finance Act 1989, Section 178(1) (Appointed Day) Order; and if he will make a statement; [50132]

  (17) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Inheritance Tax (Indexation) Order; and if he will make a statement; [50158]

  (18) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Income Tax (Indexation) Order; and if he will make a statement; [50159]

  (19) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Personal Equity Plan (Amendment) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50139]

  (20) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Retirement Benefits Schemes (Indexation of Earnings Cap) Order; and if he will make a statement; [50118]

  (21) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Markets and Insolvency (Settlement Finality) (Amendment) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50160]

  (22) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Value Added Tax (Business Gifts of Small Value) Order; and if he will make a statement; [50155]

  (23) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Lottery Duty (Amendment) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50169]

  (24) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Capital Allowances (Corresponding Northern Ireland Grants) Order; and if he will make a statement; [50149]

  (25) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services Act 1986 (Exemption) Order; and if he will make a statement; [50165]

  (26) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Value Added Tax (Electronic Communications) (Incentive) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50182]

  (27) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Industrial and Provident Societies (Fees) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50146]
  976W
  (28) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Value Added Tax (Protective Helmets) Order; and if he will make a statement; [50156]

  (29) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 (Modification of Section 10(7)) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50137]

  (30) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Excise Duty (Payments in Case of Error or Delay) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50173]

  (31) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (Modification of Section 10(7)) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50136]

  (32) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Building Societies (General Charge and Fees) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50145]

  (33) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Gaming Duty (Amendment) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50177]

  (34) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Individual Savings Account (Amendment) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50141]

  (35) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Funds) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50126]

  (36) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Tax Credit Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50115]

  (37) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (Investment by Devolved Administrations) (Public-Private Partnership Business) Order; and if he will make a statement; [50151]

  (38) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Cider and Perry (Amendment) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50176]

  (39) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Value Added Tax (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50171]

  (40) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Industrial and Provident Societies (Credit Unions) (Fees) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50144]

  (41) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Taxes (Interest Rate) (Amendment No. 1) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50133]

  (42) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Buying Agency Trading Fund (Amendment) (Change of Name) Order; and if he will make a statement; [50140]
  977W
  (43) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Social Security (Contributions) (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50135]

  (44) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Stamp Duty Reserve Tax (Investment Exchanges and Clearing Houses) (The London Stock Exchange) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50130]

  (45) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Finance Act 2001 (Commencement No. 2 and Saving Provision) Order; and if he will make a statement; [50172]

  (46) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services Act 1986 (Electricity Industry Exemption) Order; and if he will make a statement; [50121]

  (47) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Air Passenger Duty (Amendment) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50181]

  (48) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Aggregates Levy (Registration and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50168]

  (49) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Stamp Duty and Stamp Duty Reserve Tax (Definition of Unit Trust Scheme and Open-ended Investment Company) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50138]

  (50) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Income Tax (Cash Equivalents of Car Fuel Benefits) Order; and if he will make a statement; [50120]

  (51) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Tax Credit Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendments No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50129]

  (52) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Credit Unions (Increase in Limits on Deposits by Persons Too Young to be Members and of Periods for the Repayment of Loans) Order; and if he will make a statement; [50148]

  (53) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Commencement No. 1) Order; and if he will make a statement; [50125]

  (54) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Collective Investment Schemes) Order; and if he will make a statement; [50164]

  (55) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Freeing of Funds) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50134]

  (56) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Investment Trusts (Approval of Accounting Methods for Creditor Relationships) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50127]
  978W
  (57) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Tobacco Products Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50178]

  (58) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Social Security (Contributions Amendment) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50116]

  (59) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the General Betting Duty Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50174]

  (60) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Excise Duty Points (Duty Suspended Movements of Excise Goods) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50175]

  (61) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Social Security (Contributions) (Amendment No. 3) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50123]

  (62) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Value Added Tax (Increase of Registration Limits) Order; and if he will make a statement; [50157]

  (63) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Value Added Tax (Vehicles Designed or Adapted for Handicapped Persons) Order; and if he will make a statement; [50152]

  (64) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Value Added Tax (Amendment) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50184]

  (65) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Statistics of Trade (Customs and Excise) (Amendment) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50170]

  (66) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Value Added Tax (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations: and if he will make a statement; [50183]

  (67) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Prescribed Markets and Qualifying Investments) Order; and if he will make a statement; [50161]

  (68) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Promotion of Collective Investment Schemes) (Exemptions) Order; and if he will make a statement; [50166]

  (69) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Friendly Societies (General Charge and Fees) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50142]

  (70) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Taxes (Interest Rate) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50131]

  (71) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Tax Credits (Miscellaneous Amendments No.8) (Northern Ireland) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50728]
  979W
  (72) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Disclosure of Confidential Information) (Amendment) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50725]

  (73) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Tax Credits (Miscellaneous Amendments No. 8) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50727]

  (74) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Tax Credits (Miscellaneous Amendments No. 9) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50723]

  (75) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Interim Provisions) Order; and if he will make a statement; [50719]

  (76) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Official Listing of Securities) (Amendment) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50721]

  (77) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Commencement No. 6) Order; and if he will make a statement; [50720]

  (78) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Tax Credits (Miscellaneous Amendments No. 9) (Northern Ireland) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [50724]

  (79) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Controllers) (Exemption) (No. 2) Order; and if he will make a statement; [50718]

  (80) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Value Added Tax (Refund of Tax) Order; and if he will make a statement; [50722]

  (81) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Air Passenger Duty and Other Indirect Taxes (Interest Rate) (Amendment) Order; and if he will make a statement; [50717]

  (82) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Gibraltar) Order; and if he will make a statement. [50726]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Costs associated with regulatory proposals are considered at the policy development stage. A Regulatory Impact Assessment is completed for regulatory proposals unless there are no or negligible costs, and sets out the impact, in terms of costs, benefits and risks of the proposed regulation which could affect businesses, charities or the voluntary sector. RIAs are available from the Libraries of the House and have been available on departmental websites from 1 January 2001.

  Sunset Clauses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Bills introduced by his Department in the last five years have contained sunset clauses; and what plans he has for the future use of such clauses. [49621]
  980W
  Ruth Kelly
  None has contained sunset clauses applying to the Bill as a whole. Section 107 of Finance Act 2001 incorporates a sunset clause (sub-section (5)) applying to that section alone. The need for any such provision would be considered on a case-by-case basis.

WALES

  Consignia
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what correspondence he has had with Consignia in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement on what was discussed; [49324]

  (2) what meetings he has had with Consignia in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement on what was discussed at these meetings. [49737]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have not received any correspondence or held any meetings with Consignia in the last 12 months.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the cost was to his Department of answering written parliamentary questions in 2001; and how that cost was calculated. [49104]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to you today 17 April 2002 by my right hon. Friend Robin Cook, Leader of the House.

  Ministerial Duties
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) site visits and (b) official openings (i) he and (ii) the Under- Secretary of State for Wales have attended in each month since July 1999. [49329]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Since July 1999 both my hon. Friends the Parliamentary Under-Secretaries and I have undertaken a wide range of visits and official engagements in Wales. These have included site visits and official openings as well as equally important visits to local authorities, police authorities, farms, tourism outlets, universities and voluntary organisations.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what meetings(a) he and (b) the Under-Secretary of State for Wales have had in the National Assembly for Wales since 17 March. [49330]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Since my Department has offices in the National Assembly building at Cardiff Bay, my hon. Friend and I meet regularly there both with Assembly Members and with other people.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what planned meetings(a) he and (b) the Under-Secretary of State for Wales have not attended in the National Assembly for Wales in the past month; and if he will state the reasons for non-attendance. [49331]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Both myself and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under Secretary attend a large number of formal and informal meetings in the National
  981W
  Assembly. However we are both aware that there will be an enormous number of meetings held in the Assembly and we are only invited to a small fraction of them.

  Foreign Trade Missions
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many foreign trade missions(a) he and (b) the Under-Secretary of State for Wales have attended in each month since July 1999. [49332]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  One, a mission led by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary Member to the Czech Republic. The reports of this visit from those companies accompanying my hon. Friend were very positive. The companies concerned have reported many new contacts made during the mission, which have directly resulted in some cases in requests for business partnerships and quotations for work in the Czech Republic.

  Structural Funds
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he had with the Treasury on ensuring that(a) the full amount of European Structural Funds is drawn down to the National Assembly for Wales above the block grant and (b) full public match funding for the projects over and above the Barnett formula is provided during the next period of the next Comprehensive Spending Review. [49812]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer my hon. Member to the answers I gave the House on 10 April 2002,Official Report, column 9.

  Criminal Damage
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the cost has been of criminal damage to his Department's buildings in each of the last four years. [44825]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Since my Department came into existence in July 1999 such costs have been de minimis.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  University Students
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many and what percentage of the British population attended(a) Oxford or Cambridge universities, (b) independent schools and (c) both, pursuant to his answer of 26 March 2002, Official Report, column 822W, on permanent secretaries in the Home Civil Service, what steps are being taken to ensure that there is equality of opportunity for appointment to senior posts; and if he will make a statement. [48702]

  Mr. Leslie
  The figures are not available in the form requested. However, in 2000 2.4 per cent. of students in higher education were studying at Oxford or Cambridge University, and 7 per cent. of pupils aged 14 were attending assisted or independent schools. Also in 2000, 45 per cent. of the 5,900 students entering Oxford or Cambridge University came from independent schools.
  982W
  All appointments to senior posts, as with all permanent civil service posts, are made on the basis of merit and an individual's ability to do the job.

  Consultants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 26 March 2002,Official Report, column 821W, regarding the use of external consultants, if he will list each of the projects, and the purpose for which external consultants were used, in each of the last four years. [50392]

  Mr. Leslie
  In the last four years my Department has used external consultants on a number of projects and assignments, which have included work on: e-Government; Y2K; civil service and public sector reform; the new civil service pensions scheme; social exclusion; and domestic IT systems.

  Details of individual projects are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many private finance initiative projects have been subject to refinancing after the contracts have been signed; and what has been the financial effect in each case. [50291]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Cabinet Office does not currently have any PFI projects for which contracts have been signed.

  Engineering Technology Board
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many civil servants have member status of key institutions which are represented on the Engineering Technology Board. [49299]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: I have been asked to reply.

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

PRIME MINISTER

  Lord Levy
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Prime Minister what are the official title and responsibilities of Lord Levy. [49890]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) on 9 July 2001,Official Report, column 350W.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Prime Minister how many Government press conferences Lord Levy has attended in his capacity as a representative of the Government. [49893]

  The Prime Minister
  Lord Levy has attended press conferences when accompanying me or the Foreign Secretary.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Prime Minister whether Lord Levy is obliged to report gifts, hospitality and services he receives in the course of his duties to a(a) permanent secretary and (b) representative of the Cabinet Secretariat. [49892]
  983W
  The Prime Minister
  Lord Levy passes any gifts of value to my office, which handles them according to the usual procedures for Government gifts. Any hospitality and services provided to Lord Levy in the course of his duties as my envoy are known to the FCO and the UK diplomatic missions involved.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Prime Minister if Lord Levy adheres to the Ministerial Code. [49891]

  The Prime Minister
  Lord Levy Is not a Minister.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list(a) each foreign visit that Lord Levy has undertaken acting as a representative of the Government and (b) the cost of each trip to public funds since 23 October 2001. [49895]

  The Prime Minister
  Lord Levy has visited Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany in his role as the Prime Minister's envoy since 23 October 2001. Lord Levy received no remuneration and travels at his own expense. The FCO and diplomatic missions overseas provide him with practical support, the cost of which is not separately itemised.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will list the speeches that Lord Levy has made since his appointment as a representative of the Government; [49894]

  (2) if speeches by Lord Levy on foreign policy issues are cleared by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary of State. [49897]

  The Prime Minister
  Yes. Lord Levy has given one public speech in his capacity as my envoy, to the Foreign Affairs and Finance Committees of the Venezuelan National Assembly during his visit to Venezuela in November 2000.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Prime Minister if Lord Levy informs the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary of State before making any foreign visit on behalf of the Government. [49896]

  The Prime Minister
  Lord Levy's foreign visits as my envoy are agreed in advance by the Foreign Secretary and me.

  Iraq
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister what Her Majesty's Government's requirements are of Iraq to avert the threat of military action. [49809]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to hon. Members at Prime Minister's Questions, and to the statement I gave to the House on Wednesday 10th April.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister what Her Majesty's Government's requirements are of Iraq for the lifting of economic sanctions. [49810]

  The Prime Minister
  The international community's requirements for lifting sanctions on Iraq is clearly laid out in UNSCR 687 (a copy of which can be found at www.un.org/Departments/unmovic/documents/docslist.htm).

  Free Travel and Accommodation
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions since 1997 he has accepted free travel and accommodation from overseas Governments. [48783]
  984W
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: It has been the policy of successive Governments to provide hospitality for official visits by Foreign Heads of State who come as guests of Her Majesty's Government.

  It has also been the policy of successive administrations that when Prime Ministers and Ministers make official visits abroad some accommodation and travel arrangements may be provided for by foreign Governments. Wherever costs to HMG occur they are laid out in the lists of overseas visits undertaken by Cabinet Ministers. These were placed in the Library of the House and published in the Official Report on 17 June 1999, columns 196–97W; on 28 July 2000, column 969W; and on 20 July 2001, column 467W.

  All travel is undertaken fully in accordance with the rules set out in the "Ministerial Code" and "Travel by Ministers", copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  With regard to my private visits all occasions have been registered in the Register of Members Interests.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Ethiopia
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what link the Government make between UK aid to Ethiopia and improved implementation of rights for women there. [46045]

  Clare Short
  We are developing a partnership with Ethiopia to help reduce the very high levels of poverty there. It is impossible to reduce poverty without empowering women and educating girls. Because, as Kofi Annan said, poverty has a woman's face and 70 per cent. of the poor of the world are female.

  Uganda
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement about progress in reducing international debt in Uganda. [46046]

  Hilary Benn
  Uganda became the first country to benefit under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (H1PC) Initiative, receiving $347 million dollars worth of debt relief in April 1998. Under the enhanced HIPC framework agreed in 1999, Uganda received additional debt relief of $656 million dollars when it reached its second Completion Point in May 2000, bringing its total HIPC relief to $1 billion dollars in net present value terms.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's future aid projects in Zimbabwe. [46047]

  Clare Short
  The people of Zimbabwe face a bleak future under President Mugabe's policies. We are working with the international community to urge policy changes in order to halt the catastrophic decline in agriculture, the economy, and social services. We are also providing
  985W
  humanitarian assistance through the UN and non-governmental channels, and helping to address the HIV/AIDS epidemic that affects one in three adults.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe. [46056]

  Clare Short
  The humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe is likely to worsen later this-year. The maize harvest in April and May is forecast to meet only 30 per cent. of national needs and the Zimbabwe Government has no credible plan to source food for its people. Drought has compounded the already serious problems caused by mismanagement of the economy, farming, and food markets. The UK is one of many urging policy changes on the part of the Zimbabwe Government, while providing emergency assistance through international and nongovernmental channels.

  Tanzania
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on aid to Tanzania. [46048]

  Clare Short
  We work with the Government of Tanzania to promote growth and reduce poverty. Britain is one of Tanzania's major development partners. Our bilateral assistance programme stands at £80 million for 2002–03. This goes towards strengthening economic and political governance, improving public services including health and education, and helping to provide key infrastructure such as water and roads in rural areas.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make statement on her policy on aid to Tanzania. [46051]

  Clare Short
  DFID works with the Government of Tanzania to promote growth and reduce poverty. Britain is one of Tanzania's major development partners. Our bilateral assistance programme stands at £80 million for 2002–03. This goes towards strengthening economic and political governance, improving public services including health and education, and helping to provide key infrastructure such as water and roads in rural areas.

  Afghanistan
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made on the implementation of the Bonn agreement with respect to women's human rights. [46049]

  Clare Short
  The inauguration of the Afghan Interim Authority laid the foundations for progress on realising women's rights in Afghanistan. This includes the formation of a Ministry for Women and the announcement of the procedures for the Emergency Loya Jirga in June 2002, which will include 11 per cent. women.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much aid has been given to Afghanistan by the Government since the conflict began. [46052]

  Clare Short
  My Department has committed over £60 million since September 2001 to support both the Afghan Interim Authority and the United Nations-led humanitarian and recovery effort. This assistance is being 986W
  channelled through United Nations agencies, the Red Cross movement and non-Governmental organisations. In addition, at the Tokyo Conference on the Reconstruction of Afghanistan, we pledged £200 million from the DFID budget over the next five years for both reconstruction and humanitarian assistance.

  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress is being made to ensure that humanitarian aid is reaching those in greatest need in Afghanistan. [46053]

  Clare Short
  Despite three years of drought and 23 years of conflict, and the recent insecurity and population displacement, widespread famine in Afghanistan has been averted by the early and effective actions of the humanitarian community. Over 6.6 million people have been provided with food aid over the past six months, as well as other essential relief supplies such as tents, clothing and cooking equipment. Pockets of need remain in isolated or insecure areas, but agencies are using every means available to deliver assistance to those in need.

  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. [46060]

  Clare Short
  The humanitarian situation remains fragile in Afghanistan. After 23 years of conflict and three years of drought, as well as continued limited access to some areas of Afghanistan, our assessment is that significant needs will remain for at least the coming year in challenging and volatile operating conditions. The latest assessment by the United Nations and the Afghan Interim Administration estimates that approximately 9 million Afghans, including over 1 million internally displaced persons (IDPs), will be in need of assistance in Afghanistan in 2002.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the multilateral institutions regarding the development of a PRSP for Afghanistan. [48794]

  Clare Short
  My Department is in contact with the multilateral institutions about Afghanistan's reconstruction, and is also providing support to the Afghan Assistance Coordination Authority, which developed the recently announced National Development Framework, to develop its capacity to manage the process of reconstruction. There are no immediate plans for the development of a PRSP for Afghanistan. However, the design and implementation of a National Development Framework could pave the way for a PRSP in due course.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) how much of the money committed to the reconstruction of Afghanistan over the next two years at Tokyo will be invested in the long-term funding of a civilian police force and judicial system; [48762]

  (2) how much of the money committed to the reconstruction of Afghanistan over the next two years at Tokyo will be invested in (a) police training programmes and (b) demobilisation, disarmament and reintegration of ex-combatants programmes. [48761]
  987W
  Clare Short
  The UK is closely engaged with the Afghan Interim Authority (AIA) and international partners to develop an integrated framework for security sector reform encompassing the police, military and judicial systems. This includes discussions with Germany, who are acting as the national lead on police training programmes in Afghanistan. We have so far allocated £7 million to the Afghan Reconstruction Trust Fund, which will be used to fund recurrent costs of the AIA's budget, including the civil police force, judicial system and the re-integration of combatants into society.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much of the money committed to the reconstruction of Afghanistan over the next two years in Tokyo has been contributed to UN agencies working on the ground in Afghanistan, broken down by(a) agency and (b) amount. [48760]

  Clare Short
  At the Tokyo conference on the reconstruction of Afghanistan in January 2002, my Department committed £200 million over the next five years (from 1 April 2002) towards the country's reconstruction and humanitarian needs. The specific allocation of these resources is currently being finalised.

  Since September 2001, we have contributed over £40 million to UN agencies working in Afghanistan. We intend to continue to contribute to humanitarian and recovery programmes implemented by UN agencies, as well as channelling funds through the new World Bank-run Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund, to which we are making an initial contribution of £7 million this financial year.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the UK's contribution to the three preparation committee for the world summit on sustainable development. [46050]

  Clare Short
  The Government's strategic objective for the World Summit is "to make globalisation work for sustainable development, especially for the poorest". We see the Summit as part of a broader process that includes the Millennium Declaration, the WTO Doha Development Agenda and the agreement reached at the Financing for Development Conference in Monterrey. Priority areas for action at Johannesburg include fresh water, sanitation and energy.

  Officials from DEFRA, the Cabinet Office, DTI, FCO, the Scottish Executive and my Department attended the 3rd Prep Com in New York from 25 March to 5 April. The UK worked closely within the EU and in discussion with other countries in pursuit of our objectives. We will continue to do so in the run up to the Ministerial PrepCom in Indonesia from 27 May to 7 June.

  Africa
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the future of the new partnership for African development. [46054]

  Clare Short
  The New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) is an African owned and led initiative that the UK Government strongly supports. Its 988W
  central principle is that it is Africa's responsibility to advance African development. NEPAD has identified as initial priorities the areas of peace and security and political and economic governance, which include an African peer review mechanism. I am placing in the Library of the House a recent speech outlining my views on priorities for NEPAD.

  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what policies her Department is pursuing to reduce poverty in Africa. [46064]

  Clare Short
  We are pursuing a wide range of policies to reduce poverty in Africa, including more and better aid and greater coherence among policies which affect African nations.

  Bilateral aid to sub-Saharan Africa stands at over £630 million a year and is increasingly provided in the form of assistance to reforming Governments——to enable them to implement nationally-owned poverty reduction strategies. Bilateral aid to Africa has almost doubled since 1997 and is set to rise further.

  The UK has been at the forefront of efforts to set up a system for providing debt relief to countries with unsustainable debt levels. So far 19 countries in sub-Saharan Africa have reached decision point on the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative, and are receiving interim debt relief and three have completed the HIIPC process and are receiving full debt relief; we are working with African countries and with the international community to tackle conflict in the continent, including seeking resolution of existing conflicts as well as finding ways to prevent future disputes; working with the international community and partner countries to tackle key development challenges, including fighting HIV/AIDS, investing in health and education, investing in rural economies and infrastructure, promoting private investment and sustainable development, improved information and communications technology, and improving governance and service delivery; promoting changes in policies of wealthy countries which impact on Africa's development, such as trade and market access, agricultural subsidies, arms proliferation, corruption and bribery by international companies; working with African leaders and institutions to promote closer partnerships between Africa and the rest of the world, and supporting African owned development strategies, including the New Partnership for Africa's Development; and providing funds to, and working with, multilateral bodies such as the World bank, International Monetary Fund, the European Commission, the African Development bank, United Nations agencies, and others.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the future of the new partnership for African development following the election results in Zimbabwe. [46065]

  Clare Short
  The situation in Zimbabwe highlights the need for African nations to improve standards of economic and political governance in the struggle to eliminate poverty. The proposed African peer review system has an important role to play. These proposals are being developed under the New Partnership for Africa's Development. It is clear that the Zimbabwe elections did not meet the standards already laid down by the Southern Africa Development Community.
  989W
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the new partnership for African development. [46068]

  Clare Short
  The New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) is one of the most important initiatives that has come from Africa in recent years. It represents a consensus among African countries that Africa should take responsibility for African development. NEPAD countries have identified economic and political governance and peace and security as their initial priorities.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of progress towards better governance and curbing corruption in Nigeria. [46055]

  Clare Short
  Nigeria has a history of poor governance and very high levels of corruption which is the major cause of very high levels of poverty in this oil rich country. Nigeria transferred from military to civilian rule in 1999 amidst considerable optimism for reform. Improvements in the performance of Government and impact on corruption have been slow.

  Freedom of speech has generally been observed but on corruption the Government have not done enough. The introduction of anti-corruption legislation and an anti-corruption commission are important but not sufficient. Strong implementation is needed.

  My Department has expanded its involvement in Nigeria significantly since 1999. We are focused on improved governance at federal, state and local level but Nigeria is a difficult place to work and progress is slow.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the actions of her Department to help strengthen democracy and economic recovery in Sierra Leone. [46057]

  Clare Short
  Much of our work in Sierra Leone aims to strengthen democracy and promote economic recovery. We are providing technical assistance to the National Election Commission to help ensure that May's Presidential elections are free and fair. We are providing long-term support for wide-ranging public sector reforms, working with the police, the Ministry of Defence, the judiciary and the Anti-Corruption Commission to promote democratic values, including greater transparency, accountability and the rule of law. A copy of my speech in Sierra Leone in February outlining our priorities for action will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Economic recovery is one of the two main planks of the Sierra Leone Government's interim poverty reduction strategy. We are providing technical support to develop this into a full strategy, guiding Government policy and expenditure over the next few years to promote growth and poverty reduction. And we have been successful in pressing for early relief on Sierra Leone's unsustainable international debt under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries initiative, a key step towards attracting renewed foreign investment.

  Mozambique
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her Department's priorities are for Mozambique within the context of the new development plan for Africa. [46058]

  Clare Short
  Our priority in Mozambique is to support the development, implementation and monitoring of the Government of Mozambique's own Action Plan for the Reduction of Absolute Poverty, known as the PARPA. Many of the central themes of the New Partnership for African Development, including the need for local ownership of development processes and for sound policies, better governance and accountability to citizens, are strongly reflected in the PARPA.

  The New Partnership for African Development also calls for donors to re-examine their ways of working and, in particular, to focus their resources on agreed priorities and to ensure that funds are increasingly channelled through Government's own systems. In Mozambique, DFID and other key donors have established a common mechanism for disbursing aid funds via the Government's central budget, supported by measures to improve capacity. This is vital to improve accountability and the effectiveness of aid, by ensuring that funds are allocated' via the budget to the priority areas set out in the PARPA, and we are committed to increasing the proportion of our Mozambique programme which is channelled in this way.

  Sudan
  Mr. Patrick Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's policy towards Sudan. [46061]

  Clare Short
  Sudan needs peace above all else. The UK is playing an increased part in the international effort to bring about peace. We have appointed a UK Special Representative for Sudan who will head a Unit made up of DFID and FCO staff. Their task will be to co-ordinate the UK contribution to the international efforts for peace in as many ways as possible.

  In the meantime we continue to address urgent humanitarian needs arising from conflict and drought, and we have provided over £40 million of humanitarian assistance to Sudan through NGOs and UN relief agencies since 1997. A more substantial UK development programme depends on an end to the war.

  Paul Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action her Department is taking to promote peace in Sudan. [46062]

  Clare Short
  Since my visit to Sudan in January my Department, in consultation with the FCO, has endeavoured to raise the profile of the peace process in Sudan within the international community, and identify areas where the UK can play a key role in promoting peace.

  We are making some progress and our influence is growing, particularly through the recent appointment of a Special UK Representative for Sudan, Alan Goulty. He will be supported by a joint FCO/DFID-staffed unit responsible for co-ordinating and participating in dialogue between both sides in the Sudanese conflict. The new unit

  991W
  will also ensure continuing links with other important international partners who share our wish for lasting peace in Sudan.

  Angola
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the humanitarian situation in Angola. [46063]

  Clare Short
  The humanitarian situation in Angola has deteriorated further over the last 12 months. The humanitarian suffering as a result of the internal conflict has been huge and millions of people are living in life-threatening conditions. NGOs are providing some basic services, but their capacity is heavily over-stretched.

  I hope that the recent peace agreement between the Government and UNITA will lead to an early improvement in the humanitarian situation in Angola. Some benefits are already apparent. Aid agencies have been able to use roads which have been unsafe for many years to get food to the needy. Easier access to the worst affected areas could dramatically ease the humanitarian crisis facing the country.

  I recently visited Luanda and discussed the humanitarian situation with the Government and the need to follow up the peace agreement with urgent measures to assist all displaced people, and to help them return to their homes as rapidly as possible.

  Somalia
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department has recently given to Somalia. [46066]

  Clare Short
  My Department continues to provide humanitarian assistance to Somalia in response to International Agency appeals and in support of NGO initiatives. We have provided over £3 million of assistance in the past year.

  The pursuit of a lasting peace agreement in Somalia remains a priority. We, with the international community, continue to support regional and national efforts to promote dialogue and political reconciliation in Somalia.

  Cameroon
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what effect the Monterrey talks will have on reducing poverty in Cameroon. [46067]

  Clare Short
  The Monterrey meeting did not discuss the situation in specific. Whether Cameroon will benefit from the extra development assistance pledged at Monterrey will depend on the degree to which the Government of Cameroon implements a strong poverty reduction strategy.

  Older People
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action her Department is taking to help older people living in developing countries. [46069]
  992W
  Clare Short
  My Department's aim is the elimination of poverty in poorer countries. Older people are often among the poorest.

  We adopt a rights-based approach. We seek to ensure that poor people are consulted on policies and decisions that affect them and use participatory methods to understand people's perception of their rights and the obstacles they face in accessing entitlements.

  We are supporting the African Union's leadership in promoting and guiding national policies on aging in their membership, working to strengthen Government and civil society capacity for addressing aging issues, and assisted the policy development process in the preparations for the Second World Assembly on Aging earlier this month.

  Palestine
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what projects in the West Bank and Gaza have received financial support from her Department during the last five years. [49912]

  Clare Short
  The following table lists the projects funded since 1997, the start date, and the total allocation.

  Project

  Allocation (£)

  1997

  Birzeit Food Quality Control Unit

  425,872

  Group Guaranteed Lending

  1,820,000

  Assistance to the Education Sector

  3,225,700

  Population Census

  80,000

  Newcastle University——Hydrology

  715,000

  Primary Health Care

  950,000

  Gender and Law

  1,628,128

  VAT Audit Training

  102,000

  1998

  Economic Protocol

  730,281

  Southern Area Water Appraisal

  45,000

  Strengthening Parliamentary Democracy

  775,000

  Rural Water Schemes Appraisal

  110,000

  Legal Sector Assistance——Phase 2

  70,252

  Health Management Strengthening

  3,600,000

  1999

  Bethlehem 2000 Doha Sewerage

  1,400,000

  Save the Children Fund Water and Sanitation Project——Dura

  1,678,092

  Save the Children Fund Water and Sanitation Project——Jabalia

  908,905

  Save the Children Fund Water and Sanitation Project——Anabta

  1,610,859

  Unification and Development of Legislation

  775,000

  Assistance to the Negotiations Affairs Department

  4,200,000

  Tele-Cardiology (Peres Centre)

  850,000

  Sustainable Management of West Bank and Gaza Aquifers

  1,971,308

  Gaza Midwifery

  545,000

  Hebron Water Access and Storage

  513,572

  Economy and Trade Policy Development

  495,057

  Save the Children Fund Water and Sanitation Project——Rafah

  2,013,836

  Census Reports

  92,500

  Legislative Council Library

  353,700

  2000

  Union of Palestinian Medical Relief Committees Women's Health

  987,000

  Public Administration Institutional Development

  1,900,000

  Primary Health Care Management——Phase 2

  1,550,000

  2001

  Participatory Poverty Assessment

  500,000

  Utilisation of Census Data

  700,000

  Union of Palestinian Medical Relief Committees Emergency Response

  520,000

  World Bank Employment Generation Programme

  1,500,000

  OXFAM Humanitarian Grant

  34,000

  Mental Health and Trauma Counselling

  450,000

  World Food Programme Appeal

  500,000

  993W

  Project

  Allocation (£)

  Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Grant

  300,000

  Supporting Literacy

  290,000

  Child Health Development

  1,215,000

  World Bank NGO Project——Phase 2

  4,500,000

  Reducing the Impact of Violence on Palestinian Children

  517,000

  Palestinian Hydrology Group——Water Sector Grant

  250,000

  Economic Policy Programme——Phase 3

  1,015,000

  Hebron Water Access and Storage——Phase 2

  5,000,000

  2002

  World Bank Emergency Services Support Programme (March)

  5,000,000

  Centre for European Policy Studies' Middle East and Euro-Med Research Programme

  135,500

  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what projects in the west bank and Gaza have received financial support from the European Union during the last five years. [49911]

  Clare Short
  The European Commission (EC) has compiled a table of its assistance provided to the Palestinians since 1994. I will place a copy in the House of Commons Library. The UK contributes 19 per cent. of the EC budget.

  Bushmeat
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions her Department has had with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about bushmeat. [48152]

  Clare Short
  DFID staff meet regularly with DEFRA staff for Inter-Departmental Conservation Co-Ordination meetings. They have not held formal discussions about bushmeat.

  New Partnership for Africa's Development
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with the Government of South Africa regarding the New Partnership for Africa's Development. [46059]

  Clare Short
  On 4 April, I held discussions in Johannesburg with Professor Wiseman Nkuhlu, President Mbeki's Economic Adviser, who chairs the Steering Committee of the New Partnership for African Development. I also gave a speech titled "Can Africa Halve Poverty by 2015?——the challenge for NEPAD" to which Professor Nkuhlu replied.

  Poverty Diseases
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what information she has received on how the European Union budget line B7–6211 on the fight against poverty diseases is to be spent. [48994]

  Clare Short
  The 2002 European Community budget includes euro 25.2 million for budget line B7–6211 (HIV/AIDS Policies and Programmes). Euro 20 million is intended to support specific projects with a focus on programmes targeting HIV prevention in youth. Euro 5.2 million will support a number of specific initiatives including the Barcelona HIV/AIDS conference,994W
  the Asia-Pacific Leadership Forum and the AIDS Vaccine Preparedness Project (with International AIDS Vaccine Initiative and the World bank).

  The Commission have tabled a draft regulation to cover the diseases of poverty (HIV/AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis) which sets out how it is proposed to spend the funds in budget line B7–6211 in 2003–06. This draft regulation is currently under consideration and is being discussed by UK officials with other member states.

  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much expenditure has been committed for this year of budget line B7–6211 (fight against poverty diseases) in the European Union; and what the projected spending under this budget is for this financial year. [48995]

  Clare Short
  Allocations for budget line B7–6211 (Aid for poverty-related diseases) for 2002 are:

  Commitments——euro 26,123,000

  Payments——euro 18,080,000.

  In addition, euro 60 million allocated to this budget line in 2001 will be paid to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria in 2002. There is no 2002 payment outturn projection available but by the end of February euro 0.8 million had been spent.

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when the 2002 Departmental Report will be published. [49590]

  Clare Short
  DFID's Departmental Report 2002 will be published on 24 April.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many Private Finance Initiative projects have been subject to refinancing after the contracts have been signed; and what has been the financial effect in each case. [50281]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on January 2002,Official Report, column 224W.

  Staff Pay
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the cost in 2001–02 was of the pay increase to staff in her Department, agencies and the non-departmental public bodies for which she is responsible; and what the cost of the forthcoming increase will be in 2002–03. [50420]

  Clare Short
  The overall cost of the pay increase 2001–02 was 4.75 per cent. for staff below the senior civil service and 4.6 per cent. for senior civil servants. The overall cost of the 2002–03 increase for staff below the senior civil service will be 3.9 per cent. We are unable to confirm the overall increase in 2002–03 for senior civil servants at this time as we are still assessing the impact of the new senior civil service pay system. The Department is not responsible for any agencies or non-departmental bodies.
  995W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for international Development what have been the total salary costs of each of the non-departmental public bodies for which she is responsible in each of the last five years. [50305]

  Clare Short
  We do not pay a salary to any of the members of our public bodies; they receive reimbursement of travel expenses.

  As from December 2001 an honorarium of £5,000 was paid to the Chair of the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission and from January 2002 and honorarium of £200 per meeting was paid to members who take part in a Scholarship Selection Committee.

  One of my civil servants holds an ex officio post on the Overseas Service Pensions Scheme Advisory Board. His salary costs, estimated as a percentage of the amount of time spent dealing with the work of the board, are as follows:

  £

  2001–02

  898.67

  2000–01

  878.92

  1999–2000

  1,059.23

  1998–99

  1,034.00

  1997–98

  971.96

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 26 March 2002,Official Report, column 872W, on the new deal for young people, how many people have been employed by her Department under the scheme in each of the last four years. [50425]

  Clare Short: The information is as follows:

  1998 and 1999: nil

  2000: two

  2001: two.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 26 March 2002,Official Report, column 872W, on the New Deal, how many people employed on the scheme in each of the last four years have subsequently found subsidised employment for more than 13 weeks. [50424]

  Clare Short
  None.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 26 March 2002,Official Report, column 887W, on correspondence, for what reasons 13 per cent. of letters from hon. Members and 10 per cent. of letters from members of the public were not answered within the target period. [50342]

  Clare Short
  Delays occurred for a variety of reasons. These include, while seeking agreement across Whitehall on a reply when more than one Department had an interest, when letters were transferred between Departments when the lead responsibility to reply was unclear and while waiting for an agreed standard line to campaign letters. Less frequently replies were not sent 996W
  within the target period because the information required was not immediately available, for example when seeking information from sources overseas.

  Creche Facilities
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 26 March 2002,Official Report, column 888W, on crèche facilities, what the costs are of the holiday playschemes at East Kilbride and London. [50423]

  Clare Short
  Further to my answer of 26 March 2002,Official Report, column 888W, on créche facilities, the costs of the holiday playschemes for our staff in East Kilbride and London are as follows:
  East Kilbride
  £10 annual registration fee for first child and £5 for each additional family member plus £8.50 per child per day, paid wholly by the parents.
  London
  £26 per child per day of which the parent and DFID pay £13 each. For 2001, the cost to DFID on subsidising DFID parents' use of the Whitehall Holiday Playscheme was £1,373.56.

  Overseas Projects
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the management of the Natural Resources System Programme. [49256]

  Clare Short
  The programme was most recently assessed last year. We concluded that the management is cost-effective and that good progress is being made towards achievement of the programme's objectives.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the Local and Regional Government Institutional Strengthening Project in the Ukraine. [49204]

  Clare Short
  DFID awarded the contract for the management of the Local and Regional Institutional Strengthening Project in 1999 and value for money was a key consideration when selecting the management agents by competitive tender. A comprehensive review of the performance of the project was conducted by the Eastern Europe and Central Asia Department in October 2001. The review team concluded that the project is successfully assisting central and regional government to deliver local services more efficiently and represents good value for money.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the Gansu Basic Education Project in China. [49160]

  Clare Short
  The Gansu Basic Education Project began implementation in December 1999 and currently is scheduled to end in December 2005. Regular monitoring visits are carried out by our Education Adviser in the DFID Beijing office. We also assess progress and value for money through six-monthly project reports and through our consultants. Specific annual review missions are also carried out by a DFID London and Beijing team to assess progress against the project purpose and outputs.
  997W
  The last annual review took place in October 2001. Good progress has been made. There has been an improvement in net enrolment rates. Drop-out rates have reduced and there has been an improvement in transfer rates from primary to junior middle school. A number of reform-orientated innovations piloted in the project have been noted by the Education Ministry and adopted by other western provinces (eg. participatory teacher training in Shaanxi), donors (eg. school development planning by UNICEF) and NGOs working in China (eg. Plan International). The next annual review will be the project's mid-term review in October.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the Sustainable Rural Livelihoods pilot project in Russia. [49183]

  Clare Short
  DFID awarded the contract for the management of the Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Pilot Project in 1999 and value for money was a key consideration when selecting the management agents by competitive tender. A mid-term review of the performance of the project was undertaken by a team of officials from DFID's Eastern Europe and Central Asia Department, accompanied by representatives from the World Bank and Russia's Federal Ministry of Agriculture in October 2001. The review team concluded that the Project was influencing policy making at both the regional and federal level, making a very useful contribution to the implementation of the land reform policy in Russia, helping with market reform in the rural sector, and represented good value for money.

  Reproductive Health
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on steps that have been taken in the European Union to strengthen the administration of reproductive health programmes; what staffing provisions are in place to deal with reproductive health programmes; and what the budgeted amount for this financial year is for such programmes. [48997]

  Clare Short
  One of my Department's objectives for EC reform has been to improve the mix of skills in the Commission in order to strengthen the EC's contribution to meeting the Millennium Development Goals. The Commission's central staffing for health issues has significantly increased over the past year. Within DG Development there are now four (and soon to be five) full-time health professionals, and a seconded UK health expert has a specific remit to lead on reproductive health. Within EuropeAid there are approximately 20 staff working exclusively on health.

  EC expenditure on reproductive health is provided both from a specific budget line (B7–6312) and——the majority——through country programmes in the form of projects and budget support. Budget line B7–6312 is intended to support innovative approaches and the development of new knowledge. Work is underway to link EC expenditure to specific categories but at present the Commission do not have full details of their overall
  998W
  spending on reproductive health. The allocations for budget line B7–6312 in the 2002 budget are:

  commitments1——8,584,000 euros

  payments——9,141,900 euros.

  1Commitments made in one year are usually implemented, ie paid, over a series of subsequent years.

  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement about(a) the budgeted amounts in the European Union for reproductive health spending in each of the past five years, (b) the actual spending and (c) steps being taken to ensure that budget allocation and expenditure match each other in the future. [48993]

  Clare Short
  EC expenditure on reproductive health is provided both from a specific budget line (B7–6312) and——the majority——through country programmes in the form of projects and budget support. Budget line B7–6312 is intended to support innovative approaches and the development of new knowledge. Work is under way to link EC expenditure to specific categories but at present the Commission do not have full details of their overall spending on reproductive health.

  Commitments and payments information for budget line B7–6312 is readily available only for the past four years.

  Reproductive health budget1

  euro million

  1999

  2000

  2001

  20022

  Commitment allocations3

  24.5

  19.9

  22.0

  8.6

  Commitment outturn

  9.3

  23.0

  21.3

  ——

  Payment allocations

  15.6

  23.9

  24.4

  9.7

  Payment outturn

  10.7

  20.7

  8.2

  1.9

  1HIV/AIDS included prior to 2001.

  2Outturn data as at end February 2002.

  3Commitments made in one year are usually implemented, ie paid, over a series of subsequent years.

  The EC are taking steps to increase their efficiency through a programme of reforms begun in 2000. The reforms include restructuring the Directorates General responsible for external actions and development, simplifying internal procedures and strengthening the capacity of country offices.

  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on what assessment she has made of whether the European Union is adequately organised and staffed to spend budget line B7–6312 on reproductive health. [48992]

  Clare Short
  My Department has not made any formal assessment of the Commission's organisation and staffing in relation to budget line B7–6312 (Aid for population and reproductive health care). However, we understand that three health professionals (one in DG Development and two in EuropeAid) have specific responsibility for management of this relatively small budget line1, and that during the evaluation of proposals they are supported by additional external technical experts.
  1Commitments allocation of euro 8.5 million for 2002.
  999W
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the performance of the European Union has been in spending this year's budget line B7–6312 of 8.6 million euros on reproductive health. [48991]

  Clare Short
  The EC financial year runs from 1 January. As of 28 February, no new commitments from the euro 8.6 million budgeted had yet been approved but euro 1.9 million of a possible euro 9.7 million payments had been spent.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Departmental Secondments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many staff in his Department have been seconded to jobs in the(a) private and (b) public sector in each of the last four years. [31779]

  Mr. McCartney
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Leslie) on the 7 February 2002,Official Report, column 1130W.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to amend the Housing Benefits (General) Regulations 1987. [37302]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Work has already begun on consolidating the housing benefit regulations and we plan to lay consolidated regulations before the House as soon as practicable.

  Technical amendments will also be made to reflect changes to other benefits. These include:
  Consequential changes that support the introduction of the loss of benefit provisions (known as Two Strikes) as contained in the Fraud Act 2001 and the Loss of Benefit Regulations 2001. Two Strikes is designed to be a deterrent against continued abuse of the benefit system by introducing a benefit sanction for those convicted separately of two benefit offences; housing benefit and council tax benefit are both covered by the Two Strikes provisions.
  The phased introduction from April 2002 of provisions under the Fraud Act 2001, including the powers for authorised officers from DWP and local authorities to require information from prescribed organisations such as banks and building societies. The information-gathering powers are covered by a statutory Code of Practice, which has been subject to a three-month public consultation and has been laid before both Houses of Parliament.
  With the introduction of the pension credit, we are making changes to remove the need to re-claim HB every year for pensioners aged 65 and over. For those over 65, we will be making awards for five years. The HB income threshold will also be raised by the maximum amount of the pension credit savings reward, to an expected level of £113.80 for single pensioners in 2003 and we will treat pensioners' capital more generously.

  In addition, the following amendments are also planned:
  Amendments to the regulations governing the eligibility of child care cost in the calculation of housing benefit;
  Amendments to bring the income related benefit provisions for war widowers' pensions in line with those for war widows; and
  Annual uprating student disregards and student rent deduction.
  1000W
  These proposed changes have been considered by local authority representatives in the Housing Benefit Regulation Scrutiny Group.

  Fair Trade
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether fair trade products are sold in his Department. [39829]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Department has outsourced catering services and the suppliers are responsible for sourcing products sold to staff. A review of the sale of fair trade products with the primary catering supplier on 13 March (during Fair Trade Fortnight) confirmed that fair trade products, such as coffee and tea, are sold in the Department. This review also confirmed that, while the supplier currently operates ethical, environmentally appropriate procurement policies, they are also working to develop and introduce a specific fair trade strategy. The Department supports this initiative and will monitor progress closely.

  Mr. Tom Mann
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the compatibility of the practice of sessional doctors sitting on tribunals with the European Convention on Human Rights, following the complaint lodged with the officer of the Benefits Agency by Mr. Tom Mann; and if he will make a statement. [39413]

  Maria Eagle
  My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor appoints appeal tribunal members. The qualification requirements are set out in regulations and do not exclude sessional doctors. The regulations preclude doctors from hearing an appeal in which they have previously given advice to a decision maker in the Department or prepared reports on a claimant's medical condition.

  Maternity Benefit
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many UK employees were in receipt of maternity benefit in each of the last five years. [44366]

  Maria Eagle
  There are two maternity payments available to expectant mothers in work; statutory maternity pay (SMP) paid by employers to their employees, and maternity allowance (MA) paid by the Department to employees who do not qualify for SMP, the self-employed and those women who have recently left their jobs.

  It is estimated that around 0.3 million1 women in Great Britain will have received SMP from their employer in 2001–02.

  The available information on maternity allowance awards to employees is in the table2.

  Number3,4

  5 April 1999 to 1 April 2000

  28,000

  6 April 1998 to 3 April 1999

  29,000

  7 April 1997 to 4 April 1998

  25,000

  1 April 1996 to 5 April 1997

  28,000

  1001W

  1The estimated number of SMP cases in 2001–02 is derived from case load estimates underlying forecast expenditure on SMP but may be subject to revision once information from the National Insurance Records System 2 is available.

  2Maternity allowance figures for 2000–01 are due to be released on 25 April.

  3Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  4Figures for Northern Ireland are not included. Social Security matters in Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

  Source:

  1 per cent. samples of the benefit computer system. The data excludes late notifications to the system, a small number of cases held clerically and is subject to a degree of sampling error.

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of those who left the gateway of the New Deal for Young People without proceeding to any of the options were in full time employment 12 months later. [44897]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Up to the end of December 2001, 68 per cent. of the young people who had left the New Deal for an unsubsidised job at the Gateway stage had not reclaimed jobseeker's allowance within 12 months.Source: New Deal Evaluation Database.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his latest estimate is of the(a) number and (b) proportion of people leaving the new deal for young people who were in sustained jobs (i) six and (ii) 12 months later. [44900]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Up to the end of December 2001, of the 264,100 new deal leavers who had moved into jobs, 214,700 (81 per cent.) had not reclaimed jobseeker's allowance within six months and 180,600 (68 per cent.) had not reclaimed it within 12 months.Note: The figures include those leavers who have been in employment for less than 6–12 months, but who have not yet returned to JSA.
  Source: New Deal Evaluation Database

  Welfare Bill
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of the total welfare bill was spent on those living on below 60 per cent. of median income in each year since 1997. [45285]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is not available.

  ONE Service
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if the four ONE pilots will cease to run after March. [46100]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  In October 2001 the ONE pilots in south-east Essex, Calderdale and Kirklees and part of the Clyde Coast and Renfrew pilot became Jobcentre Plus pathfinders. All of the remaining ONE pilots will continue to operate after March 2002 and will be converted to Jobcentre Plus offices in due course.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the New Deal for Lone Parents advertising campaign. [46470]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Advertising is one of the methods used to make sure that lone parents are aware of the help and support available through the new deal for lone parents (NDLP) to help them move into work.

  So far, over 300,000 lone parents have volunteered to participate in NDLP and over 130,000 of these have found work.

  Maladministration
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what payments have been made to individuals following findings of maladministration by ombudsmen with responsibility for agencies under remit of his Department in the last 12 months; and what plans, he has to review the powers to increase the level of awards that can be made. [47934]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Comprehensive details of financial redress paid in cases where the Parliamentary Ombudsman has completed an investigation and issued a formal report are not held centrally. However, based on such records as are available, payments amounting to £155,866.51 have been agreed in 94 cases during the 12 months to 31 March 2002. This figure excludes cases where a statutory resolution has been found.

  Each case is judged on its individual merits. Where the Ombudsman finds that maladministration has occurred and that financial redress is appropriate, the general principle adopted is to provide redress which is fair and reasonable in the light of all the facts and circumstances of the case. Where the complainant has suffered actual financial loss as a result of the maladministration, or faced costs which would otherwise not have been incurred (and which are reasonable in the circumstances), the general approach is to restore the complainant to the position he or she would have enjoyed had the maladministration not occurred. Where there is not an actual financial loss or cost, careful judgment is used to decide whether financial redress is appropriate and, if so, what constitutes fair and reasonable financial redress. There are no plans to alter these principles.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he expects the new CSA rules to come into force for new cases. [47818]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 20 March 2002,Official Report, columns 315–16.

  Action Teams for Jobs
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in which locations Action Teams for Jobs are in operation. [47926]
  1003W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The 63 Action Teams for Jobs are in the following locations.

  Barnsley and Rotherham

  Birmingham North

  Birmingham South

  Blackburn with Darwen

  Blaenau Gwent

  Brent

  Brighton and Hove

  Caerphilly

  Chester-le-Street

  Cornwall

  Doncaster

  Dundee, City of

  Easington

  East Ayrshire

  Greenwich

  Glasgow Central

  Glasgow North

  Glasgow South

  Glasgow West

  Hackney

  Halton

  Hartlepool

  Haringey

  Highlands and Islands

  Islington

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  Knowsley

  Lambeth

  Lewisham

  Liverpool Central

  Liverpool North

  Liverpool South

  Manchester Central

  Manchester North

  Manchester South

  Merthyr Tydfil

  Middlesbrough

  Neath Port Talbot

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  Newham

  North Lanarkshire

  North West Wales

  Nottingham. City of

  Pembrokeshire

  Plymouth

  Redcar and Cleveland

  1004W

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  Salford

  Sefton

  Sheffield

  South Tyneside

  Southwark

  St. Helens

  Stockton-on-Tees

  Sunderland

  Thanet

  Tower Hamlets

  Waltham Forest

  Wansbeck

  West Dunbartonshire

  Wales Objective One1

  Wirral

  Wolverhampton

  1Covers areas of Wales with European Social Fund Objective One status which are not part of another Action Team. Includes selected wards in Bridgend, Carmarthenshire, Ceredigion, Torfaen and Swansea.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what new initiatives his Department has taken in 2001–02 to assist in achieving its Public Service Agreement targets. [47178]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Information about progress on PSA targets will be published in the Department's 2002 departmental report.

  Medical Assessment
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what action he is taking to harmonise and disseminate national definitions of disability for statistical and policy purposes. [48815]

  Maria Eagle
  Different definitions of disability and conditions of entitlement are in use within UK legislation and for relevant schemes and services. There are no plans to seek to harmonise these because they serve different purposes and reflect the fact that disability affects people in many different ways and to greatly differing degrees.

  Vocational Rehabilitation
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to enhance input by psychologists into the vocational rehabilitation service. [48820]

  Maria Eagle
  Jobcentre Plus employs approximately 80 occupational psychologists in its disability service. Their role is partly to help clients with disabilities who have particular problems in finding or keeping suitable employment, and partly to assist the network of disability employment advisers and access to work advisers. The psychologists' work has been reviewed over the past three years. As a result improvements have been introduced, especially to their work with clients who have mental health problems, dyslexia and other specific learning disabilities and with people who have sustained head injuries.

  Job Retention
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a progress statement on the job retention pilot studies. [48821]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Nine organisations were funded to develop and test the feasibility of their proposals for the job retention pilot studies during the three months ending on 15 March 2002. The detailed bids are currently being considered, together with a report on the evaluation methodology.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he intends to reply to the letter dated 4 March from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan regarding his constituent, Mr. Light, of Banffshire. [50072]

  Alan Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  I am currently considering the matters raised by the hon. Member as they more appropriately fall within my responsibility and will write to him shortly.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the rise in the minimum income guarantee has been since 1997 after taking account of inflation. [45913]
  1006W
  Mr. McCartney
  [pursuant to the reply, 10 April 2002, c. 228W]: The minimum income guarantee was introduced in 1999. Since 1999, annual rises in the minimum income guarantee have been linked to earnings. The rises, after taking into account inflation increases and the differences in the premiums paid, are shown in the table.

  Percentage increase

  Single

  Couple

  April 1997

  n/a

  n/a

  April 1998

  0.0

  0.0

  April 1999

  4.4

  4.5

  April 2000

  3.0

  3.0

  April 2001

  15.9

  13.7

  April 2002

  4.8

  4.9

  Departmental Projects
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which of his Department's projects have received sponsorship since 1997, including(a) details of the sponsor, (b) the nature of the project, (c) the date of the project, (d) the total cost of the project and (e) the amount of money involved in the sponsorship deal. [48400]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 11 April 2002]: In line with the Government's commitment in its response to the Sixth report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, details on individual amounts of sponsorship valued at more than £5,000 will be disclosed in Departmental annual reports.

HEALTH

  Public Services
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what meetings he has had and representations he has received, by date and subject, from Members of the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Assembly Executive, regarding the increased use of private sector funding on delivering public services, broken down by date and subject. [43219]

  Mr. Hutton
  No meetings have been held with Members of the National Assembly for Wales, or the Welsh Assembly Executive, nor representations received

  £ million

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  12001–02

  Nurse and other staff recruitment

  1.43

  1.30

  4.90

  4.21

  4.90

  6.00

  Organ and blood donation

  0.38

  0.62

  2.47

  20.69

  0.43

  0.18

  Mental health

  ——

  ——

  ——

  ——

  ——

  0.18

  Smoking cessation

  ——

  ——

  ——

  36.18

  8.97

  47.79

  Anti-fraud

  ——

  ——

  0.38

  ——

  0.18

  0

  Flu immunisation

  ——

  ——

  ——

  ——

  2.01

  1.45

  NHS Direct

  ——

  0.12

  0.78

  1.24

  0.28

  1.25

  Appropriately prescribed medicine (ie antibiotics)

  ——

  ——

  ——

  0.91

  ——

  0.44

  Others

  0.58

  ——

  ——

  2.08

  4.20

  2.52

  Total

  2.39

  2.04

  8.53

  15.31

  20.97

  19.81

  1Planned (to be updated).

  2The Department's spend on blood donation advertising reduced in 1999–2000 because most of this activity was funded directly by the National Blood Authority, who took over full responsibility for this expenditure on 1 April 2000.

  3Prior to 1999–2000 advertising on smoking was undertaken by the Health Education Authority (HEA).

  4Including Asian specialist press

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the publicity and advertising campaigns run by his Department in each of the last four years, specifying the(a) purpose, (b) cost to public funds, (c) number of staff involved and (d) method of evaluation in each case. [39101]

  Campaign and purpose

  Evaluation

  Antibiotics

  To encourage the public not to over use antibiotics and thus reduce their effectiveness

  Pre and post tracking research of advertising campaign

  Blood donation1

  To encourage more members of the general public to become blood donors

  The number of people registering to give blood, calls to the blood donation helpline and amount of blood given

  CALM

  To promote the CALM mental health helpline to young men on the onset of depression

  Feedback from regional co-ordinators in the active zones, calls to the helpline, pre and post launch campaign research

  Drugs

  To publicise services provided by National Drugs Helpline

  Calls to the helpline monitored

  Flu

  To advise general public that those at risk (people 65 and over and others suffering from specified illnesses) should see their GP for a free flu jab

  Returns from health authorities on immunisation take up among the target age group. Pre and post campaign tracking research

  1008W
  from them regarding the increased use of private sector funding on delivering public services.

  Advertising
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent on advertising by his Department in each of the last five years; and if he will give a breakdown of the largest items of expenditure in each year. [37607]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 20 February 2002]: Major advertising campaigns commissioned by the Communications Directorate are in the table as follows.

  Ms Blears
  I refer the hon. Member to an answer I gave the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) today, which listed, with costs the major advertising campaigns run by the Department for the period in question.

  The table shows the purpose and method of evaluation for each campaign.
  1009W

  Campaign and purpose

  Evaluation

  Mind Out

  Campaign to reduce the stigma associated with all those with mental health problems

  Quality and quantity of editorial coverage generated; assessment of attitude shifts identified by key campaign partners

  NHS including nurse recruitment

  To encourage new recruits to apply for training in nursing and other professions in the NHS and those who are qualified and have left to return to the NHS

  Volume and analysis of helpline response. Pre and post campaign tracking, analysis of volume and quality of recruitment and retention related editorial. Returner recruitment assessed through report from regional offices

  NHS Direct

  Promotion of 24-hour nurse led health advice telephone service

  Pre and post tracking research of advertising campaign and number of calls to helpline

  Organ donation

  To encourage more people to enlist on the Organ Donor Register

  Pre and post campaign tracking research of advertising campaign and calls to the Organ Donation Literature Line

  Prescription fraud

  Advertising, publications and helpline to inform service providers and users about the new penalty charges enforced for fraudulent claims for free or reduced costs of treatment

  Analysis of helpline response

  Preventing teenage pregnancy

  National campaign aimed at halving the rate of teenage conceptions among under——18s by 2010 and lower the incidence of STIs among 13 to 18——year——olds

  Pre and post advertising tracking research, calls to Sexwise helpline and visits to the related websites

  Adult sexual health

  To decrease the rates of sexually transmitted infections among 18 to 30——year——olds and raise awareness and understanding, providing information so people can make informed choices about their own sexual health

  Analysis of calls to helpline, visits to related website and some pre and post advertising tracking research

  Social work recruitment

  National advertising and marketing campaign to encourage applications to be a social worker

  Volume and analysis of helpline response, qualitative and quantitative analysis of recruitment related editorial generated. In the long term assessment of impact on the number of applications

  Smoking2

  To encourage smokers to give up smoking

  Pre and post tracking research of advertising campaign and calls to the NHS Smoking Helpline

  Walk in centres

  To raise awareness of a new health care choice

  Number of visitors to centres measured constantly to track changes. Patients asked how they found out about the service on arrival at centres. Street poll of 5,000 patients outside four NHS walk in centres to discover views on service conducted 2000–01

  Winter

  To encourage the general public to make appropriate use of NHS services and other sources of health advice including NHS Direct

  Pre and post tracking research of advertising campaign and number of calls to NHS Direct

  1The National Blood Authority (NBA) took over full responsibility of this campaign on 1 April 2000.

  2Prior to 1999–2000 advertising on smoking was undertaken by the Health Education Authority.

  It is not possible to provide a breakdown of staff by each individual campaign. However the numbers of staff employed in the project management of advertising campaigns and publicity campaigns on 1 January each year are as follows:

  1 January 1999: 15

  1 January 2000: 21

  1 January 2001: 281

  1 January 2002: 31.

  1The Department took on direct control for a number of public health campaigns including Smoking Cessation with the closure of the Health Education Authority on 31 March 2000.

  Children's Services
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many whole time equivalent NHS(a) consultant child and adolescent psychiatrists, (b) clinical psychologists working with children and (c) psychotherapists worked with children in each year since 1997. [41717]

  Jacqui Smith
  Whole time equivalent numbers for child and adolescent psychiatrists, clinical psychologists and psychotherapists are shown in the tables. Information is not collected about the numbers of clinical psychologists and psychotherapists who work with children.
  1011W

  Hospital medical staff within the child and adolescent psychiatry and psychotherapy specialties

  Whole time equivalent

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  England at 30 September

  All staff

  640

  650

  670

  710

  700

  of which

  Consultant

  390

  400

  420

  420

  420

  Psychotherapy

  All staff

  140

  130

  120

  120

  120

  of which

  Consultant

  80

  90

  90

  80

  80

  NHS hospital and community health services (HCHS): qualified scientific, therapeutic and technical staff in the specified areas of work

  Whole time equivalents

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  England at 30 September

  Clinical psychology

  3,380

  3,660

  3,760

  4,050

  4,400

  Psychotherapy

  320

  350

  360

  410

  470

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental work force census

  Heroin Addicts
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the estimated number of heroin addicts is in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) coalfield constituencies. [41807]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information is not available in the form requested. The information available for users presenting to drug misuse agencies (including both doctors and other agencies), with heroin as their main drug of misuse in the six-month period ending 31 March 2001 is given in the table.

  Number of people presenting for treatment at drug agencies, with heroin reported as the main drug, during the six-month period ending 31 March 2001

  Area of treatment

  Number of users

  Great Britain

  26,424

  England

  22,431

  Health authorities in England classified as "coalfields"

  3,669

  Notes:

  1. The data are derived from the Department of Health Statistical Bulletin "Statistics from the Regional Drug Misuse Databases for six months ending March 2001".

  2. The Office for National Statistics have derived an area classification of health authorities for Great Britain which includes the category "coalfields" published as "The ONS classification of local and health authorities of Great Britain: revised for authorities in 1999——ISBN 1 85774 355 5".

  Intermediate Care
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the allocation of funds for intermediate care planned for each financial year; and if he will list the commitments to spend made by each(a) health authority, (b) health trust and (c) Government office region. [42951]
  1012W
  Jacqui Smith
  The NHS Plan announced an extra £900 million annually by 2003–04 for new intermediate care and related services to promote independence and improve quality of care for older people.

  Further details are in HSC 2002–01, LAC (2001) 01, published in January 2001, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Spending commitments for future years are not available by health authority (HA), trust and region. However, annual performance monitoring within a given financial year provides details of expenditure by HA and region and projections to the relevant year-end.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the number of parliamentary questions yet to be answered by his Department; how many members(a) are waiting for replies to parliamentary questions and (b) have suffered delays of six months or more in waiting for responses to parliamentary questions; and how many parliamentary questions tabled before the Christmas Recess 2001 have yet to be answered by his Department; [44448]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the investigation into the falsification of answers to parliamentary questions within his Department; what measures he will take to ensure that parliamentary questions are replied to promptly; and what measures he will take to ensure that falsification of answers to parliamentary questions does not recur. [44449]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Milburn) gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) on 25 March 2002,Official Report, column 756–59W.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to WPQ numbers(a) 9416, (b) 9403, (c) 8710, (d) 10282, (e) 10262, (f) 11000, (g) 10998, (h) 11957, (i) 12914, (j) 12918 and (k) 13108. [17827]

  Ms Blears
  [pursuant to the reply, 5 March 2002, c. 275W]: Replies to the hon. Member's questions were given as follows:

  WPQ number

  Date

  Official Report column

  9416

  21 January 2002

  665W

  8710

  21 January 2002

  665W

  9403

  20 November 2001

  242W

  10262

  15 January 2002

  248W

  10282

  18 January 2002

  530W

  11000

  23 November 2001

  568W

  10998

  5 December 2001

  363W

  11957

  25 February 2002

  938W

  12914

  12 March 2002

  992W

  12918

  25 February 2002

  934–36W

  13108

  31 January 2002

  560W

  Justices of the Peace
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many members of staff at his Department are Justices
  1013W
  of the Peace; and if he has a strategy for his Department to encourage members of staff to become Justices of the Peace. [44547]

  Ms Blears
  The Department does not record details of civil service staff who are Justices of the Peace.

  Section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) requires employers to allow their staff reasonable time off for public duties. The Civil Service Management Code (paragraph 9.2.5) also requires Departments to allow time off for attendance required by section 50 of the ERA 1996.

  Special leave policy rests with individual Departments and agencies who are free to decide on the amounts of special leave, the circumstances for which it is granted and whether such leave is paid or unpaid.

  As part of its commitment to encouraging staff to be active in the community, the Department has a special leave policy that allows staff who are Justices of the Peace an annual limit of 18 days paid leave as well as reasonable time for travelling to permit up to 26 attendances.

  Mental Health
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the pledged(a) secure beds, (b) 24-hour staffed beds and (c) assertive outreach teams with patient access available 24 hours a day, seven days a week for those with complex mental health needs are in place; and how many he estimates there will be by April. [46285]

  Jacqui Smith
  The targets set in the NHS Plan for April 2001 were all achieved on time. These included over 500 additional secure beds, over 320 additional 24-hour staffed beds, 170 assertive outreach teams and access to services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for all those with complex mental health needs. At April 2002 the latest forecast figures show that there will be:

  199 assertive outreach teams in operation

  4,435 24-hour staffed beds.

  Forecast figures for the number of secure psychiatric beds at April 2002 have not been collected. The outturn figure for beds at various levels of security for 2000–01 was 4,860. Current monitoring arrangements for secure beds do not include provision of forecasts. The mental health service mapping provides numbers of secure beds as at September 2001, and the bed availability and occupancy annual returns provide bed occupancy rates by ward classification, of which "secure unit: other ages" is a mental illness ward classification.

  NHS Finance
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much money was lent under the NHS brokerage system in each of the last five years; and(a) by whom and (b) to whom; [45846]

  (2) how much money is owed and (a) by whom and (b) to whom, under the NHS brokerage system; [45847]

  (3) how much money was repaid under the NHS brokerage system in each of the last five years; and (a) by whom and (b) to whom. [45845]
  1014W
  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested has been placed in the Library. All brokerage within the national health service is managed centrally and not between individual health bodies. Information for 2001–02 is not yet finalised.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the target time is for his Department to reply to letters from(a) hon. Members and (b) members of the public; and what the time is that it has been taking his Department to reply to letters from (i) hon. Members and (ii) members of the public in the last six months. [46972]

  Ms Blears
  Information is published annually by the Cabinet Office on the volume of correspondence from Members of Parliament received by Ministers and agency chief executives, Departments' and Agencies' handling targets, and their performance in meeting these targets. The report for 2001 is due to be published shortly.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will respond to the letter from the hon. Member for Leominster dated 17 January, concerning the payment of widows' pensions under the NHS Pension Scheme. [48694]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The Department has no record of receiving this correspondence. The Department's Ministerial Correspondence Unit is seeking a copy of this correspondence.

  Cottage Hospitals
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the cottage hospitals which have been(a) opened and (b) closed since 1997. [47019]

  Ms Blears
  Information on hospital closures ceased to be collected in 1991 following the introduction of the national health service internal market and trusts.

  Community and cottage hospitals play an important role in providing care closer to home, for example in carrying out day surgery, minor procedures and caring for patients in the recuperative phases of recovery from illness or accident. These hospitals will help us meet our target of introducing an additional 5,000 intermediate care beds by 2004, of which more than 2,400 are already in place.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds in cottage hospitals there were in each of the past five years. [47029]

  Ms Blears
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Data on bed numbers are collected annually at national health service trust level, rather than by individual hospital site. Information on bed availability and occupancy is available on the Department's website www.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity.

  New Hospital Beds
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many extra NHS beds have been introduced in(a) total, (b) general and (c) acute wards since the publication of the national plan. [47828]
  1015W
  Mr. Hutton
  In the general and acute sector in England, the number of beds available in 2000–01 increased by over 700 to 135,794 compared with the year before. This represents a third of the target of 2,100 extra general and acute beds set out in the NHS Plan. Further information is shown in the table.

  Average daily number of available beds by certain sectors, England, 1999–2000 to 2000–01

  Available beds

  Sector

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Net change

  All ward types

  186,290

  186,091

  -199

  Acute

  107,218

  107,956

  738

  Geriatric

  27,862

  27,838

  -24

  General and acute (acute plus geriatric)

  135,080

  135,794

  714

  Source:

  Department of Health form KHO3

  Hospital Food
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many unannounced inspections of the quality of hospital food have taken place since the introduction of the NHS National Plan. [47004]

  Ms Blears
  The NHS Plan said that there would be unannounced inspections of the quality of hospital food.

  These inspections have been undertaken by patient environment action teams (PEATs) as part of the wider assessment of the quality of the environment in which patients are treated

  The programme of PEAT visits commenced in 2000, and a further round of inspections is currently in process. To date a total of 1,060 unannounced inspections of the quality of food have been carried out, this figure will rise to 1,172 by the end of the current round of PEAT inspections.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many requests for each category of snack boxes there have been, expressed as a percentage of the overall number of requests; [47030]

  (2) what percentage of hospitals make the full range of snack boxes available 24 hours of the day. [47031]

  Ms Blears
  The requirement for hospitals to introduce a 24-hour catering service was included in the NHS Plan. The better hospital food programme, launched on 8 May 2001, set out details of the 24-hour service which should include a ward kitchen service, a snack box service and, by 2004, a light bite service. £4 million was issued to NHS trusts in January 2001 to assist in setting up 24-hour services.

  The implementation pack issued to all national health service trusts in support of the better hospital food programme included three examples of snack boxes. However hospitals are not required to introduce these exact versions——each hospital should determine the types of snack box(es) used, and their precise contents, taking into account patient-mix and the advice of catering managers, nursing staff and dietitians.

  Information relating to the types of snack boxes in use, and the numbers of requests, is not collected centrally.
  1016W
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what role dieticians play in(a) advising and (b) checking on nutritional values in food in the NHS. [47006]

  Ms Blears
  The better hospital food programme, announced in the NHS Plan, is a long-term initiative designed to improve the quality, availability of and access to food in NHS hospitals. It is supported by the investment of £38.5 million over four years.

  It is increasingly being recognised that ensuring patients, many of whom enter hospital malnourished or over-nourished, receive and can benefit form adequate and appropriate nutrition plays a key part in the overall healthcare they receive and can lead to speedier recovery, reduced length of stay, reduced incidence of post operative complications such as pressure sores and poor wound healing and may lead to reduced expenditure on drugs, particularly antibiotics, used to combat these.

  Hospital dieticians have a crucial role to play in ensuring that these benefits are realised through: advising on the formulation of hospital menus to ensure that nutritional standards are delivered for all patients, including those with specific dietary need; monitoring the nutritional intake of patients, particularly those at greatest risk; and advising individual patients on the nutritional values of foods, in order to help them make informed choices about their food intake to meet both their dietary needs and those of their clinical condition.

  To this end NHS Estates has been working closely with representatives of the British Dietetic Association who are developing a consensus statement on "Food Service and the State Registered Dietitian" which will cover standards for the professions in a number of key areas: nutritional analysis of recipes and menus; diet coding definitions and standard glossary of terms. This will be a key document enabling standard criteria to be applied a cross the NHS.

  Additionally, an ad hoc working group which includes nutritional experts, representatives of the British Dietetic Association, NHS dietitians and nurses is devising principles for nutritional screening which will facilitate the measurement of both under and over nutrition on entry to hospital. This will allow early intervention of clinical and dietetic staff to address problems which, unchecked, may lead to prolonged ill health. In addition research will be undertaken to establish the clinical outcomes of improved nutrition and to provide a tool to ensure that the nutritional aims of the better hospital food programme are taking effect.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of NHS trusts have introduced a 24-hour catering service. [47829]

  Ms Blears
  The requirement for hospitals to introduce a 24-hour catering service was included in the NHS Plan. The better hospital food programme, launched on 8 May 2001, set out details of the 24-hour service which should include a ward kitchen service, a snack box service and, by 2004, a light bite service. £4 million was issued to national health service trusts in January 2001 to assist in setting up 24-hour services.

  The most recent returns from acute NHS trusts shows that 69 per cent. of hospitals have introduced ward kitchen services and 66 per cent. provide snack boxes. No figures are yet available regarding the number that have introduced light bite services.
  1017W
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of hospitals have successfully adopted the new NHS menus. [47024]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Better Hospital Food programme, which was launched in May 2001, is supported by the provision of £38.5 million over four years. It is a longer term initiative designed to improve the quality, availability of and access to food in hospitals.

  The programme has set a number of targets for the national health service to achieve, including the incorporation into menus of dishes designed for the NHS by a team of leading chefs.

  Latest returns from acute hospitals show that by the end of April two thirds of hospitals will include at least three of the 'leading chef' dishes in their menus.

  The majority of those hospitals which are still working towards this target are those which use external suppliers. NHS Estates are working closely with the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency and the external manufacturers to increase the availability of 'leading chef' dishes from these sources so that hospitals with delivered meals services can move swiftly to incorporate them in their menus.

  Toothbrushes
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many free toothbrushes have been handed out under the Brushing for Life campaign; and what has been the cost per toothbrush. [47837]

  Mr. Hutton
  To date 186,050 packs have been distributed as part of the Brushing for Life scheme. Each pack contains a toothbrush, a tube of toothpaste and a leaflet.

  The toothbrushes in the packs cost 44 pence each.

  Cystic Fibrosis
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason adult cystic fibrosis sufferers are not entitled to free prescriptions. [47863]

  Ms Blears
  No adult is entitled to free prescriptions unless they fall within one of the following groups:

  people aged 18 who are in full-time education;

  people aged 60 and over;

  people who hold an exemption certificate on maternity or medical grounds;

  people who get, or whose partner gets, income support, income-based jobseeker's allowance, full tax credit or credit reduced by £72.20 or less;

  people who are named on an HC2 charges certificate issued under the NHS low income scheme.

  Cystic fibrosis sufferers who fall into these categories will be entitled to free prescriptions, but cystic fibrosis is not one of the conditions which, of itself, can lead to the issue of a medical exemption certificate. These conditions are set out in the National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000/620).

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 15 March 2002,Official Report, column 1291W, on cystic fibrosis, what plans to has to reduce the number of conditions which entitle the sufferer to free prescriptions. [47129]
  1018W
  Ms Blears
  We have no plans to reduce the number of conditions which entitle the sufferer to free prescriptions.

  Cleanliness
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how the board member nominated to take personal responsibility for monitoring hospital cleanliness will be held responsible for any failure; [47008]

  (2) what percentage of NHS trusts have not nominated a board member to take responsibility for monitoring hospital cleanliness. [47007]

  Ms Blears
  It was a requirement of the NHS Plan that every national health service trust should nominate a board member to take responsibility for monitoring hospital cleanliness and report to the board following regular check-ups. Each NHS trust board takes collective responsibility, and overall accountability rests with the chief executive. The new national standards of cleanliness for the NHS, issued by NHS Estates in April 2001, set out clearly what is required.

  There have been no reported instances where a trust has failed to nominate a board member to monitor hospital cleanliness.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the National Standards of Cleanliness for the national health service applies to the cleanliness of individual patients; and if he will make a statement. [48890]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Standards of Cleanliness for the national health service apply to buildings in which health care is delivered, not patients.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been waiting over 15 months on the in-patient waiting list for(a) each quarter since March 1997 and (b) each month since January 2001. [47856]

  Mr. Hutton
  The data requested are shown in the tables. Table 1 provides quarterly statistics from March 1997 onwards and table 2 provides monthly statistics from January 2001 onwards.

  Table 1: Quarterly statistics——number of patients on the in-patient waiting list waiting over 15 months on the last day of the period: England (HA based)

  Year/quarter

  15 months plus

  1996–97

  4

  6,000

  1997–98

  1

  11,000

  2

  15,000

  3

  18,000

  4

  17,000

  1998–99

  1

  18,000

  2

  15,000

  3

  14,000

  4

  10,000

  1999–2000

  1

  12,000

  2

  12,000

  3

  13,000

  4

  12,000

  1019W

  Table 1: Quarterly statistics——number of patients on the in-patient waiting list waiting over 15 months on the last day of the period: England (HA based)

  Year/quarter

  15 months plus

  2000–01

  1

  13,000

  2

  13,000

  3

  13,000

  4

  11,000

  2001–02

  1

  12,000

  2

  10,000

  3

  4,000

  Source:

  DH QF01 return

  Table 2: Monthly statistics——number of patients on the in-patient waiting list waiting over 15 months at the end of the period: England (HA based)

  Year/month

  15 months plus

  2000–01

  January

  13,000

  February

  13,000

  March

  11,000

  2001–02

  April

  11,000

  May

  11,000

  June

  12,000

  July

  11,000

  August

  11,000

  September

  10,000

  October

  8,000

  November

  4,000

  December

  4,000

  2002–03

  January

  3,000

  February

  2,000

  Source:

  DH monthly waiting list returns

  NHS Funding
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in relation to the £120 million in his Department's spring supplementary estimate 2001–02 designated for take-up of end year flexibility, how much relates to(a) NHS trusts, (b) health authorities and (c) other NHS bodies; and which trusts, health authorities and other bodies received end year flexibility and the amount involved in each case. [46412]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 26 March 2002]: The £120 million end year flexibility related to the Department's unallocated provision and was not allocated to individual NHS bodies in 2000–01. It did not form part of the end year flexibility arrangements for NHS bodies.

  Adjustments to health authorities resource limits in 2001–02 as a result of health authorities and NHS trusts underspending in 2000–01 are set out in tables, copies of which have been placed in the Library. There were no adjustments for other NHS bodies.

  Appointments
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of appointments were booked electronically in the last year. [47002]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not currently available centrally.

  The NHS Plan states that there will be electronic booking of appointments for patient treatment by the end of 2005. Implementing electronic booking systems is being taken forward as a long-term, four-year, implementation project as part of the NHS Modernisation Agency's National Booked Admissions Programme. Monitoring arrangements for electronic booking are being developed as part of the implementation project work programme.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many GP appointments were missed in each year since 1997; and how his Department plans to reduce this. [47542]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: These data are not collected or held centrally. However, we are concerned by the impact of missed appointments on primary care services and have funded "Doctor/Patient Partnership" campaigns on this since 1997. In addition, the national primary care development team is now working with general practitioners to help them to offer more responsive and timely access for patients. For participating practices this approach has led to substantial reductions in missed appointments.

  Ophthalmology Waiting Times
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average outpatient ophthalmology waiting times have been for each quarter of the last five years. [47866]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Average (median) waiting times for first out-patient appointment following general practitioner referral: ophthalmology

  Year/quarter

  Median (weeks)

  1996–97

  8.24

  4

  1997–98

  1

  8.19

  2

  8.39

  3

  8.24

  4

  8.46

  1998–99

  1

  8.64

  2

  9.12

  3

  9.10

  4

  9.62

  1999–2000

  1

  9.32

  2

  9.89

  3

  9.99

  4

  9.95

  1021W

  Average (median) waiting times for first out-patient appointment following general practitioner referral: ophthalmology

  Year/quarter

  Median (weeks)

  2000–01

  1

  9.08

  2

  9.58

  3

  9.39

  4

  9.39

  2001–02

  1

  8.53

  2

  8.90

  3

  8.90

  Source:

  DH QM08 form

  Marfan Syndrome
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many post mortems revealed Marfan syndrome in each of the last 10 years for which records are available. [48843]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Nigel Jones, dated 17 April 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your question concerning how many post mortems revealed Marfan's syndrome in each of the last 10 years for which records are available. (44843)
  The figures requested are given in the table below. The data are only available in this form from 1993 onwards.

  Number of deaths where a post mortem was carried out and Marfan's syndrome was subsequently noted on the death certificate, England and Wales, calendar years 1993 to 20001,2

  Calendar year

  Number of deaths where The underlying cause of death3

  Marfan's syndrome was: Mentioned on the death certificate only4

  1993

  12

  3

  1994

  12

  4

  1995

  20

  4

  1996

  14

  3

  1997

  15

  5

  1998

  14

  1

  1999

  13

  2

  2000

  8

  2

  1Data relate to deaths occurring per calendar year.

  2No inference can be made from these data as to whether Marfan's syndrome was diagnosed before or after death.

  3The underlying cause of death is the disease or condition that initiates the train of morbid events leading directly to death.

  4When a disease or condition was not the underlying cause of death but was noted on the death certificate but not coded to the underlying cause.

  Psychiatric Wards
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 11 March 2002,Official Report, column 811W, on ward refurbishment, which hospitals and institutions will have their psychiatric wards refurbished as a consequence of the dedicated budget established in 2001–02. [47443]
  1022W
  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The £15 million total consists of two separate funding sources. £10 million additional funding for mental health was allocated to regions on a weighted capitation basis for the refurbishment/redecoration of psychiatric wards; updating information technology; the provision of alternatives to acute admissions; and voluntary sector support. Details of how this funding was allocated locally are not held centrally.

  The remaining £5 million was the first tranche of a special budget of £30 million over two years and those NHS trusts which benefited from this are listed.

  Portsmouth Healthcare NHS Trust (St. James Hospital)

  Berkshire Healthcare NHS Trust (Fairmile Hospital)

  Avon and Wiltshire Partnership Mental Health Trust (Barrow Hospital)1

  East London and City Mental Health Trust (St. Clements)

  Barnet. Enfield and Haringey Mental Health Trust (St. Anne's)

  County Durham and Darlington Priority Services NHS Trust (the Gables and County Hospital, the Pierremont Unit)

  Tees and North East Yorkshire NHS Trust (St. Lukes, Middlesbrough)

  Worcester Community and MH NHS Trust (Redditch, Bromsgrove, Worcester and Kidderminster)

  Coventry Healthcare Trust (Caludon Centre)

  Shropshire Community NHS Trust (Telford and Wrekin, Shrewsbury)

  North Birmingham Mental Health NHS Trust (Small Heath)

  South Birmingham Mental Health NHS Trust (Queen Elizabeth Hospital)

  Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Trust (Lister and QE2 Hospitals)1

  Rotherham Priority Health Sen ices NHS Trust (Rotherham)

  Doncaster and South Humber Healthcare Trust (Scunthorpe)

  North Sefton and West Lancashire Community NHS Trust (Ormskirk and District General)1

  Tameside and Glossop Community and Priority Services NHS Trust (Wards 35–36)

  St. Helen's and Knowsley Hospital NHS Trust (Whiston Hospital).

  1Scheme spans more than one year and full allocation not spent in 2001–02.

  Firework-related Injuries
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) steps are being taken and (b) investment is being made, to reduce firework-related injuries. [47841]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The comprehensive measures introduced by the Firework (Safety) Regulations 1997 and actively enforced by Trading Standards Departments are supplemented by robust and targeted safety campaigns to warn consumers of the dangers of misusing.

  Prescriptions
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of prescriptions were issued electronically in the last year. [46999]
  1023W
  Ms Blears
  The proportion of prescriptions produced by computer and issued electronically by general practitioners in the last year was between 60 and 80 per cent. dependent on which health authority area the GP was situated.

  Mixed-sex Wards
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether newly constructed hospitals comprise(a) wards assigned solely to either male or female patients and (b) subdivided bays. [47839]

  Mr. Hutton
  Guidance on the requirements for new accommodation is given in Health Building Notes and Design Guides HBN 4 "In-patient accommodation——options for choice". The guidance provides national health service trusts with design solutions to meet the requirements of privacy, dignity and safety. Additional guidance on achieving single sex accommodation "Enhancing Privacy and Dignity" has been issued.

  Out-patients
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of patients awaiting their first out-patient appointment have been waiting over six months. [47830]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information regarding the total stock of out-patient waiters is not collected. However, published out-patient activity statistics show that 5 per cent. of patients referred by general practitioners who were seen during the period October to December 2001 had been waiting longer than 26 weeks.

  Primary Care Trusts
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he expects primary care trusts to devolve control of budgets to practice level. [47865]

  Mr. Hutton
  Primary care trusts (PCTs) may develop indicative budgets at practice or locality level to make explicit resource use within a PCT, encourage fairer more transparent allocation of resources and enable primary care to lever strategic change within local health communities.

  Incentive schemes created in conjunction with the development of indicative budgets encourage general practitioners to understand and reflect on their current practice and innovate. PCTs in consultation with practices and through the development of a local health improvement and modernisation programme should develop and agree a commissioning plan for the PCT as a whole, reflecting the health needs of local communities. This two-way dialogue allows PCTs to secure services for their populations that general practitioners and other primary and community health professionals identify as being necessary. Work is in hand to scope how PCTs and practices could be supported to develop indicative budgets at practice level. This could be through developing a national framework or local models of good practice.

  Learning Disabilities
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on the provision of village communities for people with learning disabilities. [47503]
  1024W
  Jacqui Smith
  Our policy on services for people with learning disabilities, their families and carers is set out in the White Paper "Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21st Century" published in March 2001. This was supplemented by guidance to local authorities and the national health service in August 2001.

  Our objective for housing is to enable people with learning disabilities and their families to have greater choice and control over where and how they live. People with learning disabilities can live successfully in different types of housing including small-scale ordinary housing, supported living and village and residential communities as well as residential care. We expect local authorities to ensure that all housing options are considered when they are exploring the future housing, care and support needs of people with learning disabilities and their families.

  Councils should respect the preferences of individuals and their families, wherever the preferred options will meet individuals' assessed needs and are affordable. Where there is limited demand for a particular option, councils and housing authorities may need to consider joining with neighbouring authorities to encourage the development of a greater range of provision.

  Learning disability partnership boards have been set up in each local authority area to oversee and advise on implementation of the Valuing People programme. Boards have been asked to produce local housing strategies for people with learning disabilities by winter 2002–03. The Department and the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions will issue shortly guidance about this for learning disability partnership boards.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the expenditure on the NHS was as a proportion of the GDP of England in the last 12 months; and to what extent he collates information about NHS expenditure in Scotland as a percentage of Scottish GDP in order to assess his progress towards meeting his targets. [46917]

  Mr. Hutton
  The gross domestic product (GDP) for England is not yet available for 2001–02. The latest available GDP for England is for 1999 and is published by the Office of National Statistics in 'Regional Trends' which is available in the Library. Figures for later years are available on a United Kingdom basis only.

  The Government's target for health care investment is for the whole of the United Kingdom. NHS expenditure in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is therefore collected by the Department in order to calculate total national health service expenditure in the United Kingdom.

  Planned NHS expenditure in the United Kingdom for 2001–02 was 6.3 per cent. of GDP. This means that total healthcare expenditure, including private healthcare, as a percentage of GDP last year was 7.3 per cent. rising to 7.6 per cent. by 2003–04 based on latest expenditure plans.

  Woodside Adolescent Unit
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the proposed closure of the Woodside Adolescent Unit at West Park Epsom. [47498]

  Ms Blears
  The changing need for child and adolescent mental health services is expected to render the in-patient service at Woodside Unit unviable, in its current form, from April 2003.

  Surrey Oaklands NHS Trust is continuing to work with the health authority and local primary care trusts to explore options for the reprovision of services, retaining locally accessible services where possible. This will be linked to continuing work to develop local care models with alternatives to hospital admission.

  Drugs
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what drugs approved by NICE are unavailable nationwide; and if he will make a statement; [48669]

  (2) what regulations apply to (a) local community care trusts, (b) health authorities and (c) hospital trusts regarding the prescription of drugs accepted by NICE; and if he will make a statement; [48670]

  (3) what powers doctors possess to prescribe drugs in contravention of local authority policy; and if he will make a statement. [48671]

  Ms Blears
  Health authorities and primary care trusts are under a statutory obligation set out in Directions to provide appropriate funding for treatments recommended by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). The Directions were made using powers in the National Health Service Act 1977 and came into force on 1 January 2002. The Directions were introduced as part of the Government's strategy to ensure consistency of access to treatments recommended by NICE and deemed appropriate by clinicians for their individual patients. Funding is provided in baseline allocations to meet these commitments.

  Brain Injury
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much of its research budget is allocated for research into traumatic brain injury rehabilitation. [48812]

  Jacqui Smith
  The main Government agency for research into the causes of and treatments for disease is the Medical Research Council (MRC) which receives its funding via the Department of Trade and Industry. The MRC supports a large amount of basic underpinning work on how the brain responds to injury of all types and on neural regeneration, which will inform research on rehabilitation after traumatic head injury. The MRC's expenditure specifically on rehabilitation after traumatic head injury (i.e. excluding the underpinning work) was £835,000 in 2001–02.

  The Department commissions research to support policy and the delivery of effective practice in health and social care. The Department has directly funded projects relating to brain and head injury, some of which are on rehabilitation, with total estimated expenditure of about £125,000 for 2001–02. The Department funded a major
  1026W
  project on rehabilitation of brain injured adults, which was completed in 1997, at a total cost of approximately £1.2 million.

  In addition to specific projects, the Department also provides support for research commissioned by charities and the MRC that takes place in the NHS. Management of much of the research supported in this way is devolved, and expenditure at project level is not held centrally.

  Details of ongoing and recently completed research projects taking place in, funded by, or of interest to, the national health service are available on the National Research Register (NRR) at www.doh.gov.uk/research/nrr.htm. The NRR shows that there are considerable number of research related to brain and head injury.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the timetable is for the publication of NICE guidelines on the handling of brain-injured patients; whether the guidelines will include long-term rehabilitation issues; and if he will make a statement. [48824]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence provisional publication date for their Head Injury Guideline is February 2003. I understand that the guideline will not address the rehabilitation or long term care of patients with a head injury, but the guideline will provide criteria for the early identification of patients who will benefit from rehabilitation.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the proposed National Service Framework for long-term conditions will include those arising from head injury; and what interim action will be taken to improve rehabilitation services before publication of that framework. [48814]

  Jacqui Smith
  Ministers will decide the scope of the National Service Framework (NSF) for long-term conditions shortly. The Government's response to the Health Select Committee third report, "Head Injury: Rehabilitation", states that the NSF is expected to set standards for the care and treatment of people with long-term conditions, including head injury. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is producing a clinical guideline for the initial assessment, management and first referral of patients with head injury, which is likely to inform the development of standards for the NSF.

  In the meanwhile we will continue to work with the voluntary and professional organisations to identify and consider how to address shortfalls in rehabilitation services for people with head injury.

  NHS Staff (Assaults)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 15 March 2002,Official Report, column 1289W, on assaults on NHS staff, when he expects to complete the analysis of the reported violent incidents on NHS staff; when he expects to publish the report; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [50079]

  Mr. Hutton
  The analysis of data collected on the levels of reported violent incidents, together with data on the levels of reported accidents and sickness absence should be complete by the end of May and a copy placed in the Library.

  Nursing Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 18 March 2002,Official Report, column 172W, on nursing care, when he expects to publish the core contract; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [50075]

  Jacqui Smith
  The model contract was issued to the national health service on 8 March. A copy is available on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/jointunit/freenursingcare.htm. Copies have also been placed in the Library.

  No Secrets Guidance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 26 March 2002,Official Report, column 941W, regarding no secrets guidance, when he expects the Centre for Policy on Ageing to conclude its analysis; and if he will put this document in the Library. [50500]

  Jacqui Smith
  We expect that the Centre for Policy on Ageing is to conclude its analysis by the beginning of July 2002 and it will be placed in the Library. At that time we will consider what good practice issues have emerged and decide whether some dissemination of the findings would be beneficial.

  NHS Professionals
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on contracting with the private sector to undertake functions of NHS Professionals; and if he will make a statement. [39682]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 1 March 2002]: The aim is that NHS Professionals will be used by all NHS organisations as the primary supplier of all temporary staffing requirements for the NHS with, as and when necessary, contracts agreed with commercial agencies to meet any surplus demand.

  Plans are currently being developed regarding the undertaking of framework agreements across regional and national boundaries for a number of staff groups.

  Hospital Repairs
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the hospital repairs backlog is; and what his estimate is of the cost of eliminating it. [46110]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: The NHS Plan made clear our objectives of improving the patient environment and announces further significant investment in the national health service estate.

  The currently available figure (2000–01) for the total backlog maintenance cost to bring NHS Trust property in England up to an acceptable condition is £3.16 billion.

  The cost required to eliminate this backlog depends on a number of factors, including the extent to which major capital investment and disposals of property impact upon the amount of additional capital required. Since investment plans are currently under review it is not possible to provide a cost for the elimination of backlog costs at this point in time.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the NHS estate is compliant with health and safety requirements. [46117]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: In 1999, we set targets for the reduction in health and safety backlog within national health service trusts in England one of which required health and safety backlog costs to be reduced by 90 per cent. by 31 March 2002. In addition, we planned to invest £7 billion in the NHS estate to bring the quality and safety of NHS buildings up to acceptable levels.

  We have an ongoing monitoring and performance programme to support the NHS in delivering these targets. The speed at which NHS trusts are meeting these targets depends on a number of factors, including the pace of investment and disposals, and figures are constantly changing.

  Health Services (Barnet)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the availability of out of hours health services in(a) Barnet and (b) Hendon. [45828]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: General practitioner (GP) out of hours services are provided in Barnet and Hendon by three GP co-operatives and by two commercial deputising services. Out of hours health services are also provided by NHS Direct and by local accident and emergency departments, as well as by the urgent treatment centre at Edgware hospital.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of(a) the capacity and (b) the performance of London Ambulance Service answering 999 calls in Barnet at night; and if he will make a statement. [45819]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: The borough of Barnet is principally served by three London Ambulance Service (LAS) stations——Friern Barnet, Barnet and Mill Hill. The LAS will always send the nearest available ambulance to every call, so resources based at these stations will sometimes also be supported by vehicles from other areas.

  Between the hours of 11 pm and 7 am the LAS always plans to have at least four ambulances covering the area——one each running out of Barnet and Friern Barnet and two from Mill Hill. Three other ambulances are also operated until the early hours, finishing between midnight and 2 am. As well as these and ambulances based in other local boroughs, the service also runs an extra ambulance, deployed by Central Ambulance Control, to provide additional operational cover where it is most needed in any area of the LAS north-west sector.

  During the month of February LAS performance in Barnet between 11 pm and 7 am was above the London average for LAS performance.

  Efficiency Gains
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what, in equivalent percentage terms, the
  1029W
  efficiency and other value for money gains in the operation of his Department were in (a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02. [45724]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: Information is not available in the form requested, as direct comparisons in percentage terms would not be meaningful. Since 1999, the Department's work has altered significantly in the light of the changes set out in the NHS Plan and a subsequent review of the Department's operation.

  Over the period in question, the Department has made the savings necessary to deliver its business plan within the running costs limits agreed in the comprehensive spending review. The Department's activities have been refocused on delivery of the NHS Plan. In addition, efficiency savings have been achieved through improved purchasing procedures to deliver improvements in value for money, improved project management, and reviewing accommodation use to improve the utilisation of space.

  Contractor Fraud
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list over the period 1999–2000 to 2001–02 the savings that were made on action on contractor fraud broken down by(a) cash recoveries and (b) prevention savings. [45722]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: The answer is set out in the tables:

  Pharmaceutical contractor fraud outputs——Prevention1

  £

  December 1998 to March 19992

  52,882

  April 1999 to March 2000

  2,103,119

  April 2000 to March 2001

  3,189,111

  April 2001 to March 2002

  3,972,342

  Total

  9,317,454

  Pharmaceutical contractor fraud outputs——Recoveries

  £

  December 1998 to March 2000

  32,251,815

  April 2000 to March 2001

  3,097,676

  On Time

  Late

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Total

  2001–02 (to Feb)

  324,006

  96.24

  12,666

  3.76

  336,672

  2000–01

  324,566

  96.08

  13,233

  3.92

  337,799

  1999–2000

  374,413

  95.83

  16,297

  4.17

  390,710

  1998–99

  374,787

  94.5

  21,646

  5.5

  396,433

  1997–98

  n/a

  95.3

  n/a

  4.7

  n/a

  n/a —— not available

  NHS Direct
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the annual cost of providing NHS Direct over the last two years for which figures are available. [46719]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The table states the costs incurred in 2000–01 on a cash basis, and
  1030W

  Pharmaceutical contractor fraud outputs——Recoveries

  £

  April 2001 to February 20024

  2,130,260

  Total

  7,479,751

  1Figures relate to the prevention of continuing fraud.

  2Progress tracked since December 1998 when PSA targets on pharmaceutical contractor fraud for the period to the end of 2001–02 were published.

  3Figure relates to all recoveries December 1998 to March 2000.

  4Recovery figures for March 2002 not yet available.

  NHS Targets
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from health authorities, PCTs and NHS trusts as to their ability to achieve NHS Plan and NSF targets in 2002–03. [45930]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: The annual planning cycle provides opportunity for dialogue between the national health service and the Department in relation to delivery of priorities, financial pressures and the management of risk. The process of agreeing service and financial frameworks involves a round of negotiations through which we aim to agree, in aggregate terms, a plan for the NHS to maximise performance while identifying the contribution of individual health systems.

  From April 2002 onwards the responsibility for performance management of the NHS is being devolved to 28 new strategic health authorities (StHAs). Chief executives of the new StHAs will be accountable for delivery of national priorities as part of 3-year franchise agreements. StHAs will hold the ring for NHS organisations in their respective patches and need to ensure that the commitments to which they will be held to account for delivering are achievable.

  Invoice Payment
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of undisputed invoices were paid by his Department within 30 days or the agreed contracted terms otherwise specified in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000, (d) 2000–01 and (e) 2001–02. [45725]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: The number and proportion of bills paid within 30 days by the Department were as follows.

  an estimate for the cash outturn for 2001–02 for comparative ease. The actual outturns have not been finalised yet.

  The costs include the full running costs of all NHS Direct activity, all set-up costs for establishing the call centre environment, developing and setting up new

  1031W
  projects, the development and maintenance of the national clinical decision support system, and costs incurred centrally.

  £ million

  2000/01

  90.1

  2001–021

  110.9

  1Estimate

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints have been received from callers to NHS Direct about the service they received. [46716]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: In the Financial Year 2000–01, 148 written complaints were received about NHS Direct in England. This equates to one complaint in over 20,000 calls made to NHS Direct. Details of all written complaints can be found on the Department website: www.doh.gov.uk/nhscomplaints.

  National surveys conducted between December 1998 and January 2001 have consistently shown caller satisfaction levels between 90 and 97 per cent. This compares well with performance in private sector call centres and with similar services within the National Health Service despite the particularly demanding nature of NHS Direct's work.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many calls NHS Direct received between 24 December 2001 and 3 January. [46701]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Between 24 December 2001 and 3 January 2002, NHS Direct handled 205,000 calls, 20 per cent. more calls than the same period in 2000–01.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many calls NHS Direct received in each of the last two years for which figures are available. [46699]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Between 2000–01 and 2001–02, calls handled by NHS Direct increased by over 50 per cent. In the 2000–01 financial year, NHS Direct handled around 3,400,000 calls. In 2001–02, NHS Direct handled around 5,270,000 calls.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS Direct nurses came from(a) NHS hospitals and (b) accident and emergency departments. [43551]

  Mr. Hutton
  Specific information, such as the previous employment of NHS Direct nurses, is not collected centrally.

  Hospital Patients
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many routine NHS patients were treated in English NHS hospitals in the last quarter of(a) 2001 and (b) 1997. [46708]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The number of elective admissions to National Health Service hospitals from October to December 1997 was 1,236,609. 'The figures are not yet available for 2001, but for the same period in 2000 there were 1,352,035 elective admissions.

  Edgware Urgent Treatment Centre
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the impact the proposed overnight closure of Edgware UTC will have on(a) public confidence and support for the NHS in Hendon and (b) the willingness of the public to participate in NHS consultations and as lay representatives on consultative bodies; and if he will make a statement; [46879]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the outcome of the public consultation exercise over the proposed night-time closure of Edgware Hospital UTC, indicating (a) the number of responses, (b) those supporting the closure and (c) those opposing the closure; and if he will make a statement. [45824]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answers 25 March and 10 April 2002]: In the light of the representations received, I have asked that the decision to close the overnight service at Edgware UTC be reviewed by the newly formed North Central London Strategic Health Authority.

  The review will be conducted in discussion with local stakeholders about how the best interests of patients and the NHS locally can be met.

  Pending the outcome of this review and Ministers' decisions, the UTC night time service will be maintained.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the number of people attending the Edgware Hospital UTC and walk-in centre(a) in total and (b) between 10 pm and 7 am who are not registered with a GP; and if he will make a statement. [45825]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: We do not collect information on patients not registered with general practitioners. The national health service walk-in centres are not open between 10 pm and 7 am. On average, around 10 patients a night attend the urgent treatment centre after 10 pm.

  Agencies (Maladministration)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what payments have been made to individuals following findings of maladministration by ombudsmen with responsibility for agencies under the remit of his Department in the last 12 months; and what plans he has to review the powers to increase the level of awards that can be made in the last 12 months. [47980]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: There have been three payments totalling £33,100 for findings of maladministration made by the Department's agencies in the last 12 months. The judgments were all made by the pensions ombudsman.

  We have no plans to review the agency chief executives' delegations, which give them the powers to incur expenditure in this area. The pensions ombudsman's awards are binding and only subject to the Court of Appeal on a point of law. We have no powers to increase these awards.

  NHS Estate
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the value of the NHS Estate is less than 15-years-old. [47824]
  1033W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The current available percentage of the national health service estate, by value, that is less than 15-years-old, as established by the Valuation Office Agency in their survey carried out in the year 2000, is 11.5 per cent.

  Implementation of the planned capital investment in the NHS of around £7 billion by 2010 should see the achievement of the NHS Plan target of 40 per cent. of the NHS Estate, by value, being less than 15-years-old by the year 2010.

  Elective Surgery
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals in England and Wales regularly use their operating theatres for elective surgery over weekends. [47454]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Figures on the numbers of national health service trusts who use their operating theatres at the weekend are not collected centrally for England. Information relating to health services in Wales is a matter for the devolved Administration.

  Drugs (Theft)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 15 January 2002,Official Report, column 255W, on drugs theft, what the cost to the NHS has been of damage to property due to theft and fraud in each year since 1997. [47536]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Figures on the cost to the NHS of damage to property due to theft and fraud are shown in the table.

  Year

  £000

  1997–98

  1,662

  1998–99

  1,204

  1999–2000

  1,270

  2000–01

  1,383

  Internal Fraud Investigators
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many internal fraud investigators his Department employs; and what plans he has to increase this number. [47555]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The Department has recently expanded the remit of the national health service counter fraud service to cover internal fraud within the Department. The number of staff needed to carry out this work is under consideration.

  Patient Consultations
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 938W, on patient consultations, what plans he has for a GP work load survey to be conducted by his Department to measure GP average consultation times. [47535]
  1034W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Previous surveys have been conducted jointly by the English, Welsh and Scottish Health Departments and the British Medical Association. A further joint work load survey is planned once the new GP contract has been agreed.

  Hospital Cleaning Contracts
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department holds a central list of recommended cleaning contracting companies that local health authorities work from when awarding hospital cleaning contracts. [47548]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The Department does not hold such a list. Contract cleaning services are procured by NHS trusts against the new national cleaning standards. Trusts will procure this service through advertisements placed in the European Journal. Health authorities are not involved in awarding contracts for cleaning NHS hospitals, only for their own administrative premises. A trust will award contracts on best value, taking into account operational and economic issues.

  Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the London Regional Office will conclude its review of the Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust in respect of its management of in-patient waiting lists; and if he will publish the findings. [32665]

  Mr. Hutton
  [pursuant to his reply, 12 February 2002, c.334W]: I regret that my previous reply was incorrect. It should read as follows.

  Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust validates both its active and suspended list on a regular basis and is confident that their waiting lists are robust and accurate. A further validation was carried out by the trust themselves as a result of being identified as having a suspension rate greater than 10 per cent. Epsom and St. Helier was not identified as having adjusted inappropriately their waiting list figures.

  The regional office conducts robust validation of waiting list data from trusts and health authorities including following up any irregularities. The regional office does not consider that there is any reason to review waiting list information at Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust. In the light of the National Audit Office report on 'Inappropriate Adjustment to NHS Waiting Lists' the Department of Health has asked the Audit Commission to introduce spot check of individual trust's waiting list and waiting time information during 2002. Details are still being finalised, but the work is scheduled to begin early in the new financial year.

  Long-term Care
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 11 March 2002,Official Report, column 817W, on long-term care, what is the maximum length of time which payment of proceeds arising from the sale of a house can he deferred after entrance into residential care. [47130]
  1035W
  Jacqui Smith
  The deferred payments scheme does not have any time limit that is set for a property to be sold. During their stay in residential accommodation the resident is the only person who can end the deferred 1036W
  payment. If a resident passes away then the deferred payment agreement is terminated, but their estate is not obliged to pay the amount owed to the council for a further 57 days.

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

Mountaineering Accidents
Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many fatal accidents have occurred on British mountains in each of the past five years.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, during the years 1997 to 2000, there was an average of 58 fatalities a year on British mountains. The data are compiled by the Mountain Rescue Council of England and Wales and the Mountain Rescue Committee of Scotland, and they have produced a provisional figure for 2001 of 47 fatalities. The Government are concerned at the loss of life on British mountains and urge all who go on to the mountains to take sensible safety precautions.
Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does he agree that the number of people losing their lives on our hills and mountains is unacceptably high and that the loss of life and the level of injury far exceed that for any other sport or outdoor activity? Can we improve the information available to walkers and climbers, particularly information about weather conditions, the level of risk that they face on the mountains and the jeopardy in which they place themselves and our excellent emergency rescue services?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I agree that the situation is undesirable. Every one of those deaths represents a personal tragedy for family and friends. But the figures do not far exceed those for deaths in other sports. In fact, the number who drown—100 people every year—is substantially higher.
I agree with my noble friend that the provision of information—about the weather conditions and the terrain—is important, so that walkers are well prepared to make informed judgments about the level of risk to which they are exposed. There is already a range of good quality information and advice available. There is an avalanche warning system for the Cairngorms, and weather information relating to the Lake District and other areas is generally available by telephone. The UK Government and the Scottish Executive will, I am sure, continue to support the excellent voluntary work done by so many people to help people in difficult circumstances.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Minister said that people were putting themselves at risk. Does he agree that they put other people at risk besides themselves? Is there some way of organising a test for people who climb mountains, so that they can do so without causing many other people to risk their lives looking for them?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, at one level, the noble Baroness is right. If rescuers have to go out into the high Cairngorms in a blizzard in February to get someone out of an ice gully, they will face a degree of risk; it is dangerous. On the other hand, the Government would be wise to listen to the considerable depth of experience in the British Mountaineering Council and the safety bodies that regulate mountaineering. They strongly support the retention of the voluntary principle. They do not want the mountains closed or restricted to people who have passed fitness tests. They want people to enjoy the high mountains so long as they have proper experience and have been trained for the relevant level of risk. We must listen to their advice, and there are mechanisms to ensure that that is possible.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, as someone who lives in the Cairngorms, I ask the Minister whether he is aware that the Mountaineering Council of Scotland believes that the way forward is through educating people planning to go into the hills about the hazards and about the safety practices they should observe. The council's ability to do that is severely limited by lack of funding. Is there any way that more funding could be made available by the Government or even the possibility of lottery funding?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, because the Question referred to Britain, I answered in respect of Britain. I am cautious about being drawn too far into issues that are the province of the Scottish people and the Scottish Parliament. I agree with the noble Lady that the provision of information is important. The Scottish Mountain Safety Forum is, I am told, publishing an educational film on mountain safety. It will be launched in Inverness at the end of April. I had not heard that there was strong feeling about an acute shortage of funding. No doubt, the Scottish Parliament would be interested in such representations, if made.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the worst problems faced by rescue teams is that they do not know where missing people are? There should be a simple electronic device that walkers could carry which would enable rescue teams to reach them, thus avoiding an enormous waste of time, as is often the case today.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that it is a major problem when a mountain rescue team takes a call—increasingly from a mobile phone—notifying it that someone is in distress. The caller may fail to give an accurate grid reference or any grid reference at all. In practice, the devices referred to by

937
the noble Lord are available. I believe that there are geo-positional instruments costing around £100 which give an accurate reading of where you are. There are pros and cons to that argument. Relying on such technology because of an inability to read a map properly is also, I think, not wise. However, what the noble Lord has recommended is available for walkers if they want it.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, my noble friend will know that I live in the heart of the Lake District. Can I tell my noble friend that a mass of information is made available? Walkers do not need training, advice or regulation. All walkers need to use is their common sense.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, yes, but, as we well know, that is the scarcest commodity of all. Broadly, I agree with my noble friend. Certainly, when I walk in the Lakes or in Scotland, I carry in my rucksack the relevant card giving the phone number for information about weather conditions in the area. It is extremely easy to call beforehand and get such information. However, I disagree with my noble friend to the extent that clearly there is still loss of life, some, but not all, of which is avoidable, and some of which could be reduced if better information and promotion were available.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, in the past, lives have been lost in the Cairngorms in April due to the arrival of sudden blizzards?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, yes. Anyone who has visited the high mountains knows that some of the best possible walking weather occurs at Easter when frequently one is able to walk in snow and ice. If one is suitably experienced and prepared, it is wonderful walking. However, the inexperienced can easily assume that, once the worst of the winter is over, the high mountains will be warm and sunny and consistently so. The danger arises when the weather changes suddenly. Inexperienced walkers go out ill-equipped with food and equipment believing it impossible that they could suddenly be freezing.

Developing Countries: Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare
2.44 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen Baroness Massey of Darwen asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they are supporting sexual and reproductive healthcare in developing countries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, sexual and reproductive healthcare in developing countries continues to be a key priority for the
938
Department for International Development. Achieving universal access to reproductive health for all by 2015 underpins our approach. Good reproductive health is of course also vital to achieving millennium development goals related to lowering maternal mortality and combating HIV/AIDS. DfID's total bilateral expenditure on sexual and reproductive health activities, including HIV/AIDS, has risen from £38 million in the financial year 1997–98 to over £206 million in 2001–02.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging Answer. Does she agree that educational programmes for girls and women are often successful in improving sexual and reproductive health? Can she tell the House what her department is doing to enable such programmes?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend. Educational programmes are vital for girls and women because they are an essential vehicle for the promotion of gender equality, which lies at the heart of trying to ensure safe sexual and reproductive healthcare practices. The Department for International Development is working with respect to education in three areas. First, it is working on addressing the gender inequities in basic education. Noble Lords will know that we are committed to the millennium development goal of achieving gender equity in primary education by 2005. The second area is the development of skills-based health education. For example, in Kenya we are supporting the Primary School Action for Better Health programme. Thirdly, I refer to the area of adult education, in particular the work that we are undertaking in literacy for livelihoods.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Baroness has said that this subject is a key element of DfID's responsibilities. Can she enumerate briefly what are the other comparable elements of DfID's responsibilities to which she has referred?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, noble Lords will know that since 1997 our policy, enshrined in the White Paper, is to work towards the eradication of world poverty. In that respect, we are committed to the Millennium Development Goals which include the halving of poverty by 2015, gender equity in education, and elements of health and education which relate to sexual and reproductive health, as well as to maternal mortality.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister think that sufficient information about sexual diseases, including HIV, is provided to Britons visiting developing countries? The problems of HIV are very serious. Furthermore, is she aware that not enough health education is provided to the general public here in Britain?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness's question goes slightly wide of the Question, but I shall endeavour to respond to it. Obviously, public

939
awareness with regard to HIV/AIDS is very important indeed, not only domestically but also with regard to those travelling abroad. We have sought to make information available through our travel advice. For example, there is a "Know Before You Go" campaign on the FCC) website which seeks to ensure that British travellers understand the key facts that they need to know about the countries to which they are travelling. However, I agree with the noble Baroness that raising public awareness remains a key concern.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, does the Minister agree that what might be helpful in speeding up this cause would be for Mr Derek Wanless to be hired to prepare a report? The report could then be considered by the UN Conference on Population and Development to be held at the World Summit on Sustainable Development. A good firm copy of that report should then be sent to the Government of the United States of America.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the World Summit on Sustainable Development to be held in Johannesburg at the end of July this year will form a key part of this process. If we are talking about sustainable development and if we are talking about poverty elimination., then we must also talk about health-related issues, including the severe impact of HIV/ AIDS, focusing on the negative impact that it is having on countries, in particular in sub-Saharan Africa, which I fear will not be able to meet the Millennium Development Goals. This issue remains important in terms of the international agenda.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, following on from the supplementary question of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, what steps are the department taking in terms of both healthcare and education to help those people who are most at risk of sexually transmitted diseases, such as prostitutes?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are working in three areas in this respect. We are targeting interventions to high-risk behaviour groups, including commercial sex workers; we are looking to combat sexual tourism and the wider issues related to that; and we are very concerned about the growing practice of human trafficking, including that for sexual exploitation. Those are the three areas where we are looking to help girls and young women, who are particularly vulnerable.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, what is being done to prevent female circumcision?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, again, this subject is wide of the specific Question. The noble Baroness will know that we are working in a number of countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Indeed, she will also know that work is being carried out in the United Kingdom. My noble friend Lady Rendell, in particular, has asked a number of Questions in the House on that issue.

Pakistan: Long-term Development
2.51 p.m.
Lord Ahmed Lord Ahmed asked Her Majesty's Government:
What they are doing to help long-term development in Pakistan.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are committed to supporting Pakistan's economic and social development for the long haul. The ultimate aim is the reduction of poverty, as set out in the Government of Pakistan's interim poverty reduction strategy paper. Our bilateral programme is focused on three objectives: creating the economic conditions for poverty reduction; improving health outcomes for poor people; and improving education outcomes for poor people. We are pursuing these through a combination of technical assistance, advice and financial aid.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does she agree that education is key to Pakistan's long-term development? What specific action is being taken to support primary education, particularly for girls?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I totally agree with my noble friend that education is key to development. Our support is directed towards improving access and quality in elementary education in Pakistan. Integral to this is improving educational opportunities for girls. Our spending on education in Pakistan, which is mainly in the form of technical assistance, is expected to grow to £4 million this year.
One of our concerns is that Pakistan continues to make slower progress than other south Asian countries towards achieving the millennium development goal. Primary school enrolment growth rates, which are currently at about 70 per cent, have remained stagnant. We must ensure that those rates go up in order that girls and boys get into school.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have recently returned from Pakistan after visiting schools in that country with 40 schoolchildren? When will Pakistan be readmitted to the Commonwealth? Does she not agree that Pakistan deserves every possible help, both moral and material, in view of the staunch stand it is taking in a very important part of the world?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I was unaware that the noble Lord had recently returned from a visit to Pakistan. I am pleased to hear it because the more we know about what is happening there, the better it is for all of us. As to Pakistan and the Commonwealth, Pakistan remains suspended from the councils of the Commonwealth. At the last CMAG meeting—and, indeed, at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting—it was agreed that the road map to democracy, which should end in national and provincial elections in October 2002, is a good way to

941
start. This issue will remain on the agenda of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group. I agree that Pakistan has played an important role in the region. We all recognise that and we have supported President Musharraf in what he has sought to do.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the commercial and legal environment for multinational business has improved greatly under President Musharraf, even though there is still some way to go in eliminating corruption and unnecessary bureaucracy? Can she confirm that the Pakistan/UK Business Advisory Group, which was formed partly as a result of discussions between the Prime Minister and President Musharraf during the Prime Minister's visit in January, has full access to Ministers in Pakistan and is therefore doing an excellent job? Can the Minister think of further ways in which to encourage UK investors to take a more sanguine view of the prospects in Pakistan, which there undoubtedly are?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that the business environment has improved. Despite the drawbacks, the UK is now the biggest investor in Pakistan. The launch of the Pakistan/UK advisory group will enable both sides to explore new opportunities for developing the bilateral commercial relationship, including improved investment.
Lord Paul: My Lords, while work is being done in primary education, the Pakistani people are very intelligent and could achieve much by improving their higher education facilities. We could do a lot of work from here. Can the Minister confirm that we are paying attention to that?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, it is important that we work at all levels in regard to education. I am sure that there will be opportunities for partnerships—for example, between universities in Britain and Pakistan. However, our priority in terms of the achievement of the millennium development goal remains in primary education. I take the point of my noble friend's question.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, is most important, especially in the context of anti-terrorism? Is it not essential that Her Majesty's Government are seen to be supporting education in vulnerable countries such as Pakistan, which has an exceptionally high level of illiteracy?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl. Our bilateral programme focuses on education, health and economic management. This year we plan to spend £47 million in Pakistan. The planned level of expenditure for 2002–03 is £60 million, of which a significant proportion will go to education.

National Air Traffic Services
2.57 p.m.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market Baroness Scott of Needham Market asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the financial and technological developments in national air traffic control have been satisfactory since its part-privatisation.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, since 11th September, the principal parties involved in the public/private partnership have regularly reviewed NATS financial position. All of these parties are making a contribution towards ensuring that NATS has a robust financial structure for the foreseeable future. Against this difficult background, NATS has successfully brought into operation the most technically advanced air traffic control centre in the world at Swanwick and, additionally, has made a capital investment of £78 million in 2001–02.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the decision of easyJet to consider writing off its £7 million investment in NATS must at least call into question his use of the word "robust" in describing its financial future? Is he prepared to tell the House how much public money the Government are prepared to put into NATS—or is this the Railtrack of the skies?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, easyJet has made an intimation—it has not yet made a decision. If it did make such a decision, in many ways it would not be inconsistent with the stance of the Airline Group members. In essence, this was an identity of interest with the Government to ensure that there was an air traffic control system of the highest quality in Britain. They were happy to put in investment—as the noble Baroness will recall, they were willing bidders—and to be active partners, with the Government as a shareholder, in ensuring that those objectives were fulfilled. It was in the public's interest and their commercial interests. Therefore, in most cases, they were not particularly seeking a vigorous financial return but the long-term, high-quality air traffic control that we expect.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Government hold a 49 per cent share of NATS, which is, by any regulatory definition, a controlling interest? Will the Government make a further £30 million available to NATS, or will they support the proposal by NATS to increase its charges by 5 per cent?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am grateful, as ever, to the noble Viscount, for allowing me to answer the second part of the Question, which I failed to do. The Government have made available, along with money from the four banks, a £30 million loan—providing £60 million of short-term additional loan finance. The House will be aware of the reason for that. Some seven

943
weeks after NATS came into existence, it faced the biggest disaster that the airline industry across the world had ever experienced. Unavoidably and naturally, that significantly damaged its business plan and prospects.
The short-term loan facility has been put in to give appropriate time for the board of NATS to arrange for an injection of additional equity, on which discussions are under way. It is well likely that if, as is expected, additional equity is put in, the Government will match-fund that as a stakeholder to preserve their 49 per cent—they do not have a majority holding; the Airline Group and the employee interest control 51 per cent.
As regards the charges imposed by NATS on its customers, the airlines, the Government do not have a free hand, as the noble Viscount well knows. That is a decision for the Civil Aviation Authority. NATS has made a proposal to the CAA that instead of the pretty tough financial targets that it had of RPI minus 4 per cent and RPI minus 5 per cent for the two subsequent years, the figure should be above RPI but not massively so. That will be a decision not for the Government but for the CAA.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of recent reported NATS computer failures, which caused serious air traffic control delays? Presumably, those computers are not the new ones to which he referred previously. Under the new structure, does NATS have to pay compensation to the airlines or to the passengers affected by the delays?
Lord Filkin: Yes, my Lords, I am well aware of those delays. I well recollect hearing about them on the "Today" programme and seeing the prospect of a Starred Question coming over the horizon.
For the avoidance of doubt, the computer failures were not at Swanwick, which continues to be a very successful roll-out of a large-scale and complex new system. They were in the flight data processing system at West Drayton, and were similar to problems that occurred last summer. They involved some 19 minutes and some 16 minutes of down-time on separate occasions. At one level, that is not seen as particularly disastrous, as 99.95 per cent reliability is being achieved. However, the consequences of any downtime are severe for passengers. Therefore, the management of NATS is examining the situation very seriously. It has already introduced replacement software which it believes should have cracked the problem. It has also established an internal inquiry, separate from the responsible management, in an attempt to see whether anything else could or should be done to avoid a repetition of the inconvenience. NATS is also re-appraising its investment strategy to see whether it might require reconsideration in the light of those events. I should stress that there was no safety problem for the public, although there was clearly inconvenience to the travelling public on those two days.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister hinted that NATS would pay compensation to passengers who
944
suffered loss as a result of the computer failures. Will he expand on that and say whether any payments are due from NATS to the airlines, which also lost substantial sums of money?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I apologise: I missed the point about compensation. No, to my knowledge there is no liability to pay compensation, nor any intent to pay it.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, the Minister referred to computer glitches at West Drayton. Will he indicate how reliant on West Drayton the Swanwick system is? My understanding is—and perhaps he can confirm this point—that the West Drayton system is hopelessly obsolete and relies on computer code written in the 1970s, and that there is no prospect of its upgrade much before 2007, if then.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Earl is right: the basic software for the West Drayton system is not the most modern or recent. I do not think that it was a high priority in terms of immediate replacement. By and large, it was operational and was not a safety-critical system; therefore, it appeared to be working reasonably well. However, in the light of those events, because it is crucial that the public have confidence in the air traffic system, I am sure that the management and the board of NATS will be reconsidering the position. Whether they will consider that it justifies a change, I do not know. It might not. But they are certainly giving the matter their consideration.

Livestock Industry
3.5 p.m.
Lord Plumbrose to call attention to the state of the livestock industry; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to call attention to the state of the livestock industry. I declare my interest as a livestock farmer and stock breeder for many years of my life. In more recent years, my involvement has been in the food and agricultural trade, both in Europe and throughout the world. That experience was largely focused on the difficulties in such a volatile business, where disease and pestilence can determine market demand and can disrupt trade overnight.
The concern of livestock farmers is the direction which production has taken in economic terms for a substantial number of years. Government have made a great deal of effort to understand the complexities of the industry and the difference between the sectors and to try to get to grips with a fiendishly difficult set of conundrums, aggravated by BSE, by foot and mouth disease, by the increasing problem of tuberculosis, mid by animal welfare problems which continually raise their heads—all of which may have caused a lack of confidence in the future on the part of many livestock producers.

945
If the solution to our problems were easy, then clearly it would have been found a long time ago. The fact that these problems have only got worse due to the constant turning of the financial and economic screws is significant. It suggests that the matter requires an in-depth examination, following the lessons that we have learnt—and I hope that we have learnt many over the last year in particular—bringing with it the confidence that has not yet been restored, given the refusal of a full and open inquiry into last year's problem.
Farming businesses have become fewer and larger. The very size of some of them has resulted in a dramatic change in the face of the British landscape and in the natural balance of British agriculture. However, let us not get confused about these observations and implications. One can deal with large arable farms by allowing fields to expand and by using larger machinery tied into co-operative marketing systems. In terms of efficiency, therefore, it is a natural development. However, the environmentalists prefer fields to be smaller, and the conservationists prefer to see a greater spread of bio-diversity—as was recently emphasised in the Curry report—and it changes the whole structure of village life and family farming.
However, when we look at the livestock sector, especially at extensive livestock, we are confronted with quite a different world. The so-called intensive farming areas of livestock production—mainly pig and poultry—have not been in a good state for some considerable time. The clearest possible evidence of the malaise in this sector is the vast reduction in productive capacity which has taken place over many years. Confidence in the future of the business has been considerably reduced, due to two inter-related influences. First, the pressure of controls has created more red tape. That was dealt with in the report produced a while ago by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins. I am delighted to see that he is speaking after me. Maybe he can answer that point and tell us where his report got to. We are looking for a considerable reduction in red tape.
Secondly, there is the influence of global trading and the pressures that create competition with countries that are able to trade at much lower costs. Recent figures show that the overall costs of production in the United States are 40 per cent lower, due to a smaller legislative burden. Lower costs result in higher incomes.
Moreover, methods of pig farming that involve tethering sows and using sow stalls are banned in this country, but they are still allowed in many of the countries with which we compete. Those countries have lower production costs, giving them considerable economic advantages over United Kingdom producers purely on the basis of the method of pig farming. It is not surprising that such countries are receiving an increased proportion of global business, leaving British producers with a considerably smaller slice of the overall market.
A similar situation has arisen in the poultry business. An ever-increasing percentage of the poultry that we consume is imported from many other
946
countries. Labelling, including country of origin, would help. Those issues are of concern to the consumer and, particularly, to the producer.
The overall picture shows an extremely serious mixture of negative influences on farming in general. The likely implications for the future of our country deserve more than a passing thought, for many reasons. First, the fact that the two sectors have been under such pressure has resulted in much more of their production being transferred to other countries, with a consequent negative effect on the United Kingdom grain market. Whereas traditionally many pig and poultry units used home-grown cereals, that demand is now diminishing, which means that grain producers have to find a market in other countries. The logic—or the illogicality—of that situation seems far from clear. We are likely to export our grain to feed pigs and poultry in other countries, but once our products have been consumed, those countries send their end products back to us. That makes little sense in environmental terms. In financial and competitive terms, in the context of the transport pollution argument, it becomes total nonsense. Secondly, the foreign importer buys our grain, taking full advantage of the strength of the pound and the United Kingdom importer of finished pig and poultry meat gets a better deal when he buys products in those countries.
Either way, the United Kingdom livestock industry loses. It is not difficult to see why. We have the worst balance of payments—a massive —30 billion deficit on imports—since records began, with a deficit in food trade that has risen from —6 billion three years ago to —10 billion today. That is a third of the total negative balance of payments. The slogan that I used to use regularly, "Why import it when we can grow it?" seems to have changed into "Why grow it when we can import it?". I am told that 2,000 refrigerated containers full of food come through Dover every day, with a number of unrefrigerated containers as well. That makes it impossible to check food safety. That seems strange. We say that we cannot stop products coming in from those countries, yet there are other countries not far away from us that continually block the products that we are trying to send to them.
Thirdly, let us look at the dairy sector. Last year, in a similar debate in this House, I drew attention to the situation of a young farmer who had taken over his father's farm, with an investment in excess of £1 million. He had great difficulty keeping his head above water, despite working very long hours. At that time, he was selling his milk for approximately 20p a litre. Today, about 10 months later, he tells me that he will be lucky to sell it for 15p a litre. At the moment some people are getting only 13p or 13½p a litre for it. To break even, paying his debts to lenders and covering all his overheads, he has calculated that his farm should give a return of £45,000 this year. That would include his own salary. That is impossible when he is trying to sell milk at 15p or possibly 13p a litre. That milk is then processed, packaged and sold to the consumer at 75p a litre, which is even less than the

947
equivalent price for bottled water. That is bordering on economic suicide for the producer. Would any other industry face such a situation?
I realise that academic economists may think, "Well, that's his problem". Does not that example justify our reasons for serious concern? A British farmer has to compete with other countries offering imports at low prices solely because the exchange rate works in their favour and no duty is payable on their aviation fuel and so on. If the young man whom I mentioned as an example goes out of business, we, as the managers of this country's economy, must consider our responsibility.
Do we say that it is none of our business, as our American friends said some time ago when they got rid of all forms of aid and subsidy? Now they have stepped back in to help farmers to survive. Many of your Lordships might be surprised to know that the subsidies that many American farmers receive are higher than those received by European farmers.
When the constant drive for cheapness at the farm gate does not allow a proper return on investment to cover the labour and expertise that are required, the livestock industry could be faced with a development of incalculable damage. The issue has to be addressed urgently, honestly and without spin or rancour. A fair deal in the marketplace is all we ask. This is not a cry for more subsidies.
Then we come to the extensive grazing livestock, the sheep and stickler cow business. I declare an interest as president of the National Sheep Association. I shall come to that section last. It is not my intention to speak of the camelid and goat sectors. I hope that the latter will he effectively dealt with by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, who is an accomplished keeper and a specialist cheesemaker.
That the beef sector has gone through an extremely difficult period does not need to be emphasised. In the context of this debate, we should reflect on issues such as the strength of the pound, which continues to put pressure on the whole sector. It is worth noting that 765,000 head of cattle were lost through a combination of anti-FMD culling and the livestock welfare disposal scheme.
The sheep sector used to be a net exporter, but the number of people involved in it has gone down by 25 per cent over the past 10 years. Today, it is something like 75 per cent self-sufficient. That still leaves approximately 70,000 people involved, but the level of confidence is extremely low, with new entrants a very rare commodity.
The state of the livestock industry paints a fairly depressing picture. We must understand the implications of that not only for livestock producers but for the entire UK economy. The grazing animal in particular has a vital part to play in the continual grooming of the countryside. We must ask what the consequences would be for flora and fauna and for the environment, ecology and general biodiversity if the grazing animal were removed.
948
People also need to understand that the continual pressure on family farms, and almost all livestock farms of that ilk, puts enormous pressure on individuals such as the young farmer who cannot take a holiday with his family; the older couple who must raid their nest egg and pension to keep their business running; and the wife who, having worked all day, must take on an extra job at night. Regardless of the minimum wage or the maximum number of hours worked in a week, the list of people facing such pressure is endless. Last year alone, with the more than £9 million we had collected, the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institute helped more than 8,000 farming families. This year, many of those families are coming back for assistance. Although they were not necessarily all victims of foot and mouth disease, they are all very needy cases.
We need to examine the extent to which a well-farmed, well-groomed countryside forms the base of a healthy tourist industry. We need to examine which part of our livestock industry is relevant to the balance of payments equation. We need to question the true cost of importing from other countries, of the eco-toxicity issue, of the loss of UK jobs, and of the potential loss facing the whole of the rural economy. I noted with interest that 25,000 rural businesses are challenging the Government on the losses which their operations suffered because of foot and mouth disease.
We have a duty to care for our country and for our citizens. We have every reason to alert the public to the fact that we are thoroughly examining the causes of and solutions to a potentially considerable disaster that cannot he ignored.
One consequence has been that people in retail and catering have been forced to depend increasingly on imports from other countries. Such imports account for approximately 40 per cent of estimated UK consumption in 2002, compared with 22 per cent in 2000. Some time ago, after our debate on the Animal Health Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, sent Me a letter providing those quite revealing figures. The letter also contained a table on meat imports which involved,
"FMD susceptible species [cattle, sheep, pigs, goats and reindeer] between Oct 2000 and Sep 2001 from countries where FMD is endemic".
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but the time limit is 15 minutes. He has now spoken for 17 minutes.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, I thank the noble Countess and I shall come to a conclusion. However, I wanted to deal with those particular figures, which are of considerable importance. The 108,000 tonnes of meat which came into this country during the foot and mouth disease outbreak is of considerable concern to all of us.
We shall have to rely on the benefit of the links between the various organisations, and more research and development will have to be done. Above all, we

949
do not want to be a dumping ground for meat products produced below the high standards expected in British production. I beg to move for Papers.
3.24 p.m.
Lord Haskins: My Lords, I feel obliged to declare my many and somewhat contradictory interests in this subject. Until recently, I was chairman of one of Britain's largest food manufacturers, Northern Foods—a smaller bête noire of the agricultural industry. I have also been in some partnership relationships with supermarkets for some years—a much larger bête noire of the British agricultural industry. On the other hand, I am the father of two farming sons. I also have an Irish connection, which gives some suspicion to certain people. I have recently retired as the "better regulator", which gives a lot of suspicion to a lot of people. I am also for the most part a supporter of the current Government as well as having given them some advice on recovery from foot and mouth.
All of that suggests that in today's world, because the suspicious might argue that I am merely arguing my vested interests, I should he debarred from engaging in this debate. I shall try, however, to avoid the trap. Moreover, my interests are so contradictory that I have every expectation that I shall upset everyone—which has been my achievement in recent months.
The noble Lord, Lord Plumb, has vividly and convincingly stated the situation of the British livestock industry, which is a very serious matter. I have my own concerns, the first of which is uncertainty. Uncertainty applies right across British agriculture. The industries with which I have been involved, when faced with uncertainty, became frightened and refused to invest. In this case, however, it all comes down to British agriculture's uncertain relationship with the euro and the uncertainty surrounding the pound. That seems a fundamental issue. The other great uncertainty is the continuing debate about where the common agricultural policy will lead. We must sympathise with farmers about that uncertainty in trying to plan their future.
Putting the matter in perspective, however, the Government have offered substantial compensation for BSE in the past five years. There are those who argue that some of the compensation for foot and mouth disease may prove to have been overgenerous rather than undergenerous. Substantial funds are still being provided because of the common agricultural policy. Remarkably—because they are either idiotic or very prudent—the vast majority of culled-out farmers have returned to the business from which they were removed. They have restocked. It is an interesting picture. Breeding stock prices are increasing remarkably. Three weeks ago, the Perth bull sales achieved unprecedented prices—another sign of confidence in the future.
Export demand in pig breeding—a business which I know very well—has been very strong. As soon as the restraints were lifted, foreign buyers wanted to buy our
950
high-quality breeding pigs. That is very encouraging. As I have gone round the country, despite all the difficulties and the concerns about milk prices which the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, rightly mentioned, I have found many farmers investing substantially to increase yields and throughputs and to reduce costs. Those are all good, very businesslike developments.
It is all a bit puzzling. My advice to farmers is not to overstate the crisis. The Treasury loves an overstated case that it can demolish. To overstate one's case when dealing with the Treasury is very bad tactics.
The three groups to which we look to deal with the crisis must be, first, the European Union, secondly, the British Government, and, thirdly, farmers themselves. I shall deal with each very briefly. At the top of the European Union's agenda in the next six months approaching enlargement must be radical reform of the CAP—costly, bureaucratic, corruptible and imposing unnecessary restraints on progressive farmers. The second priority, which I think will he dealt with following the French elections, is a lifting of the French ban on British imports. I suspect that that will happen in the next few weeks. Thirdly, we need a more co-ordinated European approach to controlling animal disease. That approach must deal with imports, research, and the vexed question of vaccination against foot and mouth disease.
We come next to the role of the British Government. First, the Government must not directly intervene in the exchange rate; no British Government seeking to do so have succeeded. However, the moment that the exchange rate is compatible—when sterling is 10 to 15 per cent below its current level against the euro—the Government should seriously consider entering euroland. If there is one group in this country who will benefit, it is British farmers. There may be questions and disadvantages elsewhere, but British farmers must see that it is in their interests.
The noble Lord, Lord Plumb, mentioned my role in regulation. We submitted a very compelling report to the Government about the need to simplify and codify and to make inspection simpler. The Government have had to deal with foot and mouth disease. However, I beg them to return urgently to that report and to implement its many sound findings. The Government must continue to press very strongly for reform of the CAP. I know they are doing so.
More cash is not the solution to the problem. If that was the case, we would not have a problem. The British Government must encourage British farmers to help themselves. How? First, farmers can themselves tackle huge inefficiencies. The spread between the best and the worst British farmers in any sector would he unacceptable in any other industry. It is amazing that the worst farmers survive. That issue has to be faced.
Secondly. British farmers must learn to co-operate in the way they buy, in the way they share their assets and, above all, in the way they market. We are far behind all our major competitors in the area of cooperation. Thirdly, any industry which is not investing is going backwards. Despite the uncertainty, I plead

951
with British farmers to invest, to raise standards, to improve quality, to get better yields, to rationalise, to increase throughputs and to improve animal welfare.
Fourthly, British farmers must replace the 40 year-old culture of dependency with one of enterprise and recognise that the world has switched from a producer-led market to a consumer-led market. The days when the president of the NFU could go in all his pomp to Whitehall to ask for, and expect to get, large handouts from a grateful government are, I am afraid, over. We have to live with the reality that farmers, like everyone else, have to learn to stand on their own feet. I am confident that British farmers can do just that.
3.31 p.m.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, in my view livestock farmers will never survive unless they have a realistic price for their end product. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, agrees with my views. I also thank him for initiating this debate and for his excellent, informative opening speech. I hope that the Minister will now take the necessary action to help our ailing industry.
I have been involved with the agriculture industry all my life. I have exported and imported meat from Europe and I am proud to be the patron of the Welsh livestock auctioneers who have looked after the interests of farmers in Wales for generations. I will challenge anyone who believes that there is a better system of marketing livestock than the present auction system. The producer has the final say whether the auctioneer can sell his stock. He will know exactly how much he will get for his sheep and cattle. Many firms of auctioneers pay on the day of the sale. What else can you ask for?
The Government are still failing to prevent a new outbreak of foot and mouth disease by refusing to allocate extra financial resources towards stamping out illegal meat imports. Welsh farmers have been at the forefront of efforts to stop illegal meat imports and to close a loophole allowing people to bring in a kilo of meat from abroad for their own consumption. However, the growing illegal trade, believed by many experts to be supported by large criminal gangs, poses an increased risk to health in this country.
The media have highlighted the potential dangers from bushmeat entering this country for over a year, yet virtually nothing has been done to prevent this meat reaching the United Kingdom. Last year's outbreak of foot and mouth disease was imported into this country from abroad. Who is to say that other diseases, such as the deadly human Ebola virus, will not be next? I believe that the Government must commit greater law enforcement resources to crack down on this illegal trade.
According to Bob Parry, the President of the Farmers Union of Wales,
"Gangs and individuals who smuggle illegal, potentially diseased, meat must be dealt with in the same way as heroin or cocaine traffickers".
I wonder whether the Minister agrees with the president's comments. Time will tell.
952
Mr Clive Lawrance of Ciel Logistics at Heathrow is the company manager transporting for inspection products of meat origin into Heathrow. Mr Lawrance is concerned about the ineffectiveness of the powers to search just granted to Customs and Excise officers. He says that they omit the power to stop and search, so that officers are not empowered to stop a moving vehicle, and that shows a lack of urgency by the Government to deal with the problem. Mr Lawrance believes that the revenue to run an effective enforcement authority at all ports of entry should be raised through a tax on all passengers of, say, £1 per passenger. Some 65 million passengers a year pass through Heathrow alone so you get some idea of hat sums could be raised through a tax of this sort.
Not only would such revenue be used to fund a proper enforcement authority, but the amounts raised at the larger ports such as Heathrow and Dover could subsidise developments at smaller ports. Mr Lawrance firmly believes that the poster campaign introduced at ports last January stipulating that illegal meat importers can he fined up to £5,000 or gaoled for up to two years is unenforceable due to lack of staff. The reluctance of the Home Office to deport culprits back to their home countries is another problem.
As the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, said, 2,000 refrigerated containers arrive in Dover daily and 6 million containers arrive in Britain every year. I urge the Minister to persuade DEFRA to get its act together over what has become a major topical issue.
We have strict livestock movement controls in this country following the foot and mouth outbreak, but nothing has been done to control the importation of illegal meats. What we need now is action, not words. The Minister responsible for agriculture, Margaret Beckett, has promised to help the agriculture industry, yet DEFRA seems to me to be slow to act on her proposals. Farmers are desperate to move forward and produce good, home-produced food at a reasonable price for the consumer. Concerted effort must he made to stop foot and mouth entering this country from abroad in the future. I ask the Minister, is there any glimmer of hope in his view that things will get better and improve during the year to help those who are desperately calling out for help and guidance?
3.37 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, for instigating this debate. I declare an interest as I have three breeds of sheep and a pony stud.
I can say from first-hand experience that there ale many worries at this present time with livestock farming. Time, energy and dedication have to go into producing livestock. I hope that this debate will also help to educate some people who do not appreciate what goes into producing a litre of milk: the early rising; keeping the cows and equipment clean; the feeding and grass management; the fencing; keeping all the records; covering for farmer or staff illness and vets' bills. It is endless.

953
So many people are still living in the shadow of foot and mouth disease. In the past two weeks there have been two scares in North Yorkshire. The fear of many different diseases hitting the livestock industry seems to be ever with us. I quote from this week's Farmers' Weekly,
"After F&M comes bovine TB crisis. Bovine TB is the forgotten disease of UK stock farming. While the nation focused on F&M a TB time bomb began ticking".
The National Beef Association's Beef 2002 event has switched venues to Wooler in Northumberland after the discovery of possible TB reactors on the original farm site. Bovine TB could end beef and dairy farming on the South Downs if the fears of a West Sussex producer are realised. He believes that a rapid rise in badger numbers is responsible for the first TB outbreak in the county for six years. Wales and the West Country also have a problem. There is a serious debate about how bovine TB is passed from cattle to cattle—or does it come from badgers?
Robert Forster, the chief executive of the National Beef Association said,
"if badger protesters truly have the interests of their species at heart and genuinely wish to guard its welfare, they must protect it against TB".
I ask the Minister: what progress there is on this matter across the country, and is there a problem of bovine TB in other European countries?
The recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the UK has highlighted the dangers of illegally imported meat, as has been said. It is thought that that is how the disease entered the country. Other diseases, such as Ebola, anthrax, swine fever, salmonella, E. coli, sheep pox, pseudorabies, African horse sickness and Nipah virus—that causes agonisingly painful death in pigs and humans—could be introduced into the UK via meat. Those diseases are present in countries that illegally export bushmeat to Europe and the US. That threat is very real. Last year, the UK suffered from swine fever and foot and mouth. In 2000, there was an Ebola scare at Heathrow airport when the carcasses of 15 monkeys were found hidden in a cargo of fruit and vegetables, along with an anteater and some tortoise legs. Fortunately, that was just a scare. Another time, we might not be so lucky.
More than 1,000 tonnes of meat is illegally imported into the UK each year. There are about 200 airport seizures a month but it is thought that airports detect at most one-tenth of illegal meat. About 90 per cent of passengers on flights from West Africa are illegally importing meat into Britain. The trade in bushmeat does not just jeopardise wildlife populations; it also poses a very real threat to human and animal health in Africa. Europe and the US. Should we not have far more sniffer dogs at our airports? I am told that the concentration span of a sniffer dog is about 20 minutes. There would need to be teams of dogs that work on rotas.
Knowing that this debate was to take place, I was asked by someone who recently flew to Australia and New Zealand and complied with their strict
954
regulations—they prevent the entry of any form of disease into their countries, whether plant life or animals would be affected—why no such regulations were in place in Britain. We continue to fear for the protection of the livestock industry from many diseases, let alone ourselves.
Does the Minister agree that our rare breeds are part of our heritage and need preserving? I am a member of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust. It exists to conserve rare and threatened breeds of our indigenous farm livestock and has, over nearly 30 years, worked in many different ways to achieve that. The trust does much to protect the nation's stock of rare breeds of farm livestock from disease. The RBST does much work educating the public and supports its members. The farming industry feels that it is not wanted or understood by the Government. I hope that the Government realise that without farming and livestock the countryside will become a desolated wilderness.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, the House should be grateful to my noble friend Lord Plumb for initiating this important debate. He said that livestock agriculture in the United Kingdom will never be the same. That is absolutely true. That is the result of devastating diseases such as BSE, swine fever, foot and mouth disease and so on. Agriculture in the UK—livestock agriculture in particular—has always been resilient. Britain's livestock agriculture is characterised by the fact that it can respond to various needs, as we saw during the Second World War.
According to the National Farmers Union, only about 6 per cent of holdings that were affected by foot and mouth disease have no plans to restock. The rest will do so and will not leave the industry. Those who remain will carry out the valuable task of rebuilding and maintaining the livestock industry. They will work within important strictures, which include environmental demands, food quality, exports, feed additives and so on. It is contingent on Her Majesty's Government to assure the livestock industry that the devastating diseases that we have suffered during the past couple of years do not occur again and that domestic diseases, from which there have been great losses, will be enormously reduced.
There has been much concern about animal welfare. Animal disease is often linked to poor health among animals and is a major cause of poor welfare. Indeed, in my own profession—the veterinary profession—large animal work increasingly focuses on animal health and productivity rather than merely on the "fire brigade" work of attending to the individual animal that is ill. In order to do that, the profession needs appropriate tools for surveillance, early diagnosis, appropriate treatment and preventive action, such as vaccines.
Surveillance, especially of exotic diseases—several noble Lords have already mentioned that—is not as good as it should be. Not only do we not place curbs on the introduction into this country of food products from all over the world, although other countries, such

955
as the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, do so, but major quantities of foodstuffs are imported into this country and we have no idea where much of it comes from. Bushmeat, for example, has been mentioned.
Surveillance also applies to our domestic diseases. There is a particular need to get vets back on farms. Many livestock farms never see their veterinarian from one year to the next. The surveillance of disease is therefore very poor. A programme by which local veterinarians served as veterinary health welfare officers would he valuable. One way to do that would be to revisit the old Veterinary Investigation Service, which was once a major jewel in the crown of disease control in this country but which has been whittled away. Although it is now effective as the Veterinary Laboratory Agency, its manpower situation is not good.
Another approach is to designate certain livestock veterinary practices as sentinel practices, which are charged with overseeing animal health and management in their area so that they can report periodically on the general health status of livestock in their area. A somewhat similar recommendation was made in the Phillips report, which recognised the great need for increased surveillance of BSE.
Critical to disease control is early diagnosis. We know from the outbreak of foot and mouth disease that if we had had an adequate early diagnostic test we should have been in much better shape than we were. Again, this issue requires research but, unfortunately, the research capacity of the veterinary profession is not as good as it should be. Although he is not in his place this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Selborne chaired a very important committee which looked into this matter for the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.
Disease prevention is, of course, an issue which is particularly addressed by vaccination, as mentioned earlier by noble Lords. Again, we need effective vaccines that are easily administered, can be produced in large amounts, remain active for a long time and can differentiate between vaccination and infection. With the modern biotechnologies of genomic characterisation, we should be able to do that.
In all of this, I would say that the price of freedom from disease is eternal vigilance. We must take that on board. If noble Lords will permit me, perhaps I may finish by making one positive comment on what I consider to be such vigilance. A meeting was organised on Monday and Tuesday this week by DEFRA to look at antibiotic resistance in animals and animal feeds. It was a most impressive congress. I congratulate DEFRA on setting it up and initiating important research in this area. To my mind, that is an example of appropriate vigilance. I hope that it can be extended to other livestock areas where the needs are just as obvious as those relating to the misuse and imprudent use of antibiotics.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting as the noble Lord, Lord Fyfe, is about to
956
speak. As two speakers on this side of the House took longer than their allotted time, perhaps I may remind noble Lords that we are each limited to six minutes.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Fyfe of Fairfield: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the reminder. I shall be brief. I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, for initiating a debate on such an important subject. At this point, I declare an interest. Until recently I was chairman of the Cooperative Group, the CWS, which owns Farmcare. It is the largest active farmer in Britain, operating more than 90,000 acres.
Farmcare has substantial livestock interests, particularly in the dairy sector, milking more than 3,000 cows. But we also face some of the current difficulties in terms of falling firm-gate prices for milk. As part of a recent strategic review, Farmcare moved out of some livestock production, particularly pig production, when frankly we had neither the scale of operation nor the expertise to compete on an added-value basis with our global competitors.
Among other reasons, that is why I believe that the Curry commission's proposals that an English collaborative board be established is sensible. It is a very welcome step in the right direction and could realise the potential of the farming and food chain with co-operation between them. It could also have significant benefits for the livestock industry. I am hopeful that the Government will adopt that recommendation as part of their agricultural strategy. Indeed, it has received the support of my noble friend the Minister.
In many other parts of the world—other EU states, the United States of America and New Zealand—cooperation and collaboration have long provided a proven business model which can lead to prosperity for agricultural producers. In Scotland, for example, formal structures to promote and develop success in farmer co-operation already exist with the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society taking the lead. Tile Western Isles Livestock Initiative was launched a couple of years ago to help crofters in Lewis, Harris, Uist and Skye to bring their lambs up to marketable weight and condition by placing them on east coast feeding farms. In Wales there has been the launch of the Red Meat company, which brings together Welsh livestock farmers in marketing their meat, particularly lamb.
Perhaps I may refer again to Farmcare. We have—I should say "they have" but I cannot help referring to Farmcare as still being part of my organisation; my heart is still there—put our money where our mouth is. Two experts have been recruited to spearhead new-style farm co-operatives in Cumbria, where livestock farmers face particular problems in rebuilding their markets following the devastation of foot and mouth disease.
I believe that farmers should work together on a collaborative and co-operative basis. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Haskins has already referred to that. I do

957
not believe that the solution to the industry's long-term problems lies in parading down Whitehall begging the Government for relief. I believe that farmers are self-willed and self-reliant enough to make a success of their own industry by working hard together in collaborative and co-operative terms. There are sound, sensible and logical reasons for that. It means a basis for mutual benefit by sharing knowledge and equipment, benchmarking, setting up joint ventures and funding and developing new added-value markets.
Four minutes have elapsed. I am compensating for the over-run of some noble Lords. I believe that cooperation and collaboration are the future for the farming industry in the UK. They are also in the national interest.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, much of what is wrong with the livestock industry is what is wrong with farming as a whole, as many speakers have already pointed out. Therefore, I must start by clearing the ground and saying briefly what the Green Party would do about farming as a whole.
We believe that the most basic problem lies in the free trade set-up and the international agreements to enforce it. We believe that every nation is entitled to food security and that, therefore, agriculture should be taken out of GATT. Thus, we look forward to an end to monoculture and the existence of a populated countryside filled with small mixed farms.
We do not believe that that is pie in the sky, and a start might be made by our Treasury making a U-turn in actively encouraging the European grants for our farmers instead of, as at present, discouraging them in order that they should not have to match them. At present, the result of their attitude, as Richard North has tirelessly pointed out, is that our farmers are up to 40 per cent worse off than their opposite numbers on the mainland—a position by no means wholly due to the strength of the pound.
I now turn to the more specific livestock side of farming. Here one of the most difficult problems is that of humane farming. I believe that there has been a shortage of input into this debate about the welfare of the livestock about which we are talking and to which we owe a debt of moral duty. When I entered the Chamber, I saw four Bishops on the Bench opposite and I had great hopes that they would contribute to the debate. Alas, that is not to be, although one is still present and will no doubt carry back the message.
One of the most difficult problems is that of humane and economic farming. Your Lordships will know that I view with abhorrence all forms of factory farming. I have introduced into your Lordships' House Bills for the prevention of cruelty to broiler hens and pigs. At present, there is before your Lordships a Bill concerning the welfare of ducks.
958
I pay tribute to the tireless work of Peter Stevenson and Compassion in World Farming in not only campaigning for the welfare of animals, but also in setting up a dialogue with farmers who, for the most part, have consciences and really care.
Among civilised people, it must be possible to feed a nation in such a way that we also treat our animals humanely. If the economic system prevents that, the economic system must be changed. As noble Lords have said, this is a time, in the aftermath of the foot and mouth outbreak, to start on some of the obvious steps that will allow for more civilised farming. One of the easiest ways is to refrain from resuming the export of live animals for slaughter. Whatever regulations are, in theory, in force, in practice it allows for an enormous amount of animal suffering.
Another method is the increase in labelling requirements, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, to whom we are grateful for instigating the debate. That would allow customers an informed choice, which I believe will increasingly be an informed moral choice. Another is the establishment of a channel for the voice of farmers other than the National Farmers Union, which is the voice of the agricultural industry—something else altogether. I have high hopes that that may soon emerge.
This debate is to call attention to the state of the livestock industry and I hope that I have called attention to the state of the livestock. I believe that this has been a necessary contribution and I hope that it will inform the thinking of the Government in the future.
4.1 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, for introducing the debate and for putting the case for farming so starkly. According to Farming and Food—the Curry report—farming is on a path that is not sustainable; the CAP is unacceptable: farming is still in crisis: farm incomes are on the floor; and output is falling. That is a pretty dreadful state for any industry. The Government give the impression that they are not particularly interested in farming.
This week I received on my desk from the Secretary of State a document entitled Essentials for Life. It is full of visions and aspirations. At present, "vision" appears to be the buzz word of the Government. What does it mean in practice? When and what will happen to the CAP? Under the present CAP farmers will receive more than under any other system. That is why Eastern Europe is so keen to join the European Union at the present time. When will there be discussions on changes to the CAP? Can the industry be more involved before Europe comes up with more damaging directives?
The air is full of political advice, but not advice on how to produce quality food at a moderately profitable price. Farmers deserve a fair return on capital invested and on farming, a subject about which they have knowledge. They should not be expected to diversify into all kinds of odds and ends for which they are not trained.

959
Both the Government and the various agencies appear to have gone daft on modulation. Already it is reducing subsidy payments and it is accelerating. Modulation means less production subsidies—the first pillar—and more for rural development—the second pillar. Farming will lose out, which is serious, particularly for the less favoured areas. In passing, I ask why I have not received my LFA payment by mid-April when it should have been paid in mid-March?
I demonstrate the point with the countryside stewardship scheme and I lean heavily on the comments made by Jim Walker, the excellent president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland. In Scotland there are 380 farms in the scheme: 266 farms in environmentally sensitive area schemes and 125 receiving organic aid. That is 771 farms receiving rural aid out of 30,000 farms. That shows that the vast majority of farms receive nothing whatever for any effort made to support the environment.
As an alternative to going down the route of modulation, which drives most farmers mad, particularly the calculations on the number of livestock units that they have, the Government could enter a new scheme of a national envelope, as allowed by the European Union under the farm budget. incentives can he given, but that can be argued only by British Ministers in Brussels. Can the Minister tell the House whether we are to do that? I believe it has to be done this month if at all.
The National Farmers Union of Scotland, like other unions, is against modulation as a blunt instrument to fund the second pillar on rural issues. If it has to be imposed it must be universal across the European Union and not just with this country carrying most of the burden as usual.
As well as beef, milk is also in crisis. Another drop of 3 pence per litre will he made in the near future. The competition policy will be seen to have failed farmers. The situation is serious indeed. The Government must consider the exchange rate which is a major problem in milk and they must activate the agri-money option, which they can if they wish to. Again, that must be done in April.
Like others in my part of the world, I lost my sheep flock because of foot and mouth. I have two questions for the Minister. Unlike this Government, the European Union set up an inquiry and has been taking evidence. Was the Minister correct to say the other day to that inquiry that the Government had full legal rights to cull on the "3K" scheme—the contiguous scheme—livestock that was free of foot and mouth?
I also notice that some authorities have been criticising the Army for taking so long to take over logistical control. Can the Minister confirm that the Army was ready and waiting for three weeks before the Government would give authority? The noble Lord, Lord Geraint, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, have rightly raised the issue of imports, which is a burning issue with farmers. They are very concerned indeed. Do we have sufficient meat inspectors? When will the Government do something about airports? I travel to and from America and on coming into this
960
country no one appears to care two hoots from where one has travelled. What, in the near future, will the Government do about that?
I commend the Meat and Livestock Commission which appears to take positive steps to try to help farmers with their action plan. I hope that the Government will give all the support that they can. There is much to do and the Government have to make early decisions if farmers are to get out of the dreadful hole that the Government have dug for them.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, I also want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, for giving us the opportunity to take our minds off the Budget and to debate the state and future of our livestock industry. Today the livestock industry may be a small part of our GDP, but it is an important factor as the provider of food for our population, as the user of much of our land, as the shaper of much of our environment and as a source of income, either directly or indirectly not only for farmers but also for many other businesses and people in the United Kingdom.
I declare an interest as a non-executive director of Whitbread, a company with a large number of restaurants and hotels and as a member of the Wessex regional committee of the National Trust, which is a substantial landowner.
I want to indicate some reasons why, if we look after our own interests, we should not be pessimistic. One should understand that, because of low prices and the disastrous effects of animal disease, the livestock industry today is in a depressed state, with the value of the production of pigs, cattle and sheep down in 2001. Part of that production may have been lost permanently, but part of it may represent the necessary restocking. Poultry production, as befits a nation whose national dish is chicken tikka masala, is holding up pretty well, but we are losing some share of a growing market. We would not choose to start from here, but this debate gives us a chance to look forward and I do not see all gloom.
It is many years since the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, and I negotiated deficiency payments. It was not an idyllic age then. The same problems arose in relation to balancing public expenditure with a sound agricultural industry. I do not want to look backwards but to concentrate only on where we are now and how to stabilise and improve the prospects for the industry and hence for the supply of food in the shops.
I shall mention three points but develop only two. First, I draw attention to the natural advantages in the UK for livestock and animal products. I believe that in the recent climate of crisis we may be forgetting some of those advantages. We shall remain competitive at the production level if we do not shoot ourselves in die foot by importing animal disease, by over-regulation, by accepting disadvantages in the setting of support prices because we are outside the euro-zone and by other distortions resulting from agricultural policy It is the duty of government to see that we do not shoot ourselves in the foot.

961
Secondly, I want to draw together, as effectively as possible, the various strands of future agriculture policy which may result from the continuing reform of the policy in the European Union and from the good analysis set out in the report of Sir Donald Curry's commission—Farming and Food—which I view very positively.
Thirdly, it is obvious that we cannot recover a good position in the livestock industry unless in the future we do better on animal disease than we have in the recent past.
I turn first to our advantages. I do not want to overstress the point, but I believe that we have quite considerable advantages in our farm structure for integrated meat and beef production. We have developed an efficient system for lamb production. Those advantages remain, even though perhaps at the present time we are 80 per cent or less self-sufficient for lamb because of foot and mouth disruption.
Those of your Lordships who travel on the Underground—that is all of you I imagine—will have seen a poem which reads:
"I am the grass; let me work".
I remember that when I am at home in Somerset. It is good for our livestock industry.
Turning to the future, we shall not necessarily be competitive at the final level, even if we are competitive at the production level, unless we look at marketing. The Curry commission suggests that the marketing chain for red meat is too long and should be examined. I hope that the Government will look favourably at that recommendation.
Secondly, I turn to the main issue, which is the development of agricultural policy in the European Union with the much greater emphasis which we want to put on agriculture as the manager of a living and attractive countryside. The Countryside Stewardship Scheme is very good, but I agree with the Curry commission that as we aim to switch resources to environmental objectives, we should opt for a new, broad and shallow stewardship tier, open to as many farms in the United Kingdom as possible, with a simple whole farm plan. I ask the Minister whether the Government are favourable to that approach. I argue for it because I think that the management of environmental change is important for us all. We exaggerate sometimes the environmental damage. The British landscape looks probably better now than it ever did in my 67 years. But we need to manage environmental change. I am in favour of a wide scheme of stewardship.
Another reason why I should like a wide and shallow stewardship scheme is that I think that it would tie in with the continuation of a safety net for livestock farmers, to which I attach very considerable importance, if prices collapsed to very low levels. We are committed by the Treaty of Rome to,
"ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community".
We now need to move to a combination of the wider stewardship scheme with a simple fixed grant if prices collapse. I am strongly against the abolition of the
962
safety net. We need it. We can control the cost if it is properly capped. The cost of the common agricultural policy is currently 1.2 per cent of public expenditure—I repeat, 1.2 per cent of public expenditure—in the Union and its member states. That is a good deal, but under a revised system it would probably be less.
We can do many of the things that we seek to do. We need to look to our marketing. We need to develop a wider policy for a wider stewardship grant. and back it with a genuine safety net if prices collapse.
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Plumb for instituting this debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskins, said that the farming industry should not overplay its hand with the Treasury. I do not know a single farmer in this country who would not wish to have a government that supports the farming industry like other governments of other European countries have supported their farming industry.
I declare my interest as a trustee of the Queen Elizabeth Castle of Mey Trust. We have two pedigree herds. We have a pedigree herd of Aberdeen Angus cattle and a pedigree flock of North Country Cheviot sheep. I want to speak entirely about the pedigree sector which has long been neglected. The pedigree livestock sector, as your Lordships will he aware, is the seed stock for the entire livestock industry of the United Kingdom. It is a high-risk business. It is much higher risk than normal farming. Some years are good; most years are awful. Unless that sector is preserved and maintained we will be subject to the vagaries of questionable and variable meat coming in from other countries where its origin is uncertain and the welfare standards, to which the beasts have been subject, is also uncertain.
Shows are the lifeblood of the pedigree sector. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for his press release of 11th April and the resumption of livestock at agricultural shows. Of course that comes with a downside; it comes with increased bureaucracy. There are 28 pages of guidance notes. Attached to the 28 pages are seven sets of appendices that people have to plough through. So we win by getting our shows back; we lose by a great deal more bureaucracy.
I turn to the important aspect of genetics in pedigree breeding. The export of genetics has been a significant revenue-earner for this country. The trade is a two-way process. Many breeds have relied heavily on the importation of new genetic lines from overseas.
In October the EU intervened. It imposed a ban on the importation of embryos and live cattle from a list of countries, including our most important supplier—North America. That has severely disadvantaged many of our traditional beef breeds. Aberdeen Angus is one of the breeds affected. If one breeds Charolais, Simmental, Limousin or other non-indigenous breeds of cattle one has a much wider genetic pool than the traditional homebred breeds of Aberdeen-Angus, Hereford, Shorthorn and Galloway.

963
Cattle from the Americas have been imported into this country for many years. There is no evidence of any vertical transmission of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in any of their offspring, if indeed their parents or grandparents were ever exposed to mammalian derivative protein sources. The continuation of this ban is morally and scientifically unjustified and should be revoked with immediate effect. I hope that the Minister will give me some reassurance that he is taking action on that front.
Turning to the sheep flock, one of the problems that we face in common with others is the genotype grading under the National Scrapie Plan. In simple terms, there are five categories under that plan. Category 1 is the best and category 5 is the worst. The category that affects most hill breeds—not only hill breeds in Scotland such as the North Country Cheviot, but hill breeds and rare breeds in this country such as Herdwick sheep—is category 3. If one's ram or tup is tested in category 3, one can continue to sell that animal until 31st December 2004 and to breed from it until 31st December 2007. However, that poses a great many problems, because many flocks fall into that category. It is the very timescale that is deterring owners of flocks from joining the National Scrapie Plan. There is also a significant loss for the breeder. On one day his tup may be worth £2,000, say, but on the next, because of the draconian dateline, it is worth nothing. Northern flocks face many problems as a result, which are especially serious for those in Shetland.
For pedigree breeders, there is another knock-on effect. From now on, people who want to purchase pedigree stock will look not for the best sheep for their flock or for the bloodline, but for sheep that are category 1 or 2 under the scrapie plan. We may produce the wrong sheep for the future. Will the Minister reconsider the dates and set back both the 2004 and 2007 dates by three years?
4.21 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I suppose that I, too, must thank the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, although he must be a little tired of all the congratulations and would prefer action.
The figures that I—and most noble Lords—received from the National Farmers Union are most significant. The product of the livestock industry—I am not sure if this figure is for England and Wales alone—is down by about £600 million since 2001. The situation is serious and the Government must do something about it. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, said: it is up to farmers to do a great deal. But farming is an industry in such a state and so subject to variation in world trade that it needs some government regulation.
When we consider that foot and mouth disease cost the industry £9 billion—again, according to the NFU—we realise that we need proper control, as other noble Lords have said, of the import of meat from countries in which foot and mouth is an indigenous disease. That must mean one simple thing: the
964
Government must employ many more people at ports to check not only where meat comes from but that proper regulations concerning the removal of certain parts from the carcass have been enforced. That is an important part of what the Government must do.
Regulations must be enforced across the European Union. They must be regularised, because we all have experience of the fact that different conditions are insisted on here as regards, for example, pig farming, than elsewhere.
Fish meal is still banned, I understand, for use by ruminants, but fish meal fed to ewes and lambs has a most beneficial effect and produces good lambs. I cannot understand what harm fish meal can do if it comes from countries that have supplied it to us for many years.
Those are things that the Government can do. Another is to help co-operation. I look back on the happy days of the Milk Marketing Board and greatly regret that it has departed. The Government controlled that body and did not allow it to take advantage of its position, but it ensured a reasonable price for farmers, whereas now Milk Marque, which was an endeavour by the industry to organise marketing, is split into four. That is a difficult situation when the buyers, the supermarket chains, seem to cooperate happily in trying to keep down the price.
The Government must take an interest in all of those matters, but I entirely agree with the noble Lords, Lord Haskins and Lord Fyfe, that eventually the remedy must come from farmers themselves. A tremendous amount is being done in all kinds of fields. No one can obtain a return on growing grain at present prices, although I suppose that it is an advantage to a livestock farmer to have cheap grain. To take advantage of that needs co-operation, help from the Government and advice.
I have always taken the view that supermarkets market beef badly. Their whole philosophy is that everything should go out of the door as quickly as possible, whereas we all know that good beef needs to be hung. It costs a certain amount to hold it during that time, but it makes a big difference. In that respect, many breeders, such as the Aberdeen Angus breeders, are doing much to promote at good prices the excellent beef that we produce in this country.
Farmers can help themselves—they are, in all kinds of ways—but they need a regular and fair atmosphere in which to operate. I shall finish by criticising the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, a little. He made a good speech, but spoilt it at the end by saying that farmers should stand on their feet, like the rest of us. I constantly hear cries from every industry for government help, so farmers are not as bad as all that.
4.27 p.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, is not too bored with receiving thanks, because I, too, want to thank him for initiating this debate, which is of great importance to our farming community and, indeed, our nation.

965
Many speakers here today are highly knowledgeable on the subject, and I do not pretend to be up to their standard. But I want to say a few words because of my great interest and belief in our rural areas and the people who live there. Many lessons were learnt from the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, which must teach us all, but especially the Government, how to plan for the future—as they are doing.
When I saw that this debate was on our agenda, I guessed that there might be a fair bit of criticism of the Government, and I have not been disappointed. However, being optimistic, I want to bring a glimmer of light to our debate. I shall give a few examples of what the Government are doing for the livestock industry, and shall then turn to something that has not yet been mentioned: the Meat and Livestock Commission.
Agreement has been reached at EU level on a package of measures to assist member states' sheep industry by helping to address environmental problems, including overgrazing, and by improving production and marketing of sheep meat. For a long time, the Government have been pledged to more efficient administration of the Common Agricultural Policy. With the establishment of the Rural Payments Agency, for the first time everything related to that issue is under one administration.
Protecting public health from diseases transmitted by livestock and the prevention and control of animal disease must be a key part of the Government's strategy, and it is. The Government believe that an integrated animal health regime will be vital. That will depend on involving shareholders, stakeholders, including the livestock industry, veterinary practitioners, government—especially DEFRA and the Department of Health—and the EU. Perhaps I may pause here and ask my noble friend the Minister whether he can tell us at the end of the debate the current position as regards the Animal Health Bill.
The lessons of foot and mouth show the need for an updating of the existing operational contingency plans, and this is being effected. The operational response regime, developed during the recent outbreak of foot and mouth, is being further developed. It will cover national and local disease control centres, including their staffing and resources, the provision of disposal facilities, and the updating of current veterinary operating procedures. All the latter were obviously lacking in some respects during our recent foot and mouth epidemic.
I turn to the work of the Meat and Livestock Commission, which plays an important part in the livestock industry. As a butcher's daughter, I have a natural inclination towards eating good, red meat. I believe that nothing is better than British good, red meat. Obviously, with the foot and mouth epidemic, the MLC recognised the need to sustain the willingness to eat meat in this country. By and large, the evidence shows that it has been generally sustained. However,
966
as has already been mentioned, there is currently less red meat produced in Great Britain, and consumer requirements are becoming more diverse.
The Meat and Livestock Commission sees its main challenges to be: to ensure that British products are eaten rather than imports, as has already been stressed; to ensure that the products are nutritious, quick and easy to prepare; and to help the British livestock industry in its efforts in the area. On 7th March, the Industry Forum, which includes the MLC, DEFRA, the Institute of Grocery Distribution and the NFU, held a conference. The results of that conference echoed those of the Curry commission on the future of food and farming, and highlighted the need to improve the industry's competitiveness, profitability, and quality of products.
Research carried out by the Meat and Livestock Commission identified a number of key trends in meat consumption. Individuals are moving away from set, traditional meals: they are eating what they want, when they want. Diets have changed and people are reassessing what they eat. The time that most consumers are prepared to spend shopping, cooking and eating is going down in their list of priorities—hence the need for quick and easy preparation. However, although traditional cooking skills are in decline, cooking for pleasure has become a leisure pastime as people experiment with new tastes and flavours.
All such changes have vital implications for the livestock industry. The production of meat and its presentation has to respond to demand. The MLC is working with those in the livestock industry on such issues as the size of packs of meat; ready-made or ready-to-prepare meals; assurances of health and safety of the meat produced; the market for luxury or premium meat products; selecting better breeding stock; and the development of products that fit into current diet and lifestyles.
There is no doubt that the future of the livestock industry depends on all stakeholders recognising and accepting the need to work together for its future. And the Government are the key players in that future.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, commences his contribution, I rise simply to say that we are now running so far behind the clock as regards the timing of the debate that, if we continue at the same rate with the next group of speakers, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will be prevented from partaking in the proceedings. That, of course, would he a terrible shame for your Lordships' House. Therefore, perhaps I may appeal to the remaining speakers on the list to curtail their speeches for the benefit of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, who used to he one of my constituents—hence she developed the taste for good, red meat. We are all most grateful to my noble friend Lord Plumb for initiating the debate.

967
Many people are reporting on the livestock industry, but I wonder what is actually being done about it. We had the Policy Commission of Sir Donald Curry for a "thriving and sustainable rural economy", which dealt principally with modulation. We also had a policy commission on food and farming, which emphasised the need for farmers to develop their own industry and farmers' markets. Then we had the rural payment agency, the rural development service and the integrated administration and control system, as well as the report by the Rural Task Force under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, on the future of our country. However, I believe that the noble Lord was rather misguided in his thinking about organic grazing.
In every area of local administration we currently have a regional director, a rural affairs forum, a regional development agency, a local countryside agency, and blow me down if we do not now have a new concept called the "vital village programme", which has just been introduced. All that is spin, and summed up in one particular document that was sent round to all of us at no charge to anyone, entitled the Essentials of Life, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Monro. It claims on page 23 that the Government are "rural proofed". But they fail to acknowledge what has had the most profound effect on the English countryside; namely, hunting with hounds. That has had the most amazing effect on the whole way that our countryside is developed.
At present, a period of negotiations is in process. But what is really needed in the future is a statutory hacking for the independent hunting authority. A map must he re-drawn so as to remove the hounds, as the noble Lord, Lord Burns, suggested, from areas where they are an irritation. I should like to view the map that is issued every year showing the density of population. I believe that we should withdraw the hounds from areas where the population exceeds 600 persons per square kilometre.
It seems wrong not to realise the contribution that is being made by livery yards, by horse breeding establishments and by hunting. They are all part of the livestock industry, and no subsidy whatever is involved. If you want to think in terms of the Essentials al Life, the livestock industry is what keeps the English countryside alive. It is most encouraging to observe the desire of all stockmen to return to the job that they know best. The Cumberland survey was issued just the other day. A few people in the industry thought that they would like to retire, but, as a whole, most farmers have paid off their overdraft, taken the wife on a holiday, and now want to get back into the business that they know really well.
During the foot and mouth difficulties, 4.4 million sheep were slaughtered. A high proportion of those ewe lambs were kept back from the previous year's lambing—2001—and retained for breeding. I am certain that a similar situation will now apply. However, following the reform of the sheapmeat regulations, DEFRA will make use of the newly-gained independence to reduce the support payments to English sheep farmers. Scotland and Wales are
968
using their discretion to maintain the payments of the annual sheep premium at £22, but DEFRA is considering reducing the amount to £20. When he responds to the debate, can the Minister clear up that point? We do not need to distort the sheep market; we need to ensure that our small lambs are exported to Spain, and that we recover the market in France for our other lambs.
4.39 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, in deference to the request made by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, I have taken all the frills out of my speech. The noble Lord, Lord Plumb, has already declared my interests for me; and if I start to talk about goats I know that I shall overrun any time that I may have.
I understand that DEFRA has convened a working group with a membership drawn from the livestock and insurance industries. Its brief is to look at means of insuring the livestock industry against future outbreaks of infectious disease. My attention has been drawn to the fact that cheese makers who produce cheese from the milk of their own animals are in an unusual position, should they be affected by an outbreak of infectious disease such as foot and mouth disease. They stand to lose their animals and their cheese stocks. Can due regard be given to finding an insurance policy that will cover both, not just the animals? The specialist cheese industry in this country has been built up over the past 15 years. It now provides valuable exports, as well as the domestic market, and must be supported.
We have lost the knackers who used to destroy injured animals for us and take their bodies away. We are about to lose the hunts, who used to come to kill animals humanely and incinerate them for us. Because of the SBO regulations, that job has become too expensive. I am concerned on two grounds. On welfare grounds, I am concerned that there is no one to kill the animals. We all know that veterinary euthanasia is extremely expensive, and farmers are not skilled slaughtermen. Sick or injured animals may he left to die in pain, instead of being quickly dispatched. Dead animals may be buried or may be left out for scavenging creatures such as the fox. There is a disease risk in that. The situation is not satisfactory, and I ask the Minister whether DEFRA is addressing the problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Monro of Langholm, said that the Minister apparently told the European Parliament's FMD inquiry that a contiguous cull had been carried out with the approval of the European Union and that its legality had been tested in the courts. If that is correct, can the Minister kindly give the House the exact reference to European approvals, as the relevant directives make no mention of the slaughter of animals not exposed to disease? Will lie also tell us which are the relevant court cases?
I fully understand that the Minister was a trifle upset at the result of the Division on the Animal Health Bill. As a hereditary Cross-Bench Peer who does not vote often and has had next to nothing to do with the

969
hunting debate, I was a little disturbed by the incontinence of the Minister's remarks to the media on the day following the debate about my motives for voting as I did. As a Cross-Bencher, I am not whipped; nor am I Lobby fodder. As noble Lords know, I take my duties in the House seriously. I vote when I have listened to a debate and have been able to make up my mind or when I already have a firm opinion on the subject on which the House wishes to divide. I am sure that my colleagues do likewise.
4.42 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I add my query about what the Minister said to the European Parliament to those raised by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and the noble Lord, Lord Monro of Langholm.
It is pointless to think that we can learn the lessons for the future of the livestock industry unless we have a proper, deep, full public inquiry into the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. When he is asked about that, the Minister tends to get cross. I get cross, too. I am reminded of what de Gaulle said about Churchill:
"When I am right, I get cross. Churchill gets cross when he is wrong. We are cross at each other much of the time".
That is the Minister's attitude to the public inquiry. It is also the attitude of the rest of the Government; after all, the Minister is only—I nearly said lickspittle, but that would be unkind—a hewer of wood and drawer of water on the Government Front Bench.
I should have declared my interest. I have a few Dartmoor grey-faced sheep, some Hebridean sheep and some black Berkshire pigs with white feet and black bodies.
In the European Parliament in Strasbourg, the Minister made two claims about the contiguous cull. First, he claimed that the cull was legal and had been tested in the courts. Secondly, he claimed that the policy had been approved by the European Union. I believe that there was only one operative court case, which included a wretched pig called Grunty. Mr Justice Harrison ruled that DEFRA was not entitled to apply a blanket slaughter policy and had to take specific circumstances into account. He ruled that the animals had shown no signs of disease and that it was sufficient that they were monitored and tested. Mr Justice Harrison refused DEFRA leave to appeal and awarded costs of £40,000 against the Government.
Although that case applied to what DEFRA considered to be a dangerous contact, rather than a contiguous cull, the key element of the judgment was that the Minister had no power to order a blanket policy of slaughter and had to take specific circumstances into account. In this context, where Schedule 3 to the Animal Health Act 1981 authorises slaughter "in any case", the wording of the Act seems to support the contention, to the effect that, if the power relates to "any case", a judgment must be made in respect of every case. There would seem to be no power for a blanket contiguous cull policy.
970
The indications are, therefore, that there has been no legal challenge that supports the Minister's contention that the contiguous cull was legal. I echo the words of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and ask for details of the cases to which the Minister referred that support his contention and for details of the judgments in those cases.
The operative EU instruments are Council Directive 85/511/EEC, as amended by Directive 90/423/EEC and Council Decision 90/924/EEC on veterinary expenditure—I was briefed on this, by the by. In respect of Directive 85/511/EEC, Article 5 is relevant. It states that,
"all animals of susceptible species on the"—
infected—
"holding shall be slaughtered"—
and that,
"the competent authority may extend the measures provided for in paragraph 1"—
which authorises the taking of samples and the carrying out of examination—
"to adjoining holdings should their location, their configuration, or contacts with animals from the holding where the disease has been recorded give reason to suspect possible contamination".
On the face of it, the directive appears to authorise only testing and examination. That is endorsed by Article 8, which requires surveillance to be maintained on holdings where,
"foot and mouth disease could have been introduced from other holdings".
However, Article 11(4) of Council Decision 90/424/ EEC states that,
"Without prejudice to the measures to be taken in the context of the common organisation of the market"—
the relevant financial contribution shall cover compensation for,
"(i) the slaughter … of animals, (ii) the destruction of milk. (iii) the cleaning … of holdings, (iv) the destruction of contaminated feedstuffs … (v) losses incurred by farmers as a result of … emergency vaccination.
It shall also cover,
"(b) where applicable, the transport of carcases to processing plants"—
and,
"(c) any other measures which are essential for the eradication of the outbreak of the disease".
That reference to "any other measures" could be taken to mean legalisation of a contiguous cull, as it appears to indicate that there is provision for measures additional to those set out specifically in 85/511. However, for such additional measures to be eligible for compensation, the article goes on to state—this is the vital point—that the Commission shall, in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 41 of 90/424, define their nature. That requires an application to the Standing Veterinary Committee and approval by the Commission by way of a decision. Of the many decisions promulgated by the Commission during the foot and mouth epidemic, all of which have been published, none appears to apply to the UK's contiguous cull policy.

971
My speech has been detailed and, possibly, I have been more boring than I would normally be. There have been too many slashes. However, I ask when and under what terms did the EU approve the UK's contiguous cull policy? What documents attest to that approval? Can the Minister make those documents available to the House?
4.50 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I should explain to noble Lords that I was expecting to speak in this debate. In order to facilitate that, I called the Government Whips' Office because I thought that that would be the easiest thing to do. Either the inarticulation of the speaker, the difficulty in hearing on the part of the speaker, or the inadequacy of the telephone communication system, resulted in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fellowes, being put on the speakers' list as opposed to "Earl Ferrers". That was bad luck for the noble Lord, Lord Fellowes.
I declare an interest in that I have been involved with agriculture all my life. It is sad to see agriculture now in total decline and I think that the livestock industry has been hurt more than most. Before BSE in 1996, we were 113 per cent self-sufficient in beef and were great exporters. Now we are only 66 per cent self-sufficient and are major importers. The United Kingdom was the largest sheepmeat producer in the European Union, but in 2000 we were net importers of sheepmeat and this year we are only 80 per cent self-sufficient. That percentage is the lowest for almost 20 years.
Of course, as people eat more, there is a greater demand for meat, in particular beef. Thus we shall become less and less self-sufficient. British people want to eat British beef. They want to eat locally produced food sold at a reasonable price. Furthermore, they want animals to be kept in proper conditions. But what happens is that we import food from all over the world. Bacon comes from Denmark, pork from Romania and chicken from Thailand. Much of that food is produced in conditions that would be totally unacceptable in this country. The result is that the conditions maintained by our producers are put at such a premium that they become less competitive against imported meat.
When imported pork or chicken is cut up in this country, simply because it has been cut here it is then labelled as "British food", which of course it is not. As any schoolboy would say, that is "unfair". It is right for the Government to take action. All this militates against farmers and British agriculture.
I listened to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, with—if I may say so—incredulity. The noble Lord said that farmers ought not to "overstate the case". I do not know how you can overstate the case for going bankrupt. On another occasion he said that farmers ought to "stop grumbling" and be "more competitive". Today he said that they ought to "invest", "raise standards" and "improve efficiency". That is all fine, but how can you invest when you do have not the money to do so? Even if you do find the money to invest, having done so, what is to be done about an inadequate return?
972
I have told noble Lords on previous occasions that potatoes may cost £150 per tonne, but when they are sold in the supermarkets, they are sold for £8,500 per tonne. That makes one wonder who ought to take on the competitive element. A loaf of bread may cost 50p, but it contains only 3p worth of wheat. The notion that farmers ought to be more competitive and lower their prices further is, I believe, misdirected. The fact is that the supermarkets have a stranglehold on British producers by purchasing from anywhere in the would at the lowest possible prices.
Some five years ago, the price of milk was around 25p per litre. It then fell to 13½p per litre. The price rose again but, as my noble friend Lord Plumb pointed out, it is now falling again to somewhere around 13½p per litre. Those are crippling factors. With the greatest respect, it is no use for the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, to say that people ought to compete. You cannot compete like that; you will go bust. If that is the view of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, then it worries me that he is actually advising the Government. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that he should take the advice of his noble friend with great care and that he should take some advice from me as well.
Despite the fact that milk prices can drop to 131/2p Dr 15p per litre, supermarkets now sell six pints of milk for £1.37p. That amazing figure demonstrates quite clearly that British agriculture is going through the most appalling time.
A bereft livestock industry passes on its misery to others. If we have 5 million fewer cows to feed, then less cereals are required for livestock feed. Therefore the arable farmer is hit. Two years ago the price of' wheat rose to £75 per tonne, but today it is likely to be around £55 per tonne. According to the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, we ought to be more "competitive". Given those kinds of prices, I do not see how one can be any more competitive.
Some £42 million worth of European funds were made available in April 2001 to take account of alterations in the rates of exchange. The Government never took them. Then £57 million worth were made available in October 2001. Again, the Government never took them.
It is often said that the common agricultural policy ought to be reformed. I quite agree, but the fact is that I do not believe that it will ever be reformed because too many bees are buzzing around the honeycomb. As the European Union grows larger, so more and more people want to pursue what benefits can be had from it.
I recall visiting New Zealand some 17 years ago. Commonwealth preference was being wound down and the New Zealander farmers were in despair because their government were going to remove all farming subsidies. They said that it could not be done. Around eight years ago I happened to return to New Zealand. I sat next to the same person who some years previously had said that subsidies ought to go. He told me that New Zealand agriculture had never been in a better condition. That was because all subsidies had been removed, and thus the bureaucracy and mess that

973
goes with them went as well. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the Government will try to do the same rather than simply divert European funds towards bugs and beetles. Rather they should try to put British agriculture back on to a proper footing.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I start by declaring an interest as a non-executive director of a medium-sized company which manufactures and sells feed and other products to farmers. Perhaps I should also declare the interest of being a barrister who, over a good many years, has derived enormous professional satisfaction and occasional personal advantage from the litigiousness of farmers, in particular in North Wales.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, on initiating this debate. The noble Lord and others have reminded us of the scale of the livestock industry. Livestock production remains the major stakeholder in the United Kingdom's agriculture industry and therefore the major stakeholder in the countryside. That remains the case despite the dramatic loss of beef and sheepmeat production which we suffered between 2000 and 2001 as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak.
Unsurprisingly, some noble Lords have spoken of the effects of foot and mouth. In the time available, from these Benches I would simply express the hope that Her Majesty's Government will take the best steps available to guard against any repetition and to enable us to deal with any repetition, if it occurs, far better than last time. In that context, in my view it remains regrettable that, welcome as diverse inquiries from different viewpoints are, there is not to be one comprehensive inquiry—informed by those other inquiries, by academic and by international expertise—to devise an action plan for critical events in the future. It will be inexcusable if, or perhaps when, we suffer another crisis of this kind, but there is no ready action plan available. There must be better ways of tackling outbreaks of foot and mouth disease than those used over the past year or two. As my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie pointed out, estimates of the cost of that outbreak have been put as high as £9 billion. Surely we can do better than that.
As was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Geraint, the livestock markets have an important role to play. They have fulfilled an important role in the history of the livestock industry, but they have a future as well. Such markets are major employers and they are the hub of much of the business life of hill-farming communities. Incidentally, they also provide an important point of social contact between often isolated farmers, their spouses and families, who go to market in order to make that social contact. The markets are struggling to source sufficient livestock because of the 20-day standstill rule. I invite the Government to look at this with great care.
Noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Geraint, have referred to the inconsistent enforcement of control measures by our European Union partners.
974
Imported carcasses carrying specified risk materials are still being found in the United Kingdom. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, spoke of dangerous imports of other kinds. That is a very important issue. Because we have lost to disease our self-sufficiency in beef and sheepmeat, the risks posed by imports have increased and therefore the vigilance with which we police such imports must be increased.
As my noble friend Lord Mackie remarked, the Government must take a firm line over the improvement of inspection procedures and in ensuring that offenders, whether individuals or governments, face real sanctions. Furthermore, I would ask DEFRA to examine the facilities available to port officers. If one visits ports, as I have, one finds that officers often work with completely inadequate office facilities and do not have the space in which to carry out all the inquiries needed. That matter requires attention.
The noble Lords, Lord Haskins and Lord Fyfe, referred to co-operation among farmers. Farmers have co-operated for hundreds of years, and to imply that farmers do not co-operate is not fair. However, there is always room for improvement and there are initiatives for improvement. The industry forum, the findings of which were published in March this year, was an example of co-operation between different parts of the industry and, indeed, DEFRA. It is an example of good practice.
The industry forum identified an obvious, but not always expressed, conclusion, which was described by the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson. To ensure that shoppers buy British meat, it must be butchered and prepared in a way compatible with modern aspirations and lifestyle. Frankly, usually it is not so butchered and presented. The butchery industry has quite a lot to answer for in this regard because of the unattractive way in which it often prepares its produce as compared to imports. One has only to look at the average high street butcher's shop in a small French town and the average high street butcher's shop in a small English town to see the difference in presentation.
Welsh shoppers, for example, want to know where their meat comes from. My noble friend Lord Hooson, who was in his place earlier, is a distinguished and celebrated producer of Welsh black beef, and yet I would not be able to identify his Welsh black beef in a butcher's shop in Montgomeryshire where we both live.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that there are issues about labeling—indeed, there are scandals about labeling—which anyone who, like myself, has practised in the trade descriptions area of the law will have seen time and time again. The Government should take steps to ensure that food is labelled in a way which identifies accurately where it comes from—including the country of origin and, if possible, more specifically the source—so that British shoppers can buy and enjoy local produce, preferably well cut.
The noble Lord, Lord Fyfe, referred to Farmcare and pig production. If the CWS, through Farmcare, cannot make economic pig production and sell British pig meat in a profitable way, no one can. Therefore, as

975
the noble Lord said, there is a great need for a cooperative venture to ensure that there is a strategy for pig meat production. Anyone who has dealt with pig farmers over the years will have seen highs and lows—a kind of manic depressive market—which have never ensured consistency and have guaranteed that pig farmers are the risk takers among the farming community.
I turn now to the issue of local killing and local abattoirs. Local killing is attractive to purchasers. Small abattoirs have an important part to play in the supply chain at both ends of the market: for choosy shoppers who, as I said, want to buy local meat; and to deal locally and quickly with casualties. The continuation of small abattoirs could be easily achieved, particularly if, as the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, said, the veterinary service is available on a proper basis around the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Plumb, rightly referred to the landscape as a part of the picture derived from the livestock industry. He referred to the livestock industry "grooming" the landscape. I would put it in a similar way. Livestock farmers are the gardeners of the landscape—or, at least, their animals are the gardeners of the landscape. If we do not have sheep and cattle on the hills, dereliction will follow. There is nothing more ugly or more derelict than a derelict countryside. It is every bit as derelict as a derelict industrial area, but it is much more obvious to everyone.
That brings me to an old cliché about villages and rural communities. It is a valid cliché and I make no apology for using it. In recent years there have been more farm bankruptcies than ever before. The level of depression and other mental illness among farmers is very high. For example, there is three times the level of suicide among farmers than among doctors, who have every-day access to lethal drugs. It is a very disturbing picture. I applaud the rural stress action plan—the Government have done a lot to help farmers who are depressed, isolated and suffering from mental illness—but, when one has a picture of a very high proportion of suicides and a high proportion of bankruptcies, one has to be concerned about the future of rural communities.
For rural communities, where there is livestock, there is hope. The Government can ensure that there is continuing hope by supporting a strong livestock industry in the future.
5.5 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Plumb for his excellent and thought-provoking speech which drew the Minister's attention particularly to the question of imported meat, both legal and illegal. I declare a family farming interest. We are pig farmers—although we are getting out of pig farming—and cereal growers.
It is a scandal that a huge amount of illegal meat continues, largely unchecked, to enter this country when the Government have had evidence regularly brought before Parliament, both in debates and Written Questions. The Minister surely cannot say that he is unaware of the problem.
976
The Government's latest response is the working party announced by Margaret Beckett two weeks ago. A working party is the last thing we need. We need enough inspectors to stop the trade immediately It would be even better if one person were to take sole charge of the situation. As other noble Lords have said, Clive Lawrence has produced evidence of this illegal trade, but what have the Government done? How many arrests have been made? How much illegal meat has been prevented entering through Heathrow? Do the Government have any idea of how much more is coming in through other ports of entry?
This issue is of vital importance because such trade threatens to bring infection into our country. It is a major concern not only for animal welfare hut, as other noble Lords have said, for human welfare too. The Government have totally failed to act. Perhaps the Minister will tell us more today.
Noble Lords have referred to many extremely important issues today. I dare not run over my allotted time, so I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I do not refer to each point individually. Pedigree breeding, modulation, import controls, labelling, uncertainty over future business, the need for cooperatives, the risk of a recurrence of TB, the use of livestock as an important part of our wonderful biodiverse countryside, the use of fallen stock, which has been taken by the hunts in the past and is of crucial importance to the future—so many topics have been raised by your Lordships. I apologise that I shall be unable to touch on them all.
Let us not forget, nor ignore, that the recent foot and mouth outbreak, about which we have spoken many times in the House, hit hard not only those whose farms were infected and culled out, but also those who were not culled out but who could not move their animals; who could not make sales; who could not have animal pregnancies, and who received no compensation. Much of their subsidiary income disappeared. There was no renting out of their grazing land; no farmhouse bed and breakfast; no local produce sold to bed-and-breakfast businesses; and no contracting. But their costs were still there—their feed costs, their fertiliser costs, their medicines, their inspections, their investments to meet legislation and their Meat and Livestock Commission levies. I forget the saying about a sinking ship—but "the band played on".
As to regulation, I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, in his place. I thank him for taking part in the debate and for his report on better regulation. I wish that some action had been taken on it already. Some 439 European regulations relating to agriculture were promulgated in 2001—not quite so bad as the 615 in 1997, or the 617 in 1998. There were also some 25 directives in 2001, most of them still requiring legislation in the UK. Is it any wonder that our business is on its knees? As we have heard from other speakers, farming incomes are on the floor. Yet more and more regulations are being piled on to producers.

977
In UK farming as a whole, income per full-time equivalent person fell from an average of £23,000 in 1996 to £8,492 in 2000. On that basis, each individual suffered a loss in income of over £48,000 over the four years from 1997 to 2000, compared with the figure for 1996. On top of this disastrous situation, the MLC's publication. Key Trends in Meat Consumption, indicates an increase in imports of red meat as a percentage of home production. Home production fell from 50.1 per cent in 1970 to 28.9 per cent in 1990. Other noble Lords have referred to the down-grading of home- produced meat and the increase in imports. That is especially true in relation to pigs and poultry.
That brings me to the problem of processed food. Our farmers are expected to conform to the highest standards. According to Written Answers that I received on 30th June 1999 and 28th March 2002, there was only one—I repeat, one—instance of spinal cord being found in a UK-slaughtered bovine carcass in the past 68 months. Yet UK farmers are still having to pay for special inspections in all abattoirs, with the obvious extra cost to our own producers. At the same time, there have been many cases of imported meat containing spinal material. I raised the matter recently with the Minister.
I want matters to move forward. The Government produced a rural White Paper in November 2000, but no time has been given to debate it, although it was deemed to be an important document. The report on better regulation by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, has neither been debated nor acted upon. More recently, the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food, chaired by Sir Don Curry, has reported. Its recommendations will require money, time and effective effort. Doing nothing is not an option. The crisis in the countryside is still acute. I wonder whether, while we have been debating the matter this afternoon, any money has been allocated in the Budget to help to implement the recommendations set out in the Curry report.
The Minister will doubtless point to the effort spent by his department in dealing with the foot and mouth outbreak. I accept that demands were made. But if he could arrange for even a small proportion of that effort to be put into stopping disease coming into the country in the first place, we might at least be more confident about the future. The question of confidence was raised by a number of speakers.
A year ago in this House I despaired publicly of the Government. They seemed indifferent to the crisis facing farmers, uncaring as to whether food is produced by UK farmers or whether it is imported. It was not until foot and mouth struck, the countryside closed down and overseas visitors cancelled bookings, that the Government began to understand the link between a healthy farming business and rural business and tourism. The fact that industry was haemorrhaging, with bank borrowings at an all-time high, investment at an all-time low and thousands leaving the industry did not register. No wonder the rural community accuses the Government of a miserable record.
978
The Curry report gives us hope for the future. It contains a variety of practical ideas. It deals with the question of what we can do. It agrees that some of the requirements need EU and WTO agreement. But, even within that stricture, there are things that the Government can do. Do the Government have the will to tackle regulation? Do they have the will to promote nutritious food and to tackle the long-term problems of obesity which are already affecting the younger generation? Do they have the will to ban food imports from countries which produce food to lower standards than those required of our farmers? I believe that they should do that.
Will the Government recognise that promoting fair trade between producer and supermarket through the food chain centre, as recommended in the Curry report, does not cover catering and processing, and is not, therefore, of direct help to some of our food producers?
Finally, with all these things left undone and with the challenges that lie ahead, is it inappropriate for the Government to answer to a public inquiry abroad, and yet to fail to hold a full public inquiry in this country? Why is it important to do that overseas, when there is a refusal to do it here?
Our farmers are willing to take up the challenge, but they must be given the freedom to do so. They must be enabled to move forward. In relation to co-operatives, I hope that no restrictions will be placed on our farmers in terms of the percentage that they are able produce together, as indeed the Commission prevented in the past.
5.16 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, for initiating the debate and for introducing it in such a wide-ranging and forward-looking way, while at the same time analysing the difficulties sector by sector in a succinct and telling way. Coming to farming, as I do, several decades later than the noble Lord, it is clear to me that although there are some common themes across the sectors—and most sectors have been in serious difficulty over the past few years—there are different problems which need to be addressed somewhat differently.
However, there is, both in the debate and out there, cause for hope and cause to celebrate the prospects for British farming over the medium term. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, that we have a competitive advantage in livestock farming which we ought to exploit. I agree with my noble friend Lady Gibson, that the taste, quality and nutritional value of British food—even though, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, indicated, it is not always well presented or well marketed—is the best in the world. We ought, therefore, to build on that advantage.
My noble friend Lord Haskins, whose speech I agreed with to a significant degree, usefully divided the debate into the areas of responsibility where the future well-being of the British livestock industry rests: the

979
CAP, the UK Government, and the industry itself. I shall therefore attempt to organise my remarks in that order. I shall also refer to the issue of disease, which has clearly overshadowed the industry. I refer not only to foot and mouth but to the results of the BSE crisis, which hit the reputation of British livestock farming—a problem from which we have yet to recover.
So far as concerns the CAP, the Government strongly support the general thrust of the recommendations of the Curry report. We believe that the present CAP is expensive and that it distorts both farming production methods and farmers' relationship with their customers. We want, therefore, to shift the balance of support for farming, across Europe, away from production-related subsidies and into support which ensures that the farming sector meets the land management, environmental and rural development objectives set out in the report and in the Government's policy.
There are a number of different ways in which that can be done. Some will be longer term; some can be addressed in the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy, on which negotiations are just about to begin; and some are already available to us. One way that is already available is modulation. It was the one issue over which there was a degree of controversy when the Curry report was published. The broad sweep of the report was welcomed, both in farming and in the rest of the food chain. Putting its recommendations into operation may be more difficult. Nevertheless, its initial reception was positive, apart from the issue of modulation.
Modulation is a means which already exists of taking some money away from production subsidies and putting it into broader forms of support. It presents some difficulties. The matters on which the money can be spent are fairly restricted by European law, and there is also the slight difficulty of requiring match funding from Her Majesty's Treasury, and therefore it has to take its place alongside other public expenditure requirements which will not be addressed today but will be addressed in the spending review in the summer, which was always the intention.
Modulation provides us with an existing mechanism whereby we can move in a direction that will be of long-term benefit to the way in which we farm and to British taxpayers, British consumers and the rural environment. It enables us to take some money out of production subsidy and put it into the broader rural development and environmental management of the countryside.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, does the Minister agree that modulation, which involves removing money from the growing sector and putting it into land management, worsens the position of traditional farming?
Lord Whitty: No, my Lords. The bulk of the support would be to allow farmers to produce food and rear livestock in an environmentally sensitive way. Modulation does not stop them doing that and make them take a lawnmower to mow the hillside instead.
980
The aim is to ensure that their production methods meet certain standards. The point of the broad and shallow system that Curry advocates is that if they meet those standards, they will qualify for support. As many noble Lords have said, including the noble Earl, current environmental schemes often have a high overlay of bureaucracy and administrative costs to farmers. The broad and shallow scheme will be much more accessible and will relate to methods across all sectors of farming. Many smaller farms would benefit from that and there would be a decrease in the over-intensive areas of farming, such as over-grazing.
Besides modulation, there are other existing mechanisms. The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, attacked one of those—the more flexible use of the national envelope under the sheepmeat scheme that was negotiated in December. As well as a more stable figure for the overall price of sheep support, flexibility was given back to each nation on how it could use roughly 2 euros of that support. The Welsh and Scottish administrations have already decided to add that to the existing premium. We are looking, immediately or in the longer term, to use that flexibility to ensure a better structure and a more environmentally sensitive form for sheep farming. We shall make that decision within the next few weeks. That mechanism already exists.
We have been criticised under the CAP head for not picking up all the available agrimonetary compensation to compensate for the major problem of the sterling-euro exchange rate, which is a large part of the reason for the relative decline in income in the British livestock industry in recent years. Again, that is three quarters paid for by the British taxpayer and any call on it has to be judged against other forms of public expenditure. Your Lordships should recognise that since this Labour Government came to power, a total of £785 million has been drawn down in agrimonetary compensation. The system will no longer exist after this year. That is a substantial level of support, mostly financed by the British taxpayer.
The second area that the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, identified was the specific role of the UK Government, over and above their European responsibilities. Much of that is epitomised in the Curry report. We have broadly accepted that report and have already announced a number of measures covered by it, including the establishment of a food chain centre, which will look at the problems of producers getting such a low proportion of the value added in the food chain and of the price that the consumer ultimately pays. That involves relationships all down the chain. As my noble friend Lord Fyfe and others have pointed out, it also involves collaboration within the industry and a change in the balance of power between the farmers and the other economic movers to whom they sell and from whom they buy. That must be an important part of reversing the decline in farm incomes over recent years. If we can restore some balance to the farmers and have some fair trading in that system, we can achieve a lot.

981
We also need to ensure that farmers address the other problem referred to by my noble friend Lord Haskins— the relative spread of efficiency within farming. We want to get the poor farmers up to the average and the average up to the good. The Government still take responsibility for advice and support to the farming industry on productivity and production methods that we do not take for other industries. For example, we are establishing a fourth agricultural development scheme with £5 million of government money to improve marketing performance and competitiveness. There are other schemes on the production side. We are already moving rapidly on some of the measures in Don Curry's report. The central measure, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and others said, is modulation and the CAP, which will he addressed over the summer.
I deny some of the suggestions about what we are trying to do to the structure of the industry. If I understood him correctly, the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, suggested that we were against the market system. That is not the position of the Government, although we believe that a greater proportion of markets will probably be dead meat markets rather than livestock markets. Nevertheless, both play an important part in the industry. Beyond the market, the farmer must look more at the ultimate consumer, both directly through direct selling and by getting further down the food chain to get more of the profit.
Another responsibility for the Government relates to imports. A number of comments have been made about the adequacy of the present import checking system. Sometimes people confuse the level of imports with their quality. We are not in favour of going backwards on trade. We believe that the figures for self-sufficiency that people are talking about—66 per cent and 80 per cent—are pretty good achievements for the agriculture sector in an increasingly globalised economy in which trade is likely to be more liberalised rather than less. The question is not whether liberalisation will occur, but on what terms and how rapidly. We cannot go backwards on that.
We accept that the Government have a responsibility for doing more to check the quality of imports, particularly with regard to disease. My right honourable friend Margaret Beckett has taken further initiatives in that respect, although a considerable amount of additional intelligence gathering and co-ordination of checks has taken place on the commercial and passenger trade in recent months. We also need a proper overall assessment of the risks posed by illegal imports of meat. We need greater cooperation between the various agencies involved—the public enforcement agencies and the private sector, such as airlines and port authorities. We need greater enforcement powers, some of which we are already enacting, and we must ensure a tighter and more co-ordinated approach at European level on regulations such as the 1 kg maximum import allowed for passengers.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, what progress has been made on that subject? The Minister is talking about generalities. Where have we got to now? How many meat imports have been stopped? It would be helpful if he could share that information with the House.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is a high level of checking of the commercial container trade. That has stopped a number of imports. The higher profile issue is passengers at Heathrow and other airports. Much of the trade that has been stopped and identified by recent checks could not carry FMD. There were other problems in those cases relating to bush meat, endangered species and probably organised crime, but they do not relate specifically to the diseases that have broken out in Europe. Several hundred tonnes have been identified, indicating that there is a bigger problem that needs to be addressed.
Whenever we discuss imports, I also point out that there is a tendency for some in the industry to argue that tighter import controls are the totality of what we need. We need tighter import checks, but that is not an alternative to surveillance, internal biosecurity measures and controls on internal movements. All countries, even Australia and America, have some imports of illegal meat, despite their substantial checks. The point is that, in Australia and New Zealand in particular, if something gets through it is rapidly stamped out. The problem in the recent foot and mouth epidemic was that we did not cut it out as quickly as we could.
I have talked about responsibilities within the CAP and the responsibilities of government. There is also a huge responsibility on the industry itself to face up to some of these problems. For those coming to it from outside, it is a strange industry in many respects. It is a mixture of huge self-reliance and individualism, with a great desire to work as hard as possible and not to be dependent on others. In reality, however, when the industry is in difficulty, there is an awful degree of dependence on government and a tendency to come to government for help and money. We have to change the psychology in that respect. That means both greater co-operation, as my noble friend Lord Fyfe said, and, as my noble friend Lord Haskins said, a reduction in the degree of dependence on government to sort out the industry's problems.
The industry itself can deal with most of the problems of structure such as the need for a shorter food chain, more value added and greater cooperation. Nevertheless, the Government will endeavour to support those changes and to help in other matters referred to by noble Lords, such as labelling. Labelling is partly a Government and EU responsibility. It is also a matter of farm assurance. The Curry report made a very substantial recommendation on boosting the awareness and effectiveness of the red tractor scheme, to ensure that consumers understand that meats and other products produced to British standards are not only high value but meet high environmental and safety standards.

983
The Government are therefore acting in Europe and in relation to our own responsibilities on trade and the internal structure. We are ensuring that we facilitate changes that the industry itself needs to make.
shall use my remaining time to make a few points on the disease, which has cast a shadow over the debate and about which a number of points have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, "Never again". I think that we would all say amen to that. However, we have to ensure that it does not happen again. We have initiated an unprecedented level of inquiries into the disease. I do not really want to go into the public inquiry issue now; the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, correctly said that I get slightly irritable on that point. However, we have an inquiry into the science, an inquiry into the organisation and the logistics, and an inquiry into the finances. We have answered to the Select Committees of the UK Parliament. We have answered to the Temporary Committee in the European Parliament. We also answer questions time and again in your Lordships' House. We could not be more open, nor could we have a system that will deliver anything closer to the truth.
The proof of the pudding—for those who are still highly sceptical, which I appreciate includes a number of noble Lords—will be in the quality of the reports from the Royal Society in June/July and over the summer. The Government already accept that we would do some things differently; I have made that clear to the House and elsewhere. There will be more recommendations to the Government and to the industry during the course of those inquiry reports.
Various issues were raised in the debate, the most acute of which was the legality of the cull. I shall cite just two cases: MAFF v Winslade, which we won in the English courts; and Westerhall Farms v Scottish Ministers, which we won in the Scottish courts. The British courts' and the EU endorsement therefore fully support the comments that I made in Strasbourg and have repeated today. The legality of the cull is not in doubt.
We do, of course, recognise that the powers that we have are not necessarily sufficient. That is why we brought the Animal Health Bill before your Lordships' House, and why I very much regret that, for whatever motive, your Lordships voted down that Bill. The Bill would have given us powers effectively to deal with an outbreak of the disease before a full reassessment of the situation following all the British and European-level inquiries. However, the Bill was defeated. We recognise that, in terms of the procedure of the House, that decision cannot be directly overturned. Nevertheless, the consequence is that, were there to be an outbreak of the disease over the summer, the British Government would not have the powers that we believe we need. In such circumstances, the responsibility would therefore be shared by all noble Lords. I think that we should face up to that responsibility.
Baroness Byford: My Lords—
Lord Whitty: My Lords, before the noble Baroness intervenes, I should say that I shall write to her, to
984
Liberal Democrat Front-Benchers and to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, who moved the Motion, indicating that, in the light of that decision, were there to be another outbreak, we would hope to see co-operation in introducing emergency powers. Regrettably, that option could be pursued only when Parliament was sitting, and we would have a problem if Parliament were not sitting. Nevertheless, in those limited circumstances, we would look to the House for co-operation in ensuring that we have the powers that we and the House believe we should have.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his confirmation on that point, and we have indicated that he would have our support. I have, however, to challenge him on one point. He said that the contiguous cull was legal, but I thought that that was his only fear about being able to control a new outbreak.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the contiguous cull was legal. However, it was inhibited and ineffective because we were unable to enter certain premises due to resistance based on the current legal position.
My time is up, so I must finish there and allow the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, to reply.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, I thank everyone for their contribution to the debate, which has been excellent. It is also a continuing debate. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for their replies. I also thank the Minister for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Planning
5.36 p.m.
Baroness Crawleyrose to call attention to the Green Paper Planning: Delivering a Fundamental Change (published by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions); and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords., the next two and a half hours will offer noble Lords an opportunity to have their say on Planning: Delivering a Fundamental Change now that the consultation period for the Green Paper has expired. It is a delight to be taking part in a debate alongside so many experts and practitioners in this vitally important sphere of our country's decision-making. Several noble Lords have indicated to me their very great interest in this debate despite the fact that prior arrangements have not allowed them to attend.
People get passionate about planning whether they are waiting for the decision on a new dormer window or a new large-scale development plan for a Brownfield site. Many years ago, as a local councillor in South Oxfordshire, many of our council deliberations were

985
conducted in splendid isolation as far as the public were concerned or even cared. However, when it came to planning meetings, more chairs were always required. The Green Paper's conclusion is that our current system is deeply flawed and simply not delivering as it should for those very people.
Some might say that the modern planning system has served us well. Established in 1947, it indeed helped to guide vital post-war reconstruction. Since then, it has shaped the development and renewal of our towns and cities. It has protected our countryside and historic heritage. It has to some extent prevented urban sprawl. However, while planning policies have been successful for the most part, planning processes are now undoubtedly failing. There is a widespread perception that the current system is increasingly complex, bureaucratic and inflexible. There seem to be too many plans, too many of which are out of date and unco-ordinated. Decisions take too long to be arrived at. Too often, the system fails to engage adequately with the community it serves. In that context, I welcome the Green Paper's determination to set out major changes to the planning process, with the aim of speeding it up and making it more efficient.
Why is a radical overhaul required? Many will say that the current system lacks transparency and accountability, that there are too many tiers of decision-making, and that the slow rate of decision-making means that businesses are losing unacceptable sums. As Digby Jones, the CBI director-general has said,
"Our current system undermines UK competitiveness and discourages firms from expanding here. The present planning system is the best friend of Germany and France".
Others will say of the need for fundamental change that there is now an urgent need to "upskill" and to build capacity within planning departments and among elected councillors in their task of dealing with applications. Better training and resource allocation are absolutely necessary, now.
Local plans are often over long, inflexible and out of step with national guidance. An architect friend of mine once made his case at an appeal he attended on the basis that his views entirely fitted with current government thinking and policy. He was told in no uncertain terms that that was all very well but that that was not the way they did things around there and was certainly not the view of the local planning committee.
Very few local authorities want the time, trouble and cost involved in updating their development plans. Since the start date of 1991 some of those plans have yet to appear. Current planning policy guidance notes are too prescriptive and complicated, totalling more than 850 pages. Those making applications often do not know what to expect from the system. Although local communities are consulted, they are not actively engaged in decisions; rather, the protracted system seems to favour organisations with deep pockets and the endurance to dig in for the long haul.
Finally, on the problems front, there are those of us who believe that our present planning system lacks vision. Planning should be forward looking. It should
986
not be only about regulating development and controlling, but also about a vision for the future that connects with the total reality of people's lives, jobs, prosperity, neighbourhoods, the way we spend our recreational time, our ability to enjoy the countryside and our need to sustain our environment. Good planning can do all that. Indeed, the purpose of planning should be to create better places in which to live and work and a better quality environment. Good planning should be anchored at one end in national policies and at the other in the needs and wishes of the community.
We acknowledge the problems and we have a pretty good idea of the purpose of planning, but the question for this debate is whether the proposed reforms set out in the Green Paper and in the daughter papers can successfully deliver the real changes that need to be made. As we know, the proposed reforms include the introduction of local development frameworks to replace local, structure and unitary development plans. It is proposed that those LDFs would include a statement of community involvement. It is also proposed that the county council be removed from the development control part of the planning system and that regional planning guidance be replaced with regional spatial strategies on a five-year review. It is further proposed that planning policy guidance be more strategic and less prescriptive and that new targets for decisions on applications be set. It is proposed that commercial developers as well as residential developers provide affordable housing contributions. Many more changes are proposed which I shall not go into now but which I am sure will be well aired in our debate.
Early reactions to the Green Paper have ranged from the positive, as in the case of the Countryside Agency which believes that the Government's plans will make it easier to deliver affordable rural housing, and the CBI which has described the proposals as "sensible" and a way of accelerating economic growth, to those organisations which support the broad thrust of the Green Paper, as in the case of the LGA, but which have concerns about the removal of county councils from the system. Friends of the Earth is very concerned about the fast-tracking of major infrastructure projects.
Change is urgently needed as regards major infrastructure projects. I am sure that when BAA made its application to build a fifth terminal at Heathrow it did not expect to wait eight years for an answer‡ Government changed hands in those eight years and major players in that planning inquiry at the beginning of the eight-year period were probably happily retired by the end of it. A lot can happen in eight years, and a lot of economic opportunities can be lost and never regained.
In conclusion, if we are to plan better places in which to live and work and grow our economy sustainably, we must get policies right at the national level and make sure that they are clearly expressed and understood. We must make sure that there is a clear connection between those national policies and the way in which they are interpreted regionally and

987
locally. We must have experienced planners who can think spatially to create a vision of how environments can be improved within the framework of policy. We must engage people in what they want for the future of their communities. We must tackle the lack of affordable housing in rural as well as urban areas, especially with young people in mind. We must encourage business development and improved infrastructure because, as we know, planning must maintain the vitality of the economy. We must create more opportunities for better housing, accessibility to jobs and services, and the renewal of our most deprived areas.
My noble and learned friend the Minister is on record as seeing the need,
"to restore people's confidence in the planning system".
I believe that this Green Paper goes a long way to doing just that. I beg to move for Papers.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, has done good service in raising this matter and giving us the opportunity to debate the Government's Green Paper on planning. She suggested, quite rightly, that there are failures in the present system. She referred to what she called major changes suggested in the Green Paper. However, with deep respect I say that there are not enough major changes. I shall come to that matter in a moment.
The Green Paper is right to state that there is a need for change. Indeed, it states that "fundamental change is needed". But it is regrettable that not enough fundamental changes are suggested. Indeed, in considering the appeal system at paragraph 5.43, the only improvement that the Green Paper suggests is a reduction from six months to three months in the time available for applicants only to appeal. I suggest that whether applicants appeal, or third parties are given the right to appeal—I shall come to that matter—they or anyone else should be allowed only six weeks within which to appeal. That would reduce the delays to which the Green Paper refers in several places. It is vital that the delays should be reduced.
Another vital matter regarding appeals is one that I raised a week ago at Question Time. I see that the noble Lord. Lord Filkin, is present. He did his best to reply to the Question. I shall come later to some of the things that he said. I asked whether Her Majesty's Government would introduce legislation giving third parties rights of appeal. Perhaps I should have referred for greater clarity to giving objectors the right of appeal. The government reply referred to third parties and so does the Green Paper. Perhaps we can have an understanding that "third parties" is the broad expression that would he most applicable and that the word "objectors" might be too narrow.
As I say, the Green Paper considers third party rights of appeal. It does so at some length in paragraphs 6.19 to 6.23. The effect of the Government's suggestions on this vital matter is, briefly, that there should be no change of substance.
988
That is a very regrettable point of view. In paragraph 6.22, the Government oppose giving third panics a right of appeal because that,
"could add to the costs and uncertainties of planning".
I want to deal with that.
In reply to my Question last week, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said that,
"a third party right of appeal … could add to the … delays and uncertainties of planning".—[Official Report, 10/4/02; col. 409.]
However, I suggest that if we reduced the time of appeal for anyone to six weeks, the delays would he considerably reduced. That cannot be denied.
Uncertainty is another factor that worries the Government. All appeals involve uncertainty but a high proportion of appeals succeed. If I may say so, I well remember that from my experience in practice as a barrister, when I did a number of appeals. I do not say that I always won them, but they were frequently won. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who will reply to this debate, knows that well.
As to costs, in order to get the right decision in the public interest, some extra costs would surely be well spent. For those reasons, I earnestly hope that the Government will extend to third parties the right of appeal.
5.52 p.m.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, for initiating the debate on this important subject. We touched on it a few weeks ago in our debate on public services. From these Benches, we agree that it is Lime to review the planning system. I declare an interest as a member of Suffolk County Council and of the Local Government Association. As someone who has hands-on experience of the planning system, I readily concur that some change is necessary.
Individual planning applications often take far longer than they should to be processed. The plan-making process is slow and unresponsive to changing circumstances. We are all aware that major infrastructure projects can have a long lead-in time. Where we profoundly take issue with the proposals in the Green Paper is in relation to the suggestion that those problems of themselves necessitate the radical overhaul that is being proposed. There is no inherent virtue in being radical. Unless radical change is called for, surely it would be far better to spend time improving a system that has served us well for more than 40 years.
Delays in dealing with individual planning applications stem mainly from a shortage of planners at the district council level. The proposals do not address that—indeed, they add to the workload of district planners by the removal of the county tier.
So far as major infrastructure projects a re concerned, we need to get the problems perspective. Since 1984, only 12 public inquiries have lasted longer than three months. Some of them—for example, at Sizewell in my own county and Terminal 5—dragged on and on, mainly because the inquiries were

989
attempting simultaneously to deal with issues of national policy alongside very local issues such as bus routes and road alignments.
The Green Paper proposes that major applications will be determined by Parliament. However, unless there is a clear national spatial plan that addresses issues such as housing numbers, major transport projects and energy, Parliament will be in no better position to deal with the issues than a public inquiry would be. How often do we complain that legislation arrives in this House ineffectively scrutinised by another place? Are we really to believe that Parliament is the right forum in which to debate and determine planning applications? Is it right that large government majorities can be mobilised to force through projects such as Terminal 5?
It is axiomatic that in a country the size of ours and which has such regional concentration of development, land-use issues will always be hotly contested. Clearly, not everyone will be happy with every decision that is made. A good planning system must ensure that there are mechanisms for making locally unpopular decisions where the broader perspective demands it. A plan-led system has helped to ensure that that happens. That has made it all the more important to have a system in which democratic and participatory processes are embedded. County councils have traditionally served that function. The public have come to expect that their democratically elected councillors, who are accountable to them, will take key decisions in the development of their area.
Major planning decisions that are made by the Secretary of State, on the advice of civil servants who perhaps have no knowledge of an area, will not be popular with local people. Nor will they be if they are decided by an as yet unelected regional tier. My noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton refers to that as the demimonde of the quango. Until there is a fully functioning and democratically elected regional tier, the removal of strategic planning from counties is premature to say the least.
Structure plans are indeed over-prescriptive, but that is the result of government guidance—it is classic Civil Service gold-plating. It could quite easily be foreshorened by concentrating on key strategic issues. Counties can work with districts, which can provide the local detail to strategic plans. This sort of partnership works well in other fields and should be practical with regard to planning.
Much of the time that is spent in developing structure plans involves statutory consultations and examinations in public, which are organised by the Government. County councils are being blamed for delays that are not of their making. The proposals to abolish county structure plans will compromise all of that—they will remove the link between land use planning and county functions, such as transport, minerals and waste disposal. Joint working could preserve those linkages.
Under the Green Paper's proposals, the functions that are carried out by the 35 shire counties will be transferred to 238 district councils, which will affect
990
the strategic decision-making capacity and compromise the development control work of districts. Perhaps most importantly of all we should remember that, given the immense economic implications of land use planning, the current system of checks and balances acts as a guard against malpractice. There have been rare examples of unethical planning decisions, but never at the county level. The current high standards of probity and the ensuing public confidence should not be lightly thrown away.
In conclusion, I sincerely hope that the Government will think again about the proposals that are contained in the Green Paper, given the many concerns that have been raised by a whole range of organisations. The new local development frameworks should build on the existing close relationships between counties and districts. That would ensure that all councils, with their expertise in all local services and their links with all of the partner organisations, would be involved. The expertise and resources of all tiers would be used to best effect. That would make sense to the public, for whom these barriers are an irrelevance.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Best: My Lords, I declare an interest as director of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which does much research into planning issues, and as director of the Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust, which deals with planners on inner city sites and on a big development on the edge of York. I apologise for the fact that the high pollen count may somewhat inhibit my delivery.
The Planning Green Paper and its annexe on reforming planning obligations states that it sets out to secure delivery of affordable housing as one of its key themes. I ask whether it is likely to succeed in that noble aim.
Broadly, it must be good that reforms are intended to reduce complexity and bureaucratic barriers that distort opportunities to deliver much-needed extra homes. We are producing fewer homes than we have done since 1924. At the same time, the requirements for new homes have been growing. The gap between the two is producing alarming problems that are likely to grow in years to come.
I want to concentrate on one particular aspect of the Government's proposals relating to the tariffs which developers must pay when they develop new sites. That is introduced in place of the current arrangements whereby local authorities negotiate site by site with developers for the planning gains that they can squeeze out of those negotiations.
I suggest that the current arrangements are proving anarchic in the differences between local authorities throughout the country and are in need of substantial simplification and reform. They require local authorities to be skilled negotiators with sophisticated developers and the results differ wildly from place to place. Research which the trust is supporting at the Universities of Cambridge and Sheffield have been studying what is happening on the ground. They show

991
wild variations in practice, with different definitions of what comprises affordable housing; with different quantities of affordable housing required; with different sums attaching to those numbers; with sometimes few skills in negotiating with developers in that process; and with differing outcomes in virtually identical circumstances.
A standardised tariff system sounds less complicated, more predictable and simpler and it would not require the same shrewd skills which do not always exist among the planners. It is also a tax which will apply to all but the tiniest of developments, instead of the current planning gains which apply only to medium and larger-scale developments. It is a tax which will apply to commercial developments and that seems sensible because those produce demands for extra homes as well. It is also a tax which will be able to be commuted—compiled from one site and spent on a different site, giving it flexibility—and transferred to another local authority if agreement can be reached.
In broad principle, therefore, the idea of a tariff sounds excellent. However, some dangers are inherent in that radical new proposal. First, it cannot be too standardised across the piece because the demand for affordable housing in its different forms will vary greatly from area to area. In some areas of the country there is a glut of social housing, while in others the shortages are very acute. Therefore, standardising the tariff obviously will not work.
Moreover, some negotiations will still be required within each local authority on a site-by-site basis because each parcel of land has its own peculiarities and the opportunities for that site to be productive to yield the dividends which can pay for affordable housing will vary site by site. We have discovered that one can be caught out by the sudden discovery of environmental constraints: beware the natterjack toad‡ In York, one may, half way through the development, discover a Roman fort beneath the ground; flooding has become more important to us; and there are many requirements on those seeking to develop a piece of land which cannot be standardised in advance. Negotiations will continue to be required in order to work on a site-by-site basis.
Finally, as regards such tariffs, clearly the guidelines which government produce must be sensitive and contain both flexibility and the assurance of simplicity and a measure of standardisation which prevents the current anarchy continuing. However, the amount of resource yielded by the new tax for affordable housing and other good purposes must not be over-estimated. That will not do the trick in producing all the resources needed to fill the gap between the amount that is required in terms of affordable housing and the amount that is currently being produced. That gap is now so wide that I fear tariffs from the new system alone will make only a modest but perhaps important contribution towards meeting it.
6.4 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, for giving us
992
the opportunity to consider this very important matter. I would like to touch briefly on the issues which affect leisure, tourism, heritage and archaeology.
Leisure is a rapidly changing area of economic and social life. Within the UK it is now the single largest item in the household weekly expenditure. But when the current planning system was set up, leisure property was not the economic force which it is now. It was associated far more with individual operators and non-commercial providers.
As Business in Sport and Leisure points out, the planning system reflects that. In almost every area and level of planning, leisure is seen as a "bolt-on". Guidance on leisure in PPGs is spread across several notes. PPG 17 deals with sport and recreation and PPG 21 deals with tourism. But most commercial schemes are affected by PPG 6 (Town Centres and Retail Development) and by No. 13 because of transport implications.
So how does the Minister expect that the proposed changes will bring about a more coherent approach to leisure planning? How will they enable the next generation of sport, cultural and entertainment properties to meet the demands of local communities more readily?
I welcome the Government's commitment to review the PPGs. Can the Minister say when his attention will turn to Nos. 17 and 21? I noticed that the Minister's Written Answer of 21st January this year stated that he would shortly be putting forward proposals about PPG 21 on tourism. How shortly is "shortly"?
As the English Tourism Council points out in its briefing, tourism is a vital regeneration tool. It cautions that the abolition of structure plans in shire county areas will mean the loss of a county-wide opportunity for a strategic view of tourism. I understand that the ETC has produced draft guidance which reflects the spirit of the Green Paper and could be used as the basis for a consultation on tourism planning. What is the Minister's view of that draft guidance?
The Government state at paragraph 4.61 of the Green Paper that PPGs 15 and 16, which cover the historic environment and archaeology, will be in the small number of PPGs on which they will focus during the next two years. The links between archaeology and development are significant, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, pointed out. Indeed, the majority of field archaeology in the UK is now funded by developers.
So what is the timetable for the revision of PPGs 15 and 16? And what procedures will be put in place for consulting the key organisations in the sector? I believe in particular it is essential that local government is actively involved at an early stage of the review. It is the key stakeholder in PPGs and it has the specialist archaeological and conservation staff responsible for their implementation.
When the Government launched A Force for Our Future—the inelegantly named AFOF the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who is to respond to today's debate, stated in a press release that the

993
planning Green Paper would strengthen the Government's commitment to maintaining our historical environment and conservation in general. Those are laudable objectives and I welcome them. But how exactly will the Government achieve them via the reforms outlined in the Green Paper? How, for example, will the Government develop the sites and monuments records system into a coherent national strategy?
The briefing from the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers raises concerns about the Government's plans to abolish the county structure plans. It asks how a suitable local policy framework for the protection of the historic environment will be maintained. County historic environment services currently successfully provide strategic planning advice to all the county structure plans and all the rural districts' local plans within the counties.
Its experience of dealing with historic environment issues shows that it is vitally important to have a statutory sub-regional/county level input into land use planning and spatial planning. It is therefore concerned at the proposal to remove the country strategic plan-making function in the absence of any clear justification and without any clear evidence of need.
Finally, I should like to refer to a matter raised by the Council for British Archaeology. It believes that the Green Paper does not adequately explain what is proposed in relation to associated or parallel consent regimes. Does the Minister now accept, having seen the responses to the Green Paper, that the current arrangement for the national amenity societies to act as statutory consultees for listed building demolitions and alterations provides important benefits which should not be lost?
The Government now have an opportunity to make some worthwhile reforms to the planning system and I hope that they take full account of the thousands of responses to the consultation system before rushing ahead with much-needed legislation.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lady Crawley on initiating this important debate in such an effective manner. My past experience includes that as chairman of planning of Leeds City Council. In recent years I have been adviser to a number of property and development investment companies, for one of which I am currently a non-executive director.
I share with my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer the view that our planning system is often too slow, lacks predictability and is too complex, inefficient and bureaucratic. It often fails truly to engage the wider community in planning issues in a proactive and inclusive way. Therefore I welcome the Government's aim to increase the speed and effectiveness of performance in planning. I welcome the recognition that the existing UDP and structure
994
planning processes often take far too long, sometimes becoming an obstacle rather than an aid to investment and development.
When consultation papers turn from an analysis of the problems and a statement of the broad principles, a number of specific proposals need to be developed in order to find suitable practical solutions. I have reservations about some of the proposals. The fact that detailed prescriptive solutions are not put forward is welcome. That provides the opportunity to reflect with care as we seek to resolve some difficult issues.
The UDP process has certainly not always worked well. In my own city of Leeds it took 10 years from first beginning work on a development to its final acceptance by the Secretary of State. That is madness. Nationally over 90 per cent of councils fail to meet the target that 80 per cent of planning applications should on average be decided within eight weeks. Planning departments are often under-staffed and under-resourced. The quality of planning staff is sometimes not up to the job in hand, requiring as it does multiple skills and clear and effective decision taking as well as strong professional skills.
I agree that planning application fees should be reviewed as well as being generally increased. They should be better related to the scale of resources required to deal properly with the issues involved. The maximum planning application fee is around £9,000 or £10,000, which is grossly inadequate for larger planning proposals, some of which can take millions of pounds of professional fees to prepare. Often the planning departments do not have a chance to deal properly and effectively with such matters in a timely way.
It is important that increased fees fund improvements in the number and quality of planning staff. I welcome the Government's intention to ensure clear accountability for fees and how much is spent on the planning service at local level. However, it is at the more strategic level of development plans that the greatest care and reflection are needed. There is and always has been a tension between more speed and more consultation. Improvements can be made in both, but the tension, even conflict, between those objectives will remain.
The Government must to a degree decide what they really want to do. There is a risk that they could fall between two stools in trying to please everyone. Developers and investors want speed certainly, but they also want certainty. The thoroughness and detailed map-based outcome of the urban development plans provided a framework that could work well. The Town and Country Planning Association believes that the present system of plan-making at local level can be transformed more quickly by reform rather than by wholesale replacement.
The new approach of local development frameworks, statements of core policies, action plans and statements of community involvement may well introduce more flexibility and more responsiveness into the planning and development process. The enterprising and innovative will welcome much of

995
that, be they developers, councils or community representatives. But the whole process may also involve more uncertainty, more and longer consultation processes and ultimately more costs for everyone.
Finally, I turn to the document on planning obligations, which proposes a more comprehensive system to levy a tariff on new development to be used for the wider community good. I recall my experience as chairman of the Planning and Transportation Committee of the then Association of Metropolitan Authorities in the 1970s, when I was often called upon to explain and defend what was then called the "proposed development land tax"—some noble Lords may remember it. Indeed, I was once flown to Houston, Texas, to explain to a somewhat disbelieving and restless breakfast meeting of the American League of Mayors the benefits of a development land tax.
The Town and Country Planning Association would like to have a "betterment" tax and suggest that the new tariff be renamed a "community benefit contribution". When people start to discuss how best to present a new tax by a different name to soften its reception, in my experience Ministers and governments should start to worry. The then Prime Minister, Mrs Thatcher, had a community charge that could never throw off its widespread description of being a "poll tax", and we know where that tax and ultimately the Prime Minister finished up.
There are many arguments for and against a development tax, whether at a local, regional or national level. The arguments are already being rehearsed. I simply observe today that this is not a core issue for the Government in their desire to modernise our planning system. They have enough to occupy themselves in achieving those other important reforms in the form of detailed legislation without engaging in the quagmire of another tax.
6.17 p.m.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, for securing this debate. Though this is somewhat remote, I should declare an interest in that I have clients involved in planning applications. However, my real experience in planning matters stems from 30 years in local government, which I fear may be viewed as a disadvantage rather than an advantage.
The Government's objectives in Chapter 1 are unremarkable. I have some sympathy with their desire to see an improved situation regarding the approval of important public infrastructure projects. I recall having been involved with the Croydon Tramlink when the idea was first conceived. In the time it took for it to be developed, legislated for and started, the city of Strasbourg had both had the idea and completed it. Indeed, I have sympathy also with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer of Leeds, in his reference to the time taken over the preparation of the development plan.
Having said all that, questions arise on the details of this paper and I have a number for the noble and learned Lord. The Government claim that they will
996
simplify the process and reduce the four tiers of plans. How is that simplification to come about if we replace the present system with a plethora of plans and policies, regional spatial strategies, maybe sub-regional strategies, local development frameworks, master plans and action area plans, which themselves have four sub-texts and in some instances business development plans? They are certainly different but I fail to see how they are simpler; I fail to see how they are more accountable; and I fail to see how they are more transparent. Indeed, we underestimate the public. Having borne the scars of the preparation of one UDP and one district plan, local government and their electors are well versed in consultation and preparation of these matters.
I am particularly concerned about the suggestions relating to regional planning. That in itself raises a number of questions. The regional planning bodies to be charged with a strategy must meet certain criteria. In paragraph 4.46 it is clearly stated that they will not meet those criteria if they consist of a group of local authorities. I ask the noble and learned Lord: why not? The Government have said that if elected regional assemblies come about, they will perform the role. Presumably they will consist of elected members. Therefore, what is wrong with the existing local authorities—the county councils—doing the job, perhaps with an enhanced mechanism for cooperation between them?
I fear that at the heart of all this is the abolition of the county councils' role in these matters. One is bound to ask whether this is the precursor to the abolition of the counties themselves. It has been made clear that, if regional assemblies came about, they would do so only within a regime of single-tier local government. That in itself raises another question. I should have thought that it would obviously fall to a devolved assembly rather than a national government to fix the form of local government in a region. However, that is perhaps another issue.
I am also afraid that it is a way of introducing through the back-door greater planning influence for regional development agencies. The noble and learned Lord will remember that, when the regional development agencies came into being, those proposals were dropped in another place before they even came to your Lordships' House because it would have been too controversial for them to have a planning role.
I fear that the general thrust of this Green Paper is that the system has survived for 50 years despite local government rather than because of it. There are some nice words about training local government members. Everyone needs help and experience, but since when have politicians at any level required a professional qualification to exercise a particular office? It would be a presumption to ask what qualifications the Secretary of State has for any of the functions carried out by his department.
When it comes to local development plans, I fear that there is an enormous burden in the constant requirement to review and a considerable financial

997
requirement. Is it really necessary to tell local authorities how to run planning meetings and how to deal with the access to papers? This is reducing local government to local administration.
Perhaps I may ask some further questions. There is reference to enforcement. Has the noble and learned Lord given any consideration to ensuring that, when a planning permission is obtained, for example by a supermarket for a building of a certain size and a certain number of car parking spaces, it cannot, once it is built, then seek to increase the size of the building and, indeed, reduce the number of parking spaces? This is a very real problem.
With regard to statutory consultees, I cannot find anything in the Green Paper that deals with highway authorities, where very often, in effect, two tiers of planning authorities are involved, and that leads to inevitable delays. We got rid of that system in London and then reintroduced it as a great advance.
Lastly, with regard to masterplanning in paragraph 5.43, what will its benefit be compared with obtaining an outline planning permission? What presumptions will flow from the certificate? What objections will be pre-empted by obtaining that? If there is none, what is the benefit? I look forward to hearing the response of the noble and learned Lord in reply.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I, too, welcome the opportunity provided by this debate introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley. In so doing, I declare an interest as an Oxfordshire county councillor.
If an army marches on its stomach, so any planning system is dependent on the people who work within it. I shall confine my remarks this evening to discussing the effects on the present staff and the implications for them of the changes proposed by the Government. I shall also address the issue of the potential sources of qualified planning staff and of the prospects of those people becoming available. That is an issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, referred just now.
At present, most staff who deal with higher level planning, not development control, are based in county councils and some are in the regional offices of government. The 34 county councils together employ approximately 500 staff in policy planning. Under these proposals, that responsibility would be delegated to 238 district councils, plus, of course, major and higher paid roles at regional level.
The cost of those people, if they are available, would be very difficult to forecast. However, I forecast that the salary drift alone—not the extra people; simply the salary drift—would cost at least £6 million. If the Government believe that we are exaggerating, perhaps they will look at the huge growth in administrative costs which have occurred, for example, in Berkshire as a result of local government reorganisation. Even there, the districts have chosen to come together to deal with their wider spatial planning needs at a current annual cost of between £600,000 and £700,000.
998
A recently completed study has indicated that local government reorganisation cost at least twice as much as was estimated at the time.
At district level, although the loss of local plans would free up some resources, we estimate that the need for wider consultation would require more staff and the new strategic planning approach at local level would require more and better quality staff. For example, a district council with 100,000 people may currently expect to have a planning staff of about 10. We believe that that number would increase to at least 14. The cost of that is around £45 million, plus the accommodation required, and, of course, the cost of regional staff and the accommodation for those people.
All that presupposes that such properly trained and qualified staff are available. Of course, before we consider that point, we must take into account that many of the mature and experienced people who currently work in county councils would leave, giving rise to a loss of experience. There would also be severance costs associated with their departure.
The pressure on district council staff will be intense, particularly in districts which are close to large conurbations, where the planning demands are most intensive. This will be made worse by any lack of professionalism which becomes evident. It will not be improved by the employment of agency staff because of the need for continuity in planning. A recent report by Arup and Bayley to the DETR laid out those very facts in considerable detail.
On average, it takes between three and five years for the academic training of a planner, plus two years' practical experience to achieve a professional qualification. Producing trained professional planning staff who are able to give a good service, and making allowances for the wastage to which I have already referred, is not deliverable in anything like the timescales envisaged by the Government under these proposals. At present, it probably requires 15 years' experience to become a chief planning officer, 10 years for a senior planning officer, and fewer years, of course, as one goes down the scale.
The only postgraduate course in planning which I can now identify is offered at the University of Strathclyde Business School. It accommodates 10 or 15 places a year. To increase the quantity of professional planners in both the private and public sectors will require at least two years in establishing new courses for training. It will not be easy to bring qualified planners into what is not a very attractive profession. It is highly unlikely that they can be recruited within the timescale that the Government have in mind. Simply wishing that the problem did not exist is not a response that will give anyone any satisfaction. District councils are already weak in their planning and development control functions, and only 13 per cent of the 262 local plans, including the unitaries, have been put in place.
We have to say that the image of a career in planning is poor, especially for undergraduate courses. The funding available for postgraduate courses is very

999
limited as county councils have reduced funds available for discretionary grants. Staff salaries are low, and the private sector, which offers more attractive career possibilities, is not a substitute for proper local government.
Therefore, I urge the Government to leave the county structure planning responsibilities in place until they have at least put in place democratically elected regional government, have determined what its responsibilities will be and simplified the development control functions of district councils. They must also address the attractiveness of planning as a career option and substantially increase the training capability within our universities.
6.30 p.m.
Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, on initiating this debate. My only regret is that there is so little time to deal with some of the big issues involved. I declare an interest as a non-executive director of Slough Estates and a non-interest in that I am not a practitioner. I view this subject more from my experience as a Minister and as an MP for 27 years.
I have been concerned about the delays—the Heathrow fifth terminal is the most obvious example—and the huge cost. There are many examples in the roads programme. When I was Secretary of State I was told that from a project entering the national roads programme to its completion took 13.5 years on average: 12 of those years being spent on the planning process and one and a half on the building. That is fairly typical.
I remember cases in my own constituency. One was a bypass that was much required and desired by the local community, but it was held up for many months—in fact, for more than a year—because of the need to consult on a detailed change that involved only about a yard or two on a roundabout. I recognise the need for reform and I agree with the objectives, but I do not underestimate the difficulties that the Minister faces in reconciling often conflicting objectives.
I shall make two preliminary points before turning to my main point. The first is the danger of a stand-still in decision making while the Government make up their mind. Detailed changes to simplify planning zones could be made, for example, and they could be put on hold while local authorities wait to see what happens to business planning zones. More seriously, local development plans could be put on the back-burner while they see what happens to the local development framework proposals.
My second point is that so often one hears that the real issues are in the detail rather than in the general principles that are supported. There is a need for the Government to move fast on the details if they are not to hold up planning decisions in the way that I have described.
The fundamental problem, recognised by other noble Lords, is the tension between the desire for a simpler, more cost-effective and above all speedier overall structure and decision-making process and the
1000
desire to have the widest possible consultation, possibly even wider than now. When I inquired of the department why there were long delays—12 years for the planning process for a road—I was told that layer upon layer of new decision hearings had been introduced to meet further requirements for consultation or to meet previous objections to the system. That is the problem.
We cannot achieve both objectives of the ultimate ideal at once. There will always be winners and losers and the losers will always want further opportunities for their case to be heard. My fear is that the present proposals will not solve that and may lead to further delays. Paragraph 5.57 of the Green Paper refers to technical and other aid to pressure groups, which could increase their capacity and ability further to delay the process. I sympathise with the Minister. He will have to take robust and tough decisions.
I specifically agree with those who are opposed to the removal of the county structure plans. That is my biggest concern. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, I take the eastern region's view. I do not see the new proposals as an advance—quite the reverse. I believe that the regions should stick to overall guidance, but in the Green Paper there are a number of indications that the regional spatial strategies will become more focused, detailed and statutory. Therefore, they are likely to become the regional structure plans.
The difficulties are as follows. First, there are constant references in the Green Paper to the need to have subregional structure plans. What are county structure plans but subregional plans? Secondly, the region is far too big for a structure plan of that kind. People in Norfolk do not consider that people in Bedford will understand their requirements. Thirdly, the democratic aspect will be lost because I do not believe that regional, directly elected assemblies will come about in our region, so there will be huge criticism added to the remoteness. My view is that the county structure plans should remain.
On local development plans and local development frameworks, I agree that the current system is an unwieldy beast. It is far too bureaucratic and needs reform. I do not have time to go into detail, but while I welcome the flexibility of not having to cover the whole area, not needing to be so comprehensive and having regular reviews, like the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, my concern is that the remedy may prose worse than the disease. We need to know more of the details. I suggest a trial period so that the system is introduced in one area before it goes national.
On reforming planning obligations, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, who was concerned that the tariff system will, effectively, become a further stealth tax through a community levy. I have a number of reasons for that concern, but I do not have time to elaborate them. Many points in the Green Paper suggest that it will go wider and well beyond the planning gains that are involved in developments. I hope that it will be reconsidered.

1001
On major projects, I return to the fifth terminal at Heathrow. The parliamentary procedure proposal is worth considering. I saw it work in regard to the Channel Tunnel high speed link. It is worth investigating, but it must not take place on the basis of a one-hour debate in both Houses and with government Whipping. It must also be carefully worked through so that it does not add yet another layer and even more weight and delays to the process. For major projects, of which there are a few, that may be worth considering.
I could make many other points and there are many in chapter five on development control which can be taken forward under the present system and which will not require the new structure. I regret that there is not more time in which to contribute further to the debate. I return to the point that the county structure plans concern me most.
6.36 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Crawley knocked a number of nails on the head. One may say that this is a brave Green Paper. Not all noble Lords like all of it, but that is what a Green Paper is all about. It has focussed our minds on where we go from here.
I remind the House that 1947 was a great moment in the history of town and country planning. The Town and Country Planning Act 1947 has stood us in good stead, as it still does. I do not believe that one will find too many areas of national life where that can be said, despite the fact that pressures on development are growing all the time.
Society is now more wealthy. I remind noble Lords that often those who object to development plans are people who have a good income, use more energy, have bigger houses and use more transport than the rest of the community. There is a delicate balance. I refer to Rio de Janeiro 1992. We have sustainable development—not no development at all.
There are a number of separate concepts to planning, of which I can give four examples. I believe we generalise too much about what to do in relation to planning. First, there is the county structure plan; secondly, a T5 or a Channel tunnel project, which is totally different; thirdly, an out-of-town supermarket, which is also totally different; and fourthly, I want to erect a second garage in my garden. The issues of public participation will also be different according to those different kinds of development.
There is a case for change for which I can give a couple of examples. I have given evidence at structure plan inquiries and at local plan inquiries arising from a couple of hats that I have worn and there is something unbalanced about the structure plan inquiry and the local plan inquiry procedure at the moment. The procedure is all to do with objectors. One may say that that is obvious, but in a local newspaper one never reads that Lancashire County Council or Surrey County Council have done anything half good in their structure plans; one reads only what Friends of the
1002
Earth or someone else says. That gives the public a distorted view that people are up in arms against a particular structure plan, which has been arrived at democratically. Often many people are not up in arms about it, but it is unrepresentative, single-issue pressure groups who are up in arms. If that is the drift of the Green Paper on such a matter, I am totally with it.
The example of T5 is different. The moral to draw from T5 may be that we need a cull of lawyers and a contiguous cull in adjoining counties as well‡
Paragraph 4.37 of the Green Paper states that,
"the county no longer remains the most appropriate level at which to consider many of the key strategic planning issues … We propose to abolish structure plans".
I think that the Government are resiling somewhat from that. There have been statements by my noble friend on that. They are shedding "tiers"—I have spelt it wrongly in my notes, but perhaps I spelt it correctly—to a single level of plan.
The key new demand is for subregional plans. No region is the same as another. It may be true that no one in Norfolk talks to anyone in Bedford, but certainly people in Surrey, Hampshire and Berkshire have to talk to each other because any so-called local strategic road—whether ostensibly covered by a transport supplementary grant or whatever it is called these days—which is not a trunk road has to be financed. Let us not forget in the debate that it is 100 per cent national finance. But we have to ensure that all these counties work together.
That has already started to produce a new type of democratic decision making. We should build on that. That is my next major point. We need to build on what we have rather than be tempted by the idea that we should pull everything up by the roots. That may not be what the Green Paper intends but sometimes it reads a little like that.
It raises the question of what I call "jurisprudence". If one takes another field of economic life—for example, mergers and takeovers—it takes years to get people used to the jurisprudence: if one does that one is likely to have some certainty that that will happen. Indeed, in local structure plans if one's bypass is number five in the queue and one has waited eight years to get there, one does not want to suddenly find that that structure plan is redundant. There are many vested interests which need to be looked at; but there are some legitimate interests that the jurisprudence in a broader sense of that term is adhered to. We have some confidence in that system.
On balance, I support the development tax instead of the present arrangements for planning gain. I used to have some sympathy with Henry George and the land value tax. The Liberal Democrat Party also used to support that. I do not know where they stand now. But I think that there is a good deal of mileage in the development taxation principle.
Finally, I make one point about the organisation of staff in this field. There will not be a common pattern of regional government across the country. Civil Service workers have a different trade union structure.

1003
I make this not as a parochial point, but I can assure your Lordships that one has to know what one is doing in respect of this tricky interface between civil servants who are nationally accountable and local government unions—UNISON and so on—in order to arrive at the right solution to the relationship between regional and subregional government.
6.43 p.m.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, the Green Paper means well. One has only to scan the opening pages to detect its good intentions.
"We need good planning to deliver development that is sustainable ….A proper planning system is vital to our quality of life … planning applications will be dealt with efficiently".
One is bathed in a rosy glow of approbation and happy anticipation for the future. Until, that is, one reads right through to the very end—all 67 pages—and realises that there is not one mention, not even a hint about one of the most crucial areas of planning: the need to ensure that all new building is protected from the terrible danger of being engulfed by floods.
We would not build new houses over an old mine. We are fairly careful about building in areas prone to coast erosion. Why are we failing to recognise that building on ground which is liable to be flooded is almost criminally negligent?
It is not as though we have not had serious flooding problems in recent years, from which we should have learned. I could cite many examples of just how disastrous it has been for the poor people who have suffered. Time constraints forbid that.
Recently, we have heard from insurance companies that they will not insure properties built on flood plains. That means that people who have bought such houses will never be able to sell them because one cannot get a mortgage if the house is uninsurable. Apart from that, who is going to bail out the poor wretched people whose homes have been flooded? Who will pay for the replacement carpets and furniture or the hotel or boarding house accommodation needed while the houses are uninhabitable? Where will the money come from for structural repairs?
The Water Resources Act 1991 lays a responsibility on planning authorities to guard against the business of putting homes in areas likely to flood. But, from all I hear, that responsibility is frequently totally ignored. Looking at the Green Paper certainly seems to confirm the charge. It is not as though Ministers have not been told about the dangers.
In 1998, Mr Elliott Morley received a detailed submission from the Nene Flood Prevention Alliance—I have since become the honorary president of that body—warning him of the dangers of building there. He was concerned enough to commission a report. The committee was chaired by a Mr Peter Bye. Members of the Environment Agency sat on that committee. Bye reported serious deficiencies in flood maps, flood defences and recorded flood levels, to name but a few. But, having commissioned the report, Mr Morley really cannot be said to have acted enormously energetically to set matters right. He did
1004
allocate some money to improve flood defences, but it was nowhere near enough. Norwich Union, for instance, said that it was,
"barely half what was needed".
The Minister made no mention of funding for flood storage, reservoirs or drainage to make good the damage done by the Government's house-building policies.
The present system, whereby central Government impose house-building quotas on areas where river drainage capacity has already gone into massive shortfall, simply increases the risk of flooding. Local authorities are so busy doing the Government's bidding to "build, build, build" that they ignore the dangers. Only a week or so ago a firm of building contractors in Northampton were building houses on land which was not only contaminated but on a flood plain. Planning permission had obviously been obtained. But because the ground was contaminated, the builders had to cover it with clay in order to cap the soil. They did that—very convenient for them—by simply pinching 35 metres of the clay flood defences from the banks of the Nene River. Only the recent God-given sunny weather saved the area; that, and the sharp eyes of local residents who quite rightly raised Cain.
The Environment Agency was called in. The contractors were forced to replace what they had torn up. But should they not have been told as a condition of planning permission about the need to keep the flood defence wall? Should not this Green Paper have a section, a paragraph or at least one teeny-weeny mention of the importance of avoiding submersion dangers in the vast building site that much of Britain is becoming?
I was doubtful that I would have the time to pay my tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley. I just about have; and I do.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, I too am glad that we have had an opportunity to discuss this important document. Its general trend makes me feel distinctly uneasy. However, I shall confine my remarks to three salient points where I see difficulty.
First, I take issue with the first sentence of chapter 1. That states that the Green Paper is about delivering a fundamental change to the planning system. I believe that to be wrong. I see no reason to change our fundamental system. It is a nation-wide, plan-led system, executed in the main by councillors who are elected members of public authorities. There are provisions for public inquiries on points which are contentious and on these the Secretary of State is the ultimate referee. These are admirable features. Although the long Terminal 5 inquiry illustrated a particular significant defect in the system, we should not alter its main structure.
Having spent much of my life living abroad and having seen the effects of other nations' planning systems, I think we come out pretty well from the comparison. In particular, I remember two awful

1005
examples of what can go wrong: the total destruction of the littoral of the Attica peninsula in Greece; and the desecration on the Adriatic shore of the eastern side of the Italian peninsula between Ravenna and Rimini. We have avoided those horrors, thanks to our system. I have little doubt that our arrangements are better, more open, more honest and subject to better democratic control than those in most other European countries.
So I seriously doubt the starting point of the Green Paper. Let us by all means adjust our arrangements by learning from experience: they have been in place for a long time; perhaps we can improve on them. But let us not throw the baby out with the bath water, as does the Green Paper.
I accept the need for important changes to the handling of large infrastructure projects, but I doubt that the Government have found the right balance. Can it be right to give the Secretary of State such broad discretion to decide which major projects should be referred to Parliament? The document contains a list of examples, but we may also need guidelines to assist the Secretary of State—for example, relating to representations made to him by responsible bodies. Total discretion in the hands of the Minister appears excessive.
What can we do to ensure that Parliament's decision is based on a careful analysis of the facts? Should there be a free vote in Parliament? Will there be prior discussion in Committee before a vote? Perhaps a Joint Committee of the two Houses could produce independent analysis for Parliament to consider. Above all, can it be right to endow the Secretary of State with, as the paper states, the final say at the end of the process? The powers conferred on the executive in that model appear too extensive.
My second principal concern is about the rearrangement of responsibilities at local level. The county structure plan is to be abolished and local plans replaced by a local development framework. I believe that to be mistaken, given the local knowledge, understanding and experience available at county level. To whom will the new framework be entrusted? It must have one or more parents.
As the noble Lords, Lord Bowness and Lord MacGregor, pointed out, the Government's line of thought appears to anticipate the creation of elected assemblies in the regions. We all have views about that, but they do not yet exist, and we must work with the existing structures. Downgrading or eliminating the planning function of county councils would place a heavy burden on district and parish councils, which do not have the resources—human or financial—to undertake the task. Their discussion with a government department would not be a dialogue of equal partners. It would surely be a mistake to terminate the role of county councillors, who have a significant contribution to make to planning matters.
Parish councils are of variable quality, and it is often difficult to persuade those who are best qualified to serve to take on the job. The new code of conduct
1006
requiring disclosure of their personal finances is widely regarded as unduly intrusive. The comments of the County Councils Network on this part of the Green Paper are carefully thought through. It concludes that the Government's proposals are,
"fundamentally flawed and … not workable in practice".
The network's counter-proposal for subregional integrated development networks, making best use of existing bodies, is worthy of serious consideration. I hope that the Government will consider it, as it appears to be a preferable solution to that proposed in the Green Paper. I hope that when the White Paper is published—at the end of last debate on local government a month ago, we were told that that would be before the summer Recess—that will have happened, and that we shall have an opportunity to debate the White Paper in due course.
6.54 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, planning figures often on parish council minutes and is a major issue for both district and county councils. My main experience has been in a rural context, where, on occasion, I have been made acutely aware of applications turned down by the parish council, recommended for refusal by the planning department and voted against by the planning committee, but passed on appeal by the Secretary of State. Many noble Lords have referred to delay, and I shall emphasise that as well.
I should like to touch on four matters: rural housing, third parties, local county councils and services and landfill. I find myself in some sympathy with the recommendations in the report of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, Third Party Rights of Appeal in Planning, although with two major exceptions. First, certainly in rural areas, appeals should be open only to a third party who has already raised an objection and whose case is supported by one or more of the parish council, the district or borough planning committee and the planning officer. They should be prepared to bear the cost should the case fail. There is a need for third party appeals, but I appreciate that they often cause delay.
Secondly, grounds for appeal should be widened to include an automatic right wherever a set of plans, having been turned down by the parish council and the planning officer, is approved by the planning committee on the casting vote of the chairman. The public, especially in a small community, would be less suspicious of the planning process were such a right available.
I have also received papers from the National Trust, which expresses its concern. It states:
"The Green Paper contains no measures explicitly to enhance the role of Parish Councils in policy formulation and decision making".
With my agricultural hat on, but speaking as an individual, farmers are frustrated by being constantly told to diversify but finding great difficulty in getting planning permission so to do. That takes time and thwarts their business progress.

1007
To some extent, I also agree with the CPRE's recommendation that planning authorities should, if and when asked, have to supply reasons for granting consent, especially where objections have been raised. While it is desirable that planning meetings should be held in open session to the public, access is not easy enough—especially for people from villages—and to deny the public the facility to obtain reasons for decisions taken at those meetings is perhaps something that the Minister should consider.
I, too, am concerned about the responsibility for planning moving away from the counties and more decisions being pushed to regional level. Local people are the ones who know what is going on locally. I fear that as decisions move from county to region, they will be made by people who do not know the local area as well and are often, if I may say so, urban-based and not necessarily as au fail with the rural needs under consideration.
A departmental consultation paper closed for consultation four weeks ago. When will we receive the Government's response to it? How soon thereafter will we he able to debate it in this House? Will the department also carry out a review of the fee regime mentioned in the paper? If so, how quickly? When will it publish its consultation on major changes to the compulsory purchase and compensation systems and how quickly will it respond?
I, too, would like to touch on the point made by my noble friend Lady Knight. There has been much building in flood plains and on green belt, and I urge the Government to continue to develop on brownfield sites wherever possible, to relieve that pressure. In Leicester, we had a good example of a big project that received government money, which made a huge difference to the centre of Leicester and relieved the pressure on outlying areas.
I turn briefly to responsibility for landfill recycling. I know that the Green Paper is about planning, but it should cover that issue too, because it is hugely important. The more houses we build, the more waste there is, which must be dealt with. Who bears the cost of landfill, recycling and dumping—we know only too well of the mountains of fridges, electrical goods and cars? At present, it is the local authorities. Will the Government be putting money their way to help them? I am concerned about those four matters, because I believe them to be hugely important.
I conclude on the need for affordable housing—a subject upon which I have spoken many times previously in this House. The availability of rural affordable housing is crucial. However, it is one area where the Government's record is slipping. Local plans very often relate to plans to provide more three and four-bedroom houses, but we need affordable housing. Local authorities sometimes need to respond to builders who submit such plans by saying "No, what we need are more smaller units of affordable housing and/or retirement homes". I see from the Clock that I have overrun my time, but I should just like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, for initiating the debate.
7 p.m.
Lord Crathorne: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley. I am expressing my thanks at the beginning of my remarks in case I run out of time.
There is no question that planning procedures can be improved, but the Minister will know from representations made to his department that concerns have been raised about aspects of the process. Indeed, like myself, I am sure that all noble Lords who have taken part in this evening's debate have received many representations from various organisations. One local representation to me came from the North Yorkshire County Council, where I live, which wrote in a most alarmed way about the proposal in the Green Paper to cut out county councils from the new processes—a point much mentioned in this debate.
I should like to talk about one specific recommendation in the Green Paper that was actually touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns. However, before I do so, I should declare an interest as president of the Georgian Group and past president of the Joint Committee of National Amenity Societies. At present, the amenity societies such as the Georgian Group, the Victorian Society, and the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings are statutory consultees. This means that since 1972 local planning authorities have been required to notify them about applications that provide for the demolition or significant alteration of listed buildings. For example, at the Georgian Group we currently receive 6,000 notifications a year from planning authorities in England and Wales, to which we respond substantively to around one quarter.
As we all know, the quality of planning applications varies enormously. Many are poorly conceived and presented, being drawn up without the benefit of an architect's expertise. The planning system exists in part to protect the public interest against the crude and damaging interventions into our built environment that would result if such applications were allowed. It is surely right that local authorities should have to consult the organisations with the expertise to be of help to them. The Green Paper queries that and suggests in paragraph 5.33 that the number of statutory consultees should be reduced. It is silent on which consultees might lose their status, but it is possible that one or two of the amenity societies might be among that number.
In my view, there are three main arguments why the latter should not happen. First, the formal involvement of amenity societies in the planning process as statutory consultees gives significant additional protection to Grade II listed buildings. I should remind the House that Grade II buildings form 94 per cent of the total. English Heritage concentrates heavily on Grade I and Grade II* buildings, and will involve itself only exceptionally in alterations to Grade II buildings. The amenity societies are the only formal external consultees on such applications.

1009
Secondly, the involvement of amenity societies gives planning authorities a source of expertise that would otherwise not be available. One-third of planning authorities do not employ a conservation officer and many of the remainder employ them at a junior level. Without amenity societies, those authorities would have no informed advice on which to base decisions. I believe that it is rather too optimistic to suppose that such authorities would consult the amenity societies unless they were actually required to do so.
Finally, consultations with amenity societies are not, as the Green Paper implies, a significant source of delay. They are normally given 21 or 28 days, but just 14 days by some authorities, to comment. Occasionally they will ask for more time to investigate the matter, but that is rare; and it is open to the planning authority to refuse that extension of time. The consultation period generally runs parallel to the period during which members of the public can respond, so there is really no delay. It is perhaps worth adding that the statement made in paragraph 5.30 of the Green Paper that,
"most planning authorities will not take a decision in the absence of advice from a statutory consultee".
does not normally apply to the national amenity societies.
For these reasons, I take the view that retention of the statutory consultee status for the national amenity societies is essential if the Government's aspirations for the built heritage, which were clearly and well expressed in The Historic Environment: A Force for our Future, are to be realised. The present arrangements, which bring into the formal planning process the voluntary expertise of the leading authorities in the fields of building conservation, are much admired in other countries. Indeed, a delegation from Denmark which came to visit me, among other people, just last week asked me how the whole process worked.
Can the Minister give me an assurance that his department will consult with the amenity societies before the proposals in the Green Paper are taken any further? The Green Paper envisages a system under which the bodies that remain statutory consultees would charge for their responses and be statutorily required to respond within 21 days. I cannot deal with these proposals in detail at this point, but suffice to say that a fee system replacing the current casework grant from English Heritage could result in a considerably increased administrative workload. Moreover, there will be cases where a standard 21-day response will be simply unrealistic.
There is a danger of attaching too great a virtue to speed that in the end is counterproductive because it may compromise the quality of the outcome, which will not be as good as it should be. Again, that will diminish public confidence in the planning process. I know that the Government are very keen to address the feeling that at present there is not much confidence in the system. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
7.7 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I, too, welcome this opportunity to debate the Green Paper. Although it is technically past the closing date for consultation, we are indebted to my noble friend Lady Crawley for having enabled, if you like, a live consultation to take place this evening. While sitting in the Chamber listening to the debate with the majority of Members, including myself, having to declare an interest, I noted the diverse views expressed. If I were the Minister sitting on the Front Bench, one of the lines that I would be taking from the debate is the fact that everyone wants change but that there is no consensus about the kind of change required.
Several speakers mentioned the 1947 Act, stressing how good it has been and adding that we just need to amend it. I rather suspect that one of the reasons for having a piece of legislation that is over 50 years old is that it would have taken a very brave Minister to begin scrutinising it and making changes. I declare an interest as the chairman of the Housing Corporation. When seeing through these proposals—albeit with necessary changes—I hope that my noble and learned friend the Minister will keep the courage that he has shown in producing this Green Paper.
I should like to draw on my experience as chairman of the Housing Corporation and speak about affordable housing. The corporation is the single biggest investor in England. Having had our expenditure doubled by the Government for this coming financial year, we shall have something like £1.2 billion, which, with matching private sector funding, will mean that we shall spend over £2 billion on affordable housing throughout the country. Our experience has shown that the quality as regards the way in which planning is dealt with in this country is variable—some parishes are good, while others are bad; and some counties are good, but others are bad. There is no doubting the fact that the planning process is variable.
The quality of such planning has a profound effect upon how the corporation is able to deliver its investment programme. An efficient and effective planning system is absolutely essential to deliver the affordable housing that is required, but the current system is failing people throughout the country. It means that people are not receiving the housing that they need at the time when it is needed.
We welcome the introduction of the Green Paper. The current system is complex and remote. If one asks a local group of tenants, they look at you as if you have come from space. By and large, they do not know much about it and they have little involvement in it. The system should be more open than it is, and we welcome that reference in the Green Paper. We also welcome the reduction of the period for planning consents from five years to three. That will help create an urgency that is not currently obvious in many areas.
It takes longer for rural housing to move from the conception to the final building and occupation by tenants than it does for urban housing. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford—I nearly said, "My noble

1011
friend", because she happens to be a friend—was not quite correct in her reference to our build of rural housing. At the requirement of the Government, it has been doubled in the past few years. We get frustrated because there is money to invest but all too often the planning process takes too long to give local people the housing that they need.
As my noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall said, in the little villages—villages with fewer than 3,000 inhabitants—it is often people with a second home there who put forward the most articulate and sophisticated objection to the provision of affordable housing. There are people who do not want to see the location into which they have moved change, even if that change is to the benefit of the children of the villagers who have lived there for so long. We would like to see the system improved.
From our experience, the proposal in the Green Paper for the development of a local framework sounds good. However, it must be absolutely clear. We do not want to see a local framework that involved the people who wished to be involved deal only with the geography of the place. Surely, the framework must include people from the local ethnic communities, who often do not participate, and people from local areas of deprivation. There must be a requirement for their views to he taken into account and included in the framework plan.
Reference was made to the counties and the regions. We have found that, out of sheer necessity, the planning for our investment programme has had to move to sub-regional development. The requirement for sub-regional investment plans has moved from local authority areas not to counties—it might be three counties, as in the North West—but to towns within those counties. We welcome that development.
The Green Paper says that business does not necessarily require planning. That must be clear. Increasingly, over-business accommodation is used as a way to relieve local housing pressures, particularly in urban areas and particularly in the South East. In today's Budget, the VAT payable on residential conversions has been reduced to 5 per cent and there is a 100 per cent tax allowance for the first year for converting vacant spaces above shops into flats. That will be of major assistance.
Planning is crucial not just for housing but for our environment. I hope that we do not miss the opportunity. There may be parts of the Green Paper that people do not like, but I hope that we can carry it through. The Minister has had the courage to bring it forward; we must have the courage and the vision to support those essential changes.
7.14 p.m.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, for introducing this important subject. I thank the Minister for putting a picture of my former constituency on page 26 of the Green Paper; it is rather charming. I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, and I declare an
1012
interest as a former chairman and now president of the English Rural Housing Association, which receives funds from the Housing Corporation for those villages of fewer than 3,000 people. I know exactly what the noble Baroness is talking about in that regard.
In the previous Parliament, I was joint chairman of the All-Party Group on Housing, Planning and Lind that included Members of both Houses. It came into being as a reaction to the shock to the political and public weal caused by the announcement of the proposal to build another 4.4 million houses and of the top-down policy of allocation. In that case, there were to be half a million more houses in the South West—my area—over the next 15 years.
I am interested to see the increased interest in planning because, in an earlier incarnation, I had the privilege of being the Minister in the Department of the Environment responsible for planning and Secretary of State for the Environment. I lived through inquiries such as those into the Vale of Belvoir, the second terminal at Gatwick and the Green Giant in London, which some may remember. Eccentrically, I even had to give planning permission for the airport at Mount Pleasant in the Falklands. I also had responsibility for nuclear waste, and even the drilling test programme required planning permission. Given the amount of public interest that that stirred up, I am well aware of the acute interest in planning issues that can suddenly arise and of the problems of accommodating the necessity for democracy in the planning system.
I make the general comment that, when I was a Minister and a Secretary of State, there was a more deferential approach to planning. People used to receive letters saying, "The Secretary of State has decided…", and they believed that he had actually taken the decision, rather than delegating it to an inspector who was using his name. People were more ignorant of the whole structure. I remember meetings in my constituency that had been called to allow people to complain about a proposed development, only to be told that they were three years too late, that it had already been decided under the structural plan and that it had gone forward under the relevant planning procedure. People were frustrated because they did not understand the basis of the planning system.
I recognise the need for improvement in the planning system. There is a need for continuous improvement in the system, as problems arise. I pay tribute to some of the good points in the Green Paper. The proposed changes relating to twin-tracking, repeated application and time-limited consents are sensible. I endorse the proposal for more planning training for councillors. I was on the Nolan Committee, and that was one of the recommendations that we made. I am glad to see that echoed in the Green Paper.
I also agree with the point about the need for more resources for planning, including more planning officers. As the Minister knows, I should also declare an interest as non-executive chairman of

1013
ExCeL, the new national exhibition centre in London. That development is associated with several other major developments and is bringing considerable development to one of the most deprived boroughs in London but is posing major planning resource problems for the borough concerned. Perhaps, a deprived borough is used to not having too many planning applications and does not have the resources to cope with the challenge.
I referred to my experience of major inquiries. There is a problem, and I shall echo what my noble friend Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market said. The test of the Government's proposals is in what they mean by new parliamentary procedures. It would be an outrage, given the Government's overwhelming majority, if the proposals were to be carried through by a parliamentary vote under the present whipping system. The noble Lord, Lord Best— perhaps it was the noble Lord, Lord Bridges—referred to the possibility of having a free vote. The parliamentary procedure for this must be thorough and proper. There are precedents for that.
I have had full experience of the democratic deficit. When I left government, I became more involved in planning issues. I referred to the great public interest in the proposal for 4.4 million houses. I made it my business to attend the county structure plan hearing and give evidence and to attend the regional planning guidance hearing and give evidence. I say to the Minister that the department made every possible effort to prevent me from appearing. I was not a statutory consultee, and the fact that I might have been Secretary of State for the Environment was neither here nor there, now that I was out of office. It instances the fact of the impossibility of public involvement in such things if even the Member of Parliament for a constituency in that region and that county—an MP with some previous ministerial responsibility—was not allowed to appear to give evidence at the inquiry.
I achieved my request at the third time of asking. A truth was brought home to me by that matter. I do not think that anyone should hold ministerial office in the environment department unless they have appeared at one of these undertakings. I recommended very strongly that they should do so. Given his legal background, I suspect that the Minister may have been concerned with one or two, but I doubt whether the Secretary of State has ever taken one. I wish that I had done so before I became the Minister responsible for the planning system.
First, I have to say that I am in favour of continual improvement. However, the regions, to which the Government referred, are not all the same. Trying to force the South West to become one region is not wise. The counties are all different. I would urge most strongly that the Government should look at introducing different arrangements for different parts of the country. They should invite different counties to look at how they might want to work together rather than try to impose on them the wartime structure which formed the regions.
1014
Secondly, I do not believe that we should get rid of county structure plans, and certainly not for all those places which still have counties. If they have converted to unitary authorities, then that is another matter. However, at the moment the structure of local government varies in different parts of the country. It would be a great mistake to do away with those plans.
I should like to make one very violent complaint, one which reflects what I object to about some parts of this Government. I refer the House to page 58 of the Green Paper. It states that delegation to officers should be encouraged as far as possible. That is a good idea. However, the second sentence, states:
"To encourage this process we have set for 2002/03 a new target of delegation of 90‥ of decisions to officers, which will be monitored through Best Value".
To nanny local government like that is an outrage and not the way to achieve any improvement.
I should like to make a final point which has been made by other noble Lords. I refer to a mistake that our government made and that the present Government have made. Any form of change is expensive, disruptive and interruptive of the system that is presently operating. Before one makes changes, one has to be jolly certain that they will be worth all the pain and disruption that such changes will bring. Personally, I believe that some of these changes need to be approached in a far more evolutionary way.
7.22 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I wish that the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, had won both slots for this debate. The Green Paper properly refers to the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Consultation. One of the criteria in that is the question of feedback. Normally one sees a Green Paper followed by a White Paper, but rumours have been circulating, which I hope that the Minister can scotch, that the Government intend to go straight to legislation on this. As the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, remarked rather delicately, we need more time to reflect.
Who is planning for? I think that it is for everyone: for the applicant, for those immediately affected and for the whole community, because it is a public service. I was most taken by the analysis put forward by the Council for the Protection of Rural England which points out that we can describe it as "balancing" only if by that we mean integrating the needs and reconciling the differences of all those who have an interest; that is, the whole community and its component parts with their different demands. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, made the same point. It is certainly not a matter, for instance, of setting the environment against the economy.
Quality of place matters. I should declare an interest as president of the Town and Country Planning Association. In that role, I chaired some work which looked at the planning system. We called that work, "Your Place And Mine". Each of those four words is significant. Planning takes, or should take, a very positive and proactive role in achieving quality. I think that the Minister shares that view.

1015
However, the system is not delivering perfectly. When I first stood for election 24 years ago, a point made to me on the doorstep was, "I'm OK, but where will my daughter live?". Now those daughters and sons are asking that question for themselves, especially in London and the South East. It is particularly true if they are teachers or work in the health service, if they drive buses or if they do any of the jobs that make our society and our economy function or, indeed, simply if they have a middle income. We have a housing and a labour crisis.
Planning alone will not provide housing that is affordable in any sense of the term but, to be frank, it has not done much to redirect those developers still producing large, executive-style housing rather than more modest homes. I fear that these reforms will not help that process either. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, cited examples of the development difficulties faced by farmers when they need to diversify; that reflects the same issue.
The answer to the question, "Does the Green Paper propose practical frameworks and processes which are necessary to achieve sustainable development?"—I may be wrong, but I believe that I am the first speaker to use that phrase in the course of our debate—is, "I think not". A great deal in it worries me. I believe that many of the current problems could be addressed without the need for wholesale reform, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, and other noble Lords. The perception is that reform is being led by the demands of business, but it is notable that that has not been a feature of this debate. The problems of business turn mainly on development control, as is the case in the housing field, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean.
We have been told of the financial constraints on local authorities which have led to a loss of planners. The Government's proposed solutions all seem to concern quantity rather than quality, but one of the quantities not referred to is, frankly, the quantity of dosh. I noted the comment made by the County Councils Network estimating that there is a deficit of over 2,000 years'-worth of professional experience and that the proposals contained in the Green Paper will cost £60 million a year. That may or may not be correct, but I am sure that the organisation is right to point to the issue.
Mention has been made of statutory consultees. If they are hit with the costs of response, I think that we should attend to their core funding rather than conferring on them "favoured nation status" as compared, for example, with residents.
Like other noble Lords, I am profoundly unhappy about the proposed levels of delegation. Local authorities should be able to set their own performance indicators, and in their capacity as local planning authorities, they should be able to set their targets in this area as well.
The issue of resources does not affect only the application stage. Yesterday I attended a meeting concerning Heathrow airport. The planning condition on the permission for T5 was mentioned—some
1016
480,000 flights a year. That is a planning condition that would have to be enforced by the local planning authority. Does it have the means to carry out that kind of enforcement?
Remaining on cash issues, I am supportive of moves to ensure pre-application advice, but because I think that the Minister may have misunderstood me when we last debated this issue, I wish to put on the record that that is not to buy fast-track decisions. It is something which should be encouraged but, as I have said, it is not something to be bought.
Appeals and inquiry processes are also sources of frustration. The route to follow must be to build on EIPs in order to improve the procedure. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, that what we have at the moment favours deep pockets. When I chaired a development control committee in Richmond-upon-Thames, the most effective speakers were the individuals, not the members of the Bar who used up all their time with unnecessarily flowery language.
That point takes me neatly, although probably not that logically, to major infrastructure proposals. I agree with the analysis that problems would be rather fewer if the policy frameworks were in place. We have seen how inquiries can transform into a policy forum. But I am unhappy with the proposed solution. What applications would be affected? I, too, find the annex to the Green Paper difficult. As I read it, in some cases it addresses itself more to issues of health and safety than what is currently focused on in planning.
However, the overwhelming point to make is that unless and until Parliament becomes more effective in scrutinising the executive, I do not see how this could be adequate. Reference has been made to the issue of whipping, while the daughter paper discusses either a statutory instrument procedure or a power of designation. In practice, speaking as someone who on occasion has to debate statutory instruments, I do rot feel very different. Just how offensive would the detail following a parliamentary decision have to be in order for that decision to be overturned?
I believe that we need a debate on the spot on the big issues as well as the small. It must be accessible to the local community and to the local press, which forms an important part of the process and which locally has an important information role to play.
I have referred to "local"; but that is not to say that there should not be regional procedures—but not until we have elected regional government. I agree with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, had to say about this, with the possible exception of his conclusion about where we should go with regard to regional government.
Much has been said about the position of the counties. The integration of land use, transport and resources is one of our goals, but will not removing the counties' structure planning powers but not their role in transport, waste and minerals hinder integration?

1017
While I am referring to one authority which seems to be in danger of being sidelined, perhaps I should comment that another kind of planning authority—the national parks—seems to have been overlooked in much of the Green Paper.
As to community, I have said many times in this Chamber, as have many of your Lordships, that civic engagement, partnership, integration, and local diversity to fit local circumstances are our agenda. So "yes" to what involves community, including through the parishes, although I do not underestimate the difficulty of involving the community in achieving a truly plan-led process.
There are concerns about local development frameworks which are not map-based; they have to be spatial. To answer the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, different groups in the community will be involved in the proposed relationship between the framework and community statements, which we welcome.
But "no" to business planning zones. The proposals are crude; they do not allow the assessment of needs or merits and, crucially, they exclude the local community.
I plead with the Government to reconsider their opposition to all third party rights of appeal. I acknowledge that there could be difficulties if it were open to anyone to appeal on anything, but the Green Paper identifies limited circumstances in which people might apply, and then dismisses them. I believe that that is because of the difficulties of implementation rather than principle.
I have referred to the perception that this process is being driven by business. To discount all third party rights of appeal would simply confirm that those concerned with the quality of our areas and with the wider environment have a lower status in the Government's eyes. I am sure that that is not really the case.
The Mayor of London has been criticised by the Assembly which I chair for taking planning decisions in private. He explains that, in part, this is because he can get advice which he could not get publicly on how much benefit, for instance, affordable housing—it is not all bad—he can get, although that is not the verb he uses, out of a particular developer. Even he now agrees that there are some circumstances when a local authority determines its own applications which should be subject to third party rights of appeal.
To conclude my speech—but not the debate, which I am sure will continue—town and country planning has its roots in the progressive social movement. The aim now is to harness it to achieve sustainable development, a goal which I fear many of these proposals will not achieve.
7.33 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of a local authority and as a member of its planning committee, on which I sit on a regular
1018
basis. I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley. She has been lucky to draw the ticket for this debate. It has been excellent and has raised a number of important issue. It has demonstrated once again the amount of expertise in your Lordships' House which must at some stage be of benefit to the Minister in his considerations.
From the discussions we have had it is clear that no aspect of planning, its impact, law or regulation can be considered trivial or of no interest or significance to the public, particularly those who are affected by development. As the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, said, there are good systems already available. They may need some adjustment but we must be careful that we do not throw out babies with bathwaters. There should not be too great a modernisation. Some areas of the planning laws which have survived since 1947 work well. They may need some minor tiller touching but not major change.
The proposals in the Green Paper will have varying impacts depending on whether they affect major national, commercial or large or small residential developments. There are mixed views about some of the proposed changes—for example, charging for initial planning advice; stopping twin tracking, of which I am much in favour; tightening up the timescales for appeals; the introduction of a planning check list—although, as with other aspects of the proposals, if that were to be introduced I would hope that it is the Government's intention for their model to be advisory and not mandatory, as each local authority area will have its own views on the important aspects that should be included on it.
I was fascinated by the proposal to ensure that local authorities open their planning meetings to the public. I thought that local authority planning committees had been open for at least the past 10 years. If that is not so, what have I been doing masquerading with the public around me for all that time? It is a proper aspiration. If it is not illegal at the moment to have closed meetings, as I thought it was, it is clear that planning committees should be open in the greater part in order that people can hear the discussions and observe what decisions are taken.
The intention to make planning a more attractive career is absolutely essential. Decisions will not be made against a proper background and a proper timescale if we do not recruit and train more planning officers. The noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, said that the shortage of suitably trained planning officers is one of the major reasons for delays in planning considerations.
That is a bad reason for delays in planning applications, but there are occasionally good ones. I note that it is proposed in the Green Paper to introduce varying timescales for the consideration of planning applications, with perhaps residential applications being shorter and business applications taking longer. It is right that some applications should take a longer time and some a shorter time, but sometimes not to rush a decision and allow consultation, and thereby breach the target time for

1019
consideration, can be a very good thing. In such cases, one ends up with a better development than if the application is rushed through in a very restricted time-scale.
One of the great areas of concern about which we have heard from a number of noble Lords—not only today but during the debate on local government some weeks ago—is the exclusion of county councils from involvement in structure plans. My noble friends Lord McGregor and Lord Bowness and a number of Liberal Democrat Peers have expressed their concerns about this. The Green Paper barely gives recognition to the importance of the counties. It merely comments that views would be welcome as to whether counties should have a role in assisting other tiers of local government to prepare their local development framework. That is fairly childish. The county councils have played a major role in planning for many years. If the proposals in the Green Paper go through, all they will be left with is a role in the waste and mineral disposal policies.
The real reason behind this was touched on in the Green Paper—that is, the Government's obsession with introducing regional government. It may be that by the time the Green Paper goes further the Government will have produced their proposals on the subject. But this can only come about as the result of a successful referendum—a matter on which the Government do not have a glorious record of achievement—for a regional assembly. So, even if it were to come about, it is not imminent.
A number of noble Lords have raised this question. There is a great reliance in the Green Paper on regional structures, but democratic regional structures are not there. It must be of concern that the upper layer of regional structures—which at the moment are county councils—might be removed from the system of structural planning and involvement in the local development frameworks in anticipation of legislation which has not yet come about. Does the Minister agree that if the referendum in a region were lost the counties would remain in order that there is some security of structure?
My noble friend Lady Anelay pointed out the importance of the responsibilities of county councils— not only in terms of their present controls over roads, schools and social services, which are important in relation to structure plans, but also in terms of their role in heritage strategies and archaeological matters.
It is inconceivable that regions stretching from Buckinghamshire to the Isle of Wight and from Kent to Hampshire will be able to decide issues for more than the most strategic part of planning and development control. They are far too remote and will be unable to get down to the nitty-gritty. It is clear that all those aspects would be better handled at a more local level.
I now turn to the subject of major developments, which has been discussed at some length. The proposals would seem to return us to the position that pertained in 1992; namely, the public Bills system, which was then abandoned. The proposals are something of a resurrection of what has gone before.
1020
There is a general acceptance and understanding that we cannot continue with a situation in which the Terminal 5 inquiry has taken eight years. But that was probably exceptional. In most cases, major developments do not take as long as that.
Real concerns are being expressed, not only in this Chamber but elsewhere, about the involvement of Parliament in such matters. It raises the "what?", "where?" and "why?" questions. What proposals would need to come before Parliament? How would they be decided by Parliament? How could we ensure that Members of Parliament knew the areas with which they were dealing? Where would decisions be taken for Wales and Scotland? Would they be taken in this Parliament or in Wales and Scotland?
Will the Minister explain at what stage consultation would take place? Would it take place after a decision had been taken by government that a development would be undertaken? How, for example, would a decision be taken as to where a power station was sited? Would there be consultation? Would there be a discussion on the criteria required for the development? At what stage would an initial decision to proceed be taken by Parliament? How would the views of the general public be made known to Members who would take those decisions? Would there be a whipping system? Would there he a free vote? How would the Government ensure that those involved in making the decision had the knowledge of and connection with the part of the country concerned? And how long would local communities and local authorities have to assemble and put forward a coherent and well-argued case both before the public inquiry and subsequently—which would be examining only the plans decided upon by Parliament?
All these questions need to be examined. This may be too early a stage, but there will be questions that we shall have to ask, and ask again. Indeed, we shall wait to know at some stage how the EU environmental assessment directive will be taken into account and the time-scales for that.
The voice of local people is an aspect on which the Green Paper waxes lyrical. It is extremely important that local people have a proper right to make their views known on so many issues. There is a great deal in the Green Paper to which I hope we shall return. I ask the Minister to answer the question that has been raised: is the next stage a White Paper—in which case shall we have a chance to comment in this Chamber—or, as has been rumoured, will the Government move directly to legislation?
7.44 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I join with noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, for introducing this debate, which she obtained after winning the ballot. It has been extremely constructive. It indicates how important the topic is. The striking point has been the sense that there has not been enough time to debate all the issues.

1021
Perhaps I may deal with a number of preliminary points. First, the Government have indicated their intention to make a policy statement before the Summer Recess about their response to the consultation. That policy statement will come before any legislation.
Secondly, perhaps I may take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, that, in making any change to the system, it is vital that there is clarity about the interim position, in effect to avoid the process of change freezing the making of decisions. We emphatically agree with that point. It is incumbent on the Government to be clear at each stage as to both the interim position and the proposals from that stage onwards, so that local authorities and developers know exactly where they stand. We shall take that point into account.
The noble Baroness, Lady Knight of Collingtree, raised with great eloquence and passion the matter of flooding. I entirely agree with her about the importance of flooding. She is right to identify the fact that the planning Green Paper does not refer to it. The reason is that the purpose of a Green Paper is not to deal with substantive policies in relation to planning but with how to make the system work better. Plainly, one of the things that the system should do is to deliver substantive policies more effectively, including policies in relation to planning. The noble Baroness will know that last year, in the light of the experience of recent years, the Government issued a guidance note about planning. I hope that she will agree that we have acted on the experience of previous years and have sought to reflect the importance of flooding as a proper and vital consideration in planning.
Perhaps I may make the same point to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, in relation to leisure and sport. They are very important in relation to planning, and I entirely agree with the noble Baroness about their importance in regard to regeneration, enterprise and the economy generally. In regard to PPG 17 a draft proposal for change has already been published. In relation to PPG 15 and PPG 16, the planning Green Paper refers to proposals in relation to change. The noble Baroness's points in that respect were much more about substance than about the system, which is what the planning Green Paper is about.
The noble Lord, Lord Lea, made the important point that the planning system is dealing with different sorts of problems. On the one hand, there is the planning application which the local authority will deal with under the normal system; secondly, there is the major infrastructure project—of which there are very few—which we propose should be dealt with in a different way. I shall begin my remarks with reference to the first, more normal sort of application, and then deal separately with major infrastructure projects.
With the possible exception of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, I detected broad agreement that change was required. There were disagreements about whether it should be fundamental change or radical change. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, said that the change was not
1022
radical enough. Some said that it was too radical. But there was widespread agreement on the need for change, as there was on the basic analysis of the problem in relation to the planning system.
Perhaps I should briefly describe the current planning system. There is national planning guidance, of which there are currently 852 pages. There is regional planning guidance, which is produced by a variety of different bodies throughout the regions. In some places, the process of public consultation works well. We have the evidence of the noble Lord, Lord King, that in others the process does not engage the public. If the MP cannot get in after three attempts, that does not suggest a system that is necessarily engaging the public effectively. Below regional planning guidance there are 74 unitary authorities; and there is a drop from the regional planning guidance straight to the unitary planning guidance. There are 39 structure plan places, 13 of which are produced by counties alone and 26 of which are produced by counties in combination either with a national park authority or with a unitary authority. Below the structure plan level, there should be local plans, which are produced by district. It is a complicated structure, with variable geometry, dependent entirely on the history of local government.
The system was set up in the early 1990s, 10 years after the current plan-led system was put in place. Some 45 local authorities—that is 13 per cent—are still to adopt their first plan and 214 current plans are becoming out of date, with little sign of early review. Under the present system, reviews of regional planning guidance, structure plans and local plans cannot be achieved in less than about 10 years and authorities estimate that one third of all applications are incomplete and 90 per cent of local authorities fail to achieve the target for deciding applications for planning permission.
That is the basic system. It works well in some places, but do not tell me that it is working well everywhere. One interesting aspect of the comments made to me before the planning Green Paper was that everyone, from business to community groups, residents and local authorities, was very keen for change.
Beside that there is the system of planning gain. Clear statements were made that the problem with the current system is the total lack of certainty and clarity. Some local authorities do a first-class job, pitching the planning gain that they should be asking for entirely correctly and getting benefit for their communities, but frequently a local authority does not ask for enough, in which case the community suffers by not getting adequate planning gain, or asks for too much, in which case the development does not go ahead and everybody suffers as a result. It was said that that was a result of the lack of certainty in the planning gain system.
The third strand is major infrastructure projects. Terminal 5 took from the early 1990s until not very long ago to get planning permission. I do not know whether any noble Lords had an opportunity to go to

1023
the Terminal 5 inquiry—I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, did. To say that it was a process of community engagement stretches credulity. There was a period when the residents had an adequate opportunity to put their point of view, but the other seven-and-a-half years or three-and-a-half years, or however long, was taken up with the big deep pockets funding very eloquent QCs to talk to each other about issues of commerce. The current system produces a totally rules-drive process. There are 852 pages of national planning guidance and QCs coming out of your ears in major planning inquiries and public inquiries on local issues or development plans. That system does not empower the local community and promote sustainable development. Instead, the moment a planning application of any significance is made, everybody reaches for the law books and the lawyers.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Byford and Lady Hamwee, want to make the situation worse by introducing a third party right of appeal. That would result in an even more legally driven process. We have considered that important issue in detail. Those who support that proposal should consider the experience of Queensland in Australia, which introduced a third party right of appeal to empower third parties. Some years later, in 1997. another Act of Parliament had to be introduced to free local authorities from the consequences of a precedent-driven system, which meant that instead of being allowed to decide what was in the best interests of the communities, local authorities or local communities had to spend all their time perusing the decisions that had been made in the greatly expanded jurisprudence in relation to it.
There is a choice to be made. Do we want a more lawyer-driven process on planning or do we broadly want to simplify the system and free it from the constraints and the rules so that the community can engage more easily? In the planning Green Paper, we have gone for the route of simplification and trying to release the system from the current rules process. We do that by saying first that national planning guidance should be shorter, simpler and more focused. Secondly, the county structure plan tier, which causes room for confusion, should be removed. There should be regional planning and district planning. The district plan will deal with most local development control decisions because it is the one closest to the people who will be most affected. They should make most of the decisions.
In some cases it is plain that the leap from region to district is much too large. Those who have suggested that it is too large in the South West and the South East are plainly right. However, we have to ask whether the county is the right administrative district in which to intermediate between region and district. In some places, it might well be. The obvious example is Cornwall, which is a clear grouping that, for a variety of reasons, stands as a sub-region on its own. However, in the vast majority of cases the county will not be the correct administrative sub-region.
1024
I have had a number of constructive conversations with the LGA and the County Councils Network. When we talk about the benefits of structure planning, the most common examples are based not on individual counties but on sub-regions that cross over county boundaries. For example, Cambridge raises many acute planning issues. The surrounding area is not restricted to Cambridgeshire but includes neighbouring counties. Gatwick Airport is another example that gives rise to a lot of structural and strategic planning issues. Plainly, responsibility for those strategic issues should spread beyond the county boundaries and should not be dealt with by just West Sussex.
The County Councils Network and the LGA have reservations about the proposal but they broadly accept that the time of the structure plan has gone. They propose that the counties should have a very important role in supporting regional and sub-regional planning and in helping to draw up the local development framework. They sensibly take the view that the structure plan is frequently not the best way forward. I do not necessarily agree with all their proposals, but I think that they are sensible to accept that the time for the structure plan has gone and that we now have to look at ways that give effect to the importance of regions in planning, the importance of identifying the sub-region and the importance of capturing the expertise that counties have in contributing to the new planning system.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I get the sense that the Minister is continually trying to come back to driving the system into a uniform framework for the whole country. Is there not an argument for diversity and for much greater involvement of local decision-making in seeing what is most appropriate to the area concerned? In passing, I note that it sounded as though we were recreating Avon and Humberside.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, I thought that I was doing precisely what he would wish. I thoroughly support the idea of diverse decision-making. The discussions on the planning Green Paper gave the strong message that different considerations should apply in different regions. Different structures and different policies might well apply. The most obvious example can be seen in relation to housing. The problem in many parts of the North East and North West is low demand and abandonment of housing. The problem in most parts of the South East and South West is entirely the reverse.
We need a regional framework in terms of both policy and the relationship between regional bodies and the bodies below them. We are therefore seeking to deliver that which the noble Lord, Lord King, seeks—the necessary diversity and structures to reflect the problems facing different parts of the country. We are trying to deliver that which he thinks is appropriate.
I move from the basic structure to the planning gain point. The difficulty with a planning gain policy which is applied differentially across the country and leads to

1025
uncertainty about outcome is that there will be either delay, lack of gain or a complete choking-off of development. However, I do not accept that the merit system is a tax. Although planning gain itself involves the developer's payment of money or a particular benefit to the community, no one calls that a tax. The merit system is simply a method of seeking to identify what should be paid in a much more certain way.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, mentioned a number of developments in the tariff proposal. I do not disagree with any of the reservations he mentioned and I do not think that any of them are inconsistent with anything said in the planning Green Paper. Although it is an important issue which has created considerable controversy, it has made it possible for the community to gain appropriate benefits from sustainable development.
The noble Lords, Lord MacGregor and Lord King, said that there is a critical need to develop proper parliamentary procedure in the consideration of major infrastructure projects. There is no point in my rehearsing the problems with the type of inquiry used in relation to Terminal 5 and Sizewell B. However, as the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, rightly said, the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, among other projects, provides a different precedent.
The Channel Tunnel Rail Link was a major planning issue and was supported by the then Conservative government. As I understand it, however, votes on the issue were not whipped and the proposal was approved with considerable majorities. Although it is a matter for Parliament, I do not think that it would be appropriate for parliamentary procedure in relation to such important matters to be whipped. I also agree that it would be wholly inappropriate for such matters to be dealt with in a one-hour debate in each House before they are approved. We need to develop a procedure that allows proper consideration of the issues.
However, the Channel Tunnel Rail Link case seems to establish perfectly satisfactorily that Parliament is both willing and able to deal with the issues involved in such major infrastructure projects. Although those projects are very few and far between, surely it must be better for Parliament to be involved in deciding them than to continue with the current procedure. The current procedure operates as follows. In the case of Terminal 5, for example, an application for planning permission was made to the London borough of Hillingdon, as per usual. Understandably, the application was called in by the Secretary of State. There was then a planning inquiry of the type we have discussed. Thereafter, not only did the Secretary of State not refer the matter to Parliament but, because he had a quasi-judicial role, he had to operate at arm's length when making the decision.
If we can develop a parliamentary procedure that allows both proper consideration of the issues and the community involved to express its view, then the nation's superior democratic body should be able to
1026
decide the very few cases—national issues —such as the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, Terminals 4 and 5 and Sizewell B. Our proposals contain such a framework.
There is not, as my noble friend Lady Dean said, agreement on all the details, but we are utterly determined to make the planning system work so that it delivers sustainable development and earns the confidence of the community. We shall certainly listen to what has been said today. I hope that I have explained our basic thought on the issues. I suspect that the devil will be in the detail, but we shall listen carefully to what is being said.
Lord Renton: My Lords, may I quickly ask—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, we really do not have time for interventions.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is a timed debate, and time is up.
8.5 p.m.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend the Minister for replying so comprehensively, and in his own inimitable and well-respected fashion, to our debate. I also thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful and expert contributions. I, too, look forward to our continuing discussions on planning. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Scottish Parliament (Referendum) Bill [H.L.]
8.6 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill he now read a second time.
This Bill is intended to test Scottish opinion as to whether the Scottish Parliament is achieving its aims and whether its people believe that Scotland would be better governed from Westminster. I must declare an interest. I am a great supporter of the Union. I am also a resident of Scotland and have been for half of my life, albeit that I was born and brought up in England. All three of my children were born in Scotland.
I love my adopted country, its countryside and its people, but I know that there is a growing consensus that the Scottish Parliament is not fulfilling the role that it was intended to do. Indeed, I have yet to meet anyone from any walk of life who approves of how the Scottish Parliament is conducting its affairs. The large postbag that I have received in support of the Bill's objectives supports this view. Neither must it be forgotten that, since the passing of the Scotland Act 1998, neither House has had any opportunity to look

1027
at the success or otherwise of the Scottish Parliament. With that in mind, I believe it appropriate to test Scottish opinion.
I deeply regret that Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish is no longer with us as I feel certain that he would feel even more strongly about this Bill. I also regret that the original First Minister, Donald Dewar, is no longer with us either; I believe that he would be horrified at what is going on at the moment. He so eloquently set out the aims of the Scottish Parliament in his opening Address on 13th May 1999:
"We will make mistakes … but we will never lose sight of what brought us here; striving to do right by the people of Scotland, to respect their priorities, to better their lot and to contribute to the common weal".
I accept that it is early days, but I believe that none of that vision has been achieved; hence the reason for this Bill.
Few people voted in the referendum or to elect the first Members of the Scottish Parliament. The turnout was under 60 per cent and in some areas as little as 40 per cent. Less than 45 per cent of these said "Yes" to a Scottish Parliament. I believe that voter apathy is one of the most troubling and worrying aspects of modern political life. If the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and I were running a public company with shareholders, we would require at least a 75 per cent majority to approve a change to our constitution. The figures that I have just quoted show that they fall a very long way short.
I am aware that there are many who question what right I may have, as an elected hereditary Peer at Westminster, to introduce such a Bill and at so early a stage in the existence of the Scottish Parliament. I do so because I believe that the Scottish Parliament is like a runaway train without a guard and because I believe that Scotland, once a great nation, would be better governed with greater value for its people, and at a fraction of the cost, than it currently is from Edinburgh. To those who support the continued existence of the Parliament, despite its flagrant defects, I say, "If you are true democrats, you will not deny the Scottish electorate the right to express its wishes".
I would like to point out just some of the costs that are currently faced by the Scottish people. First, the Scottish Parliament building. Several years ago a turnkey project offered the Scottish Parliament a new building at the Port of Leith completed and delivered for £32 million. Coincidentally, my great great grandfather was once the elected Member for Leith. This was to be next door to the Scottish Office on land donated by Forth Ports—I must declare another interest as a very small shareholder in Forth Ports—as a gift to the nation and the building, based on a European regional model, to include press buildings.
The plan was rejected as it was not considered prestigious enough. Many people have asked why the Old Royal Infirmary building could not have been adapted, and at a fraction of the cost of the new building. But the Scottish Executive wanted new premises originally estimated at £40 million. After realising, however, long after the project got under way, what they had ordered was not big enough, this rose to a staggering £280 million. Now, according to
1028
the Edinburgh press, MSPs are already quibbling about the quality of the furniture. I am reliably informed that the final bill will end up nearer £500 million; I repeat, £500 million.
On 21st March this year, ignoring massive public opposition, when one poll revealed 99 per cent of voters believed their politicians should not receive any more money, the Scottish Parliament awarded themselves a 13.5 per cent pay rise. One national newspaper ran a headline, "Obscene". Expenses for each Member are now running at around £50,000 a year. Yet only a few months ago, nurses were forced by these same Members to accept a pay rise of just 3.5 per cent. Indeed, the increase in salary that the Scottish Members awarded themselves equates to the annual pay for many public sector workers. My socialist instincts find this offensive in the extreme.
People were dismayed that the last First Minister resigned his office after 10 months in the job with a mammoth pension for life. What message does that send out to the people of Scotland, especially the young?
There are currently 38 NDPBs—"non-departmental public bodies"—to quote a politically correct definition. Most of us know them as "quangos" or "task forces". They lurk, unelected and unaccountable, behind the Scottish Executive. The cost to the people of Scotland?—8,478 people are so employed spending over £2 billion funded by the Scottish taxpayer.
The number of civil servants has also climbed—from 12,873 in 1997 to more than 13,700 today. Staff costs have increased by £18 million. There are now 50 press officers, nearly double the 1997 figure and five times the number of spin doctors than there were two years ago. Publishing glossy books has increased 75 per cent in the last three years to £2.5 million.
During the past year the Scottish Executive managed to spend its way through £236,000 on taxi fares and £586,000 on 22 ministerial cars; another source of great indignation for the people of Scotland. When one considers that the total running costs for the Scottish Parliament for the year ending 31st March was £35.1 million, this represents a very hefty bill for what the comedian Billy Connolly referred to as "a wee pretendy parliament".
Yet only recently The Fraser of Allander Institute issued the warning that Scotland's economy is set to grow at less than half the rate of the United Kingdom in the next year. Is this really what the people of Scotland want? I do not believe that it is. If one of the aims of the Scottish Parliament was to take on some of the responsibilities of local government, surely it would be reasonable to expect a moderation in costs? It is difficult, if not impossible, to understand why, following an 18-month inquiry, council tax band changes have been proposed which will land some house owners with increases of up to 61 per cent.
All kinds of strategies, packages and initiatives have poured forth. Along with legislation that almost beggars belief. For example, the ban on hunting, which was forced through by 83 individuals, some of them

1029
not directly elected, most of them completely ignorant of the argument. The worrying reality is that 65 Members can impose any legal measure they want upon the Scottish electorate. This instils a real sense of fear into many people, particularly as there is no revising chamber to carry out any of the necessary checks and balances on the Executive. Where, given this situation, is democracy?
It must not be forgotten that when we were debating the Scotland Act many of us were concerned about the lack of a second chamber and we were assured that the Scottish Executive's committee framework would act as a safeguard. The Rural Affairs Committee recommended that the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, was unworkable, yet it has now received Royal Assent. I believe it is appalling that the Executive can so blatantly disregard the recommendations of its committees.
I turn now to the Bill to ban fur farming. What a scandalous waste of time and taxpayers' money to ban an activity that does not even exist in Scotland, and has not, for at least 10 years. Yet the export of live animals for slaughter overseas continues unabated from Scotland, with all the misery and suffering this inflicts on these hapless creatures. The Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, labelled by many as the "Land Theft Bill", is another vastly unpopular measure, with potentially devastating results on the people and countryside of Scotland. Do we really want to follow in Mr Mugabe's footsteps? I think not.
More than 1 million people voted in a national referendum to keep Section 28—more people than voted for the governing party in the Scottish Parliament. Yet those million people were branded as "bigots" and the Executive arbitrarily went ahead and repealed Section 28, regardless of such strong public feeling.
Many of your Lordships might reasonably ask, "But surely the Parliament must have done something right"? If one were looking for redeeming policies, two possible candidates could be the introduction of free universal care for the elderly and the abolition of tuition fees for students. Unlike the Parliament's other legislation, at least the intention in both measures was good. Alas, the implementation is an empty sham. Care for the elderly will cost at least £125 million a year; after the first two years, the Scottish Executive has no idea where the money will come from. It will be forced to pillage other public services, robbing Peter to pay Paul. As for the so-called abolition of student fees, for the majority of students they have simply been replaced by graduate endowments requiring them to repay £2,000 after graduation when their income reaches the modest threshold of £10,000. Most Scottish students no more enjoy free tuition than people with a mortgage acquire a free house.
So where should the focus and the money be better spent? Surely not on making criminals of parents who smack their children, but on providing police officers, nurses, doctors and teachers. That is what I believe the late Donald Dewar meant when he said,
1030
"striving to do right by the people of Scotland, respecting their priorities".
The problem that all this poses to England is that our Government are committed to introducing more regional assemblies. In fact, eight further regional chambers in each of the English regions are due to be introduced over the next three years. The Government have allocated a budget of £15 million. Given the Scottish experience, I feel confident that noble Lords will agree that this is a very modest sum. Every time that we have an extra layer of government, it is obviously going to cost. Is it right to impose on the people such a form of government that is to be expensively housed, along with all of the added costs of civil servants, taxis, cars, telephones and so on? The idea of £500 million buildings springing up in Newcastle, York and all points south would be appalling and would further alienate the electorate.
This is a very expensive way to finance the "political third eleven" to strut and to preen themselves. That disillusionment is now being expressed by those who are best placed to judge the effects of devolution on Scotland's prosperity—the crucial wealth creators. A survey in the current issue of Scottish Business Insider magazine, conducted among the chief executives and financial directors of 500 of the leading companies in Scotland, shows that almost half believe that the Parliament should be abolished—an increase of 15 per cent in just three months. In the words of a very famous cook and a much-loved Scottish personality, "If it was a recipe, I would throw it out and start again".
When people throw up their arms in despair, asking the question, "What can I do?", the answer is, I believe, contained in the Bill. I know that it will be welcomed by all those who voted "No" for a Scottish Parliament but it will also be much welcomed by many who voted "Yes" as well as by many who did not bother to vote at all.
I also ask those who insist that the Parliament is successful, representative and popular to have the courage of their convictions and empower the people of Scotland to prove that this is the case. If the Parliament is really wanted, then they should welcome a referendum, which would presumably result in a landslide endorsement of devolution. I have made it clear how I would vote; if the majority of Scots feel differently, let them have the opportunity to say so. All that I am attempting to do is to give the Scottish people a voice. I believe that the Bill is a democratic way of doing so.
I hope that your Lordships' House will give the Bill a safe passage.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Palmer.)
8.23 p.m.
Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, made a powerful speech. However, as the evening wears on, he may discover that the Scottish Parliament has some supporters and that the picture is not quite as black as he has

1031
portrayed. However, his initiative has two great merits. First, it affords us the opportunity to say something about Scotland, which, in these post-devolution days, is a little difficult to do in the Westminster Parliament. Secondly, it allows us to explore the constitutional value and consequences of holding referendums.
As to the purposes of the Bill, I can say only that if it gets into Committee I will bring forward two amendments. The first will provide for a referendum after five years following enactment, not six months, as the noble Lord proposed. The second will meet the recommendations that are set out in the sixteenth report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. That will provide for an order to be made under Clause 2(2) to be a statutory instrument—the Bill currently does not contain such a provision. That is a matter for Committee but I give notice now that I shall take those steps if the Bill reaches Committee.
I am in favour of referendums on proposed constitutional changes of importance. It was right to hold a referendum confirming our membership of Europe and on devolution in Scotland and Wales in 1979 and it was right to re-run those referendums in 1997. It will be right to hold a referendum on whether or not we adopt the euro. The Government were right to insist on a referendum in Scotland following the general election in 1997. The Scotland Act was a massive change to the constitution. Billy Connolly said that it was a small parliament; he is clearly something of a comedian but he does not know much about the constitution. How the people are governed and the arrangements for government should, in a mature democracy, be a matter for the people.
I do not believe that we should put non-constitutional issues to a referendum. So far, central government have always confined referendums to constitutional matters. The trigger for referendums is in the hands of governments, and therein lies a weakness. They choose the issues, the questions, the timing and who will he consulted in the referendum. When the five conditions on the euro are deemed to be met, the sixth unwritten condition will kick into place. That sixth condition is, "Can we win?". All governments take that approach, as we know. I am now 64 years of age and I am sure that noble Lords will consider such cynicism very distressing in one so young. Referendums can become "neverendums", as has been the experience in Canada with the Quebec secessionist issues.
Those are our worries about referendums. In an ideal democracy, it would be possible for the people to trigger a constitutional referendum. That could perhaps be founded on a parliamentary petition that was properly constituted and signed by a fixed percentage of electors. However, that is as unlikely as a referendum on an Act of Parliament setting up an elected Upper House. However, that is another matter; I should return to the noble Lord's Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, wants to hold his referendum six months after his Bill is enacted. That is too soon. Likewise, it is too early—and, I believe,
1032
inappropriate—for the Constitution Committee of this House to be looking at devolution. Constitutional changes of such a profound nature take time to bed down and there have been many early problems that have taken time to resolve. I believe that five years would be about right, if we were to do that at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, is right to make a referendum a statutory requirement and at a fixed time. That has the merit of removing it, to some degree, from the machinations of government.
The Parliament in Scotland has not, I regret to say, proved to be the settled will of the Scottish people. The late and much missed John Smith said that devolution was the settled will of the Scottish people. I believe that devolution is the settled will of the Scottish people—he was absolutely right. However, the Parliament that we, in this Parliament, constructed is not the settled will and has settled nothing. For a start, the official opposition—the Scottish National Party does not accept the settlement. It persists in demands for separation. I deplore that, but it is a fact.
Now it happens that the SNP is currently badly led. Mr John Swinney has none of Alec Salmond's political skills. He lacks presence on the political landscape and his judgment is poor. His recent return to a fundamentalist position on separation makes it very unlikely that he will head up the next Scottish Administration. The SNP never wins elections—I suppose that that is the good news—because the Scots are not separatists. However, prudent politicians—"prudent" is today's buzzword—must assume that the official opposition will some day win an election. We must remember that there is no precedent in this country for an official opposition failing to win in perpetuity. An SNP victory in the Scottish elections next year would trigger a referendum on separation and the end of the partnership with Westminster. It would destabilise the whole devolution package.
The new Scottish Parliament has done many good things and I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, did not list them. However, some of the things it has done have been unpopular and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, mentioned Section 28. I support the reform of Section 28 but I accept what the noble Lord says about the reaction of opinion in Scotland.
We have been faced with much criticism about the huge and escalating cost of the new parliament building. But most worrying of all is the perceived central belt bias in policy making which has contributed to disappointment. The Parliament must learn that there is not one Scotland: there is Highland Scotland, Lowland Scotland, industrial Scotland, Scotland of the Gaels, Scotland of the Northern Isles and Scotland of the new Scots who have settled there. It is a very diverse place and there is much more to it than just the conurbations at either end of the M8 corridor.
We have had problems but I believe that Jack McConnell is the best First Minister we have. Much more than that, he appears to me to have what it takes. He shows firmness in decision-making; his appointments to ministerial office have been well

1033
received; and he has a sound grasp of the job, its parameters and its constraints. He is a tough, effective politician whom I supported when as a young man he was appointed General Secretary of the Scottish Labour Party—not an easy job. He proved his worth then and nothing since has caused me to change or revise my judgment.
I do not know where the Bill will go but I do not believe that we will ever see a referendum. However, I believe that if there were to be a referendum the Scottish people would reaffirm their commitment to devolution. At this moment in our national life it has to be given the benefit of the doubt. If we must revisit the issue, it should be some years hence because my argument is that all of this is much too soon.
8.33 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, we all owe the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, a huge debt of gratitude in that we can discuss Scotland today. It is odd that here we are in the United Kingdom Parliament, but week in and week out it is impossible to discuss issues relating to Scotland. That is to the detriment of the standing of Parliament. We should have some method of doing so. At least another place has Scottish Questions but I do not know what one can table in this House. Perhaps I could ask the Ministry of Defence why it has removed the military guard from Edinburgh Castle, but I suppose that that might be said to be related to tourism and thus be devolved. That is a pity and I hope that the Minister will believe that there should be a way in which occasionally we can have a Scottish debate in this House. That is why the Bill put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, is so satisfactory. It has given us an opportunity to speak about Scotland.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hogg, who cut such a fine figure and who was such a successful Lord High Commissioner, that this occasion may be too soon. On the other hand, if we can point the Scottish Parliament in a more productive direction, the sooner we do so, the better. I hope that from tomorrow onwards, the comprehensive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, will be prescribed reading for every Member of the Scottish Parliament.
Originally, I was opposed to the Scottish Parliament. I believed in administrative devolution, as was carried out significantly by the Scottish Office for many years, but I felt that it was too soon for a Parliament. However, the referendum having called for a Parliament and the Bill having been passed by both Houses of Parliament, I am in favour of retaining it but making it work more efficiently.
We have had 1,000 days of the Scottish Parliament and I believe that most Scots will say that it has been a sorry disappointment. Therefore, today's debate will be a valuable wake-up call, ensuring that the Members in Edinburgh realise that occasionally other people have a view different from theirs. Indeed, last week the Scotsman published a survey of the top businesses in Scotland. Forty-eight per cent voted to scrap the Scottish Parliament. They believed that it had become
1034
another layer of bureaucracy, expensive and lacking leadership. Yesterday's Scotsman contained an interesting article by the Meat and Livestock Commission and farming agencies in general stating that in Scotland it was difficult to run devolved policies relating to agriculture which were different from those in Wales, England and Northern Ireland. It stated that there was not the required degree of co-operation for it to be successful.
We are approaching decisions by Westminster on the composition of the Westminster and Edinburgh Parliaments. The number of Scotland's Westminster Members of Parliament will fall from 72 to 59, as recommended by the Boundary Commission. Each constituency will then have approximately 69,000 people as opposed to the present 54,000. Under the 1998 Act, which was agreed in both Houses, when that happens, the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament will automatically fall from 129 to 106. Our eyes were open and we knew what would happen. If Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish were still with us, he would now be having a field day.
Do not let us automatically believe that the MSPs can retain their 129 Members, which is what they seem to be setting out to do. And do not fool me into thinking that either group—Members of the Scottish Parliament or Scottish Members of the Westminster Parliament—will be overworked. The pre-devolution Westminster MP could manage his work, plus all the difficulties of travelling to and from Scotland. If 72 Members of Parliament could look after Scotland, surely 106 can do so in future.
As mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Palmer and Lord Hogg, the pre-legislative consultative committee system set up by the Scottish Parliament has proved disappointing. It has recommended major changes to legislation and opposed the hunting Bill and many changes to land reform legislation, but those sailed through the Scottish Parliament as though the committees did not exist. I believe that the votes were cast as a result of prejudice and not on the merits of the cases. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hogg, I am concerned that we are becoming a central-belt Parliament and not one that represents the whole of Scotland, particularly the rural areas.
In addition, and as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, surely it is not right to increase salaries by 13.5 per cent, even if recommended by an independent body. Politics have to come into Parliament from time to time and politically it was not an astute move to increase to £48,228 Members' salaries when inflation was low—credit to the Government for that. When I came to Parliament many years ago, Members were paid £1,750 and received nothing for secretaries. Now salaries are approaching £100,000 with secretarial allowances. That really is going far too far.
I cannot understand—this is an important point which is discussed at length in Scotland all the time—why, with a Parliament of 129 Members, we need 21 Ministers plus four in London. That is 25 Ministers to run Scotland when pre-devolution and pre-Parliament

1035
both the Labour and Conservative parties were running on seven Ministers with no problems at all, plus the travelling difficulties from Scotland to London. It is a tremendous expense involving extra private offices, staff, accommodation, motorcars and so forth. No wonder the people of Scotland blink and say, "How on earth can we in this comparatively small country with a small population afford to have a top-heavy Parliament such as that foisted on us at the present time?".
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, rightly mentioned the cost of the new building—in round figures, people speak of £300 million—for 106 Members and their secretaries. Who was responsible for that? Who oversaw it? Was it Members of the Scottish Parliament? Was it the civil servants? Who in the early days agreed to go down the road of acquiring the most complicated and expensive building imaginable for a small number of Scottish Members of Parliament? Of course we want a prestigious building, and it is in a good part of Edinburgh. But the complicated design and the quality and standard that seems to be required of the furnishings has got totally out of hand. I am astonished and gloomy that the cost eventually has to come out of the block grant at the expense of far more important matters such as health, education and roads.
Of course there are disappointments. I have mentioned roads, and I refer now to the A75 from Stranraer to Carlisle. From the point of view of Northern Ireland we desperately need that road to be of the highest standard for the freightliners that continually run along it. Yet nothing has been done to that road since 1997 that was not in the pipeline at that date. We have got nowhere when it comes to joining up the gap between the M6 at Carlisle and the M6 in Scotland. The gap is around five to seven miles where it is still dual carriageway. Nothing has been done in that regard.
Section 28 was mentioned. That has now gone through Parliament. There has been misuse of the good causes of the Lottery Fund for land purchase. That money was allocated differently before the 1997 election. Chaos in examination results is another issue. But even more serious is the year-by-year increase in local council taxes. They go up far above inflation and the councils say, "We are forced to make such increases by the Scottish Parliament. It makes us do things which we feel are unnecessary". But taxes continue to go up and it is a real strain on those living in Scotland.
I look to my right, rather sadly, at the Liberal Democrats. They went into partnership with the Labour Government when the MSPs won the election for the Scottish Parliament. Yet they have three Ministers who seem to have no influence whatever. Socialist legislation continues to be introduced year after year. We had hoped that the Liberal Democrats would try to reduce socialist legislation and make some impact on Scotland. I do not know what Gladstone or Haldane or some of the other great Liberals would think of the things going on in the Scottish Parliament. What would they have thought of
1036
compulsory land purchase in Scotland? What would they think of many of the aspects of the hunting Bill? I know it was a free vote and many Liberal Democrats did not vote for the Bill—indeed they voted against it—but if that party had real influence, that Bill might never have reached the Floor of the House, considering what happened in the pre-legislative committee.
So the Liberal Democrats have a great deal to answer for in not using their influence in the Scottish Parliament. Why do they not stand up to the First Minister and say, "If you will not listen to us, we will vote against you"? The Scottish Parliament would then lose important legislation. They seem to flow like sheep through the Parliament, supporting the socialists year in and year out. I shall be interested to hear from their Front-Bench spokesman as to when they are going to perk up and put a bit of spunk in the Scottish Parliament. When are they going to do some opposing?
The sad part is that the Parliament is going ahead on essential belt-and-braces legislation all the time, and we Scots in the peripheral areas are feeling great dissatisfaction in what is being provided at such enormous cost. If we do not get a referendum—I appreciate the problems of taking a Private Member's Bill through both Houses at this time of year—the best thing the Scottish people can do at the next general election in Scotland is to show how much they disapprove of what they have had so far.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord finished his speech with an appeal to democracy. Up till then he was rather ignoring it. However, I listened to his criticism of the Liberal Democrats with interest; I did not feel it was entirely unbiased.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, is correct when lie says that we had no discussion in this House. But if he wanted discussion surely the way to do that was to table a Question. Perhaps that should have been done earlier. But it is a mistake to put forward immediately a Bill for a referendum.
However, I listened to his impassioned speech. It was a good speech, though I felt it missed out certain factors—many good factors in fact. Certainly there have been snags. But it is astonishing how well this entirely new body has done. It is a great pity that nearly all the senior politicians in all parties chose to stay in Westminster. We could have done with more of them in the Scottish Parliament.
One of the great issues for discussion and criticism is the building. But the fact is that that was arranged by the Westminster Parliament. It was organised by that great body, the Scottish Office, before the Scottish Parliament was elected. That was quite wrong. If it had waited and let the Scottish Parliament decide, we might not have had such a prestigious building, but we would have seen a lot of common sense. They were hung with the thing. Whether they handled it well or badly, the fact is that the project originated with the

1037
Secretary of State—the late lamented and much respected Donald Dewar and his department. That has been one of the major focuses of criticism, and rightly so.
The noble Lord, Lord Monro, mentioned the pay rise. That is always a subject of criticism, but when it is recommended by an independent body it is a strong factor, and even the noble Lord admitted that. We cannot criticise it. There had to be an increase in the staff, which can always be criticised. But I do not believe it has been all that bad. The fact is that the Scottish Parliament has worked within its budget. It has not sold us up the river with enormous extravagance. I could continue.
The hunting Bill was mentioned. But let us wait and see what this Parliament makes of that issue in England and Wales. I believe that there will also be great trouble when it comes to putting it into practice. I hope that we can put that right, but it is a fact that many people feel passionately about hunting. I do not feel one way or the other about it. I believe that people should be allowed to hunt if they want to so long as they are not cruel. But many people do not use reason in relation to that subject, and that would apply in our British Parliament as well. Therefore, a whole series of matters can be raised.
Land reform is being discussed much more sensibly. It is true that access to much of the land in Scotland has been removed for many Scottish people, and not by Scots. Therefore, a genuine concern arises in relation to that matter. I, along with the noble Lord next to me, am a countryman and I do not altogether like the urban influence. However, we must admit that Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee and Aberdeen contain the majority of the people in Scotland. We must accept that.
I agree that there have been snags, but I also believe that many good things have come about. I hope that noble Lords who have already spoken have been in the Scottish Parliament and have listened to the debates. I attended once or twice and was rather taken with the atmosphere. I considered it to be rather good.
In relation to what the people of Scotland think, of course polls go up and down. The results depend very much on the question that is put to the people. That is especially the case with regard to polls run by the Scotsman, which I would not say was one of the great or valuable newspapers.
But what do people say? I have assembled some of the comments. The National Union of Students of Scotland say:
"In its short existence, the Scottish Parliament has made significant improvements to the well-being of students and has the potential to do even more".
Then there is a very good quotation from Friends of the Earth. As I do not always agree with that organisation, I shall not quote it. The Ramblers' Association speaks rather well of the Scottish Parliament.
1038
Then we go on to more practical bodies. The National Farmers Union says:
"The vital role of Scotland's farmers has been recognised today in the strategy for Scottish agriculture published by the Scottish Executive".
It also says:
"The Scottish Executive through the strategy, is committing itself to a route to a better future for agriculture".
Again, the NFU says:
"For the first time, Government has recognised the vital role of Scottish farmers as being key to a whole range of other businesses and sectors which make up the rural economy".
The Scottish Landowners' Federation says:
"The Executive's agricultural strategy is a welcome review of the priorities and direction of agriculture in post devolution Scotland".
The Scottish Fishermen's Federation—I shall continue for some time yet—says:
"Both Mr Morrison and Mr Smith"—
officials of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation—
"declared themselves content with what had been achieved in Brussels, with the chief executive paying tribute to Mr Finnie's 'gritty determination'".
The National Trust,
"welcomed the basic principles of the [Land Reform] Bill. The Chief Executive … said: 'The trust is pleased to see that the access proposals in the bill reflect the recommendations of the Access Forum. The proposed right of responsible access to land and water acknowledges Scotland's long tradition of access to the countryside'".
Turning to newspapers—I once worked for the Scotsman but now do not approve of it so much—the Glasgow Herald said:
"Police numbers are at a historic high, the Drug Enforcement Agency is up and running, and efforts are now in hand to make courts more consumer friendly for witnesses and jurors".
It also said:
"The Scottish Executive's land reform bill … is a radical document".
Then, again for the benefit of my noble neighbour, it said:
"The Lib Dems have played a significant part in producing Scottish solutions for Scottish problems, most notably with the graduate endowment package replacing tuition fees, and free personal and nursing care for the elderly".
The Guardian said:
"The Land Reform Bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation to be drawn up [in Scotland]".
Here, it will please noble Lords, the Daily Telegraph said of land reform:
"A Charter for the most extensive redistribution of land ownership in generations was published yesterday".
I do not know whether the newspaper was signifying approval when it said that.
Then we go to the Sunday Mail and an article by Selina Scott:
"I didn't hear anybody complaining when the Scottish Parliament agreed to pay for free care for Scotland's elderly, despite the fact senior citizens south of the border didn't receive similar payments. Nor has there been an outcry because Holy rood has decided more money should be spent on health in Scotland than the rest of the UK. There hasn't been a squeak about the way Scotland funds student loans which, unlike England, don't have to be repaid until the students have jobs.

1039
These are genuine benefits of the new Parliament and have come about as a direct result of devolution".
There is much more, but I want to quote one specific thing; that is, the handling of the foot and mouth outbreak in Scotland. Ross Finnie, the Minister responsible, received great credit for his handling of it. Certainly it was infinitely more competent than the handling of the outbreak in England. It was more competent because Scotland is a good unit. When one looks at Europe and sees the regional governments in Bavaria and elsewhere in Germany all playing a part, the question of a unit which is cohesive is very important. The Scottish Parliament has worked to a large extent. There have been snags, but I consider that this Bill is wholly inappropriate and harmful to a body which is developing reasonably hopefully. That is enough for me because I believe in its purpose.
8.57 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, we are all very grateful to my noble friend Lord Palmer for introducing this Bill and for giving us all a chance to air our views, even though they may, as my noble friend Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld says, go no further. My views have always remained the same, and I am no convert, as my late noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish claimed to be. Since the union of the Crowns in 1603, with King James VI of Scotland succeeding his cousin, Queen Elizabeth I. through his grandmother, Princess Margaret Tudor, who was Elizabeth I's aunt and Henry VIII's eldest sister, we have enjoyed the same monarchy. However, even with a Scottish King in London, things did not go well for Scotland with the separate Parliaments of Edinburgh and Westminster. It may have been fine for England, but it was not so for Scotland, with the South Sea Bubble and economic disasters all round us.
My great-great-great-great-great grandfather was a Member of the Edinburgh Parliament at that time. He spoke of the venality of the Scottish Members of Parliament and of the lack of money to spend on Scotland. He felt very strongly that the only way for Scotland to survive was to have a united Parliament with England. Alas, he died three years before that happened, but his son and grandson went on to become Members of the United Kingdom Parliament. And for nearly 300 years everything worked rather well.
On 17th June 1998 on the Second Reading of the Scottish Parliament Bill, I said:
"The main problems are, of course, financial, because a new parliament, with the appropriate buildings, infrastructure and salaries of the members as well as their supporters, will all cost money".—[Official Report, 17/6/98; col. 1653.]
Many other noble Lords, including my noble friends Lady Saltoun and Lord Belhaven and Stenton said the same thing.
We have heard from noble Lords about the venality of the Scottish Parliament today, of which my great great great great great grandfather complained 300 years ago. What many noble Lords foretold in the Second Reading debate four years ago—of the expense to Scotland of the whole enterprise—has now
1040
come true. Are we any better off for it? A correspondent in the Dundee Courier and Advertiser noted this week that with a closed list representation it was no longer even democratic. He pointed out its failings and thought that the only course might be to throw rotten eggs. That seems to me rather extreme.
The trouble really is the expense, which the rest of us have to support. It is all chiefs and no Indians and tar too many layers of government, each one more expensive than the last. There are the councils, the Scottish Parliament, the Westminster Parliament, and the European Union.
I was delighted last year to visit the Scottish Parliament, and to see it in action. I was most impressed, as I would expect to be, with my noble friend Lord Steel. Otherwise, I found it an interesting and informative experience. The Chamber was hardly more than half full. If it was not a full session, where were all the other members? If it was, do we need another hugely expensive new building, the Scottish Dome.
Although I dislike the word, I fear must admit to being a pragmatist. What I mean is, that in any situation you must start from where you actually arc, and go on from there. What anyway was the point of a Scottish Parliament? The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said,
"We are also about building a more decentralised plural society in which real power is dispersed and the political process becomes more accessible to all citizens".
The point of the exercise was therefore to have more devolved local government, getting government back to the people.
Well then, perhaps we should be a bit more devolved still. Perhaps we should cut Scotland in half, north of the Forth and Clyde, leaving the Scottish Parliament where it is. The new £4 billion pound building, with its £400,000 rose gardens and landscaping, would make a splendid new hospital of which we have great need in Scotland.
The rest of Scotland which goes on for quite a long way, could then become Caledonia and the Isles. My late noble friend Lord Thurso and my noble friend Lord Burton and I fought a notable battle to split the enormous unitary local council authority which goes from Inverness to Wick into two more manageable bodies. We pointed out that the whole area was the size of Belgium, and that the roads were not good. We lost, but not I think before I had quoted a story of a fisherman at Kinlochbervie where my husband some years ago had a small netting station. He said that he was thinking of going south for his holidays that year. My husband, knowing how far north Kinlochbervie was, said, "Perhaps you might be thinking of Inverness". "Oh no", he replied shocked, "Not so far south as that".
Caledonia and the Isles could have a small parliament, sitting perhaps in Perth, or Abernethy, or even Dunkeld, all ancient capitals of the kingdom. Members would only be paid expenses, not a salary, which would fall if there was more legislation, and rise

1041
when legislation was repealed. Because of this, sessions could be infrequent, and much could be devolved back to the local councils.
We would be supported by a large national lottery, tickets being sold abroad, by all the Scotsmen who live around the world, with our share of the block grant, and revenues from North Sea oil, whisky and tourism. We would also make tax advantages to encourage wealthy people to come and live there, bringing their money with them. We would have the airports of Aberdeen, Inverness and Dundee as well as the smaller ones, and a direct continental ferry from Rosyth. It would truly be devolved government with the political process being accessible to all citizens. And it would be much cheaper and possibly more fun.
9.4 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, quite rightly, spoke of some of the successes of the Scottish Parliament, but I do not believe that even he would deny that it is self-evident that there is considerable disappointment across Scotland at the present time at the way that the eagerly-awaited Parliament has performed so far. However, the remedy proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, in this Bill does not appear to me to be a good idea at all. I am one of those who have always believed in devolution but I voted "no" in the original referendum.
Anyone who has been involved in local government at a time of reorganisation knows that, even at that level, it takes a while for a changed system to bed down. Elected members and officials have to learn to operate new roles and, above all, the local public have to find out how to use the new system, individually and collectively, to their advantage. All that takes time and hard work by everyone involved.
The creation in Scotland of an entirely new Parliament, new people elected on a new electoral system and new ways of arriving at the laws within which we live, is a far greater change than any local government reorganisation. Few of the elected MSPs had ever legislated before. The committee system and the relationship of the Executive to Back-Benchers was new and hitherto untried in the United Kingdom. The civil servants were unused to their much more visible and exposed roles. The public and countless nongovernmental groups in Scotland had a totally unfamiliar system to which to relate.
Therefore, I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, that it is still early days for the Scottish Parliament, and that he should be a little more patient. Having said that, damaging and avoidable mistakes are being made. It seems to me that the biggest has been the headlong rush into huge commitments and complex legislation so early in the life of the Parliament.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that it may have been sensible to have delayed the commissioning of the new parliament building until MSPs could assess what site would suit their purpose best, precisely what accommodation was
1042
needed and until there was a system of cost control in place. A year or two more in temporary accommodation would have done no harm. The reputation-damaging tenfold rise in the cost would have been avoided.
In beginning to legislate, a gentle start on simple but much needed Bills would have been wise. The Scottish Law Commission had some ready and some were indeed successfully taken in hand. But the huge, complex, and extremely controversial, land reform Bill is a very different matter. The noble Lord, Lord Monro, said that the Liberal Democrats have no influence. The Bill is being taken through by Mr Jim Wallace as lead Minister, the Liberal Democrat Deputy First Minister. It contains—I am not speaking about the access provisions—almost Soviet-style compulsory purchase measures. The crofters apart, virtually everyone who works in the rural Highlands is astonished and somewhat horrified—notably of course the ghillies, the gamekeepers, the foresters and the stalkers who see their jobs disappearing, and, to top it, lottery funding is being used to chase them out.
Investment in the development of the rural Highlands is already much reduced. As the compulsory purchase proposals for lowland areas become more fully appreciated, the damage and the anger will increase, particularly, I suspect, in the Borders.
This must be a mistake. A vociferous few may still wail about the Highland clearances of the 17th and the 18th centuries, but modern Scots have plenty of good sense. They know a modern Scotland needs rural as well as urban prosperity and that inward investment matters everywhere.
Instead of rushing into this most damaging and illiberal measure, would Mr Wallace not have done well to wait a while, so that all the implications could be properly considered and a better and less old-fashioned way forward emerge?
I understand that one of the problems of legislating, which may have been a problem in the case of this Bill, is that the Parliament's committees—committees even more important in the Scots system than in the Westminster system—are not working in the consensual way that is required. It seems that the Scottish National Party members find it necessary, for whatever reason, to carry on their opposition role even where it is not appropriate in the Parliament's particular system.
Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, says, we do still live in a democracy. At the end of the day, the people who will cure these ills and bring success to the Parliament are of course the electorate of Scotland. They must resist the fashion of cynicism; they must participate in every way that they can; they must express their wishes; above all, they must watch closely what the political parties and individual MSPs are up to; and at election they must vote accordingly. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, far from promoting this Bill, should encourage that. I suggest that, without delay, he should withdraw the Bill.
9.12 p.m.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I should like to say a few words under the auspices of the Bill about some constitutional issues which concern me.
I noticed the first matter when we passed legislation in Westminster that affected devolved matters in Scotland. The way that it was done was rather cunning. We amended the part of a pre-devolution Act that affected Scotland. It was the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000. Section 1(3) amends Section 13 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995. That is a rather odd thing to do. It is a back-door way of legislating for Scotland. It should not happen. One does not know where one stands. If we arc to have devolution, it should be done properly.
The second matter that worries me is that we should remember that we are still the sovereign Parliament of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Scottish Parliament ought more properly to be called an assembly, because it has only devolved powers. It can produce primary legislation, but only in certain areas devolved to it, and those powers may be taken hack at any time. It is not a separate, sovereign Parliament. I am concerned when it does things that would not be passed by this sovereign Parliament, because philosophically they are contrary to how we behave in a basically capitalist economy.
I am of course thinking of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, to which several noble Lords have already referred, which is passing through the Scottish Parliament, and the community right to buy, which has just been mentioned, provided in Section 43. Someone told me that that was ridiculous because it was unclear. Section 43(1) states that the community right to buy,
"may be exercised when the owner of the land … is deemed to have given … notice … that a transfer is proposed".
As that is couched in only the vaguest of terms, it could include when someone dies and a transfer of land happens.
Are we in this sovereign Parliament happy that a subsidiary body is passing legislation that will allow communities to expropriate land from the children of perfectly legitimate landowners? Do we really want to go that far? Such matters should be debated at this level rather than there. Tinkering with land tenure is one thing, but compulsory purchase in a new and socialist form is entirely another.
There is then the question of who will pay for all that. Perhaps the lottery will fund some of the initial purchase, but who will continue to run things? Most Scottish estates—the power is bound to be exercised for them in the initial days—run at a huge loss, so there will be a running cost to the Exchequer. At present, the Barnett formula gives about a 20 per cent per capita advantage to Scotland for money raised by taxation. I should imagine that that formula will be quickly revised, because I do not envisage people in England and Wales being happy to fund wonderfully grandiose and expensive schemes in Scotland.
1044
The next thing that worries me is that the procedures are being ignored. A lot of assurances were made about how the unicameral Chamber would operate. Legislation was first to be published in draft for public consultation; there would be pre-legislative committees to scrutinise it; only then would Parliament act like a second Chamber. In other words, it would be more like this House—with less political motivation and more effort to ensure that Bills were correct.
That is not happening at all. It is a highly politicised Chamber that is overruling the findings of pre-legislative scrutiny committees, such as the Rural Affairs Committee in the case of the Watson Bill. That also occurred in relation to some of the provisions of the Land Reform Bill. A good example is that the crofters' right to buy fishing rights contiguous to crofting land was inserted only when it reached the Parliament—it never went out for public consultation. That has environmental consequences because attempts to keep up the river environment and the riparian environment along the rivers are funded by private money. Although Scottish fisheries boards can raise a levy, it does not cover all the work that needs to be done. So there are problems with regard to future funding. Such things have not been properly considered, which worries me.
The trouble is that there are no checks and balances in the Scottish Parliament. As is the case with this Parliament, there is no constitutional court to which to take an issue; nor is there a second Chamber. That is extremely dangerous. We ought to remember that a democratic parliament is not there to force the will of the majority on a minority; it is there to protect the rights of all citizens equally. The majority does not have the right to interfere with a minority just because it is the majority. In fact, very few governments are ever elected by a majority of the electorate. They may have a majority among people who turned out to vote, but not of the total electorate.
I am coming to an end, but I turn briefly to another matter that has been raised. I suspect that the Opposition in the Scottish Parliament will change. At present, there is no home for the centre and centre-right vote, which I am sure will emerge as the true Opposition in the Scottish Parliament, rather than there being two socialist parties fighting it out. That vote exists; but until that happens the position is difficult.
This referendum Bill should not matter, because if the devolution experiment—sorry, devolution—has been so successful, there should be no fear about the result of such a referendum. It should endorse what is happening. I cannot see what is the danger therein. On the other hand, some people may consider such a referendum to be their last chance to hang on to some stability and to retain some of their assets. I suspect that the result of such a referendum might well shock a few people.
9.19 p.m.
Baroness Michie of Gallanach: My Lords, as we have heard tonight, it is customary to congratulate the

1045
noble Lord on securing the debate. However, when I saw the matter listed in the Minutes of Proceedings I did not know whether to laugh or cry. I thought: "Here we go again". However, on reflection I decided that the noble Lord was performing a service because it would give us an opportunity to air some home truths. Indeed, on reading the report in the Herald last Friday, I was amused by his comment:
"My worst nightmare has been that no one will turn up"—
that is, turn up for this debate—
"Then people would say, 'Yes, he really is barking'".
Having since met the noble Lord, I can vouch for the fact that he appears to be quite sane. However, I should warn him that he is straying into dangerous territory. It is certainly not helping those who want to keep the United Kingdom together. The noble Lord says that he has not met anyone who is in favour of the Scottish Parliament. I wonder who he has been talking to—simply, I presume, those who never wanted it in the first place.
Before I continue, perhaps I may answer one or two of the points made earlier. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Monro, complained about the fact that he could not ask any questions about Scotland in this Chamber. That is not true. There are massive reserve powers to this place. The noble Lord could table Questions on the constitution, on defence, on foreign affairs, on electricity, coal, oil, gas, or on nuclear energy, on employment, on financial and economic affairs, and on social security. Indeed, there is a huge gamut of subjects upon which he could ask questions.
I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, mentioned the fact that the Chamber in the Scottish Parliament was half full when she paid it a visit. How many times has the Chamber in the other place been less than half full? During my 14 years in the House of Commons there were very few Members of Parliament in the Chamber on many occasions.
The noble Baroness seems also to object to the rose gardens being created around the new building and the cost involved. But how much did the fig trees in Portcullis House cost? I wonder whether anyone complained about them? I give way to the noble Earl.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am most grateful. I wanted to complain about that and table a Question, but I was told that I could not do so because that would be poaching on House of Commons territory.
Baroness Michie of Gallanach: My Lords, I live and learn. It seems that we are not allowed to poach on House of Commons territory.
The noble Lord, Lord Monro, talked about Liberal Democrats and what little influence they have in the Scottish Parliament. That is absolute nonsense. If we were not engaged in a partnership government, there would be no stability in the Scottish Parliament. What would everyone be saying then? Perhaps, "This is dreadful: the Labour Government trying to rule as a minority party, with things going wrong from day to day and from week to week". We have had an
1046
enormous influence on that Parliament. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie pointed out the particular influences that we have had on, for example, student fees, on care for the elderly, on freedom of information, and so on. I give way.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, the noble Baroness is most kind. However, I disagree with her on the question of whether the Liberal Democrats have the influence that I would have expected of them when they are in such a position of power. The present Labour Government in Scotland could not manage without the support of the Liberal Democrats. I should have thought that they would use their influence to reduce the flow of some of the socialist legislation that we all find so unattractive.
Baroness Michie of Gallanach: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we have done so. Indeed, there could have been much more socialist legislation passing through the Scottish Parliament. However, that is unlikely with a minority government.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, talked about a low turnout in referendums. I should remind him that the House of Commons government is always elected on a minority vote. The people of this country accept that, although it is not particularly democratic.
I think that the noble Lord also complained about the design and the cost of the new building for the Parliament. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie pointed out that that decision was made at Westminster, not by Members of the Scottish Parliament. People go on about how much it costs and say that it is disgraceful that it has cost £300 million—or whatever it is. That building will last for many years and will house Scottish democracy. It will not be a cheap building. Did we ever hear about the overrun in costs for Portcullis House, the British Library or the Dome? Why did we not hear about that?
Noble Lords: We did.
Baroness Michie of Gallanach: We did hear about the Dome? Good.
The salaries of MSPs have been described as obscene. MSPs have a large workload. There is all the constituency work and all the business relating to education, housing, transport and so on. The salaries were decided by an independent pay review body, which recommended that that was what the Members should be paid. I hope that we will remember that it is considerably less than what Westminster MPs are paid. I remember how there were always rows in the other place when we had to vote on salaries recommended by an independent review body.
I looked up the noble Lord's biographical details. I discovered that he had listed hunting, shooting and gardening as his recreations. I wondered whether the Bill had been triggered by his annoyance at the fact that the Scottish Parliament had had the temerity to legislate to ban fox hunting. Will the noble Lord's next logical move be to introduce a Bill for a referendum to

1047
abolish the House of Commons when it votes to ban fox hunting later this year, as I am sure that it will? Some would say that that would not be a bad idea.
I am sorry that the noble Lord seems to have joined those in this House and in the other place who, together with parts of the press and media, never wanted the Scottish Parliament in the first place. They routinely denigrate and insult the institution and its Members. They have an anti-devolution and anti-Scottish agenda. Fair criticism is justified, but it should not he offensive, as it has been in the press, in particular.
We do not want to hear gratuitous abuse. We are dubbed, by the London press in particular, "subsidy junkies" and "whingeing Jocks". It all culminated recently in the shameful reporting in the London press of the Scottish women's curling team's success at the Winter Olympics. Incidentally, your Lordships may not have noticed that we have since gone on to win the world championships and the gold medal in North Dakota. None of that has really been reported, but that is understandable: Beckham's metatarsal—his toe—is much more important to this part of the country.
The denigration that has gone on in the press—including the Scottish press—is neither sensible nor helpful. It is extremely damaging. I am not sure what the noble Lord is suggesting—that the Scottish Parliament should be abolished and we return to Westminster, to the old ways? Heaven forbid. If the noble Lord had ever attended Scottish Questions in the other place, he would know that we were allowed only one hour a month to question Scottish Office Ministers on serious matters such as our own health service, our own education service and our own legal system. Those Questions were always a fortnight out of date. It was almost impossible to put distinctive Scottish legislation on to the statute book in any one year.
The noble Lord has also suggested that, according to press reports, things are running out of control. I do not understand what he means by that. Has he visited the Scottish Parliament? On the contrary, at last we have been able to address the real issues. Many Bills have been introduced, of which 30 are now on the statute hook. Noble Lords may not agree with them all, but that is democracy.
The Scottish Parliament has brought legislation close to the people, based on openness, accessibility and the sharing of power. That has been strengthened by the ability of the public to petition the Parliament. Over 300 petitions have been dealt with by the Petitions Committee, instead of disappearing into a bag at the back of the Speaker's Chair, never to be heard of again, as was the case during my time in the other place. If the noble Lord mustered sufficient signatures, he could petition the Scottish Parliament to abolish itself. That would certainly save the cost of holding a referendum.
Perhaps I may briefly remind the noble Lord of what happened in the beginning. The Treaty of Union in 1707 was supposed to be a union of the two
1048
Parliaments, but in fact it was a grafting on, an incorporation of the Scottish Parliament into the English one. Scots were to send 16 Peers and 45 Commoners to join the 190 Peers and 513 Commoners already there. The introduction of the Alien Act 1700 and the threat to the cattle and linen trades were the methods used to tighten the screw. Those, together with bribery and corruption both north and south of the Border, ended the Scottish Parliament. As Robert Burns put it in the oft-quoted lines:
"We're bought and sold for English gold, sic a parcel o' rogues in a nation".
Those rogues were in the Scottish nation. A sorry tale indeed.
There was deep anger and opposition to that foolish move, as demonstrated by the arguments in the Scottish Parliament and the riots that took place in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dumfries. If a referendum had been held at the time, the Parliament would not have been lost. From then on it was downhill all the way, at least for a section of the Scottish population, with the deliberate and systematic destruction of an entire people, their culture and language in the Highlands of Scotland gone, never to return.
From that time on, the campaign began for the restoration of the parliament. It became firm Liberal policy. We won the 1979 referendum, subsequently' dismissed by the Thatcher government. Some 25,000 of us marched in Edinburgh in the early 1990s, and at last there was a resounding "Yes, Yes" vote in 1997.
I pay tribute to the Labour Party for having served with us and many other groups for well nigh on seven years in the Constitutional Convention, which resulted in the White Paper and the Scotland Act 1998, brought to Parliament by the late lamented Donald Dewar. I would remind this House that the Tories refused to take part, as did the SNP. To be fair, one or two individual Conservatives and one or two individual SNP members served on the convention, but officially they would not take part and they would not discuss the future of Scotland.
What of the future? I say to the Labour Government, lighten up a little; do not be so timid; allow Scotland to become truly entrepreneurial and the Parliament to be really responsible and accountable. That means having access to all of Scotland's resources. The aim should be to develop the economy to the stage where it does not have to come to London every year for its block grant and we do not have to go through what happens on a yearly basis where everyone complains about what Scotland gets in the block grant.
It means fiscal autonomy. Why, I say to the Labour Government, be so afraid of it? It is nonsense to suggest that it would mean Scotland walking away and becoming independent. It would simply mean economic freedom to use all of our own considerable resources and to remit to London what is due for agreed common UK services. You can look to Spain for examples of that.
I say to the Government think big; think exciting. Go for regional devolution in England. Free up the regions so that they have a real stake in the economic

1049
development in each area. Move towards a federal United Kingdom government, even if it means taking on Liberal Democrat policy.
Central government in London is so restrictive, so suffocating, so overpowering. I believe that Pierre Trudeau in relation to Canada and America and Ludovic Kennedy in relation to Scotland and England likened their respective countries to "being in bed with an elephant".
I believe that the rekindling of political interest in the country depends on the decentralisation of power. Indeed, the proper delivery of public services also may well depend on it. The Government have the opportunity and the majority, but do they have the political will to build a new national interest based on honesty, humility and freedom?
I say one final thing: we will never, ever again give up our Scottish Parliament.
9.37 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Palmer for introducing the Bill because, whatever the Bill's fate or the pros and cons of holding a referendum on the continued existence of the Scottish Parliament, he has given the House the opportunity of discussing it, which some of us have been longing to do for some time.
I shall first say a word or two about the Parliament building. When the Scotland Bill was passing through this House, there was a lot of discussion in Scotland as to where the proposed Scottish Parliament building should be. Many people in Scotland were in favour of adapting the old high school—which had been prepared for the Parliament which never materialised in 1979—a very fine traditional building with a fine debating chamber which harmonised with its surroundings. Extra office space and other facilities would have been required, but these would not have presented an insurmountable obstacle. However, the late Donald Dewar, the Secretary of State for Scotland, had other ideas. The reason he gave for not using the old high school was that at the cost of an estimated £40 million to revamp it, it would be too expensive. Other reasonably priced possibilities were also rejected.
So the world was trawled for architects who would compete for the contract to build a new Parliament, as if there were not excellent home-grown architects in Scotland and as if it could ever conceivably have been feasible to buy a site, prepare it, and then build a Parliament for less than £40 million.
The usual public sector "quest for safety" in the choice of design went out of the window in a politically correct rejection of traditional style in favour of the avant-garde design of a Spanish architect—first estimated cost £108 million. As many of your Lordships are aware, the cost had risen to £266 million in March, and that is only what official channels are prepared to admit to. Recent press reports have suggested that £280 million would be nearer the mark, and Mr David Black, an architectural correspondent
1050
who has written extensively on the project, has suggested that the final cost may well be around £340 million. Our Parliament does not penny-pinch when it comes to spending on itself, although it could not afford to compensate people put out of work by its Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill.
To return to the design of the Parliament, the original design, which did have some cohesion, has been enlarged, so that it is now a conglomeration of buildings of questionable aesthetic appeal. Luckily, it is not up on a hill, but down in a hollow, where the visitor to Edinburgh can avoid seeing it; otherwise it might well join that list of buildings, such as the Chateau Frontenac Hotel in Quebec, the Alhambra Palace Hotel in Granada and the Victor Emmanuel Memorial in Rome, which it is best to be either in or on, because that is the only place from which you cannot see them. That, of course, will not present any problem to the MSPs, who will be cosily holed up inside, with imported oak panelling and so forth.
The Scottish Executive consists of the First Minister, 11 other Ministers and 10 junior Ministers—22 in all. The First Minister gets a salary of £69,000 a year; the 11 other Ministers get £36,000, and the 10 junior Ministers get £22,000. These salaries are on top, of course, of their salaries of £48,000 as MSPs. And of course, there is still the Secretary of State for Scotland at Westminster, and the Solicitor General for Scotland.
The noble Lord, Lord Monro of Langholm, asked why it is necessary to have 22—no, 23—Ministers to do the job which was done by five Ministers, plus the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General in the days of the previous government. I dare say Secretaries of State, Ministers and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries worked harder in those days. The noble Lord was one, so he should know. Some were friends of mine, and I know that they worked very hard indeed. Perhaps it is right that they should not have to work quite as hard as their predecessors did. But still—a fourfold increase! It is a bit much. I cannot help feeling that quite a few people are doing very nicely thank you at the expense of the Scottish people.
I turn to the size of the Scottish Parliament. Now the question has arisen, as we always knew it would, of the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster being reduced, and the number of MSPs being reduced as well. Views have been sought from various bodies in Scotland on the practicality of this. I am sorry to have to say that the only people who seem to have the common sense to support a reduction are those in the Scottish Conservative Party. From all the others, including the Scottish National Party and an amorphous body called UNISON, we get a chorus of bleating to the effect that the parliament will not be able to do its job properly; it will not be able to man the various committees; family friendly working practices will suffer and so will equal opportunities. It really is pathetic. Equal opportunities should mean what it says, not special mollycoddling for women. At this rate, your Lordships will be expecting to be mollycoddled next! Committee members would have to bear an increased burden. And, horror of horrors,

1051
certain subjects could be marginalised. If that means what I think it does, so much the better—because what I think it means is that nasty Nanny Executive would not be able to find time for quite so much unwanted, unnecessary, intrusive and unenforceable legislation—such as the Bill to prevent people smacking their children if they are under three (the children, not the people!), and a great many people in Scotland would be a lot happier.
Let us do a little arithmetic. Reducing the number of MSPs, at £48,000, from 129 to 108 would save £1,008,000 a year. Sacking five Ministers would save £180,000 and sacking five junior Ministers, at £22,000 each, would save another £110,000. That makes £1,300,000, taking no account of their expenses, office space and other hidden costs. I accept that that is not an enormous sum in the total budget, but it would all help.
I return to pre-legislative scrutiny, which the noble Earl, Lord Errol, mentioned. When the Scotland Bill was passing through this House, a good deal of concern was expressed that, with no second chamber, ill-thought-out and half scrutinised legislation would result. We were assured by Ministers that that would not be the case, because all Bills would receive pre-legislative scrutiny in committee and the Parliament would incorporate the committee's amendments into the Bill. Those assurances were not worth the breath that they were spoken with, as the rejection of the scrutiny committee's recommendations on the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill has proved. I know that that is the only occasion so far on which that has happened, but it is frightening that it can happen and a very dangerous precedent has been set.
To end with, I do not for one moment believe that the people of Scotland want to give up their Parliament or would dream of voting to do so. However, I believe that many would like a leaner, meaner Parliament that would put the real interests of Scotland first, instead of their own interests and political dogma.
9.46 p.m.
Lord MacKenzie of Culkein: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for giving us the opportunity to debate issues relating to the Scottish Parliament this evening. This is a matter about which I have felt very strongly since my first political awakening when, as a youngster, I used to listen to my father advancing arguments in favour of a devolved parliament in Edinburgh dealing with Scottish matters. Like me subsequently, he had no time for the notion or the nonsense of Scotland becoming an independent state. I have been a supporter of devolved government in Edinburgh for the better part of 45 or 50 years, during times when the idea was politically unpopular, even in my own party, which, in the immediate post-war years, forgot its earlier pro-devolution stance.
It was with huge delight that I saw the outcome of the 1997 referendum, when the Scottish people voted by a majority of almost 75 per cent to approve that there should be a Scottish Parliament. That is an overwhelming majority by any standards.
1052
That parliament came into being less than three years ago, on 1st July 1999. As with any constitutional change of that magnitude, there will inevitably be a settling in period. No doubt assisted by the sterling work of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, the transition from Westminster to Edinburgh has been without any obvious difficulty. I am of the view that it went very smoothly, with the doubters completely confounded, much as I suspect that the same doubters have been confounded by the successful introduction of the euro across most of the EEC. It is noteworthy that political parties that opposed the referendum and the setting up of a Scottish Parliament now accept that it is here to stay.
I am a little puzzled by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, that there is a need for a referendum at this stage on the continuation of the Scottish Parliament. Despite the case that he has put tonight, it is likely that a goodly proportion of my fellow Scots will share my bafflement.
Of course it is inevitable with any parliament or any elected body that there will be those who do not approve of all the outcomes. That is a fairly understandable tenet of democracy. However, not liking outcomes or having unreasonably high expectations unmet does not detract from the fact that the existence of a Scottish Parliament remains a matter of great pride for most Scots. Had there been real public dissatisfaction, I have no doubt that the outcome of the 2001 general election would have been much less one-sided. Equally, I am certain that the Scottish public will demonstrate their continuing engagement next May when the Scottish Parliament comes up for re-election.
For those reasons and many more, many of them as enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, I cannot really see the point of proposing a further referendum, certainly not a referendum so soon after the setting up of the Parliament. As has been said, it is not a part of the political heritage of this country that we seek to govern by continuing referenda.
I believe that government works best and delivers best when decisions are taken as close to the public as possible. I believe that the "one size fits all" policy is not the best way forward for the countries that make up the UK. The existence of a Scottish Parliament and a Scottish Executive enable Scottish Ministers to follow the priorities set by the people of Scotland on devolved matters. I would also argue that there is now adequate ministerial and parliamentary scrutiny of the devolved machinery of government in Scotland. I strongly suspect that, prior to 1999, vast chunks of the old Scottish Office never saw a Minister much less a Member of Parliament. The Scottish Parliament has allowed some 30 or 35 Acts to reach Royal Assent, when it is unlikely that four or five distinctly Scottish Bills could possibly have been dealt with at Westminster since 1999, such is the pressure on UK parliamentary time.

1053
One common criticism is the different outcomes in Scotland from the rest of the UK, for example on tuition fees or on care of the elderly. These different outcomes in Scotland are not anything other than a strength and a vindication of the system, and the system as it was intended to be. I say that despite the fact that I personally may not agree with each and every bit of legislation or every policy of the Executive. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld that there is too much concentration on the central belt. I think that much more attention could be paid to Gaelic culture and the Gaelic language, for example. I also do not agree with the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002. As has been said, much more attention should have been paid to the pre-legislative scrutiny. I am an unashamed supporter of the regulation of hunting—the so-called middle way—as evidenced by my voting twice in the past 12 months in your Lordships' House for that course of action.
On the other hand, a very long overdue measure is in hand in the Scottish Parliament—the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. Coming from crofting stock, I could hardly other than welcome what will be an important contribution to community empowerment in Scotland's rural areas. As far as I am concerned, Part 3 of that Bill correctly alters the balance of power between the crofting community and the landowner. I believe that that Bill properly represents the view of the majority of Scots and certainly the view of the majority of highlanders.
Until the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, mentioned Comrade Mugabe I had not intended to join the vociferous few who the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, thought might talk about the Highland clearances. I respectfully tell the noble Lord that I think he was over-egging the pudding in referring to Mugabe in this context. I believe that those who burned out my forebears in the Highlands of Scotland and Sutherland and drove them to the inhospitable shores of Assynt, to eke out a living, or on to the immigrant ships had much more in common with Mugabe than do the proponents of that Bill.
No parliament will ever satisfy everyone. I can disagree with the outcomes, as clearly does the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, but it would not occur to me that we should hold a referendum to abolish the Edinburgh Parliament because I do not like those outcomes. As a nurse, I do not much like the entirely artificial difference made in this Parliament, for financial reasons, between personal care and nursing care, but I do not want a referendum to abolish this House or another place.
What the people do have the absolute right to do if they do not like the policies or legislation that has been passed is to remove the politicians from power at an election—not to abolish or attack the institution itself. Elections are the best and the only referenda now necessary whether for Edinburgh or for Westminster. Meanwhile, the institution of the Scottish Parliament—a young parliament and a parliament on a learning curve—should have the support of all of us.
9.54 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, your Lordships may wonder why an Englishman should come bounding into a debate on Scotland. I can only say that I once was the only Englishman among 17 Welshmen taking part in a debate during the passage of the Welsh Language Act. That was a fairly formidable experience. Therefore, I suppose that if one is the only Englishmen among 13 Scotsmen, one can say that one is, as an engineer would say, "case hardened".
However, I am not sure that I am the only Englishman. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, masquerades as a Scotsman by his first name, but the second part of his name would seem to make him indelibly an Englishman. I have always thought of him as an Englishman. Therefore, I shall be interested to see which way he jumps, as it were, tonight.
I can understand anyone who wants their Parliament to be situated close to them. I do not want to get involved in that argument. I happen not to approve of the idea of devolution. Some 25 years ago I spoke from the Front Bench to oppose the then Labour government's Scottish devolution Bill. However, as I say, I can understand anyone who wants their Parliament to be situated close to their home and I do not want to get involved in that argument.
I wish to make only three points. The first concerns the cost of the new building which has been referred to on many occasions. My noble friend Lord Palmer said that it was estimated to cost £40 million. The figure is now £280 million. Some people say that the figure is expected to be £350 million and others say £500 million. My noble friend Lord Monro asked how the total sum has been allowed to escalate. Who is in charge of any contract or architect? Who approves the additional expenditure? No government department could ever exceed its budget to that extent. I wonder how this situation arose. There must be someone, surely, who says, "That is all right; you can spend another £100 million". Will the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, be good enough to tell us about that if I can have his attention for half a minute? I should not wish to interrupt his discussion with his noble friend on the Front Bench. As I said, will he be kind enough to tell us who has the responsibility for saying, "You may spend £100 million and more on this building"? One wonders where all the money comes from, who is responsible for it, and who pays. I assumed that the Scottish Parliament paid, but the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said that Westminster pays. Presumably, that means that the Chancellor of the Exchequer finds the money.
I wondered whether any English money went towards the scheme. I presume that a lot does. It is odd that when anything relates in any way to what might loosely be described as democracy or democratic rights, somehow the money appears. There may be a row for a few days but then the coffers open and the money appears, yet governments find it difficult to find money for schools, railways and nurses. The noble Baroness, Lady Michie of Gallanach, mentioned

1055
Portcullis House and the Dome. I quite agree that those two come almost in the same category; certainly, Portcullis House does as it greatly exceeded the expenditure limits set for it.
Secondly, if that is the experience in Scotland, we do not want to see it repeated ill England. I seem to be referring often to the noble Baroness, Lady Michie of Gallanach, but she made a lot of comments that stimulated one's interest. She asked the Government not to make the Scots apply every year for block grants. I can understand that, but I also understand that the Scots per capita get more money than do the English per capita. Perhaps the Scots will lose out in that regard.
The noble Baroness then suggested giving the English regional government. As a good Scots lady I cannot see why she wants to interfere in the English set-up. I am merely interfering in this debate because it affects England. We are all part of the United Kingdom and what Scotland does affects England. We do not want in England another layer of government and bureaucracy, with all the expense that that would involve. The eight new regional council buildings proposed for the next three years presumably all have some kind of budget, and presumably all of those budgets will be exceeded. We shall also presumably see what the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, described as "third eleven" politicians strutting around preening themselves and trying to justify themselves. In his view that was a good description—and I merely repeat his description. We do not want such an increase in bureaucracy here. I hope that the Government will not import into England the experience of the Scottish Parliament, particularly in relation to the building.
My third point involves the position of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is always the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom—of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In the middle of all of the hunting hoo-hah that took place about 18 months ago, the Prime Minister went on television and gave the assurance that, once the hunting problem was over, so long as he was Prime Minister, there would be no action taken against shooting or fishing. That was supposed to give a certain amount of comfort to a certain number of people, and I believe that it did. However, the Scottish Parliament need take no notice of that whatever. I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, when she was a Minister, whether the Scottish Parliament could introduce a Bill despite the fact that the Prime Minister had said that that would not happen. The answer was that the Scottish Parliament can do whatever it likes. Therefore, any comfort or assurance that the Prime Minister can give cannot affect Scotland. That is terrible. He is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and if he gives such an assurance, it should cover all of the United Kingdom. That is one of the results of this great cavalry charge to get devolution under way, and that is sad.
10.2 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, before answering some of the many points that have been
1056
raised, I pay tribute to my noble friends Lady Michie and Lord Mackie for their defence of the Scottish Parliament in the face of a fierce onslaught.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, discussed voter apathy. It involves a dangerous mix of contentment and disaffection. However, I believe that an enraged electorate will vote. The noble Lord complained about economic growth. However, economic growth is not set by that Parliament. It may have to live with the fact that economic growth is generated elsewhere. Similarly, I believe that it was the Scottish Parliament rather than the executive that chose to overrule the Rural Development Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Monro of Langholm, asked about Liberal Democrat Members. I say modestly that they have provided justice, education and rural affairs quite adequately. In particular, Ross Finnie did extremely well in relation to rural affairs. Jim Wallace has done remarkably well on the three occasions so far that he has been acting First Minister.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, and my noble friend Lord Mackie raised the experience of new MSPs. We are doing rather well to have progressed to the point at which we have a First Minister who has not been a Westminster MP. That is commendable.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, talked about the block grant. The Parliament is being built with the block grant and the people of Scotland will suffer it or enjoy it in that context.
I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, that these Benches supported her in her campaign to halve the Highland council area. It was interesting to hear that two amendments before, Clackmannanshire was an appropriate size for a local authority and that, two amendments later, the Highland council, which is only the size of Wales or Belgium, was also an appropriate size for a Scottish local authority.
To the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, on the subject of crofters, perhaps I may point out that this Parliament gave the individual crofter the right to buy his croft at a time of his own choosing. I suggest that the legislation in Part 3 of the land reform Act is progressing on that precedence.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for giving way. My point was not whether the crofters should or should not have such a right but that the right to buy adjoining fishings was inserted at a later stage. The proposal was not published for pre-legislative consultation; it was inserted only when the Bill arrived in Parliament. Therefore, the measure did not comply with assurances given about how legislation would be conducted through the Scottish Parliament. My objection relates to the abuse of the procedures; not whether it is the right or wrong measure to take.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I suspect that the Parliament must be in charge of its own procedures. Therefore, I do not believe that it is for us to complain too bitterly about how it conducts its

1057
business. However, I say to the noble Earl that I suspect few people will want to buy the fishings. After all, it is well known that in the Highlands the most usual sight on a Sunday night is that of the laird's car heading south so that he can earn more money in the City, or in a city, or somewhere else in order to pay for the estate, its maintenance and infrastructure. Therefore, I do not believe that that piece of legislation will be too much of a threat.
As regards the reduction of the number of Members to 106, I say to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, that we on these Benches believe that to do that will threaten, first, the committee system; secondly, proportionality; and, thirdly, rural representation.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, has found a novel way of getting around the usual self-denying ordinance in this House about discussing the performance of the Scottish Parliament. In theory, the Scottish Parliament is a creature of statute; in practice it is a fact of life. The noble Lord seeks to return to the 1706 settlement. That was not freely negotiated. The Scottish negotiating position was barely considered—and the Duke of Marlborough was in the wings waiting to roll the Scots up and add a Scottish location to Blenheim, Romilly, Oudenarde and Malplaquet.
The 1998 Act adjusted the 1706 settlement. Scotland became a semi-detached part of the United Kingdom and in so doing achieved the benefits of United Kingdom membership and control of its own domestic destiny. Scotland is not just the past; it is the present and the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, complains about the actions and costs of the Scottish Parliament. We must all accept that the Scots need to have a 10-year socialist revolution, which was denied them by the British—or more likely middle England. I believe that the Scots will eventually reject this chauvinism and adopt a more liberal approach, even if they do not vote Liberal Democrat. The United Kingdom is increasingly Scotland's finest achievement and the Scots have certainly not been held back by Scotland's membership of the United Kingdom.
My historic Erskine, Mar and Kellie predecessors over the centuries wrestled with the search for permanent peace with England. For them it was a prize well worth fighting for. For us today, while permanent peace with England is assured, it is right to organise the relationship between the two countries to mutual advantage. With tongue in cheek, I hope that the Scottish public will be kind to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, who believes in what lies behind the Bill. Part of me believes that he needs to be protected from being lined up with the historic Lords Seafield, Queensberry, Mar, Loudon, Sutherland, Morton, Wemyss, Levin, Stair, Rosebery, Glasgow, Dupplin and Ross and of course Archibald Campbell, the brother of the Duke of Argyll. He is in danger of becoming the 15th of the Parcel of Rogues and perhaps we need what might be called a "Rabbie Burns" amendment to save him from that fate.
1058
On a more serious note, referendums should be used to confirm what has been building for several years. It was appropriate to hold a referendum in 1997 and indeed in 1979. The resurgence of Scottish national identity had been running since the early 19th century.
Does the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, recognise that the concept behind his referendum would have been more appropriate in 1750 when the post of Secretary of State for Scotland was abolished and the notion of North Britain was possibly at its height? The questions then would have been, "The Scottish Parliament should continue to be adjourned" and "The Scottish Parliament should be reconvened".
The House should delay further consideration of this Bill until your Lordships' Constitution Committee has completed its current inquiry into the early workings of devolution. The Select Committee will be taking evidence in Scotland in May and elsewhere throughout the year. Its findings will be published in the autumn of this year. The House imposed this resurrected and impeccably logical device upon the Government only recently. Such a Motion would find favour with the House. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, may or may not have a lot to thank his noble friend Lord Moran for, with his recent parliamentary procedural archaeology.
The Bill is almost admirable in its provisions. It legislates for two questions which are more fair and less prejudicial than those asked in 1997. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee points out that an amendment will be required to Clause 2(2) to create a statutory instrument, and we approve of there being a sunset clause.
But there are other questions that the people in Scotland would probably prefer to answer before answering a question about return to direct rule. Such issues would include the need for a second Chamber, the size of the Parliament, fiscal devolution or even separation and independence. I would not recommend any referendum on devolution issues until the current settlement has had the opportunity to bed down for, say, 10 years, and even then only if a sustained groundswell of opinion arose which sought to move away from the 1998 Act in any direction.
There is the somewhat perverse statistical evidence that support for Scottish independence has increased recently in England and decreased in Scotland. Could it be that Scotland's elected politicians have been found to enjoy human frailty? The Scottish parliamentary process will settle down in the future. The difference now is that, while 72 Scottish MPs in Westminster are difficult to identify in a House of more than 650, in Edinburgh they are completely exposed to public scrutiny.
There can be little doubt that we on these Benches support the existence and continuance of a Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom. We do not believe that there is sufficient long-term groundswell of opinion in Scotland which the proposed referendum could confirm or that sufficient time has elapsed for such to evolve. We hope that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, will decide not to proceed with further

1059
consideration of this Bill, or at least that he will wait for the Constitution Committee's findings after its inquiry into devolution.
10.14 p.m.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I reiterate the gratitude that has been expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for raising this issue and for using the Bill as a possible way of initiating a debate on Scottish affairs. Through the Bill, the noble Lord is adding another episode to a great Scottish tradition. History provides many cases where the Scots have taken some momentous decisions but where some have then hardly taken the time to turn around once before deciding that it was all completely wrong.
The best known example was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Michie of Gallanach, who spoke about the Union of Parliament in 1707. I was delighted to hear the noble Baroness. I always believed that she would be a strong wielder of the cudgels for the Liberal Democrat Party and she certainly did not disappoint me this evening. She referred to the comments of Robert Burns on the outcome of the Union, when he regretted that Scotland.
"had been bought and sold for English gold".
In fact, that was always the rationale of the whole issue. One would like to think that his evaluation of gold would have recognised the "equivalent" which Scotland received at the time of the Union. It amounted to a substantial increase to the Scottish Treasury at that point. The Union also brought in quite a lot of money over the years that it continued.
I even have to admit to an ancestor who signed and fought for the covenanting forces in 1638 and then changed over and fought for the Royalist cause because he questioned the motives of those who were driving the covenant.
The noble Lord, Lord MacKenzie of Culkein, drew our attention to the outcome of the referendum which was held on the question of the Scottish Parliament. The fact that 74.3 per cent of those who bothered to vote were in favour of a devolved legislature means that some politicians, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld, have come to call this the "settled will" of the Scottish people. I admit that that is fractionally short of the 75 per cent that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, demanded, but it is not that far away.
The greatest weakness of that result was that it was a pre-legislative referendum, with perhaps the most awkward question—the one about which we have heard most this evening—remaining unanswered; that is, how much it would cost. Perhaps from the Government's point of view, not knowing was an extremely wise position to adopt. We have heard enough today about the projected expense of the Parliament so I think that we can say that we still do not know the answer to that question. The most uncharacteristic thing about the whole issue is that the Scots were prepared to sign a blank cheque and are still considering what the outcome will be.
1060
Perhaps I may mention that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, is likely by his action in promoting This Bill to incur the wrath of the godfather of the Scottish Parliament. Noble Lords here may well ask me who that godfather is. Who else but Canon Kenyon Wright? In referring to legislation that was brought up earlier in our debates here, he said that, because the Parliament is less than three years old, under Scottish law it would be illegal to smack it.
There is no doubt that the Scottish Parliament has enabled detailed consideration to be given to the issues that are of particular Scottish interest in a way that would never be possible at Westminster. In fact, possibly the biggest shock to the accustomed pace of life in Scotland is how, in spite of the seemingly interminable consultation processes thrown up by the pre-legislative scrutiny committees, the Parliament has passed 38 Acts. In addition, it has graciously passed 32 Sewel Motions on legislation that could be devolved, showing how anxious it is to leave us in Westminster to deal with some of the knotty problems that it comes up against.
The Scottish Conservative Party is committed to making a success of the Scottish Parliament. That means that there is much important work to be done. Devolution requires a new relationship between the constituent countries of the United Kingdom and, in particular, between the Westminster Government and the devolved institutions. The Government have been able to brush these questions under the carpet, relying on the fact that they have a large majority in Westminster and are the dominant party in the two coalitions running both the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.
For the devolution settlement to be successful, it must be capable of working when different parties are in charge of the different institutions. The Conservatives have continued to raise this aspect of how the constitutional framework of the United Kingdom should develop with the aim of strengthening the Union and ensuring that it is a true partnership.
The difficulty now being experienced in Scotland is that the honeymoon period with the Scottish electorate is over. The trust with which it was initially regarded has been lost by some of the actions of MSPs who appear not to be able to put the interests of the public ahead of their own. Some might like to raise the question of whether that is an insurmountable problem, but it is not in itself a reason to discount the actual institution.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour outlined in a measured way where the Scottish Parliament has rushed in and produced legislation that may turn out to be full of problems.
Yesterday I heard an MSP addressing a seminar entitled "The New UK—Learning the lessons of devolution". He was obviously upset by the present tone of the Scottish press who have now picked out as the three major points of concern for the Scottish Parliament: Members' remuneration, building costs and hunting. He regarded their attitude as too

1061
simplistic and premature for such a young institution. But criticisms have come not only from the press. The hunting issue has raised great objection from those whom I meet in the agricultural and rural areas.
Even within the Parliament itself there are Members who have decided not to stand again. Perhaps their idea of what they were being asked to do was too rosy and ambitious. It is not so long since one young type attacked the debating skills of some of the female MSPs saying that,
"they displayed a total inability to make an informed and relevant contribution",
and described some of the efforts as an affront to democracy. If that type of language were used in your Lordships' House, it might land the Member concerned in trouble with Standing Order No. 32 on asperity of speech.
One of the honourable Members in another place commenting on the Scottish Members' proposal for equal pay said on Radio Clyde,
"If they want to work the same hours as Westminster MPs and be home after midnight, then fair enough. But don't try to compare themselves with Westminster MPs. It's very much an odds and sods parliament. They've all got to put their arms round one another in order to get a decision".
We come to the next knotty problem about which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Monro of Langholm, knows more than I do: the change to the number of Members required under the Scotland Act due to the revision of Westminster constituencies by the Boundary Commission. That is an old problem which the Government have wished on themselves. Various noble Lords have mentioned our discussions at the time of the Scotland Act, and will remember the long hours spent (both in Committee and on Report) in trying to get the Government to get to grips with the issue before the legislation was in place, rather than waiting until this late stage to resolve the matter.
A number of Peers have spoken of my noble friend the late Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. On the first day of the Committee stage, at col. 1337 of Hansard, he argued that if a reduction was envisaged it should be introduced at the outset. However, the then Minister for Scotland had just insisted that,
"After thinking long and hard on these matters, the Government have concluded that the balance of advantage lies with maintaining the link between Westminster and the Scottish parliament constituencies. We gave careful consideration to the arguments advanced for breaking the link, but have concluded that the disadvantages outweigh the possible advantages".—[Official Report, 8/7/98: col. 1336.]
We may have a new Secretary of State for Scotland, but we still have the same Government and it seems a bit rich that, having given that unequivocal assurance to the House, they are now considering changing their mind.
I believe that reducing the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament would be a step in the right direction. I have received notice that the Scottish Conservatives have asked for the implementation of the Scotland Act. Coupling that with their proposal for a reduction in the number of Ministers in the
1062
Scottish Executive from 20 to 10 should help to fulfil the proper objective of doing less better. It is probably of interest to the Scottish electorate that they reckon that those two measures would result in savings of over £2 million per annum, which would be enough to employ another 100 nurses or another 80 police officers.
In considering this Bill, I am inclined to follow the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld, and to say that this has been a useful chance to air the many arguments that at the moment are flying around in Scotland. Although it is too early to pass judgment on the structure that we have created in Edinburgh, it is not too early to have a chance to express our views.
10.24 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, at the outset I should make the Government's position clear. We do not seek to impede the progress of this Bill. We never seek to impede the progress of any Private Member's Bill through this House. However, I must say from the outset that, for reasons which I shall set out, we do not support the Bill. I also should explain the appropriate limits that I have in responding to this debate. Of course I am not responding to the debate; it is the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, who is.
The first limitation is that if there are questions about the scope and content of the Bill, it is for the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, to answer them and not for me. Interestingly enough, there have been virtually no comments on the contents of the Bill.
Secondly, in so far as the debate has covered the devolved actions of the Scottish Parliament, it would not only be ill-advised but utterly inappropriate for me to comment on anything that has been said. Indeed, if this debate had taken place in the House of Commons, nearly all of it would have been ruled out of order by the Speaker. We have no such clear and effective rules in this House. No one has sought to intervene. But I must say that it would not be well-taken by the Scottish Parliament to have the kind of criticism that has been made of its actions in conformity with the responsibilities given to it by the Westminster Parliament.
The noble Lords, Lord Hogg and Lord Monro, said that the debate gave us an opportunity to discuss Scotland, which is not easily available to us. I thought that that point was well answered by the noble Baroness. Lady Michie, who said that all of the reserved aspects of Scottish public life are still properly to be debated in this House, but the devolved aspects should not be debated and especially not by an unelected Chamber such as this one. Therefore, I shall not be responding to a large part of today's debate.
I therefore turn to my response to the Bill. I say immediately that, much as I have respect and affection for the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, we believe that it would be wholly inappropriate to hold a referendum on whether the Scottish Parliament should continue to exist. It is not only, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogg, said, too soon, but it is much too soon. It is not much

1063
too soon by a matter of five years but by double or treble that figure. After all, it is only four-and-a-half years since the referendum of September 1997 in which the Scottish people overwhelmingly endorsed the Government's detailed plans for the Scottish Parliament, which was set out in the White Paper. They were almost 75 per cent in favour on a turnout which may not have been wonderful—60 per cent—but it was actually higher than the turnout in the United Kingdom for the last general election.
We must remember that this did not come out of the blue on the basis of the Labour Party's 1997 election manifesto. It was based on the work of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, which had built a wide consensus in Scotland. That in turn was based on pressure which had been building up in Scotland over many years for devolved government. The result, it can justly be said—it was John Smith's phrase—was that devolution was the "settled will of the Scottish people". It is, of course, the biggest constitutional change in Scotland for 300 years. Surely, that is not something that should be tinkered with less than three years after the Scottish Parliament assumed its powers.
I have listened to what has been said about the perceived defects of the Scottish Parliament, but there is not any major party or body of opinion in Scotland that wants to bring the issue of devolution into debate once more. The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, confirmed that even those who opposed devolution at the time now accept that their task is to make it work.
If I am told that public opinion in Scotland is turning against the Scottish Parliament, as has been suggested in the debate, I must say that, if anything, the effect has been the other way. The most recent Scottish social attitudes survey found that people wanted more powers for the Scottish Parliament, rather than fewer. Of course, there will always be criticism of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive. That is politics and public life. But devolution has made government in Scotland more accessible, more responsible and therefore, inevitably, closer to home and easier to criticise. That is part of the point of devolution.
As I said, it is not my job to defend the Scottish Parliament's conduct in its devolved responsibilities, but it is worth saying—as have some noble Lords—that devolution has belied the fears expressed in this House during the passage of the Scotland Act 1998. This House, above all, does not need to be reminded of the importance of careful and considered scrutiny of legislation and of the activities of the executive branch of government. It is often said that the Westminster Parliament in total is inadequate in that respect.
The noble Baroness, Lady Michie, reminded us that in the old days there was little time for specifically Scottish Bills—typically for about two a year during the period before devolution. Admittedly, when there were Scottish Bills, they attracted considerable attention, especially in this House. When I first arrived here, almost 20 years ago, in one session we had two Bills, one a salmon Bill and one an enormously
1064
important education Bill. Your Lordships' House gave far more time to the salmon Bill than it was prepared to give to the education Bill.
There has clearly been a backlog of important legislation that the Westminster Parliament was unable to pass which has been tackled by the Scottish Parliament. Since 1st July 1999, 36 Acts have been passed by the Scottish Parliament, and a further three still await Royal Assent. I am not saying that the number of Bills is a positive achievement for any Parliament; I am not saying that the more legislation the better. I am saying that the bottleneck that existed for Scotland's interests has been tackled. The legislative programme has reflected the Scottish Parliament's own policies and priorities in education, transport, housing and other key areas.
Without intervening in devolved matters, it is worth mentioning how the Scottish Parliament has approached legislation. I say that only because it has significant implications for how this House should be doing its business. It is a feature of the Scottish Parliament that Member's Bills and Committee Bills can and do make progress and become law, where they can command support in Parliament. In other words, legislation is not simply a matter of the programme of the governing party.
That is one feature that Members of this Parliament ought to look on with admiration and a touch of envy. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, referred to it. Not everyone likes the result and Parliament does not always do what the scrutiny committee recommends—if it did, there would not be much point in having a Parliament. But there are lessons that we could learn from the Scottish Parliament: the strength of its committee system; its daytime working hours; its electronic voting at specified times; its serious consideration of public petitions by a full committee of the Parliament; and the level of background information attached to its affirmative statutory instruments—I mention that in the presence of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, as I know that that is something for which he has been pressing for a considerable time. As a result, there is better scrutiny of the Scottish Executive than is the case here in Westminster. We ought not to underestimate that fact.
Very few specific points were raised about government policy in relation to devolution to which I ought to refer. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, and other speakers, spoke about the Barnett formula. We take the view that that formula is fair: it is easy to understand; and it is consistent in its application. We have committed ourselves to using it until the year 2004, at any rate, and have no current plans to review it.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, quoted the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, about the number of Members in the Scottish Parliament. I noticed the terms used by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, during the Committee stage of the legislation. He said that, after careful consideration, the Government had decided that the balance was in favour of those provisions, which, in the end, were included in the Scotland Act.

1065
As is well known, we have been consulting on the issue. The consultation process has just come to an end, and the results of that consultation and subsequently our views will be made public. However, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further at this stage.
I should tell the noble Duke, and especially the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who holds strong views on this point, that we are not, in any sense, talking about a blank cheque that the Scottish people have signed. The expenditure of the Scottish Parliament is within a budget that is set. That Parliament has tax-raising powers, which were given to it by the second question in the referendum. However, those tax raising powers have not been used. Such matters have continued to be ruled in Scotland by the Edinburgh Parliament in accordance with the provisions of the Scotland Act. I give way.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am much obliged. I should tell the Minister that in no way was I suggesting that the Scottish Parliament was acting outside its remit. When someone states that a project will cost a certain amount of money but it turns out to cost twice as much, I was concerned as to who would be responsible for saying, "Yes, go ahead and do that". Presumably that would not be the Scottish Parliament; it would be the responsibility of an individual.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I cannot speculate on who would be responsible within the Scottish Parliament. Of course, the Scottish Parliament is ultimately responsible for the acts of its Ministers and of its Members. Similarly, the Scottish Parliament is ultimately answerable to its own electorate. As the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, made clear in his speech, the one certainty is that English taxpayers are not paying for any overruns of expenditure. I give way.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. When I mentioned a "blank cheque" I did not mean a blank cheque against the Treasury and the British Government. The Scottish public has given the Scottish Executive a blank cheque as to how much of the funds that it receives will go towards the Scottish Parliament.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Scottish public elected the Scottish Parliament, which, in turn, chose its Executive. How the Scottish Parliament spends its money within its budget is a matter of democratic accountability. Those concerned will have to account to their electorate in due course. They form a corporate body: they are collectively responsible.
1066
That is what democracy is all about. Indeed, that is true whether it is in Edinburgh, in London, or in Timbuktu.
I hope that I have made it clear that we do not think that it would be appropriate for the Bill to be enacted or for there to be referendum. We respect the views expressed and the level of expertise shown in the debate, but we are of the settled view that devolution has improved the governance not only of Scotland but of the whole of the United Kingdom.
It is, of course, a matter for the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, but if he were to feel it appropriate not to press his Motion, the Government would not be wholly disappointed.
10.40 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, that was typically courteous of the Minister. I thank him sincerely for the full way in which he summed up what has been a fascinating debate.
One of the most interesting things to come out of the debate is the idea that I am about to introduce a Bill to ban the House of Commons, particularly if it decides to do anything about fox hunting. I had not thought of that; perhaps it would be worth thinking about over a drink in the Bishops' Bar later. It is an idea that would be greatly welcomed throughout the United Kingdom!
My greatest sadness tonight is that I have been unable to persuade my very dear friend, the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, to leave his greenhouse in Kirkcaldy and come down tonight. I am sure that he would have added great colour to the debate. I am grateful to noble Lords from all parts of the House who have taken part tonight. I do so hope that Holyrood will take note of some of what we have discussed tonight.
I will not deny that to pass the Bill would entail deep consideration, coupled with great courage—two great hallmarks of your Lordships' House. The Bill is, above all, an empowering measure, to secure the free expression of the will of the Scottish people. The leaders of Scotland proclaimed in the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320:
"We fight not for glory, nor for wealth, nor honours, but for freedom alone which no good man surrenders but with his life".
I do not know exactly what to do, but, in the light of what the Minister said, I thank again all Members who have taken part and beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Second Reading.
Motion for Second Reading, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Rifles and Shotguns
  Rifles and Shotguns
  Upper Brook Street Barriers
  Upper Brook Street Barriers
  Poverty Reduction: WTO Talks
  Poverty Reduction: WTO Talks
  Radioactive Waste
  Radioactive Waste
  Landfill Tax Credit Scheme
  Landfill Tax Credit Scheme
  School Playing Fields
  School Playing Fields
  Citizenship Education
  Citizenship Education
  Prescription Charges: Exemptions
  Prescription Charges: Exemptions
  Government's Policy Agenda
  Government's Policy Agenda
  Special Advisers
  Special Advisers
  European Court of Human Rights Judgment
  European Court of Human Rights Judgment
  Republic of Ireland Residents: British Passports
  Republic of Ireland Residents: British Passports
  Weston Park Discussions
  Weston Park Discussions
  Northern Ireland: Victim Support
  Northern Ireland: Victim Support
  Terrorist Prisoners: Royal Prerogative of Mercy
  Terrorist Prisoners: Royal Prerogative of Mercy