Sitting of 12 December 2002

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—
  TREASURY

    Public Spending
    Ann Winterton: What representations he received in advance of the pre-Budget report on the targets he has set for outputs from public spending. [85247]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): Numerous representations are received in advance of the pre-Budget report on a range of matters, including individual targets. Departments are responsible for delivering, and reporting progress on, their own public service agreements.
    Ann Winterton: The Chief Secretary will be aware that concern about the Government's high rate of tax and spending growth featured in the International Monetary Fund report published this week, which highlights the need for effective and efficient delivery for taxpayers' money. Is he aware of the national health service data published today which show that up to April this year NHS funding was up by 21.5 per cent, but that hospital treatment outcomes are up by only 1.6 per cent. and hospital admissions are down by 0.5 per cent? When will we see real reform for real public service improvements—or will it be the same old story of missed targets, more tax and spend, and more failure?
    Mr. Boateng: The hon. Lady's strictures are misconceived. I am well aware of the IMF report. It states that the economic achievements of the Government are due in no small part to our sound macro-economic policies. That was not something that could ever have been said about the achievements of the hon. Lady's party when it was in office.
    In fact, the NHS figures reveal that there has been an 11 per cent. increase in the number of patients admitted to hospital against the comparable figure for 1997–98. The number of medical procedures taking place has
    376
    increased by almost 1 million. That is a record to be proud of—resources accompanied by reform delivering results.
    Caroline Flint: The three primary care trusts in Doncaster will see an increase in their funding of more than 30 per cent. over the next three years. When I was elected in 1997, there were huge health inequalities in the area and we have been trying to put that right. Although much has been done, we still need to focus on primary care to ensure that people do not develop diseases that may kill them later on in life.
    Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend makes a good point about the importance of ensuring that we address inequalities—hence the appointment of a Minister for Public Health, as well as our continuing drive to reduce inequalities, using targets, and the announcements made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health yesterday. Again, that amounts to resource, reform, results.
    Mr. Michael Howard: As the Chief Secretary knows, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health think that an important contribution to greater outputs from public spending on the health service can be made by foundation hospitals. The First Minister for Wales and the Secretary of State for Wales disagree. What is the Treasury view?
    Mr. Boateng: The Treasury view was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer when, in the course of the pre-Budget report to the House and subsequently, he made repeated reference to the benefits—actual and potential—of foundation hospitals, in terms of delivering resource with reform and meeting local needs according to the concerns of local people. That is something that Opposition Members should welcome.
    Mr. Howard: We know why the Chancellor did not answer the question: because he told The Guardian less than a month ago that he was opposed to foundation hospitals. He thinks that they give NHS bosses too much power, so why will the Chancellor not tell the House what he told The Guardian?
    Mr. Boateng: Not that Guardian breakfast again—how many times is that meal going to be regurgitated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman? He has the facts. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor supports foundation hospitals and so should the shadow Chancellor.
    Dr. Nick Palmer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that even those of us who take a special interest in Treasury affairs may be in danger of valuing improvement only by measurable output? For instance, the replacement of tricyclic drugs by modern drugs that has taken place in the NHS has transformed the lives of many patients, yet it is not measurable at all. Does my right hon. Friend also agree that the Conservative policy of not increasing funding is inherently implausible—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Boateng: I agree with my hon. Friend on both counts—especially the latter. My hon. Friend's first

    377
    point was extremely important: we need to get targets right. We need to ensure that they are not seen as an end in themselves but as a drive—a goad—to improve performance. That is what we are doing and I should have thought that it would be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, including the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton), who shares with me real concern about adoption policy. She would be the first to admit that the target of a 40 per cent. increase in adoption has helped to drive improvements in that area.

    Business Taxation and Regulation
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: What estimate he made in advance of the pre-Budget report of the annual cost to businesses of new (a) taxes and (b) regulations introduced since May 1997. [85248]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): The Government's corporation tax changes introduced since 1997 have reduced business taxes. We now have the lowest corporation tax rates in the United Kingdom's history. The Government are committed to ensuring that regulations are fair and effective, balancing enterprise and encouraging productivity with protection for the individual.
    Mrs. Gillan: I think that businesses listening to the Minister's reply will believe that she does not live in the real world. Is it not the truth that the burden of taxation and regulation on businesses has rocketed under this Government? From 1997 to the end of this Parliament, the director general of the CBI says that the Government will impose £47 billion of extra business taxation. That is equivalent to the entire gross domestic product of Wales. Is that not a shocking statistic? Does it not show that Labour is no friend to business in this country?
    Dawn Primarolo: I am afraid that the hon. Lady, who I know is genuinely concerned about this issue, has incorrect information. For instance, she refers to the CBI's figures, but those figures, which are not a fair reflection, include the windfall levy—a manifesto commitment and an imposition to ensure that the taxpayer had a fair return on the public utilities after the previous Government had sold them off. If the hon. Lady looks at international comparisons, particularly those recently published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, she will see that, if we take corporate tax income and employers' social security contributions, Britain is in the third lowest category among all our competitors. Our tax system, with corporate taxes going down—30, 19 and 0 per cent.—is the correct way forward, and the hon. Lady needs to tell us how much lower the Conservatives would go than zero.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Without revisiting the arguments about the supplementary charge on corporation tax for the oil and gas industry—that is now a settled matter—will my right hon. Friend consider what can be done to encourage more new exploration for oil and gas, which had almost fizzled out before the
    378
    Budget? The energy review tells us that we need all the oil and gas that we can get. That is an important source of tax revenue, and undiscovered fields pay no tax at all.
    Dawn Primarolo: I know that my hon. Friend takes a keen interest in the oil and gas industry. I also know that he is aware that the 100 per cent. tax relief and the abolition of royalties were introduced in recognition of the importance of continuing to ensure exploration for the national resource in the North sea for the benefit not only of those companies and jobs, but the taxpayer. I should like to reassure him that the Government continue to listen carefully to the industry and to follow developments closely to ensure that the changes that we have put in place deliver exactly the types of issue and investment that he wants to see, as do we.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: Are the Government proud that, according to the OECD, taxes are now rising more rapidly in this country than in any other major country, eroding our competitive advantage? How is it that similar countries are able to cut taxes while improving their public services, but this Government have done the reverse?
    Dawn Primarolo: The right hon. Gentleman will see from the pre-Budget report that taxes fell in this country as a proportion of national income. Given that he is a keen reader of the OECD's reports, he will also know that the OECD says that we have the lowest barriers to entrepreneurship of any major economy and that Britain is one of the best places in the world to do business.

    National Debt
    Michael Fabricant: What he estimates will be the levels of (a) national debt and (b) borrowing in each of the next five years; and if he will make a statement. [85249]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Figures for public sector net borrowing for future years are 24, 19, 19, 19 and 20 billion pounds. That is 2.2, 1.6, 1.6, 1.5 and 1.5 per cent. of gross domestic product. Public sector net debt in future years will be 32.1, then 32.4, 32.6, 32.7 and 33 per cent. of GDP. We consistently meet all our fiscal rules.
    Michael Fabricant: The Chancellor has given a detailed answer, but can we believe any of it any more? If we consider the five-year forecast that he made for borrowing, he said that there would be £30 billion-worth of borrowing in last year's Budget, which went up to £66 billion-worth of borrowing in the pre-Budget report. It then went up to £72 billion in this year's Budget, and to more than £100 billion in this year's pre-Budget Treasury forecast. Does not the Chancellor now admit that all his bombast and all his predictions have come to nothing, and that his credibility gap is about as—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Brown: We have the lowest inflation for 30 years, the lowest long-term interest rates for 40 years, the lowest unemployment for 25 years, and debt as a share

    379
    of national income is at its lowest for 100 years. The accurate figures are those that I just read out to the hon. Gentleman. He must recognise that if we want to continue to run a successful economy and spend money on public services, the policy to be pursued is that being pursued by this Government. I remind him that, at the general election, he promised in his manifesto that he wanted to spend more money on police and hospital services. Those things must be paid for.
    Mr. John McFall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) has flair, but not in the area of the economy? He should stick to other subjects. If he reads the pre-Budget report, he will see the figures set out. Will my right hon. Friend agree that the UK has among the lowest levels of public debt in Europe, and that he is on track with regard to his economic cycle?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend, who takes an interest in these matters as Chairman of the Treasury Committee, is absolutely right. Debt in the United Kingdom is about a third of GDP, whereas, in France and Germany, it is between 40 per cent. and 45 per cent. of GDP. In America, it is more than 40 per cent. of GDP. In the euro area, it is more than 50 per cent. of GDP as a whole. In Japan, it is nearly 70 per cent. of GDP. We have reduced debt, and the reason why we are able, as an economy, to have monetary and fiscal stability in a period of difficulty, is that we have taken the difficult decisions since 1997, from which we are reaping benefits.
    Matthew Taylor: Given that the Chancellor's plans for a return to sustainability, on his Budget plans, depend on a return to sustainability in personal budgets at a time when house prices have been booming and personal debt has risen to a peak of 111 per cent. of annual personal income—as compared with the late-1980s, when it was just 85 per cent.—what are his plans for achieving a sustainable end to the housing boom without a bust? Does he agree with Chris Allsopp of the Monetary Policy Committee, who said that he should now consider micro-economic policy or financial regulation to ensure that that happens?
    Mr. Brown: If we had taken the advice of the shadow Chancellor who lives in Truro rather than the shadow Chancellor who lives in Folkestone, we would have had a no-speed economy. The hon. Gentleman's advice was that we should have raised public spending at a time when we were cutting debt. It is because we cut debt that we are in a position, during a difficult period for the world economy, to continue to grow.
    On housing, the hon. Gentleman knows that house prices relative to income are relatively high for new buyers. He also knows, however, that mortgage costs relative to average income are very low. Whereas, at the beginning of the 1990s, they were about 36 per cent. of average income, they are now between 13 per cent. and 15 per cent. of average income. That is because we have low inflation and low interest rates. It is about time that the hon. Gentleman recognised that, under this Government, in a very difficult world economic situation, we continue to have an economy that has grown every quarter since we have been in power.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Allowing for the borrowings that the Chancellor will have to use, will he ensure that growth within business continues to be encouraged, and that future research and development takes place in this country, through his excellent method of tax credits?
    Mr. Brown: We have the second best tax system for research and development of any of the major industrialised countries. That is because we now have a research and development credit for large firms as well as small firms. We are prepared to listen to business on the subject of improvements that, even now, can be made in that tax credit system, because, for 20 years, Britain fell behind by failing to invest in research and development. We are determined to make those investments, and the research and development credit is one part of that.
    Mr. Howard Flight: The House will have noticed that the Chancellor has dropped his boom-and-bust mantra about how his economic management has ended the economic cycle. Could that have something to do with the recent criticisms of his economic management by the IMF and the Bank of England and with the alarming news that Standard and Poor's has just listed the UK, for the first time ever, as an economy facing major potential stress on its banking system because of the possible bursting of the house price bubble and ballooning consumer debt problems? What assumptions has he made in his borrowing forecasts about house prices, consumer debt and the implications for the economy of the warnings not just from the IMF, the Bank of England and Standard and Poor's but from the permanent secretary that house price—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have counted several questions.
    Mr. Brown: The Standard and Poor's assessment was made about both Britain and America and it was answered by the Bank of England, which the hon. Gentleman also cited in his argument. The IMF praised the macro-economic management of our economy and also said that the banking system was in a very good position to withstand difficulties. The IMF has therefore also answered Standard and Poor's. The fact of the matter, which the hon. Gentleman cannot understand, is that whereas inflation was at 10 per cent. at the beginning of the 1990s, in the last world downturn, and interest rates were 15 per cent. under the previous Chancellor, inflation is just over 2 per cent. and interest rates are at 4 per cent. We have the macro-economic stability that the Conservative party never gave us.

    World Poverty
    Mr. Bill Tynan: What assessment he has made of the role of international trade in the reduction of poverty in the poorest countries. [85250]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): The World Bank estimates that full trade liberalisation globally could lift 300 million people out of poverty by 2015. We therefore seek significant reform from the

    381
    European Union's mid-term common agricultural policy review and from the World Trade Organisation ministerial stocktake in Mexico in September.
    Mr. Tynan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the poorest farmers—the 25 million coffee-growing farmers worldwide—are suffering enormous hardship because of the price of coffee? Will he examine the coffee rescue plan promoted by Oxfam as it would make a tremendous difference for those farmers? Will he seek international support for that plan?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He and people in his constituency have taken a long-term interest in development. On Oxfam's proposals for coffee, he may know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry held a meeting with non-governmental organisations, the World Bank, the European Commission and others last Monday to consider these very issues. There are many things that we can do, but we cannot take up Oxfam's proposal to destroy 5 million bags of coffee. That would not be in the best interests of everybody. However, we are trying to help growers to diversify and we are trying to expand trade opportunities.
    Africa is an important issue for many people here. Although it has 12 per cent. of the world's population, it has only 2 per cent. of the world's trade and 1 per cent. of its investment. Our African initiative is trying to rectify many of those problems.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Is it not clear to even the most unreconstructed old socialist that free trade enriches nations while trade barriers impoverish them? Is it not the poorest countries that benefit most from free trade? Will the Chancellor and his colleagues therefore work a good deal harder to ensure that we eradicate tariffs and barriers in Europe and the United States?
    Mr. Brown: I agree about the importance of trade, but the hon. Gentleman should agree that we have done more than previous Governments to try to remove barriers to trade. First, on the common agricultural policy, the waste of money is a feature of the mid-term review, and we are pushing for change on that. Secondly, on trade generally, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Two thirds of the poorest people in the world live off the land, and agricultural protectionism costs $20 billion to the poorest countries. It is precisely for those reasons that, at Cancun in Mexico, we are determined to reach a settlement that is fair to the poorest countries.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his policies. When some of us visited Rwanda recently, we found that they were very welcome there. However, the strong feeling was expressed that, whereas the World Bank appeared to be aware of the problems, the IMF seemed to be somewhat less sensitive to them. Will he use his considerable influence to ask the IMF to focus on the real problems of countries such as Rwanda?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question. I know he takes a particular interest in such
    382
    matters. The improvements in education as a result of increased development spending in Rwanda and many other African countries are no doubt welcomed by all hon. Members. On the role of the IMF, we have got rid of the old structural adjustment facility, which caused difficulties for many African countries. We now have joint IMF-World Bank work on poverty reduction strategies. Those have been reviewed during the year and we hope to make improvements. We want better joint working between the IMF and the World Bank to ensure that they concentrate on tackling poverty through economic growth.
    Bob Spink: Pursuant to the Chancellor's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), does he agree that the abandonment of the common agricultural policy would help to improve world trade and relieve poverty?
    Mr. Brown: We want significant reforms in the common agricultural policy. We believe that that is of use to the developing countries, Europe and Britain in particular. We also believe that those countries joining the European Union should not be led to expect that an unreformed common agricultural policy will benefit the 4 million farmers who could be demonstrators in Brussels against further change. For all those reasons, we favour fundamental reform.
    Mr. Kevan Jones: What contribution the UK is making to meeting the 2015 targets for reducing world poverty. [85251]
    The Chancellor of the Exhequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Meeting the 2015 targets requires not just debt relief and more aid, but new means of financing development. Today I am sending to the Chairmen of the Treasury and International Development Committees and placing in the Library further details of our proposed international development finance facility. I am grateful for all-party support, and the Secretary of State for International Development and I will publish a prospectus on that important new facility in the new year.
    Mr. Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he recognise the important contribution that NGOs such as Oxfam and Church groups—for example, those in my constituency—have played in highlighting world poverty? Will he outline what role those organisations can continue to play in the ongoing Government campaign to eradicate world poverty?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who takes an interest in such matters, as do many members of his constituency, especially the Churches. The role of NGOs in promoting debt relief was central to our efforts. I think every hon. Member would agree that the Churches made an enormous difference, not only in Britain but internationally. I want the NGOs and the Churches to help us to take forward the next initiative that we should all support, which is not just debt relief, but a proposal that could release up to $50 billion extra a year—$10 billion for education, $10 billion for health, and $20 billion or more for anti-poverty programmes.

    383
    Only by doing that will we meet the 2015 targets of providing every child with primary schooling and cutting poverty in the poorest countries by a half.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Would not the Chancellor be able to do more for good causes such as reducing world poverty if he had not obliged the Bank of England to lose a massive amount of money by forcing it to sell its gold at an average of $270—it is now worth more than $325—and to invest the money instead in currencies like the euro, which have no great future at all?
    Mr. Brown: The decision to sell gold was right. The only problem was that it should have been made 20 years ago under the previous Government. It is sad that the hon. Gentleman always turns a question on overseas aid, which is about the poorest countries of the world, into a question that reflects his obsessions with the European Union.
    Ms Julia Drown: NGOs have said that AIDS is the biggest threat to delivering the 2015 goals and it has been recommended that we should increase our support for AIDS from £200 million to £750 million. Has the Chancellor assessed that recommendation?
    Mr. Brown: We continue to consider all proposals. I think the most important report is the Zedillo report, which came out a few months ago. It contained information on what we need to spend on education, health and anti-poverty programmes. The effectiveness of aid must be improved, and I am sure all hon. Members would agree that major improvements are possible. Even now, we see the waste of resources in the famine of Africa, which could be avoided. At the same time, we need additional money. That can only come from either a Tobin tax or something similar, but there is no support for that, or our new international finance facility, which I hope, as I said, will enjoy all-party support.
    Tony Baldry: The note published by the Treasury today says that it is willing to give a long-term commitment to support an international financial facility, which is genuinely welcome. However, can the Chancellor give some indication of the size of the commitment that he and the Treasury envisage for such a facility to meet millennium development goals, as that may well encourage other countries to sign up? I think that we all accept that that has to be done together and cannot be done by the UK alone.
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is Chairman of the Select Committee on International Development, and he will know that I appreciate the all-party work that it does. We will have increased our aid budget from 0.27 per cent. when we came to power to 0.4 per cent. by 2006, thus releasing substantial extra money, and have persuaded the European Union that on average Europe's aid budget should be 0.39 per cent. America will have made a substantial commitment of $5 billion extra by 2006, and it is on the basis of those commitments that I believe the new international finance facility can be built. Of course, we are prepared
    384
    to make a further contribution over the next few years. We are ready to pay our share, but we obviously want to talk to other countries that have expressed an interest.
    Mr. George Foulkes: While everyone appreciates what the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development are doing, real progress world wide will only be achieved if the Americans stop trade protectionism and increase their development assistance. Will my right hon. Friend use his undoubted influence in the United States to get it to follow our lead?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. When he was at the Department for Overseas Development, he played a prominent role in many countries in pushing a social justice agenda as part of the global economy. I continue to talk to the American Administration and, since last week, have been talking to the new Secretary of the Treasury. I appreciate the work that the previous Secretary and his predecessors did to promote international development aid. America will have made a commitment of $5 billion by 2006 and, at the same time, as part of the world trade negotiations, has said that it is prepared to remove all tariffs—that is its latest initiative. I believe that there should be a response from the Europe Union, and there is a chance that in Mexico in September there will be progress on trade while, at the same time, we are making progress on the Monterrey proposals for an increased development budget. It is heartening that there is support from Members on both sides of the House for those moves.

    Economic Growth Forecasts
    Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds): What his assumptions are in arriving at his revised GDP forecasts announced in the November pre-Budget report. [85253]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr.Paul Boateng): The Government expect a gathering in the pace of global recovery, with G7 GDP growth forecast to rise from 1½ per cent. in 2002, to 2¼ per cent. next year and 3 per cent. in 2004. As a result, UK GDP growth is expected to accelerate from the second half of next year.
    Mr. Ruffley: Will the Chief Secretary confirm that as a direct result of the Chancellor's over-optimism and imprudence those juggled forecasts now rest on three assumptions—an upturn in world trade, a wing, and a prayer?
    Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman, I know, takes a keen interest in these matters. I heard him only this morning talking on the "Today" programme about toxic cocktails—now he is over-egging the pudding. He needs to reflect and recognise that the assumptions outlined by my right hon. Friend are based on a rigorous assessment of the factors underlying trend growth, which were published in the pre-Budget report. He knows the assumptions in tables A and B very well, and knows that they are prudent, rigorous and in line with the broad breadth of independent forecasters. He should at least give some recognition to that fact.
    Mr. James Plaskitt: The pre-Budget report shows that my right hon. Friend anticipates a greater contribution to future growth from business investment. What measures is he introducing to encourage that?
    Mr. Boateng: Business investment is key to our continued performance, hence the importance of the 2000 enterprise zones, not least in the most disadvantaged areas; the measures that we are introducing to increase R and D, not only in small and medium-sized enterprises but in large enterprises; and the measures on skills announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. All of that will improve and enhance productivity, and promote business investment.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: How would the GDP estimates be affected by a war in Iraq? The Minister will be aware of the work of the Congressional Budget Office in the US, which suggests that even a short and successful war and reconstruction could cost $150 billion—1.5 per cent. of GDP. Are such estimates relevant to the UK, or will the Treasury publish its own independent estimate?
    Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman will have seen the assumptions made in the PBR—for instance, in relation to oil prices at $25.10 and constant thereafter. He is aware of the prudent provision that we have made through the £1 billion that has been set aside for contingencies. He is also aware—these risks are again reflected in the PBR—of the risks attendant on the geopolitical situation, including Iraq. All those assumptions are contained in the PBR, which takes full account of the factors that he raised.
    Ross Cranston: May I ask my right hon. Friend about the assumptions concerning employment growth? Since 1997 there has been a massive number of new jobs. Unemployment in Dudley has gone down since 1993 by 70 per cent., but the Joseph Rowntree Trust has just reported that there are still significant numbers of unemployed people—mainly sick, disabled and lone parents—wanting jobs.
    Mr. Boateng: The Joseph Rowntree Trust made it clear in its report that although there are always risks in this area, we are broadly on track to meet our targets in relation to child poverty. The assumptions made in relation to employment are based on independent forecasts and analysis. We are confident that the measures that we are taking, not least to make work pay—work is the surest route out of poverty—will allow continuing improvements in the number of children taken out of poverty; 200,000 were taken out of poverty last year, and there is every expectation that we will meet our undoubtedly challenging targets in that regard.
    Mr. Michael Howard: I welcome the proposal made by the Chancellor in answer to the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones). He does indeed have support for those proposals from the Conservative Opposition. Will the Chief Secretary tell us why the Chancellor blamed his failure to meet his Budget forecasts on falls in world growth and world
    386
    trade, when the forecast for world trade this year, on page 152 of the pre-Budget report, was only ¼ per cent. lower than the Budget forecast, and the forecast for G7 growth has not changed at all? Is not the truth that it is not the forecast for the rest of the world that was downgraded, just the forecasts for this country?
    Mr. Boateng: I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman's earlier remarks in response to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's earlier answer. I draw the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to the fact that last year saw the sharpest slowdown in world growth for almost 30 years. The world's largest three economies, Japan, Germany and the US, were in recession. There were massive falls in the equity market. Despite all that, our growth was the fastest of all the G7 economies last year. The right hon. and learned Gentleman ought o recognise that and give credit for it, rather than continuing to cast himself in the role of Cassandra and Jeremiah.

    Poverty
    Mr. Terry Rooney: What measures the G7 is taking to improve literacy in developing countries as part of tackling global poverty. [85254]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): The new G7 education initiative has been decided because 113 million children do not enjoy primary schooling and 88 countries are missing the target that everybody should have primary schooling by 2015. Britain will be investing £1.3 billion in education in the poorest countries in the coming five years, and further funds for education are a critical element in our proposed international development finance facility.
    Mr. Rooney: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer and for his undoubted interest in the subject. What was the outcome of the "Education for All" donor consortium meeting in Brussels on 27 November?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He, too, has taken an interest, both in his constituency and nationwide, in these matters. There are two initiatives that are moving forward on education. The first is for seven small countries, including Nicaragua, Niger and Mauritania, where the World Bank is running a fast-track initiative so that countries that are making progress will be in a position to meet the 2015 targets. The second set of initiatives is for the larger countries. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is particularly concerned about India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Nigeria, where huge amounts of money will be needed if we are to meet the 2015 targets. That is why she is allocating £1.3 billion from her budget over the next five years. Almost half that money will go to Africa and a great deal of it will go to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Two initiatives are therefore moving forward: the G7 initiative for the smaller countries and her initiative, which is operating

    387
    with other countries through the G7, for very large countries that are simply not meeting the necessary targets.
    Gregory Barker: Last month I had the opportunity to visit a combined primary and secondary school in Uganda that had been built with proceeds from my constituency. Indeed, the school is named Bexhill high school. I was extremely impressed by that voluntary initiative in Uganda, but incredibly concerned about the systemic corruption that I saw not only in Uganda, but in Kenya. Can the Chancellor reassure the House that the huge amount that is destined for the poorest people in Africa will reach them and not be diverted, as so much other aid money has been, to line the pockets of the ruling elite?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman's constituents who have been part of the initiative in Uganda. While he is right that there is a major corruption problem that must be dealt with as part of the international finance initiative—that is very much one of the requirements for further development aid—he cannot say that progress is not being made in Uganda. Progress is being made on education, partly because of the proceeds of debt relief received by Uganda in the past few years. Uganda is now moving from a pupil-teacher ratio of 100:1 to one of 50:1 and to a situation in which it can genuinely say that every pupil who goes to school will have a roof above their head. That is a major initiative in Uganda that is designed to achieve 100 per cent. primary education enrolment in a short period. Progress is being made, although we must guard against corruption in every sense.
    Roger Casale: May I thank my right hon. Friend for the work that his Department is doing to eliminate poverty around the world and to raise educational standards? If an international consensus is to emerge on the measures and resources necessary to eliminate poverty, it is vital that he continue to articulate the same values and vision and to show the same leadership as he has shown previously and that led to the establishment of the millennium development goals in the first place. Will he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development redouble their efforts to strengthen international commitment to his proposal for a new Marshall plan for Africa?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend and his constituency take an enormous interest in such issues; I believe that churches and NGOs in Wimbledon have played a very important role in the campaigns that have taken place. He is absolutely right that there is now a unique world situation in which all international organizations—the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the United Nations, the World Trade Organisation and the OECD, as well as individual Governments—have signed up to the millennium development goals. We must meet those goals by 2015, so it is incumbent on all of us to raise the necessary resources. That is why we are working with other finance Ministries to see whether that international development finance facility, which is the means by which we could double development aid, will be possible over the next few years.
    388
    One other measure that my hon. Friend would understand is reform of the European Union's aid budget. It is intolerable that only 38 per cent. of EU aid goes to the poorest countries. As a minimum, we expect that level to be raised to 70 per cent. by the measures that we are introducing.

    Penrose Inquiry
    Mr. Peter Luff: What recent representations he has received from or on behalf of policyholders in Equitable Life about the progress of the Penrose inquiry; and if he will make a statement. [85255]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): I have received a number of representations from policyholders about the progress of Lord Penrose's inquiry. I understand that Lord Penrose has now examined the vast bulk of the documentary evidence and has begun a programme of witness interviews. He has said that he hopes to report to Ministers next summer.
    Mr. Luff: That is a very long time away. Does the Minister understand that the many thousands of policyholders who have lost out so badly through the Equitable Life scandal—they include many hon. Members, of whom I am not one—would be forgiven for thinking that when the Government face a problem that they think might embarrass someone else, such as the BSE scandal, they hold a major public inquiry, throw resources at it and hold it in public, but when they face a scandal that might affect them, they starve the inquiry of resources, hold it in private and will not even allow an interim report to be published?
    Ruth Kelly: I completely understand and sympathise with the position of policyholders at Equitable Life. I certainly understand the distress and indeed anger that they feel regarding some of the events that have occurred and their desire for a quick resolution and progress on the inquiry. However, I draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention the fact that this a judicial inquiry, headed by a senior Scottish judge who understandably wishes to produce an authoritative, thorough and accurate report of events dealing with the actions not only of the regulators, but of Equitable Life over a period spanning 50 years. That will necessarily take a significant time, although Lord Penrose is determined to proceed as quickly as possible.
    Mr. George Mudie: I appreciate that my hon. Friend shares the concern about the policyholders and understands the trauma that they are going through, especially those who are at retirement or approaching retirement. I appreciate also that the report will come through next summer, if it is on course. However, that seems a long time away. I wonder whether any discussions have taken place with the inquiry to ascertain whether additional resources could be made available to shorten the time that is taken. If not, will my hon. Friend make such an approach?
    Ruth Kelly: Lord Penrose is free to suggest any addition to resources that he feels is necessary. He has not requested more resources than he has currently

    389
    available to him. I would like to make a comparison with the ombudsman's inquiry, in which I know Members are interested. She says that her inquiry, which is focused only on the action of the Financial Services Authority over a two-year period, is so complex that she feels unable to give an authoritative account of that short period—that is inquiring into one of the actors—until at least June next year. It is appropriate to view Lord Penrose's progress in that context.
    Mr. Mark Field: I entirely accept the sincerity of what the Minister has had to say. All of us who have constituents who are faced with this appalling situation have great concern. However, what message does she have for current annuitants who have found themselves, only in recent weeks, being made aware of a 30 per cent. reduction in the pension on which they rely upon to live? I would be interested to know what message she has at this juncture, given the dire circumstances in which they find themselves. As has been said, we have many months to go until the Penrose inquiry finally reports.
    Ruth Kelly: The situation of with-profit-annuitants to which the hon. Gentleman refers is one that strikes a chord with many people who are, in a sense, locked in to Equitable Life and do not have the freedoms at their disposal that other categories of policyholders enjoy. However, I would point out the case that Equitable has made when it judged these decisions, together with the FSA. It is that with-profits-annuitants continued to enjoy quite a significant rise in their policy values when others were already experiencing cuts in their policies. So the recent cut was to bring them into line with the experience of other policyholders.
    We continue to work closely with the Inland Revenue to ascertain whether there is any way in which we can facilitate in general the transfer of annuitants from one company to another. That is not particularly in the case of Equitable Life, but for all annuitants who feel that their choice is a one-off decision made for life over which they have little control.
    Mr. Mark Prisk: When our constituents listen to our proceedings on this issue, they are aware of the ever-lengthening delays that have been mentioned and the lack of Government leadership. They find that combination soul-destroying. Yet the Government could give them immediate reassurance by making one clear commitment. It is that if the inquiry finds that the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry failed in their regulatory duty, will the Government provide policyholders and annuitants with appropriate compensation? Yes or no?
    Ruth Kelly: It would be ridiculous of me to pre-empt the potential findings of the inquiry. The important fact is that it was the Government who set up an independent judicial inquiry, headed by one of the most senior judges in Scotland, with commercial and accountancy experience in his background. That is what the policyholders were requesting. It is something that the Conservative party welcomed at the time.

    World Bank/IMF
    Brian White: If he will make a statement on how he monitors and measures the performance of the World Bank and IMF. [85256]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Through a British initiative, a new independent evaluation office, which monitors and measures the International Monetary Fund's performance was created last year. We also support the review of the poverty reduction strategies of the World Bank and the IMF. They replace the structural adjustment facility.
    Brian White: I welcome those changes. However, does my right hon. Friend accept that much of people's distrust of international organisations such as the IMF is based on their past practices, which were not open to The public? Will he help to ensure that such organisations are much more open and that the work of the independent evaluation office is much more widely known in this country?
    Mr. Brown: As my hon. Friend knows, when the IMF reported on the British economy, the reports were not normally published. All are now published, and I hope that every country will publish the reports that the IMF gives them. That is one method of increasing transparency and openness. It is also important to monitor the IMF to ascertain whether it is doing a good job. That is the purpose of the independent evaluation office.
    It is also crucial that the IMF and the World Bank work well together. That is why the structural adjustment facility, which was unpopular and, as my hon. Friend said, played a large part in annoying the poorest countries, has been replaced by poverty reduction strategies, under which the IMF and the World Bank must work together.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: I should have thought that the Chancellor was far too busy monitoring the Prime Minister's performance to find time to monitor that of the IMF. However, the IMF is certainly monitoring his performance and becoming increasingly unhappy about it. Does he therefore believe that our Prime Minister will follow the example of his other friend, President Bush, and sack his Treasury Minister?
    Mr. Brown: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman, who takes an interest in such matters, read the IMF report. It states that our
    "economic achievements are due, in no small measure, to the government's sound macroeconomic policies".
    It also states that the existing monetary framework has delivered impressive results. It goes on to praise the fiscal policy that the shadow Chancellor opposes.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Read on.
    Mr. Brown: I would be happy to read on, but Mr. Speaker will not allow me to do that, as I have found on previous occasions.

    391
    The IMF and I agree that we must be vigilant about excessive and inflationary wage claims. People must show the necessary responsibility so that we can maintain the low inflation and interest rates that are important to the economy's stability and growth. I hope that hon. Members of all parties agree that we must not allow inflationary wage claims to affect inflation or interest rates.
    Hugh Bayley: What support have the World Bank and the IMF given to the Chancellor's proposal for an international financing facility? Are they talking to the United States Administration about whether any of the additional $5 billion that they are putting into aid would be a contribution to my right hon. Friend's proposed new fund?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who has taken a long-standing interest in such matters. Important conversations, from the Government's point of view, about the new facility have taken place with the managing director of the IMF and the president of the World Bank. Both have given us a great deal of encouragement, but financing the facility depends on action by individual national Governments.
    I am encouraged by the responses from European Finance Ministers and the interest of the US Administration. We are at an early stage, but I believe that, with the support of the churches, nongovernmental organisations, business organisations and all parties, the British initiative, on an all-party basis, can make enormous progress with other countries around the world.

    Growth Forecasts
    Mr. Paul Goodman: What assessment he has made of the accuracy of Treasury growth forecasts over the last three years. [85257]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): Government forecasts are based on a realistic assessment of economic developments and prospects, and are broadly in line with the latest assessments from several leading independent forecasters. In recent years, GDP growth out-turns have tended slightly to exceed forecasts.
    Mr. Goodman: At the time of the Budget, the Government's growth forecast was 2.5 per cent., and it is now 1.5 per cent. Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that the Treasury's forecasts have been humiliated? Why were the independent forecasters right and Ministers wrong?
    Mr. Boateng: It was, in fact, 2 to 2.5 per cent. The underlying question that the hon. Gentleman needs to address—and the assumptions on which our economic forecasts are based—relates to the soundness of the underlying macro-economic policies that the Government have pursued. That is why we are able to read an IMF report, which says of our performance—
    Mr. Eric Forth: Selective.
    Mr. Boateng: No, it is not a question of being selective. This is continuing from where my right hon. Friend left off. The IMF report says:
    "As in the past, the Pre-Budget Report … provides a transparent and comprehensive account of the government's economic policies."
    Those policies are sound and on course, and we intend to stick with them.
    Fiona Mactaggart: How significant does my right hon. Friend find it that we have had a public sector surplus in four of the five years of this Labour Government, while the previous Conservative Government managed to achieve that in only four of their 18 years?
    Mr. Boateng: Very significant, it will surprise no one to know. We took some hard decisions in the early days of this Government—decisions that Conservative Members opposed—such as those relating to the independence of the Bank of England and to our public spending plans. Taking those decisions has put us in a position to weather the international storm.
    Mr. George Osborne: Will the Chief Secretary explain why the pre-Budget report summary leaflet that the Treasury has sent to the public to explain the pre-Budget report does not mention the fact that the growth forecasts were downgraded, or that any borrowing was going to take place? In fact, the only way to work out that there is going to be a deficit is to subtract one pie chart on the back of the leaflet from the other one.
    Mr. Boateng: The Chancellor announced all the figures in the course of his statement. The pre-Budget report is published as it is. The hon. Gentleman knows what is contained in tables A and B. He is merely pointing out the virtues of a summary.

    Small Businesses Insurance
    Tony Cunningham: What steps he is taking to protect small businesses from increases in insurance costs. [85258]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): The Government are aware—as are hon. Members on both sides of the House—of the recent rises in insurance premiums. Following wide discussions, including with the Treasury, the Department for Work and Pensions has now begun a formal review of the operation of employers' liability insurance, the consultation on which is to be completed by the end of February. On Tuesday this week, the Office of Fair Trading announced a fact-finding study into the wider market for liability insurance.
    Tony Cunningham: I met a constituent recently who has a climbing wall in Keswick. Last year, his insurance premium was £1,600; this year, it is more than £10,000.

    393
    I welcome the long-term review, but will the Minister tell the House what is being done in the short term to help constituents such as mine?
    John Healey: I recognise the importance of such firms in my hon. Friend's constituency and, more broadly, in Cumbria. The Government cannot, of course, intervene in relation to the terms and conditions of insurance policies or in individual cases. The Department for Work and Pensions is conducting its review, and the Government have also emphasised to the Association of British Insurers the importance of the problem that my hon. Friend has starkly illustrated. The association is now working closely with brokers, business bodies and trade associations to maximise the availability of affordable insurance for precisely the kind of firm that my hon. Friend has described. He might like to encourage his constituent to investigate that matter further.
    Mr. David Heath: Does the hon. Gentleman not understand the urgency of this?
    394
    Businesses in my constituency and across the country are having to cease trading because they simply cannot get the insurance that the law requires them to have. In cases in which there is a requirement for insurance and none is available, do not the Government have a responsibility to provide a form of insurance of last resort?
    John Healey: Of course, the Government appreciate the problem. Every Member of the House has such firms in their constituency. I say again that it is not the Government's position to intervene in individual terms and conditions of insurance policies, or in individual cases. That is why we have been working with the Association of British Insurers to encourage it to take the action that it is taking. That is precisely the way in which we try to tackle these problems. If the hon. Gentleman has firms in his constituency that are in that position, I recommend that he suggest that they contact their trade associations, their professional bodies or the ABI, because that is the way in which we are trying to tackle the problem.

Business of the House
12.30 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The business of the House for next week is as follows:
MONDAY 16 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Hunting Bill.
TUESDAY 17 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill.
WEDNESDAY 18 DECEMBER—Consideration in Committee of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill.
THURSDAY 19 DECEMBER—Motion on the Christmas recess Adjournment.
FRIDAY 20 DECEMBER—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week after the Christmas recess will include:
TUESDAY 7 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Local Government Bill.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for the first two weeks following the Christmas recess will be—
THURSDAY 9 JANUARY—Debate on Housing Benefit Reform.
THURSDAY 16 JANUARY—Debate on the E-Transformation of Public Services.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will make a statement on the Government's pensions Green Paper next Tuesday.
Members will notice that this week we have experimented with the recommendation of the Modernisation Committee that ministerial statements should be distributed in the Chamber after the Minister has sat down. I hope that that has been a help to Members.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for letting us have the business for next week. Is not it now time that we had an urgent debate on blind trusts, which seem neither blind nor trustworthy? If blind trusts are to have a role in public life, surely at the very least we should be absolutely certain that the beneficiaries neither know what is going on nor have any control over what is going on, if indeed that is the object of the exercise. We need a debate to clear up who defines the role of blind trusts and who polices them, because if figures in public life are to resort to such things it is vital that we all trust them. As that seems sadly no longer to be the case, we must deal with this issue responsibly and urgently.
Not unrelated to that matter, it is time that we had a proper look at the ministerial code, which is supposed to provide a framework for the ethical conduct of Ministers. Is not the code written by the Prime Minister, policed by the Prime Minister and monitored by the Cabinet Secretary, who is appointed by the Prime Minister and reports to the Prime Minister? Is not there
396
a circularity about that? If we are to have trust in Government, we should be able to trust something as key as the ministerial code. I hope that the Leader of the House will give us a proper debate on this issue so that we can sort it out and restore some integrity to the Government.
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister whether we could have an independent inquiry into, among other things, the ministerial code, the abuse of the civil service that seems to have taken place recently and the role of the No. 10 spin machine. To our astonishment, the Prime Minister said:
"all questions have been properly answered." —[Official Report, 11 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 247.]
Even if that were the case yesterday, today there have been some startling revelations in a newspaper familiar to the Leader of the House—none other than The Scotsman, which is not regarded as a bête noire of No. 10.
Mr. George Foulkes: Andrew Neil.
Mr. Forth: At least, I did not realise that it was. As far as I know, it is not one of the usual suspects. If Labour Members are telling us that The Scotsman has now been added to the lengthening list of newspapers that they want to ignore in all circumstances, that is another fact that we should add to this ghastly mix.
If the Prime Minister will not set up an inquiry, will the Leader of the House tell us who will? Otherwise, these matters, which are disturbing the public as well as hon. Members, will go on and on indefinitely, and that does neither the Government nor this country any good.
Mr. Cook: I shall endeavour to restore some sanity and perspective to this matter, although after the last week or two I appreciate the great difficulty of doing so.
Let me deal first with the narrow question of blind trusts. Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously arguing that a Minister is not entitled to use his assets to purchase a flat for his son or daughter to live in while at university? That was the implication of his question. The right hon. Gentleman said that the beneficiaries should not know what was going on. Is he seriously arguing that the trustees should have purchased a flat in Bristol and refused to tell the Blairs where their son was going to live? Is that really what he is trying to tell us?
The right hon. Gentleman is of course right to say that these questions have been answered before. They are answered in a letter from the Cabinet Secretary to one of his colleagues, in which the Cabinet Secretary rightly points out:
"Ministers' ownership of one or more family homes has never been seen as creating a conflict of interest".
As for the allegations in The Scotsman, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is aware—although he did not mention it—that Carole Caplin made a statement this morning rebutting some of them, and I understand that the others are being rebutted even as we speak. [Interruption.] Of course they are being rebutted. They are being rebutted by respected press officers in the civil service—career civil servants.
After two weeks of poring over this matter, no one has established that Mrs. Blair has done anything improper or illegal. If she stands accused of anything, it is trying

397
to provide secure accommodation for her son so that he can attend university, and being a loyal friend. Those are things for which many married women up and down the country will applaud her. They will not join in the cheapjack attempts to make party political capital out of families.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we can proceed to political matters, and not bring families on to the Floor of the House.
Mr. Paul Tyler: I want to refer to the much wider issue of the use of civil servants to deal with what are not properly Government matters. I hope the Leader of the House will now be able to tell us when he expects to present legislation relating to the civil service, and when he expects to receive the report from the Wicks committee on the use of political advisers and the way in which some civil servants seem to have been put in a difficult position in the political process.
I also want to refer to an issue that has arisen many times before at this point in the week: the fact that the media seem to be informed about important Government statements before Members of Parliament. Today, the media clearly received the strategy for sustainable farming and food, the Government's response to the Curry report, long before it was available to Members. Indeed, we were given press statements from the National Farmers Union before we saw documents that are extremely important for this afternoon's debate. Will the Leader of the House think about that again?
I hope that the Leader of the House has had time during his busy week to look at the first report of the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform, signed by 24 Members of both Houses. If he has, I hope that he noted that we have disposed of the argument that a second Chamber with a substantially elected element automatically challenges the pre-eminence of this House. That myth has gone for good.
When does the Leader of the House expect a debate to take place in the two Houses, and when does he expect us to be able to vote on certain options relating to the composition of the second Chamber. When that happens, if the two Houses choose a different option, will the decision of the elected Members of this House—which everyone keeps telling us must be pre-eminent—prevail?
Mr. Cook: The Wicks report is a matter for the Wicks committee, not for me. I have no information on when the committee might be able to report, but we will consider carefully whatever observations it may make about the civil service, and the possible implications for legislation.
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about statements coming to the House first. We have tried hard to ensure that that happens, and I think that hon. Members will accept that there have been some improvements. However, it has been common practice for a long time for reports that will become public to be
398
available on an embargoed basis to those bodies most likely to be approached for comment. I think that it would have been wrong for the Government to have sought to conceal it from the National Farmers Union, but we will certainly try to ensure that this House is the first place where any document goes public.
On the second Chamber, I welcome the report of the Joint Committee; I congratulate it on having achieved its own deadline and on the effort that has gone into the report's preparation. I particularly welcome the fact that one of the first criteria that the Committee identifies as appropriate to a second Chamber is legitimacy. Legitimacy in the modern world is served by representative character, and one way of securing a representative character is by having an elected element.
We naturally wish to proceed with a debate on the report as soon as is practical; I anticipate such a debate taking place in January. There will, of course, be a free vote in both Houses. It is consistent with our commitment to a free vote that both Houses may come to a different conclusion. However, I do not think that it would help the temper of the debate or be diplomatic of me to suggest which view should prevail in those circumstances.
Mr. Paul Truswell: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the mounting concern across the nation created by the operation of some claims management organisations that aggressively tout for business on the so-called no win, no fee basis? During his busy life, has he managed to see any of the excellent exposés by the BBC's "Watchdog" and "The Money Programme" that demonstrate how the unscrupulous activities of such organisations cost taxpayers and businesses millions of pounds? Is it not time for an urgent debate in the House to examine where we draw the line between giving people with limited resources the opportunity to pursue legitimate claims while curbing the cancer of cynically touted and, in some cases, bogus claims?
Mr. Cook: I hear what my hon. Friend says and am glad that he has been able to put those observations on the record. I share his anxiety at our society's increasing trend to become more litigious. I believe that the people who are most likely to gain are those who make their livelihood from pursuing claims rather than the innocent people on either side of the case.
In some cases, the no win, no fee arrangement may be appropriate. I acknowledge that many people have been enabled to appear in court on the basis of just such arrangements. However, my broad experience of the legal profession is that whoever makes money out of a case, it usually includes the lawyers.
Dr. Julian Lewis: May we have a statement or a debate on the preparedness of this country for terrorist assault on the basis that we may have to face, unexpectedly, attack by means of chemical or biological weapons? As part of that debate, may we consider what, if anything, remains of the former civil defence arrangements for facing the threat of attack by nuclear weapons, what remains of the doctrine that was then in place and what it is wise to confide to the public, bearing it in mind that despite recent remarks about the

399
wish not to create panic, the British public is rather good about not panicking when they are told the facts and the dangers that they have to face?
Mr. Cook: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the calm and stoicism of the British public. I wish that those sterling British qualities were more often demonstrated by the press that sells to the British public. On defence against such an attack, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that several measures have been put in hand to strengthen those protections and make sure that we are up to speed. I am not sure, however, that a sensible way of approaching such a debate would be to go back to the historic arrangements and see whether there should be a natural continuum. The historic arrangements for civil defence were put in place when we anticipated a possible major attack by another major state power armed with substantial nuclear arsenals and other weapons. That threat has receded in the modern era. We are faced with a quite new and, until recently, unanticipated threat of a major attack by a terrorist organisation that is a non-state actor. That certainly puts an obligation on the Government to ensure that they are in a good position to protect the public, but it is a different threat and may require different solutions.
Mr. Kevin Barron: Can my right hon. Friend arrange for an emergency debate—or, better, a statement from a Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry—about the situation of the deep-mine coal industry? Maltby colliery in my constituency is under threat, primarily because of the cheap coal coming into Europe from different parts of the world. We cannot compete with that, and frankly, the investment aid programme now being touted by the DTI will not help in any way whatever. We need a reintroduction of the operational aid for Maltby and other collieries in the same situation. We are about to lose 30 million tonnes of reserves: great assets for this country that will be locked away for ever if action is not taken quickly.
Mr. Cook: I entirely understand the enormous importance of this issue to my right hon. Friend's constituents, as well as the importance of deep mine coal to our country's long-term strategic energy resources. I will draw his remarks to the attention of Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry and ensure that they respond.
Andrew Selous: Will it be possible to have a debate in the near future on immigration and asylum policy? I, for one, am extremely concerned at the letters that I am receiving, across the political spectrum, from people saying that they might be tempted to vote for extreme parties because the issue is not being taken seriously by the mainstream political parties. The figures are worrying. Sir Andrew Green mentioned 250,000 people a year coming into this country. The problem is especially severe in the southeast, where there is great pressure on housing.
Mr. Cook: I do not think that any serious observer could argue that either the Government or the Opposition have failed to take seriously the issue of asylum and migration, which has certainly been a major element of debate and legislation in the House, and has
400
been a high priority for the Government. Through our actions, we have shortened the time taken to reach an initial decision on an asylum application, and we have increased the rate at which failed applicants are removed from the country.
We are faced with a change across the whole of Europe, and it must be said that our actions compare reasonably favourably with the statistics for other European countries. We especially welcome the fact that the number of illegals arriving at Dover has dropped dramatically over the past few months. We will certainly continue to do all that we can, partly because it is an important issue but partly also because of the point that the hon. Gentleman made: this serious matter, which we must address soberly and with priority, should not become the basis for the election of extremist parties, which would bring much hardship and injustice—which would have nothing to do with asylum and migration—to the nation and to those who vote for them. With that in mind, it is important that those of us who raise this issue should also stress our personal commitment to ensuring that we have in Britain a tolerant and open multicultural society.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is the Leader of the House aware that today is the last day on which the House of Commons can object to a minute laid by the Secretary of State for Transport offering a very considerable indemnity to London Underground in order, he says, to get one of the tube contracts signed by 31 December? We have a foreshortened time to debate the subject, and it seems odd that one contract should take precedence over all the others. Will he ask the Secretary of State to come here and explain what is so urgent, why this has happened and why we have not been given the normal time in which to object to the contents of the minute?
Mr. Cook: No, I will not ask the Secretary of State to come and make such a statement. This issue has been before the House for a number of years and has been repeatedly debated. I have said from the Dispatch Box several times, as has my right hon. Friend, that what is necessary for the people of London is to get a modernised underground system with the substantial investment that is there waiting for it. Frankly, if it is necessary for us to take such steps to remove barriers that have been put in the way by those who are responsible for London transport, it is important that we should do so. I cannot believe that people outside this place who use the underground would share my hon. Friend's view that we should do anything that would hold up that investment.
Pete Wishart: Given the encouraging remarks by the Minister for Europe in last night's European Union debate about the Foreign Secretary's now intending to discuss the crisis in the fishing industry with the Prime Minister before this weekend's European summit, can the Leader of the House confirm that that crisis will be placed squarely on the agenda over the weekend and that the Prime Minister will do everything that he can to ensure that it is addressed?
Mr. Cook: In my experience of European summits, there are two ways in which the agenda can be progressed. One is within the formal Chamber, and the other, which is sometimes more satisfactory, is at the

401
margins. There will doubtless be discussions about this matter at the Copenhagen summit. As I have repeatedly said before, we must not lose sight of the root problem, which is that cod stocks are collapsing. They must be managed and conserved, and if there are no fish left in the sea, there will be no fishing either.
Mr. George Foulkes: The Leader of the House told us that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will make an oral statement next week. Can he assure us that outcome of the consultation on the size of the Scottish Parliament will be announced as an oral statement in this House next week?
Mr. Cook: I can assure my right hon. Friend that I am well aware of the interest in this matter—indeed, I take a close interest in it myself—and I anticipate that the House will wish to hear by means of an oral statement the outcome of the review.
Mr. Andrew Mackay: Does the Leader of the House accept that his disingenuous response on the issue of blind trusts will be deeply unacceptable to most people in this country? There is considerable uncertainty, in that the Prime Minister has one idea of blind trusts, and the rest of the country has another. The matter therefore needs to be clarified by a statement by the Prime Minister, from the Dispatch Box, on blind trusts. Finally, does the Leader of the House accept that two flats were involved, and that the second flat constituted a speculative investment that it was quite wrong to make from a blind trust?
Mr. Cook: I would not characterise my reply as disingenuous—frankly, I thought it was passionate and blunt.
Mr. Forth: It was both.
Mr. Cook: It was both passionate and blunt. Mr. Forth: And disingenuous.
Mr. Cook: I do not accept that it was disingenuous. What is the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) saying—that the Blair family were not entitled to have access to their funds in order to provide accommodation for their son to attend university; or is he seriously arguing that the Government's whole housing and economic policy would be warped if they purchased one flat for renting? If he is labouring under such a delusion, he should look at the letter from the Cabinet Secretary, which explicitly rebuts that allegation. I come back to the—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I say again that we are treading on the area of the family, and, with the greatest respect to the Leader of the House, I do not want this to happen on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the past week another startling announcement was made about Members of Parliament that has been largely ignored by the press? I am referring
402
to the publication of the Register of Members' Interests. If he has time to read it, he will be shocked to learn that one Tory MP is picking up probably £200,000, and another—the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer—is getting more than £100,000. I have already mentioned the previous Tory leader, and another half a dozen Tories are making more than £75,000. People out there are not too concerned about blind trusts; they are concerned about the fact that it is high time that we had legislation to insist that Members of Parliament be well paid, and have one job and one job only.
Mr. Cook: I am very glad that my hon. Friend has been able to put the record straight about the omission of these very important facts. I hope that his contribution will be given greater prominence tomorrow than those concerning the Prime Minister and his family.
On legislation to ensure that MPs have only one job, we have always—
Mr. Forth: What about Ministers?
Mr. Cook: Ministers are constrained already in terms of what they can undertake. They are Ministers of the Crown, who are answerable here. If the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that MPs should cease to be MPs when they become Ministers, we will end up with a sad Parliament indeed. Ultimately, this is a matter for Members. Most important of all, it is for their constituents to decide whether they wish to re-elect them.
Mr. Paul Burstow: I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 78, which concerns the postponement of Criminal Records Bureau checks on more than 300,000 carers who are meant to be caring for vulnerable adults. It states:
[That this House agrees with the Home Secretary that the function of the Criminal Records Bureau is to reduce the risk of abuse by ensuring that those who are unsuitable are not able to work with children and vulnerable adults; deeply regrets the decision of the Home Office and Department of Health to postpone criminal records checks on 300,000 care home staff agency nurses, agency domiciliary care staff residential family centres, and adoption centres; is concerned that the establishment of the Protection of Vulnerable Adults list has been postponed indefinitely; believes that in reducing demand for CRB checks Ministers have put the lives of vulnerable people at risk; further believes that this announcement should have been made by way of a statement in the House, not as a written answer in the House of Lords on a Friday afternoon; calls on the Home Secretary to make a statement on this matter; and further calls on the Home Secretary to publish the report of the Carter Inquiry into the Criminal Records Bureau and Capita.]
May we have a statement on, or an opportunity to debate, the progress of the CRB, not least to obtain an explanation from the Home Office as to why it has so far taken more than a month to answer questions that I tabled as a result of a written statement made in the House of Lords on a Friday, when there was no other opportunity for Members to scrutinise it?
Mr. Cook: We have repeatedly said that the performance of the Criminal Records Bureau has been unacceptable, and that is why we have taken steps to ensure that we increase its throughput. There has been a substantial rise in the number of cases that it is capable of clearing per week, and we will continue to work to clear the backlog. It is entirely sensible and rational that, faced with the CRB's inability to cope with current demand, we should establish priorities. It is very important to ensure that the CRB's priority is to focus on those who have access to children, to ensure that they are protected. When we have secured that priority, we can move on to the other cases.
Mr. Bill O'Brien: Will my right hon. Friend find time for the House to debate the work of the Child Support Agency? The promised review of the implementation of its procedures is more than 12 months overdue. Some 30 per cent. of families who are entitled to maintenance are not receiving it, thereby causing greater poverty among children. When the Department for Work and Pensions is asked for explanations, it has little to offer. If the CSA were a local government body, it would be charged with failing its responsibilities, and the Government would threaten to send in private operators. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time that this House was allowed to debate the work of the CSA, with a view to improving its efficiency?
Mr. Cook: It is of course open to hon. Members to pursue any matter of concern to them through the many avenues available in this House, and to raise such issues if they feel that their constituents have been particularly badly treated by the CSA. However, I should remind my hon. Friend that one of the first pieces of legislation that we introduced was concerned with trying to ensure that the CSA was better able to perform its job. Since then, there has been some improvement in its performance, and I have noted that the number of complaints in my own constituency has declined. On the issue of principle, we fully agree that those who are legitimately and legally liable to maintain their children should be obliged to do so.
Bob Spink: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the so-called Cliffe airport consultation, so that Ministers can explain to the House why they refuse flatly to attend a public meeting in my constituency, which I am prepared to arrange for them, to explain this Labour proposal; so that they can explain why they flatly refuse to answer my parliamentary written questions on this issue; and so that they can explain why they flatly refuse to reject the "crosswind" runway option, which will result in the over-flying of Canvey island, Hadleigh and Leigh-on-Sea 24 hours a day?
Mr. Cook: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has now secured a very comfortable paragraph in his local paper through that intervention; that of course is the important function of the House of Commons. I understand entirely his concern, and he will doubtless welcome the fact that there are now an additional four months in which this matter can be debated and
404
examined. I am familiar with the area that he refers to, and I fully understand the powerful environmental considerations.
Keith Vaz: May we have time for an emergency debate on the lack of co-ordination between the former public utilities? Last week, hundreds of thousands of gallons of water entered the gas main in the Belgrave area of Leicester, causing 1,500 people to be without heating for several days. It is astonishing that no formal mechanism exists to enable Severn Trent to talk to Transco and to East Midlands Electricity, now Powergen. I know that this problem is the result of privatisation that was undertaken by the previous Government, but it is important that we have a debate, so that we can formalise the relationship, so that my constituents will not have to face any more days without heating, and so that they can get compensation from one of the statutory authorities.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises a very valid issue, and many of us will have similar experiences. In my own constituency, a repair to the electricity supply in the street resulted in the loss of the water supply, and the repair to the water pipe resulted in the loss of the gas main. I therefore fully understand, and sympathise with, the position of his constituents. I shall consider the point that he makes, and invite Ministers to reflect on whether a more legal remedy could be made available to those who suffer interruption.
Miss Anne McIntosh: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the inside cover of today's Order Paper regarding forthcoming Westminster Hall Adjournment debates? I hesitate to ask whether a genuine mistake has been made or whether there has been an inadvertent change of procedure about which the House was not advised, but I note that subjects can be requested only from certain Departments, one of which is that of the Advocate-General. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that I have made it my mission in this Parliament to hold the Advocate-General to account. I hold the hon. and learned Lady in the highest regard but as she appears unable or unwilling to answer on any particular issue at Question Time, what will she do during a whole half-hour Adjournment debate? Where is the right of an individual Member of Parliament to table the Adjournment debate of their choice—perhaps on an issue that is topical in their constituency—rather than having to ask for a debate on a subject answerable only by those particular Departments?
Mr. Cook: If I apprehend the end of the hon. Lady's question, she was referring to the new procedure recommended by the Modernisation Committee and on which we voted in October, which provides that debates in Westminster Hall will follow a weekly rota. The delay involved for any one Department is thus only a week. There was unanimous agreement among all parties in the Committee and the recommendation was not disputed in the House.
The change does not in any way remove the exposure of Ministers to debate in Westminster Hall, nor does it reduce the right of Back Benchers to seek debates. It means only that they have to fall in with a fortnightly

405
rota, which will ensure that they can hold their debate within two weeks. In all the circumstances, that is not unreasonable.
Mr. Ian Davidson: Will my right hon. Friend make time for an early debate to assess whether the five economic tests to join the euro have already been met? I ask because, today, the Labour Movement for Europe, which is widely seen as a Government front organisation, stated that the tests have already been met, thus calling into question the integrity of the Treasury's assessment. Will my right hon. Friend also tell us whether the Government's position, which we could discuss in such a debate, is that:
"If we don't have a referendum next year, Britain ain't going to be in the euro for eight years at least"?
Is that the Government's position, and does the Leader of the House accept or repudiate it?
Mr. Cook: I do not understand the eight-year calculation that my hon. Friend has just announced—indeed, I am almost tempted to hold a debate in order that he might explain that slightly surprising conclusion. The Labour Movement for Europe speaks for itself; it does not speak for the Government. When the Treasury has carried out an assessment of the five economic tests, I am sure that it will want to tell us.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: The Leader of the House is obviously aware of the growing crisis in the small firms sector as a result of soaring liability insurance premiums. What does he say to a south-coast firm in the insulation business that requires cover of £5 million to secure contracts from its regular customers? This year, the business was able to secure cover of only £l million at a cost of £8,000, whereas last year £12,000 bought cover of £10 million. The small firms sector needs immediate action, not a report that may come out in four or five months.
Mr. Cook: I understand the urgency of the issue and the impatience of those who are affected. However, to be fair, we cannot take action until we are clear about the best action to solve the problem. That is why the Chancellor indicated in the pre-Budget report that we were carrying out a short review. It will not be of immense length—it will not take minutes and last years. It is important that before we take action we should consider carefully whether it is right, but no one on the Government Benches underestimates the importance or the urgency of the situation.
Fiona Mactaggart: I welcome the circulation of written statements when they are made to the House. I also welcome my right hon. Friend's statement that we will have an early opportunity to debate the report published yesterday on House of Lords reform. At the end of the debate, will we be able to vote on the seven options set out by the Joint Committee, or does my right hon. Friend plan to separate the votes from the debate itself' Will we have an opportunity to vote on the peculiar suggestion that we need at least 600 Members in the second Chamber?
Mr. Cook: All parts of the report will be available for debate and I am sure that hon. Members will want to
406
express their views on each paragraph. My hon. Friend identifies one issue on which the House will certainly hold divided views.
As regards arrangements for the vote, it is important that both Chambers try to march together when taking their decisions. We shall need to hold consultations and discussions on the matter. I note that the report suggests that initially there should be a take-note debate that is open and that there should be a subsequent opportunity for a Division, which would, presumably, be separated by a period of time from the actual debate. Obviously, we shall give close consideration to that recommendation and we shall consult the other place in order to find a common way forward.
Richard Younger-Ross: Will the Leader of the House find time to read early-day motion 270?
[That this House welcomes the launch of Action for Blind People's new campaigning group, People in Action and their first campaign, Work, Rest and Play, which will work to challenge inequality, promote social inclusion and change attitudes about blind and partially-sighted people; supports Action for Blind People in its mission to 'inspire change and create opportunities to enable blind and partially sighted people to have equal voice and equal choice'; believes that the services provided by Action for Blind People in the areas of work, housing, leisure and support enable blind and partially sighted people to transform their lives; and calls on the Government to address inequality and inconsistent provision, to promote opportunity and choice for all blind and partially-sighted people and to raise awareness of the issues affecting visually impaired people.]
It welcomes the campaign by the charity, Action for Blind People, to emphasise the difficulties faced by blind people, in particular the fact that the unemployment rate for blind people is 75 per cent. May we have a ministerial statement on what the Government plan to do about that?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue that is of real and immediate concern to many of our constituents. We understand the difficulties that people who suffer from any form of disadvantage face in securing employment, and that particularly embraces those in the blind community. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are committed to equality of opportunity and to trying to ensure that there is no discrimination, for whatever reason, against people seeking employment in the work force. We shall certainly consider ways in which we can be of assistance in trying to reduce the disturbing figure cited by the hon. Gentleman.
John Cryer: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the full and final report by George Bain on the firefighters' dispute will be published on 16 December. May we have a guarantee that the Deputy Prime Minister will make a statement on the Floor of the House so that we can question him about the final Bain report?
Mr. Cook: The Government attach the greatest importance to the Bain review and to the final report and we look forward with great interest to its conclusions. Of course, we fully understand that the

407
House will want to hold a full exchange of views about the report. To be fair to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, he has always shown willingness to make statements on the issue to the House. No one could fault him on his willingness to come to the House to give an account of the Government's position and to ensure that it is kept fully informed.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the report commissioned by the Prime Minister and published by the strategy unit in September, entitled "Private Action, Public Benefit"? It examines the law and regulatory structure for the charitable sector. Charitable purposes were last defined in statute about 400 years ago, so the report has been widely welcomed. The consultation period finishes at the end of this month, so will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on the report, in Government time, so that the Government can take the mind of those Members on both sides of the House who, for obvious reasons, have considerable expertise in such matters? I am sure that such a debate would result in a better end to the consultation process.
Mr. Cook: I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's view that it is time that we addressed both law and convention on charities, which require modernisation. I regret that I cannot possibly offer time for a debate on the issue before the end of the month as there are only five sitting days left. However, the subject could usefully be ventilated in the debate on the motion for the Christmas recess and if the hon. Gentleman would like to do so, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be delighted to respond.
Mr. David Chaytor: This week, the Audit Commission published its comprehensive performance assessment of local authorities. May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the grievance felt by some local authorities, not least my own—Bury metropolitan district council—about the final grading that they received? Authorities are concerned not only about the grading itself but also about the discrepancies between the final grading and the written report that accompanied the CPA. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the enormous growth industry in auditing and inspection regimes for local authorities, national health service trusts and further education colleges, as well as the continuing work of Ofsted in the schools sector, there is an argument for a public debate on the way in which the Government deal with the audit and inspection functions and on the criteria that are used in those inspections?
Mr. Cook: I would not have the temerity to comment on the individual results of my hon. Friend's local authority. I can fully understand that, from time to time, local people will feel that they would have reached a different judgment. Having said that, we should not lose sight of the fact that the overall result of that survey was positive. Indeed, I think that I heard the spokesman for the National Audit Office say this morning that 60 per cent. of all councils were either good or excellent,
408
and those of us who are strongly committed to the health of local government must take some encouragement from such a positive result.
Mr. Mark Field: I know that you are a keen reader of the Bible, Mr. Speaker, so I rest assured that, one day, the last will be first—[Interruption]—but perhaps I should not bank on it.
In view of the story in The Times today about the continuing catalogue of incompetence at the Office for National Statistics, will the Leader of the House pledge to allow a statement on the continuing controversy that surrounds the 2001 census figures, which play a very important part in ensuring that some of the most vulnerable people, particularly in our inner cities, have proper public services?
Mr. Cook: As I recall my Bible, the day on which the last shall be first was judgment day, and I would not suggest that the hon. Gentleman should wish to rush forward to that day.
Of course the census is a valuable tool for public policy, but it should not be the only tool; there are other ways in which we can ensure that we adequately reflect the needs of vulnerable people in our inner cities.
Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to refer to the abuse of business questions. As you know, this is a very important opportunity to cross-question the Leader of the House about the next week's business. The shadow Leader of the House did not even make a pretence of asking anything about next week's business or, indeed, any business of the House. Instead, he used it as a gratuitous opportunity to attack the Prime Minister and his family. That is an abuse of business questions, the like of which I and, I bet, you, Mr. Speaker, have not seen in our 23 years in the House. I seriously hope that you will look into that and insist that questions relate to the business of the House next week.
Mr. Speaker: As always, there is a loophole in the procedures of the House. I think that I heard the shadow Leader of the House ask for a debate. As a debate was requested, the shadow Leader of the House was in order. The right side of the line is all right for me.

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

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  That the draft Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 25th November, be approved. —[Mr. Woolas.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  Northern Ireland
  That the draft Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 25th November, be approved. —[Mr. Woolas.]
  Question agreed to.

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
[Relevant documents: the Ninth Report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Session 2001–02, on The Future of UK Agriculture in a Changing World (House of Commons Paper No. 550I), and the First Report from the Environmental Audit Committee, Session 2002–03, on Pesticides: The Voluntary Initiative (HC 100).
Minutes of Evidence taken before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Foot and Mouth Disease 2001: Lessons to be Learned Inquiry, 23 July 2002 (Session 2001–02, HC 1144); The Royal Society Inquiry into Infectious Diseases in Livestock, 16 October 2002 (Session 2001–02, HC 1227); and Government Response to the Foot and Mouth Inquiry Reports and other matters arising, 21 November 2002 (Session 2002–03, HC 111).]
Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
1.13 pm
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the Government's commitment to sustainable development, balancing environmental, economic and social aims both domestically and globally; commends its drive to promote thriving rural economies and communities, including a vibrant food and farming sector, that protects and ensures the sustainable use of the environment, as well as contributing to productivity; applauds the launch on 12th December of the Government's Sustainable Farming and Food Strategy; further welcomes the Government's commitment in its response to the Foot and Mouth Disease Inquiry reports to a massive programme of work and reform; recognises the substantial strides the Government is making in tackling climate change, and the leading role it played at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in securing global commitments to tackle poverty through sustainable development, such as halving the number of people without access to adequate sanitation; further welcomes its focus on the sustainable and efficient use of the urban and rural environment and the need to work with business to promote the country's competitive advantage by embracing and leading internationally on green technologies, landscapes and the countryside for all to enjoy and benefit from, its commitment to animal welfare and its focus on evidence-based policy-making and science; and urges the Government to make continuing progress in advancing global environmental priorities, including radical reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, not least as part of the UK's commitment to reducing poverty and hunger in developing countries, to the World Trade Organisation, and to further cuts in carbon emissions worldwide.
The overriding purpose of my Department is the pursuit of sustainable development—the balancing of economic, social and environmental concerns—but there is supposed to be an old Chinese curse that runs, "May you live in interesting times", and the Department was certainly set up in interesting times, with the worst outbreak of foot and mouth disease that the world has ever seen still not overcome.
For the past 18 months, its officials and Ministers have been striving to create a new Department, with sustainable development at its core, which is outward-looking, open in its dealings, ready to recognise and to change where we get things wrong, and capable of forward thinking, while still dealing effectively with the day-to-day.
410
The Department already has much of which it can be proud. We head the interdepartmental team that did so much to broker success in the climate change negotiations, particularly those in Bonn and Marrakesh. We maintained and reinforced the Government's reputation as a leading player in sustainable development at the world summit in Johannesburg and began to mainstream it in Government policy here at home—with, for example, the Treasury's agreement to make sustainable development a key component of the Government's approach to the recent spending review and, with the agreement of the Office of Government Commerce, to look at sustainable procurement across the Government.
Just as when pressing for rural-proofing, much of our work as a Department is of necessity bound up with the policy work and, indeed, the budgets of other Departments, so it is essential that we work effectively and co-operatively with them; and we are doing so, as, for instance, the Department of Trade and Industry's recent announcement about rural post offices showed. However, in DEFRA itself, we are working to give effect to the principles of sustainability.
So today we have published the Government's response to the Curry commission, setting out our approach to a sustainable farming and food industry and, of course, drawing to a close the final stages of the response to the disease outbreak, through the three strands of the inquiry process, to each of which the Government have now responded, with the publication of our report today and, of course, setting out some of the forward work before us.
We are the custodians of the rural White Paper, which was first published in November 2000 and set demanding standards for the improvement of services for rural England and for the rural economy. The White Paper contains some 260 commitments to action, half of which have been delivered, with the rest ongoing or on course for delivery in the future. However, I want to ensure that we are doing enough to deliver on the White Paper's main purpose: to try to transform the rural economy and rural services, so we are setting in train measures to deal with our programme of such work.
Since 1998, there has been a formal presumption against the closure of rural schools. On average, five a year are now approved for closure, compared with an average of 30 a year between 1983 and 1997. Some £450 million over three years has been committed to support the rural post office network. Some £239 million has been allocated over the three years to 2004 for rural transport services, including £70 million a year on rural buses, with some 1,800 new or improved bus routes in England. Much more remains to be done, such as providing more affordable homes in rural areas and supplying an enhanced health care service, to name but two.
Although rural communities and the rural economy are not synonymous with the welfare of farming and food, over three quarters of the United Kingdom's landmass today is given over to agricultural use, and there are clear interactions between farming and the rural economy, farming and the landscape, as well as farming and the environment. The wider environment itself encompasses a huge range of domestic and international issues, stretching from water and air

411
quality in the United Kingdom to desertification and access to clean water across the globe—issues to which I shall return.
Andrew George (St. Ives): I was pleased to have the opportunity to pick up the three documents in response to the Curry commission report from the Vote Office at a quarter past 11, after the press, the National Farmers Union and other bodies had already been able to comment on them. Which of all the detailed responses in those documents would the Secretary of State say would deal with the problem that more farmers have left the industry in past year than in any year since the second world war? The structural problems of farming are resulting in large numbers of farmers leaving the industry.
Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman invites me to tell him in one word or a phrase what the entire content of the documents is. May I take this opportunity to say that I am sorry if he did not get the documents until 11.30? I do not know whether he checked the board, but the documents should have been sent to him and the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman earlier this morning.
Andrew George: I did not get them.
Margaret Beckett: I apologise for that. Something must have gone wrong with the delivery, but we endeavoured to ensure, having issued a written statement at 9.30, that certain key players received copies, and I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if the system fell down in some way.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that, of course, there have been dramatic changes in the past 50 years, but everyone recognises that change in the industry now has to take place. We set out a range of measures in the documents and the back-up analysis to which he refers, and I shall say a little more about that in a moment.
Mr. James Paice: Before the previous intervention, the Secretary of State referred to the Government's overall view of the agricultural landscape of this country, and the role that the agriculture industry plays within it. Having quickly perused the documents to which reference has just been made, I recognise the Government's commitment in terms of a viable agricultural industry. Does she envisage—this does not seem to appear in the document—a reduction in the amount of the land area of this country used for farming? Does she envisage land coming out of agriculture and being used for other purposes to any significant extent?
Margaret Beckett: I am tempted to say that it depends. I emphasise that I do not have any kind of master plan, blueprint or theoretical view of the number or size of farms that should exist. I know that that was not what the hon. Gentleman was implying, but it is important to put that on the record. As we develop the countryside stewardship scheme, and as we pilot the new agri-environment scheme—the broad and shallow scheme to which the Curry commission referred—it is entirely possible that marginal land in particular, which is now used, for example, for growing crops, might be
412
used for flood plain alleviation, wetland creation or a range of other things. The answer to him, therefore, is that such a change is possible, but that does not mean that it will not contribute to the welfare of the individual farm business or the wider rural community.
The latest statistics suggest some improvement in some farm incomes. We fully accept, however, that there are many and continuing problems in farming and food, and that the Government should do what they can, in their own proper sphere, to assist in overcoming those problems. I say that deliberately because, particularly in this place—understandably—there is a tendency for people to talk as if the whole responsibility for the welfare of food and farming rests on the shoulders of the Government. That is not, of course, the case: the future of the industry, like the future of the individual businesses within it, is primarily in its own hands, but there is a role and a place for Government to help and support, and we shall do our best to deliver our side of the bargain.
Mr. David Curry: Just before the right hon. Lady embarked on the question of incomes, she rightly mentioned some of the broad industries and services in the countryside. To that end, we have just seen the terms of reference of Lord Haskins' inquiry, which is virtually an inquiry into the Government's policies towards rural Britain. Will she assure us that Lord Haskins will have access to other Departments in analysing those services? If joined-up government is to mean anything, he should have such access—he is looking at the regional development agencies, and he has been told to look at local authorities, the national parks, the Countryside Agency and English Nature, all of which have implications for other Departments. How wide ranging is his inquiry, and how will she define its limits, its time scale and its resources?
Margaret Beckett: Its limits are likely to be defined by the amount of time that Lord Haskins has—it is not likely to be an unlimited and untimetabled study. In that regard, the phrase used by Lord Haskins was something like "studying policies and delivery". We want him to focus particularly on the delivery of what the Department seeks to do in rural areas. We want him to take a broad look at what we are trying to achieve, to look critically at what the Department is doing, and to judge whether we are pursuing the best way of achieving our goals with the resources available, and whether we are getting the best value for money and the most effective delivery. That will inevitably curtail what he will do. I do envisage that he will talk to the other players with whom we are involved, which will, to some extent, include other Departments. We are anxious that he should give us the benefit of what will no doubt be his robust views on a reasonably good time scale, as we have challenging targets on which we want to deliver.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Before the Secretary of State leaves the issue of farm incomes, does she recall that one of her Conservative predecessors told me that approximately only a third of common agricultural policy funding ends up on the farm? What

413
calculation has she made of what percentage of common agricultural policy funding now ends up directly in farmers' hands?
Margaret Beckett: I do not have the latest calculation, but I shall make inquiries and drop a line to the hon. Gentleman if it appears that that has changed significantly.
Mr. David Heath: Before the right hon. Lady was diverted, she was outlining the different sectors of farming. My constituents are most concerned with dairying, and the principal problem of dairy farmers is simple: the price of milk at the farm gate. Do the Government intend to make their influence felt in that area? As things stand at the moment, we will lose dairy farmers unless we can get the retailers to increase the price that they are prepared to pay for milk.
Margaret Beckett: I do not think that that is an issue in which the Government should seek to intervene directly by trying to set prices. Certainly, however, we are conscious of the difficulties that many dairy farmers are and have been facing. I hope and believe that the range of issues that cause difficulties for dairy farmers will be among those addressed through the work of the food chain centre and, to some extent, through English Partnerships.
Mr. James Plaskitt: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is right to say that farming itself must bring something to the task of restructuring the industry. Is not the problem, however, the imbalance between production and demand? Many small producers produce goods that are purchased by a few large and powerful purchasers—the supermarkets. How can she help to rebalance the industry so that the producers have more of a sway in that calculation?
Margaret Beckett: I am coming to that point, in a sense, a little later. It can be addressed in two areas. First, it can be addressed through work in the supply chain. Clearly, the experience of the imbalance of power between the producer and the purchaser is not unique to farming and food, and, in other industries, supply chain work has consistently been found to be useful in addressing those issues. Secondly, the whole issue of collaboration has been found to help with implementation in relation to supply chain difficulties, once they are identified.
Mr. Alan Reid: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Margaret Beckett: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I shall make a little more progress first.
We fully accept the recommendations of the policy commission chaired by Sir Don Curry that the food and farming industries need to be responsive to changing consumer demands for higher-quality, safer, more traceable and yet competitively priced food, produced to higher environmental and animal welfare standards. In our strategy for sustainable farming and food launched today, the Government set out some of the
414
steps that we can take to assist and support the industries, particularly in promoting the spread of best practice. We are making available some £500 million to support the strategy, which will be used to examine ways to encourage, for example, a more effective food chain and whole-farm audits, as well as to develop measures such as the livestock database and work on contingency planning.
The strategy builds on the steps that we took immediately after the launch of the policy commission report, such as setting up the food chain centre. We want to see increased co-operation within the food chain and improved performance across the board. We want to help farmers get the right training and advice to develop their businesses, and see them rewarded for providing sustained benefits to the environment. We want to help them move on from production subsidies that distort market signals and distance them from their customers. As ever, investment and reform are key. To try to ensure that we secure those improvements, and get value for the money that we are prepared to invest, we have asked Sir Don Curry to chair an implementation group to focus on and help keep us up to the mark in our delivery strategy.
Most of that work is done in the context of international agreement and international policy making. The House will be well aware that, in relation to both the common fisheries policy and the common agricultural policy, there is strong debate about the need for change and the nature of the change that will be required. The Fisheries Commissioner has made his proposals—they include a proposal for a complete moratorium on cod fishing—but he is exploring with us and other member states whether a less draconian mix of measures can be taken as a way of substantially reducing fishing activity so as to try to ensure that stocks can recover. We recognise that even this would be painful, but we must act sensibly if we are to have fish stocks to argue about in the future.
Mr. Michael Weir: I am glad that the Secretary of State has introduced the subject of fisheries to the debate. Yesterday, in a debate on European matters, Foreign Office Ministers said that they would speak to the Prime Minister about the prospect of raising this subject at the Copenhagen summit. Will she update us and tell us whether the Prime Minister will raise the matter at Copenhagen at the weekend?
Margaret Beckett: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is very apprised of the need to address this issue. I have little doubt that he will take the opportunity on this occasion, as he has done so often in the past, to make strongly the case in Britain's interests.
The common agricultural policy review represents a significant opportunity for reform. With the Doha agreement, it adds impetus to the case that we, along with other Governments, have been making for radical reform of the CAP. We look forward to important negotiations in both these policy areas during the next few weeks and in the course of next year. However, that is, of course, only a small part of the international agenda and the negotiations in which my Department is engaged.

415
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's environmental performance review of the UK, which was published a few days ago, shows evidence of progress in the effects of our domestic policy, in particular decoupling economic growth from at least some aspects of environmental degradation. We are also able to show progress in air quality, water quality, greenhouse gas emissions and levels of recycling.
Although it is right and good that we are achieving these improvements in the UK, the world summit on sustainable development in Johannesburg in September brought into stark focus the position elsewhere in the world. One in six of the world's population lack access to safe drinking water and more than one in three lack adequate sanitation. More than 11,000 species are threatened and as much as two thirds of the world population could soon live in countries suffering from moderate or severe water stress. The problem of water access and the availability of clean water are very much related to climate change, but all these issues relate very directly to the sustainable development that is at the heart of my Department's purpose.
At the world summit, we got international agreement to tough new targets to halve the proportion of people without access to adequate sanitation by 2015. We also, for example, got agreement to work on chemicals and on the marine environment, which had long been considered important by campaigners and by the Government. Of course, with others, we were engaged in launching 200 specific and concrete partnerships to pursue sustainable development initiatives right across the globe.
We said before the Johannesburg summit, we said at Johannesburg and we continue to say now that that meeting was only the beginning of a process and not the end. Internationally—whether through the United Nations or within the EU—we must work to make sure that sustainable development is at the core and in the mainstream of policy making and that we pursue the action plans and ideas set out in Johannesburg. We shall continue to press that case. However, while we continue to pursue sustainable development internationally, we also have to continue to implement our own policies, augmented by the Johannesburg agreements, here at home.
I have already referred to the improvements in air and water quality. We have also implemented a whole package of measures, including the climate change levy and the climate change agreements with energy-intensive sectors of industry, to try to deal with the overall impact of climate change. The creation of the Carbon Trust and the promotion of good-quality combined heat and power, as well as of renewables and energy efficiency, are all key to the Government's domestic agenda.
In April we introduced the world's first economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme and, on Tuesday in Brussels, we and our Environment Council colleagues reached agreement on the shape of an EU emissions trading scheme that is to begin in 2005. The twin objectives of our scheme and of the slightly different EU-wide scheme, which has now been agreed, are not only to make emission reductions, but to give the business community a head start on the potentially
416
billion-dollar carbon market. In the UK, there has already been an encouraging amount of trading in what is, at present, a fledgling market.
Norman Baker: Although I am prepared to accept that the Secretary of State's Department takes these matters seriously, is it not true that her writ does not run to other Departments? There have been massive increases in carbon dioxide emissions from the transport sector and this week's statement from the Secretary of State for Transport does nothing to help. There is a huge subsidy for nuclear power and nothing for renewables. Does not the problem arise from the fact that the right hon. Lady cannot deliver across other Departments?[Interruption]
Margaret Beckett: I am afraid that I missed the hon. Gentleman's second point, although I caught the one about transport. As ever, it is not easy to deliver on these commitments, but we all recognise the concerns that he has identified. We have seen a substantial improvement in public transport, but no one from the Government doubts that there is a great need to do more. The fact that not everything can be done at once does not mean that we are not putting on the right kind of pressure and getting the right kind of response from our colleagues.
Joan Ruddock: Has not my right hon. Friend's Department made preparations to examine Government as a whole in terms of a grid so that every Department can be considered from the point of view of sustainability and so that the Johannesburg commitments can be carried through?
Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. We are undertaking such work. We are now considering what is the most effective action to take and are examining what our European colleagues are doing. We will share good practice so as to give effect to the commitments that we all signed up to in Johannesburg. Globe UK, with which my hon. Friend is associated, made a substantial contribution to illuminating some of the issues. We were grateful to it for that.
We now have the benefit of an updated scientific study on the risks and impact of global climate change associated with greenhouse gases. The whole House will be aware that our royal commission on environmental pollution recently suggested that, to stabilise emissions at a level that does not run the risk of massively increasing environmental damage, we should be aiming for reductions of 60 per cent. or more in emissions by the year 2050. To meet such a challenge, technical innovation is certainly needed.
Mr. Curry: In the light of the report from the royal commission on environmental pollution, has the Secretary of State had discussions with the Department of Transport on airports policy?
Margaret Beckett: Yes.
Technical innovation is particularly needed when it comes to the issue of the emissions coming from developing countries. Their legitimate aspirations for economic development and for growth will inevitably include greater use of energy sources. Therefore, it is all the more important to try to ensure that—whatever the

417
sources or resources used—they are used to the maximum possible efficiency. We must also look to find renewable and carbon-friendly low-carbon technologies that developing countries can exploit.
This is not the only issue where the Department has to consider and deal with important and controversial technological innovation. Genetic modification is, in itself, a technical tool that allows people to do what the human race has been doing since time began—and this is the entire basis of agriculture. It seeks to find ways of improving breeding stock. Although the technique offers greater speed and precision than age-old breeding techniques, it is not of itself different in kind. However, there is no doubt that it raises a great many genuine questions and real concerns. That is why the Government are now sponsoring a public dialogue to explore the questions and concerns that people have. In this and other areas, we want to be guided by evidence and sound science.
Alan Simpson: Does not one of the concerns about GM technology result from the fact that it is fundamentally different from all evolutionary processes? It allows science to cross all the frontiers that nature has previously set. Among the risk considerations that the Government and society have to address are the implications for the ability of infections and illnesses to cross the vectors and frontiers that science is also crossing.
Margaret Beckett: I have mixed feelings about my hon. Friend's observation. In one sense, he is, of course, right. We need to take those issues seriously, and they need careful thought and discussion. However, crossing the frontiers set by nature is what agriculture is and what human beings have been doing since the race first started to try to feed itself more successfully. If we were not doing that, we would not be able to sustain a population on this planet on anything like the scale that we do. He is right to express those anxieties and it is right that they are taken seriously, but it is also right to consider the issues in a proper and sensible context, which is what I hope the dialogue will foster, so that we can decide how to deal with that potent technical tool.
Mr. Weir: Following on from that point, does the right hon. Lady know that in evidence to the Scottish Parliament's Health and Community Care Committee, the British Medical Association called for a moratorium on GM trials until there is more evidence of its long-term effects? She talks about discussing GM further. Does she agree that a moratorium would be sensible until that discussion is concluded?
Margaret Beckett: I am aware of the comments by the Scottish BMA, but I do not wholly share its view. To be fair, I have only seen reports of those comments and I may not have the full picture of the concerns expressed. What seems to have been overlooked, however, is that safety trials have been carried out. I was talking about the wider issue of genetic modification. The hon. Gentleman is talking specifically about the crop trials that are under way. Extensive safety trials were carried out before we got to the stage of growing trial crops on
418
the present scale. The Government would not have allowed the trials to continue without that safety evaluation. The trials have a specific and restricted remit, which is to look more closely at the environmental effects on a farm-scale basis.
I was slightly surprised to learn that the Scottish BMA made that observation. Science is about trying things out. If we do not, how will we ever carry out the assessments? We need to make those comparisons and to have a mature judgment of the issues while retaining proper respect for people's genuine concerns.
Sir Sydney Chapman: Does the right hon. Lady agree that the issues relating to GM food must be put in the context of the fact that there is less land for growing food, as the deserts expand and urban growth takes place, and that the world's population is expected to increase from 6 billion to 10 billion over the next 50 years?
Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is right. I am concerned that the general dialogue in the news media in recent months and years has almost omitted to mention the impact that the technology could have on the developing world. That has not been a major factor in the public dialogue hitherto, although I am not, of course, talking about the process that we have just begun. In areas with desertification and salination, there is great potential for the use of that tool, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development shares that view.
There is yet another area where technological innovation is much needed. There is widespread recognition of the need to tackle the growing waste mountain that we produce. We need to put downward pressure on the levels of waste that we produce and to stimulate investment in new technology that can help us to tackle the problems in the future, whether they be waste minimisation or waste handling.
In the Chancellor of the Exchequer's pre-Budget statement, he reflected a cross-Government commitment to sustainability, including the sustainable handling of waste. He signalled, in particular, proposals in the longer term to increase landfill tax from its present rate of £13 a tonne to £35 a tonne. He also signalled the first steps on that road. He committed himself to reform the landfill tax credit scheme, to reduce the duty on bioethanol and to pursue a series of initiatives to promote more environmentally friendly transport, as well as looking further at fixed incentives to promote household energy efficiency.
Mr. Michael Jack: Will the Secretary of State take up some of the issues on the landfill tax credit scheme that were put to her right hon. Friend at a recent House of Commons meeting? It was apparent that the restructuring of the credit scheme will reduce the amount of money available to fund further sustainable waste schemes and other work on the environment because the money that went to the private sector is to become public money, so reducing funding substantially.
Margaret Beckett: All those issues will have to be examined and taken into account as we consider the

419
reform of the landfill tax credit scheme. Although we recognise that some good things have been done through the scheme, the right hon. Gentleman will know that there has also been a great deal of criticism about some of the work and much concern about whether the money was being used most effectively. It is right for the Government to consider reform in those circumstances. I know that the Select Committee will take a keen interest in those matters and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment is mindful of the benefits received from the existing scheme. We will want to do everything we can to preserve the benefits and to do better with other resources.
Sue Doughty: We welcome increases in landfill tax, although the tax may not be increasing rapidly enough to make a real environmental difference and to get us closer to sustainable waste. Had a tax on waste going to incineration been announced at the same time, we would be able take the maximum opportunity to invest in recycling rather than in landfill or incineration.
Margaret Beckett: I understand the validity of the hon. Lady's point, but we are trying to ensure that we give the right signals to stimulate the changes in behaviour that we all want to see. We also hope to encourage further investment in, for example, innovative waste treatment. However, we must give people proper time to consider the issues and to make the investment and preparation necessary. We are not in the business of punishing people for doing something; we are trying to encourage them to find ways to change their behaviour.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does the right hon. Lady agree that with respect to at least one element of the waste mountain—disposable nappies—there is a perfectly good old technology for dealing with the problem? It is simply a question of educating the public about that.
Margaret Beckett: Not only do I accept that, but I have some rather revolting experience of it, although I am happy to say that it was many years ago. We need to do a range of things to stimulate behavioural change. One of them is to minimise waste production as well as its handling.
In general, an enormous amount has been achieved over the 18 months of the Department's life.
Matthew Green rose—
Margaret Beckett: With respect, I think that I should finish.
Internally, substantial work is continuing to reform the way in which the Department works and to deliver the policies and proposals to which we are committed. I said at the outset that sustainable development is the Department's core purpose, and it is the principles of sustainable development that we seek to apply throughout our policy areas and portfolios, and to see applied across the Government as a whole and internationally.
420
Since the foundation of the Department, the times have, indeed, been interesting. They have been challenging, but also enormously fulfilling. Much has already been achieved, but it is a giant task that our Department has been set. I am fortunate in tackling that task, both in my officials and in the strength of my ministerial team. We will continue to strive, first, to identify the policies this country needs to pursue, and then to deliver those policies as effectively as we can. We know how much more we need to do. I hope that we will have the support of the House in that endeavour.
1.49 pm
Mr. David Lidington: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"notes with concern the continuing recession in British agriculture; believes that a profitable farming and growing industry should be at the heart of a thriving rural economy; deplores the Government's mishandling of the foot and mouth epidemic and its failure to take effective action against illegal meat imports; calls upon the Government to reduce rather than increase the costs imposed on farmers and growers by unnecessary regulations; regrets the Government's failure to deliver on its promises to rural-proof its policies and to place sustainable development at the heart of policymaking and its failure to deliver on its own targets for recycling and carbon emissions; notes the repeated and trenchant criticisms made of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Environmental Audit Committees and believes that the time is now long overdue for the Government to turn fine words into effective action."
Many of the Government's policy objectives described by the Secretary of State are indeed admirable and, I am sure, command the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House. However, I found the self-congratulatory tone of the Government motion shocking. The sunny picture that it and the Secretary of State paint of the Government's achievements is utterly at odds with the experience of people in our rural communities and the conclusions of successive Select Committee reports. Even when the Government get their policies right, the Department over which the right hon. Lady presides is often incapable of delivering the outcome that Ministers want to achieve.
I shall start with what the Secretary of State described as her Department's overriding purpose—sustainable development. The Department's public service agreement defines DEFRA's overarching aim as promoting sustainable development. It is at the top of the Department's published lists of objectives and performance targets, and the Department's duty is
"to promote sustainable development across government and the country as a whole".
Last month, however, the report by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs concluded:
"We are pessimistic about DEFRA's ability to ensure that Government Departments will do more than pay lip service to the objectives of sustainable development."
I am sure that the right hon. Lady does not need to be reminded that the Select Committee has a Labour majority and that 11 Government Members serve on it. It reached that conclusion after listening carefully to the

421
evidence of key non-governmental organisations that do not have a partisan axe to grind but deal daily with the Department. The Wildlife Trust commented that
"there is evidence of a lack of integration with other Departments on related issues (such as transport and planning)".
The Council for the Protection of Rural England detected a
"growing sense of frustration and perhaps the inability of the Department to make an impact where it matters on the centre of Government".
The National Trust said:
"DEFRA has been barely visible in key policy debates, including, for example, on the internal working groups which developed the Planning Green Paper without any DEFRA input".
That failure to deliver in Whitehall means that DEFRA is failing to deliver its wider environmental objectives, admirable as they are.
I shall illustrate that with the example of timber—in many ways, a symbolic issue in the environmental debate. On 28 July 2000, the Minister for the Environment—I openly acknowledge his personal commitment to good environmental policies—announced at column 947W that the previous voluntary guidance would become binding on all Government Departments and their agencies, and they should
"actively seek to buy timber … from sustainable and legal sources".—[Official Report, 28 July 2000; Vol. 354, c. 947W.]
This year, however, the Environmental Audit Committee, on which nine Labour Members serve and which has a Labour majority, reported:
"While Government rhetoric has been laudable, we see no systematic or even anecdotal evidence of any significant change in the pattern of timber procurement since July 2000".
The latest evidence appears on the Department's website. Paragraph 4.6.10 of the report "Sustainable Development in Government", published just a few days ago, records a big increase in the last financial year in the Government's timber procurement, but a reduction of 16 per cent. in the proportion of timber bought from certified sustainable sources. Individual Departments are failing to comply with DEFRA's policy—the Department for Work and Pensions said that it cannot provide any information at all about its procurement, and the Ministry of Defence told DEFRA that it cannot provide figures until 2004.
It is hardly surprising that the Select Committee concluded:
"That DEFRA lacks the capacity to deliver in any policy areas other than the most immediately essential areas must have undermined its ability to commit fully to providing the required leadership and guidance on timber procurement, just as much as its lack of authority has prevented it enforcing the policy across Government."
The Government trumpeted rural-proofing as a key aspect of their policy, but their own quango, the Countryside Agency, concluded that
"most Departments have done the minimum necessary to introduce rural proofing".
The rural advocate, Mr. Cameron, said:
"I am not convinced that policy makers generally are giving sufficient thought to the impact on the countryside and people who live there when they develop policies".
422
He continued:
"I have seen little sign of a fundamental shift in Departmental policies".
Worse still, the Select Committee said that the record of DEFRA—the key Department—on proofing its own policies "is not impressive".
I am afraid that we must conclude that the Secretary of State presides over a dysfunctional Department. There is evidence of discontent in No. 10's decision to bring in the strategy unit to rescue a failing waste policy and, more recently, in the decision to appoint Lord Haskins as a temporary tsar over the Government's rural policy. Members of Parliament and, more importantly, our constituents see daily evidence of DEFRA's failure to deliver the services for which it is responsible. Every Member representing a significant agricultural constituency will have received representations from farmers and others concerned with the chaos and sheer incompetence of the Rural Payments Agency.
Matthew Green: Is not the problem with the Rural Payments Agency that it is acting as judge, jury and executioner and behaves as if farmers are guilty until proved innocent? By contrast, the Inland Revenue would assume that someone was innocent until it found evidence of wrongdoing—[Interruption.] Well, perhaps I am being too kind to the Revenue.
Mr. Lidington: It is part of the problem, but in the Department there is a wider failure to develop information technology systems to make online communication between the Department, its agencies and individual farmers practicable.
Recently, the Government almost unbelievably admitted that DEFRA forgot to apply on time for a share of the European Union's 2003 fund for expenditure on efforts to control animal diseases, notably scrapie and BSE. As a result, the United Kingdom ended up as the only member state to get nothing from the fund, and the right hon. Lady has been reduced to pleading with the Commission to accept a late bid. Above all, British agriculture feels betrayed by the gap between Government promise and Government delivery. In that context, I want to comment on the new strategic plan. Having had a couple of hours to look at the three documents published by the Government today, Conservative Members can give a cautious welcome to many of the proposals. We shall clearly want to study them carefully, and I want to come on to one or two aspects of the plan later.
However, the test of today's announcement will be not the presentation of a document or even the admirable list of policy initiatives, but whether today's statement can be turned into effective action to assist British agriculture, which is in the grip of the deepest and longest-lasting recession to affect that industry in living memory. If there is scepticism in our countryside, it is partly because we have had so many strategy documents before—in December 1999, "A New Direction for Agriculture"; in March 2000, an "Action Plan for Farming"; and in 2001, reports from a hills taskforce and an inputs taskforce, to which the Government have even now failed to respond. In the eyes of many farmers and growers in this country, the Government seem at best indifferent and at worst hostile to their industry, at a time when their businesses are fighting for their very survival.

423
That does not always mean that the Government need wait for European and international agreement, important though those aspects of the debate are. Let us consider animal disease. It is shameful that we had to wait for the European Parliament in order to get an independent and public inquiry into that devastating epidemic. The European Parliament's inquiry confirmed many of the messages that came through in the report of Dr. Anderson and others. Paragraph 20 stated:
"The British Government's contingency plan was inadequate both before and during the crisis."
In paragraph 21, the Parliament commented that the
"provision of information from state sources to local bodies and the farmers affected was poor and advice from the various government departments was repeatedly altered, inconsistent or even contradictory."
It is not enough for the Government to argue that that was all in the past and that things have now moved on.
Let us examine today's strategy document and the reference that is tucked away there to disease insurance. There is a clear signal that the Government intend to impose on farmers at least a large part, if not all, of the financial responsibility for ensuring against the risks of future epidemics. The first thing a livestock farmer is likely to say is that not only is he struggling to make a living, but the level of any premium that an insurance company requires of him will be determined in large measure by the assessment that that insurance company makes of the effectiveness of the Government's policies for stopping disease entering this country again in the first place.
Mr. Bill Wiggin: Does my hon. Friend feel as unhappy as I do about the Government's efforts to prevent disease from coming into the country? We still do not have the bins necessary for people to throw away their sandwiches at the airport, and the landing cards have still not been amended so that people can read that they should not be bringing illegal meat into the country.
Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend is right. It was March when the Government published their action plan. As my hon. Friend says, there are no amnesty bins and there has been no change to landing cards. We had an announcement that Customs and Excise would take over responsibility for enforcing import controls on meat and plant products, but no details of the priority that Customs is to give to that task, nor any details of the budget, resources or manpower that will be available to Customs and Excise to do that important job. The situation was pretty well summed up by the chairman of the Royal Society inquiry, Sir Brian Follett, who when asked by the Select Committee what was missing from the Government's action plan replied with the single word "Action."
The experience of foot and mouth disease and the Government's failure even now to deal with the consequences of that and to take effective precautionary measures for the future could be applied also to the situation as regards bovine tuberculosis. The most recent figures show a further rise in the number of herds infected. We have an epidemic that is spreading way beyond its original hotspots, and there appears on the Government's part to be no strategy beyond waiting for
424
the Krebs trials to conclude over a period of many years. We were promised many months ago the introduction of the gamma interferon test. Yet again, action has lagged greatly behind the promises made by the Government.
Let us take another issue on which national action would be possible: food labelling. In its report on the foot and mouth epidemic, the European Parliament called explicitly for country of origin labelling to be introduced on all food and food products to ensure proper transparency and traceability. Even the European Commission seems ready to review the position on that subject. In their document today, the Government make a few lukewarm noises about looking again at food labelling.
We know that my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) is to introduce a food labelling Bill later this Session, and that will give Ministers the opportunity to demonstrate whether they are serious about the matter, and whether they are prepared to help British agriculture and consumer choice by introducing a statutory labelling system that will make sure that shoppers are able to tell whether the food that they buy was reared or grown in the United Kingdom.
We heard lukewarm words from the Government about competition policy. The Government speak, rightly, about the importance of farmers developing collaborative ventures in order to strengthen their clout in the food chain, but today's strategy document seems a little too satisfied with the current state of UK competition regulations. I am troubled when I see a New Zealand milk co-operative with more than 90 per cent. market share, and similar co-operatives on the continent of Europe with market shares in those countries of well over 70 per cent., and our dairy sector reduced by our competition policy to no more than 40 per cent., if that, of the market.
Mr. Eric Martlew: I have been in the House for quite a long time. Will the hon. Gentleman explain why his Government destroyed the milk marketing board?
Mr. Lidington: I have two things to say to the hon. Gentleman. First, unlike his Government, I am prepared to learn from experience; I do not feel wedded to decisions taken by previous Governments. I am prepared to look at policy on its merits. Secondly, we are discussing farmers' co-operatives, not state agencies. When we are asking our dairy farmers in particular to go out and compete in a European and, increasingly, in a global market, we must review our competition policy to make sure that it takes account of the realities of global competition that our producers are encountering.
Mr. Curry: As the Minister who took the legislation on the milk marketing board through the House, may I tell my hon. Friend that I have no regrets whatever about that legislation, because the milk marketing board had become an east European-type, top-heavy monopoly based on selling a raw commodity, and was not innovating sufficiently. We needed to bring more market forces into play, and that is now beginning to happen, very sensibly.
Mr. Lidington: We need to find a way to marry the innovation that my right hon. Friend was seeking to

425
achieve—it is clear that dairy producers will gain by getting into value-added milk products—with a capacity that enables dairy farmers to market their product collectively, so that they have sufficient influence in the marketplace when they are faced with very large retail buyers.
When one goes round and speaks to farmers and growers, one finds that the single greatest complaint about Government concerns the burden of regulation. At various times in the recent past, the House has debated a number of such measures in some detail. The 20-day rule is putting at risk the survival of livestock markets throughout the country, as well as that of many individual farmers. We know that fallen stock rules will be introduced next April, but we have not yet seen any details about the proposed new collection service. The Environment Agency is saying that new environmental laws due to be introduced in the next few years could cost farms between £25 million and £40 million and involve up to 200,000 separate agency inspections.
I believe that regulation needs to be more selective and risk based, and that we need to involve the industry at a much earlier stage in discussion about regulations, before the final details are set in stone, whether in Brussels or Whitehall. We need to find ways of reducing the duplication of paperwork and the multiplicity of inspections of our farm businesses. As I am sure the Secretary of State knows, the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union recently published a report on environmental regulation and agriculture that made a number of important suggestions in that regard. I hope that the Government will take forward a significant number of those proposals.
Mr. Paice: Should not another factor be taken into account in dealing with regulations: the question of how the principles that they involve, many of which stem from European decisions, are being applied by other European Union member states? There is ample evidence to suggest that many regulations that are, to use the jargon, gold-plated in this country are given cursory attention in other European countries. Should we not ensure in future that, before implementing a measure in this country, we see exactly what is happening in the countries with which we must compete?
Mr. Lidington: As my hon. Friend says, we certainly need to keep a sharp eye on what is going on in the rest of Europe, where other countries' producers are competing with our own. I also hear from the agricultural sector of this country, however, that even when regulations are applied equally throughout the EU, there is often a difference of culture in their application. On the continent, the inspector will ask the farmer, "How can we work with you to ensure that you can comply with the new law and operate a successful and profitable business?" In Britain, however, the attitude tends to be one of us and them, and the farmer perceives that the regulations dumped on his desk in a massive folder or as part of a lengthy e-mail contain the implicit threat that if he steps the slightest bit out of line, the authorities will be down on him like a ton of bricks. The House of Lords European Union Committee
426
suggested ways in which we could try to move on from such a culture, which is currently getting in the way of the profitable operation of businesses.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lidington: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I should like to move on.
On the environment, as with agriculture, there is a massive gap between the rhetoric of Ministers and the Government's record in practice. Ministers have set ambitious targets for the United Kingdom on carbon emissions, yet emissions have increased in each of the past two years. On recycling, we have seen not only the setting of fine targets, but enthusiasm in the Government to sign up to strict new European legislation. We now find, however, that a quarter of local authorities say that they will not be able to meet their recycling targets for 2005. There is no Government plan to deal with the imminent reduction in the number of sites for hazardous waste disposal, and the disastrous mishandling of the new rules on fridges and freezers has placed enormous financial burdens on local authorities.
Mrs. Angela Browning: On refrigerators, does my hon. Friend recall the Minister for the Environment saying that, because of the cost to local authorities of recycling responsibilities, the Government would pay compensation in relation to such new regulations? Is he aware that in the county of Devon, however, we have just heard that there will be a shortfall next year of more than £600,000? That will be the cost to the taxpayer of picking up the tab for Government underfunding on refrigerators alone.
Mr. Lidington: I am afraid that council tax payers in my hon. Friend's constituency are going to be landed with the bill for the Government's inability to understand what the new European legislation they have supported means in practice. I hope that her constituents will know exactly where to place the blame for that increase in their council tax bills.
Mr. Martlew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lidington: The hon. Gentleman has already had one go.
We have had our fill of ministerial visions, strategy papers and targets.
Margaret Beckett: I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman with great interest. He has made many comments about regulation and so on, and I share his view that it is right that we should become involved in discussions at an early stage. He has been talking a lot about the impact of regulation and how badly it has been handled, but it is my understanding that the regulations that are causing farmers greatest distress and concern are those on nitrate-vulnerable zones, which were introduced in 1991 by the then Conservative Government and have created problems in agriculture that far outstrip—
Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend was talking about fridges.
Margaret Beckett: Yes, I know. There is no comparison between the impact on the community of

427
the fridges regulations and that of the nitrate-vulnerable zones regulations. The fridges regulations pale into insignificance in that regard, so a little more recognition from the hon. Gentleman of that widespread problem would be welcome.
Mr. Lidington: I am astonished that the right hon. Lady chooses to mount a defence of the Government's record on the basis of their approach to nitrate-vulnerable zones. The reason why we have to contend with such an oppressive regime on NVZs is that her Government failed even to enter a defence at the European Court of Justice. The judgment was made against them because they simply failed to argue a case.
Mr. Paice: Has my hon. Friend had a chance to see one of the documents published this morning, in which the Government's own figures show that nitrate concentrations in our rivers have fallen over the past seven years? Therefore, the justification for a countrywide NVZ simply does not exist. Most regions have seen a reduction of nitrates in their rivers. We should concentrate on the areas where the problem has not been resolved.
Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend makes his point well.
The credibility of the Government with farmers and environmentalists alike is in shreds, because they have repeatedly failed to make good the promises that they were so free in making. That is why the House should reject their complacent motion.
2.17 pm
Paddy Tipping: The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) began his speech by commenting on the motion. I think that he called it self-congratulatory, but I disagree with that view and with a number of the points that he made. I would describe the motion in different terms, as I believe that it is ambitious in substance, scope and scale, and deals with national and international issues that are highly complex and very difficult. In that context, I shall confine my remarks to a narrower picture, as I want to deal with British agriculture and rural communities, and the British countryside. That is enough for one afternoon, as there are plenty of problems for us to solve.
The countryside is not static. One of the issues that is currently around in the countryside is the cry "Listen to us", which often means "Listen to us: we don't want to change." That is based on a false perception. The countryside has always changed and it will always have to change to survive. If we want a living and working countryside, we must have a farming industry and a countryside that have the ability to take the challenge and make the change. It is how we manage that change that is so important.
There is no doubt in my mind that the farming sector is in crisis. After a long period, farming incomes are beginning to rise.
Mr. Roger Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that with 15,000 fewer farmers left in the industry in recent times, there will be fewer people to face the challenge and make the change?
Paddy Tipping: There are fewer farmers to face the challenge and to make the change. The prospects are still
428
difficult. I believe that more people will leave the industry before the change occurs. Farming is in crisis. There has been a period of prolonged difficulty that has been driven by low commodity prices and by a strong pound. The difficulty has been compounded by BSE and the foot and mouth outbreak. These things brought a crisis in public confidence about the food that is available to us.
Mr. Curry: Given the economic and statistical analysis that has been produced today, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the trend that he has identified in British farming is the trend Europe wide? The decline in farmers and in farm holdings is happening throughout the European Union, very much for the same reasons. I am sure that our debate could be reproduced in any national parliament in the EU on very much same terms.
Paddy Tipping: I agree entirely with that. International pressures, the way the world has changed and the issues that the Secretary of State has talked about in the international setting will drive the trend even further. However, more locally at a national level, the tragedy of foot and mouth disease has been a trigger or catalyst for change. I think that following the outbreak there has been a recognition throughout the farming sector that things cannot stay as they are and that we must change. The Curry report on the future of food and farming, which was published almost a year ago, has received some criticism. However, by and large there is a consensus that it is the way forward. It is important to praise Sir Don and to acknowledge that many of the points made in this morning's statement on the strategy for sustainable food and farming come straight from his report.
I broadly support that way forward. However, my major and real concern is the passage of time. It is more than 18 months since we were faced with foot and mouth disease. Although there has been consensus for change, I have a feeling that people are slipping back into the bad old ways. Many people decided to come out of livestock farming after foot and mouth, but farmers have begun to restock and to turn to the old family traditions. The strategy that has been announced this morning is, I hope, an agenda for action.
I agree with the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) that it is important quickly to make more progress. Much can be praised in the statement, but we need to consider things that were left out. I think that there is a strong feeling throughout the House that we should consider non-food crops, especially biofuels and biomass. I am disappointed that we do not have more concrete proposals in that area in the strategy that has been set out. I know that that is not entirely within the gift of my right hon. Friend. Treasury incentives will drive things forward. I am mindful of the fact that excise duty on biodiesel has fallen, as it has on bioethanol. However, it has not yet reached the level that will take the industry forward and provide a valuable and secure crop for farmers.
Mr. Weir: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that to get bioethanol off the ground, as it were, there will need to be substantial investment? Farmers, after experience with some other crops, will not go into growing non-

429
food crops in a large way until processing plant is available. Investment must be made in the plant in the first place.
Paddy Tipping: I agree entirely with that. That is why, fairly recently, I took British Sugar and Cargill to meet Treasury Ministers. I will not divulge detail, but both British Sugar and Cargill put concrete proposals on the table at the Treasury to show how the necessary investment and infrastructure could be built. In a sense, the ball is now in the Treasury's court. If it wants us to achieve our targets for renewables and if it wants to see investment in manufacturing, it must examine closely the proposals that have been put forward. In fairness to the Treasury, we have seen some movement, but it has been piecemeal, rather than the step change that we need to take the industry forward.
Mr. John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman has made a compelling case for biocrops. I know that he has a long history of doing so. He says that the problem is a piecemeal approach and a lack of interdepartmental work. In a sense, does that not lie at the nub of the problem in terms of this morning's announcement? Some of it is interesting and parts of it are welcome, but it is not really a strategy in the sense that he identifies.
Paddy Tipping: The Treasury's strategy is straightforward. It would like to see biofuels take off, but it would like that to happen for nothing. What is new? We are talking about the Treasury. We are climbing the steps of the mountain and eventually we shall get the Treasury to the peak, when the vision will become clear to it. However, those of us who have worked on these issues for many years know that these things take time. I merely say that we are getting there.
My right. Hon Friend the Minister for the Environment, who was in his place on the Government Front Bench for the early part of the debate, has been a leading advocate to take us forward. I think that we shall achieve that.
In relative terms, the strategy set out this morning is weak when it comes to pollution issues. There is no doubt in my mind—I know that there is denial in the industry—that farming is a big polluter. The strategy sets out little about that. I am disappointed that more is not said about how we can use the land for flood prevention. That is the soft flood-plain approach or the water meadow approach. These are things that we can make progress towards and build upon.
In a real way, there are two themes in this morning's announcement that spring from the Curry report. First, we must link farming and food much more closely. I am amazed when I talk to farming friends to find that few of them have a business plan. I am amazed also when I find how few of them are aware of their marketing strategy. Similarly, I am amazed at how far many of the producers are from the marketplace, from the consumers. It seems that more and more people buy ready-made goods, convenience goods from the
430
supermarket. We must connect the chain. One of the strengths of this morning's report is a recognition that investment is needed to enable these things to be done.
Andrew George: If the hon. Gentleman believes that the most important thing is to connect food production with sale, does he agree that having a rural recovery co-ordinator who comes from the processing sector preaching at farmers will not necessarily be the best approach?
Paddy Tipping: I sometimes think that prophets are not recognised in this context. If we are talking about a farmer in his own right, he will have a robust view of life. I agree that if we are to compete—allegedly we have the most efficient farmers in Europe—we shall have to see further efficiency gains. To take up the point made by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Currie), we see larger and larger holdings. I am concerned about traditional family farmers and tenant farmers. The scenario looks bleak for them unless they can find niche markets or specialist markets, and they do not exist for everybody. Only a small sector of farming can turn to them.
I therefore commend the second part of the strategy on the importance of the environment. That springs from the Curry report, and was well documented in this morning's strategy statement. The message that I took from the foot and mouth outbreak was the importance to the rural economy of people visiting the countryside. Of course farmers suffered, but when the rights of way network shut, the countryside was closed to people. Bed-and-breakfasts and tourist attractions, and thus the rural economy, genuinely suffered.
People want to visit the countryside because of the landscape and the environment. There is nothing wrong with asking whether that is the sort of countryside that we want and for which we are prepared to pay. Should we pay farmers to provide such a countryside? Those matters are well documented in the Curry report.
An entry scheme and the review of agri-environment schemes constitute an important way forward. I counsel my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that it is not an easy road. Different members of the public define public good differently. What is good for a member of the RSPB may not be good for a member of the Ramblers Association. There is potential for conflict, and we must therefore work matters out carefully. We must also be careful that the entry scheme and agri-environment payments are not subsidies by another name. The World Trade Organisation and other bodies will consider that carefully. We need a strategy for answering their questions.
I am also worried about value for money. One of the reviews of the agri-environment scheme examines the fact that some schemes cost more to deliver and administer than to operate. If we are not careful, we could find ourselves trying to micro-manage the environment. The needs in the Yorkshire dales are different from those in the Lincolnshire fens. We need a scheme that is sufficiently flexible but careful enough to achieve our ends. Most important, we need to understand the consequences of the switch from

431
subsidies on production to payment for public and environmental goods. In so far as I can ascertain, no modelling has been done on that.
Mr. Jack: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that we are clear about the environmental goods that we would like to buy?
Paddy Tipping: There needs to be a vigorous debate about that and the entry scheme that will soon start. I believe that we are moving in the right direction and I am pleased that the schemes will be piloted for two years. However, there is a limited number of pilot schemes, and I have the impression that the piloting will consider the administration and operation of the scheme rather than the output. If so, we should be worried. Ministers have said that they do not want to be too restrictive and prescriptive about the scheme. However, we will pay public money for public goods and we must be able to define the reward clearly and carefully. I am not persuaded that we have such a definition yet.
I am not sure whether the timetable is right. I understand that there is a two-year trial period followed by a national roll-out. Given the pressures on the industry, I do not believe that we are sufficiently clear about the time scale.
Mr. Paice: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on an exceptional speech, which is seriously addressing the subject. On public goods, did he read the article in last week's Farmers Weekly, entitled "First Glimpse of Flagship Green Scheme—how the broad and shallow scheme will work"? It went into immense detail about, for example, the number of points that farmers would receive for all sorts of different details. What is his opinion of that? I should also like a Minister to pick up the point and say in the winding-up speech whether the sort of scheme outlined in Farmers Weekly will be effected.
Paddy Tipping: I saw the article, which reassured me a little. However, my point is slightly different. I guess that the audience for Farmers Weekly is fairly self-selecting. That publication is not a big seller. There should be a wider public debate about the entry scheme and what we want from it. I am not clear that we have reached that point. I am not sure that we have got the administration right. My preference is to move to a whole-farm approach for inspection. There is a strong case for registering the keeping of livestock. I should like to reach a position where one body inspected and advised farmers annually or more regularly. I hope that we can move towards that, and hold discussions with the NFU and others about doing so.
I have already mentioned access. The motion mentions people's desire to visit the countryside. The Secretary of State can be proud of what has been achieved. After 100 years of struggling, we have a right to roam freely in the open countryside: true Labour values delivered by a modern Labour Government. We should not be afraid to tell people about such achievements.
We should also not be afraid to implement measures. Parts of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 will not come into force until 2005. I am delighted that
432
the Minister for Rural Affairs, who is enthusiastic—perhaps sometimes over-enthusiastic—has concluded that we can allow access on a regional basis. That is good news for those of us who want to visit the countryside. I am also pleased that the Act provides for rights-of-way improvement plans. Arguments in the Ramblers Association mirror those in the Labour party between traditionalists and modernisers. Some people say that the directions of footpaths can never change because they are our historic legacy; others want a rights-of-way network that fulfils present local needs. Some exciting work can be carried out under the Act.
The Countryside and Rights of Way Act must allow people from the town to visit the countryside. I despair of those throughout the country, but especially in the countryside, who try to drive a wedge between urban and rural dwellers. That is a recipe for disaster. The rural and urban White Papers are two bookends on the same shelf. We need to be clear about the reciprocal relationship between town and country. I shall give two examples.
Earlier, I mentioned the benefits to the countryside of visitors, and the tragedy when they were not able to visit post-foot and mouth. Let us consider farmers' markets—parts of the countryside brought to the town. They are valuable to both communities.
Another, starker example is the need for more housing. We must build sustainable housing. We need small dwellings in town centres and to move away from the trend of building five-bedroomed, executive ranches in the countryside. We need to work for reciprocity in Government policy.
Sue Doughty: The hon. Gentleman has been saying some very interesting and helpful things. Does he agree that one of our problems is that an increasing number of young people are growing up with no real understanding of how farming contributes to the countryside in which we live today? Furthermore, these children are growing up and buying food that may not have been produced on British farms. Might it be helpful to develop a programme for schoolchildren to visit our farms and see the high quality of food that is produced there, to give them a greater understanding of the issues?
Paddy Tipping: I agree with all that. Organisations such as the National Farmers Union, for example, know conceptually that this needs to be done, but have not been particularly smart at delivering the goods. I used to take youngsters out from the middle of St. Anne's in Nottingham—my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) knows the area well. We would go out in the minibus and, as soon as we saw a stream, they would know we were in Derbyshire. I remember having many conversations about where the milk that arrived in St. Anne's actually came from. That is the kind of education that is necessary. That is why I am so concerned about the small group of determined people who, for their own ends, want to try to drive a wedge between the needs of urban dwellers and those of people who live in the countryside. It is in no one's interest to do that.

433
We are not particularly strong on policy relating to the urban fringes. I am pleased with the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, but I visit the countryside regularly
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has talked about not wanting to drive a wedge between the countryside and the urban population. Does he view with concern, as I do, the Government's proposals to reduce the size of the national parks? It is very important that those parks should have a wide variety of members on their boards. Implementation of the review that the Government published in July would lead to substantial reductions in the number of people serving on those boards.
Paddy Tipping: My criticism of national parks is that there are not enough outsiders on their boards. When I talk to people who are on those boards, they say that outsiders can often bring value. I was concerned, when the legislation relating to this issue was passed, at the dominance of the boards by large sections of parish councillors. They contribute something, but they sometimes do so in a negative way. What I want to say to my hon. Friend the Minister is, "Get on and designate some more national parks soon!" That is on the agenda; let us make sure that it happens, particularly before the next general election.
Let me return to the subject of urban fringes. As I said, I do not think that our policies on them are particularly good. Urban fringes are the places where old cars go to die, or to be burned out, and where people go to fly-tip. At the moment, we are just not clever enough at designing policies to help us with the transition from the built-up areas to the countryside.
I want to mention a particular experience that I had last week. I went to see the Hammond family at New Farm, at Redhill. They rent a field from the city council near Bestwood country park. It is a pasture, a piece of grassland. Local youngsters from Bestwood estate use it as a place for Tarzan adventures and bonfires. Dog-walkers also go there. We ought to design our policies and use our resources to provide imaginative opportunities to resolve the problems of the urban fringes.
I am also concerned about the fly-tipping that takes place around the countryside. We need to be clear, in our policies relating to the landfill tax, how we are going to manage and resolve that problem. I am particularly keen on an old colliery site in Nottinghamshire—the Gedling colliery—which is right on the eastern end of the built-up area. It is badly contaminated, but people aspire to turn it into a country park. At the moment, however, there is no real vehicle to make that happen. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is talking about the notion of a land regeneration trust. This site could be a prime candidate to provide a new country park. It would be a piece of alchemy to take the mud heaps of the old traditional mining industry and create part of a new Sherwood forest. We ought to have the ability and the imagination to achieve that.
We need to bring new opportunities into rural areas, and to acknowledge that farming is no longer the backbone of the rural economy. We need policies that
434
will bring new investment into rural areas. I am slightly alarmed, as I see broadband develop across urban areas, at the difficulties that we will have in giving people in rural areas those same opportunities. I am also keen for us to review planning policies. PPG7 relates to diversification. I constantly struggle with local authorities in my area to try to persuade them to be more flexible about business opportunities—to let a wood yard grow a little more; to consider allowing the stables and the forge that provide specialist veterinary help; and to acknowledge that there might be a need for a house on that site. Our planning policies are far too restrictive. I know that they were reviewed 18 months ago, but if we are to develop the kind of enterprise that I want, we need to move further on this. As I have said, the countryside is not set in aspic, and we need to ensure that we have a strategy for change.
We also need to set the strategy in a wider international context. I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) about European legislation and directives. More and more of our work on waste legislation and environmental legislation will come from Europe. I was at the Commission recently, with some of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members, and it was interesting to note how enthusiastic members of the Commission were about British Ministers and British civil servants. Our problem is that we do not engage early enough in the emerging debate. We do not shape the debate or the future of the legislation at an early enough stage. The refrigerator issue and the nitrate directive particularly illustrate that point. We do not work through, at the conceptual stage, what finally the practicalities on the ground are going to be.
All this is achievable, but it is not going to be easy. The mid-term review is not going to be easy, and I think that the CAP reform is going to be almost impossible. We have the chance, however, to make the kinds of change that I am advocating. We can modulate farm policies in our own sector far more than we are doing at the moment. That is the message that I want the Minister to take away with him. We have made a good start through the English rural development programme, but there is much more to be done. We must move away from the notion that farmers can somehow rely on the state, and towards the notion that they can provide something more for the environment. We must also move towards the notion that we need more rural business. That is why the countryside has to change, and why change is inevitable. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that we have an agenda for action, and it is action that we want. It is time to put the theory into practice.
2.48 pm
Norman Baker: I welcome the opportunity for a debate on the new Department, although I am sorry that the Secretary of State is no longer with us. The debate takes place against the background of the Select Committee report, to which other hon. Members have referred, and the publication today of the strategy for sustainable farmi ng and food, to which I will return in a moment.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) called the Government motion "self-congratulatory". The hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), some

435
30 minutes ago, called it "ambitious"—a very creative term in the circumstances, if I may say so. The picture painted in the motion is perhaps not quite so blissfully wonderful as he might think. If I may be slightly rude to the Minister, the word that springs to my mind is "smug". [Interruption.] The Minister should wait, as I may say something nice in a moment. Liberal Democrats want his Department to succeed. It may be flawed, but it is the only Department that creatively and actively promotes proper sustainability in government. It is the only Department that takes environmental issues seriously and champions the needs of rural areas. All those issues are terribly important, so it is vital that DEFRA succeed.
The Prime Minister was right to change the arrangements and mechanisms of government to abolish the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, because it had run out of road. It was known in some circles as the Ministry for Agro-chemicals, Fishy Excuses and Food Poisoning. No Department with such a reputation should be allowed to continue. The creation of a rural affairs Department was right, and the Government should get credit for that.
However, DEFRA has had a difficult birth, and its first few months have not been without difficulties, whether it has been on the environment, the foot and mouth epidemic or other farming-related problems. I shall deal with the Department's internal record, and then briefly with its external record and how effective it is in persuading other Departments to adopt its sustainable approach. That approach is terribly important. The Secretary of State said that sustainability was her Department's overriding purpose. If she is rightly to put such weight on sustainable development, it is important that we consider how well it has done.
I shall refer briefly to today's Government reponse on sustainable farming and food. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) will catch your eye during the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I know that he wishes to address that issue. Like all hon. Members, I have only been able to have a brief reading of the report. It is fair to say that, as with many Government documents, it is good on rhetoric but less good on action. It tends to push all the difficult issues over the horizon.
Sometimes that is not the Government's fault. All parties in the House are signed up to CAP reform, but the Government cannot deliver that themselves. If they could reform the CAP by themselves, they would have done so, but they must secure European Union agreement. The CAP is a drain on the EU budget, it is an unsustainable way of farming, it gives 80 per cent. of direct subsidy to 20 per cent. of holdings, and it is not something that any of us could sensibly defend, yet the Government's response is weak. It says that they will continue to press for change. We have been told that for some time. The Minister may say, "What else can we do?", but I think that the Government should press harder and more firmly. He should speak to the Foreign Secretary and consider the impact of enlargement. In my view, it is important to get some CAP reform before enlargement if possible, because it will be much more
436
difficult to achieve that when euros are raining down on the new members in eastern Europe, who will have reason to keep the present system going.
Hugh Bayley: Like the Liberal Democrats, I would like to see substantial reform of the common agricultural policy. Liberal democrat parties are in power in six EU member states: Italy, Finland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Belgium. Has the Liberal Democrat party in this country made representations to its opposite numbers in those countries to press them to agree to some of the proposals that our Government have made?
Norman Baker: I am happy to confirm that we have made representations to our sister parties in those countries. We have also done that through the European Parliament, where our MEPs have been active on this issue. The countries to which the hon. Gentleman refers are not those most resistant to change. I am thinking of France and other countries where resistance is greater. He is right that we need to work with our European sister parties, as the Labour party does, to try to bring about change.
Besides the CAP problem, there is still the difficulty of the strength of the pound. Without wishing to be unhelpful to the Conservatives, I must put on record my view that, had we entered the euro earlier, the position of farmers in this country would be rather less dire than it is at present. The strength of the pound is a significant factor. According to the National Farmers Union, average income per farmer is just £10,700 per annum, and 67,000 jobs have been lost in the past six years.
Today's Government response says the right things, but does not take much further forward the issue of food miles and the power of the supermarkets. Recommendation 84 says:
"The food industry should re-examine supply routes to reduce journeys wherever sensible."
With due respect to the Government, that will not get us very far, because the industry will carry on with existing practices, which suit them well. We should put real pressure on supermarkets to ensure that they start to source locally, which they do not want to do. Farmers' markets are great, and we all support them—it is good that they are increasing in number—but until we deal with the supermarkets, these problems will not go away.
Mr. Weir: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about supermarkets, but can he suggest practical ways in which that pressure can be applied when dealing with large companies with huge economic power that are beholden to shareholders rather than to the general community?
Norman Baker: We certainly need something stronger than a code of practice. We should deal with the power of the supermarkets. The Competition Commission should be more involved in dealing with the power of the supermarkets, which seem to have disproportionate control over the retail chain.
Animal transport is a further issue. I would like to have seen more from the Government on minimising the movement of animals for slaughter. There has been a contraction in the number of abattoirs in the past 20 or

437
30 years, which has gone way beyond what was required. There are no abattoirs in my constituency, where once there were three. Animals are taken long distances for slaughter, which is bad for the animals, bad for the farmer who has to pay for that, and bad for the environment. The Government should concentrate on getting more abattoirs and filling the gaps that have opened up, but I see no evidence that that is occurring.
The Government have taken welcome steps on illegal meat imports by concentrating resources on Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. However, concentrating on Customs will not achieve much unless there are sufficient Customs officers. At Newhaven in my constituency, 14 officers have to cover a huge stretch of coast on a 24-hour shift. The idea that they can do much to stop illegal meat imports or anything else is fanciful. They will not be able to do that. We must get more Customs officers in our ports.
As for serious animal diseases, especially the foot and mouth outbreak in the previous 12 months, I do not want to rake over old ground, but as a consequence of that episode, the Treasury has decided to punish DEFRA by cutting its budget, so there is less money for the environment and for those issues that the Minister and his colleagues say they want to pursue.
In his speech, the hon. Member for Aylesbury quoted the Select Committee when he referred to sustainable development. It is important to understand that the general view outside Government, which is shared by Liberal Democrat Members, is that DEFRA is not able to deliver beyond its own boundaries. That is an important point for the Minister to pick up, because no matter how well intentioned he and his colleagues are, if they cannot deliver across those boundaries, their effect will be limited. Friends of the Earth said:
"Environment officials and Ministers have been marginalised, and distanced from the big decisions."
The Council for the Protection of Rural England said:
"The environment overall is becoming divorced from other Government policy decisions. A key concern is the relationship between Defra and other government departments. The Greening Government initiative no longer benefits from a senior member of the government"—
the Deputy Prime Minister—
"championing it, and the use of environmental appraisal elsewhere in government is distinctly patchy."
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has talked about DEFRA becoming
"a policy ghetto for green issues."
There is a perception that DEFRA is not able to deliver across government, which is what sustainable development requires if the Government are to deliver their agenda. They must face up to that problem, and deal with it head on, but the Secretary of State did not do that in her introduction to the debate.
I pay tribute to the Department when it has got it right. It has made good progress on dealing with sewage discharges and ensuring that secondary treatment is available for all towns with a population of 15,000 or above. It has made good progress in a number of areas. It is only fair to say that—but it is equally fair to say that the Department has not made progress in other respects. For instance, it was set a target on wildlife: to bring into
438
favourable condition by 2010 95 per cent. of all nationally important wildlife sites, the current percentage being 60. The year 2010 is some way away and the Government may say "We will get there", but the fact remains that fewer sites are now in "favourable condition" than was the case two years ago, according to the sixth Committee report.
Both my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) and I are worried about waste management. The target requires 17 per cent. of household waste to be recycled by 2004. At the end of 2001 the recycling rate was 11.2 per cent., up from 10.5 per cent. the year before. I do not think that there is a chance of it getting anywhere near 17 per cent., because there are not sufficient financial incentives for councils, private businesses or anyone else to achieve that target.
I recently visited the constituency of the Minister for the Environment, who, unfortunately, is not present at the moment. Oldham's Liberal Democrat council told me that it had wanted to replace PVC windows in a tower block, but that it would have cost £9 to recycle each window, against £5 in landfill costs. The council got round that by making a deal with Remploy, but all the economic signals are pointing in the wrong direction. The Government are right to introduce higher landfill taxes, but I question whether they are moving fast enough to meet their recycling targets.
The Government do not want to talk about incineration. A failure to promote recycling properly, however, along with a rise in landfill tax, will drive local authorities in particular into the arms of incineration. I can tell the Minister that people up and down the country do not want incineration. They do not consider it safe, and they rightly think that it undermines recycling because the waste stream is diverted. Moreover, it requires the concentration of resources in one place and many transport movements. Nevertheless, it may well be introduced through the back door because of the lack of incentives for recycling and reusing, let alone the minimising of waste generation in the first place. I am sorry to say that the Department has not dealt with that. Incidentally, the amount of glass being recycled fell from 27 per cent. to 26 per cent. last year. If we cannot even get that right, we are in some difficulty, are we not?
I do not want to be entirely negative about what the Department has done internally. It has done many good things, and its intentions are entirely right. I genuinely believe that it has a good ministerial team: Ministers are committed to their task and do their best. Nevertheless, there are clearly teething problems. There is a mismatch between the part that came from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the part that came from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. There are also problems with staff morale, which were picked up by the Committee. They are due partly to the variation in salaries—an inherited problem—but the current 20 per cent. turnover rate in junior-grade staff would be high in any Department. Furthermore, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said in the House on another occasion that 83 per cent. of targets had been missed. It is not exactly a success story so far.
We want DEFRA to work, and if we can help it to work, we will. However, some reassessment is needed of how it is working internally and, more importantly, of its clout across Government.

439
I fear that the Government—deliberately or unintentionally—have downgraded the environment. I am not saying that the DETR was perfect—it certainly was not—but in that big Department the environment and transport were linked because transport has such an impact on the environment. There was a 10-year transport plan, which many people think was quite beneficial environmentally. Moreover, the relevant Minister was the Deputy Prime Minister, who had some clout. Let me say, with due respect to the Secretary of State and to DEFRA generally, that the new Department does not possess the same clout. It is, for instance, difficult for DEFRA to lead on climate change without being able to pull the necessary levers.
Mr. David Chaytor: The hon. Gentleman spoke of the impact of the new Department across Government. Does he accept, having paid tribute to the commitment and ability of the ministerial team, that what ultimately matters more than the work of the Department is the work and commitment of the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry? Does he accept that many of the Department's intentions can be implemented only if we manage to change the culture in the Treasury?
Norman Baker: Indeed. The hon. Gentleman has a proud record on the environment, and knows what he is talking about. My point was that when the Deputy Prime Minister was in charge of the DETR, there was a chance that he might be able to speak to the Chancellor and get some of his own way. The evidence so far does not convince me that that applies now. I say that with due respect to the Secretary of State and her colleagues.
The Secretary of State talks of a 60 per cent. cut in carbon dioxide emissions, which is indeed desirable, but what is happening? Perhaps emissions are being reduced in Nobel House—I do not know what the Department is doing internally—but they are not being reduced where it matters, which is in the Department of Transport and the DTI. Aircraft emissions, for instance, are expected to double from about 20,000 tonnes in 1990 to 40,000 tonnes in 2010, and, according to a parliamentary answer given last week, a further increase is anticipated.
A Conservative Member mentioned earlier that ours is effectively a "predict and provide" policy on airports and air travel. It seems that any demand for air travel must be met. That policy is not environmentally sustainable, but it is the policy that we have, and it is making it far more difficult for DEFRA to curb carbon dioxide emissions. Indeed, the Department is not tackling that task. The Secretary of State said earlier that she had spoken to the Secretary of State for Transport about aircraft emissions, but, if we assume that she conveyed the right message, it seems that she lost. She must have been overruled, because her colleague went ahead anyway.
We have seen a transport statement this week that goes back to the days of road building, saying that the car is king again and minimising the role of public transport. There is no getting away from this. We have a mad situation in which the Government are able to finance road schemes directly, but to say, "If you want a rail scheme, go and talk to the Strategic Rail Authority". What does the SRA say? It says, "The
440
money has all been spent. Another £58 million was spent on Connex this morning"—or whatever company it happens to be—"and we have no money left because it has all gone to train operating companies."
According to multi-modal studies throughout the country, roads are going ahead and public transport is not. We must grapple with that problem, or we will see an increase in carbon dioxide emissions—as, indeed, we already are. This is one reason why they have increased in the past two years. What is the Government's strategy for reducing them? We have had nothing today from the Minister or any other Labour Member.
Mr. Chaytor: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the recent report of the royal commission on environmental pollution, which deals with air transport? Will he commit himself to supporting its call for a duty on aviation fuel?
Norman Baker: I am happy to say that I will. The Liberal Democrats have long believed that aviation fuel should be taxed. Fuel for motor vehicles is taxed; why should aircraft be excepted? In the current artificial situation, air travel is effectively subsidised in a way that is unsustainable, because it does immense environmental damage, especially on short-haul journeys. Why are aeroplanes flying from London to Manchester when there is what ought to be a perfectly adequate rail system? I can give one reason for that, as I went to Manchester the other day: the last train from Manchester leaves at about 8.10 pm. Until our rail systems work, such problems will continue.
DEFRA should be dealing with transport by lobbying very hard and achieving environmental aims, but it is not doing so. According to a parliamentary answer of 20 November, the cost of motoring went from a base of 100 in 1974 to 98.7 in 2001. In other words, motoring became cheaper over those 27 years, never mind the fuel protests. Over the same period, the cost of traffic by rail went from a base of 100 to 185.3. That is an 85 per cent. increase in the cost of rail travel. The bus figure went up from 100 to 166—a 66 per cent. increase in the cost of bus travel. Since the Government came to power, the cost of motoring has gone down again and the cost of bus and train travel has gone up. How does that help deal with carbon dioxide emissions or with the Minister's strategy for tackling climate change? It does not help at all—DEFRA must get a grip on the Department of Transport but it fails to do so.
The Department of Trade and Industry is responsible for energy, and DEFRA is left with bits and pieces such as home energy efficiency. The DTI produces the nuclear waste and DEFRA is left to clear it up. The polluter does not pay in Government; the DTI and the Department of Transport—the polluters—do not pay. DEFRA has to pick up the waste stream, which is wrong. The DTI and the Department of Transport should be greened, and if they are not going to be greened by the Prime Minister, there should be a mechanism in place by which DEFRA can do it.
The situation with regard to energy is almost unbelievable. According to a parliamentary answer that I received recently, the amount spent on the nuclear industry in 1997–98 was £94.3 million, and by 2000–01 it had reached £223.4 million. That is a massive increase

441
and does not even include the £650 million for British Energy. It is hard to imagine any other industry saying that it has got into difficulties and needs a blank cheque. That figure would pay for doorstep recycling up and down the country for every house twice over, yet we are handing it over to the nuclear industry because it has failed. Why are we so obsessed with the nuclear power argument? We have a failed industry, both generators are bankrupt, yet the Government give them more money time after time.
What are the Government doing to help renewable energy? According to another parliamentary answer, the renewable energy support in 2000–01 was £13.6 million. So the nuclear industry was given a wad of money, but only a few coins were thrown to renewable energy.
Mr. Jack: Is the hon. Gentleman yet able to reply to the long list given by the Minister for Energy and Construction of wind power projects for renewable energy, to which Liberal Democrat Members, from the north of Scotland to the south of England, appeared to object?
Norman Baker: The Minister for Energy and Construction used that particular debate as an opportunity to avoid the issue of nuclear energy. Instead, he indulged in a load of rhetoric. The examples that he gave were out of context and misleading. My party leader is firmly supportive of the wind energy project in his constituency and my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) fully supports the wind power project in his. The picture painted by the Minister is untrue and misrepresents my party.
Mr. Hayes: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has allowed me to intervene. I want to be absolutely clear about this. The hon. Gentleman is saying quite unequivocally that his party is committed to wind power, even where that means erecting large numbers of wind turbines in fenland landscapes, for example, that might spread across other unspoilt landscapes. Is that the ground on which the hon. Gentleman is proud and pleased to stand? We want to know so that we can let constituents across the country know it too.
Norman Baker: That comes from a member of the party that gave us nuclear power stations, with tens of thousands of tonnes of nuclear waste left for hundreds of years. Let us have no lectures about the environment from the Conservatives. We have a presumption in favour of wind power and our councils and Members of Parliament up and down the country support it. The hon. Gentleman gives an extraordinary description of wind farms filling every nook and cranny of the countryside, but they are subject to the planning process just like anything else, and local factors will be taken into account. That is what the planning process is for. However, there must be a presumption in favour of wind power. In addition, a significant amount of the money presently in nuclear power should be transferred to renewables and energy efficiency.
442
Until we have such policies, all the good words and rhetoric from DEFRA will not do much. It is not because DEFRA is deliberately misleading us—I think that it believes what it says, but it cannot deliver. What will DEFRA do to knock heads together in other Departments and ensure that they deliver on the policies that the Minister and his Department set out?
3.16 pm
Alan Simpson: I congratulate the Government on holding this debate in Government time and on couching the motion in such wide terms, allowing us to attempt to connect the local to the global. That is the major challenge that we face, not only as a Parliament but as a society.
There is much that the Government can feel proud of and excited about in relation to a number of the programmes that have been put forward. The strategy document on sustainable farming and food has to be right to set new and higher standards for food safety. It must be right that we set and meet higher standards for animal welfare. Those are matters on which the House should unite. So, too, should be the commitment to look for sustainable procurement policies. The question is: how do we get there?
Just over a year ago a document produced by a group called Sustain analysed food consumption and trade in the United Kingdom. The document was called "Eating Oil" and was a sad but salutary reminder of exactly what is happening in United Kingdom and European Union food trade. Product by product, we appear to export the same quantities as we import. In terms of EU food trade, we are generating a huge amount of food miles for no particular food gain in the nutritional intake of any part of our constituencies or country. What sort of market rules generate markets in food that are grossly polluting?
I was amused and slightly embarrassed at the reference of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) to the time when he and I were involved in setting up an urban farm in the centre of Nottingham—embarrassed because it was a reference to something that happened a quarter of a century ago. It reminded me that 30 years ago I was involved with other people in setting up a food co-operative in the centre of Nottingham that operated from my garage.
It was a very interesting and exciting time, connecting the interests of the urban poor to those of rural food producers. However, we cannot turn the clock back to provide a template for where we are or where we ought to go. It was for that reason that over the summer I spent part of my time making contact with some of those who are involved in the processes of claiming a place for local food cultures. I made contact with some of those who have been involved in the slow towns and slow cities movement in Italy. I had a fascinating time with the mayor of Greve, which was one of the pioneer authorities, and looked at the nature of the slow cities movement. It was not necessarily about transport movement but about the connection between food consumers and food producers. We talked to fresh food retailers and people who prepared food. People in restaurants told us about the wide choice of wines, and the vineyards that they came from. They told us about the farms and the nature of the produce. They talked

443
about their local cheeses and how they were made, and even offered to tell us the names of the farmers or take us to visit them. There was intense pride in the localisation of a system of food production and consumption that was not an anachronism in today's world of huge global connections.
People saw that system as an essential underpinning of a sensible and sustainable way of life. Food accountability was central to their food agenda. I realised that we have had a distorted food agenda—distorted largely by the history of MAFF, which has told me on occasions that we do not have a local food culture, because we need to go for trade liberalisation and abandon the idea of clear labelling. In the global food trading system, we have undermined the integrity of local food systems.
I ask the House to align itself with the food revolutionaries, the veritable Khmer Rouge of the food industry: the Women's Institute. The institute runs regular markets where people will be able to say where the food comes from and what has gone into it, be it marmalade or pies—perhaps giving the name of the farmer as well—and will probably be able to provide a phone number that people can ring to ask about the nature of the livestock-rearing or fruit or vegetable-growing processes. The WI understands the importance of food accountability, and the House would do well to follow its example.
Mr. Huw Edwards: I am sure that my hon. Friend would be delighted to come to the Abergavenny food festival, where he would see that philosophy put into practice with great success.
Alan Simpson: I am sure I would be delighted, and I am open to such offers, but I want to move the argument on from the local and personal to the structural.
We want that philosophy to become the norm, and that requires us to change the rules base for the markets as they currently operate. It is monumentally absurd that supermarkets should pay no business rates on their car parks. It would require only a small change in the regulations to allow local authorities to offer a different incentive and say to local food retailers that they can have a 70 per cent. discount on business rates for food reared and grown within 70 miles of their urban outlets. That would incentivise the strengthening and renewal of local food links.
The rest of Europe has a much greater diversity of local beers, because of a tax system that has always favoured the small and the local. The Chancellor has begun to go down that path with incentives to micro-brewers. In bars in France, all the pression beers come from regional specialists, supported by a tax and duty system that specifically favours the small, sustainable and local over the large, powerful and global. We, on the other hand, have market preferences that favour the rich and the powerful.
Mr. Weir: The hon. Gentleman is right to a certain extent, but how are we to force supermarkets, with their huge economic power, to give producers a fair deal? To be fair, some supermarkets, at least in Scotland, try to
444
sell local produce, but it is still on the basis that they dictate the terms to the producer and push down the prices.
Alan Simpson: That is a real challenge, to which there are several elements. One is to change the tax and subsidy system, removing the concessions to supermarkets that do not apply to local retailers. We should also think about changing the balance of power in the relationship between food producers and retailers. In France, farmers have a legal duty to act through cooperatives, and in Italy they are given tax incentives to do so. Governments can influence the rules base of the market. My point is that current presumptions are in favour of a rules base that gives greater freedoms to the rich and powerful who can determine today's terms of production, purchasing and distribution. None of that is based on principles of sustainability. That is where I would invite the Government to take some of our best initiatives and move them into a more coherent and sustainable strategy.
Now that we have set up the Food Standards Agency nationally, why do we not give similar powers to local authorities to set up local food commissions? In Italy, such bodies can get involved in the brokering of food contracts between urban consumers and the rural communities that produce the food. In the context of such arrangements, which other parts of Europe have as of right, we must consider the twin issues of labelling and liability.
Mr. Roger Williams: Some local authorities would like to use local food and products in their schools, but feel constricted by European regulations that insist on their putting the contracts out to open tender, without being able to specify where the food comes from.
Alan Simpson: Yes, that is part of the current rules base, and I think it is barking mad. We should challenge that, and invite our European counterparts to subscribe to a different common agenda on sustainability.
If consumers are to have choice, it must be informed choice. The current European proposals on clear labelling are enormously important in the context of genetically modified products or ingredients. The Government have got it completely wrong in presuming that only those who seek to produce GM-free food should be required to label. If someone else contaminated food that one attempted to produce in a GM-free way, whom could the consumer sue? It could only be the person who made a claim that the food was GM free. The European proposals say that anyone who knows that a GM ingredient is to be used at any stage of the production process has a duty to indicate it clearly and label accordingly. It follows that, if we are to have labelling, it must be connected to the notion of liability. We have said on many occasions that we are committed to the principle that the polluter pays. That principle is right, but in respect of GM foods we must find some way of establishing—it need not take the form of the Genetically Modified Food and Producer Liability (No. 2) Bill, which I introduced last year—that a rules-based system in which the genetic polluter forces the organic farmer out of business is unacceptable. Such a system would be absurd.

445
The Secretary of State has referred to genetic modification as being an automatic part of evolution, but that is fundamentally wrong. To put it in nonscientific terms, the reason why, throughout history, the soya bean has never mated with the fish has nothing to do with the fact that they do not fancy each other, or that they have different tastes in music, or that they prefer to read different Sunday papers.
Andrew George: They might want to.
Alan Simpson: Indeed, but the difficulty is that nature has provided species barriers that do not allow the sharing of those interests. They might share a place on someone's plate, but they are not likely to share a part in the process of reproduction and evolution. We must assess enormously seriously the consequences of a science that breaks down such barriers. We would never allow a new drug to be tested on members of the public outside strict laboratory conditions, in the way that we are currently trialling GM crops in open environments. That is the critical issue at stake.
On energy and technologies, there is much for the Government to feel proud of. I urge Members to read the document that was published last year, entitled "Powering Future Vehicles", which deals with a strategy that is remarkably ambitious. This Government are the first internationally to set targets for new vehicles. One such is that, within 10 years, one in 10 of all new vehicles should have fuel emissions of less than 100 g of carbon dioxide per kilometre. Ours is also the first Government to set really tough emission standards for low carbon buses. Again, that is an extremely desirable process for us to embark on and invite the House to support. However, there is no point in doing that if what underpins the centralities of our transport system is huge investment in motorways and disinvestment in railways, and huge investment in private transport and huge under-investment in public transport. That should be the locus of the refocusing of our attention.
In getting there, it will not be enough for us to talk about other fuel sources. Several Members have been involved in trialling differently fuel-sourced vehicles around the country. Some 10 years ago, I talked to scientists who were involved in running a fleet of cars around Germany using hydrogen fuel cells. The obstacle to change is not the technology, but the question of where to fill up. We must intervene in the markets for fuel in much the same way as is happening in France. In France, there is an obligation on service stations to provide access to alternative fuels.
The Government are right to point out that there is a debate about which will be the predominant nonpolluting fuels that we look to in 10 or 15 years' time. However, at this stage the question for the motorist who wishes to fill up more ethically is where to find the fuel choices. If we want people to try to occupy those ethical platforms, we have to make such choices available to them. It is not enough to exhort; we have to build that in as a condition of the franchises for service stations. Only then will people be able to exercise the sort of choices that the Government would like them to exercise.
Sooner rather than later, we will have to address the absurdity of the absence of an aviation fuel duty. Aviation fuel is arguably the most polluting form of
446
fuel, if only because of where the emissions are discharged, and the absence of such a duty also distorts other markets. I therefore urge the Government to take heed of the warnings and exhortations of Members, and to look at an early introduction of an aviation fuel duty.
Norman Baker: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the American Government are wholly opposed to such a tax. Does he therefore agree that the Government should take steps to persuade our European Union partners to introduce one at EU level, at least as an initial step?
Alan Simpson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I would urge the UK Government and our European partners to presume to levy such a tax on all American planes landing anywhere in Europe. The Americans cannot exempt themselves from the damaging consequence in terms of climate change that their assumptions about tax-free aviation fuel impose on the rest of the planet. I should welcome a tax.
I am very conscious that DEFRA has led the commitment to the eradication of fuel poverty in Britain. We could easily forget that that was an important milestone. Never has there been such a clear commitment by a Government in this country—a Labour Government—to the eradication of fuel poverty. DEFRA's current difficulty, however, is that the budget that it was allocated to address that problem is not sufficient to meet the targets and the needs. As a Parliament and as a Government, we must try to strengthen DEFRA's hand in obtaining a more sensible and adequate budget to meet our fuel poverty targets.
Last year, the Home Energy Conservation Bill, promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner), was talked out because it was argued that DEFRA could not afford £100 million a year to meet its costs. However, we have to put that in the context of the global figure to which we have just signed up in order to bail out a completely bankrupt nuclear industry. I understand that the total figure will be not the £650 million that was being talked about initially, but £13 billion. The Government propose to underwrite a bankrupt industry with £13 billion of taxpayers' contributions, yet we were told that we could not afford £100 million to pay for the elimination of fuel poverty.
A fraction of the money that will be thrown at the bankrupt nuclear industry could have allowed us to end fuel poverty in Britain, to cut carbon emissions dramatically and to set about a huge transition towards investment in renewables. It would have allowed us to occupy the international moral high ground, as the Government rightly want to do.
On my next point, I am in disagreement not only with the Government but with the House. On behalf of the unreconstructed, I want to make a plea that we should mount a challenge on something that currently mesmerises the House: the belief that global free trade—trade liberalisation—is a panacea for the world's problems. I think that idea is garbage. This morning, the Chancellor was singing the praises of free trade and telling us that it could eradicate global poverty. There is no analysis to support those claims for our planet.
Let us consider what has happened during the past 50 years. For the first 25 of those years, the developing world was allowed to make progress through aid

447
programmes and international support based on import substitution policies, so that they could meet their own needs before they met those of the west. The gap between the richest and the poorest narrowed. During those 25 years, per capita incomes in Latin America grew by 73 per cent. In Africa, they grew by 24 per cent. Then, post-1980—and who came to power in the UK and the US in 1980?—there was a cowboy era of free trade and trade liberalisation.
The figures for the second 25 years are grotesque. In Latin and South America, real-terms per capita incomes have grown by only 6 per cent. and in Africa they have fallen by 23 per cent. As was pointed out earlier, countries that are primary producers of goods such as coffee and tea face collapsing world prices for those commodities, and when the World Bank steps in with further trade liberalisation programmes it is on condition that those countries hand over ownership of all their primary resources in a fire sale. Those primary resources even include their own water. There is no point in our talking about sustainable access to decent water supplies, food or production processes when the rules of the game asset-strip the poor in the south in a way that we have never seen before. We shall not recover from that in terms of either climate change or global poverty.
In the representations that our Government make to those global summit meetings, we have to occupy a platform on which we assert the right of the poor to be judged not on the basis of how they feed the rich, but on whether they can feed themselves. Sustainability must begin with recognition of the capacity that exists in those continents and the subcontinent.
Just last week, environmental experts from Ethiopia and India spoke to us. Although there is a tragic famine in Ethiopia, they told us that they do not have a food crisis, in the sense that there is a huge surplus of cassava in the north and a famine in the south. They have no shortage of cash crops; they just have a shortage of cash. The international community will not allow their Government to step in to buy the cassava surpluses in the north to give to the farmers in the south without destroying the country's agricultural base.
India has stepped in to try to answer Zambia's plea to receive non-genetically modified grain as part of the famine relief programme. The World Food Programme says, "No, it is an unreasonable request." Why? Because the WFP primarily has huge surpluses of GM grain from the United States. India has been saying, "Look. We have had our largest ever grain surplus—55 million tonnes—take it from us. It is GM free." The WFP has stepped in under the auspices of the US and said that is an unreasonable request from those in one of the poorest countries on the planet.
India has record grain surpluses and its Government are telling farmers to produce less, more sustainably. Even India is asking, "Why on earth are you forcing us to open our grain markets so that America can offload its grain surpluses and destroy our domestic capacity for farmers to produce grain at a price on which they can survive?"
Let me put a challenge to the Government: we have ambitious targets and we have much that we can feel proud of in setting out our stall and in our current direction, but we now have to pull the best elements of
448
our policies together into a coherent programme that offers an alternative model of sustainable development not only for our own communities but for the global community as well.
That model of sustainable development cannot be realised unless we are prepared to challenge today's market rules, which favour the large and powerful over the small and local, and those who exploit and pollute rather than those who sustain and renew. If we can find the courage to meet that challenge, we will be thanked not only by generations of our own electors, but by communities across the planet.
3.43 pm
Mr. Michael Jack: Before I make my remarks, may I draw hon. Members' attention to the declaration of my interests in the food and agriculture sector in the Register of Members' Interests?
On Monday 23 December, I invite all colleagues who happen to be in the St. Anne's area of my constituency to join me at the pre-Christmas farmers' market, where they will see Fylde farmers trying to keep farming and to do their bit by marketing directly and thus to respond to the public's growing interest in where their food comes from and to answer some of the questions about traceability. Two weeks before that, the farmers' market in the village of Great Ecclestone in the north-west of my constituency will have effectively done the same thing.
The enthusiasm shown in those markets is electric and exciting. They put some of the passion and interest back into countryside matters, but the sad feature of today's modern, large-scale agriculture business, the marketplace for which is dominated by supermarkets and where 40 per cent. of the country's food spend is made outside the home, is that farmers' markets alone are not enough to help to rebuild and sustain our farming industry.
I was surprised that the Secretary of State made no mention of the fact that farmers' incomes—£1.5 billion in 2000—are at their lowest level in real terms since the 1930s. In the last six years, 67,000 people have left farming in the United Kingdom. Much as I admire the commitment of the Under-Secretary to countryside matters and to matters such as flooding, water and fishing, and the passionate involvement of the Minister for the Environment, there was not much passion from the Secretary of State to provide the vital ingredient that the farming industry craves—leadership. Often, farmers look to the centre to say which way they should go. Ultimately, it is their decision—they are business people and must make investments in their farms—but given that, in post-war Britain, politicians have interfered at a national and European level to form much of British agriculture, to set the marketplace and to set the price structure, it is hardly surprising that farmers look to the Government of the day for leadership, guidance and, above all, commitment to their industry. What we heard from the Secretary of State was a tour d'horizon of umpteen things in which her Department was interested and a great deal of management speak, but not much in the way of passion and commitment to farming.
As well as passion, we want a strategy that shows leadership, and I do not see much of that. As I said, we have heard a lot of management speak about roll-outs of

449
programmes, investigations and consultations. We have just been through the traumas of the foot and mouth outbreak, but did the Government take the lead in calling a public inquiry? No, they subcontracted their investigations to other people. When it came to sorting out a report on the future of farming, did the Government do anything? No, it was Sir Donald Curry, who was invited to chair a commission. It has done a good job, but the Government could have organised it, instead of which they simply subcontracted it. Now, it is subcontracting the future of farming to Lord Haskins. It would be nice if the Government, instead of publishing endless glossy booklets about the wonderful world of food farming as they see it, would face reality and offer some leadership.
Paul Flynn: The Conservatives made a great fuss, along with Farmers Weekly and a number of other newspapers, demanding a full public inquiry. Had they got their way, that inquiry would be only about half way through its work. Through the swift action of the Government, however, we have three independent reports of great quality.
Mr. Jack: It is remarkable that on an issue of particular concern to Labour Members, such as Bloody Sunday, the Government were happy to initiate a serious public inquiry. For those in the countryside of the United Kingdom, having the opportunity to speak in public on these matters was their priority. I urge the hon. Gentleman not to be selective. Given that rural communities have been torn to shreds as a result of this devastating outbreak, which was largely down to the failure of the Government to have a proper strategy in place, it would be a good part of the healing process to let them have their say. Looking at the inquiries that have been conducted by local authorities, one can see the benefit of letting the people speak on such an occasion.
The other factor that has affected farming, which has not so far been mentioned in the debate, is the relative strength of sterling against the euro. One cannot ignore that in determining many of the positions that farming and agriculture must now take to deal with the realities of a difficult trading position, which has opened up competition from Europe in a way that has not been seen before. It is not just a question of being better at doing something but of having an automatic price advantage to help. Many of the problems of our industry would disappear if we had parity of currency values.
Andrew George: Today's Government response says that they will consider giving direct support payments in euros to farmers in two years' time. Is it Conservative party policy to support that measure?
Mr. Jack: As a humble Back Bencher, I cannot speak for my colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench, but they may wish to respond to the hon. Gentleman's question. I was surprised, however, that the Government took so long to make payments in euros to UK farmers, because I thought that that had been agreed some years ago.
450
The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on one of the features of the response to the commission on food and farming. There is an incredible sense of lethargy—a sort of mañana attitude. Things do not happen today; they will happen in a few years' time. For example, the code of supermarket practice is all about reviews. It is not about ensuring that all the supermarkets sign up to it or about ensuring that the code is given some bite. The approach is, "Let's look at it in a few years' time, folks"—if there is anything still left to look at.
Let us consider the motion against the background of the huge decline in income and employment in agriculture. To table a motion of such unbiased self-congratulation that does not accord with anything in the real world is unbelievable. The motion and the Secretary of State's remarks gave no indication of what the Government think are the strengths and weaknesses of agriculture. The motion gives no encouragement to the better parts of the industry and no commentary on the overall strength of the United Kingdom in, for example, the milk and dairy sector in which we have a tremendous advantage over other parts of Europe. It does not talk about how the Government should be in Europe developing a strategy to enable the best bits of UK farming to survive. It did not even say that they want a vibrant farming industry in this country to survive. It is the lack of passion, commitment and analysis that worries me.
The Select Committee has exposed the utter failure of environmental policy to deal with the fridge mountain, the confusion caused over matters connected to the disposal of dangerous goods and the mañana attitude towards public consultation on the ultimate disposal of nuclear waste. However, I find no mention whatever of those issues in the Government motion. I wonder what planet they are living on when it comes to their agricultural and environmental responsibilities. There is no mention—in any seriousness—of genetic modification and what the Government plan to do. I could go on, but the fact that they have tabled such a motion demonstrates their lack of a sense of reality and their discourtesy to the House. Each item in the motion should have merited much longer debate on its own. To try to jam the entire Department's responsibilities in one onomatopoeic—I think that is the correct word motion goes too far.
I welcomed the commitment in the Secretary of State's remarks to sustainability and the acknowledgement that farming must be profitable. Many of the things that we want for farming depend on its profitability. I mention that point in the context of sustaining our rural economies. Without profitable agriculture, we cannot have many of the rural community facilities that we want.
I remind the House of what the Select Committee's report said about the role of DEFRA. It concluded:
"Whether it likes it or not DEFRA is more than just an interlocutor for agricultural and a wide range of other, related, industries: it is a funder, regulator, negotiator and mediator. It is important, therefore, that DEFRA makes clear the central role played by agriculture in delivering a host of its objectives, and in particular those relating to rural communities, the countryside and sustainable development".
That puts agriculture right at the heart of the rural economy and no one should ever forget that. Agriculture is not a manufacturing activity; it is about communities. It is about centuries of devotion to the

451
land in this country. The very fabric that we seek to sustain is the result of centuries of good farming. It is time that the Government acknowledged that.
The Secretary of State's speech referred to the announcement of £500 million to help implement the Curry commission. However, the detail is fascinating. There is £500 million over three years, and most of it has already been announced. It comes to £133 million a year for programmes that are part of the English rural development package. If one looks across the range of the programmes, one realises that there is limited money for many of the things that the Government say they are going to do to sustain the rural economy. It would have been helpful for the Secretary of State to comment on the workings of the English rural development plan.
There was no mention in the Secretary of State's speech about the state of CAP reform. Like the midterm review, it did not exist. In the foreword to one of the plethora of documents issued today, the Prime Minister says:
"But things are not right. European taxpayers pay around £30 billion a year for the CAP, yet our farm incomes are close to rock bottom."
Schröder and Chirac ensured that he was sidelined on the mid-term review. When Lord Whitty, the Minister from the other place, appeared before the Select Committee two days ago, I quizzed him on what exactly is on the table for the mid-term review. Perhaps the Under-Secretary can confirm what is still alive. Is dynamic modulation on the table? What is going to happen to the other elements of the separation of payments from production? What is the timetable? What has happened to the mid-term review, because if the CAP is to be reformed, that is when it will be decided?
What is interesting is that there is no mention of the non-subsidised sector of agriculture—pigs, poultry and, above all, horticulture. A member of the food and farming commission, Mr. Mark Tinsley, explained that the horticulture industry is responsible for 20 per cent. of agricultural output and 25 per cent. of the food chain, and that it is largely unsubsidised,
"But it is treated from DEFRA down as if it is an irrelevance."
So a large part of the agricultural sector, which accounts for a large part of our output, is seen as irrelevant. Most importantly, it is not subsidised. If there is a vision for the future of farming and the Government's role in it, the horticulture industry is it. Yet a leading player on the commission says that DEFRA thinks that it is irrelevant.
Mr. Hayes: I have met Mr. Tinsley, who is one of my constituents. My right hon. Friend is right about his concerns. He may be interested to know that Mr. Tinsley told me that he particularly regretted the lack of vision for horticulture, the lack of a willingness to invest in its future in terms of research and development, and the lack of Government support, by which he did not mean payments but some sense of direction.
Mr. Jack: I am grateful for that information and will build on my hon. Friend's comments. The Government have not formulated a proper strategy on how they will help the research side of horticulture. Horticulture
452
Research International awaits the Government's response to the quinquennial review. The Select Committee produced two reports highlighting the management and business failings of HRI, but instead of telling us what they were going to do, the Government sat back, twiddled their thumbs and waited for the quinquennial review. We still do not know what will happen to the only place in the United Kingdom where the Government can help the unsubsidised sector of horticulture. It is lamentable and shows a complete abrogation of responsibility. If the Government want successful food and farming in an unsubsidised world, it is vital for them to attend to matters connected with research and development.
Mr. Tinsley is making zero or negative returns on his capital, and people are working harder just to stand still. The directors of his company have even taken a pay cut. Yet the Government have seen fit not to make a clear statement about the research needs of the horticulture industry. That part of the farming sector was one of the first to embrace an assurance scheme and to deal with the costs of that. When one talks to Mr. Tinsley about some of the problems that he faces, it becomes clear that there is still an imbalance in the power between the buyer and the seller, and that goes to the heart of the matter.
In the Government's response to the supermarket code of practice, they made the lukewarm suggestion:
"The Government believes that the code of practice can set a standard for the industry as a whole. We endorse the Commission's call and are actively encouraging retailers".
What are the Government doing about the mismatch between the pious words of supermarket chairmen who tell farming conferences that they are backing the United Kingdom and looking after the farming industry and the actions of their buyers on Wednesdays and Thursdays when prices are agreed? How are they going to make certain that, through their buying policies, supermarkets do more than pay lip service to the needs of British food and farming? There is a great deal that supermarkets can do to help—respecting seasonality, for example. When we have the produce, we should buy from the UK, not simply take advantage of cheap offers from the continent.
To conclude, I shall say a few words about north-west England. The comments of representatives of the National Farmers Union on the state of the milk industry apply to rest of the country as well. There is an acceptance of the need to co-operate and of the need for value added. However, I remind the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), of the need to look again at competition policy and our milk industry. The Government must make certain that they give it every encouragement so that it is strengthened in Europe—we are competing against powerful players with a dominant position in the domestic market. However, the competition is not just European but worldwide, and our dairy sector is currently battling for survival with one arm tied behind its back.
Farmers in the north-west are worried about bovine TB, about which the Minister is deeply knowledgeable—I understand that he recently met Cheshire farmers to discuss it. If it is Cheshire today, it will be Lancashire tomorrow, and there is a real fear that little is happening to check the spread of that

453
debilitating disease. We are still awaiting trials but, in farmers' minds, practical action is needed to stem the spread of the disease.
DEFRA is a big Department and, at times, seems to be struggling both to recognise its priorities and to deliver. I urge it to show leadership, passion and commitment to our food and farming industry, and note the points made in our debate.
4.2 pm
Mr. Alan Hurst: When I was a novice political candidate for a partly rural division, I thought that it would be useful to gain some knowledge of the common agricultural policy, parts of which are impenetrable, particularly the language. I went to my first farm meeting armed with a passing knowledge, so I thought, of modulation, and I survived. I had no idea of the language that I would have to learn afterwards—we started talking about cross-compliance, various coloured boxes, first and second pillars, coupling, uncoupling and decoupling. It is not surprising that the wider public find it difficult to enter fully into the debate about the CAP and the future of farming.
There is now a tendency to argue that we should not have price support subsidies. There may be a case for that, but it is worth reflecting on how we reached the current position. Members who have met people who farmed in the 1930s will know of the terrible agricultural depression at the time. We are now in a recession, but that long-term depression lasted the best part of two decades. The price of land was so low that in practice it was almost given away in many areas, and was certainly rented at a low price so that it could be kept in cultivation or under stock. Many people from Scotland came to East Anglia and farmed the land because it was available at such a low rate. That was the sort of depression that existed before the war.
With the coming of the war, we realised how crucial our farming industry would be to us because we could not import foodstuffs from the rest of the world, as we had done. Following those two experiences, the Attlee Government after the second world war, under that great Minister of Agriculture, Tom Williams, began to introduce extensive price support and protection for British farming, which was the foundation of British agricultural prosperity until we joined what was then called the Common Market. The national policy of protection and support was taken over by the common agricultural policy.
It is not for me to give a simplified version of history, but it is sometimes worth recalling how we have come to be where we are, and the problems that have occurred since we have had the common agricultural policy, rather than our own policy. The CAP involves the expenditure of 44 billion euros. I am not immediately able to translate that, as the exchange rate changes regularly, but an awful lot of money is being spent on the support of agriculture across Europe, yet there is a feeling among farmers, the public, consumers and environmentalists that, notwithstanding all that money, nobody is getting a very good deal.
British agriculture needs support and protection. It suffers from a number of fundamental disadvantages, not all of which are replicated elsewhere. The right hon.
454
Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) mentioned the strength of the pound. A former Member of the House would have used the vulgar phrase "a double whammy" to describe the double detrimental effect on farming. It reduces the value of a farmer's subsidy, support or payment, and it increases the competitiveness of imports from abroad. The farmer loses in both respects.
The Government may at some stage make a decision about whether we should join the euro, but it is not a matter that can be dealt with in isolation from a range of other matters. It is not an issue peculiar to agriculture. We cannot make a decision to join the euro based solely on agriculture. That decision must be taken in a wider context, but while the euro is so weak and the pound is so strong, British farming will continue to suffer.
Our climate is not the most perfect in the world. Manchester has been mentioned. Manchester may have a perfect climate for some things, but not necessarily for agriculture. There are other countries that will always be able to grow farm produce more easily than we can because of their climate. The other thing that we do not have is land. A cursory look at the map of Europe reveals how much bigger France and Germany are, let alone the Ukraine or parts of eastern Europe. Such countries have land in abundance and the possibility of farming on a scale that is difficult to contemplate even for East Anglia. They therefore have the great advantage of economies of scale. The further east and the further south one looks, the more likely it is that in addition to cheap land, there is cheap labour. That wonderful combination enables such countries to compete on easy terms with the the UK.
Foot and mouth has been discussed, so I shall not deal with that, or with BSE, classical swine fever or the other scourges that have afflicted parts, or in some cases all, of British agriculture over the past few years. All those matters have a damaging effect on our ability to compete in a free market. Beyond that, we insist on extremely high standards of animal welfare, pollution control and environmental protection. I shall not elaborate on the argument about gold-plating—I have never been certain what that meant. However, it costs British producers money if they are obliged—rightly so—to observe higher standards of animal welfare, environmental protection and pollution control. The suspicion is that not all other countries follow the same route. A major turkey farmer in my constituency is Mr. William Grove Smith of Shalford, who produces very fine turkeys. He believes that turkeys are coming here from Italy in particular and being sold for less than the cost price in this country. I do not want even to contemplate the sort of conditions in which turkeys, pigs and other products are being produced in Brazil and brought to this country. What possible check any supermarket could have on the welfare standards or effects of pollution in such countries is beyond any reasonable calculation. We are therefore at a great disadvantage.
I come now to a word that I learned a number of years ago—modulation. In essence, in the context of this discussion, that means talking about whether to shift support to environmental and conservation schemes that will benefit the fabric of the countryside and take some money away from the price support system that has appertained hitherto. I do not think that anybody

455
can object in principle to taking that route. We all want an improved countryside and more vital wildlife, and we are mindful of some of the things that took place in the past, such as the destruction of hedges, filling in of ponds, enlargement of fields and all the other factors that radically changed the appearance of the countryside and did great harm to the preservation of our wildlife in certain parts of the country.
All of us should support moves to ensure that farmers are paid for preserving the countryside, as the exercise is not cost free. If one wants to plant a hedge, coppice a wood or plant trees, one must employ a labourer to do the work. Farming in an environmentally sensitive way clearly requires much more skill in mowing, harvesting and any other activities to ensure that no damage is done to the very environmental treasures that we are seeking to protect. Therefore, any environmental scheme will be much more expensive in practice than farming in the normal way.
I do not want us to move in that direction if the consequence will be yet another cut in farming incomes. If we are serious about doing so—we should think about it long and hard, although I think that we probably should—we must ensure that there are sufficient funds. First, they must pay the farmer for the work that he has to do, bearing in mind that so few people now work on the land. The right hon. Member for Fylde suggested that that was the Government's fault, but the number of people working on the land has declined at a colossal rate since 1945 for a range of reasons outside the present situation. In winter time, workmen on farms would do ditching and all sorts of preservation work on the land, but those people are not employed any more. If we want environmental schemes, we must therefore bear in mind that it will cost us money to ensure that farmers can carry them out, whether profitably or even at a cost.
The money that is provided for an environmental scheme must also go directly to the people who are carrying it out. There is a fear that too much money may be frittered away on the side in paying for the administration of such schemes or projects. We want to see the benefits of the money in our countryside as it is spent. We do not necessarily want to hear that 40, 50 or 60 per cent. of a programme's budget has been spent on its administration.
My penultimate point is that we need to remember that farming will remain the core business on the land. I do not think that anybody is suggesting that we are seeking to end farming and introduce a national parks service. Farming will remain the core of the agricultural business, and we must keep it supported by environmental schemes that are properly paid for and that the farmers can administer. We must always remember that farming, if it is to survive, must be profitable. If necessary, support schemes must be in place to make that possible in the long term.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), who is in his place, has talked about the effects of the common agricultural policy, and whether ultimately it is possible, as things stand, for there to be radical and far-reaching reform. There is a case—it is one that the Government should argue—for bringing farming policy back home so that member states of the Union can implement their own policy outside the common agricultural policy. In that way, each member state could react to the changing circumstances of
456
farming and the food situation much more rapidly, and change and adapt as appropriate. In other words, we would return to the schemes that we had but with the environmental overlay that had pride of place in the post-war Labour Government.
4.15 pm
Mr. David Curry: There is a part of the Gilbert and Sullivan opera "Iolanthe" that refers to the ability of parliamentarians to move almost anything. There is reference also to a parliamentary pantechnicon. The motion is the closest thing to a parliamentary pantechnicon that I have come across during my time in the House. It literally includes everything—and the kitchen sink. I suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that even with your ingenuity you would find it almost impossible to rule anyone out of order if he or she were discussing almost any subject. However, I do not wish to challenge you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on this matter. In effect, we have before us a motion of confidence in DEFRA. That makes it plain why we will vote against the motion.
We talk about farm incomes, but we never distinguish between various categories of farms. In broad terms, there is a large set of farms that are mainly in the hands of part-time lifestyle farmers. They make only a small contribution to production. These people farm not intending to make a profit, or not minding if they do not make one. That is an increasing tendency. I see no reason why policies should be devised round the economic needs of people in that category.
The second category is that of small full-time farmers who find life difficult. It was interesting this morning when Lord Whitty was challenged by John Humphrys on "Today". He talked about livestock farmers going out of business. At present, arable farmers are going out of business. Livestock farmers who were caught by foot and mouth have, to a significant extent, stuck in there. That is partly because the habit of survival is perhaps the most deeply ingrained.
Thirdly there is the large-scale commercial farm. There are a few such farms that produce overwhelmingly the largest amount of foodstuff. There is a choice to be made when it comes to the sort of farm for which we have policy in mind. It does not get anybody anywhere to talk about farm incomes as a broad average, no matter whether the figures are good or bad. A little more differentiation would help our analysis.
I shall focus on the heart of emerging Government policy. That is the same theme as the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) chose in his introductory remarks. There is the move from production subsidy to subsidy for public goods and the environment. We are talking about two sorts of subsidy. We give the impression that public goods are a good thing, and then we slide across, as it were, and say, for example, "support for", or use a euphemism. We are still, however, talking about subsidy; we are simply redirecting subsidies. To start with, we might just as well get the terminology correct. The mechanism is the modulation which gave the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) so much analytical difficulty in his early days when meeting farmers.

457
Indeed, it means something different from its first manifestation. It originally meant trying to hit large farms in northern European to benefit smaller farms on the continent. "Subsidy" has therefore had a new lease of life. I personally regret that jargon.
We are moving towards entry level schemes. They are intended to be undemanding. The Minister emphasised that they are not high access schemes or difficult to get into. They are the starting point; that is why they are called broad and shallow. They are going to be trialled for two years. All that one discovers in a two-year trial is whether the Government can administer the scheme. We will learn nothing about the environmental benefits of the schemes in two years. We should not fool ourselves. We will find out a little about their acceptability to farmers and the Government's capability of administering them, but they are only for a trial area and we therefore may not learn much.
There is however a legitimate question about the value for money of the broad and shallow entry level scheme. What will it mean to the farmer? Will it make a significant difference to his income? Will it have any incremental benefit to the taxpayer as the consumer of that sort of product? If the access point level is so low, what will we get for our money?
I assume that the purpose is to tee up the farmers for other schemes. I therefore welcome the fact that the Government state for the first time in the document that is released today that the roll-out of the schemes will depend on the trials. On every previous occasion, the Government said that roll-out would follow the trials. However, for the first time, they state that that will happen provided that the trials work. I do not know whether that signals a genuine change or whether language has simply slid from one expression to another. However, I welcome it as an improvement.
If we follow this path, we must find a method of getting value for money. We do that by creating a market in environmental goods. I want the scheme to be run as a marketplace. I do not want it to be based on income forgone. There are insufficient incentives for farmers in that. If the schemes are to be sensitive to local and regional needs, the only way to proceed is not through a great national agenda, but through farmers making a contract with the Government to buy into specific programmes, for which they perhaps volunteer. The Dutch can manage that and it should not be beyond English wit to do the same.
We should use the accompanying enhanced schemes, such as stewardship, which is currently under review, to support the main policy developments. The Government speak a great deal about joined-up policies. We have a chance to try to use the initiatives as an element to join up the programmes. I have two specific points in mind.
First, let us consider the requirements of the water framework directive, which the Select Committee is currently considering. It has enormous implications for farmers in the control of diffuse pollution—that is, run-offs from agricultural land. Few farmers have the remotest idea of the sort of requirements that may be placed on them. The Select Committee got the impression that people who live in urban areas have
458
even less idea about it. It makes more sense in getting value for money and minimising the ultimate costs to prevent the incidence of on-farm pollution than to clean it up at the point of discharge. That means that £10 spent upstream may save several thousand pounds downstream. That money ends up as a charge on the water user. Therefore the public who put in an investment of £10 upstream may well save several thousand pounds in tax or water bills downstream.
Secondly, I should like the money to be used to promote integrated crop management. That is a conservation grade of agriculture, not an organic production or even an alternative, but a method of trying to minimise the use of pesticides and fertilisers. It is a form of farming that tries to maximise the benefit to the environment and, for example, to bird species. The evidence appears to be that it enables natural habitat to be re-established much more quickly than people imagine. This is a whole-farm concept, and it would be a useful way of trying to bend a particular programme towards a broader objective, thus obtaining a multiplier effect in terms of value for money.
We must also ensure that the schemes do not proliferate. There is always a tendency for this to happen, because people say, "Hang on, we must make this one sensitive to particular circumstances"—which I endorse—but then the schemes tend to multiply and confusion arises in the minds of the farmers or other takers of the schemes as to which one they should choose and whether it is going to be bureaucratically complex. The administrative costs then mount up in the Department. I know from my own experience—and I do not imagine that things have changed much over the years—that the sheer administrative cost of running some of these schemes bulks very large indeed in the Department's budget. I also know that the Department is going through a fairly agonising process of trying to match its resources to its public service agreement targets at the moment—a fact to which I am sure the Minister is very much alive. There is some scope for rationalisation of the schemes. We have talked about whether the organic scheme might be brought within the framework of stewardship, and I still think that there is something to be said for doing that.
A final factor in the question of joined-up government is whether the schemes will qualify for the green box in the ultimate negotiations in the World Trade Organisation. After all, if we are shifting subsidy from production-related to non-production-related—the strict economist would say that there is no such thing as a non-production-related subsidy, but, for the sake of the negotiations, one can make a distinction—it is important that the present schemes that are in the so-called blue box, which is production-related, should be replaced by schemes capable of conforming with the rules of the World Trade Organisation. It is important that we bear that in mind when framing them.
That takes us straight to the schemes coming from the European Union, and to the mid-term review, because modulation is part of all that. There is now a serious question mark over whether dynamic modulation—which simply involves taking more money off farmers to put into environmental schemes: a progressive tax—is to go ahead. The impression that we got when we were in Brussels was that Brussels was pretty well reconciled to that item on the agenda slipping, at least in the present

459
negotiations. Some Ministers have also told us that they have the same impression—indeed, that they rather hope for that outcome.
This is important for the United Kingdom for several reasons. First, we are depending on that mechanism in Brussels, as Lord Whitty told us, to fund for ourselves some of the enhanced programmes that are going to move us more towards the support of public good benefits in agriculture. Secondly, the Government will need to look at how our own programmes for shifting from production to environmental support—our own domestic modulation—will sit with the European model, and, in particular, at the redistributive effects that they will have in the United Kingdom. There will be such effects between one farm or area and another. We must also consider the implications for British farmers if we alone are taxing their production aids, or if we are doing so at a much higher rate than is being done elsewhere.
Sir Don Curry put forward the argument, in his report, that we should go to 10 per cent. modulation in the absence of a major CAP reform—which always seemed to me like whistling in the wind—and then, perhaps, even to 20 per cent. I note a very guarded tone in the Government's response to that argument, as though they had not really committed themselves to going that far. There may be a case for doing so, but not until they have done the analysis, to which I referred, of the impact of such a measure, both internally and in terms of our competitive position.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and other hon. Members have mentioned the retail industry. Here, again, I notice a coyness in the Government's response. I am usually glad when the Government are coy about things. I have a certain inbuilt coyness when it comes to interfering with the marketplace. I want to say to the Minister that I see no reason why we should not see a consolidation of the retail sector. There is more competition in Britain than in many other densely populated markets—Holland, for example, has only two such retailers. The regional importance of retailing in Britain is perhaps slightly different from the national picture.
It is fairly obvious that Safeway has a "For Sale" sign over it at the moment. It is believed that Sainsbury's would have been for sale to Asda had the right offer come along. There is speculation that Sainsbury's and Safeway may have to put something together to hold off the relentless advance of Asda, which is breathing down Sainsbury's neck. Tesco keeps telling everyone that it would be intolerable to have any further merger, but of course that would create a much bigger competitor to Tesco. I see no reason why there will not be further consolidation of the retail sector. I am not sure whether there are any serious competition grounds to prevent that. If it were to happen, there would be even more cutthroat competition, and the playback, as it were, for the production of farmers would be even more acute.?
The Government must take a pretty hard look at the implications. The consumer gets good benefit from competition among retailers. I find it difficult to choose which pre-packed, pre-washed, mixed special salad to buy at my local Tesco. It is rather like getting a free vote: it tends to confuse me. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde said, the farming industry believes that it faces a monolith in terms of purchasing power.
460
There are ways into that market, but they must be explored and sustained. With the current level of the pound, the incentive is to purchase overseas.
I wish to press the Minister on another point. The Curry report referred to a policy on nutrition. The Government are guarded about that. I have attended conferences at which people have talked about the need for a dramatically interventionist Government policy to tackle problems such as obesity. It is argued that there should be different codes for different foods according to salt or sugar content, this, that and the other. I would be interested to know whether the coyness of the Government's response shows a reluctance to go down that path—I hope that it does—or whether lurking behind that phrase about nutrition is the intention to take a much more interventionist stand.
Several hon. Members have mentioned the World Trade Organisation. The WTO at the top end and the consumer at the other are the great drivers for change in agriculture. The Government talked about enlargement as one of the levers for change. That was never very plausible, as it was clear that we would never have tried to stand in the way of enlargement to get change in agriculture, because we would were too strongly in favour of enlargement for broad, macro-political and geo-political reasons. The WTO is an imposer of change.
On reflection, I do not necessarily subscribe to the view that the budget deal is permissive, as I think that world circumstances could turn it into a tough deal. We must get support for the new member states. Sugar and milk regime reform may come out of the budget proposals. The Schrder-Chirac deal could turn out to be tougher than people think. A short perusal of the commentary in the French press disabuses us of any idea that President Chirac has won vast plaudits from his own agricultural community for this deal. It says that this is the death of farming as we know it, and it cites the number of farmers, farm workers and farm holders who are going out of business. Exactly the same cycle as we have had in the United Kingdom is reproduced elsewhere.
It is legitimate to ask what is left of the mid-term review. If the dynamic modulation is gone, the main thing left is decoupling. It is important to press ahead with decoupling, although not necessarily with the agenda as it stands. It is an important complement to our national policy. If we are to be joined up, we must join up national policy with the broader European policy and—dare I say it?—we must be joined up across the internal frontiers of the United Kingdom. There is an increasing dislocation of policy across the national responsibilities within the UK.
The thing about the CAP is that change is never as dramatic as its critics demand, but it is probably more constant than they realise. It grinds along undramatically, and the CAP as it is today is massively different from the CAP as it was even 10 years ago.
The review by Lord Haskins is enormously wide-ranging. Its terms of reference are encyclopaedic. It excludes the Rural Payments Agency, which is a pity, since some fairly drastic attention needs to be paid to it. It also covers regional development agencies, local authorities, English Nature and the Countryside Agency—it is particularly unhappy for any organisation

461
to have the word "agency" stuck to it. It will extend well beyond the scope of Government. I suspect that it is a bit over-ambitious. I am not sure whether Lord Haskins realises what he is taking on. How many days a week will he devote to the task? How big is his secretariat? Is he alone, or are others helping him? How long has he to complete the job? The review, after all, goes to the heart of some of DEFRA's rural responsibilities, and spills out beyond that.
Let me suggest one or two lines of inquiry. There is undoubtedly confusion about the providers in the business of what might broadly be called rural regeneration and economic developments. There is also confusion about the differentiation of schemes, along with a lack of definition in regard to the core tasks of bodies such as the Countryside Agency, the RDAs and the training and skills councils. If Lord Haskins could introduce more rationality, and more clarity and differentiation in terms of function, he would not just do a service to the consumer but do an administrative service to the Dept. A simpler architecture for purpose and decision making would be welcome.
If there is one thing that would help my rural areas it is broadband, which I think was mentioned by the hon. Member for Sherwood, but such high technology is not available to rural areas. People running companies tell me that they would be willing to locate in places such as Settle, which was at the heart of the foot and mouth outbreak—it would be a wonderful place for a cottage industry with three or four employees—but, because they cannot obtain the necessary technology there, they operate in Surrey, where they can. Technology is almost more important than anything else. It is not even possible to use a mobile telephone in large parts of the Yorkshire dales. If we are to have 3G—I must say that I am even more coy about that than about everything else I have mentioned today—it would be helpful to have mobile phone contact in the dales, although I will not intervene in planning decisions there.
I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde said about Horticulture Research International. We need decisions. The first stage of the review has ended; there are customers and people who might be involved in the reorganisation, and there are employees who need to know their fate. The sooner those decisions can be made, the better.
DEFRA contains some outstanding people. So, as a matter of fact, did MAFF: let someone fly the flag for MAFF for once. DEFRA administers some extraordinarily complex schemes, especially those related to the environment, which have major implications for businesses. The operation of the packaging directive, for instance, is a market-based scheme. The Department must make forecasts and specify targets for companies, and trading is involved. Such activity requires considerable statistical and economic skills, and the Select Committee genuinely doubts whether the Department can exercise the strength and depth that are needed. An analysis and some retraining are probably required.
There is a lot of sense in the Curry proposals. They make some extraordinarily heroic assumptions about CAP reform, and there is the occasional slightly dotty recommendation from, no doubt, a member of the panel
462
with a bee in his bonnet. There are also some curious omissions from the monitoring body that will be chaired by Sir Don. I think I am right in saying that the Environment Agency is not represented, although it will play a central role in managing the environmental activities of farmers. It is to be the nominated body, as I think the term is, dealing with the water framework directive.
The Government's response to the report seems, on the whole, sensible and balanced, but I ask them to keep checking on value for money. My great fear is that if we move away from production subsidies, which have proved very difficult to dislodge, we will create a parallel structure of green subsidies—which are probably even more fiercely defended, because the environmental lobbies have a great deal more money than the agricultural lobbies or the political parties—and become frozen in a kind of immobility. I would like to see them flexible, digressive and, above all, based on a market. If we are talking about the farmer responding to the market, why should we define the market purely in terms of his productivity capacity and not in terms of other goods that he is seeking to make available to the public?
4.40 pm
Paul Flynn: Much of the tone of this very interesting debate has been based on an acceptance of what has happened in the farming industry since the war. My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) described how subsidies were originally provided for farmers. It seems unreasonable in the 21st century still to be running the farming industry on the basis of trying to secure victory in the second world war.
We need revolutionary rather than evolutionary change. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) gave us the traditional image of farming as a dependent industry that seeks more and more subsidies. He complained that there was not enough excitement or leadership from the Front Bench today—however, there was £500 million. If £500 million was given to the aluminium or steel industries, I would put up with the lack of excitement or leadership.
In Wales, manufacturing industry contributes 27 per cent. to GDP, while farming contributes less than 1 per cent.—in fact, it is probably a minus figure now. I believe that the figures for England are about 20 per cent. and 2 per cent. Yet more public money is poured into farming than into the rest of the economy and the manufacturing industry. At the heart of the very valuable Curry report is a stark message. Taxpayers are handing out huge subsidies every year for a policy that is destroying economic value, consumers are paying more for their food, the environment is being degraded and farming incomes are on the floor.
Mr. Jack: I am sorry if I lost the hon. Gentleman. In talking about the subsidised sector, I wanted to provide a point of contrast with the non-subsidised sector. I picked on horticulture to point out some of the difficulties that the non-subsidised world was having, because eventually I hope that the rest of farming may

463
move in that direction. I am sorry if I did not make my remarks clear, but it was to the horticultural industry that I wanted right hon. and hon. Members to look.
Paul Flynn: I understood precisely what the right hon. Gentleman was saying. He wants to make all parts of the farming industry dependent.
Let us look at another non-subsidised industry. If we had told the steel industry that we would treat it the same as farming, we would not have lost 1,500 jobs in my city in the past 12 months—instead, we would have had a set-aside blast furnace. We would have told the blast furnace men to carry on producing and said, "You are making something which, unfortunately, for a brief period, is not competitive on the world market but if you continue producing it, we will dump it in a hole somewhere. We will pay everyone their full wages whether they are working or not and we will train people up to take apprenticeships for jobs that do not exist." However, the conditions that created the situation in the steel industry are precisely the ones that pertain in the agricultural industry, about which the right hon. Gentleman and others are complaining. The products produced in the steel industry are artificially dear when they are sold in euroland because of the value of the pound, while those produced in the Netherlands by the sister firm of the one in my constituency are artificially cheap, although the firm is less competitive than the one that has largely closed down in my constituency.
We have an industry that is in serious trouble but has been subsidised by the taxpayers for a long time. However, I have a piece of good news for the right hon. Gentleman. Something was published today, but unfortunately the Farmers Union of Wales did not issue a press release about it, nor did the National Farmers Union, despite the fact that I have had a blizzard of press releases from them throughout the year. Somehow they missed this one. Let us cheer everyone up a little. The news is that cash incomes for all dairy and livestock farms in Wales rose from £18,600 last year to £21,100—admittedly still low, but I have more good news to cheer up the right hon. Member for Fylde. Cash income from hill and upland farms, the worst-off farms, increased by £3,500, to £20,800. We should celebrate that slight amount of good news.
Mr. Jack: Before the hon. Gentleman paints me into the corner of subsidy and nothing else, let me tell him that my point about the horticulture industry was that it received no subsidy. I made my living in that industry before entering Parliament, and I solidly adhere to what the marketplace and responsiveness to customers' needs can do without subsidy.
Paul Flynn: Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman why I do not want that industry, which he knows well, to fall into the dependency culture. We should not create an industry that is subsidy-sensitive but market-blind. It is nothing new for people to be leaving the agriculture industry. Very few of those who are now leaving are going bankrupt or joining the dole queue. Those who own their farms can sell them and move into other industries, or do something else. People have been leaving agriculture for a very long time. A. G. Street wrote a book about farming in the 19th century, and
464
depopulation, with the ironic title "Farmer's Glory". "The Deserted Village", written in the 18th century, begins:
"Ill fares the land to hastening ills a prey".
The process of depopulation in the farming industry is a continuous one. Unlike redundant steelworkers, who are not given a chunk of the blast furnace to take away, most farmers have the benefit of assets. About 15 per cent. of farmers are tenants and the rest are owners. Farm incomes have certainly dropped in recent years, although they are still in the top decile of their group, but the other assets have increased enormously: a 100 per cent. increase in real terms in the value of land from 1993 to 2000 and a similar increase in the value of farm buildings. A farmer leaving with such assets will have his prosperity assured.
The people who are left out are the tenant farmers. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) gave a definition of modulation. As I understood it, modulation was taking money from the rich millionaire English farmers and giving it to the small Welsh hill farmers—a policy that I strongly support. The Conservatives are very keen on the right to buy, so why not allow tenant farmers, after they have been farming for 10 or 15 years, say, to acquire the valuable assets on which they have been working?
The Conservatives have said that there should be an inquiry. I congratulate the Government on the way in which the reports have been published. The Anderson report was probably the most significant. I will not quote what Conservative Members said during the foot and mouth epidemic, as many of them would be embarrassed about the steps that they urged on the Government, for example on closing rural footpaths, which did the main damage to the tourist industry and proved not to have been necessary.
Everyone was wrong on occasion about foot and mouth, because the outbreak was unprecedented in scale. The Government have rightly and realistically accepted their responsibilities. We should not deceive ourselves and believe the myth that the outbreak was caused by the Government's mistake in allowing food imports. What happened here, which did not happen in the Netherlands, France, Ireland, or Scotland, was a vast spread of the disease. The Anderson report illustrates the great cobweb of movements that took place between the time of the first outbreak and when it was detected—a period of three weeks. As a result of that vast number of movements, more than 1 million animals were potentially infected. That was the reason for the scale of the calamity.
The only way to protect against that is to reduce such movements. Some of them were illegal, and most were about making the animals more profitable. Bed and breakfasting for sheep was one of a number of ways in which dealers moved animals about—ways that do not make any sense. Thanks to the courage of the Government, we now have the 20-day movement rule. They have compromised in that regard—there is a strong case for a 28-day movement rule, because of the incubation period of the disease—but it is not just foot and mouth that we should worry about. We should also be concerned about blue tongue virus, vesicular stomatitis and a great many other diseases that will almost certainly come at some time. We will have an

465
outbreak of some disease in the near future. Blue tongue virus poses a particular and new threat, because of various changes that are taking place in climate, and so on. If such diseases do arrive, we will need those restrictions on animal movements. There are alternatives to such movements.
The problem is that the industry is extremely conservative. It does not like to change in any way, or to form co-operatives, and it was very slow to enter organic production. During the foot and mouth crisis, animal movements were greatly and necessarily reduced. In many cases, the industry then started to use video links, the internet and direct sales, which had all manner of beneficial effects. Such methods were very efficient and quick. They cut down on the number of journeys made by animals, which also reduced animal suffering. The industry could well return to that, if it accepts the absolutely essential precaution of the 20-day rule, which is complained of in the amendment from the Opposition.
I shall briefly mention my experience of organic farming. I vividly remember a number of friends of mine starting up organic farms in Ceredigion in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Now, they are all extremely prosperous, but at the time they were regarded as weird and strange. They were laughed at by their neighbours, who said, "The soil is too thin, you won't be able to grow anything here." Now, it is the neighbours who are suffering privations. It was those organic farmers—sadly, as it happens most of them came from outside Wales—who had the leadership and the foresight to realise that organic farming had a great future. However, it is a sad fact for the entire farming industry that some 75 per cent. of the organic food consumed in this country is imported. We were very late entering into that market.
People still go on about blaming the supermarkets, and I am sure that there is a case to be made in that regard. The Competition Commission conducted two major inquiries into the way that supermarkets treat their relationship with farmers. Both inquiries concluded that there is nothing wrong, and that supermarkets are behaving in a reasonable way. However, there is an answer to the problem. As has been pointed out, in France and in other countries farmers combine into co-operatives, but the problem remains of the endemic conservatism of our farming industry, and the reason for that is the dependency culture.
Since the war, farmers have got into the frame of mind whereby they believe that, when a problem occurs, someone else will solve it for them. They look to the Government to come up with a subsidy; indeed, today the Government are being asked to provide solutions. Other industries do not do that—the high-tech industry is not asking the Government to solve its problems, and nor is any other manufacturing industry. Because of farming's dependency culture, it is looking to Europe, to the Welsh Assembly and to anywhere else to solve all its problems. When the farming industry decides to stand on its own two feet, we can look forward to a firmer and better future for agriculture.
I am very much in favour of the suggestion that was made about changing the nature of farm subsidies in the light of environmental subsidies.
466
However, a great mythology has grown up: we have to be grateful to the farming industry for our beautiful countryside. It is as though, if farming comes to an end, the hills and mountains will fall flat, the rivers will dry up and we shall no longer have an attractive landscape. Our countryside is beautiful because of what nature has done. In northern Scotland and in Iceland, there are sites of great natural grandeur in areas that have never been farmed. In many farming areas, the blots on the landscape are the agricultural buildings and silos that have been put up without planning permission.
Mr. Hayes: I intervene only in case there is no time later for me to refute the crass points about our landscape that the hon. Gentleman has just made. He is a man of great experience and insight so he must know that the vast bulk of rural Britain is a manufactured landscape—it is not just mountains and streams. In any case, even streams have to be maintained. The countryside has to be husbanded and it is husbanded by farmers. We owe our countryside to farmers and I hope that the hon. Gentleman has the generosity and common sense to acknowledge that.
Paul Flynn: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening carefully, he would have realised that I was making the point that farming is not essential and that nature was beautiful before farming arrived and will be beautiful when farming ends. Compared to the way in which we use vast tracts of land at present, the future for farming will be entirely different in 50 years; as we can see, for example, in the plans for farming being developed at Delta park in Rotterdam. We must not fall into the trap of believing that huge tracts of land cannot be used for leisure purposes that are not necessarily connected with farming. I am sure that we shall see that in my grandchildren's time.
This is the first time that I have spoken in a farming debate in the House, although I represent a constituency where there were three outbreaks of foot and mouth last year. Some farmers no longer farm their land and use it as a large garden, but there are also a number of working farms. I want to cite one example to answer those people who say that we must never change anything and that if land has always been in production, it must remain so.
In one area of my constituency, two and a half farms employed no more than four people. The farms received subsidies and were a drain on the economy, like most farms. Nowadays, the land is no longer farmed but is occupied by an enterprise—a resort employing 400 people. The resort will host the Ryder cup in 2010 and will be of huge advantage to the nearby city. There has been a huge improvement in the use of that land.
Another farm that closed down was replaced by a golf course which employed 2,000 people. In many rural areas, when farmland is reused for other purposes, especially for recreation, more people are employed in almost every case. There are benefits to the local economy and there is no longer a drain on the Exchequer because subsidies are no longer needed.
We must have that change. The idea that we should continue farming hundreds of acres, employing only one or two people, is false. There is no economic need to do

467
so. By the time the produce from most farms gets to the farm gate, it is already worth less than the cost of production. That does not make sense.
Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman's analysis misses out one element: the strategic need for agriculture. Within the past few weeks, because of drought in the United States and Australia, feed wheat from the United Kingdom is being exported to Australia. We need to take a world-strategic view on farming from time to time, not merely the hon. Gentleman's view.
Paul Flynn: Let us consider the most serious strategic view—the most depressing thing that happened during the foot and mouth epidemic, when the production of meat almost closed down in this country. What would have happened if that had been any other product in any other industry? There would have been shortages, price increases and queues at the supermarket. However, during the foot and mouth epidemic, there were no queues, no shortages and no price increases. The reason for that is a good one. We should look to a country where, in 1984, 40 per cent. of its income came from subsidies, yet by 1987 it had no subsidies. That country looks back to 1984 as the dark days of dependency. It does not want to go back to them. It does not want subsidies again. In that country, if I could draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the strategic situation—
Mr. Jack: Tell us that it is New Zealand, and get on with it?
Paul Flynn: Yes, it is New Zealand. It is cheaper to bring meat from New Zealand to meat processors in Wales than to buy the cattle on the hills around the meat-processing firm. The right hon. Gentleman may well know that the Consumers Association analysed the price of food in Britain and New Zealand. There were no subsidises on the other side of the world, but the basket of all farm foods was half the price of our food in this country. That is precisely what Curry is saying in his report. The policies on agriculture that we have pursued for so long have given us high prices, a degraded environment and a farming industry that does not have the rewards that it should have.
5.1 pm
Mr. James Paice: I have listened to all the speeches in this debate with great interest, and I have agreed with a substantial amount that has been said by virtually all hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), who always puts a very reasoned case on agriculture and rural issues. However, the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) has displayed why it is perhaps a good job that he has not spoken in agriculture debates before. Very few people who understand farming, the countryside and the rural economy would recognise the picture that he painted. He missed the point—this was touched on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack)—that farming is about producing food.
The hon. Member for Newport, West referred to New Zealand, and I have huge admiration for the way in which it has changed its policy, but we have to recognise
468
that proportionally it is a very large country with a small population—fewer than 4 million people, I think—to feed and its agricultural land area is much bigger than that of the United Kingdom, even if we include all the highlands of Scotland as prime agricultural land, which, of course, they are not. So there is a very great difference.
We need to consider how food will be provided in the future, which is why I intervened on the Secretary of State. To talk about taking vast swathes of the British countryside out of agriculture in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes raises the serious question, which I want to come to in a moment, about strategic food supplies in the long term—not just in the next few years or even the next decade or so—given the world population projections to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) referred earlier.
Before I make my own remarks, I must remind the House of my interests as declared in the Register of Members' Interests. I fear that I fall entirely into the category to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) referred. I have a tiny piece of land, which can only be described as a lifestyle farm, but, because it grows corn, I have to declare the issue to the House.
A number of hon. Members have said that farming is in its worst state since the 1930s. That is perfectly true. The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), who is no longer in his place, very clearly and capably encapsulated in a few sentences how we got into this situation and what has happened since the 1930s. He drew a distinction between the depression of the 1930s and what he called the recession of today, and he rightly said that the thing that differentiated the two was land values.
I would argue that it is only the value of the land that has stopped today's situation in agriculture becoming as bad as that in the 1930s, because it has provided farmers—at least owner-occupiers—with a significant asset. Agriculture is a very low-geared industry, so owner-occupiers can at least get out and buy a house to live in. Whether there is sufficient capital to generate an income to live on depends, of course, on the circumstances. Land values are now being held up for non-agricultural reasons: the most important being that, for individual reasons, large numbers of people from the more prosperous sectors of the economy espouse the ownership of land for its own sake. They want a nice house in the country, so they buy a house with farmland all round it, without being particularly interested in farming. They are prepared to pay very large sums, which inflates the value of land. The impact of roll-over tax relief for farmers in the south-east in particular—and for anyone else who owns land in the south-east, sells it for development and wants to roll it over—holds up the value of land, too. Were it not for those extraneous pressures, we would have seen a huge collapse in the price of land, which would have exacerbated the overall problems facing farming, because the asset value would have disappeared, and the gearing of many farmers, who today may seem relatively low-geared, would have gone up dramatically if the asset value had collapsed with it.
Relevant to the environmental aspect of the debate is the fact that in large parts of the country huge numbers of individuals have gone out of farming, but the land has

469
not come on to the market—again thankfully, as it would have led to a collapse in land prices. Those are predominantly arable areas, where farms are now taken on by other farmers under some kind of farm business tenancy, contract farming or management farming arrangement. It is common knowledge that many farmers in arable areas now farm what are very large chunks of farmland in totality. In my part of the world, there are several farmers farming between 3,000 and 6,000 acres. That land is probably in the ownership of 10 or even 20 different landowners who were formerly small farmers but who have decided that it was not worth continuing and have come to an arrangement with another farmer who is prepared to invest in the high levels of machinery required to farm that sort of land.
That is not to the environmental advantage of the area, as some 200-acre farms are being farmed by contract farmers who come in with vast equipment sometimes 300 horsepower equipment— on four wheels or tracks—which rips up the farmland, ploughs and drills it, and is gone again within a couple of days. In the meantime, huge disruption is caused to wildlife and the local environment, which would not have occurred if there had been traditional farming, with a man using much smaller equipment and taking his time.
I want to refer to a couple of other small points. In her opening address, the Secretary of State did not show much humility, and, as other right hon. and hon. Members have said, the motion shows none whatever. It is strong on fine words but real commitment or action is woefully absent. Nowhere is that clearer than in relation to the foot and mouth outbreak and what happened in response to it. I had the privilege to sit on the Front Bench when the foot and mouth outbreak was at its peak and I witnessed the then Ministers being clueless as to what to do. The former Minister of Agriculture is a perfectly decent, nice man, but he was clearly totally out of his depth when trying to control and manage that crisis. Yet we have seen no humility, about its handling by the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or by the rest of the Government who were involved.
Contrary to the view expressed by the hon. Member for Newport, West, the vast majority of farmers accept the need for change, and most of them realise that it is bound to happen.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I do not want the hon. Gentleman's remarks about my former ministerial colleague in the old Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to pass unchallenged. The hon. Gentleman was on the Opposition Front Bench in that period and he will remember that there was much praise for my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown) for the way in which he handled the Department in the crisis. That crisis was unprecedented, as independent reports have recognised, but it was brought under control within the same time scale as the much smaller 1967 outbreak and it did not restart, unlike the 1967 outbreak.
470
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has made it clear quite openly that mistakes were made in handling a crisis on that scale. We are not trying to pretend that they did not occur—so, in that sense, there is no lack of humility. The hon. Gentleman is very fair-minded, but his remarks about my right hon. Friend the former Minister at MAFF were unfair.
Mr. Paice: I want to emphasise that I hold no grudge or grievance against the former Minister. I have immense time and respect for him. I like him very much. I do not want anyone to be under a misapprehension. In that respect, my remarks were not a personal criticism. However, I believe that the right hon. Gentleman was out of his depth as a manager of a senior Department. It was evident at that time that he was responding to all sorts of advice and pressures and was not able to handle the crisis as a head of a Department should be able to. I am afraid that—whether it is fair or not—the buck stops at the top. I also notice that if the right hon. Gentleman had been so wonderful, he might have been the current Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs instead of being moved down a rank in the subsequent reshuffle.
I was about to say that most farmers want and welcome the need for change. That change will mean reduced production support. I say "reduced", because, although I share other hon. Members' view that we need to move away from production support altogether, the reality of CAP reform is that such support will not go entirely. There will be a reduction.
Sir Sydney Chapman: I perfectly understand my hon. Friend's argument, but does he not think that it is a funny world when it is estimated that the aid that the developed countries give to the developing countries is only one seventh of what the developed countries give in subsidies to agricultural production?
Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend tempts me to consider the whole issue of helping the under-developed or developing world—what we used to call the third world before it became politically incorrect to do so. I have a huge personal interest in the subject, having visited many such countries. I do not want to spend much time considering that aspect of the CAP, but I agree that it is an obstacle to the development of those countries.
Those of us who have farmers in our constituencies will admit that some farmers will resist change. They have always done the same thing and want to continue doing the same thing. If that is what they want to do, that is their choice—so be it, and I would not for a moment suggest that the House, the Government or the European Union have a responsibility to ensure that they should be able to continue as they have if they are not prepared to face up to the need for change. But most farmers want change.
As others have said, most farmers and people in the countryside generally feel immensely let down by the Government. Many farmers do not understand the difference between food production in the terms that the Government use and the need for the strategic supply and the security of the food supply that I mentioned earlier. They do not understand why the Government have openly—it is in the documents that were published

471
this morning—decided that security of food supply is no longer a facet of agricultural policy in Europe. Farmers hear Ministers refer, as they do in the motion, to
"a vibrant food and farming sector",
but the Government appear unwilling to support it.
I know that Labour Members will not like my next comment, but I must refer to a very small incident that was of nevertheless of huge importance. The Secretary of State went to Paris to promote the export of British beef, but refused to eat it. [Interruption.] The Minister makes a dismissive gesture and a guttural utterance, but his response demonstrates more than anything that the Government do not understand how important it is to be publicly supportive of people. I received phone calls and letters about that incident, as I am sure did my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) and other hon. Friends who represent areas that produce more livestock than mine does. People were incensed by the right hon. Lady's refusal to eat the beef. I do not know what was behind the incident. Civil servants scrabbled around for reasons to explain her refusal, but it demonstrated that she was not prepared to show the courage to stand up for British beef.
Mr. Michael Beaumont, a butcher in a village in my constituency, rang me the day after the incident. He was "absolutely disgusted" at the Secretary of State's refusal to eat that beef, and he is not even a producer.
Mr. Morley: She had it for dinner.
Mr. Paice: I am delighted to hear that, but I am sure that a little snack during the day when the cameras were on her would have served a far greater purpose.
A number of hon. Members mentioned biofuels. I welcome the Chancellor's U-turn in the space of 18 months in deciding to reduce by 20p a litre the duty on bioethanol. When we debated the Finance Bill on 24 April 2001, the right hon. Gentleman flatly refused to extend the reduction to bioethanol despite introducing it to biodiesel. The only thing that changed in the interval was the fall in the price of grain. I want to issue a word of caution on that. Although I doubt that 20p will be sufficient to trigger the industry, as the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) said, we need to recognise that the figures have been worked out on the price of wheat today, which is roughly £55 a tonne. That is less than half what it was 10 years ago. Whether or not £55 a tonne is an economical feedstock price for the production of bioethanol, it is certainly not an economic price for the production of wheat. Farmers will not continue to produce wheat at £55 a tonne, especially as their production support—their integrated administration and control system cheque—reduces alongside it.
The linkage of payments to the environment is often quoted. Some 14 years ago I wrote a paper for my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), the then Minister, advocating a broad and shallow scheme similar to that now advocated by Mr. Don Curry. Although I think the new proposal is sensible, the article in Farmers Weekly has made me concerned about the bureaucracy involved.
In considering both the shallow scheme and the reported narrow and deep scheme that will replace the stewardship scheme and environmentally sensitive
472
areas, we need to bear three things in mind. First, we must ensure that any scheme does not incur excessive bureaucracy that eats away the budget. Secondly, we must truly recognise, as the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) said, the total cost to the producer and the landowner. Costs are not merely equivalent to the loss of growing a crop. If a farmer is going to lose money growing a crop, it will not make any difference if he does not grow it and he will still lose the same sum. He will just be replacing one non-profitable land use with another. The sums involved have to produce a return for the care of the environment.
The third consideration is that we must recognise the conditions under which competition exists within Europe and across the globe. The Government regularly wax lyrical, as indeed do I. about the inequities of the CAP and its impact on free trade, especially with the developing world. However, I wonder whether we understand the consequences for our own producers as well as overseas producers. There are obviously factors such as labour costs on which we cannot compete. I have seen workers in Kenya and Zambia picking peas for a dollar a day for Tesco—clearly, we cannot compete with that, and nor should we try to do so. However, many competitive issues arise from our obligations to our producers and are a challenge that no Government have got to grips with. To return to the crucial issue of food production, we cannot expect British farmers to compete successfully and contribute to the vibrant food industry sought by the Government if they are vying with imported food which is inferior or has been produced under less rigorous regulatory systems. Regulations on animal health and welfare, pesticide control, waste management, landscape obligations and nitrate vulnerable zones all add huge costs to British producers, but they are not borne by many other producers, in both the developing and the developed world.
This is not just a selfish plea on behalf of farmers—there is also an impact on consumers and livestock, and the issue should be on our conscience. If the use of certain agri-chemicals or animal health products is banned or limited to certain purposes, it is usually in the name of food safety or sometimes environmental safety. It therefore does not make sense to expose our consumers or livestock to those chemicals in imported food, and is especially absurd in the European context, where there is free movement of goods. Enlargement will bring in central and eastern European countries that have already undermined many of our traditional markets, particularly the soft fruit market, where the produce all comes from Poland, largely destroying the soft fruit trade in this country. We need to consider carefully whether such food is as safe as ours to eat. Do they still use products that we have banned in this country?
On animal welfare, surely we have learned that onerous controls on welfare make no overall difference to individual animal welfare. If, as the Government wish, we ban all battery cages yet continue to import egg or egg products produced that way, we will not have improved overall the welfare of a single chicken. We can, in all conscience, claim to have improved the welfare of British chickens, but if they are replaced as producers by 10 times more chickens in battery cages in Poland, the United States and Brazil, have we done

473
anybody or any chicken a favour? We face the same dilemma with environmental issues. We all want to protect our environment, whether water or air quality, the landscape or wildlife, but should that be at the expense of the environment in other countries? It may be argued that if Australia wants to continue growing wheat on land where it may not be wise to do so, and cause salination and desertification, it should be free to do so. The same argument applies to parts of Africa and the developing world, where the land cannot sustain intensive agriculture. Similarly, we could argue that it should be up to Brazil if it wants to destroy the rainforest.
However, we do not apply that rule to timber. As was said earlier, we have strong controls on the import of timber from virgin rainforests, as that could cause untold environmental degradation, but we do not impose the same controls on food imports from countries where production results in environmental degradation. That does not make sense, but how are we to respond? The first option, which I reject immediately, is significant import controls—they would be illegal in many cases and run counter to free trade. The second option is to abolish or lower dramatically our standards and regulations. That is equally undesirable and would probably be politically unpopular and impossible. Many regulations could be removed—I decry the Government's failure to assess regulatory controls, especially in Europe—but abolishing all of them or reducing their powers is not acceptable. So we come to the third option, which is to allow our producers to compete fairly. The only way to achieve fairness is to cost properly the impact on our producers of the regulations that we impose on them and which are not imposed on other producers who compete in our food markets. If we feed those costs back into the support system, we can to some extent level that famous playing field.
I do not believe that British farmers are opposed to competition. Like hon. Members in all parts of the House, I go out and speak to countless farmers. They object not to competition, but to unfair competition from people who do not have the same conditions imposed upon them as on our farmers. I am not advocating supporting inefficient producers. The regulations are not necessarily for the farmers' good; they are for the public good and for the environment, so in my view they are totally justified. It might also discourage Government from imposing ever more regulations on the industry if they knew that they would have to pay for them.
The document published by the Government this morning proposes to take forward the concept of whole-farm management plans. That is a commendable idea, and it provides the vehicle for what I am advocating—a vehicle for recognising the extra costs put on our farmers, so that they can compete fairly. All the other factors will then come into play and allow the good, efficient farmer to compete successfully. Those who cannot will not be able to blame the Government, only themselves. They may try to blame others, but they will have no justification for doing so.
474
I believe in a competitive British farming industry. Unlike the hon. Member for Newport, West, I believe that it has a great future, but only if it is allowed to compete fairly. The Government have failed to grasp that nettle. There is no mention of fair competition in any of the documents published this morning. If I am honest, I must say that I do not think that the previous Government grasped the nettle as firmly as it should have been grasped. That is the only way we can ensure a future for British agriculture, not just for food production, but for the whole rural economy and the maintenance of so much of our landscape, which is a crucial benefit from agriculture. We can achieve that only if competition is fair, and that is up to Government. So far we have seen no sign that they recognise that.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. There are roughly 65 minutes left before the winding-up speeches begin and nine hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. If the Back-Bench speeches continue to approximate to the average so far, six of those hon. Members will be unlucky. I appeal to hon. Members to take as unselfish a view as they can.
5.28 pm
Mr. Huw Edwards: It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate. Agriculture debates in the House in the early part of last year were far more emotional and far more divisive as a result of the foot and mouth crisis. It is a pleasure to see that there has been some recovery since then.
I agreed with the last point made by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). Since the immediate post-war period, Governments of both parties have not had an adequate long-term farming strategy. The hon. Member with whom I disagreed most today is my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn), which saddens me greatly as we have neighbouring constituencies. As soon as he moves north out of the lovely town of Caerleon in his constituency, he comes into the Usk valley in my constituency. Where does he think the milk comes from that is drunk in his constituency? It comes from the dairy farms of Wales—of the Usk valley—and many of those milk producers barely cover their own costs, even though in recent months the price of milk has gone up. Who does my hon. Friend think maintains the beautiful Usk valley? It is the farmers who maintain the Usk valley and the Llanthony valley in my constituency, and even many parts of the beautiful Wye valley in my constituency, although most of it is forested.
I am pleased to be able to contribute to this debate because it centres on the Government's response to the Curry report. About a year ago, I attended a meeting of farmers in Raglan in the middle of my constituency. I gave a brief summary of the Curry report and the equivalent report that had been produced in Wales by the then Welsh Minister for Rural Affairs, Carwyn Jones. I had greater sympathy with the Welsh report than with the Curry report, which I thought was more market driven and had a more pessimistic outlook for the farmers of my constituency. None the less, the farmers to whom I spoke were far more impressed with the Curry report and thought that it was more realistic. They recognise that the future of subsidies is limited and that there must be a much greater shift towards agri-

475
environmental schemes, which have been applauded in Wales. In particular, increasing numbers of farmers in my constituency are taking advantage of the tyr gofal scheme.
Some 12 to 18 months after the foot and mouth crisis, some of the farmers in my constituency who were deeply affected are recovering. The recovery is slow, as the outbreak had important consequences. Hon. Members may have seen a story in the press this week about Mr. Bill James, the owner of the abattoir in the middle of my constituency who was prosecuted by the Food Standards Agency for exceeding his slaughter limit by about 20 per cent. He admitted that he had done so and pleaded guilty in Newport magistrates court, but said that he had acted under pressure from the farming community, when, during the foot and mouth crisis and its aftermath, he was being required to slaughter increasing amounts of stock. It seems that he did so with the tacit approval both of DEFRA and of Carwyn Jones, the Welsh agriculture Minister. When I wrote to the Minister on behalf Mr. James asking about raising the limit, he said that it had already been exceeded. However, there was no suggestion that he was doing anything particularly wrong or that he should suffer a prosecution. I was very pleased when Mr. James received only a conditional discharge earlier this week. I hope to see him in his Raglan slaughterhouse tomorrow. I have been there many times before and have been mightily relieved to get out alive, especially when I have been lobbied hard about vets' fees and the other regulations facing abattoirs. I can visit tomorrow and say, "I am glad that I was able to produce a little bit of the evidence that helped to get you only a conditional discharge from your prosecution."
Paul Flynn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. May I assure him that I do not have to visit his constituency to find the people who ensure that the Usk valley is still green? They are very much the people of Caerleon. If I want to go to the places where milk is being produced, I can go Rogerstone, Bassaleg, Lower Machen, Llanfihangel-yn-fedw, Peterstone, Wentloog, Coed Cernew, St. Brides, Llansantffraed and many other places in my constituency.
Mr. Edwards: When my hon. Friend goes to see all those places, I hope that he can give a little more support to the farmers who produce the milk than he seems to have given in the House today. He and I have differences on both farming and drugs, although I respect his ability to speak articulately about those issues.
One of the issues that is affecting my farmers is movement restrictions. We all know why the 20-day standstill was introduced, but it is causing a certain amount of hardship to farmers in my constituency. Those who take their stock to market and cannot sell it have to bring it back to their farm and keep it for another three weeks. They might then have to take it back to market, and if they do not sell it again six weeks will have gone by in which they have been keeping stocks that they do not want. That has been a particular problem and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will review the current situation with regard to the 20-day standstill.
476
A second issue that has been especially important in my constituency is late payment. I have been getting quite a few complaints from farmers because their sheep annual premium, IACS—integrated administration and control scheme—payments, organic conversion payments and other tyr gofal payments are very late this year. We constantly hear that that will all be rectified by a new computer system in Llandrindod Wells, but the evidence is that there are still considerable delays.
Like other hon. Members, I was disturbed when I attended a seminar in the House last week on the problem of illegal meat imports. I had known that the farmers of my constituency cited illegal meat imports as one of the causes of foot and mouth, but I had not realised how extensive the trade was. We were given a very disturbing presentation. I hope that the Government will be able to give Customs and Excise the resources necessary to ensure that illegal imports are reduced as much as possible, if not eliminated, and thereby help to reduce the black market in meat imports. Some of it will be going into the food chain—and possibly to reputable butchers. We need more investment to enable environmental health services and Customs and Excise to control the system.
There are a few poultry producers in my constituency. A few weeks ago, I had the great privilege to visit Mr. Tom Vesey, president of the Free Range Poultry Producers Association. He raised with me an important issue affecting his industry—the lack of contracts between supermarkets and egg packers, which is leading to insecurity throughout the industry.
I have been contacted about the problems of disposing of hens that are no longer producing eggs. The market for meat from those hens has disappeared in countries such as Nigeria. As a result, hens that are no longer required are being put into landfill sites. There are potentially about 13 million such hens in the United Kingdom. Without some way of supporting that part of the industry, the environmental costs will be huge.
Improvements have been made recently. I give credit to the Welsh Development Agency and to the farming connect service, which is helping farmers to diversify and is giving them business support. More investment has been made in education and training for farmers and the farming community. I believe in the Government's commitment to lifelong learning. It seems that such commitments have never previously affected people involved in farming and related industries. I hope that there will be greater investment to help farmers with diversification.
One area of diversification that I would not support that affects especially the Usk valley in my constituency is sand and gravel extraction. As a result of the Symonds report, 29 sites have been identified in my constituency where there are sand and gravel deposits. I initiated an Adjournment debate on the subject in the Welsh Grand Committee last week, so there is no need to go into the arguments that I advanced on that occasion. However, I hope that the Welsh Assembly and the local authority will have environmental policies that are robust enough to resist applications for sand and gravel extraction, and that the beautiful Usk valley will be protected and will become a more prosperous area for the farmers in my constituency.
5.37 pm
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to be called to participate in the debate. I was optimistic that we would hear more encouraging words from the Secretary of State. However, the right. hon. Lady's speech was one of the most complacent that I have heard in this place. It was especially complacent, coming on the back of a Select Committee report that states:
"In order to carry out that work effectively the Department must provide accurate and comprehensive data, and must set itself targets against which performance can be measured. DEFRA has not succeeded in doing so this year. In part this may be due to confusion over Treasury guidelines for presentation of financial information. These need to be clear, stable and transparent. In future, we expect its Annual Report to be considerably improved."
The report goes on to be quite a damning indictment of the way in which the Department has been managed over the first 12 months of its existence. However, to hear the Secretary of State, one would think that everything was fine and that the Department had got off to a glowing start. We have only to read what the Select Committee set out in its comprehensive report to learn that, unfortunately, that is not the case.
That feeds across to agriculture, which is an especially important industry in west Derbyshire and in the Derbyshire dales. Huge numbers of visitors come to the Peak district. People come to enjoy the countryside, but I agree with the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) that it does not exist through nature but because it is farmed, maintained and looked after. Our farmers look after it. Without their work, it would not be there for many millions of people to enjoy at weekends and on bank holidays. Anybody who does not acknowledge the uniqueness and importance of agriculture does it a grave disservice.
Farming is in the sixth year of recession, and it has faced many problems in that time, not least foot and mouth disease, to which my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) referred. I shall not go into detail about it because of the shortage of time. However, my hon. Friend was a little tough on the previous Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who perhaps did not have enough of a free hand to handle the outbreak because the Prime Minister was always breathing down his neck. The general election was far more important to the Government at that stage than the tragedy and the problems of British agriculture.
Farmers in my constituency talk about the collapse of commodity prices from the late 1990s. Farming has been hit by excessive red tape and the way in which the United Kingdom gold-plates some legislation. The nitrates vulnerable zone legislation has already been mentioned. Excessive regulation is becoming a major problem for the industry and it is getting worse. In February next year, new regulations will require the tagging of individual sheep. I am worried about whether that will have long-term benefits.
In 2002, there have been major delays in payments under various cattle subsidy schemes, to which several hon. Members have referred. Data held by the Rural Payments Agency were not reconciled with those held by the Cattle Movement Service. It is vital that those
478
payment and verification schemes be renewed so that the problems that have occurred this year are not repeated in 2003.
As many hon. Members have said, there has been a tremendous loss of jobs in agriculture. Although the industry has gone through changes, some 67,000 people have lost their jobs and 8,600 have abandoned farming. Investment is at its lowest for 30 years. The indicators are worrying for the future of farming.
Young people are not coming into agriculture. Who can blame them for asking, "What is the point?" The Government introduced the minimum wage. Most farmers would like to be on it because they work longer hours for less money than the minimum wage. That also applies to many people who work on family farms.
One of the most disturbing aspects is the difference between the price that farmers receive for a product and the price that the consumer pays for it. Beef has a farmgate value of about £1.72 per kg, yet the retail value is £6.58. The farmer therefore receives some 26 per cent. of the retail value. It is estimated that farmers receive 25 per cent. of the retail value of milk, 21 per cent. of that of eggs, and 8 per cent. of that of potatoes.
The average age of farmers is 58. The suicide rate among farmers is extremely worrying. I recently received a letter from a mother whose son had committed suicide in Monyash. She told me of the resulting devastation in the family. Perhaps those individual tragedies do not get the national headlines that bigger tragedies receive. Nevertheless, they are devastating for families and communities.
The UK dairy industry is the seventh largest in the world and the third largest in Europe. We have 30,000 dairy farmers, 150 of whom are in west Derbyshire. It is one of the largest sectors in the agricultural industry, and it deserves to have more notice taken of it by the Government. Dairy farmers have been trying to ensure that the 2p a litre rise in milk prices announced by the retailers in recent weeks is passed on to them, after prices were reduced at the start of this year. There is no doubt that most farmers are now selling their milk for less than they get to produce it.
A number of the ancillary industries that are so reliant on agriculture have also been lost. In my own constituency a few weeks ago, Nestle announced that it was closing a plant in Ashbourne that had been in operation since 1911. That has had a devastating impact on the town, because the factory was seen very much as part of the local community. I hope that the Government will consider some of these issues, and be far more positive about them.
I shall return in a moment to my remarks on agriculture, but, while I have the Minister's attention, I would like to say a few words about the review of English national park authorities that the Government published earlier this year. The Government are suggesting that the size of the national park authorities should be substantially reduced, in terms of their governance and the number of members that sit on them. I urge the Minister to look at this proposal very carefully. It is vital that national park authorities have local representation on them. The parish representatives, who were introduced some years ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), were criticised at the time, but I think

479
that most people would now accept that they have played an important part in providing the authorities with an elected element. I have never argued for a directly elected national park authority. We have to recognise that there are matters of national importance that the authorities should rightly consider. I would be very sad if the Government decided to press ahead with some of the recommendations to reduce the size of these authorities. It would be a retrograde step for the parks, as it would reduce local representation.
Time is of the essence, so I shall say just one more thing to the Minister. It is essential that his Department become more of a flag-bearer for British agricultural industry. The Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution said in September:
"British farming needs a new and constructive relationship with the Government. The perception currently among ordinary farmers is that the Government is at best not bothered and at worst, hostile to the interests of British farming. The trust between the farming community and DEFRA is mutually at an all time low."
I do not think that that is what the Government want. It is certainly not what the agricultural industry wants. It is essential that DEFRA should try to turn those attitudes around, so that agriculture can believe that the Department is carrying a positive message for it, and also giving a positive message to the countryside. Unlike the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn), I believe that most people in this country appreciate and value the countryside. If it is not maintained and looked after—which is what he seemed to wish to see—the Government will pay a very heavy price.
5.48
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I have listened with interest this afternoon to many fine speeches making a number of different points. I have to say that I disagree with some colleagues, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn). We agree on so many things, but, sadly, on this issue, he seems to be a convert to the economics of Milton Friedman, and I certainly do not agree with that.
Yesterday, I made a speech about the CAP in an Adjournment debate. I do not want to repeat that speech now, but in it I put forward the proposition that the CAP should be abolished. We should put that proposition on the table and try to negotiate it with our colleagues in the European Union. I have even proposed a way of defusing some of the political difficulties that might be involved. This will have to happen one day, and we ought to start talking about it now.
The Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall was secured by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), who made an excellent speech. I refer hon. Members to what he said. The conclusion that we should draw from his arguments is that the CAP should be abolished. I have felt that for a long time, and I have said so many times. It should be replaced by a repatriated system of agricultural policies, with subsidies where appropriate. Appropriate subsidies should be decided by Government according to needs. We could debate those at length. Many areas do not need subsidy, but some do. We should consider the needs of consumers, farmers and the environment in designing a new agricultural policy that is tuned to our own needs.
480
Every EU member state is different, especially those about to join, and their agricultural policies should be adjusted and tuned to their own needs. Redistributive incomes across the European Union should be assessed according to prosperity and not determined by some arbitrary system through the CAP. Some richer nations are net beneficiaries and some slightly poorer nations, such as the United Kingdom—we are not as rich as Denmark—are net contributors merely because of the perverse effect of the CAP.
The common fisheries policy has been touched on, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary knows my view on that. He does not agree with me. I have great respect for him, and he does a fine job, but I believe that the CFP should be abandoned forthwith. It has been a complete and utter disaster. The only way to preserve fish stocks in the North sea and the shores around the European Union is by nations establishing extensive national fisheries that they husband themselves. They will have a natural self-interest in doing that. The only country in Europe that still has reasonable fish stocks is Norway, because it has its own fishing fields and is not part of the CFP. I make that point strongly, and I hope that one day the abolition of the CFP will come to pass.
There are political ways forward on all these difficult issues. Clearly, some countries would be upset, but they could be reassured if there were tapering arrangements to deal with subsidies over a period.
A number of hon. Members have also referred to energy policy, which should include low-carbon vehicles. Many of my constituents have worked in the motor industry for many years—far too few of them since the closure of Vauxhall Motors. Vauxhall still has an office in Luton, and recently I saw a prototype of a fuel cell-driven car. It is an impressive vehicle, but it is unfortunately still very expensive. I suspect that motor manufacturers are still committed to the standard internal combustion engine, driven by petrol or diesel oil. Obviously, replacing that capital investment will be expensive and will take time, but Governments have a duty to encourage and pressurise manufacturers to move in that direction. I look forward to driving a car that does not produce carbon dioxide, but instead produces water. When hydrogen is burned in the air it produces H2O. The electrical input must be created in another way, but there are alternatives to carbon for electricity generation.
It is disappointing that we have been so slow to adopt solar heating and solar electricity generation for domestic, commercial and industrial buildings. Global warming may make that easier to do in Britain. Within the next year or two, I am hoping to lead by example and have solar-voltaic cell panels on my own home. The Government provide a 50 per cent. subsidy, which is welcome, and I congratulate them on that great advance. I think that that will persuade people, but the advance is still painfully slow. The number of people installing solar panels in their roofs is low. The initial capital cost is the problem. There should be novel ways of overcoming that. They could be installed free with a capital charge on the value of the house. I am sure that something could be done. If we invested money in solar roof panels—water heating and photo-voltaic panels—rather than in nuclear energy, we would be spending our money much better.

481
Over a long period, it might be possible to provide the whole country with solar roof panels. Photo-voltaic cell panels can now be made in a way that makes them look very nice: they look like ordinary roof tiles, while generating electricity. They can be plugged into the mains, enabling people to put electricity back into the mains from their houses and to gain a financial benefit. There are obviously tremendous advantages in this, but it must be sold hard, supported, sustained and driven forward. We could in fact develop a big solar roof panel industry, which would help manufacturing.
I am also concerned about transport, particularly public transport. For a long time I have advocated the building of a freight railway running from the north-west through the channel tunnel to Lille, skirting round or going through London. That "central railway" is one idea, although there are variations on the theme. In any event, we could do with a dedicated freight route that could cope with fully sized lorries and trailers. There would be no need for specially cut down trailers. It would be a roll-on, roll-off service from the north of England—of course, it could accommodate Scotland and other areas as well—to the continent and, ultimately, to its industrial heartland.
That would be a tremendous advance. It would be extremely attractive to hauliers. It would reduce the need for road-building; it would also reduce road damage, environmental degradation throughout the country and the traffic jams around Birmingham and London. It is a modest proposal, involving four trains an hour in each direction and a roll-on, roll-off facility for lorries travelling from the north-west through the Pennines to Sheffield, past the east and west midlands to the continent—hopefully taking our goods out as well as bringing its goods in.
We could look at many other aspects of public transport. I travel by train nearly every day from my constituency; indeed, I have travelled by train to London nearly every day for 33 years. I like to lead by example in that as in other respects! We must build rail capacity, and ensure that fares are right. The recent proposal to increase fares in order to deter train users strikes me as retrograde: I hope that the Government will invest heavily in both passenger and freight rail services, and that there will come a day when rail travel is much cheaper in relation to car travel than it is now. I hope that public transport will come into its own again.
I have spoken briefly because I know that others want to contribute, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister has at least noted what I have said.
5.58 pm
Mr. Michael Weir: No one could accuse the motion of not being comprehensive. I was only surprised not to find, half way down, mention of mothers and apple pie. I must tell the Minister, however, that the phrase
"commends its drive to promote thriving rural economies and communities"
will send a hollow laugh around the coastal rural communities of Scotland.
Agriculture is proportionally more important to the Scottish economy than to the United Kingdom economy as a whole. That applies particularly to the
482
export of meat and livestock. Some 70,000 people in Scotland work in agriculture, about 40,000 of whom are owner-occupiers—although, interestingly, fewer than half of them now work full-time in agriculture. That is an indication of the change in agriculture in Scotland and, I am sure, in many other areas over the years. Farmers have had to find alternative sources of income to boost their agricultural income.
Last year the average annual farm income was just over £9,500 outside the area affected by foot and mouth; in that area, obviously, it was less than zero. There has been much talk today about farmers diversifying into other areas. They have been trying to do that for many years. In my area, for example, they have gone into the usual businesses—bed and breakfast, holiday cottages and more esoteric enterprises such as quad biking. Others have expressed interest in diversifying into green fuels by growing crops for biomass energy or biodiesel, although commercial uses for these may be some years off. As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), it is important that the plant should be up and running to encourage farmers to move into these areas. If not, it will be difficult to persuade them to do so, because of past problems. I remember one case in my constituency in which the great saviour of agriculture was to be the growing of flax. Many farmers invested in the crop but the plant that was supposed to process it never opened and many lost a great deal of money, so they will be reluctant to go into that area again.
Apart from diversification, most farmers want to be farmers. They are not racetrack operators or oil producers. They have made attempts to find new markets and niche markets for their agricultural produce. Many other right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned the growing number of farmers' markets throughout the country, but with the best will in the world, farmers' markets and direct selling cannot provide a big enough market for all farmers in the UK. The main purchasers of agricultural products are and will continue to be supermarkets. We cannot condemn this too much. After all, how many Members can truly say that they do not make the bulk of their food purchases at Sainsbury, Tesco or one of the other temples of mass consumerism? That is the rub that farming faces. How do we ensure that supermarkets do not use their huge economic power to push down the price paid to farmers? One effect of the European Community and free trade agreements is that supermarkets can source food from elsewhere in the world.
The Curry report, along with many others, talks about moving into organic produce and niche markets. Many have urged farmers to go organic to get a premium for their produce. That is fine in theory but how realistic would it be for the bulk of farmers to turn to organic produce? Do not get me wrong—I am in favour of organic produce. I seek it out, as I am sure many others do, and we accept that we have to pay a little more for it.
Some 50 per cent. of organic land in the UK is in Scotland. There has been an increase in the output of organic food in Scotland, but the UK market continues to be dominated by imports. If farmers attempt to go organic, the huge costs mean that it is some years before they can be fully organic. They find exactly the same

483
problems in dealing with supermarkets as do conventional farmers. The supermarkets use their huge economic power to push down the price they pay. They impose the same standards on organic produce as they do on conventional produce, so there can be much greater wastage in organic production. If organic production takes off to a large extent, it will inevitably mean that the premium will be gradually eroded and may indeed disappear altogether. Farmers could find themselves back in the same situation as they are in now, but with greater costs.
To get round this, we have to tackle the problem of how we deal with supermarkets. I asked the hon. Members for Lewes (Norman Baker) and for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) about this problem, because I do not see a ready solution to it. I hope that the Minister will say something about the Government's attitude. It is touched on in the report, but there is no real sense of how Governments will deal with the large supermarkets and ensure that they take a greater amount of organic and local produce.
There are real concerns about genetically modified foods, particularly the trials that are taking place. In an earlier intervention, I mentioned the British Medical Association's evidence to the Scottish Parliament. Quite rightly, there is some consumer resistance to eating genetically modified food, yet there is huge pressure from the producers of the seed and the substances that are put on it for farmers to move towards producing genetically modified foods. Almost alone among European Government, this Government seem determined to promote its use. Again, if it goes wrong, it will not be the supermarkets that suffer but the farmers, who may be left with contaminated fields. They will be the real losers.
The common agricultural policy has been mentioned. We are told that the European Commission is considering decoupling support from production, and that is also the thrust of what the Curry report said. That would bring an increase in modulation, leading to a projected 20 per cent. cut in support payments, but only payments of more than €5,000, which I am told is just over £3,000, will be modulated, so throughout Europe more than 60 per cent. of farmers will not be modulated. They are mainly small farmers in southern European countries, but only 9 per cent. of Scottish farmers would be exempt, which could cause a massive and unsustainable reduction in already low incomes. Experience shows that much of the support available will go to large landowners rather than rural communities.
Scottish farming is badly affected by the UK Government's reluctance to draw on European compensation funds, allegedly because matching funds are required. The decision not to seek agrimonetary compensation will lose Scottish growers more than £11 million over the next two to three years.
The question of how a rural community is defined has also been touched on. There is no mention of fishing in the motion, although the Secretary of State referred to it. Many rural communities in the north and east Scotland rely on fishing. If the current proposals from the European Commission are allowed to proceed in anything like their current form, they will spell disaster for rural Scotland.
484
The Scottish Executive have estimated that 44,000 jobs in Scotland are dependent on fishing. Many of those are in rural areas where there is little other employment, especially given the recent difficulties with agriculture. If fishing goes, many of our small rural communities may well go with it. The European Commissioner said that the industry will not be expected to bear the burden alone and hinted that there will be decommissioning schemes and compensation. That is all very well, and will help those who are currently in the industry, but it will not help the communities that rely on fishing, because there will not be jobs in the future. Money may be available—I expect that in Scotland much of it will have to come from the Executive—but it will not secure the future of those communities. Drastic economic decline could follow. That is no way to
"promote thriving rural economies and communities".
The hon. Member for Lewes rightly mentioned animal transportation. Few of us would be against controls on the transport of live animals, but I urge Ministers to bear in mind the specific problems for many remote rural areas, and island communities in particular, if too tight a definition is applied. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, many local abattoirs were closed, meaning that in many communities animals have to travel substantial distances for slaughter.
Mr. Morley: I want to give the hon. Gentleman two reassurances. First, I understand the problems of the fishing industry and the pressure on fishing communities, and that will be reflected in the policies that we advocate next week. Secondly, we will always argue for a derogation from rules on animal transportation for remote and offshore communities.
Mr. Weir: I am grateful for that helpful intervention.
The motion refers to green technologies. Scotland has great potential for wave and tidal power, but much of it is in the north and the west, where there is no ready access to the national grid. One of the problems is that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is responsible for environmental matters, but the Department of Trade and Industry is responsible for many energy matters. Often, there is no link between the two. Ministers must look at ways in which investment can be put into the national grid, in order to extend it to those very areas where wave and tidal power systems can be set up.
6.10 pm
Mr. John Grogan: In view of the time, and fortified by the British beef sandwich that I had for lunch, with apple pie for pudding, I want to make just three brief points on three different aspects of British agriculture and rural life. First, I want to touch on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) about tenant farmers. Secondly, I want to touch on horticulture, an issue that the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) dealt with in some detail. In particular, I want to bring news to the House of November's national conference of cucumber growers, and to give the Minister a couple of ideas that

485
emerged from it. Thirdly, I want to touch on biofuels and particularly bioenergy, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) and many others.
The problems of full-time tenant farmers, particularly those on marginal land, are highly specific. The Tenant Farmers Association estimates that perhaps 2,000 farmers are hanging on by their fingertips. They are too poor to retire because they have nowhere to go to live, their land is marginal and they have no asset to sell. Indeed, several tenant farmers in my constituency who came to see me recently said, "What are the Government doing about their manifesto promise to provide a retirement scheme—an outgoers scheme—for farmers?" I said, "Come back next month, and in the meantime I will research the issue."
I asked my researcher to look at our manifesto to see what commitments we made on British agriculture and fishing. He consulted the House of Commons Library, and I returned to the farmers with another piece of paper saying that no such commitment was made in the Labour manifesto under the section on British agriculture. An elderly Yorkshire farmer looked at me and said, "Yes lad, you're right: no such commitment was made under the section on British agriculture, but look at the section above, on British rural life." It has to be admitted that reference was made to outgoers schemes and early retirement schemes, particularly in relation to foot and mouth. Indeed, such commitments were made in the manifestos of both main parties.
The Curry commission looked at this proposal on value-for-money grounds, and rejected it. I urge the Government to consider what we can do for tenant farmers. There are difficulties in targeting a scheme at tenant farmers—the Tenant Farmers Association has come up with a scheme that would cost £25 million a year—but I urge the Government, and, indeed, other political parties, to consider the problems of tenant farmers in particular. We need to consider not just those who would do best to leave the industry—indeed, it would help to consolidate the industry if they did so—but those who want to continue to make a living, and who find it more difficult to access grants for diversification than do owner-occupiers, because they have the status of tenant.
The right hon. Member for Fylde has mentioned Horticulture Research International. Stockbridge house, in my constituency—the Minister has visited it—is a world-renowned horticultural research centre. To be frank, the best thing that happened to it was the announcement of its closure, in 2000, by HRI. That forced Stockbridge house and many local stakeholders to get together to establish a scheme—with no Government subsidy whatsoever—to buy the site, in order to continue the valuable practical research that takes place there. Now, as we have heard, there is a question mark over the entire future of HRI.
I want to mention two particular issues in which Stockbridge house is involved, and which have wider resonance in the industry. An article in the most recent edition of The Commercial Greenhouse Grower refers to the problems of combined heat and power in the
486
industry. Many horticulturalists have invested in this particular form of energy, which is suited to the industry. The article states:
"Moves by combined heat and power supplier Nedalo UK to switch off CHP plants on horticultural sites has left major growers across the country uncertain about how they will heat their new-season crops."
That development—the company is a subsidiary of TXU—reflects the recent problems with CHP, which have resulted from the increase in gas prices and the decline in electricity prices. I hope that, after Christmas, the Government will review the matter in their energy policy.
The Horticultural Development Council has agreed to fund a practical idea proposed by the cucumber growers—a new technology demonstration project at Stockbridge house. To meet pressure from retailers the growers need to produce all year round, and that can be simply achieved by installing extra lighting during the winter months. The cucumber growers have stumped up some money for the research—as has the HDC—and only a small amount is required from DEFRA. It could help CHP production because some of the energy from a CHP plant could go into that extra winter lighting and there would be no need sell electricity into the national grid.
A further suggestion from the cucumber growers would help to reduce red tape. Many horticulturalists face the fact that in future they will be unable to use pesticides that they used formerly. Part of the solution might be the biologicals, which are an important range of products, including fungus spores, pheromones, and natural plant or fungus toxins. They can control fungal diseases as well as attacks by some insects without leaving residues. Unfortunately, at present the authorities treat them as though they were chemical pesticides, so some of the small companies that are trying to market those biological products face costs of more than £300,000.
May I urge Ministers to look into ways of reducing the red tape in respect of such projects? For example, in this country, we are leading users of predatory insects for pest control, especially in the cultivation under glass of cucumbers, tomatoes and peppers. Such means are now being used world wide and Stockbridge house is the centre of research. As there are no registration requirements for the use of predatory insects, massive strides can be made in the research.
On biofuels and bioenergy, I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood and others who said that 20p a litre is welcome but it is probably not quite enough to accelerate the use of biofuels as much as we want. The Country Land and Business Association suggests a 10 per cent. target for renewable fuels for road transport by 2010. That is one way in which progress might be made.
I draw the attention of the House to an example of the use of bioenergy in my constituency. I think that my hon. Friend the Minister may have visited the Arbre project at Eggborough, which is a revolutionary demonstration plant for wood burning. Fifty farmers signed 20-year contracts to supply the plant. It was difficult to persuade farmers to diversify in that way and great efforts had to be made before they would do so. It took three or four years to get the farmers to sign up.

487
Earlier this year, the owners of the plant decided to close it. Fortunately, however, due to the efforts of the Government, especially the Department for Trade and Industry and DEFRA, and the European Union, there is every prospect that the plant will be rescued soon after Christmas. I understand that there are four prospective buyers.
When farmers are persuaded to grow alternative crops and when demonstration plants are set up, it is vital that we see the projects through. I very much hope that there will be good news about Arbre during the next few months and that the plant, supported by the Government and the EU, will go into full production some time next year.
6.18
Andrew George: I am aware that time is limited, so I shall keep my remarks as brief as possible.
It is a pleasure to have an opportunity to contribute to what has been an engaging debate. There has been a great deal of consensus on many issues. The hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) told us that he was speaking in an agriculture debate in the House for the first time. Although some hon. Members did not welcome the hon. Gentleman's contribution, I did. He presented a challenging opinion and his views should be addressed by those people who present themselves—as do the Government—as the champion of farmers and of the countryside.
I fear, however, that the hon. Gentleman was fighting old battles. He compared steelworkers with farmers and argued that there was a dependency culture in the agriculture industry that had never existed in the steel industry. If he had heard the whole debate, he would have realised that there is cross-party agreement that we should be moving away from production supports, as the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) pointed out in a very good speech.
The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), who is no longer in his place, made some challenging points. He was perhaps unnecessarily critical of the previous Minister of Agriculture, the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown), whom, I think, he described as clueless at one point. During the foot and mouth outbreak, particularly in the early days, I found that there was a parallel human disease, which I described as the benefit of hindsight disease, the symptoms of which were brass neck and short-term memory loss.
In fact, during the very early days of that outbreak, the whole House agreed with the plans put in place by the right hon. Gentleman, who acted very quickly at that stage. The criticisms were made only with the benefit of hindsight, when it became easy to do so. Of course we can all make mistakes and we can learn from them, but there was an unnecessary assassination of the Minister's character at that time.
I would say, perhaps with the benefit of foresight, that the Government have an unwritten farming policy, which they sometimes describe as restructuring. Perhaps the cat was let out of the bag by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), who is now back in his place. Frankly, the aim is to get rid of small farmers to a large extent. Although the NFU and the Govt have regretted the fact that 15,000 farm workers left the
488
industry last year—a larger number than at any time since the second world war—they want that level of restructuring to take place in the industry, and the removal of a large number of farmers from the industry is part of that plan. I do not doubt that they quietly welcome that situation.
The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), who is no longer in his place, made a number of telling points, with which I agree, in relation to the Government's rather slothful, mañana approach in response to the Curry commission's report. He certainly endorsed a view that my constituents and I have about the Whitehall mentality. My constituents view Whitehall and Westminster as rather remote and insular places, where the pace of life is extremely slow. Perhaps if people looked at rural areas from the other end of the telescope, they might get a different impression of the culture that exists here.
Farm-gate prices was a theme pursued by many hon. Members during the debate. Of course it is extremely difficult to draw a decent comparison between what happened 50 years ago, when the basic raw materials were put on retailers' shelves, and what happens now, when so much food is processed. However, it is clear that the proportion of the final retail price that farmers receive is considerably smaller than many decades ago. We can be sure of that because if it were the other way round the processors and retailers would be telling us about it.
The code of practice, which pays lip service to that issue, has no real teeth at all. Although the Government's response suggests that the Office of Fair Trading will issue reports regularly, what will happen when processors and supermarkets do not abide with the rulings under that code of practice? They will face no sanction.
With regard to the collaborative ventures under recommendation 8 of the farm plan, are the Government saying that they regret breaking up Milk Marque? In effect, they are saying that farmers should co-operate, but the fact that they broke up Milk Marque only a few years ago made it much more difficult for farmers to co-operate at the level needed to compete in the international market.
With regard to recommendation 2 about farmers getting the benefit of receiving their support payments in the euro, reference is made to putting in place a computer that will allow that to come online late in 2004—once again, the mañana attitude mentioned by the right hon. Member for Fylde. In fact, the Prime Minister brought in the euro compatibility exercise in February 1999. What consideration did the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and its predecessor Departments give to euro compatibility to ensure that farmers were getting the benefit of euro payments before today, let alone waiting a further two years for the benefit of that measure? Surely we need to do a great deal more as far as that is concerned.
The Secretary of State mentioned several matters to which I do not have time to refer, as other hon. Members want to speak, but it is clear that the Department is not just a champion for the environment; it should also be a champion for rural areas. In relation to the White Paper, I question whether the Department is talking to other responsible Departments. On rural housing, for

489
example, the 50 per cent. council tax rebate on second homes has not been removed, which we were expecting and which was originally proposed in the White Paper. There is no serious attempt to address the need for a twilight market somewhere between social housing and the open market, as there is a clear mismatch between earnings levels and house prices in many rural areas.
The key issues facing rural areas are those relating to the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy, and as the Minister will know well, those relating to the important debate that will take place in Europe next week on the future catch in the fishing industry. On the CAP, I urge that we do not allow a situation to emerge in which we simply turn the countryside into prairie and ranch and move from blue-box to green-box subsidies, as the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said. That recognises, as perhaps the hon. Member for Newport, West did not, that the factory floor of farming is a place about which we all care. We walk across and have recreation in that area, and farmers should be properly paid to fulfil an important role in that regard.
Next week, the Minister has some important negotiations on fishing quotas. I hope that he will listen to the industry, whose response to the current crisis has been very responsible, as he must accept. Quotas will have to be cut in certain areas, but there are ways, using tactical and other measures, of avoiding absolute catastrophe, which will otherwise occur across many coastal areas of Britain.
6.28 pm
Hugh Robertson: I had hoped to speak in this debate as someone who has a long-standing interest in the environment and in agriculture, and, more narrowly, as a constituency MP representing one of the few seats in which fruit farming predominates.
I grew up in the area that I represent—I was born and educated there, and have lived there all my life—and it means a great deal to me. As a result, I believe that fruit farming is something that we all ought to support. It is wholly unsubsidised, it produces high-quality produce close to the marketplace, and it is extremely good for the environment. It is therefore, in many ways, a model for the kind of agriculture that we, as a country, should be looking to support.
At the moment, however, the future looks pretty bleak, and the stakes are extremely high. On DEFRA's figures, given to me in a written answer a couple of weeks ago, 10.9 per cent. of the national orchard has been grubbed in the last three years. That is a staggering amount, and were it to happen anywhere else, it would be a national scandal.
What is going wrong? A number of difficulties are wholly outside the Government's control, and I will not go through them all. Many imports are coming into the country, supermarkets have enormous power over the market and the changes to the UK climate clearly affect growers enormously. Their falling revenues have hindered their ability to reinvest.
Growers have made great advances in meeting the challenges and, to be fair, the Government have helped them in certain respects. For example, the Government
490
have let growers off the environmental impact assessment, allowing orchards out of its clauses, and they have stalled negotiations on the EU marketing standard, and that has been of enormous use. The Government have also increased the number of workers allowed in under the seasonal agricultural workers scheme to 25,000 and they have given growers a rebate on the climate change levy. That has been of enormous value.
However, there is great concern about the activities of the Agricultural Wages Board. No one in the fruit-growing industry would dispute the headline rate, but the changes that have been made to the casual workers rate are estimated to add about 14 per cent. to the bill of the average grower. In an industry in which between 40 and 60 per cent. of the cost base is down to payment to workers, that is an enormous hike.
I want to say a few words about Horticulture Research International—hon. Members on both sides of the House have touched on that. It is most unlikely that horticulture and the fruit-farming sector can continue to develop as we would wish without a proper research base. HRI is recognised across the globe for its excellence, and the quinquennial review has asked that DEFRA guarantee 40 per cent. core funding in research stations. When the review is completed in January, I hope that the Minister will take note of that.
Time is short, so I shall quickly stress that we should all support the fruit-farming sector. It is unsubsidised, it produces high-quality food close to the marketplace and it is good for the environment. The growers whom I represent want nothing more than to run their farms as small businesses, free from regulation and with an achievable long-term vision for the future of horticulture. I hope that DEFRA will be able to help them to achieve that.
6.32 pm
Mr. John Hayes: This has been a vital, thoughtful and disturbing debate. It has been vital, because rural Britain is vitally important as the home and place of work of millions of Britons and because the countryside is, in my estimation and that of Members on both sides of the House, the brightest national jewel.
Although we have not heard this in the debate, it has become fashionable to underplay the economic significance of agriculture and horticulture. To do that when one considers the 500,000 people employed in those sectors is neglectful. To do so mindful of the wider affects of farming and growing is irresponsible. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) pointed out, without viable agriculture there can be no viable countryside.
The debate has been thoughtful as well as vital, because Members have made clear, well-informed and incisive points. The debate has been characterised by good information and a lack of rancour. There was clarity from the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), who talked about the need for imports to conform to the same standards as home-produced products. In particular, he referred to poultry and turkeys, and he will know both that turkey production in this country has virtually halved and of the competition that comes from countries such as Brazil. We are raising turkeys in

491
Britain and doing so very efficiently but our turkey farmers have to compete with people from south America, Africa and further afield. The hon. Gentleman was right to raise those important points and to defend that important industry.
There was clarity, too, from the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards), who talked about the damage caused to the livestock industry by the 20-day rule and described the ongoing problems that are faced in that respect. His commitment to his farmers was well illustrated by the forceful way in which he argued his case.
We had information on horticulture and particularly on horticultural research from my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde. He and I share a profound concern for the subject. We also had information on integrated crop management from the Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). In a well-made point, he was right to say that the benefits of such an approach can find form more quickly than is often imagined.
We had incisiveness from the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson), who talked about labelling, liability and food localism. He made a compelling case for reconnecting the consumer with the producer and so shortening the food chain. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) was an ally of those of us who recognise that the common fisheries policy has been a disaster for the sustainability of fishing communities and for conservation. The debate was also thoughtful because of the recognition by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber that we need to think long and hard about the future of farming and its relationship with the rural economy and society at large.
The hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), who, like me, has for many years enjoyed participating in long debates on such matters which have gone into the night, spoke about the "consensus for change" and the need to consider the issues in a thorough and non-partisan way. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde—I do not want to keep referring to him in case he thinks he has become my mentor—said that farming is a cultural issue that extends beyond pure economics. He explained that there is something deeper to it, and he is right. It is about what we value and prize; about defining our obligations as custodians of a rural and natural heritage; about the legacy that we wish to pass on to the next generation; and about the investment that farmers make in that heritage and legacy.
Some would say that I am being excessively romantic. If so, I plead guilty. A passionate romantic attachment to that which is beyond the narrowly material is the prerequisite of vision. The absence of vision on the part of the Secretary of State and Ministers has made the debate—in addition to vital and thoughtful—disturbing. As hon. Members repeatedly said, the Secretary of State's speech lacked passion. It was as though she was going through the motions. However, I do not want to be unkind or ungenerous because I am not an unkind or ungenerous person, as the House knows. The Curry report is important. It was limited by
492
time and resources, but it is a useful start none the less. The Government's response is better than nothing. However, as Curry said:
"Partial support is not acceptable without funding, we will not achieve the refocusing that is needed unless the report is adopted in full."
We certainly have not had that commitment from the Government.
Some things are welcome: the help with small regional producers; the improvements in competitiveness and marketing, which are an ambition of Government policy; and a serious look at entry-level stewardship. There is some recognition of what my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) highlighted as the link between food and farming, that vital connection which cannot be ignored in Government policy or our debates.
There are significant gaps, however. We need to take seriously a policy that allows our farmers to add value to their products by developing processing capacity, so improving their opportunities to make a good and decent living. For example, the dairy industry in most other countries is able to add value because the producers have processing capacity. In this country, processing capacity is focused on a few enterprises and that opportunity does not exist. The Government need to assist in that.
We also need a real commitment to deal with the burden of regulation. We also need serious investment and an appreciation of the value of food. Perhaps most of all, however, we need an acceptance that the relationship between retailers and producers—the shortening of the food chain, as it has been described—will be taken seriously. My hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) and other hon. Members on both sides of the House made that point. Frankly, the Government's comments on shortening the food chain are weak as water. They talk about
"actively encouraging retailers … to apply the principles and practices set out in the code on a voluntary basis."
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde said, that is not sufficient to restore producers' faith in a Government who need to do an awful lot to restore farmers' and growers' faith in them. We must face up to the disproportionate effect that a few retailers have had on the food chain. Rebalancing should be a priority—it is not fair to let a commercially capricious retail sector put the kind of pressure on producers that it is putting on them at the moment.
As I have said, there is a lack of vision and strategy. There is no business plan for farming and growing in this country or, to use the Secretary of State's words in response to an early intervention, no feeling for an appropriate number of producers or level of production. We do not ask for precision, but any business plan or strategy would take a notional view of which sectors will be productive, and how many producers there will be over the next year or five years. We cannot ask our farmers and growers to develop business plans if the Government do not provide them with leadership or a sense of direction.
There should be a balance sheet for agriculture and horticulture which measures their social, economic and cultural effects. It is not unreasonable to ask DEFRA to introduce such a cost-benefit analysis and for it to be

493
debated and discussed. Such an analysis should be dynamic and produced regularly—not an unreasonable request from the industry or Conservative Members—and should be based on the partnership approach identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) in his stimulating and apposite analysis of the Government's response to Curry. That approach would reinvest in faith, making farmers and growers believe that the Government care, but would also achieve coherence and co-ordination between various schemes and their management by Government agencies. This lack of coherence and co-ordination was identified by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon and is exemplified by the incompatibility of the IT systems of the Rural Payments Agency with those of DEFRA, and the ensuing confusion that has caused misery to livestock farmers and others throughout the country.
We need an understanding of the problem. The long-term fall in commodity prices is seemingly inexorable, and for many years farmers' share of the retail price of food has declined, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire pointed out—what a champion of the farmers of Derbyshire he is and has always been. Through no fault of their own, British farmers' purchasing power has fallen relative not only to general inflation but, as Members know, to inflation in key agricultural inputs, undermining their capacity to invest in improvements. Falling incomes and rising costs are the cutting blades of the so-called agrarian scissors and are the only meaningful context in which debate can take place. Without addressing the key issue of farm income, anything that we may hope to achieve environmentally, socially or culturally is impossible.
Whatever the vision of the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn), who clearly lives in a different world to the one occupied by the majority of hon. Members, farming is the force that shapes four fifths of Britain's land area. There is no conceivable alternative that could provide the same coverage, but without sustainable incomes farming will cease to be viable in the greater part of this land. The only sustainable agricultural policy is one that identifies and counteracts the power behind the agrarian scissors—excess production and the payments associated with it. Frankly, farmers have been trapped in a system of production subsidies that provides perverse incentives for the commodification of agriculture when almost all other industries in this country have prospered by producing ever more sophisticated goods and services, adding value to them, and marketing them on the basis of quality.
We need better alternatives: payments that provide sustainable farm incomes and serve as an incentive to environmental good practice as an integral part of marketing food production. Those are important challenges, but they must be seen in the context of real difficulties and problems. In their response to Curry, the Government could bring themselves to acknowledge only challenges. Unlike the hon. Member for Sherwood, they would not say that there was a crisis, and less still that that crisis was as wide-ranging and deep as it has been in agriculture at any time since the 1930s. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) spoke of 67,000 people leaving the industry over the past five years.
494
There are hon. Members of all parties who care about agriculture, horticulture and the countryside. I do not deny that for a second, but there is only one party that has rural Britain at its heart and soul. That is the Conservative party. We will be unfailing in our determination to fight for British food and farming, unstinting in our efforts to ensure that our farmers can compete on a level playing field, and unhesitating in our protection of our rich environmental heritage. We will always be ready to be the proud and passionate champions of the interests of rural Britain.
6.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): There has been a good standard of debate in today's opportunity to discuss the range of work that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs does and the range of responsibilities that it has. There were thoughtful contributions from the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson), the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn), who expressed his traditional robust views, the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards), who expressed equally robust views in defence of his farmers and the rural community, the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson), and not least the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes).
One or two hon. Members referred to this as an agriculture debate, but it was not. It was intended to recognise the role of DEFRA and the Department's new responsibilities. The motion is so wide ranging as to enable hon. Members to speak about those issues, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South did when he took the opportunity to speak about genetically modified crops. The motion is in no way self-congratulatory. Our priority is to deliver and to seek to improve on the delivery of services and commitments that we have made. That is why, incidentally, DEFRA appointed Lord Haskins to carry out a review of our agencies and consider ways of improving the delivery of our services; and why DEFRA set up the food and farming commission and presented a detailed response to the commission today, which received a broad welcome from right hon. and hon. Members.
I acknowledge that most of the speeches were balanced. In general, the setting up of DEFRA was welcomed, particularly by the hon. Member for Lewes. There is a consensus on the need to reform the common agricultural policy, and recognition of the commitment that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has demonstrated, and which my ministerial colleagues and I share, to promote sustainable development across the

495
whole of Government, and not just within DEFRA. We are not complacent about such matters, and we recognise that there are issues on which we must concentrate to ensure the delivery of sustainability.
We recognise the need to ensure that all our delivery systems are efficient. I accept some of the criticism from hon. Members, especially in respect of the Rural Payments Agency. There has been a problem with computer compatibility. The Department is only 18 months old, and these are matters on which further work is necessary. In our spending programmes, we have committed substantial sums for IT upgrades and improvements, which will improve the service to farmers. However, we have made good progress in a short period.
The hon. Member for Lewes mentioned turnover in DEFRA. The latest figures, which might interest him, show that from 1 January 2002 to 31 May 2002 turnover was 2.8 per cent., which is not unreasonable in a Department the size of DEFRA. The figures relate to overall turnover. Turnover may be higher in some lower grades, but the employment of many temporary and agency staff partly accounts for that. The figures demonstrate that morale in the Department is good and is improving. It is a privilege to serve with the dedicated staff whom we have in all parts of DEFRA—especially those who joined us from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
Sue Doughty: I thank the Minister for giving way. I am concerned about morale in the information technology department in Guildford, as proposals to outsource the department risk losing a tremendous amount of flexibility and expertise. They may mean that not all of DEFRA is quite as happy as he would want us to think.
Mr. Morley: I appreciate the hon. Lady's point, but she will also appreciate that, in order to ensure improvements in service and cost-effective delivery, we have to examine a range of options. Of course, we are consulting the trade unions and those involved will be kept informed of the progress of those talks.
I should like to repeat the comments that I made when the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire spoke about my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown), now the Minister for Work. I do not think that his comments were justified. The foot and mouth epidemic was a time of great stress for all concerned, with farmers and others trying to deal with the epidemic. The efforts of my right hon. Friend were widely recognised and appreciated at the time, as many Opposition Members have pointed out.
We have backed up our response to the food and farming commission with the allocation of £500 million over three years. That is intended to allow the comprehensive proposals to be implemented. As hon. Members have pointed out, there have been changes in agricultural employment in recent years and a decline in the number of farms and farm workers. There is nothing new about that; it has been going on since the 1930s. However, every rural constituency has unemployment levels that are at a 25-year low. The right hon. Member for Fylde raised the issue of unemployment, but I notice
496
that unemployment in his constituency has fallen by about 21 per cent. since 1997. That has happened throughout rural communities.
Mr. Ian Cawsey: I am pleased to say that my constituency has also benefited from that trend.
In this wide-ranging debate, nobody seems to have mentioned the pig sector, which is very significant in my constituency. Will the Minister take on board the imminent welfare directive, which France is apparently not going to implement until 2013, the problem of sow infertility in the herd, which needs urgent research, and also the question of pig identification? If pig identification is needed—many think that it is not—it must be implemented very sensitively.
Mr. Morley: I recognise that my hon. Friend is a great champion of pigs and I shall certainly take those points on board. The Department has committed considerable sums to investigation of the pig-wasting disease. Sow infertility is part of that. We are talking with the industry about how to use the money most efficiently and are reviewing the pig identification rules. On welfare directives, I assure him that we expect to do things at the same time as other European countries. We also expect European countries to apply the measures in the same way as we will, including measures in respect of pigs.
We recognise that bovine TB is a major issue, and we have already introduced a package of measures and are considering further ones. Mention was also made of the 20-day movement restriction, which is under review, but is very important in terms of disease control.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood recognised the need for change in agriculture and pointed out that change is not always comfortable for people, especially when it affects them directly.
Mr. Roger Williams: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Morley: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have only seven minutes left and I should like to deal with some of the remaining points.
Change is not always comfortable, but the Department is providing leadership and support. As was pointed out, a great deal of change must come from the industry itself. We do not have a command-and-control economy. While we can provide support in helping farmers to get closer to the market—the main thrust of the Curry report—a great deal of what happens must come from them.
I also recognise that very good points were made by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, who spoke about the need for value for money in the proposed new broad and shallow schemes and in entry-level agri-environment schemes. He also spoke about a market for environmental goods, which is worth exploring, support for integrated crop management and the use of agri-environment schemes for other purposes, such as pollution control. These are all sensible suggestions that are worth considering in some detail.
There is an action plan for nutrition. It is a joint DEFRA and Department of Health proposal, which is not over-prescriptive. It addresses and deals with real

497
issues in relation to diet, consumption of vegetables and other matters that I do not think Members would find controversial.
Many Members have said that the CAP is not delivering to farmers in respect of their incomes and that there is a need for change. I can tell the right hon. Member for Fylde that, in relation to the mid-term review, market change, decoupling and modulation will be discussed at the summit. I think that there is agreement on market change. There is also strong agreement on decoupling. Modulation is a much more complex issue. Some of the Commission's proposals are not exactly to the benefit of the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, modulation is an important issue and one for which we shall continue to press.
As for Horticulture Research International, we are considering responses following public consultation. We shall announce our decision early in the new year. We recognise that it is important that people know the future of HRI. We want to support research and development in the horticultural sector. I recognise that it is unsupported and we want to play our role in supporting the sector.
I turn to some of the environmental issues. DEFRA champions sustainability across government. We have demonstrated that with our green Ministers' network and our links with other Departments. We recognise that we need to do more, but we can point to real achievements on the environmental front. Not least, we can take some pride in our leadership on climate change, which has been fully integrated throughout government right to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who has played an active role. There has been success also at the Bonn and Marrakesh meetings. That was achieved by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister for the Environment. That has laid the foundations for the implementation of the climate change agreement at Kyoto. It was a great success, and the UK had a leading role.
We have worked and co-operated with Departments such as the Department for International Development on sustainable forestry. I understand that sometimes there are problems in trying to source timber from sustainable sources. There are weaknesses and problems with certification. However, the UK was the first G8 country to embrace a policy for the procurement of timber from sustainable sources. I am glad to say that due to our success at the meeting of the convention on international trade in endangered species, where we managed to get mahogany uplifted to appendix 2, it will be a great deal easier to ensure that the timber that we procure has come from properly certified sources. That success was the result of working with the Foreign Office, the Home Office, Customs and Excise, DFID, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and, of course, non-governmental organisations.
We had success at Doha, especially on non-trade issues, which are important in terms of welfare and environmental issues that are connected with farming. There has been success in raising water quality standards in this country. DEFRA had success in
498
working across government, including the involvement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the world summit on sustainable development. We led the way on the agreement on water and sanitation. That is valuable in terms of international development and an example of where the Department has been leading from the front.
We are the European leader in agri-environment schemes and the application of them. We have had great success in reducing fuel poverty, which has been acknowledged. We have introduced—[Interruption]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. Conversations are breaking out throughout the Chamber, and I am finding it difficult to hear to the Under-Secretary.
Mr. Morley: We work and co-ordinate matters with the Department of Transport. In his recent statement, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced one of the biggest ever public transport schemes in Manchester.
DEFRA is a new Department that continues to develop. Our achievements are already internationally recognised. We are making progress and I am proud of our achievements so far, and of those that we shall make in future.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 145, Noes 238.

Division No. 23]

[6:59 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Doughty, Sue

Allan, Richard

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

Amess, David

Evans, Nigel

Ancram, rh Michael

Fabricant, Michael

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Fallon, Michael

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

Bacon, Richard

Baker, Norman

Flook, Adrian

Baldry, Tony

Forth, rh Eric

Barker, Gregory

Foster, Don (Bath)

Baron, John (Billericay)

Fox, Dr. Liam

Beith, rh A. J.

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Bellingham, Henry

Garnier, hon. Edward

Blunt, Crispin

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Goodman, Paul

Brady, Graham

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Brazier, Julian

Grayling, Chris

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Burns, Simon

Greenway, John

Burstow, Paul

Gummer, rh John

Butterfill, John

Hague, rh William

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Hancock, Mike

Cash, William

Hawkins, Nick

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Hayes, John (S Holland)

Heald, Oliver

Chope, Christopher

Heath, David

Clappison, James

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Collins, Tim

Holmes, Paul

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Horam, John (Orpington)

Cotter, Brian

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Curry, rh David

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Hunter, Andrew

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Jack, rh Michael

Jenkin, Bernard

499

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Selous, Andrew

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

Lamb, Norman

Shepherd, Richard

Lansley, Andrew

Simmonds, Mark

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Spicer, Sir Michael

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Spring, Richard

Lidington, David

Stanley, rh Sir John

Lilley, rh Peter

Steen, Anthony

Llwyd, Elfyn

Streeter, Gary

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Stunell, Andrew

Maclean, rh David

Swayne, Desmond

McLoughlin, Patrick

Syms, Robert

Malins, Humfrey

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Maples, John

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Mercer, Patrick

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Thurso, John

Tonge, Dr. Jenny

Moss, Malcolm

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Viggers, Peter

Norman, Archie

Waterson, Nigel

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Weir, Michael

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Ottaway, Richard

Wiggin, Bill

Page, Richard

Wilkinson, John

Paice, James

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Willis Phil

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Wilshire, David

Pugh, Dr. John

Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

Randall, John

Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Redwood, rh John

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

Young, rh Sir George

Younger-Ross, Richard

Roe, Mrs Marion

Rosindell, Andrew

Tellers for the Ayes:

Ruffley, David

Angela Watkinson and

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Mr. Mark Francois

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Ainger, Nick

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Clapham, Michael

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Baird, Vera

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Banks, Tony

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

Barnes, Harry

Barron, rh Kevin

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Bayley, Hugh

Coaker, Vernon

Beard, Nigel

Coffey, Ms Ann

Beckett, rh Margaret

Coleman, Iain

Bell, Stuart

Colman, Tony

Benn, Hilary

Cooper, Yvette

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Best, Harold

Cruddas, Jon

Betts, Clive

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Blackman, Liz

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Blears, Ms Hazel

David, Wayne

Blizzard, Bob

Davidson, Ian

Brennan, Kevin

Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

Denham, rh John

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Browne, Desmond

Dobson, rh Frank

Bryant, Chris

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Burgon, Colin

Drown, Ms Julia

Byers, rh Stephen

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Cairns, David

Edwards, Huw

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Efford, Clive

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

Caplin, Ivor

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

Casale, Roger

Fisher, Mark

Caton, Martin

Fitzpatrick, Jim

500

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Follett, Barbara

McIsaac, Shona

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

McKechin, Ann

Mackinlay, Andrew

Foulkes, rh George

McNulty, Tony

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Mactaggart, Fiona

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

McWalter, Tony

Gardiner, Barry

Mallaber, Judy

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

Mandelson, rh Peter

Gerrard, Neil

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Gilroy, Linda

Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

Godsiff, Roger

Goggins, Paul

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Martlew, Eric

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Meacher, rh Michael

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Merron, Gillian

Grogan, John

Michael, rh Alun

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Miller, Andrew

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Moffatt, Laura

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Mole, Chris

Moran, Margaret

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Morgan, Julie

Hepburn, Stephen

Morley, Elliot

Heppell, John

Mountford, Kali

Hesford, Stephen

Mudie, George

Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

Mullin, Chris

Heyes, David

Munn, Ms Meg

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Hinchliffe, David

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Hoon, rh Geoffrey

O'Hara, Edward

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Olner, Bill

Hopkins, Kelvin

Organ, Diana

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Picking, Anne

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Pickthall, Colin

Hutton, rh John

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Plaskitt, James

Illsley, Eric

Pollard, Kerry

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Jamieson, David

Purchase, Ken

Jenkins, Brian

Quinn, Lawrie

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Rammell, Bill

Raynsford, rh Nick

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Jowell, rh Tessa

Rooney, Terry

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Ruddock, Joan

Keeble, Ms Sally

Salter, Martin

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

Sawford, Phil

Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

Shaw, Jonathan

Kemp, Fraser

Sheerman, Barry

Khabra, Piara S.

Sheridan, Jim

Kidney, David

Shipley, Ms Debra

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Singh, Marsha

Lammy, David

Skinner, Dennis

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

Lazarowicz, Mark

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

Lepper, David

Leslie, Christopher

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Linton, Martin

Soley, Clive

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

Love, Andrew

Steinberg, Gerry

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Stevenson, George

McAvoy, Thomas

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

McCafferty, Chris

Stinchcombe, Paul

McCartney, rh Ian

Stoate, Dr. Howard

McDonnell, John

Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

501

Stringer, Graham

Walley, Ms Joan

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Ward, Claire

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Wareing, Robert N.

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

White, Brian

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Tipping, Paddy

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Wood, Mike (Batley)

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Woodward, Shaun

Woolas, Phil

Trickett, Jon

Worthington, Tony

Truswell, Paul

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

Wright, David (Telford)

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Wyatt, Derek

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Tellers for the Noes:

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Joan Ryan and

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Charlotte Atkins

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put:—
The Question put: Ayes 232, Noes 141.

Division No. 24]

[7:12pm

AYES

Abbot, Ms Diane

David, Wayne

Ainger, Nick

Davidson, Ian

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Denham, rh John

Baird, Vera

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Banks, Tony

Dobson, rh Frank

Barnes, Harry

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Barron, rh Kevin

Drown, Ms Julia

Bayley, Hugh

Eagle, Maria (L' pool Garston)

Beard, Nigel

Edwards, Huw

Beckett, rh Margaret

Efford, Clive

Bell, Stuart

Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

Benn, Hilary

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Fisher, Mark

Best, Harold

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Betts, Clive

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Blackman, Liz

Follett, Barbara

Blears, Ms Hazel

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

Blizzard, Bob

Brennan, Kevin

Foulkes, rh George

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Browne, Desmond

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

Bryant, Chris

Gardiner, Barry

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

Bryant, Chris

Gardiner, Barry

Burgon, Colin

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

Byers, rh Stephen

Gerrard, Neil

Cairns, David

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Gilroy, Linda

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Godsiff, Roger

Caplin, Ivor

Goggins, Paul

Casale, Roger

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Caton, Martin

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Grogan, John

Clapham, Michael

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Hepburn, Stephen

Coaker, Vernon

Heppell, John

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

Coleman, Iain

Heyes, David

Colman, Tony

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Cooper, Yvette

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

Cruddas, Jon

Hoon, rh Geoffrey

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Hopkins, Kelvin

502

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Picking, Anne

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Pickthall, Colin

Hutton, rh John

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Plaskitt, James

Illsley, Eric

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Purchase, Ken

Jamieson, David

Quinn, Lawrie

Jenkins, Brian

Rammell, Bill

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Raynsford, rh Nick

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Rooney, Terry

Jowell, rh Tessa

Ruddock, Joan

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Salter, Martin

Keeble, Ms Sally

Sawford, Phil

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Shaw, Jonathan

Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

Sheridan, Jim

Kemp, Fraser

Shipley, Ms Debra

Khabra, Piara S.

Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

Kidney, David

Singh, Marsha

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Skinner, Dennis

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

Lammy, David

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Lazarowicz, Mark

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Lepper, David

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Leslie, Christopher

Soley, Clive

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

Linton, Martin

Steinberg, Gerry

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Love, Andrew

Stinchcombe, Paul

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Stoate, Dr. Howard

McAvoy, Thomas

Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

McCafferty, Chris

Stuart, Ms Gisela

McCartney, rh Ian

Sutcliffe, Gerry

McDonnell, John

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

McIsaac, Shona

Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

McKechin, Ann

Tipping, Paddy

Mackinlay, Andrew

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

McNulty, Tony

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Trickett, Jon

McWalter, Tony

Truswell, Paul

Mallaber, Judy

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Mandelson, rh Peter

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Martlew, Eric

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Meacher, rh Michael

Walley, Ms Joan

Merron, Gillian

Ward, Claire

Michael, rh Alun

Wareing, Robert N.

Miller, Andrew

White, Brian

Moffatt, Laura

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Mole, Chris

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Moran, Margaret

Morgan, Julie

Wood, Mike (Batley)

Morley, Elliot

Woodward, Shaun

Mountford, Kali

Woolas, Phil

Mudie, George

Worthington, Tony

Mullin, Chris

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

Munn, Ms Meg

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Wright, David (Telford)

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Wyatt, Derek

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

O'Hara, Edward

Tellers for the Ayes:

Olner, Bill

Joan Ryan and

Organ, Diana

Charlotte Atkins

503

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Lamb, Norman

Allan, Richard

Lansely, Andrew

Ancram, rh Michael

Leigh, Edward

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Bacon, Richard

Lidington, David

Baker, Norman

Lilley, rh Peter

Barker, Gregory

Baron, John (Billericay)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Beith, rh A. J.

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Bellingham, Henry

Maclean, rh David

Blunt, Crispin

McLoughlin, Patrick

Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

Malins, Humfrey

Maples, John

Brady, Graham

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Brazier, Julian

Mercer, Patrick

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Burns, Simon

Burstow, Paul

Moss, Malcolm

Butterfill, John

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Norman, Archie

Cash, William

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Öpik, Lembit (Tatton)

Osborne, George

Chope, Christopher

Ottaway, Richard

Clappison, James

Page, Richard

Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Paice, James

Collins, Tim

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Cotter, Brian

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Curry, rh David

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Pugh, Dr. John

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Randall, John

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Doughty, Sue

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

Evans, Nigel

Roe, Mrs Marion

Fabricant, Michael

Rosindell, Andrew

Fallon, Michael

Ruffley, David

Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Flook, Adrian

Selous, Andrew

Forth, rh Eric

Foster, Don (Bath)

Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Shepherd, Richard

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Simmonds, Mark

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Spicer, Sir Michael

Goodman, Paul

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Spring, Richard

Grayling, Chris

Stanley, rh Sir John

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Steen, Anthony

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Stunell, Andrew

Greenway, John

Swayne, Desmond

Grieve, Dominic

Syms, Robert

Gummer, rh John

Hague, rh William

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Hancock, Mike

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Hawkins, Nick

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Hayes, John (S Holland)

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Heald, Oliver

Thurso, John

Heath, David

Tonge, Dr. Jenny

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Viggers, Peter

Holmes, Paul

Waterson, Nigel

Horam, John (Orpington)

Weir, Michael

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Whittingdale, John

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Hunter, Andrew

Jack, rh Michael

Wiggin, Bill

Jenkin, Bernard

Wilkinson, John

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Williams, Hvwel (Caernarfon)

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Wilshire, David

504

Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

Younger-Ross, Richard

Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Tellers for the Noes:

Mr. Mark Francois and

Young, rh Sir George

Angela Watkinson

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the Government's commitment to sustainable development, balancing environmental, economic and social aims both domestically and globally; commends its drive to promote thriving rural economies and communities, including a vibrant food and farming sector, that protects and ensures the sustainable use of the environment, as well as contributing to productivity; applauds the launch on 12th December of the Government's Sustainable Farming and Food Strategy; further welcomes the Government's commitment in its response to the Foot and Mouth Disease Inquiry reports to a massive programme of work and reform; recognises the substantial strides the Government is making in tackling climate change, and the leading role it played at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in securing global commitments to tackle poverty through sustainable development, such as halving the number of people without access to adequate sanitation; further welcomes its focus on the sustainable and efficient use of the urban and rural environment and the need to work with business to promote the country's competitive advantage by embracing and leading internationally on green technologies, landscapes and the countryside for all to enjoy and benefit from, its commitment to animal welfare and its focus on evidence-based policy-making and science; and urges the Government to make continuing progress in advancing global environmental priorities, including radical reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, not least as part of the UK's commitment to reducing poverty and hunger in developing countries, to the World Trade Organisation, and to further cuts in carbon emissions worldwide.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (AMENDMENT) ACT 1993
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) and Order [28 November],
That this House takes note with approval of the Government's assessment as set out in the Pre-Budget Report 2002 for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I think the Ayes have it.
Hon. Members: No.
Division deferred till Wednesday 18 December, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002]

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the remaining motions.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. I 18(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  PROCEEDS OF CRIME
  That the draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cash Searches): Code of Practice) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 25th November, be approved.
  JUSTICE
  That the draft Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 (Amendment of section 46(1)) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 27th November, be approved.

  COMPETITION
  That the draft Supply of Beer (Tied Estate) (Revocation) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 21st November, be approved.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
  Question agreed to.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Ordered,
  That the Pet Travel Scheme (Pilot Arrangements) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 2850), be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

PETITIONS

  Woodside Adolescent Unit
  7.23 pm
  Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell): I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents of the Epsom and Ewell area, relatives of those treated at the Woodside Adolescent Unit and others across the south-east of England concerned about the unit's future. For the information of the House, the unit is a psychiatric unit aimed at young people; it was a pioneer in its field and faces closure as a result of the transfer of services across the border into London.
  The petition declares:
  The petitioners strongly oppose the plan to close the Woodside Child, Adolescent and Family Psychiatry Unit and call upon the NHS and Surrey Oaklands NHS Trust to keep it open.
  The petitioners request that the House of Commons joins them in calling upon the NHS and the said Surrey Oaklands NHS Trust to keep the unit open.
  And the petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Food Supplements
  Mr. John Horam: The petition that I have the pleasure of presenting is on behalf of more than 600 consumers of food supplements and natural health products in Petts Wood, Orpington and the surrounding areas. The signatures were collected by the Health Matters store in Petts Wood in my constituency.
  The petition declares:
  Consumers in the United Kingdom have for many years maintained good health by choosing to take safe vitamin and mineral supplements and herbal remedies and fear that the European Food Supplements Directive and the proposed European Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products would severely restrict the number and range of such products on general retail sale in the future.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons requires that the Secretary of State for Health does all in his power to protect the rights of UK consumers by ensuring that such European legislation does not unnecessarily and unacceptably restrict the availability of natural health products.
  And the petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.
  Mr. Richard Allan: The House may have a strange sense of déjà vu when I present my petition on behalf of Ralph Pike, who has collected 5,435 signatures on behalf of Consumers for Health Choice. The petition states:
  Consumers in the United Kingdom have for many years maintained good health by choosing to take safe vitamin and mineral supplements and herbal remedies and fears that the European Food Supplements Directive and the proposed European Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products would severely restrict the number and range of such products on general retail sale in the future.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons requires that the Secretary of State for Health does all in his power to protect the rights of UK consumers by ensuring that such European legislation does not unnecessarily and unacceptably restrict the availability of natural health products.
  And the petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.
  Mr. Peter Viggers: My petition is identical to the two that have just been introduced, so I shall not repeat the text. In this case, the petition was organised by Mr. Fordham of the Spice of Life health food shop in Bemisters lane, Gosport, and was signed by more than 200 of my constituents. The fact that an identical petition should come from three different constituencies underlines the widespread concern about the matter.
  To lie upon the Table.

School Closures (Leeds)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
7.27 pm
Mr. George Mudie: I feel out of place, as I do not have a petition to present.
I am very grateful to Mr. Speaker for this opportunity to raise important matters relating to school closures affecting my constituents. Some of my colleagues may want to speak about schools in other parts of that great city of Leeds, if they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am aware that the Minister has less statutory involvement in school closures than before, but certain aspects of the current educational unrest in Leeds lead to his and his colleagues' doors, and this is an excellent chance to acquaint him and the Department with the difficulties that they are unwittingly causing.
The Minister will be aware that Education Leeds is reviewing both high schools and primary schools, which is sensible and necessary on both demographic and educational grounds and is clearly overdue. My remarks today are definitely not about being defensive over the closure of buildings. The demographic changes alone make some closures inevitable. This is about three issues on which departmental involvement is in danger of distorting sensible educational decisions and, above all, undermining the democratic process.
The first issue concerns academy status, which has ministerial blessing and has been conferred on Agnes Stewart Church of England high school. The plans agreed with the Minister envisage a new Agnes Stewart Church of England academy, merged with Braim Wood boys high school on a new site in Fearnville fields.
Agnes Stewart school has been in special measures and is now regarded as having serious weaknesses. Instead of being given this new status and some £18 million in funds from the Department for Education and Skills, it is more of a candidate for closure. It has let youngsters down for many years, as scrutiny of the Ofsted report and of exam results over the years will clearly confirm.
Braim Wood—the school that Agnes Stewart is taking over as part of the move towards an academy, and which, in effect, it is closing down—is smaller, but it has double the exam successes of Agnes Stewart. Braim Wood's size may well be explained by the education authority's making public its desire to let Agnes Stewart take it over. That has resulted in Braim Wood's being blighted, and parents are understandably not over-keen to send their children to a school in which their education will clearly be disrupted. Regardless of that, it has had a decent Ofsted. It is in a very attractive, semi-rural location and is well placed to attract a social mix. Whether the single sex aspect can be justified is forming, and has formed, an interesting part of the consultations.
A really controversial aspect of the academy is the proposed new site on Fearnville fields. I should point out that I live on a nearby estate, and have done so for the past 20-odd years. Residents' meetings have made it absolutely plain that they see no environmental sense in the proposal to build on one of the much prized and very scarce green spaces in the inner city. Perhaps even more
508
importantly, nor do they see much educational sense in building there. What enrages local people is that, on standing in the field—the proposed site of the new academy—and looking northwards, one can see just 700 yd away a redundant high school building that is still standing. It was closed some five or six years ago, and is being used by the council for other activities. This raises some obvious questions. Although it is being used for various purposes, it could be made available, and it has land within its curtilage on which another school could be built. In other words, an educational establishment is still standing within 700 yd of the proposed site.
Local people ask the obvious questions: if there is a need for the school in that vicinity, why ruin green fields, when an educational establishment is located so close? Even more pertinently, they ask, "Before you build a school there, is it not worth examining the reasons for the closure of the former high school?" As a local councillor at the time of the closure, it was evident to me that the high school closed because it failed to achieve a social mix. My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon), a distinguished former teacher-lecturer, contributed to what little success that establishment achieved, but even that failed to prevent its closure.
This issue is linked to the Minister for School Standards because it was he who agreed last July to the plan to build an academy on that site. His Department and Education Leeds have since spent an estimated six-figure sum on developing that plan. The trouble is that Education Leeds has bid for an academy according to a specific timetable, and it is under the impression that it has £20 million to spend on this project. The problems are twofold. Having consulted interested partners, it is discovering not only a lack of support for Braim Wood's closure to accommodate the proposed Agnes Stewart Church of England academy, but real puzzlement at, and strong hostility towards, such use of the site.
The second part of this exercise is the young persons academy—a different type of academy that will attempt to provide 16-plus education in the inner city. That comes to Leeds like a thief in the night and is just as welcome.
In inner-city Leeds, we have the usual problems with 16-plus education: small sixth forms, with little breadth of choice. The building of an academy is one way forward but, as the House will agree, it is not the only way. Schools in the outer suburbs have been encouraged to form partnerships and networks. That could be the answer in the inner city; for example, partnerships could be formed with local further education colleges.
The Leeds academy is described as having 900 students, yet there is no indication of where they will come from. There are two obvious places: the further education colleges and the existing schools. That must have an adverse financial effect on both sectors, but that is spelled out nowhere—nor are we told which sixth forms are to be affected.
Once again, a bid has been made. The Minister has agreed to the concept and to the money, but the consultations are unreal because the full details and consequences are not spelled out. Furthermore, some people feel that money rather than education is leading in this case.
The proposals for the young person's academy led to the most outrageous part of the whole exercise. To find a site for the academy, Education Leeds decided to

509
demolish one of the best primary schools in inner east Leeds—Shakespeare primary school, which is in the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn). It is an award-winning school and the decision seemed dreadful. Under the guise of dealing with surplus places, Education Leeds decided that it could save Shakespeare but only at the expense of another fine primary school in the vicinity—Ebor Gardens.
The proposal is that Ebor Gardens be closed and demolished and that Shakespeare be moved to that site to make room for the academy.
Colin Burgon: I pay testimony to my hon. Friend's commitment to the local community. Does he agree that, just as we suffer in Leeds from the two-speed economy, if we have a two-tier education system that ignores the needs of the inner city and the estates, it will be bad news for the city of Leeds?
Mr. Mudie: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. It is an important matter. We face a great challenge. There are great problems and change is needed. Thanks to the funds coming from the Labour Government, for the first time in my political career there is a real prospect of delivering a decent education to inner-city youngsters and of giving them real opportunities. That is why we must be careful to ensure that partnerships continue. We have a one-off chance in a generation to do something for those youngsters.
As I was saying, it is proposed to rebuild Shakespeare primary school on the site of Ebor Gardens school. To the absolute fury of parents, staff and governors, that property manipulation is being described as "surplus place adjustment". If the Minister cares to peruse Education Leeds school organisation booklets for the past two years, he will see that there is no hint that there might be a problem with surplus places at Ebor Gardens. Only last year, Education Leeds completed a £1.1 million refurbishment of Ebor Gardens—the very school that it proposes to knock down to make way for another primary school. Surprisingly, however, in this year's booklet, there is a specific reference to Shakespeare's figures as worrying.
All those points would be sufficient to raise public concern as to the genuineness of the consultation on surplus places even if the Department for Education and Skills had not re-entered the picture. Last Thursday, as the consultations were coming to a close, Education Leeds held an open day for any developers who were interested in private finance initiative packages for a group of primary schools, and yes, sadly, the rebuilding of Shakespeare on the Ebor Gardens site was on the list. How can we persuade parents, teachers, staff and the community that those consultations are valid when, before they have even ended, developers are being invited to make bids to rebuild the school?
So we bring together those three projects. Education Leeds, in the knowledge that it needed resources to help to deal with the real problems in the inner city, made bids to the Department for Education and Skills. It has had three successes: the academy, the young person's
510
academy and the primary school PFI. It has spent time and money developing those three schemes during the past few months. It fitted them into the framework of the high school review and the primary surplus places review and then proceeded to consult.
As the consultation exercise comes to a close, it is fair to say that the educational objectives have been accepted, but a consensus is growing for a different package. There is genuine concern that Education Leeds, conscious that it is very tightly strapped for resources, fears that, if it wavers from the various parts of the consultation that it has already agreed with the Government, it will lose the money and any reorganisation will be in difficult, if not totally damaged.
I want to plead with the Minister publicly to assure Education Leeds that, so long as the educational objectives are met, the differences and even delays that may result from listening to people in Leeds will not cause the city to lose resources. I hope that the Minister will assure Education Leeds along those lines, or the whole consultation process will be seen as an insult to the hundreds of genuine people who turned out in the evenings to give their views at those consultation meetings.
If the Minister can assure Leeds that this is a mature Government who listen, there is a chance of a real partnership being pulled together to succeed in giving those inner city youngsters the chance of a real future—something they have been denied in the past few decades.
7.41 pm
Mr. Fabian Hamilton: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) on obtaining this debate and thank him for allowing me to say a few words. I want to back up what he has said about Braim Wood high school, which is in my constituency. Braim Wood is a boys only school. Its exam results have been somewhat better than many schools in the area and, as my hon. Friend said, certainly better than Agnes Stewart Church of England high school, which has had a poor Ofsted report and is likely to close.
I want to back up some of the points that my hon. Friend made about the £18 million for the academy that has been promised to Agnes Stewart high school on the understanding that it will relocate to the current Braim Wood boys school. As the local Member of Parliament, it seems to me that Braim Wood, as my hon. Friend said, is in a very pleasant area of the city, but it has a catchment area among a very mixed social group.
If that school were to become an academy outside the Church of England and a mixed school, it would attract a very big social mix from an area that includes very wealthy areas of housing and some poor and deprived areas to the east of the school. So my plea to the Minister is to look very carefully at what has been proposed and to create a school that would have a far better social mix and achieve far higher standards and results than what is currently proposed.
I wish to make a point about the other part of Education Leeds's proposal that affects my constituency, and it also relates to the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary

511
Benn). The City of Leeds high school is very small, but has had a good Ofsted result, and it could well attract many more pupils were it to be allowed to continue as a school. The consequence of Education Leeds's proposal to close that school is that it would also close a perfectly viable and highly successful school in my constituency: Carr Manor high school, which has achieved a considerable improvement in its results thanks to a dedicated management team and an excellent head teacher.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East has referred to the public meetings that have taken place as part of the consultation exercise, but he may not have known that, on Thursday last week—just seven days ago—550 parents and pupils turned out to say that they did not want that school to close, merge with the City of Leeds high school and reopen as a new school on that site. That seems the best way to guarantee that all the achievements of the past few years would be wiped out. The excellence and improvements that have been achieved at that school can continue, and it would be far better if that school were rebuilt, offering new facilities for all the pupils.
7.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) on securing this important debate. I am well aware of the amount and strength of interest being shown by people living in Leeds in the reviews of school provision that are currently taking place there. Clearly, that is reflected in the presence in the Chamber this evening of most if not all of the Members of Parliament for Leeds, including my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton), who spoke briefly, and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn).
First, I congratulate the heads, teachers, other staff and, above all, the pupils of Leeds on some of the results that they have been producing in the key stage tests in recent years. The results at key stages 1, 2 and 3 have been consistently good and improving in recent years, and it is important, in the context of this evening's debate, that that is recognised and commended. At GCSE, progress has been made, but, on average, the Leeds schools lag somewhat behind the national average, in contrast to their performance at key stages 1, 2 and 3. I agree with my two hon. Friends who have spoken that the focus of any changes to schools provision in Leeds should be on educational objectives, educational priorities, and, above all, educational standards. We have common ground in saying that.
These reviews are being undertaken by Education Leeds, a company that is responsible for many of the city's local education authority functions, although it is owned wholly by the council. First, it is important to state clearly that any decisions on whether an authority should proceed with proposals for closures of schools, arising from the review, must be made by the council through its executive. Those are not matters to be dealt with directly by Ministers. I shall return to that point in a moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East in particular raised a number of issues focusing on the provision of secondary education. He sought a number
512
of assurances from me in relation to the educational objectives that are being pursued, and particularly in relation to the genuineness of consultation. I am well aware that there is considerable interest in this consultation, which has been reflected in the public meetings to which both my hon. Friends referred in their speeches.
Education Leeds, in its consultation document on secondary schooling, explains that its vision is that all secondary schools in Leeds should be able to offer excellent teaching and learning, and high-quality educational opportunities, with an expanded programme of vocational and academic courses linking to opportunities in colleges and universities and work-based and advanced training. It also recognises the need to increase the popularity of inner city schools among staff, young people and their parents, setting targets to deliver higher levels of achievement for all the pupils in Leeds schools, and guaranteeing a post-16 place in school or college for all those who wish to continue with their learning. All of us who have spoken in this debate would agree on that statement of objective.
As we have been told, Education Leeds is now consulting on its proposals to create new facilities to replace a number of schools facing challenging circumstances. It is therefore important to look at what Education Leeds plans to develop as well as what it plans to close, and to make a judgment as to whether those facilities are likely to provide the standard of education that all children and young people in the city deserve.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East focused on three of the issues that are being considered as part of the consultation. First, he referred to two schools: Agnes Stewart and Braim Wood. The proposal from Education Leeds, upon which it is consulting, is that the two schools should work together to form a city academy. I emphasise that no final decision has been taken on this at a ministerial level, and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills will be asked to approve any plans for an academy. I am acutely aware that both my hon. Friends have made alternative suggestions and that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East expressed the possibility of a mixed academy being established at Braim Wood. I urge them to put those proposals to Education Leeds, so that they are considered as part of the consultation and debate on the future of secondary provision in Leeds.
The second issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East related to a young persons academy. Again, I see that constructive alternative suggestions have been put forward, and it is important that they are first considered at local level. I do not believe that any decision has been taken at ministerial level that prevents Education Leeds from looking again at this aspect. If a viable alternative is put forward by the local community or by hon. Members, it has the opportunity to consider it as part of the outcome of its consultation. That also applies to the primary school reorganisation that is proposed for Leeds. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friends that decisions have not been reached here in London by ministerial colleagues and that there will still be opportunities for the alternatives that my hon. Friends have constructively put forward in this debate to be considered as part of the consultation.

513
It might be helpful if I explain the procedure that education authorities have to follow if they are considering the closure of a school, and I shall consider where Education Leeds is in that process. The Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998 places a duty on each local education authority to ensure that sufficient school places exist to meet the needs of the local population. The Government encourage authorities to avoid wasting resources and we urge them to remove empty places when doing so supports the basic agenda of raising school standards. They must review the position regularly, and take action when a significant imbalance between supply and demand is identified. They carry out this responsibility through the annual preparation of a school organisation plan.
If an authority decides to close a school, it must by law consult all appropriate parties by providing sufficient information to enable all those being consulted to form a considered view. Education Leeds is currently at this point with most of its proposals. The authority should then use any views received during that period to inform the decision as to whether to proceed. In Leeds, the decision must be made by the council's executive, and I understand that Education Leeds intends to put a paper on the outcome of the consultation exercise to the executive in January.
If the council's executive decides to proceed with the closure of any school, statutory notices must be placed in the local press and in a prominent position at the school or schools concerned. A copy of the notice and other supporting documentation must be sent to the local schools organisation committee. The committee will usually comprise five or six groups with local involvement in education and representatives of the local council, school governors, Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches, learning and skills councils and sometimes a further group at local discretion. For two
514
months after the publication of the notices, or for one month in the case of a school in special measures, objections may be submitted in writing to the authority. Should no objections be received, the authority may then implement its proposal. If there are objections, they must be referred to the school's organisation committee, together with the authority's comments on the points raised. Each group on the committee has one vote and should consider all the evidence before reaching a decision. If a unanimous decision cannot be reached, the case is referred to the independent schools adjudicator for a final decision.
I said that school closure decisions are not a matter for Ministers. The structures for local planning and decision making that I described allow for the concerns, objections and interests of local people to be fully considered. It is clear that Education Leeds and Leeds city council are at an early stage in the process that they must follow as they consider how best to meet their important responsibility for the appropriate provision of school places.
I urge everyone in the city to think carefully about the proposals that Education Leeds is making for school provision in their areas, to participate in the consultation exercises, and to consider whether they wish to express views as statutory procedures are followed. My hon. Friends made constructive alternative proposals on behalf of their constituents. I urge them to submit those to the consultation process so that they are fully considered by Education Leeds. I reiterate that it is an open process. No decisions have been made about any aspect raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East. What we have in common is the desire to get the best possible deal in terms of the provision of education for the children and young people of Leeds.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Future Vehicles Strategy
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Gillian Merron.]
2.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson):It is customary at the start of an Adjournment debate to congratulate the Member who has been fortunate enough to secure it. I shall break with that custom because I secured the debate. Other Members who catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may not feel as constrained as I.
I hope that the debate gives us an opportunity to review our progress on lowering vehicle emissions and to look at how we move the agenda forward in future. I hope that we find a high degree of cross-party understanding on these important issues.
Road transport is central to the United Kingdom's economic success and a great source of personal freedom. To sustain a vibrant and flourishing economy as well as to maintain Britain's position and competitiveness in the world, good transport is not just desirable, but essential. However, transport and, in particular, road transport is the source of 25 per cent. of the UK's greenhouse gas emissions and a major source of other air pollutants.
The Government have done much to clean up transport. There have been significant reductions in local pollutants over the past decade because of improvements in vehicle technology and fuels. Those improvements have been driven forward by cooperation with our European partners. The European emission standards mean that a new car sold in the UK today emits 50 times fewer regulated pollutants than its equivalent on sale 30 years ago. Using a more recent time scale, today's cars emit 40 per cent. less particulates and oxides of nitrogen than new cars in 1996. By 2005, those emissions will be 70 per cent. lower than in 1996. That is a massive improvement over 30 years, including the improvements of the past 10.
However, yet further improvements are necessary if we are to meet our air quality targets and give everyone the benefit of cleaner air. Cleaner air means better health, better places to live and a better environment for us all. If we are to meet the challenges that road transport presents to the environment, we must capitalise on the opportunities that new generations of vehicle and fuel technology offer.
In July this year, the Government launched their powering future vehicles strategy. As the Prime Minister says in the foreword to that important initiative, our objective is clear: we want the UK to lead the way in the global shift to clean, efficient, low-carbon transport. Such a move will not only help the environment and improve our quality of life, but reduce the cost of motoring for those who choose low-carbon cars and build a competitive advantage for the UK's automotive industries.
144WH
The strategy provides the framework to promote the development and take-up of new technologies that will deliver significant reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases. It supports the delivery of our Kyoto targets and our domestic carbon dioxide goal of a 20 per cent. reduction from 1990 levels of carbon dioxide by 2010. The new vehicles will be clean as well as low carbon, delivering air quality improvement, especially in our congested urban areas. They will have significant effects for human health and the environment. It will mean an improved quality of life for those who suffer most from air pollution. For example, children with asthma or elderly people with heart or lung conditions are particularly vulnerable.
Cleaner vehicles are generally quieter than today's vehicles. That will bring real benefits to those who suffer from traffic noise. During a recent visit to Perkins Diesel in Peterborough, I was told that a vehicle that is powered by compressed natural gas gives off about a third of the engine noise of one that is conventionally powered by diesel.
Mr. David Chaytor:Has the Minister heard of the company in Marseilles that claims to have manufactured the world's first zero emission vehicle? If not, will he ask his officials to obtain information on that important development in French technology so that all hon. Members can be informed about it?
Mr. Jamieson:I shall certainly look into that. Perhaps my hon. Friend has some details and would like to point me towards them. I shall talk briefly about zero emission vehicles later. I suspect that other hon. Members may do the same, having experienced such a vehicle this week.
Road transport is responsible for a significant proportion of emissions of some of the air pollutants that are of most concern, especially oxides of nitrogen. Reducing emissions of those pollutants from road transport will play a key role in helping the United Kingdom to meet its air quality strategy objectives as well as to comply with legally binding European Union limit values for such pollutants.
The strategy presents other opportunities beyond those of improving the environment, including building competitive advantage for UK industry. Low-carbon road transport will need to come to the UK if we are to meet our Kyoto targets and air quality objectives, but we want it to come from the UK as well. We cannot afford simply to import solutions. Manufacturing, research and development—which we are very good at in this country—are a vital part of that future, and the automotive sector is key to that development.
So we must look to the future—to tomorrow's global market demand for clean low-carbon transport. We must ensure that the United Kingdom is the location of choice for the design and manufacture of tomorrow's vehicles. That means that we must research and develop new solutions, creating new knowledge-based supply chains, making world-class value-added products for environmentally aware customers across the globe and ensuring that the UK is a good home market in which to sell clean low-carbon vehicles.
The Government are taking immediate action to drive the UK forward to low-carbon transport. The strategy commits us to an important target: that within the next

145WH
decade, one in 10 new cars sold in the UK will be low-carbon vehicles, emitting 100 g of carbon dioxide or less per kilometre. One in 10 means up to 0.25 million cars a year. Low-carbon means fuel-efficient-100 g of CO2 per kilometre is the equivalent of about 70 miles per gallon, compared with today's new car average of 178 g of CO2 per kilometre and an average of about 40 mpg. We are also setting a target for buses: that by 2012, 20 per cent. of new buses coming into operation every year will be low carbon.
We have been bold in setting targets for the introduction of low-carbon vehicles. Those targets will serve to drive the strategy forward and send out a signal that we are serious about developing low-carbon transport and seizing the competitive advantages from it. However, targets on their own are not enough. We need the engagement of industry and of stakeholders if we are to make this work. That is why the Government fully support the establishment of the low-carbon vehicles partnership. The partnership will operate as an independent forum to maximise the potential for UK business to gain the competitive advantage from the powering future vehicles strategy. It will work with industries to engage proactively in the move to low-carbon vehicles and provide a forum in which stakeholders can work together in overcoming market barrier issues affecting the shift to new vehicles and fuels.
The partnership will be publicly launched on 16 January next year. A high-level board has already been recruited, including the chairman and director-level executives in the auto industry, the chairman of the RAC foundation and senior people from nongovernmental organisations and local government. The board will meet for the first time in January to set the strategic direction for the partnership and establish a first-year work plan. An awareness of the partnership is rising. The website is now live and potential members are invited to make expressions of interest.
Delivering the strategy requires action from Government as well as other stakeholders. That involves more than just one part of Government, which is why the strategy is being issued jointly by the four key Departments: the Department of Transport, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury. That is why the Prime Minister has made four Ministers jointly responsible for overseeing its implementation. Such a joined-up approach means that we can use all the tools at our disposal to drive the shift to low-carbon transport, including taxation measures.
Mr. Christopher Chope:The strategy talks about the establishment of a joint ministerial low-carbon group. Will the Minister tell us how many times that group has met and what it has resolved?
Mr. Jamieson:The hon. Gentleman must have been too busy writing his notes to hear what I said. I shall repeat it: the group will meet next month. It has not actually resolved anything yet because it has only just been formed. It will meet after the launch on 16 January.
Mr. Chope:The Minister has misunderstood me. He was talking about the low-carbon vehicles partnership,
146WH
and the Government are involved in that, but I thought that there was a separate, joint ministerial low-carbon group comprising of four Ministers. That group was supposed to meet and produce an annual report, which was an aspiration more than a year ago. I wondered what had happened since.
Mr. Jamieson:Perhaps I have not made myself entirely clear, but I will have another go. The two groups will be launched next month. The ministerial group has not met formally. The four Departments have had several meetings in the lead up to the powering future vehicles strategy, but the formation of the group will be next month and we will take the agenda forward in 2003.
We are the first major country to base its mainstream vehicle taxation system—company car tax and vehicle excise duty—on carbon emissions. Those tax changes are already having an impact on automotive manufacturers and motorists, which we can see by looking at the way advertisements for vehicles now concentrate on the carbon dioxide ratings. We have also introduced duty incentives for cleaner fuels, including biofuels and road fuel gases—liquid petroleum gas and compressed natural gas.
Taking biofuels as an example, we know that they can provide significant life cycle reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. Bioethanol and biodiesel from virgin crops can reduce CO2 by about a half compared with conventional fuels. In the case of biodiesel from waste vegetable oil, the life cycle benefits can be even higher. They can go into conventional diesel and petrol as a blend that is safe, clean and of high quality and which meets the manufacturers' warranties.
Mr. Chaytor:On bioethanol and biodiesel, whilst recognising the important progress that is being made, does the Minister accept that there is a remaining contradiction in taxation policy because biofuels have a higher level of taxation than LPG, which is of course a fossil fuel?
Mr. Jamieson:Yes, we recognise that. My hon. Friend will know that a great deal has been said about that and much lobbying has taken place. He will also know that the duty levied on biodiesel was reduced by 20p a litre. Next year, the levy on bioethanol will be reduced. That has been due to the lobbying that has taken place, and a reflection on the contribution that those fuels can make to a cleaner environment. However, biodiesel and bioethanol still emit a considerable amount of air pollutant at the tailpipe. We have to take that into consideration.
Another issue about liquid petroleum gas that we were very mindful of was the need to give an incentive to set up the refuelling network, which was very costly. I am pleased that the oil industry has responded extremely well. I believe that we are all surprised that we now have a comprehensive network of about 1,200 LPG filling stations. Some 10 per cent. of filling stations now supply liquid petroleum gas, so the fuel is available throughout the country. However, the incentive had to be given in the first instance.
My hon. Friend knows that compressed natural gas offers considerable advantages. Unfortunately, the network of filling infrastructure has not grown in the

147WH
same way that it has for LPG. The thrust of my hon. Friend's question was whether we are constantly reviewing and rethinking the fiscal incentives. The answer is yes. Evidence of that has come in the Chancellor's statement. We have been able to respond very quickly to points that have been made to us and we have put in place fiscal incentives on fuels that emit lower CO2 and result in better air quality.
It always gives me a considerable amount of pleasure when I travel beyond the borders of this country for discussions about the issue to learn that many other countries have a great interest in what we are doing and want to replicate some of our fiscal measures. We probably lead the world, including some Scandinavian countries which generally have a very good record on such issues.
A biodiesel duty cut of 20p per litre below that of ultra low sulphur diesel has been in place since July. Although it is early days for the biodiesel industry, the latest provisional figures paint a very encouraging picture. The amount of dutied biodiesel has risen sixfold to more than 400,000 litres a month since the introduction of the duty cut. Several companies have plans to expand the number of retail sites dispensing the fuel and we expect the numbers to keep rising. From information provided by the industry, we expect more than 80 filling stations to be dispensing biodiesel blends by the end of the year.
The green fuels challenge built on the change in the pre-Budget report with a similar 20p per litre cut for bioethanol. The Government have announced that they will consult with stakeholders to establish the optimum timing for the introduction of the duty cut. Government support and industry initiative will create a sustainable biofuels industry with a long-term future.
The Government are supporting cleaner vehicles as well as cleaner fuels. The PowerShift programme, which is sponsored by my Department and administered by the energy saving trust, is aimed at developing a sustainable market for alternative-fuel vehicles in the UK. PowerShift grants are available to assist with the additional costs of buying hybrid, gas and electric vehicles while the market for such vehicles is small. PowerShift's sister programme, the new vehicle technology fund, supports the demonstration of innovative low-carbon technologies, such as hybrid and fuel cell vehicles.
Mr. Chope:Does the Minister accept that many customers are concerned that there is no long-term guarantee of the duty differential on LPG and that at the end of 2004 the differential will disappear unless the Government make an announcement? An investment in a vehicle needs a return over a period longer than two years.
Mr. Jamieson:The differential will not disappear, but we will have to review carefully all the fiscal incentives over a period of time to reflect the changing market and the changing competitive edge of one fuel over another. The fuel duty rebate for LPG came in about five years ago, when the gap between emissions from LPG and from petrol and diesel was actually very large. What has happened recently probably was not anticipated at the time. Emissions, particularly from petrol, have been
148WH
considerably reduced and the gap between LPG and petrol has closed, but the gap between petrol and/or diesel and compressed natural gas is still very large. As I was saying to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), those fiscal incentives will not disappear, but we will have to review them and look at them very sensibly. We need to look at them in a way in which a disincentive is not provided for taking them forward. We have to weigh up a number of very important issues. If the hon. Gentleman has some ideas and his party wants to make a contribution to the process, we will be pleased to hear from him.
Mr. Chaytor:On the PowerShift programme, I want to endorse the point raised by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) about the need for certainty before an increased number of people are likely to take advantage of the regime. Has my hon. Friend the Minister recently studied the PowerShift register on its website, which I do from time to time? I have mentioned this to him before. Of all the vehicles listed on the register, my recollection is that the vast majority are not yet eligible for grants simply because their emissions are deemed to be not yet proven. That is a disincentive to those people who are interested in converting their vehicles from petrol to LPG. Will the Minister review the register to see what can be done to make grant available for a wider range of vehicles? Some manufacturers have no vehicles that are eligible for grant because their emissions have not yet been proven.
Mr. Jamieson:My hon. Friend would agree that we must make the grant available only where there is a tangible improvement in emissions. We have been having many discussions with the manufacturers to get them to put their vehicles on the register and to make the proper assessment to allow them to do so. I am pleased to say that the register has grown substantially over the past 18 months—that does not just coincide with the time in which I have been doing this job.
On Monday, I was pleased to visit MG Rover. By February next year, all its vehicles, which it produces at Longbridge, Birmingham, will have the option of having the LPG kit fitted to them. That includes the large 2.5 litre engine, for which some manufacturers have baulked at providing the equipment because of the small market that exists for those vehicles. Some of the larger and more polluting vehicles will, therefore, have the potential to be converted. However, we are mindful of my hon. Friend's point. Some manufacturers, which are not taking up the opportunity of getting themselves on that register, might be missing a trick in terms of marketing their vehicles. The public, who increasingly make choices on environmental, as well as plain economic, grounds, are ever more sensitive, and people may look to certain manufacturers rather than others. That is, however, a matter for the manufacturers. We certainly hope that cars manufactured in Britain, which provide for our economy, benefit from the register.
Powering future vehicles is a United Kingdom strategy, which looks outwards and recognises the need to work with our international partners. It includes the highly successful European vehicle emissions and fuel standards, which are commonly known as the Euro standards. The progressive tightening of the Euro

149WH
standards has helped to reduce emissions from particulates, oxides and nitrogen from road transport by about 50 per cent. over the past decade. Even tighter regulatory standards have been put in place for vehicles entering the market from 2006, which is one of the many benefits accruing from our membership of the European Union. We often say that no country can achieve cleaner fuel or air on its own.
The European Union contains one quarter of the world's economy, which gives us an enormous amount of leverage with both vehicle manufacturers and oil companies. Given that Japan and Korea also want to work to our environmental standards, there is agreement among about 40 per cent. of the world's economy. As such, manufacturers and fuel refiners have to listen to what we want if they want to sell their vehicles in Europe. The European Union voluntary agreement of vehicle manufacturers is a good example of this point in action. It has been a key driver in the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. The target is to reduce the average fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions of new cars to 140 g per km by 2008. We know that this is a demanding target that will take levels down by about 25 per cent. compared with the 1995 average of 187 g.
So what will low-carbon future vehicles look like? In the foreword to the strategy, the Prime Minister stated:
"Beyond 2010, we will accelerate the shift towards technologies such as hydrogen fuel cells, with zero tailpipe emissions."
The Government intend to develop a 2020 target for sales of ultra low-carbon vehicles and we expect that a significant proportion of those cars will offer zero tailpipe emissions. That would include hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.
The Government are providing support for road trials of hydrogen buses. In 2003, Transport for London will take delivery of three fuel cell buses for trial on the roads. My Department is supporting that initiative through the PowerShift programme and the new vehicle technology fund. The fund is also being used to support the piloting of hydrogen buses in Cambridge in 2004. Buses typically run in urban areas in which air quality is of the greatest concern. Fuel cell buses, which can operate with zero tailpipe emissions, offer real environmental benefits in such areas.
Most experts think that the cost of fuel cell cars is not likely to reach a viable mass-market level much before 2010 to 2015. The application of the technology to road vehicles is very new and there are considerable further technical and economic hurdles, in terms of raising the performance of fuel cell stacks, maintaining sustained performance and bringing down the current very large manufacturing costs.
In the meantime, hybrid vehicle technologies will help us to move towards a low-carbon economy and towards a more sustainable transport system, in terms of carbon dioxide, air quality and noise. Hybrid technology involves a combination of the internal combustion engine and the electric motor, which drives the vehicle and collects electricity from the braking. Hybrid technology will probably have a life that stretches through the current internal combustion engine way into the time when cars may or may not be powered by fuel cells and hydrogen.
150WH
The hybrid technology that is available today offers about twice the fuel efficiency of a conventional vehicle, with only half of the carbon dioxide emissions. The benefits are obvious and the Government actively support the development and application of hybrid technology. That includes support for development of a hybrid bus.
The Government are not backing one particular technology or fuel. Instead, we are backing a low-carbon future. That means a future with an improved environment, a better quality of life in our towns and cities and a flourishing United Kingdom automotive industry.
2.58 pm
Mr. Christopher Chope:I, too, welcome the debate and I am grateful to the Minister for having made it one by allowing us to intervene and discuss issues.
I share the aspirations of the Government, and probably all people, in relation to this issue. I look forward to a time when we can have zero-emission vehicles. However, that is on the horizon—it is a long-term prospect. Most of my remarks will be geared to more immediate issues. The Government could do more in the short to medium term to improve the environmental quality of vehicles.
The Minister began by saying that targets were not good enough on their own. On 3 December 2001, when the Government first announced that they would produce a draft of the powering future vehicles strategy, a press release stated that the final strategy would be published in the spring. Of course it was not; it was published late in July. When it was published, we were told that there would be a joint ministerial low-carbon group, but the Minister, in his usual candid way, has explained that that group has yet to meet officially, although its terms of reference were clearly set out on page 17 of section 3 of the Government strategy published in July.
Why has that group not met? It is to produce and publish an annual report. If it is going to start work only in the new year, I suppose that we shall not get its first annual report until this time next year. Such delays seem to be totally unnecessary and suggest that the Government are perhaps paying lip service to the issue, but not putting their shoulder to the wheel to get things moving as fast as they could. A year ago the Government thought that they could produce the strategy document in the spring, but it was not produced until July. Why did it take twice as long as they expected? I suspect that that was because the document had a lower priority than most participants in the debate would have wished.
However, we must start from where we are now: with a policy that has been announced and that we are debating. My party welcomes its contents, but thinks that, on LPG in particular, there is much more scope for extending the use of LPG, which would benefit the environment through reduced CO2 and noxious emissions, especially in urban areas. The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) said in his intervention that he accepts that there is a problem with the Government having set the LPG subsidy to continue only until the end of 2004. That subsidy is what drives people to convert to LPG.

151WH
The strategy document recognises the importance of fiscal incentives. We do not yet live in a world where everybody will switch to an LPG vehicle purely for altruistic and environmental reasons. If we accept the need for fiscal incentives and recognise that we do not have anything like as many LPG vehicles in our vehicle park as we could have, why do the Government not declare now that the LPG fiscal incentive will continue beyond 2004? Perhaps it could continue until 2006, the date on which our parliamentary passes expire. If we can have a parliamentary pass that continues until 2006, why cannot the motoring public and the people considering investing in a dual use or LPG vehicle be assured that the present fiscal incentive will continue until then?
What the Minister has said today in response to interventions and what the Economic Secretary to the Treasury said during debates on this subject in the Finance Bill Committee earlier this year—in which I was privileged to be able to participate—causes much concern. When I raised the road fuel gas differential continuing beyond 2004 in that Committee, the Economic Secretary responded:
"First, he accused me and other Ministers of refusing to say anything about that matter, but that is not the case. He asked why we should not commit ourselves to continuing the differential beyond 2004. The answer is simple: the environmental case for maintaining that fuel duty differential beyond 2004 for road fuel gases, such as LPG, has not yet been proved, so the Chancellor and the Government will consider it on a Budget-by-Budget basis."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 11 June 2002; c. 262.]
Does the Minister think that the environmental case for extending the LPG differential beyond 2004 has been made? Most people who follow this debate think that it has. Some of the Government's other actions suggest that they accept that case. On 15 November this year, the Energy Minister announced in a press release that the Department of Trade and Industry would give £1 million to rural motorists to increase the uptake of liquefied petroleum gas in remote areas because LPG has good environmental benefits. That was a joined-up Government press release and it is worth looking at the notes to editors annexed to it, which remind us that:
"Compared to diesel, LPG emits around 90 % less NOX, 1/50th the amount of particulates and only 1/500th the amount of ultra fine particles. The main air quality pollutants of concern in the UK are particulates and NOX. In Central London road traffic causes 93% of all particulate emissions and 58% of all NOX emissions. Department of Health statistics show that particulates are responsible for several thousand advanced deaths each year and many thousands of instances of illness and reduced activity.
Owing to its environmental benefits, the duty on LPG was reduced by 29% in the 1999 Budget and 40% in the 2001 Budget…This has resulted in a retail price on the forecourt of around half that for petrol and diesel.
More than 5 million drivers worldwide use LPG and in the UK numbers are increasing as more motorists learn of the benefits. In the UK, from a small start of 3,500 at the end of 1998 some 65,000 vehicles were on our roads by the end of 2001 and, with the Government fiscal incentives continuing, it is forecast that numbers will increase to around 250,000 by the end of 2005."
That is what one of the Ministers who is a member of the joint ministerial low-carbon group, which has yet to meet, said in his press release, yet that is not consistent with what the Minister said today or what the Economic Secretary said during the Finance Bill. The Government must make an immediate announcement that they
152WH
intend to extend for a significantly longer period the fiscal incentive for LPG because it is a good thing, as the Energy Minister acknowledged. Unless there is that continuation and an assurance of a continuing fiscal incentive, we may find that the take-up of LPG is nothing like as great as it otherwise would be and nothing like as comparable to what is happening elsewhere in the world.
I hope that when the Minister attends the joint ministerial group, he will take up the cudgels on behalf of the motor industry and LPG industry and on behalf of the people who suffer the ill effects of polluting vehicles to ensure that we get more LPG-powered vehicles on British roads.
The next issue to which I want to refer and which is not far away on the time horizon is whether we are doing enough with a fiscal incentive on biodiesel. The Minister is aware that the National Farmers Union issued a press release recently saying that it wanted a 30p per litre differential on liquid biofuels because that was required to ensure the necessary investment in that new form of fuel for motor vehicles. That incentive of 30p per litre sounds big, but the fuel must be diluted by 20 parts before it can be used, so the incentive is not so great. At the moment, it is probably more expensive to fill a tank with biodiesel than with ordinary diesel because the 2p per litre difference is insignificant and there is an additional cost because it is not so fuel efficient.
There is a potential market for biodiesel, but the Government are not doing enough on that front. A Department for Transport press release on 14 November was headed:
"Government gives a 100 per cent. boost to biodiesel in buses".
It went on to say that:
"Local bus operators will be eligible for a 100 per cent. fuel duty rebate on biodiesel".
If the operators are to be given that incentive, why can the incentive not be extended to a wider group of motorists?
Mr. Jamieson:Before we move on from that point, will the hon. Gentleman better inform our discussion? Has he a figure in mind of the duty rebate that he would offer on biodiesel or bioethanol?
Mr. Chope:At the moment—and this is something that I regret every night and day—we are not in government and so do not control what is happening. The Minister is asking me to make a commitment on what a Conservative Government will do when they are returned in, say, 2005. Obviously, I cannot make such a commitment, as it will depend on the situation. If the Minister is not prepared to commit the Government beyond 2004 in relation to the duty differential for liquid petroleum gas, it is unreasonable of him to expect me to commit a future Conservative Government. He may hope that such a Government will not appear until well beyond 2004, but I hope that they will appear very shortly after 2004.
I hope that this is the sort of issue that will be discussed in the ministerial group. If the Minister wants to invite me along as an honorary member, I shall be happy to attend. If I did, I would point out that, in Germany, they have been much more robust and radical than we have been, which is producing dividends for them.

153WH
You were a chairman, Mr. Benton, during the Finance Bill proceedings, although I am not sure whether you were chairing on the particular day when we had an excellent debate on these issues. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) is something of an expert on biodiesel and he quoted an environmental information note that he had obtained from the university of Aberdeen, which was published as long ago as 13 September 1999:
'"Sales of bio-diesel, a renewable fuel from oilseed rape, increased to 100,000 tonnes in 1998. 800 German petrol stations now sell that green fuel. Sales have doubled since 1996 when motorists purchased 50,000 tonnes, available from 500 outlets.'"
My right hon. Friend added:
"Biodiesel comprises 1 per cent. of German diesel sales."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 14 May 2002; c. 54-55.]
Having heard the Minister's aspirations, I do not think that we will get anywhere near where the Germans are now—and remember that the figures that I have just given were from September 1999. The Germans have been able to make such progress in promoting biodiesel because biodiesel is not subject to duty. That environmentally friendly form of diesel, therefore, has an outright price advantage. The Government would do well to consider what is happening elsewhere and the benefits that may flow from taking a more radical approach.
The Conservative party acknowledges that the Government's heart is probably in the right place. We are delighted that the Government's vendetta against the motorist seems to be waning. We admire the British motor industry and recognise its importance. The Minister referred to it in passing, but it is our largest manufacturing industry. It produces output of about 1 billion every week and it is probably responsible for about 800,000 jobs in this country. I am sure that the industry will wish to invest in new technology and will do its best to ensure that we remain world leaders in this field.
The Government acknowledge the importance of fiscal incentives. I hope that they will not be timid in using them to the full to ensure that we fulfil our potential and can produce a car park with vehicles that emit much less noxious gas.
I congratulate the Government and the motor manufacturing and sales industry on achieving a record number of new car sales in each of the past two years. That was not one of the Government's obvious manifesto commitments when they came to power in 1997, but I congratulate them on that, in case they wish to take a share of the credit. As the Minister now recognises, it is important that we face up to the reality that there will be more vehicles on our roads. We have to ensure that all vehicles are less polluting than they used to be, thereby ensuring an overall improvement in the quality of our environment.
I hope that the powering future vehicles strategy will extend to the issue of where those vehicles should be parked. Government policy seems very short-sighted. The Government suggest that underground car parks and off-street car parking will somehow damage the environment. If there are to be a lot more vehicles in our country, it is important that we find places—preferably
154WH
secure places—where they can be parked out of harm's way. Certainly, they should not congest the highways as they do at the moment. There is so much on-street car parking, even though new developments could incorporate a lot more off-street car parking. That is one of my particular hobby-horses.
It is disappointing that more people are not present for the debate, but that may well be because there is, as the Minister said, quite a lot of consensus on the subject. There has been a series of illuminating and well informed meetings in the House recently, one of which was on the role of hydrogen fuel cells, and another organised by the Country Land and Business Association—that was on promoting the role of biodiesel. At the moment, a debate is taking place in the Chamber that I am sure will partly cover those points.
I am grateful to the Minister for having ensured that we had the debate and I wish him well in vigorously fighting his corner on the joint ministerial low-carbon group to ensure that the fiscal incentives—and all the benefits that flow from them—are brought forward.
3.17 pm
Mr. Fabian Hamilton:Before I start, I should declare an interest. On 10 and 11 September I was a guest of General Motors in Monaco, where I test-drove a hydrogen fuel celled vehicle.
As the Minister was not able to congratulate himself, I congratulate him on securing the debate. As the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and the Minister said, the debate is timely, but it is also timely for another reason: almost exactly three years ago—on 14 December 1999–I introduced a debate on alternative fuels in Westminster Hall. I shall consider some of the points that I raised then and say what has happened on those issues. I hope that that will be helpful to the Minister.
My first point was that 1999 was an opportune time for the debate. I said that transport and alternative fuel policy was a question of joined-up thinking, which required cross-departmental working, as the Minister pointed out. It still requires just that. I also quoted from the Government's transport White Paper, "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone", which was published in July 1999. It says:
"We will continue to encourage the use of more environmentally friendly fuels."
I hope that I can answer some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised in some of the points that I shall make.
Much has been said about liquefied petroleum gas. That is significant to me because I have just returned my contract hire vehicle—a Vauxhall Vectra dual fuel that I had for three years—to Vauxhall Master Hire. I have seen the development of LPG as a consumer and I have seen the rapid expansion of fuel stations that sell LPG throughout the country. I think that there are about 1,200 now. In 1999, only about 8,000 vehicles were powered by LPG. That figure has multiplied tenfold, according to Calor Gas, to some 80,000 vehicles. Calor Gas, like many of us, aims for up to 500,000 vehicles to be powered by LPG within the next couple of years. The point about extending the differential in duty beyond 2004 is valid.

155WH
I congratulate the Government on every initiative that they have taken and, especially, on kick-starting the LPG industry and ensuring that we have the number of filling stations and the infrastructure that we need. I said in 1999 that we had a bit of a Catch-22 situation. Joseph Heller, the author of "Catch-22", died a few days before that debate. His novel points out the sort of problem that we were facing. No one would buy an LPG vehicle because it could not be refuelled. Of course, the companies that funded the infrastructure, such as Calor Gas, Shell and British Petroleum, would not put the infrastructure in place until a critical mass of vehicles was on the road. We have gone beyond that point and are seeing at last the take-up and number of vehicles on the road that we want.
Our problem is whether the duty differential will continue beyond 2004. The public are cynical. I received a lot of publicity as the first Member of Parliament to purchase a dual fuel vehicle in 1999, and my constituents said, "Yes, that's all very well, but as soon as it becomes popular, even your Chancellor will put masses of tax on it." Thankfully, that has not happened yet.
However, the Minister's point about the environmental case for extending the LPG duty differential and the points made by the hon. Member for Christchurch about the debate on the Finance Bill require careful examination. There is no doubt that even since my debate three years ago, the environmental impact of petrol-driven and diesel vehicles has been dramatically reduced. In 1999 I quoted Ian McAllister, the then chairman and chief executive of Ford UK. He was fond of saying that if 30 passengers were taken off a London bus and put into brand new Ford cars, there would be far fewer exhaust gas pollutants than those produced by the bus—that was three years ago. I welcome the initiatives that the Minister mentioned to reduce bus tailpipe emissions.
I am a keen cyclist as well as a keen motorist. Most mornings, when the weather is less appalling than this, I have the dubious pleasure of cycling from north-west London down the Edgware road. Anyone who has done that without a mask will know how filthy some of our London buses are. That is not only true of London buses. The bus emissions in my city of Leeds are quite repulsive, although there are far fewer cyclists to soak them up. It is important to encourage the conversion of our buses and our cars—especially our buses—to compressed natural gas, which is a very good fuel for buses, as well as LPG and other types of fuel for propulsion.
I shall talk about hydrogen at some length in a few minutes, but I want to say something about diesel because many people have said to me, "Well, you've returned your LPG vehicle, which you really enjoyed driving." I was not too sure about the contract hire arrangements because I was allowed only a limited mileage. Everyone exceeds the limit, and that means that a large penalty must be paid. However, I am now temporarily driving a diesel vehicle and cycling as much as possible. Diesel vehicles have improved dramatically. Mine was manufactured at about the time of my debate in 1999 and it does about 40 to 50 miles per gallon. It is a Peugeot and that is fantastic because it makes very good use of the limited fuel available in the world.
156WH
We have also mentioned biodiesel. Robin Woolcock, the chief executive officer of Volkswagen UK mentioned to me at a Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders event that he would also like a tax reduction on biodiesel. After all, it is far better in terms of carbon emissions and is a renewable fuel. Diesel has undergone a lot of development recently. In my debate in 1999, we discussed some of the particulates—the PM10s and PM2.5s. PM10s advance 8,100 deaths a year, so it is welcome to see the developments taking place in green diesel engines.
Back in March, a seminar was held in 1 Parliament street with Delphi Auto, a French company that now owns the Lucas-TVS group, which has been involved in the development of green diesel. Monsieur Jean Botti, the research director, told us that he could now reduce tailpipe emissions, including particulates, to zero. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) also mentioned this: Monsieur Botti has a Peugeot 106 in his workshop in Paris. He would like me to lie underneath it when I visit him to see the vehicle. I should breathe in the tailpipe emissions, because the air that I will be breathing will be cleaner than the air in central Paris. I am not sure that I want to do that but the point is well made.
We may soon be able to produce diesel engines that consume approximately 70-80 miles per gallon, thus stretching out the fossil fuels that are left, and that emit a minimum amount of carbon dioxide to meet emissions targets such as 100 g of carbon dioxide per kilometre—a good target to aim for. It would be well worth trying to achieve that before fuel cell technology and the infrastructure needed to support it is readily available. The infrastructure is extremely important to its development, just as it has been with LPG. I hope to visit Paris shortly to see for myself whether the claims made by Delphi Auto are true.
On the holy grail of hydrogen fuel cells, before I went to Monaco two days ago, I was slightly sceptical about that technology, which is supposed to solve all the problems of carbon emissions. The Sun's motoring correspondent, Ken Gibson, was in Monaco last week. He writes:
"I have just driven the car of the future…and it's out of this world…It is easy to be sceptical about Hy-Wire"—
the experimental General Motors hydrogen fuel cell car with a drive-by-wire system—
"until you drive it and see how well it works. Especially when you realise hydrogen is also the most plentiful natural fuel supply in the world."
He concludes the article, "Beam me up Scotty". Perhaps we will not need to be beamed up if we all have hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.
What is the wonderful holy grail of hydrogen fuel cells? As anyone with O-level chemistry will know, if hydrogen is burned, water is the tailpipe emission. The BMW group has been working on that process and earlier in the year in Berlin—unfortunately, I was unable to attend—it tested a series 7 BMW using hydrogen as an internal combustion engine fuel. That may not be the most efficient way of burning hydrogen, but it considerably reduces emissions of all sorts.
Fuel cells, however, are slightly different. Luckily for me and my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), who was with me in Monaco,

157WH
some of the top scientists in the General Motors group came to explain to us exactly how they work. I have a basic knowledge up to O-level of chemistry, physics and so forth so it stretched my knowledge to understand what they tried to show me. Even I managed to understand it.
The principal basis for fuel cells is as follows: as every schoolboy knows, if one puts two electrodes in water and passes an electric current through them, the water will electrolyse into its constituent components of hydrogen and oxygen. I did not realise that if one then tries to recombine those elements, one generates electricity. That is basic physics and chemistry. One passes the hydrogen through a catalytic process, which is being developed to try to speed up the chemical reaction. One passes the air through and combines the two, and one volt of electricity is generated.
Conveniently, that can be generated in as much as a 2 sq mm space. Therefore, with regard to the fuel stacks that the Minister mentioned, if one combines 200 or so of those tiny 2 sq mm squares, one generates not one volt but 200 volts. That is enough to drive quite a hefty electric motor, which runs on alternative current. Using the computer control system, one can alternate the current and thus produce a very powerful electric motor.
To demonstrate the power of that motor, GM installed such a fuel stack and electric motor into the current vehicle—a Vauxhall Zafira, which is called an Opel on the European continent. The Zafira is an Astra-based multi-purpose vehicle or MPV. The first thing that one notices when one gets into that car is that there is no gearbox; there is only a switch that goes forwards and backwards. The second thing one notices is that when one puts the key in the ignition and starts the engine, it clicks and nothing happens. There is a little screen and lots of graphs and figures flash in front of one's eyes. That meant nothing to me, but my co-driver said that it meant that the fuel cell was beginning to warm up—the hydrogen was coming through and generating electricity. Then one puts one's feet on the footbrake and the accelerator, one presses the forward button and the vehicle accelerates away.
It is amazing. It drives like a very quiet, gearless, automatic vehicle. There is no engine noise, but there is plenty of power. We drove the vehicle straight up a hill and round the Monte Carlo circuit, which was fun, although I did not manage to achieve a speed of 100 miles per hour. When it was competing with the other traffic on the roads, it was like driving an ordinary vehicle—there was plenty of power.
The scientists tell me that the amount of fuel cannot be measured in miles per gallon or litres per hundred kilometres or whatever: the amount of energy that is used for the distance covered has to be measured in kilojoules or megajoules. In lay person's language, one will get twice the amount of miles per gallon from hydrogen that one gets from the equivalent amount of petrol.
Mr. Chope:It is interesting to hear what is happening in Monaco. Did the hon. Gentleman have the chance to talk to the experts there about the incident that was reported in The Times on 17 October? Ford's £1.7
158WH
million Focus fuel cell vehicle came to a sudden halt while it was being driven in the Cornish rain and the world's top fuel cell engineers were unable to fix it.
Mr. Hamilton:One would not expect GM's engineers to comment on Ford's failures. All I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that GM's vehicles had no problem with driving in the warmer rain of Monaco or in our London rain. It had five vehicles on the roads; it has been driving them for two weeks in various weather conditions and there have not been any faults or hitches. We will rely on Ford's engineers to put their technologies right. However, the point is well made that this technology is still in an experimental and developmental stage. I have witnessed it at first hand: it is excellent and it works.
GM estimates that within two years it will have sufficient numbers of vehicles available for fleets—that is return-to-base fleets, so that the hydrogen refuelling can take place at those bases—and that it will be possible to buy them from a showroom within the next seven or eight years, by around 2010. That is sooner than we thought. However, that remains to be seen. The fact is that, in a conventional vehicle, the new technology seems to work well. Clearly, the tests were an attempt to ensure that opinion formers, Members of Parliament and others, especially journalists such as Mr. Gibson from The Sun, were publicising and pushing forward what GM is doing.
It is not only General Motors that has taken such action. Ford has developed its experimental car, the Focus Daimler-Chrysler, and is pushing ahead with fuel cells. About 70 per cent. of the world's manufacturing capacity—four major vehicle manufacturers—are moving ahead on fuel cell technology. What will happen remains to be seen, but we should encourage the development of hydrogen as a viable fuel. It is the most plentiful element in the universe.
I hope that the Minister did not mind my explaining how such matters work, but I felt that it was relevant to do so. Several major influential bodies in the United Kingdom have also been pushing ahead on low-carbon vehicle use. We have heard that 22 per cent. of carbon emissions are the result of automotive private vehicle emissions.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the German experience whereby diesel has zero duty. When I was listening to his well-made point, I was thinking that that is perhaps down to Volkswagon's preference for developing diesel and biodiesel fuels rather than for taking the hydrogen fuel cell route. That could have influenced the German policy on taxation.
As has been said, it is vital that the United Kingdom leads the world in developments, certainly the policy on low-carbon vehicles. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders said that the Government's short-term policies must provide adequate synergy with longer-term, more strategic approaches, such as fuel cell development; that policy initiatives must provide targeted support to assist in the development of new technologies throughout the full life cycle of a product, bearing it in mind that development production and market acceptance of a product can take up to 20 years; that European Union emission standards should form the basis of co-ordinated incentive programmes in the

159WH
United Kingdom marketplace; and that the Government should only incentivise fuels for which there are fuel standards. Those incentives must consider a fuel from well to wheel—a term that will be heard a lot more in the future.
Planning policy guidance should be reviewed to support the development of an adequate refuelling structure for alternative fuel vehicles. That brings me back to hydrogen. It is a great fuel, but how do we manufacture it? We all know roughly how we get hold of petrol and diesel. Such fuel comes from oil wells, is pumped into tankers, goes on to refineries and eventually is shipped to our petrol stations in big tankers and stored underground ready for us to use to refuel our vehicles.
What about hydrogen? There are two main methods of producing it, one is, as I already stated in my elementary chemistry lesson, to electrolise water. That requires electricity, which is generated mainly from nonrenewable sources in this country, from gas-turbine power stations, coal-fired power stations, oil-fired power stations and nuclear power stations. Very little is generated from hydroelectric or wind power, although there are plenty of wind turbines in west Yorkshire.
Recently, I read in The Times that the Government are encouraging the development of wind-turbine generating electricity some 25 miles into the coastal waters offshore from the United Kingdom. A study has shown that it would be possible to generate 100 per cent. of our energy needs from offshore wind power within the next 25 to 30 years with sufficient investment. Let us consider that fact and relate it to the production of hydrogen. If we could generate our hydrogen from electricity that is derived entirely from renewable resources, we would achieve the aim of completely reducing CO2 emissions and other dangerous gases. That is well worth aiming for, because the alternatives are to take hydrocarbons and use reformers. A reformer is a system that is designed to extract the hydrogen from fossil fuels and use it in a fuel cell or in internal combustion. That does not solve the problem.
I am not a supporter of nuclear electricity, but I am a strong supporter of wind power, wave power and hydroelectric power. If it is true that 100 per cent. of our electricity needs can be provided from such renewable sources, combined with photovoltaic cells in new houses and anything that we can do individually in our own homes to generate electricity and put the excess back into the grid, we will have a sustainable form of energy production for domestic use, public buildings and our automotive requirements. I hope that the Minister is listening and that the Government will be encouraged to move in that direction. They have already made great strides, but if we could achieve that, we would lead the world in low, or zero, carbon emissions within the time scale that we have talked about in relation to the rest of the world.
With those few comments 1 encourage the Government to do more of the same and I congratulate them on the steps that they have taken so far. With these developments and with the kind of investment that is being made, I am optimistic about the future. I hope that all of us will play our part and reduce our own emissions and thereby encourage the development of the technologies that will save our planet.
3.41 pm
Mr. Andrew Stunell:It is a pleasure to follow, and to listen to, such an enthusiast for the subject as the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton).
The Liberal Democrats welcome the publication of the strategy. We think that it is well merited and that its content leads substantially in the right direction, so as to take the country forward appropriately. I welcome the debate, which is of a high quality although the Chamber is not exactly crowded. I also welcome the Minister's intention to seek approval across the whole House and to take the matter forward in a non-partisan way. I am sure that some of the decisions that need to be taken will have to stick not just for five or 10 years, but for 15, 20, or 25 years. If such decisions are to be sustainable, cross-party consensus is required.
There is an urgent and important need to reduce carbon and greenhouse gas emissions. We also need, particularly as far as the transport fleet is concerned, to ensure that we cut further the emission of particulates and pollutants. Hon. Members have already spoken about the position in central London. It is the same in many urban areas, in which the most significant air polluters are road transport vehicles. The other main necessity, apart from reducing gases and pollutants, is to reduce the number of vehicle and traffic movements, because of the congestion that they cause and the economic cost. If this country is to succeed in doing that, we must employ a combination of measures.
The report is primarily about the introduction of new technologies, which we certainly need. However, we also need a new culture—fiscal and regulatory measures will have a part to play in creating that—and a modal shift in the way in which people transport themselves and their goods around the country. From that point of view, it is timely that today's debate should be held in the same week as the transport statement.
Travelling by train from London to my constituency in Stockport, I generate some 8 kg of carbon emissions. If I travelled in a reasonably efficient motor vehicle, it would generate 28 kg of carbon emissions. The emissions generated by road travel are three or four times worse than travel by train. Widening the M6 while denying investment to the west coast main line cuts across some of the Minister's objectives.
Mr. Chope:Surely emissions depend on how many people travel by train, which is why the transport Green Paper states very clearly that a bus, for example, with very few passengers on board is more polluting than a car.
Mr. Stunell:The hon. Gentleman makes a sensible point. I took my figures from a parliamentary answer, which related to journeys from London to Newcastle, given to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on 20 November. The figures relate to average occupancy rates, which are, of course, important.
Mr. Jamieson:I cannot allow the moment to pass: I thought that I heard the hon. Gentleman say that the Government are "denying investment to the west coast main line". The work, which costs many billions of

161WH
pounds, on the west coast main line is probably the greatest investment in our railway system for 100 years. To say that we are denying investment to the west coast main line is frankly nonsense.
Mr. Stunell:We have livened up the debate, which is good. I am well aware of the current investment in the west coast main line, which will produce a line on which trains travel at 120 mph while the operator has bought trains that can travel at 140 mph. If the Minister were to underwrite the necessary improvements to raise track speeds to 140 mph, I would be delighted.
Mr. Jamieson:I am interested in pursuing the issue. The hon. Gentleman suggests that we should spend more money on the west coast main line, but he was probably not present in other Westminster Hall debates in which Liberal Democrat transport spokesmen were asked how much more they would contribute to the transport budget. They said that they would contribute no extra money because the 1 p that they would put on tax would be for education. I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said and I do not disagree with him, but he needs to check whether the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman has cleared his calls for extra funding.
Mr. Stunell:The question is not whether we take money from education, but whether we take it from the M6 and spend it on the west coast main line. That could be the subject of another debate in which I should be happy to take part.
Mr. Chope:Is the hon. Gentleman saying that his party's policy is to take money away from the M6 and put it into the west coast main line?
Mr. Stunell:I am making a point in the context of reducing carbon emissions in our transport system. If the Government were joining up their policies in the areas covered by today's debate and this week's transport statement, they would have announced a decision to upgrade the west coast main line, which would reduce carbon emissions by a greater extent than their investment in the M6. It is a matter of joining up the policies pursued by different Government Departments, which is an issue to which I shall return.
Issues relating to technology form the core of the strategy paper. The Liberal Democrats see the issue in terms of three distinct steps. First, there is a clear necessity to produce more improvements in the efficiency of our existing petrol and diesel-fuelled vehicles. There is no doubt that it is possible to build a petrol-fuelled vehicle that runs at about 90 to 95 miles per gallon. We need to ensure that the European voluntary code is demanding of, and imposes increasingly tight requirements on, manufacturers and that we move towards a far more progressive and efficient conventional vehicle fleet. It will probably require changes to the fiscal regime relating to excise duty and other matters, and to the regulatory regime, too.
Secondly, we need a transfer to alternative fuels; the Minister and the Conservative spokesman have extensively referred to biofuels. We need to consider
162WH
how fuel duty rebate works in the public transport industry in particular, because it gives an artificial incentive to people to use diesel as their fuel, which surely counters the impact that the Government want to achieve.
Thirdly, we must move to the next generation of fuels and vehicles, and talk about the introduction of renewable fuels. We heard a most learned exposition of hydrogen fuels from the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East, on which I shall not attempt to improve. He touched on a matter that is of great importance when we talk about novel fuels for the future: we must consider the whole picture—not just the cleanliness and availability of fuel, but where it comes from and how it is generated. Again, I hope that the Government will be able to join up not just their own thinking but the thinking of the wider industry.
The pressures to develop renewable energy generation for electricity and to find clean fuel for a transport fleet can be brought together in an efficient and effective way when one uses the peaks of generation of renewable electricity to produce the hydrogen used in our vehicle fleet. In that way, hydrogen provides the storage reservoir or battery that can act as the cushion between the intermittency of some of our renewable generation sources and the requirements for electricity on the electrical grid and of power in the transport network. There is work to be done in bringing together innovative and separated thinking in those two areas, from which both public policy and private profit can gain.
I shall now look at the draft strategy in a little detail and pick out one or two points on which I would be interested to hear comments from the Minister. I entirely agree with his underlying point that it is not the Government's job to pick a winning technology. The history of investment in science and industry in this country during the past 50 years is littered with white elephants and lame ducks in which Governments who thought they knew better, but did not, invested. It is appropriate for the Government to invest widely, and plant in many different fields to see which plants flourish and grow. They will then be providing the environment in which the new technologies can be substituted for existing ones.
I regard the draft strategy paper as a welcome addition to the jigsaw of policy required to take us to an ultimately sustainable transport system. It has to be capable of delivering both prosperity and quality of life, which leads to an interesting mixture of private investment, public policy and a matching of environmental and economic measures. However, there are one or two gaps on which I want to test the Minister. I hope that he will feel able to answer my points—if not now, later. The paper includes a reference to allowing those who run buses and commercial vehicles to join the UK carbon trading scheme. That seems to be a desirable objective, but in the past week we have seen an entirely different European Union carbon trading scheme emerge.
Some serious difficulties are expected in integrating the UK and EU schemes. Does the Minister think that integrating bus and commercial vehicle emissions into a carbon trading scheme is best done through the UK scheme—which has a comparatively short time frame, going through to about 2008—or through joining the EU trading scheme, which starts at about the same time

163WH
but on a much more comprehensive Europe-wide basis? The strategy refers to co-operating with Europe, working with it on the design of vehicle fleets and creating a common market for the sale of new technologies on a level playing field. Therefore, the Government may well feel that it is better to aim for the EU scheme.
My next point is on the phrase:
"Making fullest use of new vehicles and fuels in the Government's own vehicle fleets",
which I link to the point made in the strategy's summary:
"Encouraging consumer take-up of new vehicles and fuels".
I note that, in fact, the average engine size in the Government's ministerial vehicle fleet increased between 2001 and 2002 by 2.2 per cent. The number of ministerial cars has increased by 10.7 per cent. from 187 to 207. The budget for ministerial cars rose from £10 million in 1998 to £14 million in 2001—a 40 per cent. increase. I should be interested to hear from the Minister how many of those cars take account of this strategy. Why are there bigger engines and more cars? Are they all low-emission vehicles? Let us have some background on that.
I use that point to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that, in many public sector leasing schemes and private finance initiative schemes, the purchasing of vehicles is on a least-cost basis and does not take sufficient account of vehicles' efficiency or public policy on emissions. An example has been drawn to my attention this week, although it does not relate to transport, of a school built under the PFI where, under questioning from the school governors, the designers admitted that they had kept the building to the very minimum requirement of building regulations relating to energy efficiency because they were required to achieve the lowest possible cost. I would like assurance that this document contains not merely aims and aspirations, but something that will produce a real difference—not just in other people's behaviour, but in the Government's.
My next point is about ensuring effective links between Government Departments. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) made some points on that. I do not want to criticise the Minister for not having convened a meeting yet—everything must start sometime. There must be a first meeting on one date or another, and it just happens to be in January. That is fine, but when one looks at the document and sees who sits on the panel, and some of the issues that are still to be sorted out. it is clear that there must be much better links between the Department of Trade and Industry with its "Foresight" programme and the Department for Transport with its "PowerShift" programme.
An underlying problem in attempting to fulfil our environmental commitments is still that there is such a division of responsibility between Government Departments, and such a fragmentation of functions, that it is more and more difficult to see how coordination can be achieved. Sometimes it seems difficult enough to get co-ordination within one Department; to get it among four or five is a challenging task, and I should like the Minister to tell us how he will ensure that this topic gets the comprehensive push that it needs on all fronts.
164WH
The document contains some excellent aims and poses some challenging questions. I shall attempt to answer a couple of those. First, should there be long-term targets for the number of low-carbon vehicles in future years? As the Minister said, there is a target of 10 per cent. by 2010 for low-emission cars and a 20 per cent. target for buses and public service vehicles. That is obviously good and desirable. My answer to the question is that there should be progressive long-term targets, not only because targets are nice to have, but because that is the best foundation for investment by the private sector, which will know for certain that there will be a market and a demand for its products, and the best signal that one can give to consumers that they are making the right choice in going to the market for a low-emission vehicle. To that extent, I join the hon. Member for Christchurch in his comments about the need to provide longer-term certainty about fuel duty rates, excise duty and other taxation measures, so that those who are making a purchase—which is, after all, an investment—can have some understanding of whether their investment will pay off.
Secondly, the document asks what is an adequate definition of low-carbon emissions. Liberal Democrat Members believe that it must be what the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East described as a "well to wheels" calculation. In other words, one must consider the total amount of carbon emissions generated in getting the car on the road and the total amount of emissions that it will produce when it is on the road. Not only the use, but the construction of the vehicle must be calculated and understood. In reality, a vehicle often requires more energy and produces more carbon emissions while it is being built than it will ever burn as fuel. Efficient construction using renewable energy and recyclable materials is as important as the fuel that is subsequently burned and the efficiency with which it is burned.
My colleagues and I welcome the strategy document, and look forward to contributing ideas and evidence as the strategy develops. I personally wish the Minister well in achieving objectives that I think that everybody shares.
4.2 pm
Mr. Jamieson:I should like to respond to some of the points that have been made in this short, but high-quality debate. I am glad that the Government's strategy is generally welcomed. Rightly, questions have been raised about certain aspects. We welcome constructive criticism and thoughts on what we are doing—we certainly do not think that we have a monopoly on good ideas. One of our reasons for establishing the partnership group was so that we could draw in ideas from much wider sources.
I think that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) was welcoming the strategy. Even if he was not, I shall assume that he was. He said that the Government are not doing quite enough on this issue. I do not want to bring party politics into this, but I gently suggest to him that we may be doing rather more than any other Government have ever done before. That includes Governments of all parties, including some of our own in the past. He mentioned an annual report on the powering future vehicles initiative. We launched the idea in December 2001. That was followed by a three-month consultation period, then a period of

165WH
deliberation on its results, which had brought in many views from a wide range of people, and we published the document in July this year. Since then, we have been setting up the partnership group and drawing in industry, local government representatives and other people. It has taken time to contact the people who are interested and to get the right people involved.
The partnership group will be launched and will meet on, I believe, 16 January. It will inform some of the discussions of the ministerial group, which will consider its deliberations. We will produce an annual report once a full year has passed. We have not yet issued an annual report because we have not met and because a year has not passed since publication of the document.
I thought that the hon. Member for Christchurch was a bit churlish about the Government's approach to liquid petroleum gas. He questioned whether our heart was in this. If it were not, why would we have given fiscal incentives in the first place? The Government provided fiscal incentives for LPG because the environmental case has been made about CO2 and the other emissions that he mentioned, such as fine particulates from diesel engines, which are particularly damaging to children. It is because the case has been made that the Government gave fiscal incentives.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we were doing enough. There has been a considerable increase in the take-up of LPG and the number of stations that have opened, so it appears that our strategy is right. He rightly asked about future incentives for LPG. We realise that a decision must be made fairly soon about the 2004 date. As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), there has been a change during the past few years in the difference between the benefits to be derived from LPG and those to be derived from petrol. We are giving the matter careful thought. Indeed, I was at a meeting this morning to discuss the issue. We want to continue to use fiscal incentives to ensure that we create demand for cleaner fuels and vehicles, but any fiscal incentive must reflect the true emission benefits of those fuels and vehicles.
Mr. Chope:The Minister says that a decision will be made fairly soon. Will it be made before the next Budget?
Mr. Jamieson:Such decisions are in the gift of the Chancellor, of course, but we can see reasons for making a decision fairly soon. We want to ensure that we continue to provide an incentive.
However, the decision must be properly informed. Such matters must be carefully thought through and weighed. We want to take into account what the motor and the oil industries and consumers have to say. In recent years, the Treasury has taken a sensitive approach to such matters. We have worked very well with the Treasury. It has listened carefully to what we have said—and we have had to listen to what it has said. It has responded sensitively to some of the matters that the hon. Gentleman raised, not least company car tax, which we have not talked about much today. Company cars make up about half of all cars purchased. The company car tax now provides benefits that have led fleet buyers to consider vehicles that are more carbon dioxide-friendly.
166WH
I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments about biodiesel. It has given enormous potential for improvement. Since we introduced the biodiesel incentive in July, there has been a six fold increase in sales, which is welcome. Some 400,000 litres were sold during November. We are moving forward, but more needs to be done. We need to see how the biodiesel industry will respond to that incentive. The hon. Member for Christchurch was right to point out that biodiesel tends to be part of a mix, and is a proportion of the total fuel.
At the moment, most vehicles can satisfactorily run on ordinary diesel containing about 5 per cent. biodiesel. That 5 per cent. is CO2 neutral, which also has the benefit of making the old diesel burn a little cleaner. There are benefits, and we need to look at how the 20p levy is performing to see whether it needs to be adjusted.
The Conservative party may be deliberating about its transport policy, and may form a view as to what the incentive level should be. I appreciate that it will be in opposition for a long time and may not have to face that problem, but if the hon. Member for Christchurch has a view on the matter, we would be interested to hear it.
Mr. Chope:It would be sensible for us to give a longterm policy commitment on the issue as we approach the general election. People will be making investment decisions and will want to know what the position will be when there is a change of Government. We shall seek to meet that challenge.
Mr. Jamieson:I look forward with great eagerness to seeing those documents; I look forward with equal eagerness to the outcome of the general election.
The hon. Gentleman said that one of the benefits of a new Labour Government is that more new cars are being sold. That is because the country is more prosperous than it was five years ago. There are now 1.5 million more people in work, some of whom travel to work by car. They have more money to spend, more leisure time and more work to do, but unfortunately that has created some problems: economic prosperity brings congestion and pollution problems. That is very much in our thoughts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North unfortunately could not stay with us, but he asked about a zero emission vehicle. I think that he may have been referring to a vehicle powered by compressed air, which would mean zero emissions from the tailpipe. I saw a little article about that very interesting idea. The only thing I would say—we probably covered this in the discussion about hydrogen—is that compressed air needs to be compressed by something, which would usually be electricity. If the electricity is generated by fuels that create carbon dioxide, the car would not seem to have many carbon dioxide benefits. Of course, it may have benefits in lowering emissions in town and city centres.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton) made a very good contribution to the debate. He is clearly knowledgeable, and made many considered remarks. He referred to the debate that we had a few years ago, and looked at the test that he set to see how we were getting on. I am glad to say that I was mentally ticking off many of the points as he went

167WH
through them. It seems that much of what he was asking for has been done, or is now under way. We shall be interested in taking forward some of the ideas that have not been adopted. I hope that he enjoyed the journey in the hydrogen car that he took the other day.
My hon. Friend also made an important point about buses and pollution. Unfortunately, we are—for obvious reasons—encouraging people to use buses, and we have to ensure that the emissions from those buses do not cause yet another problem: pollution. In some cities, buses are now the major polluters. We want to ensure that that is not the case, because we are trying to encourage people to use buses more than they have done.
Mr. Fabian Hamilton:I am delighted that my hon. Friend is looking at buses. London is obviously the key place, and he referred to experimental fuel cell buses. The congestion charging that is being introduced by the Mayor of London includes an exception for LPG vehicles and, presumably, hydrogen-powered vehicles, if there are any.
Mr. Jamieson:I am pleased that congestion charging is about not just congestion but air quality. I believe that one of the Mayor's concessions is that cleaner vehicles, including electric vehicles, will be exempt from the charge. Manufacturers who are on their toes could use that as a marketing device for some of their vehicles: if congestion charging occurs in other cities, that device could be a further incentive for people to buy their vehicles.
My hon. Friend gave an interesting integrated science lesson today with a little chemistry and a little physics. He gave an account of electrolysis—my O-levels from the 1960s just about encompassed the science involved. He said, rightly, that one way of producing hydrogen is through electrolysis using electricity. That has enormous benefits because the power lines of which we have an abundance in this country are channels through which the hydrogen is sent by proxy to the communities where it is needed. That obviates the need for transporter lorries carrying fuel from one place to another with an effect not just on pollution and environmental damage, but on safety. It is a safer way of conducting energy through a pipeline or wire. The emissions from the tailpipe are not zero, but a bit of water will not hurt us—we seem to have had plenty of water in the streets in the past few days—and it is the only by-product.
The hon. Members for Christchurch and for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) both said that unless the electricity is produced by sustainable means, there is no carbon dioxide benefit. We get the emissions benefit on the streets, but we do not get the carbon dioxide benefit. Another issue is that producing hydrogen for transport and incentivising it is probably one of the more expensive ways of reducing energy use. It is cheaper to incentivise energy reduction in homes and factories than in transport. There will be some earlier hits in energy and CO2 reduction by other means. Transport will play its part later, which is why it is so important to lay the foundation stones now and to get ourselves ready to face the future.
I thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove for his welcome for the powering future vehicles strategy, which he dealt with in a non-partisan way. I hope he did
168WH
not feel that I introduced too much of a partisan element, but I have discovered in this job that we must often consider priorities and weigh up their value. I note what he said about the M6. It is possible to move money from one budget account to another, but I wonder whether he has asked his constituents in the Hazel Grove and Stockport areas whether the M6 should have improvements made to them. If he carried out a survey among his constituents, he might find that they have a view about the M6, just as they would have a view about the west coast main line. It is our job to find a balance. The issue is not either/or; it is a matter of finding a balance.
Mr. Stunell:The Minister is right to say that the issue concerns priorities. If I were ploughing a solely constituency interest today, I would say that the metro tram to Stockport is also important. We all have schemes that we would like to see implemented, but I was trying to make a specific point about the relative value of investment in reducing carbon emissions in the transport system, as exemplified by this week's statement. I appreciate that there are choices to be made, but the environmental imperative does not seem to have been at the heart of the decision.
Mr. Jamieson:I think it was. The slow-moving traffic on the M6 and the M1 is a major contributor to pollution. Under a certain level, the slower that vehicles go, the more pollution they cause. Stop-starting is the most polluting part of a vehicle's cycle, so there are environmental benefits to getting traffic moving.
Obviously, the Government are considering environmental benefits, such as cleaner air. We want to get as much freight and as many passengers as possible away from the roads and on to the railways. Nevertheless, there must be a balance. There will still be a need for road transport. The hon. Gentleman's constituents will still want to travel on motorways and have their goods brought to the shops in that way, if no other means are possible. I am sure that he appreciates that we have to facilitate that.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned hydrogen being produced from off-peak electricity. That is certainly one of the benefits of using hydrogen as a fuel. A hydrogen battery is a far better way of storing energy than pumping water up and down a hill, which is the way in which it was stored at Dinorwic. That method was useful in its time, but may have limited value compared with the way in which hydrogen can be stored.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the United Kingdom and European Union carbon trading schemes. It is true that there is an EU scheme as well as a UK scheme. However, the details of the EU scheme are still being finalised. We shall work to resolve or minimise potential conflicts between the two schemes.
The hon. Gentleman rightly said that it is not for the Government to pick winners. In the document, we said that the winner is the low-carbon future, rather than a particular technology. We did not plump for one technology because we felt that there were dangers in doing so—the hon. Gentleman articulated those dangers very well. The Government do not have complete wisdom in relation to such matters. Sometimes, the market drives things forward and

169WH
greater brains from outside come up with brilliant solutions. As a democratic Government, we want cleaner air, better engines, quieter vehicles and continuity of energy supply. However, it is up to scientists and technologists to come up with the solutions, because generally they know best.
The hon. Gentleman asked some questions about Government vehicles. The Government dispatch service uses compressed natural gas vehicles. A large number of ministerial cars run on liquefied petroleum gas. The one that I use occasionally is LPG powered. There is pressure to look to hybrid vehicles. We are torn between choosing cleaner vehicles and choosing vehicles that have the Union flag on the back. Other pressures are placed on us, and we have to resolve such things. Generally, there is a move towards getting cleaner vehicles in the fleet. If the hon. Gentleman wants me, or the Minister responsible for that area, to set things out in more detail, that can be arranged.
The hon. Gentleman also made a point about the Government group. A group of Ministers has been meeting through the Cabinet committee that has been discussing this matter. There has been a great deal of accord and we shall continue to meet. We jointly attended the launch and interdepartmental work will be done on other launches. We will work together. It is difficult if people in government all work in their silos, but on this issue we are working together to resolve what are very important matters.
The hon. Gentleman made some good points about getting long-term certainty in fiscal incentives. He is absolutely right. However, as I said, there must be balance and occasional review to ensure that the fiscal incentives are giving us what we want and delivering a cleaner environment.
Mr. Stunell:I thank the Minister for his response. Obviously, we must check and audit to ensure that we are getting the right result. Does the Minister think that formal revisiting of the targets will form part of the strategy? Will there be a five-year or 10-year look? That would help us to understand the Minister's thinking.
Mr. Jamieson:We are committed to reviewing the targets, because it is sensible to do so. We have reviewed several targets that we set ourselves. We want to ensure that the targets are realistic. For example, had we set targets a few years ago for the number of LPG stations that we wanted, we would have well surpassed them by now—we would not have set as high a target as the 1,200 stations that are open. Had we set a target for the number of LPG vehicles that we want on the road, it would have been somewhat higher than the number that is on the road now. We want more such vehicles.
170WH
The hon. Member for Christchurch made a point about LPG. It is important that good-quality conversions that give true benefits are made to vehicles. About 80 per cent. of conversions are being done in under-the-arches garages. Although they are not necessarily bad conversions—some will be very good—about 80 per cent. of vehicles are not benefiting from the PowerShift grant. A proportion of the conversions are done with customers being misled that they can claim the grant retrospectively—of course, they cannot. Also, some conversions are poor or even dangerous, because the proper equipment is not fitted to protect against a blow-back or a leak of fuel that is not attended to. We do not want that, because some poorly fitted conversions might not give an emissions benefit. Such conversions give a fiscal benefit to car owners through fuel purchases, but we want to ensure that fiscal benefits improve air quality. The poor conversions that might be dangerous, in rare cases, do not successfully promote LPG. The same thing would happen with petrol vehicles if petrol tanks were fitted dangerously. Petrol tanks are very dangerous pieces of equipment.
Mr. Chope:The Minister makes a good point. Will he consider whether the MOT test should cover such conversions? I understand that there is no requirement for conversions to be tested. There is a further issue of additional insurance costs and the invalidation of a vehicle's warranty if an unauthorised conversion is carried out.
Mr. Jamieson:I thank the hon. Gentleman for that good point. We did not anticipate the large number of people who would set up businesses to do conversions on an ad hoc basis, which shows how difficult these things are. We thought that the vast majority of people would try to get the PowerShift grant, which may represent up to 60 per cent. of the substantial conversion cost. We have concerns about that and are examining the best ways of tackling it. The avenue that the hon. Gentleman mentioned might be one way of doing that, or we could use a certification system that would be required for a vehicle to receive other benefits, such as those for vehicle excise duty and company car tax.
We have had a short debate but it has been of a high quality. We have covered a wide range of issues and found much cross-party accord, which is rare in both Westminster Hall and the Chamber. I thank hon. Members who participated in the debate and I hope that we shall have further opportunities to debate the issues as our policy unfolds. In the end, we have a great interest in having a transport system that serves our economy and delivers goods and people, but that must be done in a way that reflects environmental concerns, both globally and in our cities.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Four o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Predatory Lending
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures she plans to take to control predatory lending. [87014]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In July last year I announced a review of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. As part of this review, I have consulted on proposals to extend the protection the Act provides by removing the financial limit and to make the terms for early settlement of loans fairer to consumers. I will be consulting in 2003 on proposals for improving the current licensing regime to ensure better regulation of lenders and increasing protection for consumers against extortionate credit.

  Insolvency Services (Pay)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the annual pay negotiations for employees in the insolvency Services will be concluded. [84462]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Treasury agreed the Insolvency Service pay remit on 9 December 2002 and pay negotiations will begin very shortly.

  Invest UK
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which chemical industry specialist was appointed to work with Invest UK in January 2001; and if she will make a statement on Invest UK, including the terms of reference for the organisation and its work. [85492]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]The chemical industry specialist appointed to work with Invest UK is James W. Walpole, a senior executive, who has been seconded to the DTI by BP Chemicals for three years and works alongside Invest UK's team in the USA.

  Invest UK's mission is "to attract, to retain and add value to inward investment." It does so by marketing the UK abroad as an investment location, working with its partner agencies in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the English Regional Development Agencies.

  A copy of the Invest UK Operations Review for 2002, reporting its activities in 2001–02, can be found in the Libraries of the House.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimates she has made of the level of 404W
  inward investment into (a) Roxburgh and Berwickshire, (b) the Scottish Borders, (c) Scotland and (d) the UK over the last 10 years. [85704]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The number of inward investments in Scotland and the UK during the financial years 1992–2002 are as follows:

  Scotland

  UK

  1992–93

  61

  332

  1993–94

  87

  432

  1994–95

  81

  455

  1995–96

  72

  497

  1996–97

  76

  497

  1997–98

  75

  631

  1998–99

  55

  669

  1999–2000

  75

  800

  2000–01

  74

  881

  2001–02

  61

  827

  Invest-UK does not hold inward investment for sub regions.

  The figures are based on information provided by companies at the time of announcement of the decision to invest in the UK. There is no requirement to notify Invest-UK of such decisions. These figures include only those projects where Invest-UK and its regional partners were involved or which have come to their notice.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what support she will provide to the UK steel industry to help it reach its maximum capacity of output. [86942]

  Alan Johnson
  The state aid rules applicable to the steel industry do not allow for direct help to enhance primary steel production. Nonetheless my Department works closely with industry representatives to try to ensure the UK's steel production capacity is utilised by helping its customers in the metals downstream industry sectors to access state of the art technology; best practice to move up the value added chain; and to diversify into new high technology products, in order to remain competitive.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether war pensions will be in the card account proposed by the Post Office. [86559]

  Dr. Moonie
  I have been asked to reply.

  Yes.

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Defence Grant
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) what the criteria were by which the civil defence grant for 2003–04 was allocated to individual local authorities; [85835]
  405W
  (2) what the aggregate amount of civil defence grant was in each financial year since 1996–97. [85836]

  Mr. Alexander
  I refer the hon. Member to my written ministerial statement on 3 December 2002,Official Report, column 68WS, which explains how civil defence grant was allocated for 2003–04, and the level of allocation to each authority in England and Wales.

  To determine the individual allocations mentioned in that statement, the following formula was adopted:

  Each authority received £53,000. Each county council received £12,000 in respect of each shire district within the authority's boundaries. These flat-rate payments accounted for approximately 65 per cent. of the aggregate grant, in recognition of the fact that every authority, regardless of size and population, would incur similar unavoidable costs in conducting the basic emergency planning function.

  The remaining 35 per cent. of the aggregate grant was distributed according to the Bellwin threshold, using population size as a proxy for the scale of the emergency planning that authorities need to undertake.

  In order to keep year-on-year changes to individual authorities' allocations within reasonable bounds, a damping was added to the formula, so that no authority lost more than 10 per cent. or gained more than 20 per cent. compared with the previous year.

  Before the formula was applied for the financial year 2002–03, £100,000 was retained for discretionary grant for special projects and special events of benefit to the wider emergency planning community in England and Wales.

  Before making decisions on this allocation method, consultations were held with local authority representatives on the basis of a draft formula. As a result of the representations made, the formula was amended to give greater weight to the flat rate element and less weight to the element distributed according to the Bellwin threshold. The damping was also changed to reduce the floor level for losses.

  The aggregate amount of civil defence grant in each financial year since 1996–97 is as follows:

  Financial year

  Shropshire county council civil defence grant (£)

  Telford and Wrekin civil defence grant (£)

  Total civil defence grant for Shropshire (£)

  Percentage change

  England and Wales percentage change

  1997–98

  212,800

  1—

  212,800

  —

  —

  1998–99

  171,288

  35,000

  206,288

  -3

  0

  1999–2000

  170,688

  35,000

  205,688

  0

  0

  2000–01

  153,619

  48,000

  201,619

  -2

  0

  2001–02

  170,498

  79,999

  250,497

  +24

  +31

  2002–03

  153,448

  71,999

  225,447

  -10

  0

  2003–04

  153,834

  72,385

  226,219

  0

  0

  1 Did not exist

  In the absence of cash limits, the aggregate amount of civil defence grant increased in 2001–02, following discussions with local authorities. It was decided to maintain the grant at around the 2001–02 national level to reflect factors such as the fuel crisis, foot and mouth outbreak and flooding.
  406W

  Aggregate civil defence grant

  Financial year

  £ million

  1996–97

  14.93

  1997–98

  14.46

  1998–99

  14.44

  1999–2000

  14.44

  2000–01

  14.44

  2001–02

  18.97

  2002–03

  18.97

  2003–04

  19.04

  Departmental Reorganisation
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what estimate has been made of the cost of the reorganisations of the(a) DETR, (b) DTLR, (c) DFT and (d) DEFRA Departments. [86369]

  Mr. Alexander
  This information is not collected centrally. Departmental costs and other expenditure are accounted for in departmental annual reports and National Audit Office audits of departmental accounts.

  Shropshire Civil Defence Grant
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) if he will list(a) the amount of civil defence grant for Shropshire, (b) the yearly percentage change for Shropshire and (c) the average percentage change for England in each year since 1997; [86462]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the impact of (a) the disruption in the supply of fuel, (b) the foot and mouth outbreak and (c) flooding on Shropshire's civil defence grant. [86445]

  Mr. Alexander
  There are two authorities in Shropshire currently in receipt of civil defence grants: Shropshire county council and Telford and Wrekin unitary authority. The reorganisation of local government and the creation of new all-purpose authorities has led to the redistribution, over several years, of civil defence grant among authorities.

  The yearly percentage change for Shropshire and the average percentage change for England and Wales as a whole, are as follows:

TRANSPORT

  Air Travel
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the consequences for the demand for flying of a 1 per cent.
  407W
  increase in the cost of flying per annum; and what assessment he has made of the consequences for (a) air pollution, (b) greenhouse gases, (c) noise and (d) wildlife if the demand for flying is halved. [87061]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No assessment assuming an annual increase in the cost of flying of 1 per cent. has been made. The forecasts in "Air Traffic Forecasts for the United Kingdom 2000" assume a 1 per cent. per annum decrease in air fares. A sensitivity test, assuming constant fares over the forecast period, indicates a demand reduction of 25 per cent. by 2020. No assessments have been made on the assumption that the demand for flying were halved.

  Car Pounds
  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many publicly operated car pounds there are in(a) London and (b) the UK; what their locations are; and how many car pounds are operated by the DVLA in (i) London and (ii) the UK. [86910]

  Mr. Jamieson
  DVLA operates one permanent car pound in London and 13 permanent pounds in the rest of the UK. Temporary pounds are set up to service DVLA's two mobile wheelclamping teams as required.

  In addition, six local authorities have taken on devolved powers to clamp and impound unlicensed vehicles in partnership with DVLA. These are the London boroughs of Croydon, Lewisham, Newham and Wandsworth, together with Hastings and Southend-on-Sea. Each authority has a separate car pound for this purpose. DVLA is in discussion with a further 11 local authorities on devolved powers.

  The information requested on publicly operated car pounds is not immediately available. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as it has been obtained and will place a copy of my letter in the Libraries if the House.

  Cycling Helmets
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he plans to legislate to make the wearing of helmets by children when cycling compulsory. [86858]

  Mr. Spellar
  A study published by the Department in November found that overall, the evidence suggests that cycle helmets are effective at reducing the severity of brain and upper facial injuries for all ages, and especially children. This reinforces our view that helmets should be worn by children. Our latest knowledge of wearing is that the rate for all cyclists on built-up major roads is now 22 per cent. The wearing rate is continuing to increase, but at this level, making helmets compulsory would cause enforcement difficulties, and without greater public acceptance, could have an effect on levels of cycling. We will continue to monitor wearing rates and review the option of compulsory wearing from time to time.

  DLVA Clamping Teams
  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many DVLA clamping teams operate in(a) the UK and (b) London; what plans he has to increase the number of DVLA clamping teams in (i) the UK and (ii) London; how much time was spent by
  408W
  DVLA clamping teams in each London borough in each of the last five years; what criteria are used to measure the effectiveness of DVLA clamping teams; what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of DVLA clamping teams, in the last five years, broken down by region. [86911]

  Mr. Jamieson
  DVLA has an overall total of 18 clamping teams operating from 14 pounds throughout the UK. Four of these teams operate in the London area.

  The extension of the wheel clamping scheme is being addressed as part of our proposals to modernise the vehicle registration and licensing system.

  Over the last five years DVLA clamping teams have spent two weeks twice a year in each London borough. In addition, DVLA is developing partnerships with local authorities to clamp and remove unlicensed vehicles. Such partnerships already operate in the London boroughs of Newham, Lewisham, Croydon and Wandsworth. Other boroughs have expressed an interest in joining the scheme.

  DVLA's clamping contractor has to meet closely monitored targets for the number of vehicles clamped. The current target in the UK is over 1,000 vehicles per week. The overall impact of the wheel clamping scheme on the level of relicensing is regularly monitored by the Department's statisticians. The scheme consistently achieves a return of 3:1 when factors such as induced relicensing are taken into account.

  Motorcycling Task Groups
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made of the(a) benefits and (b) value for money of each of the motorcycling task groups; what the outcome of each task group was; and when the task groups met. [86090]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Advisory Group on Motorcycling established five Task Forces to consider integration and traffic management, vehicle safety and security, environmental and fiscal issues, research and statistics. They have been meeting as necessary since 1999 and will continue to do so until they have completed their work in 2004. Their initial work was detailed in the Interim Report of the Advisory Group on Motorcycling, published in April 2001, and is available in the Libraries in the House.

  Some of the key work streams will not reach fruition until 2004. Even then it would be difficult to assess the value for money of the Task Forces. The nature of their work does not involve specific costs and benefits which can be quantified. However, the work of the Advisory Group is highly valued by Government and provides the motorcycling community with the opportunity to input to the development of motorcycling policy.

  Network Rail
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if the head of the accountancy profession at his Department engaged in(a) correspondence, (b) discussions and (c) meetings with (i) his Department's Ministers or officials and (ii) Treasury

  409W
  Ministers or officials in relation to the establishment of Network Rail from October 2001 to September 2002; and if he will make a statement; [86846]

  (2) if the head of the accountancy profession at the Department for Transport participated in meetings about the establishment, design and accounting for the successor organisation for Railtrack, between September 2001 and 4 July 2002; and if he will make a statement. [86845]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The participation of DfT's head of accountancy profession in discussions about Network Rail was as follows:

  A meeting with Department officials on 15 April 2002 to discuss the likely accounting treatment of the CLG proposals based on UK GAAP and Treasury advice on Government accounting.

  A meeting with Department and Treasury officials, Strategic Rail Authority and accountancy advisers on 7 May 2002 to discuss likely accounting treatment from UK GAAP perspective.

  A meeting with National Audit Office, SRA and Department officials on 9 May 2002 to discuss the Network Rail proposals and the likely UK GAAP accounting treatment.

  A letter dated 4 July 2002 to the Office for National Statistics confirming the contingent liabilities.

  Rail Franchise Holders (Hospitality)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what hospitality was received by(a) Ministers and (b) his special advisers from each rail franchise holder over the past 12 months. [85333]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None.

  South West Trains
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reason the franchise for South West Trains has been extended for one year with the possibility of an extension to 2007. [85534]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The South West Trains franchise has been extended for one year, with the possibility of a further extension, to provide a period of stability while the Mark 1 trains are replaced, and to allow the Strategic Rail Authority time to negotiate a competitive re-letting.

  Unlicensed Vehicles
  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of the estimated total number of unlicensed vehicles in the UK is represented by(a) London and (b) the south-east. [86912]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The percentage of the estimated total number of unlicensed vehicles in the UK represented by(a) London is 11 per cent. and (b) the south-east is 14 per cent. assuming that Essex, Surrey, Sussex, Kent and Hampshire make up the south-east region.

  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the number of unlicensed vehicles in the London area. [86913]
  410W
  Mr. Jamieson
  It is estimated that there are around 171,000 unlicensed vehicles in the London area in 2001–02.

DEFENCE

  Aircraft Carriers
  Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where each of the competitors in the UK's aircraft carrier competition is proposing to locate the final assembly of the two ships; and where each of the competitors is proposing to conduct the commissioning and acceptance of the vessels. [86682]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 10 December 2002]Proposals for the construction of the new carriers have been submitted by the potential prime contractors and are currently being assessed within the Ministry of Defence. We expect to announce the preferred contractor early next year. The choice of final assembly location proposed by each bidder is a matter for them, but will be taken into account—along with a range of other factors—within that assessment period.

  Ammunition
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much the stocks of stockpiled ammunition have changed since 1997; and what measures there are to ensure that the armed forces have adequate reserves of ammunition in case of a crisis. [86300]

  Dr. Moonie
  Details of stockpiled ammunition are withheld under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. However, it can be confirmed that stockpile planning is subject to continuous review in order to ensure that the derived liabilities for munitions are robust and reflect current Defence Planning Assumptions.

  Armed Forces Personnel (Scotland)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) Royal Navy, (b) Royal Marines, (c) Army and (d) RAF personnel are stationed in Scotland, (i) in total and (ii) in each location; and if he will make a statement. [86383]

  Dr. Moonie
  The number of United Kingdom Regular personnel as at 1 April 2002 is given as follows. These figures include both trained and untrained personnel. They exclude FTRS, Gurkhas, Reserves mobilised for duty, and members of the Royal Irish Home Service. From these figures it is not possible to separate the Royal Marines from the Royal Navy figures.

  Total UK regular personnel in Scotland as at 1 April 2002

  Naval Service1

  Army

  RAF

  Scotland

  4,670

  3,710

  5,870

  City of Aberdeen

  —

  10

  —

  Aberdeenshire

  0

  0

  360

  Angus

  710

  100

  —

  Argyll and Bute

  3,690

  0

  —

  City of Dundee

  10

  40

  —

  City of Edinburgh

  0

  1,350

  30

  Falkirk

  0

  —

  0

  411W

  Total UK regular personnel in Scotland as at 1 April 2002

  Naval Service1

  Army

  RAF

  Fife

  130

  30

  1,290

  City of Glasgow

  20

  1,250

  20

  Highland

  —

  510

  10

  Inverclyde

  10

  0

  0

  Midlothian

  0

  360

  0

  Moray

  0

  —

  4,020

  North Ayrshire

  0

  —

  —

  Perthshire and Kinross

  0

  40

  0

  Renfrewshire

  0

  —

  —

  Shetland Islands

  0

  0

  30

  South Ayrshire

  100

  —

  100

  Stirling

  0

  10

  0

  West Lothian

  0

  —

  0

  Cornhaire nan Eilean Siar

  0

  —

  —

  1 These figures include both Royal Navy and Royal Marine personnel

  2 Figures under 5 have been suppressed and all other figures have been rounded to the nearest 10.

  —denotes figure is 5 or under, and has therefore been suppressed to avoid disclosure.

  Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency
  Mr. Mike Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent on the PFI contract for the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency; whether the contract is on schedule; and if he will make a statement. [85866]

  Dr. Moonie
  Details of the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency's contract costs and performance against Key Targets for financial years 1997–98 to 2000–01 inclusive appear in the Agency's Annual Report and Accounts, copies of which are held in the Library of the House.

  The Annual Report and Accounts for the financial year 2001–2002 should be published early in the New Year and will indicate that all Key Targets were met. Contract costs for the same period were some 64 million.

  Armed Forces Widows (Northern Ireland)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) UDR and (b) RIR widows have been created as a direct result of terrorist activity in Northern Ireland since 1973; and how much money has been distributed by the Army Forces Pension Scheme to each class of widow since 1973. [86653]

  Dr. Moonie
  Between 1973 and 1992 there have been 103 UDR widows, two UDR widowers and six RIR widows as a direct result of terrorist activity in Northern Ireland. Information is being collated to determine the level of payments made through the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. I will write to the lion Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what financial assistance the widow of a soldier killed on duty will receive from the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. [86655]

  Dr. Moonie
  The widow of a soldier killed on duty as a result of his service will for the first three months receive a short-term pension at annual rate equal to her husband's annual rate of pay. After this period she 412W
  receives a long-term attributable pension for herself and any children reflecting her husband's rank and linked to his rate of pay. The resulting benefits equate to around 90 per cent.of the members full career pension. From 31 October 2000, attributable widows' pensions have been paid for life, regardless of whether the widow remarries or cohabits with a man as her husband. In addition to the short and long-term pensions, she would receive a death-in-service gratuity equal to amount that would have been payable to the soldier on invaliding grounds, or if greater, twice the full career rate of the invaliding pension. An additional attributable gratuity is payable which is set according to the rank of the soldier. Benefits would also be paid under the War Pension Scheme.

  Arrangements are currently under review as part of an examination of pension and compensation arrangements for the Armed Forces, and widows' provisions are one area where we are considering improvements. We expect to make an announcement on this work early next year.

  Armed Services (Fatalities)
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service men under the age of 18 years have suffered accidents involving firearms in each of the last five years. [82928]

  Dr. Moonie
  Information on accidents involving firearms and casualties is not held centrally by the Army and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. In the Royal Navy (RN), records of casualties indicate that one 17-year-old Royal Marine (RM) died as a result of a gunshot wound in training in 2000, but no other RN (or RM) personnel under 18 have been injured by firearms over the last five years. No RAF personnel under the age of 18 have suffered accidents involving firearms over the last five years.

  Army Welfare Service
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) civilian and (b) military female members of staff of the Army Welfare Service are based in each of the agency's offices in Scotland. [86129]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Army Welfare Service currently employs three female members of staff in its offices in Scotland. One civilian and one military female member of staff are employed in Edinburgh. One further military female member of staff is employed in Inverness.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what routes of appeal are available to(a) civilian and (b) military members of staff of the Army Welfare Service who are dissatisfied with the outcome of the agency's internal complaints procedure. [86132]

  Dr. Moonie
  There is no specific internal complaint procedure for staff employed within the Army Welfare Service, further to that which is available to all military and Ministry of Defence civilian staff. Complaint procedure for military personnel is detailed within Army General Administrative Instructions Volume 2 Chapter 70—Management and Resolution of Complaints; further guidance is provided in Army General Administrative Instructions Volume 2 Chapter 75—Equal Opportunities Policy, Guidance and Instructions.
  413W
  Complaint procedure for civilian personnel is detailed within the Ministry of Defence Personnel Manual, Volume 13.

  Battalion Strength
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) on what occasions in the past five years units have been detached from a battalion of the foot guards and attached to another battalion to bring that latter battalion up to strength for the purposes of operational deployment, giving in each case(a) the length of the period of detachment and (b) the date of the detached unit's return to its own battalion; [85229]

  Battalion detached from

  Battalion detached to and reason

  Period of detachment

  1 Grenadier Guards

  Detached 26 men to 1 Scots Guards for a Northern Ireland tour

  May 2001-November 2001

  1 Coldstream Guards

  Detached 1 Platoon of 30 personnel to 1 Scots Guards for a Northern Ireland tour

  March 1998-October 1998

  Detached 1 Platoon of 30 personnel to 1 Irish Guards for a tour in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia/Kosovo

  February 1999-September 1999

  Detached 17 men to the Household Cavalry Regiment for a Bosnia tour

  May 1999-November 1999

  Detached 26 men to 1 Grenadier Guards for a Northern Ireland tour

  June 1999-December 1999

  Created a company to reinforce a resident Battalion in Northern Ireland

  October 2000- April 2002

  1 Scots Guards

  In common with other Residential Battalions in Northern Ireland detached individual reinforcements to meet various operational commitments

  March 1998-April 2000

  1 Irish Guards

  Have only detached personnel for routine procedures in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia/Kosovo.

  1 Welsh Guards

  Detached 1 Platoon of 30 personnel to 1 Scots Guards for a Northern Ireland tour

  March 1998-October 1998

  Detached 1 Company to 1 Devonshire and Dorset Regiment for a Northern Ireland tour

  October 2000-April 2001

  Details of battalions of the Foot Guards which have, in the last five years, been deployed for operational purposes are show in the following table:

  Battalion

  Period of operational deployment

  Area of operational deployment

  1 Grenadier Guards

  March 1996-March 1998

  As a residential battalion in Northern Ireland

  June 1999-December 1999

  Northern Ireland

  November 2001-May 2002

  Northern Ireland

  1 Coldstream Guards

  September 1999-March 2000

  Northern Ireland

  April 2000-now

  As a residential battalion in Northern Ireland

  1 Scots Guards

  March 1998-April 2000

  As a residential battalion in Northern Ireland

  June 2000-July 2000

  Northern Ireland

  March 2001-November 2001

  Northern Ireland

  1 Irish Guards

  February 1999-September 1999

  Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia/Kosovo

  1 Welsh Guards

  October 2000-March 2001

  Northern Ireland (one company only)

  March 2002-September 2002

  Bosnia

  Details of Foot Guard battalions which have been brought up to strength for operational deployment by
  414W
  (2) when in the past five years battalions of the foot guards have been deployed for operational purposes; [85227]

  (3) on what occasions in the past five years battalions of the foot guards have been brought up to strength for operational deployment by the attachment of units from other battalions, identifying for each occasion (a) the deployed battalion and (b) the source and size of the attached unit. [85228]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]Units which have, within the last five years, been detached from a battalion of the Foot Guards and attached to another battalion to bring mat battalion up to strength for the purposes of an operational deployment are detailed in the following table:

  the attachment of units from other battalions, within the last five years, are shown in the following table.
  415W

  Deployed battalion

  Source and size of attached unit and deployment details

  1 Grenadier Guards

  Received 13 personnel from The King's Troop Royal Horse Artillery, 26 personnel from 1 Coldstream Guards and 26 personnel from 1 Duke of Wellington's Regiment from June 1999 to December 1999 for a Northern Ireland tour

  1 Irish Guards

  Received 30 personnel from 1 Coldstream Guards from February 1999 to September 1999 for a tour in Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia/Kosovo

  1 Scots Guards

  Received 1 Platoon of 30 personnel from 1 Coldstream Guards and 1 Platoon of 30 personnel from 1 Welsh Guards from March 1998 to October 1998 for a Northern Ireland tour

  Received 26 personnel from 1 Grenadier Guards from May 2001 to November 2001 for a Northern Ireland tour

  1 Welsh Guards

  While in Bosnia (March-September 2002), the battalion was reinforced by 84 reservists and Territorial Army personnel for Bosnia specific jobs. The battalion itself was at full strength

  Bullying
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 19 November,Official Report, column 36W, how many complaints about bullying have been recorded in each year at the Dalton Barracks in Oxfordshire; and what measures have been taken to protect service personnel against bullying. [86051]

  Dr. Moonie
  Since 1 January 1999, the Royal Military Police has received one report of alleged assault/bullying at Dalton Barracks, Abingdon. The case was considered by the Commanding Officer and the individual found not guilty.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces on 4 November 2002, Official Report, column 57W to my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan). Bullying and harassment in any form are not tolerated, and the Services incorporate procedures and undertake training at all levels in an attempt to raise awareness of these issues, minimise, and if possible eradicate, such practices.

  Cadet Forces (Funding)
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria he uses to decide the level of funds for(a) the Sea Cadets, (b) the Army Cadets and (c) the Air Training Corps; and if he will make it his policy that the Sea Cadets are funded on an equal basis to the Army Cadets and Air Training Corps. [85803]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 3 December 2002 Official Report, columns 691–92W. The budget for the cadet organisations is reviewed in the same way as the rest of the Ministry of Defence. The budget is considered against the requirement to sustain a vigorous and vibrant youth organisation which sustains active membership for enrolled cadets. Risks to sustaining the cadet organisations are then considered alongside the other risks to the MOD's output targets. In the case of the Sea Cadet Corps, this process is based on the Corps's known annual requirements and any specific changing needs. Consideration is also given to the Sea Cadet Corps's other sources of income, on a year-by-year basis.

  Challenger 2 Tanks
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he and his Department have held with Vickers Defence Systems regarding the modification of Challenger 2 tanks for desert conditions; and if he will make a statement. [85361]

  Mr. Hoon
  There has been a wide range of discussions with Alvis Vickers Ltd. (previously Vickers Defence Systems) related to the deployment of Challenger 2 in desert conditions. This dialogue continues and a Post Design Services enabling agreement with Alvis Vickers Limited was authorised at the end of October 2002 to deal specifically with the modification of Challenger 2 tanks for these environments.

  Confidential Support Line
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel have phoned the Army's confidential support line in each year since its formation; in what form statistical information about calls is monitored; and how general observations drawn by advice workers are passed on to appropriate authorities for action to prevent bullying. [86048]

  Dr. Moonie
  The purpose of the Army Confidential Support Line, which was established on 1 December 1991, is to provide a means of support to serving soldiers and their dependants, although calls may also be taken from members of the other Services, Ministry of Defence civilians and ex-Service personnel. The collation of statistics is not a primary function of the support staff and as no personal information is requested from any caller, those statistics which are available are, inevitably, incomplete. As such, no specific analysis of the available statistics is undertaken.

  Those statistics which are available for 1998–2001 are contained within the Soldiers Sailors Airmen's Families Association—Forces Help Confidential Support Line Annual Report 2001, a copy of which I will place in the Library of the House.

  Deepcut/Catterick Barracks
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the balance is between civilian and ranking officer staff responsible for advice work carried out at(a) Deepcut and (b) Catterick Barracks by (i) the regimental medical office, (ii) the Padre, (iii) the unit

  417W
  welfare officer, (iv) the local army welfare worker and (v) the Women's Royal Voluntary Service welfare office. [86076]

  Medical centre

  Padre

  Unit welfare office

  Army welfare service

  WRVS/Salvation Army1

  Civilian

  Military

  Civilian

  Military

  Civilian

  Military

  Civilian

  Military

  Civilian

  Military

  Deepcut

  2

  0

  0

  1

  12

  0

  12

  23

  2

  0

  14

  Catterick

  7

  13

  0

  35

  26

  13

  1

  4

  5

  0

  1 At Catterick.

  2 Retired officer.

  3 NCO.

  4 Officer.

  5 At present, shortly to become four.

  6 Of which one is a retired officer.

  Note:

  The information for Catterick is in respect of the Infantry Training Centre only.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many welfare agency case conferences have been held at(a) Deepcut and (h) Catterick Barracks since 1990; what venues have been used for the meetings; and on how many occasions each year the conferences have passed on concerns about bullying to the Officer Commanding. [86077]

  Dr. Moonie
  Given the number of agencies involved in the provision of welfare support, no central records of case conferences, or their venues, are maintained by either establishment. Catterick Garrison alone comprises the School of Infantry, seven other major and fifteen further minor units. Welfare meetings will vary across all units but may range from regular staff meetings to Commanding Officer's conferences. All cases of bullying which are reported to any welfare agency or the chain of command will he passed to the Commanding Officer for appropriate action.

  Defence Establishments (State of Alert)
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the states of alert which are operated by defence establishments, and the criteria which apply in each case. [86448]

  Dr. Moonie
  I am withholding details on the states of alert operated across the various sectors in accordance with Exemption 1 (Defence, security and international relations) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Defence Industries (Employment)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how his Department calculates the number of people employed in and by defence related industries in the regions of the UK; what multiplier is used; and what the regional and national totals are. [86012]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 10 December 2002]Estimates of employment can be determined as the addition of three elements. These are:"direct". The "direct" numbers are those employed in the supplying manufacturer i.e the company contracted by the Ministry of Defence to undertake the work, or the exporter;
  418W
  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is as follows:"indirect". These include those indirectly employed through work generated in subcontractors and those who supply the main contractor. As well as manufacturers of products which are embodied in the final product, these will include suppliers of services e.g. consultants and electricity generators; and
  "induced", i.e. employment resulting from the additional consumer spending which arise from the direct and indirect employees.
  The Defence Analytical Services Agency (DASA) has never produced figures for the number of "induced" jobs. Estimates, however, have been calculated for UK direct and indirect employment dependent on (i) MOD equipment expenditure, (ii) MOD non-equipment expenditure, and (iii) defence exports. These have been published since 1992 in United Kingdom Defence Statistics (UKDS) and, before then, in Volume 2 of the Statement of Defence Estimates. The method of derivation is as follows:
  the "final demand" of expenditure by (grouped) standard industrial categories is determined for MOD UK expenditure on equipment and non-equipment using information from MOD systems. Figures for exports are more problematic—various sources are used for these;
  direct employment. Using MOD final demand and turnover per (full-time equivalent) employee for the sectors involved, direct employment follows by division; and
  indirect employment. Total and indirect demand is calculated using the MOD final demand and (adapted) UK Input-Output Analytical Tables. The latest available Analytical Tables, which are produced by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), are for the year 1995. They were published in May 2002. The Analytical Tables are assumed to change slowly, so may be applied to years other than the ones for which they were prepared. There are various ways of deriving indirect employment. The one proposed by DASA. is to calculate it as derived indirect demand divided by the appropriate rates (output at basic prices) for the sectors concerned. Such details are still subject to review (see below).
  The ONS has not published employment multipliers for the UK.

  DASA has been leading a review into the method for estimating employment dependent on MOD equipment and non-equipment expenditure and exports. One of the outcomes of the review is that regional estimates of direct equipment related employment should not be published as National Statistics any more. The

  419W
  underlying data are not of a good enough quality and they only ever represented less than a third of the total employment estimates.

  Estimates of regional indirect employment have never been prepared. They are more difficult to establish. Although Analytical Tables and multipliers are produced for some areas, for example, for Scotland (by the Scottish Executive), the calculation of employment would require knowledge of the volumes of "exports" and "imports" of MOD defence equipment from other regions. These data are not available. Analytical Tables are not produced by the ONS for the English regions.

  A detailed report on the calculation of the UK employment estimates has been prepared. This is currently being peer reviewed and will be made available on the DASA website.

  Provisional figures for the UK were published as Table 1.11 of UK Defence Statistics 2002, a copy of which is available from the Library of the House.

  2000–01 (thousands)1

  Total employment

  310

  Direct (total)

  155

  Indirect (total)

  150

  Employment from MOD expenditure (sub total)

  235

  Equipment expenditure

  Direct

  70

  Indirect

  70

  Non-equipment expenditure

  Direct

  55

  Indirect

  40

  Employment, from defence exports (sub total)

  70

  Direct

  30

  Indirect

  40

  1 Provisional. The figures are rounded 10 the nearest 5,000. Differences between the totals and the sums are caused by the rounding.

  Although numbers are no longer published as National Statistics, the Defence Analytical Services Agency has continued to derive regional breakdowns of the direct MOD equipment expenditure. The latest, provisional, and, as indicated above, qualified figures are:

  Direct employment (thousands)1

  Scotland

  5

  Wales

  1

  Northern Ireland

  1

  England

  North East

  1

  Yorks and Humberside

  1

  East Midlands

  2

  Eastern

  8

  London and South East

  20

  South West

  16

  West Midlands

  2

  North West

  15

  Total

  72

  1 Provisional. The numbers calculated have been rounded to the nearest thousand, but are indicative only. The difference between 'region totals' and the 'UK total' is due to rounding anomalies.

  Defensive Decoy System
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on(a) the defensive decoy system and (b) the active decoy round. [86298]

  Dr. Moonie
  The active decoy round forms part of the defensive decoy system, more usually known as the active off board decoy system. The other main element is the ship control system. The purpose of the decoy system is to provide improved defence against anti-ship missiles. It is planned to enter operational service in all major Royal Navy warships from early 2004.

  Executive Agencies (Scotland)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are employed by DERA; how many are based in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [86390]

  Dr. Moonie
  DERA was disestablished on 1 July 2001, when two new organisations, QinetiQ and the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl), were created.

  QinetiQ is a plc, and therefore all operational inquiries should be addressed to the chief executive. Dstl remains a part of the Ministry of Defence. Dstl currently employs approximately 3,100 staff, of whom 52 are based in Scotland.

  Industrial Policy
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the costs were of implementing the Ministry of Defence's industrial policy in the last 12 months. [85656]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Government's new defence industrial policy published on 14 October is not expected to incur any additional administrative costs to implement, nor do we envisage that it will entail additional costs to the equipment programme. The policy aims to enhance the competitiveness of United Kingdom industry and will therefore increase the value for money delivered to the taxpayer. A copy of the policy is in the Library of the House.

  Lockheed Martin F35s
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many of the short take off and vertical landing versions of the new Lockheed Martin F35s have been ordered by the Ministry of Defence; and what he expects the costs to be of(a) the individual aircraft and (b) the cost of the entire procurement project; [85455]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the timetable for the short take-off and vertical landing versions of the Lockheed Martin F35s entering service with the Royal Navy and RAF; and if he expects this programme to remain within the Ministry of Defence's estimated budget. [85654]

  Dr. Moonie
  The current System Development and Demonstration Phase of the Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme began in October 2001. We announced on 30 September this year that the Short Take-Off/Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant of the JSF
  421W
  had been selected to meet our Future Joint Combat Aircraft (FJCA) requirement. The current planned United Kingdom in-service date is 2012.

  In order to align with the US acquisition cycle, we do not expect to place orders for JSF aircraft before 2006. The average UK unit production cost of the STOVL variant of JSF is estimated to be around $50 million US.

  The procurement cost for the FJCA programme, including certain spares and training facilities, is forecast to be up to £10 billion-working on a current planning assumption of 150 aircraft required. There is no reason to believe that the JCA programme will not remain within budget.

  Medical Conditions
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what standard manuals of diagnostics and directories of medical conditions he relies in instances where his discretion is exercised on the basis of a medical opinion. [80592]

  Dr. Moonie
  It would be inappropriate for Ministers to intervene in clinical matters. Armed forces medical personnel and civilian medical practitioners employed by the Ministry of Defence consult numerous medical textbooks and other publications accepted by the medical and scientific community.

  Military Training Sites
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the military training sites in the UK where live ammunition has been used since 1972 which have been accessible to the public on non-training days; [86828]

  (2) what contracts the Ministry of Defence has with private contractors for searching for unexploded ordnance on Ministry of Defence training sites in the UK; [86831]

  (3) which sites in the UK used for military training with live ammunition are accessible to the general public. [86832]

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

  Missile Defence
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects his Department's programmes work on theatre missile defence will be published. [84537]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]I presume that the hon. Member is referring to the Technology Readiness and Risk Assessment Programme, an unclassified summary of which was released earlier this year and a copy placed in the Library of the House as confirmed in my answer to the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) on 26 February 2002,Official Report, column 1134W. Further work on the technical and other issues associated with theatre missile defence is continuing.

  Mr. Jack Palfrey Wakefield (Gratuity Payment)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what records his Department maintains of individuals receiving a gratuity in respect of invalidity, on leaving HM armed forces, from 1941 to the present; and whether he has a record of a gratuity in respect of invalidity being paid to Mr. Jack Palfrey Wakefield, date of birth 24 September 1916, army serial number 1895475, formerly resident in Crewe. [85667]

  Dr. Moonie
  For members of the armed forces who have been invalided from service, records relating to consideration of entitlement to war pensions have been held on these cases by the Veterans Agency and its predecessors since prior to 1941. No war pensions files were destroyed until 1989 when a retention and destruction exercise was carried out. The criteria were that files were to be destroyed where no action had been taken on the case for more than 30 years, no pension was in payment and the claimant was over the age of 80.

  Under the Armed Forces Pension Scheme, records containing details of invaliding gratuities paid are held by all three services for personnel who left between 1941 and the present day. How long these records are retained for depends on when the person left the armed forces. In general, the following applies:

  Left service between 1941–72:
  Where the pensioner dies and there is no widow/er or other dependant, the records would be destroyed after seven years for Royal Navy (RN) and Army personnel and after three years for RAF personnel. If not informed of this, records would be kept for 100 years from the date of the service member's birth for all three services. If there were a surviving widow/er, records would be destroyed some two to three years after the death of the spouse of RN and RAF personnel and seven years after the death of the spouse of Army personnel.

  Left service between 1973-present:
  Across all three services, records are retained for 100 years from the date of the service person's birth.

  Records are held relating to both Mr. Wakefield's entitlement to war disablement pension and to his armed forces pension. However, information from these records cannot be supplied as disclosure of personal information is prohibited under Schedule 2 of the Data Protection Act 1998.

  Nuclear Tests (South Pacific)
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he has put in place for tracing and monitoring armed forces personnel who served between 1950 and 1965 and were involved in nuclear tests in the South Pacific during this period; how many of these servicemen have been traced; what proportion this represents; and if he will make a statement. [86308]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 10 December 2002]As is well known, the National Radiological Protection Board conducted two studies, reported in 1988 and 1993, which assessed incidences of cancers and mortality rates in test participants and a closely matched control group. The results of the third study are expected in 2003. At the outset, some 22,000 personnel were identified as participants from service and other records
  423W
  representing about 85 per cent. of those believed to have participated in the United Kingdom nuclear testing programme.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made since 1972 concerning the risk of cancer among the(a) military personnel and (b) civilian population surrounding the British nuclear testing in the Monte Bello Islands in the 1950s; and if he will make a statement.[86877]

  Dr. Moonie
  Two epidemiological studies of participants of the British nuclear test programme as a whole have been carried out on the Ministry of Defence's behalf by the National Radiological Protection Board. The results of these studies were published in 1988 and 1993. The studies showed that, as a group, participation in the tests has not had a detectable effect on the expectation of life, or on the risk of developing cancer or other fatal diseases by those who took part. No separate assessment has been made of those service personnel who took part in the tests on the Monte Bello Islands.

  The Monte Bello Islands were uninhabited and had no civilian population. In 1983 the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council reassessed levels of radiation which had reached the Australian mainland from the tests on the Monte Bello Islands. It was concluded that exposure to radiation by the civilian population had been insignificant.

  Nuclear Waste
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total volume was of nuclear waste produced and requiring storage by(a) his Department and (b) military installations in each year since 1990, broken down by (i) the level of waste and (ii) whether the waste is in temporary or permanent storage; and if he will make a statement. [86416]

  Dr. Moonie
  No central records are held on volumes of nuclear waste produced and requiring storage for each year since 1990. However, I refer the hon. Member to the "United Kingdom Radioactive Waste Inventory" to which the Ministry of Defence contributes, and which provides periodic snapshots on radioactive waste stocks, including levels of waste, location and whether the waste is held in temporary or permanent storage. The inventory has previously been published to show snapshots of waste stocks in 1991 and 1994, and a copy of the most recent inventory, for 1998, is available in the Library of the House. A new inventory, for 2001, is being completed and will be published shortly and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many decommissioned nuclear submarines have been awaiting waste treatment and storage for each year since 1990; where they are; what steps are being planned to tackle the task; and if he will make a statement. [86417]

  Dr. Moonie
  Since 1990, 10 nuclear-powered submarines have been decommissioned, and are stored safely afloat.424W

  Submarine

  Date decommissioned

  Afloat storage location

  Churchill

  1990

  Rosyth Dockyard

  Warspite

  1990

  HMNB Devonport

  Conqueror

  1991

  HMNB Devonport

  Swiftsure

  1991

  Rosyth Dockyard

  Courageous

  1992

  HMNB Devonport

  Revenge

  1992

  Rosyth Dockyard

  Resolution

  1994

  Rosyth Dockyard

  Valient

  1994

  HMNB Devonport

  Renown

  1996

  Rosyth Dockyard

  Repulse

  1996

  Rosyth Dockyard

  As soon as possible after a nuclear-powered submarine leaves naval service, the reactor is de-fuelled and the vessel prepared for safe storage afloat. Daily inspections and annual maintenance periods are carried out to ensure the vessel is maintained to a high standard of preservation and safety.

  We are currently considering options for land storage of radioactive waste from nuclear powered submarines (the ISOLUS Study) and we will shortly be seeking proposals from industry. These will inform a public consultation and, following detailed negotiations, a preferred bidder will be selected. This is expected to take around three years to complete. The aim is to have the land storage facility in service by 2012.

  RAF West Freugh
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether depleted uranium shells or projectiles manufactured in other NATO countries have been tested at RAF West Freugh in Galloway; whether aircraft operated by other NATO countries have used the base for training or experimenting with depleted uranium munitions; and if he will make a statement on progress made with radioactive remediation at the West Freugh test range. [86485]

  Dr. Moonie
  Experimental firings of the Phalanx weapons system, which uses depleted uranium rounds (DU), took place at West Freugh in 1988 and 1990. The firings involved rounds that were manufactured in the United Kingdom from DU processed in the USA. No aircraft were involved in the tests, and there has been no further use of the West Freugh range for DU firings. A subsequent radiological survey of beach, sand and seawater by staff from the AtomicWeapons Establishment concluded that there was no detectable contamination.

  Research Contracts
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department is spending on research contracts in each region; and if he will make a statement. [86404]

  Dr. Moonie
  : The net expenditure outturn for the Ministry of Defence's major customers research budgets as published in the Consolidated Departmental Resource Accounts for financial year 2000–02, was £1 billion. It is not possible to provide a regional breakdown of research expenditure from available data.

  Reserve Forces
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the per capita per annum cost per rank of(a) regular personnel, (b) the RNR, (c) the RMR, (d) the TA and (e) the RAuxAP; and if he will make a statement. [86395]

  Dr. Moonie
  The capitation rates for regular personnel show the average annual cost. They include pay, allowances, earnings-related National Insurance contributions and superannuation as well as allowances for support, training and higher formation costs.

  The rates for Full Time Reserve Service (FTRS) personnel include pay, earnings— related National Insurance contributions and superannuation Information for the Territorial Army and Royal Auxiliary Air Force cost is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. I am therefore unable to provide a substantive answer under the terms of exemption 9 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  However, capitation rates are produced for the Army Full Time Reserve Service (FTRS) and the RAF FTRS, and these are listed as follows:

  Rank

  Capitation rate Royal Navy

  Capitation rate Royal Navy Reserve FTRS

  Captain

  125,196

  87,257

  Commander

  109,002

  74,770

  Lieutenant Commander

  82,724

  64,369

  Lieutenant

  67,273

  47,492

  Sub Lieutenant

  61,987

  37,568

  Midshipman

  42,729

  27,851

  Warrant Officer

  63,493

  39,997

  Charge Chief Petty Officer

  59,781

  37,705

  Chief Petty Officer

  56,703

  35,526

  Petty Officer

  51,559

  31,279

  Leading Rate

  46,441

  27,394

  Able Rate

  35,072

  19,291

  Colonel

  125.196

  87,257

  Lieutenant Colonel

  109,002

  74,770

  Major

  82,724

  64,369

  Captain

  67,273

  47,492

  Lieutenant

  61,987

  37,568

  Second Lieutenant

  42,729

  27,851

  WO1

  63,493

  39.997

  W02

  59,781

  37,705

  Colour Sergent

  56,703

  35,526

  Sergeant

  51,559

  31,279

  Corporal

  46,441

  27,394

  Lance Corporal

  40,011

  —

  Marine

  35,072

  19,291

  Colonel

  125,598

  74,770

  Lieutenant Colonel

  109,404

  64,369

  Major

  83,126

  47,492

  Captain

  67,674

  37,568

  Lieutenant

  52,389

  27,851

  Second Lieutenant

  43,131

  21,927

  W01

  63,895

  39,997

  W02

  60,183

  37,705

  Staff Sergenant

  57,105

  35,526

  Sergeant

  51,961

  31,278

  Corporal

  46,843

  37,394

  Lance Corporal

  40,413

  23,592

  Private

  35,475

  19,291

  Group Captain

  125,386

  74,770

  Wing Commander

  109,192

  64,369

  Squadron Leader

  82,914

  47,492

  Flight Lieutenant

  67,462

  37,568

  Flag Officer

  52,177

  27,851

  Pilot Officer

  42,919

  21,927

  Warrant Officer

  63,682

  39,997

  Flight Sergeant

  59,970

  37,705

  426W

  Rank

  Capitation rate Royal Navy

  Capitation rate Royal Navy Reserve FTRS

  Chief Technician

  56,892

  35,526

  Sergeant

  51,748

  31,278

  Corporal

  46,630

  37,394

  SAC

  40,173

  23,592

  LAC

  19,291

  Royal Navy Vessels
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Royal Navy vessels will be fitted with(a) the upgraded Type 1022 Radar and (b) the Type 996 Radar; and if he will make a statement on the increased capability this will provide. [86296]

  Dr. Moonie
  Radar Type 1022 is fitted to Type 42 Destroyers and Invincible Class Carriers. At present, there are no plans to upgrade the Radar but, as part of the normal planning process, consideration is being given to an upgrade that would deliver performance improvements in specific operating environments.

  Radar Type 996 is in service with Type 42 Destroyers, Type 23 Frigates and Invincible Class Carriers, and is also being fitted to the new Landing Platform Dock (Replacement) vessels, the first of which is expected to come into service next year. Two programmes have been undertaken to improve the Radar's performance and availability. A further programme, to increase the Radar's capability against future airborne and surface threats, is currently in its assessment phase.

  Sea Dart Missile
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the infra red fuse to be fitted to the Sea Dart missile. [86297]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 4 December 2002,Official Report, column 815W.

  Sea Harrier
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what impact the withdrawal of the Sea Harrier FA2 will have on the Royal Navy's ability to defend its ships against an attack from the AS17/Krypton anti-ship missile; and if he will make a statement. [86440]

  Dr. Moonie
  Royal Navy Task Groups will retain a significant air defence capability after the Sea Harrier is withdrawn from service in 2006, including against AS17/Krypton anti ship missiles. Task Groups typically include Type 42 Anti Air Warfare Destroyers armed with updated Sea Dart anti-aircraft missiles, Type 22 and 23 Frigates armed with Point Defence Missile Systems (including the enhanced Sea Wolf missile system) and Close in Weapons Systems. Many other Task Group warships will also include air defence assets for self protection and decoy systems against air and surface launched anti-ship missiles.

  The upgraded Sea King airborne early warning aircraft has now entered service providing an improved detection capability over land and sea. Additionally, from late 2007 onwards the Type 42 Destroyers will be

  427W
  replaced by the Type 45 Destroyers, fitted with the highly capable Principal Anti-Air Missile System (PAAMS).

  Service Personnel (Deaths)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the results were of the investigations into the circumstances of the deaths of(a) Private Paul Cochrane on 30 July 2001 at Drumadd Barracks, Northern Ireland, (b) Private David Shipley in June 2002, in Germany, (c) Private Richard Robertson on 21 September 1995 at Catterick Barracks, (d) Private Gary Riches in Bosnia on 24 October 1995, (e) Private Alfred Manship in Osnabruck on 6 April 1992, (f) Private Dale Little in Bosnia on 22 July 1994 and (g) Trooper Aled Martin Jones in Bosnia on 18 July 1996; in each case, what time the police were called; what steps were taken to secure evidence at the scene of death; what the conclusions of the inquiry were; what the nature of the post mortem examination was; by whom it was carried out; what the findings were; when relatives of the deceased were informed; what the conclusion was of the coroner's inquest; when a board of inquiry was established; when it reported; and what measures were taken as a result of its findings; [86275]

  (2) what the result has been of the investigation into the circumstances of the death in 1997 of Private Ross Collins of Nanstallon near Bodmin in Cornwall; at what time the police were called; what steps were taken to secure evidence at the scene of death; what the conclusions were of their inquiry; what the nature was of the post mortem examination; by whom it was carried out; what the findings were; at what time relatives of the deceased were informed; what the conclusion was of the Coroner's Inquest; when a board of inquiry was established and what date it reported; and what measures were taken as a result of its findings. [86586]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost, if at all, as we do not know whether all of it is held on departmental files. Furthermore, information pertaining to the associated police investigations and boards of inquiry would not normally be placed in the public domain. Only the death of Trooper Aled Jones has, so far, been subject to a board of inquiry; a copy of the final report was passed to the next of kin in 1997. A board of inquiry into the death of Ranger Paul Cochrane is on-going. No decision has yet been made as to whether a board of inquiry will he held into the death of Private David Shipley; this is subject to an on-going investigation by the Royal Military Police Special Investigation Branch, who have jurisdiction in this case. It would, therefore, be inappropriate to release any related information at this time.

  Coroner's verdicts, in those cases where an inquest has been held, are as follows:

  Name

  Verdict

  Private Richard Robertson

  Open

  Fusilier Gary Riches

  Open

  Sapper Alfred Manship

  Suicide

  428W

  Name

  Verdict

  Private Dale Little

  Open

  Trooper Aled Jones

  Suicide

  Musician Ross Collins

  Open

  According to our records, the deaths of Privates Little and Riches occurred on 22 July 1995 and 25 October 1995 respectively.

  Supporting Britain's Reservists and Employer Programme
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the establishment of the Supporting Britain's Reservists and Employer programme. [85650]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Strategic Defence Review required the Reserve Forces to be integrated, relevant and usable. To ensure this requirement is met we need the support of those who employ members of the Volunteer Reserve Forces.

  During the last 18 months the Ministry of Defence has carried out a review of its existing and long-standing campaign designed to win and maintain the support of Britain's employers for the Volunteer Reserve Forces. This has resulted in the launch of a new campaign called SaBRE (Supporting Britain's Reservists and Employers). Its purpose is to explain to employers not only the benefits of employing Reservists but also the attendant rights and obligations that employers have, including the requirement to release individuals for mobilisation should it be necessary to do so. The SaBRE campaign has already made good progress. Its strategy is to make use of the expertise available in the commercial world combined with a regional network of civilian volunteers, to deliver a campaign with a national identity at a regional level. A number of organisations, including the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors, the British Chambers of Commerce, the Engineering Employers' Federation and the Trades Union Congress together with some 6,200 companies, who between them account for a substantial part of the nation's workforce, have previously declared their support for the Reserves of the Armed Forces.

  Trafalgar Bicentennial
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to mark the Bicentennial of the Battle of Trafalgar. [86959]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence is working closely with a number of organisations to develop the Royal Navy's plans for the commemoration of the Battle of Trafalgar in 2005. Lead by the Official Nelson Celebrations Committee, which brings together the interests of a wide range of maritime museums and associations connected with the Nelson heritage, a national and international programme of cultural and commemorative events is being discussed, among which a number of events involving the Royal Navy are being considered. At this stage, it is too early to be precise.

  Unexploded Ordnance
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when and where unexploded ordnance has
  429W
  been found by contractors when clearing publicly accessible military training sites for construction and infrastructure projects since 1972; [86830]

  (2) when and where in the UK unexploded ordnance has been found by persons not employed by the Ministry of Defence on (a) byelawed and (b) non-byelawed land since 1972. [86829]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information is not held centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  430W
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the discovery of unexploded ordnance by Transco in the Brecon Beacons area. [86833]

  Dr. Moonie
  An amount of unexploded ordnance, believed to date from the Second World War period, was found earlier this year by Transco while working on a pipeline scheme in the Brecon Beacons National Park. The police were informed and the ordnance was subsequently disposed of by the Army.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make funds available to enable abattoirs to provide additional space for hanging carcasses of animals over 30 months old slaughtered under the Beef Assurance Scheme separately from other animals. [85370]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]EU rules require that cattle for human consumption must be tested for BSE if aged over 30 months or, if subject to casualty slaughter or found sick at ante-mortem inspection, if aged over 24 months. In the event of a positive result, the carcase before and two carcasses after the positive case on the slaughter line must be destroyed unless there is a system in place preventing contamination between carcasses. The latter does not necessarily require significant extra space but this is a matter for the Official Veterinary Surgeon in individual abattoirs. There are no funds available to provide abattoirs with additional space.

  Agriculture Expenditure
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much money is being reclaimed by the European Commission from the United Kingdom because of inadequate control procedures or non-compliance with EU rules on agricultural expenditure. [84522]

  Mr. Morley
  In 2001, the UK claimed £2.5 billion from the EU agriculture budget. Of this, £3 million was reclaimed due to non-compliance with EU rules on agricultural expenditure (which includes control procedures). The Commission has the right to reclaim further sums should additional cases of non-compliance come to light.

  Albatrosses
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimates she makes, in respect of the last year for which figures are available, of the number of albatrosses killed within United Kingdom waters as a by-product of fishing by(a) Spanish and (b) other vessels; what percentage of the United Kingdom population this represents; and what steps she is taking to prevent such deaths. [86415]

  Mr. Morley
  Although the metropolitan United Kingdom is outside the normal migration range of albatrosses, there are globally important breeding sites in UK Overseas Territories in the Southern Hemisphere.

  While there are no overall figures available, we do have information about the Falkland Islands, where the breeding population of albatrosses is about 382,000 pairs. Recent estimates of bycatch there have included
  432W
  between 85 and 193 albatrosses in a year in licensed long-line fisheries, and about 1,000 during the peak spring fishing season from licensed trawling (some three quarters of which is carried out by Spanish vessels). There will also be losses to illegal, unreported and unregulated fisheries.

  The UK and Spain are Parties to the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, the Commission of which is responsible for managing fisheries in the Convention area and imposes conditions aimed at reducing bycatch.

  The UK intends to ratify early next year the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels, which will require UK flag vessels fishing in the Agreement area to implement measures designed to mitigate bycatch. Our ratification will be extended to those Overseas Territories that wish to implement the Agreement and have appropriate legislation in place. Spain has also signed this Agreement.

  The Falkland Islands Government is funding Falklands Conservation to study the effect on mortality resulting from birds being attracted to vessels by offal discarded as a by-product of on-board fish processing.

  Beef Exports
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much UK produced beef has been exported by(a) weight and (b) value in the last five years for which figures are available; and how much of these exports comprised (i) beef of UK origin and (ii) beef of foreign origin. [85420]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]Official overseas trade statistics do not differentiate between beef of UK origin and beef of foreign origin.

  The following table shows the volume and value of UK exports of beef and beef products between 1997 and 2001.

  Beef

  Beef products

  Tonnes

  £000

  Tonnes

  £000

  1997

  6,061

  15,104

  4,030

  6,626

  1998

  4,884

  12,157

  7,746

  6,110

  1999

  5,647

  19,720

  3,708

  5,598

  2000

  5,387

  20,983

  3,884

  6,070

  2001

  5,409

  18,763

  2,963

  5,616

  Sources:

  HM Customs and Excise.

  Data prepared by Statistics (Commodities and Food) Accounts and Trade, ESD, DEFRA.

  Bio-Security
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs when she intends to introduce voluntary disposal bins for meat products at UK immigration points. [84163]
  433W
  Mr. Morley
  As indicated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the House on 21 November 2002, there are a number of concerns on how in practice amnesty bins for illegal meat would operate. These issues continue to be examined. Decisions which will also take account of the planned transfer of the responsibility for anti-smuggling checks to HM Customs and Excise, will be made as soon as possible.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason UK landing cards have not been amended to reflect bio-security measures. [84168]

  Mr. Morley
  An inter-departmental 'borders' group exists to look at amendments to the immigration card. Defra asked them to consider amendments to the card to include provisions about meat imports, either in a way that would be covered by a signed declaration, or a prominent Warning Note.

  The group has also identified a number of other issues which might need to be covered in a revised version of the landing card, including other prohibitions and restrictions. No firm conclusions have yet been reached on the best way forward.

  Brucellosis
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research her Department has carried out concerning whether the Yersinia organism can affect the blood test for Brucellosis in cattle; and if she will make a statement. [86247]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 December 2002]Exposure to Yersinia enterocolitica in some cattle is known to cause cross reaction to serological tests for exposure to Brucella abortus.

  DEFRA is currently funding a brucellosis research programme which is being carried out by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) at Weybridge. This research includes a project to differentiate between serological cross reactions and other reactors identified in the surveillance of brucellosis in cattle.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) suspected and (b) confirmed cases of Brucellosis were recorded in cattle in each year since 1997; and if she will make a statement. [86248]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 December 2002]Great Britain is officially brucellosis free. An ongoing national brucellosis screening programme has identified a number of serological reactors over the years but Brucella abortus has not been isolated in any of those animals since October 1993. The numbers of serological reactors and suspect contact animals identified in each year since 1997 are as follows.434W

  Year

  Number

  1997

  16

  1998

  51

  1999

  67

  2000

  11

  2001

  20

  2002 (to date)

  18

  CHP Plant
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of how much combined heat and power plant has been(a) withdrawn and (b) created in each of the last five years. [86197]

  Mr. Morley
  A separate assessment of CHP plant withdrawn and created is not available. The net increase in Good Quality CHP electrical capacity in each of the last five years is taken from the most recent Digest of UK Energy Statistics (DUKES, 2002):

  Increase in M We

  1997

  150

  1998

  292

  1999

  239

  2000

  844

  2001

  38

  Departmental Assets
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will place in the Library a list of those assets identified by the National Asset Register, Cm 5221, as belonging to(a) the former Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions and (b) the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and their respective agencies, non-departmental bodies and public corporations, which now belong to her Department, together with the current value of each such asset. [85011]

  Margaret Beckett
  The National Asset Register (NAR) was last updated for March 2000 and published in June 2001. Our understanding is that it is updated every five years.

  Defra has a Departmental Asset Register (DAR) which lists all assets held currently for its core activities with current values. This does not include details of assets held by its agencies and NDPBs. It does include assets transferred from the former Department of Environment, Transport and Regions (DETR) to Defra in June 2001.

  With the changes to the machinery of government, to provide the information requested considerable work would have to be done on the DAR to reflect and reconcile with what was listed in the NAR Cm 5221. We would also have to request detailed lists from all of our agencies, NDPBs and public corporations of assets included in the NAR with current values.

  The compilation of the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  435W
  I will arrange for a copy of the Defra DAR, which is currently being updated to be placed in Library of the House in early January.

  Discharges into the Envrionment
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many locations there are where(a) acid and (b) other discharges from (i) mine, (ii) landfill sites, (iii) radioactive waste storage sites and (iv) animal burial mounds workings have been identified as (A) exceeding permitted levels and (B) resulting in poor river quality in nearby river courses broken down by individual sites, in each year since 1997; what action has been taken or is planned as a result; and if she will make a statement. [86411]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency is currently updating its information on mine waters, landfills and burial grounds. The agency should be able to provide a comprehensive answer by the new year, and I will write when it is available.

  However, I understand that since 1997 no radioactive discharges from radioactive waste storage sites have exceeded permitted levels or resulted in poor water quality in river courses.

  Drinking Water
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent research has been(a) conducted for her Department and (b) assessed by her Department on a potential link between drinking water and blue baby syndrome; what representations have been received; what discussions have taken place; and if she will place copies of the research in the Library. [86418]

  Mr. Morley
  The term "blue baby syndrome" is sometimes used to refer to infantile methaemoglobinaemia. This is a condition in which the pigment in the blood is altered and its ability to carry oxygen is impaired. Nitrate, nitrite and bacterial contamination of water supplies are among the potential causes. The condition is very rare—there have been no confirmed cases of methaemoglobinaemia in the UK since 1972. I am not aware of any recent reports that this condition is attributable directly to public water supplies within the United Kingdom.

  The Department is aware of the studies that have established a relationship between methaemoglobin levels and nitrate levels, but has not conducted, commissioned or assessed any recent research on the link. Discussions and review of current scientific research take place within expert groups of the World

  Government office region

  1990

  1995

  1996

  1997

  North-east region

  Total holdings

  5,243

  5,202

  5,200

  5.178

  Farmers, partners, directors and spouses

  7,895

  7,745

  7,752

  7,768

  North-west region, inc. Merseyside

  Total holdings

  18.603

  17,665

  17.533

  17,397

  Farmers, partners, directors and spouses

  27,598

  26,461

  26,412

  26,199

  Yorkshire and Humberside region

  Total holdings

  16,782

  16,195

  16,094

  16,042

  Farmers, partners, directors and spouses

  24,790

  23,896

  23,778

  23,715

  436W
  Health Organisation, who expect to finalise the third edition of its "Guidelines for Drinking Water" in February 2003. Any changes in the guidelines will be considered by the European Commission and my Department.

  The Department has received regular correspondence about the Nitrates Directive and also meets stakeholder groups. Officials have also replied to letters from or on behalf of farmers, for example from Farmers for Action, about the nitrate standard and health, including blue baby syndrome.

  English Nature
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advice her Department has issued to English Nature regarding environmental assessments necessary under the Conservation Regulations 1994 for the extraction of marl in the Fal and Helford Candidate Special Area of Conservation. [86278]

  Mr. Morley
  I believe my hon. Friend is referring to Maerl.

  Comments on the scope and process by which English Nature could offer management scheme advice was given in writing on 25 October 2000. No further advice has been issued. In the first instance it is the responsibility of competent authorities, such as the Falmouth Harbour Commissioners, to satisfy themselves that they are exercising their functions in compliance with the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations 1994.

  Environment Agency
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total budget of the Environment Agency is in 2002–03; and how this budget has changed since 1998–99. [86985]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Environment Agency's planned expenditure for 2002–03 totals £758.212 million—an increase of £165.211 million over the Agency's expenditure in 1998–99.

  Farm Businesses
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) farms and (b) farmers were in business in each region in each year since 1990. [85351]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]The number of(a) holdings and (b) farmers by region in England 1990, 1995–2001. Data for 1991–94 is currently not available by Government office region.
  437W

  Government office region

  1990

  1995

  1996

  1997

  East Midlands region

  Total holdings

  16,624

  16,256

  16,052

  15,799

  Farmers, partners, directors and spouses

  24,032

  23,406

  23,262

  23,058

  West Midlands region

  Total holdings

  19,233

  18,761

  18,847

  18,871

  Farmers, partners, directors and spouses

  27,336

  26,751

  26,971

  26,912

  East of England region

  Total holdings

  18,651

  17,716

  17,574

  17,326

  Farmers, partners, directors and spouses

  26,353

  24,883

  24,676

  24,254

  Greater London

  Total holdings

  478

  431

  418

  400

  Farmers, partners, directors and spouses

  658

  622

  593

  580

  South-east region

  Total holdings

  19,502

  18,464

  18,286

  18,161

  Farmers, partners, directors and spouses

  25,717

  24,395

  24,214

  24,050

  South-west region

  Total holdings

  35,537

  35,419

  35,634

  35,603

  Farmers, partners, directors and spouses

  50,013

  49,891

  50,149

  49,885

  Government office region

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  England

  Total holdings

  150,653

  146,109

  145,638

  144,777

  Farmers, partners, directors and spouses

  214,392

  208,050

  207,807

  206,421

  North-east region

  Total holdings

  5,144

  5,280

  5,674

  6,073

  Farmers, partners, directors and spouses

  7,829

  7,779

  8,105

  8,598

  North-west region, inc. Merseyside

  Total holdings

  17,374

  17,609

  20,492

  21,048

  Farmers, partners, directors and spouses

  26,059

  25,546

  27,538

  28,682

  Yorkshire and Humberside region

  Total holdings

  15,996

  16,204

  18,530

  19,661

  Farmers, partners, directors and spouses

  23,774

  23,289

  25,695

  27,280

  East Midlands region

  Total holdings

  15,760

  15,715

  17,754

  19,095

  Farmers, partners, directors and spouses

  22,631

  21,925

  23,839

  25,433

  West Midlands region

  Total holdings

  18,903

  19,161

  22,281

  23,247

  Farmers, partners, directors and spouses

  26,796

  26,312

  29,524

  31,076

  East of England region

  Total holdings

  17,224

  17,064

  19,357

  21,054

  Farmers, partners, directors and spouses

  23,844

  22,934

  25,870

  27,325

  Greater London

  Total holdings

  399

  402

  424

  434

  Farmers, partners, directors and spouses

  538

  491

  520

  543

  South-east region

  Total holdings

  18,645

  18,921

  20,937

  22,461

  Farmers, partners, directors and spouses

  23,683

  23,376

  25,642

  27,673

  South-west region

  Total holdings

  35,648

  36,864

  42,406

  44,861

  Farmers, partners, directors and spouses

  49,383

  48,651

  54,198

  57,218

  England

  Total holdings

  145,093

  147,220

  167,855

  177,934

  Farmers, partners, directors and spouses

  204,537

  200,303

  220,931

  233,828

  Notes:

  Figures for 2000 and 2001 include minor holdings.

  Spouses are included only if working on the holdings.

  Between 2000 and 2001 a register improvement exercise took place which resulted in the addition of holdings not previously included in the Census. An increase in the number of holdings was also seen after the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak.

  Source:

  June Agricultural and Horticultural Census.
  438W 439W

  Farmers
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 20 November 2002,Official Report, column 159W, on farmers, what the average age of farmers was in (a) 1990, (b) 1993, (c) 1995, (d) 1997 and (e) 2000 broken down by .(i) sex, (ii) whether they were owners or tenants and (iii) whether they were full or part time. [85390]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]Pursuant to the answer given to the hon. Gentleman on 20 November, further information on the average age of farmers in England, broken down by the categories requested, is given in the table.

  1990

  1993

  1995

  1997

  2000

  England

  Gender

  Male

  53

  53

  54

  53

  54

  Female

  55

  54

  55

  54

  55

  Land tenure

  Own all land

  53

  54

  55

  54

  55

  Rent all land

  52

  52

  52

  52

  52

  Part owned/part rented

  53

  53

  54

  53

  53

  Working time

  Full-time

  53

  53

  53

  53

  53

  Part-time

  53

  53

  54

  53

  54

  Source:

  EC Farm Structure Surveys.

  Fisheries
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the aquis communautaire on fisheries will be fully implemented by Poland on the first day of her accession to the European Union. [85511]

  Mr. Morley
  Negotiation of the Fisheries Chapter was provisionally closed with Poland in June 2002. In the negotiations Poland fully accepted, and undertook to implement by the date of accession, the aquis communautaire for fisheries. Agreement on access to resources and catch quotas for all candidates is currently under discussion.

  Flood Cover
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to his answer of 3 December 2002, Ref: 84186, on flood cover, what actions she is taking to ensure that those homes who will not get continued provision of flood insurance get cover; and how many homes the Association of British Insurers has told the Government will not continue to be provided with flood insurance. [85969]

  Mr. Morley
  The Association of British Insurers (ABI) have advised us that, for those homes unprotected to their minimum standard and unlikely to be so by 2007, they will consider each case on an individual basis using their best efforts to provide some form of cover. The ABI has not given the Government any specific figures relating to numbers of homes which will not continue to be provided with flood insurance.

  Flood Defence Committees
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what powers the Flood Defence Committee has to add items to the budget of the Environment Agency. [86222]

  Mr. Morley
  The Flood Defence Committees' budgets are separately identified within the overall budget of the Environment Agency. Each Committee sets its own budget for the year based on its programme of works, and contributes towards the general cost of running the Environment Agency's Flood Defence service.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many flood defence committees there are in England and Wales. [86219]

  Mr. Morley
  There are nine Regional Flood Defence Committees in England and one in Wales. There are statutory Local Flood Defence Committees in Anglian, Southern and Wessex Regions and in Wales. In the North West region there are three non-statutory advisory committees.

  All committees are listed below:

  1. Anglian Region
  Local committees (5): Lincolnshire, Welland and Nene, Great Ouse, Norfolk and Suffolk, Essex.

  2. Northumbrian Region
  No local committees.

  3. North West Region
  Non statutory advisory committees (3): Cumberland, Lancashire, Mersey and Weaver.

  4. Severn Trent Region
  No local committees.

  5. Southern Region
  Local committees (3): Isle of Wight and Hampshire, Sussex, Kent.

  6. South West Region
  No local committees.

  7. Thames Region
  No local committees.

  8. Wessex Region
  Local committees (3): Bristol Avon, Somerset, Avon and Devon.

  9. Yorkshire Region
  No local committees.

  10. Wales
  Local committees (6): Dee and Clywd, Gwynedd, South West Wales, Wye, Usk, Glamorgan.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidelines have been set for appointments by her to flood defence committees; and how many on the committees she appoints. [86223]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend appoints the Chairman and a number of members to each of the English Regional Flood Defence Committees (RFDCs). Sections 15–19 of, and Schedules 4 and 5 to, the
  441W
  Environment Act 1995 set out the statutory basis for these appointments and the rules concerning composition of the committees.

  RFDCs vary in size but always contain a bare majority of persons appointed by local authorities. The Environment Agency appoints two members and my right hon. Friend appoints the Chairman and the remaining members one of whom is normally appointed to represent environmental and conservation interests. When making these appointments, my right hon. Friend adheres to guidance issued by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

  My right hon. Friend does not make appointments to Local Flood Defence Committees. The Chair is appointed from among the RFDC members; other members are appointed by the RFDC and constituent local authorities again to form a bare majority.

  The composition of each RFDC is as follows:

  Anglian RFDC:
  One Chairman and six members (Defra appointed)
  Two members (Environment Agency appointed)
  10 members (Local Authority appointed)

  Northumbria RFDC:
  One Chairman and five members (Defra appointed)
  Two members (Environment Agency appointed)
  Nine members (Local Authority appointed)

  North West RFDC:
  One Chairman and four members (Defra appointed)
  Two members (Environment Agency appointed)
  Eight members (Local Authority appointed)

  Severn Trent RFDC:
  One Chairman and seven members (Defra appointed)
  Two members (Environment Agency appointed)
  11 members (Local Authority appointed)

  Southern RFDC:
  One Chairman and five members (Defra appointed)
  Two members (Environment Agency appointed)
  Nine members (Local Authority appointed)

  South West RFDC:
  One Chairman and five members (Defra appointed)
  Two members (Environment Agency appointed)
  Nine members (Local Authority appointed)

  Thames RFDC:
  One Chairman and eight members (Defra appointed)
  Two members (Environment Agency appointed)
  12 members (Local Authority appointed)

  Wessex RFDC:
  One Chairman and four members (Defra appointed)
  Two members (Environment Agency appointed)
  Eight members (Local Authority appointed)

  Yorkshire RFDC:
  One Chairman and three members (Defra appointed)
  Two members (Environment Agency appointed)
  Seven members (Local Authority appointed)

  Floods
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many 442W
  organisations coordinate control of particular areas of high risk from flooding in conjunction with non-governmental organisations; and if she will make a statement. [86220]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra has policy responsibility for flood and coastal defence in England. Operational responsibility for flooding from main rivers and the sea rests with the Environment Agency. The Agency is also responsible for flood warning arrangements and exercises a general supervision over all matters relating to flood defence. Operational responsibility for flooding from ordinary watercourses rests with the relevant local authority or, in areas where they exist, the relevant internal drainage board. Emergency planning arrangements are the responsibility of the local authority.

  The responsibilities for flood and coastal defence are currently being reviewed along with the funding arrangements. I expect to make an announcement in the new year.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what alternative plans there are to the sluice for Bridgwater and the Parrett for the protection of Bridgwater and the surrounding area from flooding. [86226]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra provides grant to local operating authorities for flood defence capital works that meet certain criteria. However responsibility for deciding which projects to promote and their timing rests with the operating authorities, in this case the Environment Agency.

  I understand that the Agency is undertaking studies into viable options for flood management measures for Bridgwater but as yet they have not submitted any proposals to Defra for grant aid.

  Illegal Imports
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she is taking to inform(a) residents and (b) visitors to the UK of the rule change on 1 January regarding the personal import allowances for animal products from their countries. [86577]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 December 2002]We will provide information on the new rules for personal imports as part of our ongoing campaign to highlight to travellers the risks posed by illegal imports. This campaign has already used a variety of methods, including posters, leaflets, information videos, and interviews. Future publicity highlights include having a Defra presence at "Destinations 2003" and "The Holiday Show 2003". Our publicity campaign remains under constant review.

  Specifically to highlight the new rules, the poster detailing the personal allowances for personal imports of plant and animal products is being updated. It will be displayed at ports of entry into the UK and aimed at travellers arriving from outside the EU.

  We are continuing to work with our posts and embassies abroad to raise awareness of our import rules at points of departure.
  443W
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many seizures of illegal imports there were, broken down by(a) weight and (b) region in each of the last five years. [86578]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 December 2002]: A central database of illegal animal product seizures notified to DEFRA was set up in April 2001.

  From 31 March 2001 to 30 March 2002

  Region

  Number of seizures

  Weight (kg)

  England

  2,040

  113,082

  Wales

  2

  13

  Scotland

  10

  50

  Northern Ireland

  14

  28

  Total

  2,066

  113,173

  From 31 March 2002 to 6 December 2002

  Region

  Number of seizures

  Weight (kg)

  England

  2,042

  29,707

  Wales

  4

  23

  Scotland

  155

  595

  Northern Ireland

  168

  1,386

  Total

  2,369

  31,711

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 26 November 2002,Official Report, column 230W, which regions have been targeted for additional checks on passenger baggage and freight for illegal imports. [86613]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 December 2002]: Additional checks are being carried out by teams at three major seaports and two airports. One of these teams will also operate at other airports around the country.

  Specific details of staff and ports of operation could benefit potential smugglers, so we cannot make public this information.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 26 November 2002,Official Report, column 237W, how many seizures of illegal imports of animal products in commercial consignments and personal baggage have been carried out under Regulation 8 of the Products of Animal Origin (Third Country Imports) (England) Regulations 2002 since 22 May 2002. [86614]

  Region

  Inert/C&D

  Biodegradable

  Co-disposal

  Total

  East of England

  9,412

  26,527

  65,391

  101,330

  East Midlands

  14,167

  15,810

  41,802

  71,779

  London

  3,949

  15,303

  358

  19,610

  North East

  200

  15,958

  23,015

  39,173

  North West

  12,712

  6,255

  57,860

  76,827

  South East

  18,706

  63,539

  33,184

  115,429

  South West Wales1

  8,221

  19,839

  21,319

  49,379

  West Midlands

  8,178

  13,805

  55,754

  77,737

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  8,473

  32,384

  43,431

  84,288

  National total

  84,018

  209,420

  342,114

  635,552

  444W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 December 2002]: There have been 2,087 seizures of products of animal origin reported to us by the enforcement agencies since 22 May 2002.

  Of these, 1,903 were in personal baggage, with a total weight of 16,598 kg, and 184 were in commercial consignments, with a total weight of 12,533 kg.

  Landfill
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of costs incurred by the Environment Agency in respect of landfill inspections were covered by charges levied, in the most recent year for which figures are available. [85844]

  Mr. Meacher
  100 per cent. of landfill inspection costs are covered through charges.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the(a) number and (b) total size was of landfill sites in the United Kingdom broken down by region, in each year since 1995. [85891]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 11 December 2002]: The number of landfill sites in England and Wales is provided in the table. Data on the numbers of sites before 2000 are not readily available because the Environment Agency used to collect information on the number of licences rather than number of sites (a site could have several licences). Data are not available for Scotland or Northern Ireland.

  2002–03

  2001–02

  2000–01

  Anglian

  151

  171

  224

  Midlands

  166

  201

  294

  North East

  186

  216

  255

  North West

  114

  126

  153

  South West

  100

  113

  132

  Southern

  78

  101

  123

  Thames

  98

  110

  111

  Wales

  68

  81

  91

  Grand total

  961

  1,119

  1,383

  The following tables provide a breakdown, by Government Office region, of landfill capacity in 1998–99. Landfill capacity covers two types—open gate (open to anyone) and restricted access (usually in-house landfills for the private use of a single company). Similar figures for 2000–01 will be available shortly on the Agency's website once data have been quality assured. These data are based on surveys carried out every two years. The first survey was not commissioned until 1998.
  445W

  Region

  Degradable

  Cap&Cover

  Inputs

  Life expectancy

  East of England

  91,918

  36,767.2

  9509

  4.8

  East Midlands

  57,612

  23,044.8

  3,678

  7.8

  London

  15,661

  6,264.4

  1,234

  6.3

  North East

  38,973

  15,589.2

  2,206

  8.8

  North West

  64,115

  25,646.0

  6,437

  5.0

  South East

  96,723

  38,689.2

  7.306

  6.6

  South West

  41,158

  16,463.2

  3.669

  5.6

  Wales1

  35,926

  14,370.4

  2,643

  6.8

  West Midlands

  69,559

  27,823.6

  4,026

  8.6

  Yorkshire & the Number

  75,815

  30,326.0

  5,439

  7.0

  National total

  587,460

  234,984

  46,147

  6.4

  1Information split not available—total Wales landfill capacity 52.619,000 cubic metres

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) complaints, (b) court actions and (c) fines against landfill sites for problems related to (i) odours, (ii) water pollutions, (iii) air pollution and (iv) human health impact there were in each year since 1995, broken down by region. [85894]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 11 December 2002]: The data are not available in the form requested. Environment Agency reports have been collated centrally since April 2001 and so annual data are not available before this date. The following tables show the number of incidents broken down into impacts on water, land and air, and by region for the period April 2001 to March 2002. No specific record of impact on health is kept. It should be noted that each incident can be recorded as having an impact on more than one media. Therefore, adding records for impacts on single media will involve some double counting.

  Region

  Cat1 (major)

  Cat2 (significant)

  Cat3 (minor)

  Cat4 (no impact)

  Water impact

  Anglian

  0

  0

  9

  142

  Wales

  0

  0

  15

  239

  Midlands

  0

  2

  8

  119

  North East

  0

  2

  9

  169

  North West

  0

  0

  19

  1,105

  South West

  0

  0

  8

  77

  Southern

  0

  1

  15

  188

  Thames

  0

  1

  7

  73

  Total

  0

  6

  90

  2,112

  Land impact

  Anglian

  0

  9

  51

  91

  Wales

  0

  3

  15

  236

  Midlands

  0

  1

  26

  102

  North East

  0

  13

  50

  117

  North West

  0

  2

  36

  1,086

  South West

  0

  1

  24

  60

  Southern

  0

  3

  22

  179

  Thames

  0

  3

  23

  55

  Total

  0

  35

  247

  1,926

  Air impact

  Anglian

  0

  8

  86

  57

  Wales

  0

  7

  209

  38

  Midlands

  0

  2

  91

  36

  North East

  0

  15

  89

  76

  North West

  0

  196

  868

  60

  South West

  0

  2

  54

  29

  Southern

  0

  11

  159

  34

  Thames

  0

  3

  51

  27

  Total

  0

  244

  1,607

  357

  446W
  In relation to court action and fines, data are available from 1999 from the National Enforcement Database.

  Region

  Year

  Number of court actions

  Number of fines

  Total fines £

  Midlands

  1999

  5

  12

  16,250

  2000

  2

  8

  88,500

  North East

  2000

  3

  4

  16,750

  North West

  2000

  1

  3

  35,000

  2001

  1

  1

  3,000

  2002

  1

  3

  17,000

  EA Wales

  2000

  2

  3

  23,000

  2001

  3

  4

  14,500

  Anglian

  2002

  1

  4

  60,000

  South West

  2002

  1

  2

  2,500

  Litter
  Mr. Peter Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans the Government have to extend the new biodegradable carrier bag incentives to include other plastics. [86021]

  Mr. Meacher
  I am not aware of any incentive scheme aimed at biodegradable plastic carrier bags.

  Farmgate and Retail
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average(a) farmgate and (b) retail price is of (i) one kilogram of (A) beef, (B) lamb, (C) pork, (D) chicken, (E) turkey, (F) bacon, (G) dessert apples, (H) potatoes, (I) tomatoes, (J) cauliflower and (K) peas, (ii) one pint of (A) milk, (B) cream, (C) yoghurt, (iii) one dozen eggs and (iv) one litre of (A) English wine and (B) brandy, distinguishing between (1) organic and (2) conventionally produced foodstuffs in each case. [85349]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]: The farmgate and retail prices of conventionally grown foodstuffs, where available, are shown in table 1. Prices are not collected for English wine or brandy. Small quantities of cream and yogurt are sold at the farmgate direct to consumers at retail prices. The amount of processing taking place between farmgate and retail varies from commodity to commodity; an indication is given in the table. Farm gate prices include produce destined for highly processed food, which is normally lower quality and sells at a lower price.
  447W
  Limited information is available on prices of organically produced food. Indications of current farm gate prices are shown in table 2, where available, as

  Table 1: conventionally grown produce

  £

  Produce

  £ per

  Farmgate value

  Retail value

  Indication of further processing

  Beef1

  Kg

  1.70

  3.84

  Slaughtered, trimmed and cut

  Lamb1

  Kg

  2.36

  4.84

  Slaughtered, trimmed and cut

  Pork1

  Kg

  0.94

  2.26

  Slaughtered, trimmed and cut

  Chicken2

  Kg

  0.68

  2.24

  Slaughtered

  Turkey3

  Kg

  1.16

  —

  —

  Bacon1

  Kg

  0.96

  3.54

  Slaughtered, trimmed, cut and cured

  Apples, dessert4

  Kg

  0.38

  1.22

  Packing and grading where off farm

  Potatoes5

  Kg

  0.09

  0.50

  Packing and grading where off farm

  Tomatoes4

  Kg

  0.73

  1.43

  Packing and grading where off farm

  Cauliflower4

  Kg

  0.23

  0.68

  Packing and grading where off farm

  Peas3

  Kg

  0.57

  —

  —

  Milk4

  Pint

  0.10

  0.37

  Pasteurised, bottled and delivered

  Eggs2

  Dozen

  0.54

  1.64

  Packing and grading where off farm

  1Farmgate and retail prices provided by the Meat and Livestock Commission, average of January to September 2002.

  2Retail prices provided by the ONS, average of Janaury to October 2002.

  3Retail prices not available from the ONS.

  4Retail prices from DEFRA's aggregate agricultural account, estimates for 2001–02 crop year.

  5Retail prices from the expenditure and food survey.

  Table 2: organically grown produce

  £

  Produce

  £per

  Farmgate value

  Beef

  Kg

  2.20–2.30

  Lamb

  Kg

  2.50–2.60

  Pork

  Kg

  1.90–2.10

  Chicken1

  Kg

  2.22

  Turkey

  Kg

  —

  Bacon

  Kg

  —

  Apples, dessert

  Kg

  0.90–1.10

  Potatoes

  Kg

  0.25–0.30

  Tomatoes

  Kg

  —

  Cauliflower

  Kg

  20.40–0.50

  Peas

  Kg

  2.51

  Milk3

  Pint

  0.18

  Cream

  Pint

  —

  Yoghurt

  Pint

  —

  Eggs

  Dozen

  1.20–1.50

  1Calculated from an average weight of 2.25 kg per chicken.

  2Head.

  3Price for milk sold as organic, does not include organic milk that is sold in the conventional market.

  Nitrates
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what average level of nitrates there has been(a) within river courses and (b) in drinking water in the United Kingdom in each year since 1990, broken down by river course, type and region. [86407]

  Mr. Morley
  Responsibility for Scotland and Wales falls to the relevant devolved administrations.

  (a) Nitrate levels in river courses in England and Northern Ireland

  England: The Environment Agency monitors nitrate levels in rivers in England as part of the General Quality Assessment (GQA) network. Average annual nitrate
  448W
  provided by the Soil Association. There are no retail prices available.

  levels are published each year and regional breakdowns are available from the Environment Agency. Detailed data can be obtained via www.environmentagency.gov.uk. The recent Environment Agency publication "Rivers and Estuaries: a decade of improvement" contains details of the latest GQA nutrient monitoring data. This is available from the Environment Agency on 08459 333111 and from www.environment-agency.gov.uk/yourenv/eff/water/213902/river_qual/24904/?lang=_e&region.

  Northern Ireland: Since the early 1990s the Department for Environment's Agency the Environment and Heritage Service has monitored nitrate levels on a monthly basis at approximately 260 river sites throughout Northern Ireland. In the period 1990 to 2001, a total of 45,109 samples have been analysed for nitrate and 13 samples (0.03 per cent.) have failed the 50mg NO3/L standard laid down in the EC Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC).

  (b) Nitrate levels in drinking water in England and Northern Ireland

  The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 set a maximum standard for nitrate in drinking water at 50 milligrams per litre. This standard remains the same within the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2000, which come into force on 25 December 2003.

  England: It is not possible to give a breakdown of nitrate in drinking water by river course and region. The percentage of tests which failed to meet the nitrate standard within England and Wales has fallen from 2.8 in 1990 to 0.08 in 2000. In 2001 there was a small rise in the percentage of tests failing to 0.38. This is linked to the occurrence of nitrate being found in groundwater supplies, as a result of pollution from long term agricultural runoff.

  The table shows the data in each of the years.

  449W

  Year

  Percentage contravening the standard

  1990

  2.8

  1991

  2.8

  1992

  1.9

  1993

  0.9

  1994

  0.8

  1995

  0.4

  1996

  0.1

  1997

  0.04

  1998

  0.05

  1999

  0.06

  2000

  0.08

  2001

  0.38

  Where there has been a contravention of a standard which is not trivial and is likely to recur, the Drinking Water inspectorate requires the water company concerned to give a legally binding undertaking to take remedial action to achieve compliance. In the case of nitrate the simplest option is to blend the high nitrate containing water with low nitrate containing water, if available. Otherwise more complex treatment is needed.

  Northern Ireland: Between 1 October 1994 (when Northern Ireland's Water Quality Regulations came into force) and the end of 2001 the nitrate standard in drinking water supplies was contravened on 16 occasions out of a total of 5,873 tests. The number and percentage of tests failing in each year is given in the following table.

  The contraventions in 1998 occurred in one water supply zone. Blending action was taken to achieve compliance thereafter.

  Year

  Number of tests

  Percentage contravening the standard

  1995

  1,216

  0.00

  1996

  851

  0.12

  1997

  809

  0.12

  1998

  746

  1.88

  1999

  777

  0.00

  2000

  732

  0.00

  2001

  742

  0.00

  Poultry Industry
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of third world imports on the UK poultry industry; and what recent meetings she has had with the National Farmers Union and representatives of the poultry industry to discuss this. [84601]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: In common with other EU countries, the UK imports substantial quantities of poultry meat from third countries, particularly as a source of raw material for further processing. UK poultry producers therefore face significant competition from third country supplies.

  I have had no recent meetings with the National Farmers Union on this issue. My most recent meeting with the poultry industry was on 3 December 2002, when I attended the annual awards ceremony of the
  450W
  Breeders and Hatcheries Sector Group of the British Poultry Council. Third country imports was one of the issues referred to at that event.

  Organic Oilseed Rape
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the separation distances are between GM and non-GM or organic oilseed rape. [86611]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 10 December 2002]: Separation distances have been applied to the Farm Scale Evaluation GM crop trials under the terms of a code of practice drawn up by the farming and industry body SCIMAC (Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops). The following distances have applied in respect of oilseed rape:

  Metres

  Separation distance in SCIMAC code where neighbouring oilseed rape crop is.

  Conventionally grown

  Organic

  Oilseed rape variety:

  conventional varieties and restored hybrids

  50

  200

  Varietal associations and partially restored hybrids

  100

  200

  Parrett Catchment Project
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what power the Chairman of the Parrett catchment project has to assist in setting the budget of the Environment Agency. [86224]

  Mr. Morley
  The Parrett catchment project is an independent body. It is a local stakeholder group aiming to help the Environment Agency and others to direct investment in appropriate flood management and other measures to benefit the Parrett catchment area. This project has no part in setting budgets of the Environment Agency. Budgets for Environment Agency flood defence programmes are agreed by statutory Flood Defence Committees, including the Local Flood Defence Committee, which Mr. Humphrey Temperley also chairs. This is a separate role to his position as Chair of the Parrett catchment project.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidelines she follows on the reappointment of the Chairman of the Parrett catchment project when his term is ended. [86225]

  Mr. Morley
  The Parrett catchment project is an independent body, as advised in my reply to the hon. Member's previous questions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no role in the appointment or reappointment of the Chairman of this project.

  Pesticides
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the
  451W
  (a) volume by weight and (b) total value of the export from the United Kingdom of pesticides produced in the United Kingdom, broken down by those which are (i) legal and (ii) illegal to use within the United Kingdom in each year since 1990. [86419]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs does not hold any details in respect of the export of pesticides from Great Britain as such information is not required for the regulation of pesticides in this country.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what regulations control United Kingdom companies'(a) production and (b) export of pesticides which would be classified as illegal to use within the European Union; what recent changes have taken place and are planned to these regulations; and if she will make a statement. [86420]

  Mr. Morley
  The United Kingdom's pesticide legislation does not extend to the manufacture of pesticides or to those pesticides intended solely for exportation from the United Kingdom. The fact that a pesticide may not be approved in this country does not, in itself, prevent companies from selling such products in another country. The product would, of course, have to comply with the other country's own legislation.

  The Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure (PIC) for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade, among other things, gives importing countries the choice to decide which hazardous chemicals they receive and exclude. At present the Convention covers 22 'banned' pesticides.

  European Community Regulation 2455/92 concerning the export and import of dangerous chemicals provides for export notification procedures for other restricted substances and pesticides. Negotiations on a replacement for this regulation are in the final stages. I welcome these proposals which, as well as increasing the number of chemicals covered by the regulation, will also enable the European Community to approve the Rotterdam Convention and all member states to legally ratify it.

  Recycling
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason she estimates the percentage of glass recycled decreased last year. [85837]

  Mr. Meacher
  Most of the glass recovered for recycling is in packaging. The tonnages of glass packaging waste recycled in the UK in the last few years show an upward trend, rather than a decrease. The figures are as follows:

  Number

  1998

  503,800

  1999

  582,577

  2000

  715,037

  2001

  735,594

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many 452W
  (a) mobile phones and (b) printer cartridges were (i) recycled, (ii) reused overseas and (iii) disposed of within the UK waste stream in each year since 1990; [85852]

  (2) what research has been conducted (a) by and (b) for her Department relating to the recycling and reuse of (i) mobile phones and (ii) printer cartridges. [85854]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 11 December 2002]: There are no accurate figures on the number of mobile phones discarded in the UK, although it is estimated that around 15 million are replaced each year. An independent consumer survey carried out as part of a pilot study in 1997 for 'Mobile Take Back UK' shows that in the UK very few phones are actually discarded. The majority of people keep old phones, give them to relatives, or store them for emergency use. However, a number of schemes are now collecting mobile phones for refurbishment and recycling. A certain number of refurbished phones are also sold to eastern Europe, Asia and Africa where there is a strong second hand market.

  Approximately 40 million printer cartridges are sold annually. Remanufactured supplier cartridges account for between 15–20 per cent. of the sector.

  No research has been done to date either by or for the Department on the recycling and reuse of mobile phones and printer cartridges.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to increase funding for local authority recycling schemes. [86284]

  Mr. Meacher
  The 2002 Spending Review increased the local authority Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services (EPCS) spending block, which includes waste management. EPCS spending will increase by £671 million by 2005–06.

  Over the same period, Defra has been allocated £355 million of future PFI credits for waste projects. This is around 60 per cent. more than the provision in SR2000. We will use these funds to help local authorities increase their recycling levels.

  The 112 schemes that were approved in the first round of the ring-fenced National Waste Minimisation and Recycling Fund of £140 million for local authority recycling are now receiving funding and being put into action. A further 142 schemes have now been successful in the second round of bidding with funding amounting to 76.3 million next year.

  In addition to these funds, following the publication of the report on waste by the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit, a ministerial group has been formed to take forward their recommendations, specifically including those relating to funding for waste.

  Sewage
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the sites in the United Kingdom where untreated sewage is disposed of at sea from(a) short outfall pipes, (b) long outfall pipes and (c) shipping; what assessment of water quality has been made in each case; and what plans there are to strengthen treatment. [85847]
  453W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 December 2002]: The question as it relates to Scotland and Wales is a matter for the devolved Administrations. For England and Northern Ireland the position is as follows.

  Sewage discharges from land to coastal waters

  Through our implementation of the requirements of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) significant improvements have and are being made to raise standards of sewage treatment. For example, as at 31 October 2002, 99 per cent. of sewage

  Discharge name

  Outfall length

  Water quality situation

  Treatment expected (primary and secondary)

  Bangor (NI)

  Short

  Regular passes of mandatory standard

  December 2008

  Brighton (E)

  Long

  Regular passes of mandatory and guidelines standards

  June 2007

  Donaghadee (NI)

  Short

  No identified impact ors receiving waters

  December 2008

  Hastings and Bexhill (E)

  Long

  Regular passes of mandatory and guidelines standards

  March 2003

  Lame (Sandy Bay) (NI)

  Short

  Regular passes of mandatory standard-although failed in 2002

  September 2005

  Margate and Broadstairs (E)

  Long

  Regular passes of mandatory and guidelines standards

  March 2006

  Portrush (NI)

  Short

  Regular passes of mandatory standard

  December 2008

  Torquay (E)

  Short

  Regular passes of mandatory and guidelines standards

  Early 2004

  As required by the directive we expected, by 31 December 2005, to provide secondary treatment for two discharges in Northern Ireland from communities with over 10,000 inhabitants, and appropriate treatment for 19 discharges below this threshold.

  In England it is Government policy that all coastal discharges from communities with more that 2,000 inhabitants receive a minimum of secondary treatment. Consequently 20 discharges above this threshold are to receive this by 31 December 2005, and a further 22 below this threshold are to receive appropriate treatment.

  Sewage discharges from shipping

  The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78) has an Annex on Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Sewage from Ships. Although the UK ratified this Annex in 1995, it was not until 27 September 2002 that the entry into force requirements were met at the International Maritime Organisation. The UK has 12 months from that date to implement legislation bringing it into force.

  The legislation will apply to new ships of 400 gross tonnage and above; new ships of less than 400 tonnage which are certified to carry more than 15 persons; existing ships of 400 gross tonnage and above, five years after the date of entry into force of the Annex and existing ships of less than 400 gross tonnage which are certified to carry more than 15 persons, five years after the date of entry into force of the Annex.

  Under the regulations, sewage can be discharged from ships using a treatment plant anywhere. Ships using a comminuting and disinfecting system can only discharge sewage more than three nautical miles from land. Sewage from a holding tank can only be discharged 12 nautical miles from land, at a moderate rate and when the ship is travelling at a speed of four knots or over. States can opt for less stringent discharge requirements in waters under their jurisdiction.
  454W
  discharges (539 of 544) from treatment works serving over 15,000 people in England received primary and secondary treatment.

  The following table sets out the untreated discharges from communities with over 15,000 inhabitants in England and Northern Ireland, the length of their outfalls, an assessment of water quality (against the mandatory and guideline standards of the Bathing Waters Directive), and expected date for provision of primary and secondary treatment. These dates are dependent on the resolution of planning and/or funding issues.

  Snowfall
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the historical data which she collates on snowfall; and what the predicted future annual number of days when there is snowfall are for(a) London and (b) Edinburgh in (i) 2010, (ii) 2020, (iii) 2030 and (iv) 2050. [86408]

  Mr. Meacher
  Defra does not collate historical data on snowfall. However, the Met Office, which is an agency of the Ministry of Defence, records daily snowfall frequency and amount at 80 stations in the UK. Most of these records go back to 1971. In April this year, the Department published new climate change scenarios for the UK. These scenarios include information on total winter snowfall amounts, but not number of snowfall days. The scenarios show that snowfall in the London and Edinburgh areas could be reduced by between 55 and 90 per cent. by the 2080s (compared to the 1961–90 baseline), depending on the degree of future climate change. Scaling these figures back to the years in question gives the following estimates of the reduction in snowfall amount at both locations, depending on whether there is a low or high degree of climate change:

  Year

  Percentage reduction

  2010

  17–30

  2020

  22–38

  2030

  27–47

  2050

  37–65

  These figures represent general trends, not predictions of the amount of snowfall in specific years, which will be greatly influenced by natural year-to-year variability, particularly in the first few decades of the century. Further information is available in the full report in the Libraries of both Houses.
  455W
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of the predicted changes in the frequency of the number of days when there is snowfall in the United Kingdom under future scenarios of climate change, including regional variations. [86412]

  Mr. Meacher
  In April this year, the Department published new "Climate Change Scenarios for the UK". The scenarios do not contain an analysis of the changes in the number of snowfall days, but show that climate change will cause the amount of snowfall to decline significantly throughout the UK in the future. By the 2080s, large areas of the UK are likely to experience quite long sequences of snowless winters. Coastal areas and the English lowlands are likely to show the largest percentage reductions (up to 90 per cent. or more by the 2080s compared to 1961–90 baseline), while the Scottish Highlands and parts of Northern Ireland may experience smaller percentage reductions (50 per cent. or less).

  Further information is available in the full report in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Timber Procurement
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the joint guidance issued by DEFRA and Her Majesty's Treasury, through the Office of Government Commerce, on Environmental Issues in Purchasing has been updated to take account of Government requirements that all timber purchased by Departments comes from legal and sustainable sources; and if she will make a statement. [83929]

  Mr. Meacher
  OGC and Defra have agreed to revise their joint note on "Environmental issues in procurement" to reflect the Commission's interpretative communications on environmental and social issues and other developments such as the new EC procurement directive. It will also refer to new initiatives such as the Government's committed aim to procure its timber and timber products from legal and sustainably managed sources. Advice on the timber procurement strategy is currently given in Section 3 of the Green Guide for Buyers which, with other advice, is on the "Sustainable Development in Government" website. URL: development.gov.uk/sdig/improving/contextf.htm.

  This will also be updated. My officials have also provided Departments with a model specification clause for inclusion in contracts for timber procurement.

  Turkey Producers
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has of the UK production of turkeys in the last five years. [84109]

  Mr. Morley
  UK turkey meat production over the last five years is as follows.456W

  Tonnes

  1997

  293,000

  1998

  294,000

  1999

  267,000

  2000

  255,000

  2001

  254,000

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with turkey producers trade associations about the likely UK turkey production for the next 12 months. [84110]

  Mr. Morley
  I have had no discussions with turkey producers on this issue.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which recent EU directives affect domestic turkey production. [84111]

  Mr. Morley
  The principal regulation covering EU turkey production is Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2777/75 (as amended) which establishes the common organisation of the poultry meat market. Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1906/90 and Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 1538/91 (both as amended) implement harmonised standards for trade and quality.

  Turkey producers also have to meet the requirements of relevant horizontal legislation on a number of other issues including welfare, slaughter and feed.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement about the availability of free-range, domestic and organically produced turkeys for Christmas 2002. [84112]

  Mr. Morley
  I expect there to be adequate supplies of turkey to meet consumer demand. The Christmas market is important to the turkey industry and accounts for nearly 40 per cent. of the 36 million turkeys produced each year. Most of the turkeys in the UK are reared indoors. Around 1.5 million turkeys are reared for Christmas as traditional farm fresh. Only 1 per cent. of the UK's annual turkey production is either free-range or organically produced.

  Waste
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the(a) environmental and (b) financial implications of (i) waste incineration, (ii) landfill dumping and (iii) recycling of household waste. [85329]

  Mr. Meacher
  The waste hierarchy set out in 'Waste Strategy 2000' (from reduction, through re-use, recycling, composting, and energy recovery to disposal to landfill) sets out the broad relative environmental implications of the different approaches to waste.

  In deciding which form of treatment or disposal to adopt in each case, decision makers need to take account of what is the Best Practicable Environmental Option. The costs and environmental impact of both the facility and the associated transport of waste can vary greatly in each case.
  457W
  However, the general position on the costs of each option was taken into account by the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit in the recent report on waste. In response to that, the Government have already announced that they will consult on increasing the landfill tax to £35 per tonne for active wastes.

  The Pre-Budget Report 2002 announced the Government's intention to commission a review of the environmental and health effects of all waste management and disposal options, including incineration. The case for using economic instruments for incineration will be considered in light of this work and in consultation with other stakeholders.

  Water Quality
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment has been conducted by(a) her Department and (b) the Environment Agency of the risk to river water quality from discharges from (i) abandoned mine workings, (ii) landfill sites, (iii) radioactive waste storage sites and (iv) animal burial mounds; and if she will make a statement. [86409]

  Mr. Morley
  (i) The Environment Agency and the Department hold a database of discharges from abandoned mines, with those presenting the greatest risk to the environment on an agreed "priority listing".

  (ii) A full assessment of pollution risks and the preventative measures needed to protect surface waters is made when waste management licence applications are considered under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) (1990) Pt II, and under the Pollution Prevention Control (PPC) Act (2000). The agency has recently begun a programme of work under the EU Landfill Directive to review all operating landfill sites.

  (iii) The agency has not carried out any assessments of risks to river quality from sites at which radioactive waste is stored. However, the agency undertakes an extensive programme of monitoring for radioactivity in the environment and would carry out a specific assessment of a particular site if this monitoring, or any other information, indicated cause for concern. For example, the principal site for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste is the Drigg site in Cumbria. The agency recently required BNFL to submit radiological assessments for the site, which indicated that the levels of risks generally meet current regulatory requirements and that the site can be operated safely for the foreseeable future. The agency is carrying out an independent appraisal of the BNFL assessment.

  (iv) The agency recently undertook a specific water quality monitoring programme at selected farm-burial sites which has now been handed over to DEFRA. DEFRA also undertakes water quality monitoring of surface and groundwater at all mass burial sites. The agency continues to audit and monitor water quality at all its routine monitoring points.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the(a) European Directives and (b) other regulations under which pollution to rivers from
  458W
  discharges from (i) abandoned mine workings, (ii) landfill sites, (iii) radioactive waste storage sites and (iv) animal burial mounds are covered. [86410]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency and the Department hold a database of discharges regulation of discharges to controlled waters is exercised through the following measures:

  (i) From abandoned mine workings, The Mines (Notice of Abandonment) Regulations 1998 under the Water Resources Act 1991, as amended by the Environment Act 1995.

  (ii) From landfill sites, Waste Framework Directive 1975 (75/442/EEC), as amended by 1991 (91/156/EEC) and Council Directive 1999/31/EC on the Landfill of Waste, Implemented in England and Wales by the Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002 No. 1559).

  (iii) There are no directives or regulations relating specifically to discharges to rivers from radioactive waste storage sites, but Directive 96/29/Euratom and the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 are relevant to the control of radioactive discharges generally.

  (iv) Animal carcass disposal is covered by Council Directives 90/667/EEC (Animal Waste Directive) and 80/68/EEC (Groundwater Directive), the Animal By-Products Order (ABPO) (1999) and the Groundwater Regulations (1998).

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Bali Bombing
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the relatives of the Bali bomb victims, who went to Bali in the aftermath of the bombing, were assisted by his Department with the costs of(a) hotels and (b) telephone calls to the United Kingdom; and what assistance was provided towards funeral costs. [86836]

  Mr. Straw
  On 15 October, in the aftermath of the Bali bomb, I announced a package of measures to help the victims of the attack and their families. This included making arrangements to reimburse the costs of bringing home the bodies of those who died, of the medical evacuation of the injured and of paying the travel and certain accommodation costs of up to two relatives of the dead and injured who wished to travel to the region. 12 families have used the package to travel to Bali.

  We did not meet the costs of telephone calls, but Vodaphone UK provided each family with two mobile phones, with one month's unlimited calls free of charge.

  We paid the repatriation costs for all British victims of the Bali bomb and for ensuring the deceased arrived at their local undertakers. The package did not cover the cost of funeral expenses.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made by his Department in setting up a Bali appeal fund; and if he will make a statement. [86839]
  459W
  Mr. Straw
  We have no plans to set up a Bali appeal fund. It is open to the families and relatives of the victims of Bali to do this if they wish. Some families have already set up private trusts in the name of the family member they lost.

  Emergency Response Team
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what personnel and equipment his Department's Emergency Response Team has. [86838]

  Mr. Straw
  Personnel, both in the UK and overseas, have volunteered to join the Rapid Deployment Teams, each of which are likely to comprise eight staff. They have a range of skills including consular, media, management, organisational and communications skills. The teams are being equipped with mobile telephones, satellite telephones, laptop computers, printers, fax machines, digital cameras, hand-held radios, office stationery and a first-aid kit.

  IT Systems
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much the overspend was on its new IT system; and what fee was paid to consultants on the new IT systems. [82532]

  Mr. Rammell
  [holding answer 25 November]: The FCO's major IT system is Firecrest, developed and delivered by FCO Services since 1997, providing a modern office-wide system to over 10,000 staff in the UK and overseas. The initial programme was expanded over time, and revised budgets approved in step. The total capital costs to date are £106 million compared with initial estimates totalling £118 million. Annual running costs are now around £19 million. The confidential version of this should be completed on budget by mid-2003.

  Using this infrastructure, two programmes, Prism and Focus, are being developed. The aim of Prism is to provide an integrated world-wide financial and management accounting and human resources system. The planned expenditure for the programme from inception to the expiry of the contract in early 2009 was £80 million (including a £53 million contract with CGEY). This estimate has now risen to £90 million. Expenditure so far has been £28.3 million, in line with the planned budget. Focus is a programme designed to provide the FCO with a new global registry and intranet, allowing more efficient management, sifting, storage and retrieval of information. A contract for £10.5 million was awarded to Fujitsu in January 2002, as part of an initial budgeted cost of 23 million over six years. This estimate has now risen to £42 million because of the increased scope of the project. Given the scale of this increase and other relevant factors the Secretary of State is conducting an urgent review of the whole future of this programme. A further announcement will be made as soon as possible.

  Mombasa Bombing
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department's Emergency Response Team was put on alert immediately following the Mombasa bombing. [86837]
  460W
  Mr. Straw
  Yes. A Rapid Deployment Team was put on standby to travel to Kenya as soon as news broke about the Mombasa bombing. It was stood down once it became clear that no British nationals were involved in the incident.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Adult Learning
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which organisations the Government have consulted on the review of the funding for adult learning; and what further consultation is planned. [82888]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Government have already consulted a wide range of external organisations following the announcement of the review of funding of adult learning last July. The first stage of this has included a series of regional Skill Summits. The consultations so far has included representatives from colleges, employers, training providers, voluntary organisations, educational representative bodies, and learners themselves.

  The Government welcome the interest that the review has generated and the process of consultation will continue until the review is concluded in the summer of next year.

  Classroom Assistants
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what evidence he has assessed on the use of classroom assistants to mind classes in place of teachers. [86493]

  Mr. Miliband
  On 22 October we published the "Developing the role of school support staff" consultation document in which we set out our plans for enhancing the role played by support staff in support of teachers and pupils, as opposed to replacing teachers with support staff. The paper drew on case study material of how schools are already making more effective use of different kinds of support staff and consideration of research carried out by a range of organisations, including Ofsted. The paper proposes for the first time to regulate the involvement of support staff in teaching and learning, based on the principle that qualified teachers must always have responsibility for ensuring high standards within a system of supervision and support staff must be suitably trained for the activities they undertake. The way in which the proposals are taken forward will depend on the outcomes of the consultation. Copies of the consultation document have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Connexions Service
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the timetable is for the National Audit Office Review of the establishment of the Connexions Service arising out of the Learning and Skills Act 2000. [86990]
  461W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  It is a matter for the Comptroller and Auditor General to decide which subjects to review and whether or not to report to Parliament on them. As the proposed study on the Connexions Service is still at the feasibility stage, and the Comptroller and Auditor General has not yet approved a full-scale study, it would be inappropriate at this stage to commit him to a definitive timetable.

  In general, parliamentary questions about the work of the National Audit Office should be directed to the right hon. Alan Williams, Chair of the Public Accounts Commission.

  Supply Teachers
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what evidence he has assessed on the change in the number of supply teachers hours worked in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools over the last two years for which figures are available. [86491]

  Mr. Miliband
  The total number of occasional teachers with contracts of less than one month, working for the whole day of the survey date, fell from 19,600 in January 2001 to 17,500 in January 2002. In the nursery and primary phase, the number of occasional teachers went down by 1,900 to 10,100 in January 2002, and in the secondary sector, by 200 to 6,400. There were also 1,000 occasionals in special schools and providing education outside of school in 2002 (1,100 in 2001). Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred. Information on the number of hours worked is not collected centrally.

  Truancy (West Sussex)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children played truant from schools in West Sussex each day in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and what plans he has to tackle this. [84762]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department does not hold absence data for any particular day, only for the total period from the start of the academic year to the end of the spring term (i.e. September to May) each academic year. The number of pupils absent for at least one half day due to unauthorised absence in West Sussex is as follows:

  Academic year1

  Number of pupils absent for at least one half day

  Number of day pupil of compulsory school age

  1997–98

  9,807

  89,626

  1998–99

  10,877

  91,568

  1999–2000

  10,743

  93,171

  2000–01

  13,438

  94,177

  2001–02

  12,493

  94,885

  1September to May

  Source:

  Pupil Absence Survey

  Truancy is a multi-faceted and long-term problem which requires a range of responses. We have targeted areas that have experienced high levels of truancy with intensive support and there is emerging evidence that initiatives are beginning to have an impact.
  462W
  Recently initiatives include: a Fast-Track to Prosecution pathfinder starting in January 2003 across a number of LEAs will focus on multi-agency early intervention to address truancy; and a national exercise of intensive truancy sweeps taking place this month which will increase the focus on school attendance as a community issue. This is backed up by a sustained publicity campaign raising the profile of school nonattendance.

  Other current activities include: requiring LEAs and schools to set targets for improvement through Education Development Plans; providing funding for electronic registration systems for 525 schools with high rates of unauthorised absence; and conducting research into the causes of absence from school in order to fully understand the issues.

  Correspondence
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Walsall, North of 29 October 2002, regarding a constituent. [86874]

  Margaret Hodge
  I replied today to the hon. Member's letter of 29 October on 5 December 2002.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  River Nile
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions her officials have had with representatives of(a) British water companies and (b) Water UK on water retention around the Nile basin. [86755]

  Clare Short
  DFID have not held discussions with UK companies specifically on the Nile Basin. However, DFID is also supporting a range of initiatives to encourage private sector involvement to improve access to water and sanitation, while ensuring that services are provided at an affordable price to the poor.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the governments of those countries through which the River Nile flows on effecting a common policy towards water use. [86754]

  Clare Short
  DFID has agreed to support the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI), which encompasses the 10 riparian countries in a programme of dialogue and benefit sharing for the protection and development of the waters of the Nile. DFID has joined World bank facilitated discussions with riparian countries and a number of bilateral donors. DFID has pledged £3.3 million in support of NBI.

  St. Helena
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her timetable is for airport development on St. Helena; what the prospects are for private sector co-funding; and whether decisions will have been made by 1 July 2003. [86488]
  463W
  Clare Short
  The St. Helena Government, with our assistance, intends to invite proposals for private sector involvement. The future timetable should become clearer early next year.

TREASURY

  Terrorism (Insurance)
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of insurance against acts of terrorism. [85259]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We have looked carefully at issues for the insurance market following the appalling attacks of 11 September 2001. Following a review the Pool Re scheme is being extended to enable insurers to offer terrorism insurance for commercial property damage and business interruption against a wider range of risks.

  Community Amateur Sports Clubs
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many sports clubs have successfully applied for tax exemptions for Community Amateur Sports Clubs. [85260]

  John Healey
  As at 29 November 2002,476 clubs had applied for registration with the Inland Revenue as community amateur sports clubs.

  Of those, 164 had so far been registered. A list of registered clubs is published on the Inland Revenue website, and is updated on a monthly basis.

  Poverty
  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the role of the Treasury in pressing for co-ordinated international action to tackle world poverty. [85261]

  John Healey
  In discussions with fellow finance ministers, the IMF and the World Bank, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is championing a new International Finance Facility (IFF) to finance the investment needed to tackle world poverty. The EU and US have pledged $50 billion that is needed to reach the Millennium Development Goals.

  In addition, the Treasury continues to work with DfiD and No. 10 to press our international partners to follow UK's lead on:

  Aid effectiveness

  Additional debt relief

  G8 Africa action plan

  Improving contribution of aid to improvements in health and education

  Voluntary Sector
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he is taking to support voluntary sector organisations. [85264]

  John Healey
  The Government are committed to supporting the work of voluntary and community organisations. Following the cross cutting review of the role of the voluntary and community sector in service 464W
  delivery, the Spending Review 2002 settlement for the Active Community Unit is £188 million and an additional £125 million has been allocated for futurebuilders. Following recent Budget changes, including the Budget 2000 Getting Britain Giving tax package, the value of tax incentives for charities are now worth around £2 billion a year. The Strategy Unit is consulting on improving the legal and regulatory framework for the sector, and the Chancellor and Home Secretary recently published a discussion document setting out how the Government intend to continue to promote a culture of giving and volunteering.

  New Towns
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Treasury was consulted by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister before the Office's response to the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee's Report, the New Towns: Their Problems and Future. [85265]

  Mr. Boateng
  The response was cleared collectively across Government in the normal way.

  Mapeley Steps Contactor Ltd.
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the director of Mapeley Steps Contactor Ltd. to discuss the maintenance of accommodation occupied by Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise. [85266]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise are responsible for the accommodation they occupy under the contract with Mapeley for serviced accommodation. The Chancellor has, therefore, not met the directors to discuss these matters.

  Euro
  19. Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the £/euro exchange rate. [85267]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government do not comment on day-to-day movements in the exchange rate.

  Competitiveness
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he received in advance of the pre-Budget report on Government policy and UK competitiveness; and if he will make a statement. [85268]

  John Healey
  The Chancellor meets regularly with representatives of industry to discuss a wide range of issues, including the pre-Budget report.
  465W
  PBR 2002 continues the Government's programme of microeconomic reform, targeting historic weakness in the key drivers of productivity performance:

  Strengthening the competition regime through the Enterprise Act

  Promoting enterprise by modernising the UK's business tax regime, and promoting an entrepreneurial culture

  Supporting science and innovation through the Government's comprehensive science strategy, and announcing two complementary reviews into business innovation and university-business links

  improving UK skills through measures to support the expansion and improvement of the Modern Apprenticeship scheme, and by expanding the employer training pilots to improve work force skills

  Promoting investment by reforming the planning system.

  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his discussions within the EU on reforms to the Stability and Growth Pact. [85269]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer my hon. Friend to the comments made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Treasury oral questions on 7 November 2002,Official Report, columns 413–16.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he received in advance of the pre-Budget report from members of the manufacturing industry regarding competitiveness. [85275]

  John Healey
  The Chancellor meets regularly with representatives of manufacturing industry to discuss a wide range of issues, including the pre-Budget report.

  The pre-Budget report confirms the Government's agenda to promote productivity, growth and employment. The Government are demonstrating their support for manufacturers by:

  Making enhanced investment allowances for small and medium sized firms permanent.

  Providing R&D tax credits to all companies, which will overwhelmingly benefit manufacturers, who undertake most of the UK's business R&D.

  Creating venture capital funds in every English region providing £270 million (including up to £8 million of Government funding) for investment in small firms with high growth potential.

  Establishing the Small Business Service to ensure that the interests and concerns of small firms are properly reflected in Government policy and programmes.

  Strengthening the Regional Development Agencies (RDA), whose key role is promoting business efficiency, investment and competitiveness.

  Establishing regional centres of manufacturing excellence in every region of England and Wales.

  Debt
  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment his Department has made of the impact of the HIPC debt relief initiative in delivering a sustainable exit from debt for all eligible countries. [85270]

  John Healey
  The UK Government have been at the forefront of the international debate on debt relief issues, and continues to press for the rapid and full implementation of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative.
  466W
  The Treasury closely monitors Highly Indebted Poor Countries' throughout the process of the HIPC initiative and follows their progress with International Monetary Fund (IMF) programmes.

  Indeed, when the spring 2002 meetings of the IMF and the World bank highlighted the threat to debt sustainability from the global economic slowdown and weaker commodity prices, the UK argued strongly that we should be prepared to be proactive and flexible in providing additional debt relief at Completion Point—the stage at which countries have their debts irrevocably cancelled to ensure a robust exit from unsustainable debt.

  In a speech to the United Nations General Assembly Special Session in May, the Chancellor called for richer countries to provide a further US $1 billion to the HIPC initiative to finance more realistic and generous debt relief. And at the recent IMF/World bank meetings in Washington, the international community agreed the need for up to $1 billion of further debt relief for Highly Indebted Poor Countries. So I am pleased to confirm that the UK, joined by 16 other donors, have so far made firm commitments totalling $850 million to the HIPC Trust Fund. And EU member states have called on the Commission to make a contribution through the European Development Fund. This will benefit 26 Highly Indebted Poor Countries.

  Debt sustainability over the longer term is an issue that goes beyond the financing of the initiative though. At their summit meeting in Kananaskis in June 2002, G7 leaders asked the IMF and the World bank to prepare a comprehensive review of debt sustainability, and going forward asked them to ensure that forecasts of debt sustain ability are made on the basis of prudent and cautious assumptions about growth and exports.

  We are determined that the HIPC initiative should provide a robust exit from unsustainable debt. That is why we have been forcing the debate on the use of voluntary additional bilateral debt relief. Although under HIPC rules creditors are typically only required to provide 90 per cent. relief on bilateral debts, many bilateral creditors (including the G7 countries) provide additional relief to 100 per cent. on a voluntary basis.

  This extra relief is currently being included in the calculations of any additional debt relief provided at Completion Point to ensure countries exit the HIPC initiative with a debt to exports ratio of 150 per cent. This means that currently G7 countries are effectively subsidising other creditors. The UK has proposed that voluntary additional debt relief should be excluded from calculations, and this would clearly define the burden sharing among all creditors, both bilateral and multilateral, in support of the HIPC initiative.

  Moreover it would mean that this additional voluntary debt relief would be truly additional, and allow countries to exit the process in a more favourable position than the agreed sustainability threshold. We are currently working to build international support for this policy.

  Child Poverty
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made to relieve child poverty since 1997. [85272]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have a PSA target to reduce by a quarter the number of children in low-income households by a quarter by 2004–05, as a contribution towards the broader target of halving child poverty by 2010 and eradicating it by 2020. Low-income households are defined as those with less than 60 per cent. of contemporary median income. Progress will be reported against the 1998–99 baseline figures of 3.1 children in low-income households before housing costs, and 4.2 million after housing costs.

  By 2000–01 the number of children in low-income households had fallen by 300,000 after housing costs and by 400,000 before housing costs. This means that we are a third of the way to reaching the 2004 PSA target in a third of the time.

  Low income is of course central to poverty. But poverty is a complex, multi-dimensional issue, affecting many other aspects of children's lives, including health, housing, the quality of their environment and opportunities to learn. In April 2002 the Government launched a consultation exercise to decide the best way to measure poverty in the long-term, to help target policies and enable the Government to be held to account over their long-term targets. Results will be published by spring 2003.

  Equitable Life
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on measures he has taken to end the uncertainty facing policyholders of Equitable Life. [85273]

  Ruth Kelly
  The future of Equitable Life is a matter for the Board of the Society and its members. Equitable Life is regulated by the Financial Services Authority which has been working to ensure that clear and appropriate information is made available to policyholders by the Society and that the management of the Society comply with regulatory requirements.

  The Government announced in August last year that an independent inquiry under Lord Penrose would investigate and report on the events surrounding Equitable Life.

  Economic Stability
  25. Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact of increases in public expenditure on the stability of the economy, with special reference to(a) employment and (b) inward investment. [85274]

  Ruth Kelly
  Sound management of the public finances has meant that, during a time of global economic weakness and uncertainty, fiscal policy has supported monetary policy and smoothed the economic cycle by allowing the automatic stabilisers to operate in full.

  As Government spending plans have come on stream, the public sector has contributed strongly to employment and the resilience of the labour market.
  468W
  Increases in the number of work force jobs in public administration, education and health sectors have averaged about 30,000 a quarter over the past year.

  The platform of economic stability delivered by the Government's macroeconomic framework has encouraged inward investment. The UK was ranked second in the world at attracting inward investment in 2001.

  Welfare to Work
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the connection between his economic policy and welfare to work. [85276]

  John Healey
  Macroeconomic stability is a prerequisite for delivering the Government's aim of employment opportunity for all. The Government's macroeconomic policy, based on low inflation and sound public finances, has successfully maintained stability and growth.

  Against this background of stability, the Government have also introduced microeconomic reforms to improve the functioning of the labour market and ensure that employment opportunity is extended to all individuals in all parts of Britain. These include Welfare to Work policies that help the unemployed achieve a successful return to work, and extend help and support to areas and groups suffering from the greatest employment disadvantage.

  This strategy has helped to deliver a dynamic and flexible labour market, with employment at record highs and both International Labour Organisation (ILO) unemployment and claimant unemployment close to their lowest levels since the 1970s. Since 1997, claimant unemployment in Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush has fallen from 7 per cent. to 3.9 per cent.

  Infrastructure
  Mr. Beard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to make firm financial commitment to major transport infrastructure projects once they have been started. [85278]

  Mr. Boateng
  Under the 10-year plan we have made a significant commitment to planning and procurement of projects that reach an appropriate stage, some of which were announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport in the House on Tuesday.

  Where projects require public subsidy, they will be assessed and our commitment will be given to those where value for money and affordability are demonstrated throughout the life of the project.

  For PFI/PPP projects our commitment over the life of the project is contractual and tied to delivery.

  Investment
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the reasons for the change in investment by business in 2002. [85279]
  469W
  John Healey
  Business investment in 2002 has shown further faltering across the world's major economies, reflecting weaker global prospects and heightened uncertainty. A full assessment is given in Annex A of the pre-Budget Report (Cm 5664).

  Manufacturing Industry
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further steps he is taking to help manufacturing industry in deprived areas. [85281]

  John Healey
  The Chancellor announced in the Pre-Budget Report the creation of 2,000 Enterprise Areas, which form the focus for Government support to businesses in disadvantaged areas. This is reflected in a number of new measures, which will benefit manufacturers in these areas. In particular:An exemption from stamp due for all commercial property transactions, subject to state aids approval.
  A special package of support from the Inland Revenue and a commitment from HM Customs and Excise to examine how their support services for businesses can be enhanced and targeted more effectively in disadvantaged areas.
  New grants from the Business Incubation Fund with higher levels of funding in disadvantaged areas.
  Legislation for Business Planning Zones (BPZs), which will provide a more flexible planning regime for businesses in designated areas of England.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of trends in manufacturing output in the south east since January 2001. [85282]

  John Healey
  Manufacturing output in the UK has slowed since January 2001, clearly influenced by the synchronised global economic slowdown, the collapse in the demand for ICT related goods and the heightened uncertainty over the outlook for the world economy. The Office for National Statistics does not collect regional data on manufacturing output. However, both the Confederation of British Industry and the British Chamber of Commerce surveys for the third quarter of 2002 reported that businesses expect output to increase over the coming months, with the latter reporting the south east region with the highest balance of manufacturers expecting turnover to increase.

  Defence Contingency Fund
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the additional contingency fund set aside in his pre-Budget statement for defence purposes. [85283]

  Mr. Boateng
  The £1 billion special reserve is available to cover costs of military and overseas operations this year to ensure the UK can continue to play a leading role in the global war against terror.

  No decisions have been taken about any future UK military contribution in the Middle East, although prudent contingency planning is taking place. Indeed no UK contribution will be needed if Saddam complies with UNSCR 1441.

  £1 billion represents a prudent allocation at this time but makes no assumption about the nature of any UK contribution to international efforts in Iraq or elsewhere.

  Africa (Poverty)
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on what action he is taking to combat poverty in Africa. [85284]

  John Healey
  This year the UK has given special attention to Africa. At the G8 summit in June, members endorsed a new partnership for Africa's development. We share with African leaders the vision that a new outlook is needed and will require a strong commitment to reform and sustained political leadership by Africa itself. In turn, developed countries must share the benefits of globalisation, ensuring Africa can benefit from the opportunities it provides. The UK is taking forward actions in all the areas covered by the G8 Africa action plan as part of our ongoing international development efforts. And the 2002 Spending Review established, for the first time, a £1 billion annual bilateral programme for Africa by 2005–06.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what figures he estimates would be paid to the Treasury if the ceiling on national insurance contributions for employees were abolished. [85285]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government Actuary's Department estimate the full-year yields from abolishing the upper earnings limit on National Insurance Contributions to be £3.8 billion in 2002–03 and £4.3 billion in 2003–04.

  These estimates are based on the November 2002 pre-Budget report.

  Mortgage Rates
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the monthly interest payments on a standard rate mortgage of £40,000 over 25 years was in(a) June 1997 and (b) June 2002. [85286]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information is as follows:

  June 1997

  June 2002

  Average building society rates

  6.98 per cent.

  5.02 per cent.

  Monthly interest payments

  £232.67

  £167.33

  Annual repayments

  £2,792

  £2,008

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the proportion of new mortgage lending in each of the last 12 months has been at(a) variable and (b) fixed rates; and if he will make a statement. [86988]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  The percentage of new mortgage lending in each of the past 12 months where the initial rate of interest has been (a) variable and (b) fixed as follows:

  New mortgages for house purchase

  Month

  Variable

  Fixed

  November 2001

  68.1

  31.9

  December 2001

  83.6

  16.4

  January 2002

  67.4

  32.6

  February 2002

  70.2

  29.8

  471W

  New mortgages for house purchase

  Month

  Variable

  Fixed

  March 2002

  71.5

  28.5

  April 2002

  73.9

  26.1

  May 2002

  76.9

  23.1

  June 2002

  79.1

  20.9

  July 2002

  81.8

  18.2

  August 2002

  82.6

  17.4

  September 2002

  80.7

  19.3

  October 2002

  77.3

  22.7

  Source:

  ODPM Survey of Mortgage Lenders

  It should be noted that most mortgages taken out at an initial fixed rate of interest will revert to a variable rate of interest after a fixed period of time, unless of course the borrower then chooses to remortgage at another fixed rate of interest.

  The figures in the table are based on a variable sample of new mortgages ranging from 15,000 to 30,000 per month.

  Bermuda
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why his Department omitted Bermuda from its list of Caribbean overseas territories submitted to the December meeting of ECOFIN in the document Savings-Report from the United Kingdom. [87201]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In accordance with the conclusions of the European Council of Santa Maria da Feira in June 2000, before the savings directive can be adopted, the UK is required to give sufficient reassurances that its associated or dependent territories listed in the conclusions would adopt the same measures as EU member states. These territories are the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, and the Caribbean Overseas Territories. Bermuda is not included in the list of dependent or associated territories agreed at the Feira European Council.

  Cayman Islands
  Mr. Graham Brady
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the likely implications for movement of capital into and out of Cayman Islands financial institutions as a result of compliance with the EU Draft Savings Directive if Switzerland(a) agrees and (b) does not agree to be bound by the directive. [83395]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The European Council meeting in Santa Maria de Feira on 20 June 2000 agreed that adoption of the EU draft Directive on Taxation of Savings was dependent on the EU receiving sufficient reassurances that relevant dependent or associated territories will adopt the same measures as EU Member States, and that six named third countries will adopt equivalent measures. The list of third countries includes Switzerland. The UK has sought the necessary reassurances from the dependent and associated territories only on the basis that equivalent measures are agreed with the named third countries.

  The impact of the Directive on any jurisdiction will depend on a range of factors, including the volume of undeclared savings income that EU residents hold in the jurisdiction concerned.

  Charities
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will reduce the level of VAT levied on works to buildings owned by charities. [85263]

  John Healey
  There is no VAT on the construction or purchase of new buildings that charities intend to use for residential or non-business purposes or as village halls. Long-standing formal agreements with our European partners do not enable us to introduce any new zero rates or a reduced rate of VAT for other works to existing non-residential buildings.

  Government Borrowing
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of Government borrowing on commercial borrowing rates. [86673]

  Mr. Boateng
  There is some evidence to suggest that Government borrowing affects their cost relative to wholesale commercial borrowing rates (as measured by swap spreads). However, there is no clear-cut evidence of a significant impact of Government borrowing on commercial borrowing rates.

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much he forecasts will be raised(a) in the UK and (b) in Scotland from the landfill tax in each financial year from 2002–03 to 2006–07. [86758]

  John Healey
  Projected landfill tax receipts for the UK in 2002–03 and 2003–04 are shown in Table B12 of pre-Budget report 2002 (Cm 5664), and are £0.5 billion and £0.7 billion, respectively. For the financial years 2004–05 and 2006–07 projected landfill tax receipts for the UK are included in "other taxes and royalties" in Table B11, and are not recorded separately.

  Projected landfill tax receipts for Scotland are not available separately.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been raised(a) in the UK and (b) in Scotland by the landfill tax in each financial year since 1997–98. [86759]

  John Healey
  Cash receipts from the landfill tax are shown in the Office for National Statistics publication "Financial Statistics". Landfill tax was introduced on 1 October 1996. Since 1 April 1997 the annual yield from landfill tax in the UK is as follows:

  Cash receipts (£ million)

  1997–98

  361

  1998–99

  333

  1999–2000

  430

  2000–01

  461

  2001–02

  505

  Separate data on the amount of landfill tax revenue raised in Scotland are not available.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much central Government funding was given to local government in each year since 1997(a) in total and (b) for each local authority. [86668]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have been asked to reply.

  The amount of central Government funding that was given to local government in total in each year since 1997 is set out in the following table.

  £ billion

  Revenue grants1

  Capital grants2

  1997–98

  35.9

  1.3

  1998–99

  37.8

  1.2

  1999–2000

  40.0

  1.2

  2000–01

  43.1

  1.3

  2001–02

  45.2

  2.0

  2002–03

  48.0

  2.5

  1 1997–98 to 2000–01 are outturn figures. 2001–02 and 2002–03 are budgeted figures.

  2 1997–98 to 2000–01 are outturn figures. 2001–02 and 2002–03 are provisional figures.

  Source:

  1997–98 to 2000–01 RO and COR forms, 2001–02 and 2002–03 RA forms, 2001–02 CPR4 form and 2002–03 CER form.

  The figures for individual local authorities have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Revenue funding consists of Revenue Support Grant, redistributed Non-Domestic Rates, Principal Formula Police Grant, SSA Reduction Grant, Central Support Protection Grant, GLA General Grant and Specific Grants within Aggregate external finance. Capital funding consists of Central Government Grant. Funding to the housing revenue account is not included.

  Post Office Card Account
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer[pursuant to his answer of 28 November 2002, Official Report, columns 466–67W], on the post office card account, what alternative arrangements will be available in April 2003 for child tax credit recipients who will not be able to use the PIN number associated with a post office card account. [86989]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customers receiving direct payment of child tax credit will be able to choose from a range of account options. For some people the post office card account may not be the most suitable option and they may prefer to use an account with a cheque book or pass book.

  Customers who would like a post office card account will, in April 2003, initially be paid by girocheque for the reasons given by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in his answer of 3 December. When the card account comes into use for tax credits, those customers who are unable to use a PIN and card will be able to nominate someone else to collect their money for them. In these cases, a second card will be issued. Alternatively they may nominate someone to deal with all their tax credit affairs.
  474W
  It has always been recognised that there may be a small number of people who are unable to operate any kind of bank account. In these circumstances, tax credits claimants will receive their direct payments of tax credits by girocheque.

  Recycling
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much will be ring fenced for recycling programmes in(a) Scotland and (b) the UK in each year from 2002–03 to 2006–07; [86760]

  (2) how much will be allocated to the budget for the Scottish Executive to encourage recycling in Scotland in each year from 2002–03 to 2006–07. [86761]

  John Healey
  Responsibility for environment policy is a devolved matter. Decisions about expenditure on recycling in the Devolved Administrations are a matter for the respective administrations. In England, ring-fenced funds for recycling total £50 million in 2002–03 and £90 million in 2003–04.

  As announced in the pre-Budget report, final decisions on additional public expenditure on waste for the 2002 Spending Review period will be made as part of the Budget process. The Devolved Administrations, including the Scottish Executive, will be responsible for their respective expenditure allocations.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further action he intends to take to promote the take up of new tax credits in April 2003. [85277]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The publicity campaign for the two new tax credits—Child Tax Credit and Working Tax Credit began in September. An 'announcement' TV advertisement designed to set the scene generally was followed by a second wave of TV adverts aimed at existing tax credits claimants. The current, third, phase of the campaign takes a number of families that together represent the broad range of people entitled to the new tax credits. This phase includes TV, radio, press and online advertising.

  A further phase of advertising will begin mid January and run until the end of the month. This will remind claimants of the changes taking place in April, and in particular of the way support for children will be redirected from the pay packet, to the person in the family mainly responsible for the children.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Inland Revenue has completed its study of the 3,250 tax credit cases identified by the NAO to assess the level of fraud; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [86714]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 19 September 2002 to the hon. Member for Hertsmere,Official Report, column 207W.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Inland Revenue has completed its analysis of the take-up of tax credits using the Family Resources Survey; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [86715]
  475W
  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on 24 July 2002,Official Report, column 1191W.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have applied for the higher children's tax credit paid to families in the year of a child's birth. [86740]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Claim forms for children's tax credit have been included in "bounty packs" given to new mothers around the time of their baby's birth. To 5 December the Inland Revenue has received 85,000 applications for children's tax credit for babies born on or after 6 april 2002.

  Taxation and Savings (Draft Directive)
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the likely impact of the EU draft directive on taxation and savings on UK overseas territories. [83216]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The EU draft directive on taxation of savings seeks to combat cross-border tax evasion on savings income by EU residents. The adoption of this Directive is conditional on the EU receiving sufficient reassurances that relevant dependent or associated territories will adopt the same measures. The impact of adopting such measures will depend on a range of factors, including the volume of underclared savings income that EU residents hold in these jurisdictions.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) which overseas territories will have to comply with the EU draft directive on taxation and savings; [83230]

  (2) what reasons underlay the decision not to include Bermuda in the EU draft directive on taxation and savings. [83215]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The dependent and associated territories listed in the conclusions of the European Council of Santa Maria da Feira in June 2000 are the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and EU Member States' dependent or associated territories in the Caribbean. These were the dependent and associated territories, together with six named third countries, that EU Ministers decided sufficient reassurances should be obtained from before deciding on the adoption of the Directive. EU Ministers also agreed in the same conclusions that "exchange of information, on as wide a basis as possible, shall be the ultimate objective of the EU in line with international developments."

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of recipients of the working families tax credit who are paid below the minimum wage; and what recent work his Department has undertaken to prosecute firms paying below the minimum wage. [86914]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The National Minimum Wage Act 1998 contains a number of provisions empowering enforcement officers to take civil action against non-paying employers and the Inland Revenue always uses these in the first instance.
  476W
  Since the national minimum wage was introduced in April 1999 the Inland Revenue has issued around 450 enforcement notices requiring employers to start paying the minimum wage and make good any arrears, and identified over £11 million in arrears. A minority of disputed cases have been considered by employment tribunals. To date there have been no criminal prosecutions in relation to underpayment of the minimum wage.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Drug Action Team
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what independent audit is made of statistics compiled by the Drug Action Team. [86698]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Drug Action Teams (DATs) use information gathered from a variety of sources including statutory agencies such as the police, central Government (e.g. census surveys) and local service providers. The information is then used to inform the DAT's planning and reporting processes.

  DAT plans are analysed by regional teams consisting of Home Office officials, National Treatment Agency representatives and representatives of other Government Departments who sit in the Government office. They give careful scrutiny to all the information provided. Any quantitative information is rigorously checked to ensure its accuracy. If there is any doubt, the DAT—and the agency that provided it—is asked to verify that information.

  DAT annual returns are monitored in the same way, except that the information is scrutinised at central Government level. At the same time, Home Office representatives in the regions are able to provide an independent view of the DAT's report.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in implementing the Government's commitment to reduction, refinement and replacement of animals in experiments. [86752]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Home Office has developed and put in place a strategy to ensure that policy on the use of animals in scientific procedures is reviewed continuously as scientific and ethical considerations evolve, checking that the costs to animals are minimised and remain outweighed by the potential benefits of the work.

  We are continuing to work to ensure that the highest possible standards of welfare are applied to animals used in scientific procedures and that they are used only where it is fully justified—where the benefits outweigh the costs and where there are no suitable alternatives. To this end we are promoting the fullest application of the 3Rs—the replacement of procedures with others which do not use animals, the reduction of the number of animals used and the refinement of procedures to minimise pain and suffering.
  477W
  The use of animals in regulated procedures is prohibited by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in cases where a scientifically valid non-animal alternative is available. In deciding whether to grant a licence for any regulated procedure, the 1986 Act requires that the likely benefits of the programme are weighed against the likely adverse effects on the animals concerned (the cost/benefit assessment) and that there are no alternatives which either replace animal use entirely, reduce the number of animals needed or refine the procedures to minimise suffering (the 3Rs). We must also be satisfied that the procedures are likely to achieve the stated objectives. There are usually negotiations between the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate and the applicant to ensure that the 3Rs are rigorously applied in every case.

  The Government advocates the 3Rs strategy believing that the most immediate prospects are for reducing the number of animals used through better science and better experimental design, and refining procedures so that the suffering of any animals necessarily used is minimised. The long-term hope of eliminating the need for live animal experiments altogether lies in the proper development, validation and acceptance of replacement alternative methods.

  In addition to the rigorous application of the 3Rs we have gained the endorsement of Government Departments of the principle of data sharing and agreement that UK regulatory agencies should encourage industry to extend the scope for sharing animal test data in the field of regulatory safety testing. An inter-Departmental concordat has therefore been developed as a first step in this process and should enable Government Departments to help eliminate the risk of duplication of tests on animals.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to introduce an administrative centre to check that the commitment to reduction, refinement and replacement in experimentation is being adhered to; [86802]

  (2) what plans he has to legislate to update scientific procedures using animals. [86753]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  These matters are the subject of recommendations in the report published on 24 July 2002 by the House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures. The report contained a total of seven conclusions and 31 recommendations, including the proposal to establish a Centre for the Three Rs. All of the recommendations are being carefully and thoroughly considered. The Government has six months to respond to the report, and there will then be a debate in the House of Lords. It would meanwhile be inappropriate for Ministers to offer detailed comment.

  Anti-Racism
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what resources he has made available, and at what cost, for the preparation of a national plan against racism in line with undertakings given at the United Nations World Conference Against 478W
  Racism in September 2001; and which departmental staff, and at what grade, have been assigned to this task. [86016]

  Beverley Hughes
  We have funded an extensive consultation of non-governmental organisations on the development of the national action plan. This included a series of seminars in September and October 2002 and a national conference in Manchester on 20 November 2002. I have made £27,800 available for this consultation process.

  The national action plan is being developed by the Race Equality Unit of the Home Office, in consultation with other Government Departments, the devolved Administrations and a wide range of non-governmental organisations. Within the Race Equality Unit, this work has been taken forward by a grade 7, senior executive officer, executive officer, and administrative officer.

  Ball-Bearing Guns
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will include ball-bearing guns within his proposed new regulations for air guns. [86260]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: Ball-bearing guns (more accurately known as airsoft guns) are very low powered, and not subject to the same controls as air weapons. We are, however, considering how to improve controls on the possession of airguns and imitation firearms in a public place. Our consideration of this covers airsoft guns.

  Children (Workplace Protection)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what legislation he proposes to bring forward to provide better protection for children in the workplace; and if he will make a statement. [83218]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I have been asked to reply as the Minister responsible for health and safety at work.

  The Government take the health and safety of children very seriously and the United Kingdom has therefore fully implemented rigorous EU requirements to protect the health, safety and welfare of all employed young people below 18 years, including those on work experience. Employers also have duties under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 towards those who are not working but may be affected by the work activity. The Department has no plans to bring forward further general health and safety legislation concerning children in the workplace.

  Children's Rights
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Government plans to ratify the Optional Protocol on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography. [85955]

  Hilary Benn
  The United Kingdom signed the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography in September 2000 and intends to ratify it at the earliest opportunity. We need to introduce a range of new offences to ensure that we are
  479W
  fully compliant with the instrument before we can ratify it, several of which, relating to trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation and the sexual exploitation of children for gain, will be included in the forthcoming Sexual Offences Bill.

  The Optional Protocol also, however, requires the criminalisation of behaviour which does not fall within the scope of the Sexual Offences Bill, such as trafficking people for the sake of:

  exploiting their labour;

  transfer of organs; and

  illegal adoptions.

  These measures are being pursued separately and will also require primary legislation to allow us to ratify the instrument. It is not therefore possible to say precisely when we will be in a position to ratify the instrument.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to give a substantive response to the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford's letters of 1 July and 22 October relating to constituent Bright Omokaro (ref 0170340). [86117]

  Beverley Hughes
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 11 December 2002.

  Corruption
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many UK nationals have been prosecuted for foreign corruption activities under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001; and if he will make a statement. [83196]

  Mr. Blunkett
  These provisions came into force on 14 February 2002. They do not have retrospective effect and therefore apply only to acts committed after that date. The prosecution authorities have informed us that there have been no prosecutions to date but given the lack of retrospectivity this is unsurprising.

  In the 25 years since 1977, the United States of America has prosecuted only about 60 cases under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and related legislation.

  Domestic Violence
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how frequently the Government policy on domestic violence has been changed since 1997; and when it is next scheduled to be updated. [85314]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government have developed their policy on domestic violence over the period from 1997, and continue to do so. As we have already announced, we will be publishing a consultation paper on domestic violence by the spring.

  Fuel Tax Evasion
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many arrests were made for evading fuel taxes during the last year for which figures are available, broken down by constabulary. [85995]
  480W
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: The information is not collected centrally at the level required.

  Homeless People (Drug Addicts)
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the proportion of homeless people who are drug addicts. [85709]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: An assessment of the link is made regularly with updated research conducted through various sources. The Government's Rough Sleepers Unit has succeeded in reducing the numbers sleeping rough on any one night by two-thirds. This has however resulted in the percentage of those who are hardest to help—drug-using homeless people—rising, due to drug-using homeless being left on the streets whilst others can be more easily accommodated.

  By July 2002, research by the charity Crisis, supported by the Home Office, found that 83 per cent of single homeless people were drug users. Other studies confirm that among those remaining single rough sleepers, drug misuse problems are of this level of magnitude—between 50 and 80 per cent.

  In awareness of this linkage, much work has been done to improve the delivery of drug services to homeless people. On 4 December 2002 the Home Office and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister jointly published new guidance entitled "Drug Services for Homeless People: a good practice handbook" (published on the Government website www.drugs.gov.uk) which is aimed at addressing these figures through mainstream and specialised drug services.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many passports have been lost at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and what steps he has taken to ensure passports are not lost. [85758]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested by the hon. Member is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost; however the Immigration and Nationality Directorate issue letters to the members of the public where the document cannot be traced. In the year 2000, 97 such letters were issued; and 103 letters in 2001. As at 29 November 2002 a total of 314 letters have been issued in the year to date.

  We are constantly looking for ways of improving the service we provide to the public and we are currently considering a number of initiatives which have the potential to achieve this.

  Iraqi Kurds
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Iraqi Kurds have been refused asylum in the past year. [86551]
  481W
  Beverley Hughes
  The tables show asylum initial decisions and appeal outcomes made on asylum applications from Iraqi nationals for each of the last 12 months. Appeal outcomes in any given time period do not necessarily relate to initial decisions made in the same period.

  It is not possible to say how many of the applicants are of Kurdish origin. Data on the ethnic origin of asylum seekers are not collated centrally and could be produced by examination of individual case-files only at disproportionate cost.

  Information on asylum applications is published quarterly. The next publication will cover the period October to December 2002, and will be available from 28 February 2003 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.

  Table 1: initial decisions1,2 on applications received for asylum in the United Kingdom from nationals of Iraq, excluding dependants, October 2001 to September 2002

  Principal applicants

  Total initial decisions

  Grants of asylum

  Grants of ELR

  Refusals

  2001

  October

  635

  65

  210

  360

  November

  505

  70

  165

  265

  December

  530

  50

  195

  285

  2002

  January

  910

  85

  435

  390

  February

  765

  65

  405

  290

  March

  860

  65

  585

  210

  April

  980

  75

  705

  200

  May

  890

  65

  625

  200

  June

  675

  55

  445

  175

  July

  1,065

  65

  785

  215

  August

  885

  45

  660

  175

  September

  1,120

  40

  815

  265

  Total

  9,820

  755

  6,030

  3,035

  1Figures have been rounded to the nearest five, and are provisional.

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

  Table 2: outcome of asylum appeals brought by nationals of Iraq, determined by adjudicators of the immigration appellate authority (IAA), October 2001 to September 2002 by month1

  Principal appellants

  Total

  Allowed

  Dismissed

  Withdrawn2

  2001

  October

  255

  60

  175

  25

  November

  280

  60

  185

  35

  December

  230

  40

  165

  25

  2002

  January

  325

  65

  220

  40

  February

  390

  105

  255

  25

  March

  430

  105

  285

  40

  April

  495

  135

  320

  40

  May

  470

  130

  300

  40

  June

  320

  80

  210

  30

  July

  380

  65

  280

  35

  August

  420

  90

  280

  45

  September

  395

  100

  255

  40

  Total

  4,390

  1,035

  2,940

  420

  482W

  1 Provisional figures rounded to the nearest five. Appeals do not necessarily relate to initial Home Office decisions in the same month.

  2 Figures include cases withdrawn by the Home Office as well as the appellant.

  Marsham Street Redevelopment
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library the contract with Annes Gate Property plc to supply timber for the building work at 2 Marsham Street. [83928]

  Beverley Hughes
  A copy of the relevant sections of the contract between the Home Office and Annes Gate Property plc has been placed in the Library.

  Registered Charities
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the proposal in the Cabinet Office report, "Private Action, Public Benefit", that charities with an annual income of under £10,000 would no longer be able to call themselves registered charities. [86290]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: The Cabinet Office report, "Private Action, Public Benefit", was published on 25 September 2002. Its 61 recommendations set out a package of measures which aim to modernise the law and enable a wide range of organisations to be more effective and innovative.

  One of the recommendations is that the threshold for compulsory regulation with the Charity Commission should be raised from those organisations with an annual income of £1,000 to those with an annual income of £10,000. Currently, active monitoring by the Commission applies only to those charities with an annual income of £10,000 or more.

  The report recommends that the threshold for registration and the threshold where active monitoring kicks in should logically be one and the same. This would result in two-thirds of charities being released from the bureaucratic burden of registration, and is entirely in line with this Government's, emphasis on deregulation.

  I can understand the concern that being unable to describe an organisation as a registered charity may have an effect on public confidence. In fact, the report recognises this, and a further recommendation is that all charities below the new registration threshold should have the status of 'Small Charities'. This would also allow tax repayment claims to the Inland Revenue to continue, and for funders to treat 'Small Charities' in the same way as registered charities.

  Of course, at the moment these are only proposals. The report is out for consultation until 31 December 2002, and we shall consider the responses to this, and all the other matters addressed in the report, very carefully.

  Sex Offenders
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to revise the notification requirements for Schedule One offenders. [85414]
  483W
  Hilary Benn
  The Government's intention to bring forward a Sexual Offences Bill during this session was announced in the Queen's Speech on 19 November; we published a command paper, 'Protecting the Public', setting out our proposals. In relation to the notification requirements on sex offenders, these include:registered offenders will be required to confirm annually and in person at their local police station that the information held about them is still up to date;
  a new order to make those convicted of sex offences overseas register their details when they come to the UK;
  a reduction in the period of time an offender can spend at an address other than his main home before he is required to notify the police of the address. This will be reduced from 14 days to seven days;
  a reduction in the period within which a sex offender must notify the police of change of name or address from 14 days to three days; and
  a new requirement on offenders to provide their national insurance details when registering. This will make it easier to identify and find those offenders who try to evade the registration requirements.

  'Schedule One offender' is a categorisation generally used in respect of offenders who have committed an offence against a child listed in Schedule One to the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. That list includes sexual offences, offences of violence, of cruelty and neglect and any other offence resulting in the bodily injury of a child under the age of 18. The list of offences under Schedule One is used, sometimes in conjunction with other indicators of risk, to determine whether an individual might be unsuitable to work with, care for or have unsupervised contact with children. It is important to note that not all Schedule One offenders are sex offenders. There are no notification requirements on Schedule One offenders.

  Drugs Strategy
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if all drug treatment programmes supported by the updated drug strategy have the aim of ending the use of(a) illegal drugs and (b) prescription methadone and diamorphine where prescribed, by individuals undergoing treatment. [86537]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The clear message from the updated drug strategy is that drug misuse is illegal and will remain so. All controlled drugs are dangerous and nobody should take them. The focus of the updated drug strategy remains to reduce and end the use of illegal drugs.

  The primary goal of all treatment should be abstinence while recognising that some drug misusers may require longer term support to achieve this. Prescribing methadone or diamorphine as a substitute for illicit opiates has proven benefits for certain individuals and for society, particularly in terms of stabilising the individual, reducing injecting behaviour and criminal activity.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the additional number of places on(a) diamorphine and (b) methadone schemes that will be made available as a result of the Updated Drug Strategy. [86538]
  484W
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Since 1997 the number of treatment services in England has increased by a third. There are now 235 drug specialist community prescribing services and 300 general practitioner prescribing services in England. Under the Updated Drug Strategy, the National Treatment Agency will continue to work on increasing the number and capacity of all treatment services.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what targets he has set for the reduction of waiting times for admission to drug rehabilitation programmes as a result of the Updated Drug Strategy; [86542]

  (2) what estimates he has for the likely reduction of waiting times for admission to drug rehabilitation programmes as a result of the Updated Drug Strategy. [86535]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The National Treatment Agency (NTA) has already made significant progress on reducing waiting times locally. They have published national targets to reduce the time between someone being referred to treatment and receiving that treatment.

  With additional funding from the 2002 Spending Review, we will invest in an expansion of quality provision to ensure that treatment is readily available to all those who need it. The NTAs targets are that by 2004, maximum waiting times from referral to receipt of treatment should be no more than two weeks for in-patient detoxification and GP prescribing and three weeks for all other forms of treatment.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Police Recruits
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Police Service of Northern Ireland recruits have dropped out of training since the formation of the PSNI; how many such recruits have dropped out of training owing to intimidation; and if he will make a statement. [86579]

  Jane Kennedy
  Since the commencement of the PSNI's Foundation Course in autumn 2001, nine recruits have left voluntarily. In the same period, three recruits to the PSNI have also been dismissed.

  None of these resignations has been due to intimidation. Extremists from both sides of the community have, at times, sought to intimidate police officers and their families, and it is a remarkable reflection of the commitment shown by police trainees to date that none of them have resigned as a result.

  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many PSNI recruits have been asked to leave training in order to balance those from a different perceived communal background who have left training; and if he will make a statement. [86580]

  Jane Kennedy
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to question reference number 84606.

  Police Service (Chief Inspector)
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether it is the Government's policy to require resignations or redundancies from over-represented sections in the event of a resignation by a trainee police officer in order to maintain the 50/50 recruitment quota for Catholics/non-Catholics in the Police Service of Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [84606]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 requires the Chief Constable to appoint police trainees on a 50 per cent. Catholic, 50 per cent. non-Catholic basis. This requirement applies only to the appointments process; it ceases to apply after police trainees have taken their place on the training course.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Abandoned Vehicles
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he intends to introduce measures to enable local authorities to remove abandoned vehicles from private land. [86426]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  Local authorities are already under a duty (Section 3(1) of the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978) to remove a vehicle which is abandoned in their area on any land in the open air or on any other land forming part of a highway.

  For vehicles abandoned on private land, the local authority enters onto the land using their powers under section 8(1) of the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978. They then serve on the landowner or the occupier a 15 day notice requiring them to remove the vehicle. If no representations are received then the local authority can remove the vehicle following the expiry of the 15 day period. Objections to the notice must be made by the landowner or occupier to the Chief Officer at the local authority within the 15 day period and the landowner or occupier must outline their reasons why they consider that the vehicle is not abandoned. If the local authority accepts the representations then the vehicle can remain on the land. If the local authority rejects the representations they will then remove the vehicle.

  We intend to consult in the New Year on reducing the statutory notice periods for vehicles abandoned on private land.

  Area Cost Adjustment
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister in the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2003–04, what earnings figure was used to calculate the area cost adjustment for each local authority and for each category as listed in Annex H, page 84. [87019]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Area Cost Adjustment uses data drawn from the New Earnings Surveys for 1999, 2000 and 2001. A full methodology guide to how this data is used, with the results for each area of the country, has been published on the office of the Deputy Prime 486W
  Minister's website www.local.odpm.gov.uk/fmance/0304/ acatech.pdf). A copy has also been placed in the Library of the House.

  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if the area cost adjustments for(a) local education authority education, (b) police, (c) general local government and (d) other local services are calculated on the same basis; and if he will place in the Library the formula for calculating area cost adjustment weightings and the weightings derived from the formula for (i) each local authority area receiving area cost adjustment, (ii) the City of York and (iii) North Yorkshire county council. [87159]

  Mr. Leslie
  The method for calculating the labour and business rate elements of the area cost adjustment is the same for all local government services. What varies between services is the proportion of total costs assumed to relate to labour and business rates respectively. A full methodology guide has been placed in the Library of the House. The resulting area costs factors for all authorities are published in annex H of the draft Local Government Finance Report, which was placed in the Vote Office and the Library of the House on 5 December 2002. The City of York and North Yorkshire county council do not receive an area cost top-up.

  Cabinet Office (Spring Supplementary Estimate)
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the uses of the additions to net provisions for the Cabinet Office under the RfR1— heading in the Cabinet Office Spring Supplementary Estimate, February 2002 (Cm 5354); and if he will make a statement. [86280]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  The change in net provision in RfR1-A arises from a number of transactions including: machinery of government transfers between Cabinet Office and the Home Office, the Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport; other transfers between Cabinet Office and other Departments, for example, for fast steam recruitment; the draw down of resource from the DEL reserve; and intra-departmental adjustments. Details of the uses of the additions to sub head Al are shown in the introduction to the Spring Supplementary Estimate.

  Compulsory Purchase
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to give councils greater powers compulsorily to purchase houses that remain empty for long periods; and if he will make a statement. [86713]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no plans to give local authorities greater powers to enable them to compulsorily purchase houses that remain empty for long periods. However, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is considering proposals to enable them to take over the management of long-term empty residential properties. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will make a statement in due course.

  Fire Dispute
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 2 December, ref 84214, what proportion of a pay offer to the firefighters in excess of 4 per cent.will be met by local authorities; and who will pay transitional costs. [86660]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As made clear in my answer to the hon. Member on 2 December 2002,Official Report, column 629W. any pay award, not affordable within existing public expenditure, must be paid for by modernisation. The Position Paper by the Independent Review of the Fire Service set out a clear programme of reform and modernisation in the Fire Service, which would lead to significant extra resources being freed up, which could lead to increases in firefighters' pay.

  The first step is for the employers and the Fire Brigades Union to agree how those savings can be generated, and over what timescale. There is no point speculating about transitional costs at this stage.

  Housing
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the Government will meet the costs currently borne by those tenants not eligible for housing benefit through rent pooling following its introduction of Supporting People(a) for all tenants and (b) for those in sheltered accommodation. [86812]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government is making additional funds available to meet a proportion of the costs of support that have identified as a result of the un-pooling of support costs from housing revenue accounts. After the introduction of Supporting People tenants who currently pay their own support costs, including those in sheltered accommodation will continue to do so. Any transitional relief for tenants not eligible for housing benefit will be met from the Housing Revenue Account, where an authority decides to provide such relief.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government's recent announcement of maintenance and management allowances for council housing, with specific reference to the outcome for Stroud District Council. [86813]

  Mr. McNulty
  Stroud District Council's management and maintenance (M&M) allowances have for many years been higher than their long term M&M targets.

  Authorities in this position have had their allowances reduced gradually over a number of years to bring them towards their targets without imposing sudden very large drops in allowances. For 2003–04, we are proposing that Stroud's managementallowance will be set at £309.08, or 98 per cent. of last year's allowance, so that they will be 2 per cent. over their 2003–04 management target of £301.77. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister proposes an increase of 4.7 per cent. in their maintenance allowance to £533.33, so that their allowance will be just below their new maintenance target of £533.37. In aggregate this represents an increase in their allowances of some 2.15 per cent.
  488W
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has announced national average real increases of 6 per cent. for both management and maintenance allowances for 2004–05 and 2005–06. Together with changes to take account of rent restructuring, this is equivalent to an average cash increase of £268 per dwelling by the second year.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently reviewing the allocation of management and maintenance allowances to ensure this new money is shared out as fairly as possible between authorities, while avoiding unnecessary complexity. It is

  therefore not possible to say what the outcome for any individual authority will be insubsequent years.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will publish the Survey of English Housing 2001–02. [86820]

  Mr. McNulty
  Some of the key findings from the 2001–02 survey were published on 20 August in "Housing Statistics Summary No. 13" a copy of which was placed in the libraries of the House. Since then tables have been produced for individual users on request. It is planned to publish a large batch of tables on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website on 20 December 2002. A printed report will be published later in 2003, when the results have been updated to take account of population figures from the 2001 Census. (Results produced so far have been provisional in that the household figures used to gross the survey data have been estimates based to some extent on the 1991 Census.)

  Local Authorities
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if it is his policy that local community and strategic partnerships should be subject to Local Authorities (Admission to Assets) legislation. [86854]

  Mr. Leslie
  Local Strategic Partnerships are non-statutory bodies, entirely separate from local authorities. LSPs which register as companies limited by guarantee will be subject to the rules and procedures that apply to such companies.

  Malicious Fires
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many malicious fires were recorded in(a) Derbyshire and (b) Chesterfield in each year since 1992, broken down by (i) categories of dwellings, (ii) other buildings, (iii) road vehicles and (iv) other locations. [86849]

  Mr. Leslie
  The following table contains information on the number of malicious fires attended by local authority fire brigades in Derbyshire in each year between 1992 and 2000 (the latest year for which data are available). Malicious fires are those where malicious or deliberate ignition was proved or suspected (this includes fires which were recorded by the brigade as "doubtful"). Incident data are not available below brigade area level.
  489W

  Malicious fires1.2 in Derbyshire by location, 1992–2000p

  Dwellings/Fires3

  Total

  Single occupancy

  Multiple occupancy

  Other or unspecified

  Other or unspecified

  Other buildings

  Road vehicles

  Other

  1992

  786

  63

  34

  16

  13

  162

  487

  74

  1993

  819

  60

  23

  20

  17

  172

  496

  91

  1994

  954

  114

  38

  19

  58

  315

  459

  67

  1995

  885

  89

  44

  22

  23

  248

  458

  91

  1996

  940

  107

  59

  30

  18

  211

  496

  126

  1997

  949

  123

  51

  41

  31

  205

  507

  114

  1998

  1,003

  120

  75

  31

  14

  204

  567

  112

  1999

  1,244

  120

  63

  46

  11

  216

  805

  103

  2000p

  1,225

  117

  65

  37

  15

  193

  802

  113

  1Including late call heat and smoke damage incidents (not recorded prior to 1994).

  2 From 1994 onwards figures are based on sampled data weighted to true brigade totals.

  3 Figures are rounded and the components do not necessarily sum to the independently rounded totals.

  4 A small number of late call heat and smoke damage incidents were not recorded in 1995.

  pProvisional

  Planning
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether an environmental impact assessment is required for applications to amend planning permissions where such an assessment(a) was required and (b) would have been required had it not predated the introduction of environmental impact assessments. [86872]

  Mr. McNulty
  Applications to vary a condition attached to a planning permission are subject to the same requirements as other planning applications for the purposes of environmental impact assessment (EIA). For certain types of project EIA is mandatory. For others, EIA is required if the project meets prescribed criteria and the planning authority considers that it is likely to have significant effects on the environment. This applies to applications to vary a permission regardless of whether EIA was required for the original permission or whether that permission predated the introduction of EIA.

  PPG3
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if the research being conducted by Nathaniel Litchfield and Partners to assess the implementation of PPG3 was commissioned through open tender; what the cost is of this research; and what assessment of possible conflicts of interest was made. [86919]

  Mr. McNulty
  The tendering exercise and award process were carried out in accordance with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's procurement guidelines. The intention to carry out the work was advertised in the Planning Research Newsletter. Six companies from those submitting a formal expression of interest were invited to tender and three were interviewed. Nathaniel Litchfield and Partners Limited were awarded the contact on a tender price of £59,895 because of team composition, experience, cost and overall value for money. No conflicts of interest were identified.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his proposed direction to the Boundary Committee on the timetable of reviews 490W
  of local government structure in areas which give a positive reaction to holding a referendum on regional assemblies. [86711]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Government launched a consultation on draft guidance to the Boundary Committee for England on 2 December 2002. Should the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill become law, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister would then decide in which region or regions there should be a local government review. A review is likely to take around nine to 12 months to complete.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many letters he has had(a) in support of and (b) in opposition to the establishment of a regional assembly in (i) Yorkshire and the Humber, (ii) the South East, (iii) the South West, (iv) the East of England, (v) the West Midlands, (vi) the East Midlands and (vii) the North West; what his estimate is of the cost of a referendum on regional government in each of those regions; what research he has commissioned into the likely outcome of a referendum on regional government in each of those regions; and what his estimate is of the cost of local government reorganisation in each region should regional government be established. [85341]

  Mr. Leslie
  The White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice" was not a consultation exercise, except on the issue of stakeholder involvement with elected regional assemblies, and therefore did not invite views either for or against the principle of establishing assemblies. However, between the dates of 9 May 2002, when the White Paper was published, and 30 November 2002, we recorded 1,200 written and e-mailed pieces of correspondence on the subject of elected regional assemblies. Of those which can be identified by region, responses were identified as follows:16 in favour, 33 opposed and 27 either undecided or expressing mixed views in Yorkshire and the Humber;
  18 in favour, 142 opposed and 56 either undecided or expressing mixed views in the South East;
  26 in favour, 123 opposed and 124 either undecided or expressing mixed views in the South West;

  491W
  11 in favour, 35 opposed and 23 either undecided or expressing mixed views in the East of England;
  16 in favour, 165 opposed and 19 either undecided or expressing mixed views in the West Midlands;
  7 in favour, 27 opposed and 14 either undecided or expressing mixed views in the East Midlands; and
  29 in favour, 45 opposed and 34 either undecided or expressing mixed views in the North West.
  There were also 30 responses in favour, 10 opposed and 18 either undecided or expressing mixed views in the North East.

  The remaining 152 responses either came from elsewhere, or were e-mailed responses for which no region of origin could be identified.

  In addition, we have received 2,333 cut-out coupons as part of a campaign organised by Conservative MEPs in the South East opposing an elected regional assembly in the region, and 1,595 postcards as part of a campaign organised by the Cornish Constitutional convention in support of a referendum for a Cornish Assembly.

  Based on the cost of local authority mayoral referendums using all-postal ballots, the cost of a referendum may range from about £2 million in the North East to about £6 million in the South East.

  No research has been commissioned into the likely outcome of a referendum on regional government in each region. But the Government launched a soundings exercise on 2 December to find out the level of interest in each English region in holding a referendum on establishing an elected regional assembly. Views, information and evidence have been requested by 3 March 2003 and will inform the Secretary of State's consideration of the level of interest in each region in holding a referendum.

  It is not possible, at this stage, to make an estimate of the cost of local government reorganisation in each region, as much will depend on the precise details of the structure and boundary changes proposed by the Boundary Committee following the local government reviews.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to change the Right to Buy system; and if he will make a statement. [86712]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no plans to end the Right to Buy scheme, but sees difficulties with some aspects of the way in which the scheme is operating. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is looking at what can be done to tackle abuses and at the effects of the scheme in areas of high demand for housing.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received from the Association of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty on wind farms in areas of outstanding natural beauty. [86871]
  492W
  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is aware that the Association of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty has recently published a position statement on wind farms in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister welcomes the interest shown by all parties including the Association in the land use planning issues involved in the siting of any development, including wind farms, in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

HEALTH

  Acute Hospitals
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many acute hospitals in England and Wales serve a population of less than 500,000. [85793]

  Mr. Hutton
  All United Kingdom residents are entitled to national health service treatment. In the year 2001–02 there were 187 acute trusts in England, each of which may include more than one hospital. The population of England was some 49 million people, giving an average population of 260,000 per acute trust.

  Alcohol and Drug Rehabilitation
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were on alcohol and drug rehabilitation schemes on the NHS in Leeds Strategic Health Authority area; how many were waiting for places; and how many were given places, in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [83489]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information relating to alcohol and drug rehabilitation schemes for the five primary care trusts serving the Leeds area is shown in the table.

  Year

  Number of people accessing treatment

  1998–99

  1,930

  1999–2000

  2,498

  2000–01

  2,366

  Notes:

  Neither the National Drug Treatment Monitoring System NDTMS or Drugs Misuse Database (DMD) holds, or is designed to hold, data on the number of places available for drug and alcohol treatment on the NHS.

  Source:

  West Yorkshire Strategic Health Authority

  Information relating to the number of national health service alcohol and drug rehabilitation places is not available.

  Arson
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many incidents of arson against NHS properties there were; and what the cost of the damage was in each county in each year since 1992. [83136]

  Mr. Lammy
  Our records show that a total of 2,496 fires have been started deliberately on national health
  493W
  service premises since 1995, resulting in damage an estimated £18.3 million.

  Strategic health authority

  Estimated total cost of damage(£)

  Number of deliberate fires 1995 to 2002

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  56,695

  142

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

  137,150

  29

  Birmingham and the Black Country

  10,312,959

  121

  Cheshire and Merseyside

  335,493

  116

  County Durham and Tees Valley

  72,965

  59

  Coventry, Warwickshire and Herefordshire

  66,062

  17

  Cumbria and Lancashire

  291,143

  159

  Dorset and Somerset

  44,563

  54

  Essex

  86,535

  31

  Greater Manchester

  1,474,292

  210

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  155,749

  67

  Kent

  282,596

  51

  Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland

  126,856

  87

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire

  20,030

  79

  North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire

  28,091

  66

  North Central London

  29,439

  77

  North East London

  722,743

  63

  North West London

  116,300

  22

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear

  462,611

  222

  Shropshire and Staffordshire

  109,860

  46

  South East London

  60,639

  47

  South West London

  31,801

  56

  South West Peninsular

  43,677

  86

  South Yorkshire

  122,873

  58

  Surrey and Sussex

  1,493,921

  109

  Thames Valley

  30,297

  59

  Trent

  61,155

  122

  West Yorkshire

  1,551,772

  237

  Grand total

  18,328,268

  2,492

  Care Homes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 5 December 2002,Official Report, column 975W, on care home registrations, for what reasons information on the (a) average length of time and (b) number of care home applications to be registered and processed by the NCSC is not available; and when he expects this information to be available. [86922]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Care Standards Commission (NCSC) does not currently have the full information requested. This is because it requires inspections of services to have been carried out and recorded on the NCSC database. Not all services have yet been inspected and so are not included on the database.

  We expect the NCSC to be able to provide full information by the end of March 2003, when it will have finished its inspection programme.

  Carers' Rights Day
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of Carers' Rights Day; and if he will make a statement. [86996]

  Jacqui Smith
  Carers' Rights Day is a one-day take-up campaign initiated and organised by Carers UK and questions concerning evaluation of the effectiveness of the day should be addressed to them directly. The Government supports the work done by Carers UK in promoting carers' issues and providing information and advice.
  494W
  Figures are not available in the format requested Figures by strategic health authority are shown in the table.

  Computer Viruses
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many incidents of damage to patient records by computer viruses there have been in each of the past five years. [85778]

  Mr. Lammy
  There are currently no reported instances of damage by computer viruses to national health service electronic patient records in any of the past five years.

  Consultants
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultants have accepted national health service posts as international fellows as a result of the initiative whereby Sir Magdi Yacoub was appointed as the Government's Special Envoy for the national health service; and in which specialities. [86751]

  Mr. Hutton
  36 offers of appointment for the National Health Service International Fellowship Scheme have been made and accepted. Further offers of appointment are expected following recent and planned interviews.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department will reply to the letter of 24 June from the hon. Member for Witney about the buildings of the Burford Hospital and their proposed sale. [80813]
  495W
  Mr. Lammy
  A reply was sent on 9 December, which sets out a proposed way forward.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his Answer of 3rd December, Official Report, column 754W, on CRB checks, what assessment he has made of the effect on running costs of(a) children's homes, (b) residential care homes and (c) nursing homes of (i) delays to and (ii) postponement of Criminal Records Bureau checks. [86921]

  Jacqui Smith
  The postponement of criminal records checks for staff who were in post immediately before 1 April 2002 makes no change to the rigorous pre-employment checks which were already in place to ensure their suitability to work with children and vulnerable adults. As such we do not anticipate these postponements affecting care home running costs. For children's homes, there have been no changes or postponements to the checks required.

  We do not anticipate care homes incurring significant costs due to delays at the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) in processing applications for checks on new staff, or, in the case of children's homes, in processing applications for checks on all staff. The National Care Standards Commission has issued guidance to providers about the response to delays at the CRB in processing checks on new members of staff. The intention of the guidance is to enable providers to employ new members of staff in care homes, and all staff in children's homes, pending the completion of CRB checks while also ensuring the safety of residents.

  Frictional Discharges
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 5 December 2002,Official Report, column 965W, on frictional discharges, what his definition is of minimal levels of delayed transfers by 2006; and if he has set a target to achieve this level. [86920]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has not set a central target for 2006. It is our judgment that the financial incentives we are putting in place will ensure that the health and social care system delivers minimal delayed transfers by then.

  Health Records
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Department's policy is on the disclosure of health records by NHS trusts to third parties. [86756]

  Mr. Lammy
  Patient information is generally held by national health service trusts under legal and ethical obligations of confidentiality. Information in health records should not be released to others without the consent of the patient concerned where the disclosure will identify the patient. The exceptions are where the information is effectively anonymised, is required by statute or the courts or if it is judged that there is a strong public interest justification in disclosure which overrides the duty of confidence to the patient. For example such circumstances would include the protection of the public and prevention of serious crime. Additionally there must not be a statutory prohibition against the 496W
  release of the information and NHS trusts must have the vires to release information for the purpose in question. Any disclosure of patient information must satisfy these and any other data protection requirements.

  Hospital Admissions
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the admissions to NHS hospitals where place of residence is not known in(a) December 1999 to January 2000 and (b) December 2000 to January 2001, broken down by NHS (i) region and (ii) trust. [86026]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data on the number of admissions to national heath service hospitals where place of residence is not known from December 1999 to January 2000, and from December 2000 to January 2001, broken down by NHS region and trust, have been placed in the Library.

  Medical Vacancies
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many medical and nursing vacancies there are within the NHS; and what measures are being taken by his Department to fill them. [81933]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national health service vacancy survey is carried out annually on 30 March. As at 30 March 2002 there were 1,310 vacancies, posts that had been vacant for three months or more, for medical and dental staff and 8,390 vacancies for qualified nurses.

  Additional nurses and doctors are being employed as a result of increased throughput from training, improved recruitment and retention and international recruitment. Since 1997 the number of nurses working in the NHS has increased by an estimated 39,500 and the number of consultants by 4,980.

  Mental Health Services
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of mental health service money will be allocated to(a) joint working between adult and children mental health services, (b) mental health professionals supporting other professionals working with children and (c) supporting youth offending teams between adult and children mental health services in each of the next three years. [86252]

  Jacqui Smith
  Guidance to health and local authorities on the further development of child and adolescent mental health services and the use of additional central funding over the period 2003–04 to 2005–06 is expected to be issued shortly. Within the terms of this guidance it will be for the local agencies to decide how their budgets are allocated.

  Mental Health Services (Children)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent since 1997 on mental health services for children, broken down into budget headings. [86461]

  Jacqui Smith
  This information is not collected centrally. However, our estimate for likely expenditure on mental health services for children in 2001–02 is in the table.
  497W
  We recognise that much still needs to be done to improve child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS). On 16 October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that CAMHS would receive an additional £140 million over the next three years through increased grants to local authorities. This will help build capacity, improve access and, together with new national health service investment, help deliver a comprehensive CAMHS for every area.

  CAMHS HS

  £million

  HCHS

  289

  PSS

  269

  Total

  558

  Notes:

  1. Hospital and community health services (HCHS) costs exclude the costs of primary care and drugs.

  2. Personal social services (PSS) costs include children's social services (CSS) costs where appropriate.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of local social services departments have agreed a joint strategy for allocating mental health grants with local child and adolescent mental health services; and if he will make a statement. [86469]

  Jacqui Smith
  Our information is that all health authorities and local authority social services departments have complied with the statutory requirement (notified in a Department of Health circular of May 1999) to work together to produce joint three-year development strategies to deliver the child and adolescent mental health services objectives set out in national priorities guidance 1999–2002. Targeted central funding of £85 million was provided to help support these developments, including £35 million in the form of grants to local authorities.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the budget for child and adolescent mental health services in the financial years 2000–02 was spent on mental health services for children. [86471]

  Jacqui Smith
  Budgetary information on local child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) is not collected centrally.

  Targeted funding for health and local authorities provided centrally to help support their joint CAMHS development strategies is expected to be spent for the purpose for which it is allocated.

  Neurological Conditions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of people in the UK with a neurological condition. [86882]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have made no estimate of the number of people in the United Kingdom with a neurological condition. The recent neurological alliance publication, Levelling Up, estimates that around 2,850,000 people have a neurological condition of one kind or another, with another 8,000,000 suffering from migraine.
  498W
  In February 2001, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the national service framework (NSF) for long-term conditions, that will have a particular focus on the needs of people with neurological conditions and brain and spinal injury. Current plans are to publish the NSF in 2004 with a 10-year implementation period from 2005.

  NHSU
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what year he expects NHSU to obtain its Royal Charter. [84035]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Health Service University (NHSU) aims to become an awarding and accrediting institution in its own right, by meeting the standards required to become a university.

  On 21 November 2002, NHSU launched its development plan entitled Learning for Everyone. This document sets out the vision for the university and is the basis for an extensive three month consultation exercise with the NHS and its partners. The responses and issues raised will be taken into account when drawing up the NHSU strategic and business plan in April 2003.

  To achieve university status, NHSU will need to meet the rigorous standards which apply to the granting of such a status. It will work towards those standards as it develops and will only be able to submit the necessary application when it is confident that they are met.

  NHSU have obtained agreement in principle with the Higher Education Funding Council to set up a working group, with members drawn from Higher Education Funding Council, NHSU, the Department for Education and Skills, the Department of Health and the Quality Assurance Agency. This group will look at the appropriate processes and mechanisms for achieving status, to offer advice and to draw up an action plan by November 2003 setting out the step to be taken.

  Patient Records
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department has taken to tackle the threat of computer viruses to patient records. [85777]

  Mr. Lammy
  National health service organisations are required to implement and maintain adequate local anti-virus protection as a condition of their connection to the NHS network. In addition, relevant guidance for the selection, deployment and management of anti-virus products has been provided to NHS organisations and is regularly refreshed to take account of new threats.

  Personal Social Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the(a) efficiency gains and (b) other value for money gains of personal social services expenditure that have been achieved, broken down by region, in each of the last three years. [86880]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information provided by councils during in-year monitoring suggests that, for social services in England, the estimated efficiency and value for money gain was 2.1 per cent, for 1999–2000, 2.3 per cent, for 2000–01 and 2.5 per cent, for 2001–02.
  499W
  Taken over these three years, the total estimated efficiency and value for money gain was 7.1 per cent., virtually meeting the cumulative three year target of 7.2 per cent, for those years. The table shows these figures broken down using the current regional boundaries. The target is national and does not apply to individual regions or councils. Efficiency gains and value for money gains are not separately identified. Information for 2001–02 is not yet available.

  Estimated efficiency and value for money gains in personal social services

  Percentages

  Estimated efficiency and value for money gains

  Region

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Total for three years

  England

  2.1

  2.3

  2.5

  7.1

  North West

  2.2

  3.0

  3.3

  8.8

  North East

  2.3

  2.6

  2.4

  7.4

  Yorkshire and Humber

  1.8

  2.0

  2.4

  6.3

  East Midlands

  1.9

  2.4

  2.8

  7.3

  West Midlands

  2.1

  2.1

  2.1

  6.4

  East England

  1.8

  2.4

  2.8

  7.2

  London

  2.0

  2.0

  2.2

  6.3

  South East

  2.4

  2.0

  2.3

  6.8

  South West

  2.0

  2.7

  2.5

  7.4

  Note:

  Some councils are excluded where they did not provide data of sufficient quality.

  Specialised Services (Commissioning)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the process and timetable is for completion of the review into commissioning specialised services; and when he plans to announce the outcome of the review. [86240]

  Mr. Hutton
  A summary of the responses will be placed in the Library in December and guidance will be issued in the new year.

  Student Nurses
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many student nurses have failed to complete their studies since 1997, broken down by nation of the UK. [84602]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information for England on the number of student nurses who have not completed their course is given in the table below. Information for Scotland and Wales is a matter for the devolved Administrations. For Northern Ireland, although the Administration is devolved, responsibility rests with the Minister in the Northern Ireland office.

  Student nurses (England)

  Year

  Started

  Leavers

  Interrupted

  Active

  1996–97

  15,700

  3,200

  667

  283

  1997–98

  18,106

  3,650

  996

  658

  1998–99

  18,147

  3,299

  1,206

  7,765

  1999–2000

  20,186

  2,712

  1,015

  16,258

  2000–01

  19,932

  1,238

  460

  18,232

  Note:

  This data is based on a snapshot in time of a particular cohort (s) and therefore each year there will still be students who have yet to complete their course.
  500W
  Glossary of terms:
  Leavers—students who have withdrawn completely from the course.
  Interrupted—students who have temporarily withdrawn but who intend to return.
  Active—students who have still to complete their studies.

  Terrorism (Mass Contamination)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many primary care trusts have fully developed plans to deal with(a) chemical, (b) biological, (c) radioactive and (d) nuclear emergencies; [82163]

  (2) how many PCTs have fully developed plans to deal with CBRN emergencies. [82580]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answers 21 November and 25 November]The main health response to a chemical, biological, radioactive and nuclear (CBRN) emergency will involve the ambulance services and hospital sector where there has been an overt deliberate release.

  Primary care trusts (PCTs) took on overall emergency planning responsibilities from 1 October 2002. All PCTs are required to prepare major incident plans. The Department will shortly be reviewing their progress.

  A programme of work is underway to support PCTs in developing their major incident plans and response arrangements. This is led by the regional directors of public health (RDsPH) and regional health emergency planning advisers. RDsPH have been tasked to ensure that PCTs have an all hazards approach in place for dealing with major incidents. This will draw upon the expertise of the relevant agencies such as the regional chemical incident provider units, the Public Health Laboratory Service, the communicable disease surveillance centre, consultants in communicable disease control and the National Radiological Protection Board.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Oliver Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will commission research into the levels of take-up of invalid care allowance. [86995]

  Maria Eagle
  We have no plans to do so at present. Awards of invalid care allowance are steadily increasing, although subject to seasonal fluctuations. Information about financial and practical help for carers is readily available from a range of sources. We expect that the publicity surrounding the recent changes to ICA (allowing access to older carers, and extending entitlement after the death of the disabled person), will also serve to increase awareness of all the benefits available to carers.

  Benefit Uprating
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list each(a) social security benefit and (b) revenue and capital disregard that has not been uprated since (i) 1997, (ii) 1992 and (iii) 1990. [86312]
  501W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is as follows: Benefits and income/capital disregards not uprated since 1990:Christmas Bonus;
  Retirement Pension addition at age 80;
  Income related benefits capital limits except the lower and upper limits for people in long-term care which were increased in 1996 and the lower and upper limits for over 60s which were increased in April 2001;
  Income related benefits earnings disregards except the higher earnings disregard which was last increased in April 20011;
  Income related benefits disregard for war disablement pension and war widow's pension;
  Income related benefits disregard of income from a boarder.
  1£25 earnings disregard for lone parents in housing benefits and council tax benefit was not increased in April 2001.

  Notes:

  Income related benefits are income support, housing benefit, council tax benefit and jobseeker's allowance (introduced in 1996).

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much his Department spent on(a) buildings maintenance and (b) accommodation capital projects in each of the past three years. [87001]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information requested is in the table.

  £

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Buildings maintenance

  16,747,403

  16,342,368

  19,190,951

  Accommodation capital

  13,935,877

  7,956,305

  18,695,526

  The increase in buildings maintenance costs is due to the requirements to refurbish, to corporate standard, the pathfinder offices for Jobcentre Plus.

  Fraud
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what targets for the reduction of benefit fraud have been set since 2000; and what performance has been against each target. [86997]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We set a Public Service Agreement target in March 1999 to achieve a reduction in the level of fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance by 10 per cent. by March 2002. In April 2001 two further targets were added: a 25 per cent. reduction by March 2004 and a 50 per cent. reduction by March 2006. In July this year we announced an increase in the target for working age customers to a 33 per cent. reduction by 2004 while maintaining our longer-term commitment to the 50 per cent. reduction by 2006. We have also announced a new target of a 25 per cent. reduction in fraud and error in housing benefit by 2006.

  In income support and jobseeker's allowance the latest results show that, by March 2002, we had achieved a 24 per cent. reduction, more than double the target of 10 per cent.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the investigation of monthly random samples of cases in each benefit agency area has shown 502W
  the level of fraud and error to be in (a) income support and (b) job seeker's allowance, in each of the past six months for which figures are available. [86998]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We have made very good progress in reducing the level of fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance. Latest national figures show that by March 2002 we had achieved a reduction of 24 per cent., more than double the target of 10 per cent. A full report giving the regional figures will be published early next year.

  The latest published regional figures are for the period April 2000 to March 2001 and are in The Results of the Area Benefit Review and the Quality Support Team from April 2000 to March 2001: Fraud and Error in Claims for Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance, a copy of which is in the Library. The information is not available on a monthly basis.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people were employed in the Benefit Fraud Investigation Service in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002; and how many are employed there. [86999]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The overall aim of the Department's anti-fraud strategy is to have a benefit system which is secure from first claim to final payment. The implementation of this strategy means than an antifraud focus is integral to the work of all staff in the Department, as is dealing with the wider agenda of error and incorrectness in benefit payments.

  The information currently available suggests that, throughout the period, around 5,000 staff have been employed by the Department and its agencies in work to investigate suspicions of fraud. This figures includes staff employed within the Benefit Fraud Investigation Service. However, taking account of changes in data collection measures over time and the integration of investigators more fully with front-line staff, it is clear that we need to improve the validity and reliability of year- on-year comparisons, and we have asked officials to undertake further work on this. We have concluded that it is not possible to make valid comparisons between figures year-on-year.

  We will therefore undertake a review to improve the consistency of centrally collected information for the future.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimates he has made of the(a) number and (b) percentage of pensioner households in receipt of housing benefit but not minimum income guarantee who will be entitled to the pension credit; and what efforts he is making to ensure they claim the pension credit. [86885]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available in the format requested. However it is estimated that around a third (half a million pensioner benefit units) of those who become newly entitled to pension credit when it is introduced in October 2003 will already be eligible for housing benefit.

  To ensure maximum take up of pension credit all existing minimum income guarantee (MIG) recipients will be automatically transferred to pension credit. We

  503W
  will contact all pensioners not receiving MIG, giving them information about pension credit and encouraging them to apply, pension credit will also be advertised through the press and television.

  Pensions
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the cumulative percentage increase in the state pension for(a) a married couple and (b) a single person since 1996. [85495]

  Mr. McCartney
  Since April 1996 the maximum rate payable of the Basic State Pension has increased by around 7 per cent. in real terms.

  Pensions Law
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average length of time is which his Department allows for consultation with pensioners' practitioners about proposed changes to pensions law. [87004]

  Mr. McCartney
  Legislation provides that, except in certain specified circumstances, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should usually consult on draft private pensions regulations. The Department normally allows at least 12 weeks when undertaking a written consultation with pensioner practitioners on changes to pensions law.

  Poverty
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people over retirement age lived below the poverty line in(a) Lancashire, (b) the North West of England, (c) Wales and (d) the UK, in each of the last five years. [85331]

  Mr. McCartney
  Poverty is a complex, multidimensional issue, affecting many aspects of pensioners' lives—including income, health, housing and the quality of their environment. Consequently, there is no single measure of pensioner poverty; providing a decent income is key. At present, no pensioner has to get by on less than £98.15 a week under the minimum income guarantee (£149.80 for couples). These rates will increase in April 2003 to £102.10 for single pensioners and £155.80 for couples.

  From April 2002, the Government is spending an extra £6 billion a year in real terms on pensioners as a result of policies introduced since 1997. This includes £2½ billion more on the poorest third of pensioners.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the number of companies under the regulations introduced on 8 October 2001 that(a) are obliged to provide and (b) have so far failed to offer, access to a stakeholder scheme; and what plans he has to ensure that employers who have not complied with the requirement to offer a stakeholder scheme, do so. [84620]

  Mr. McCartney
  It is broadly estimated that around 350,000 firms are required to provide their employees with access to a stakeholder pension scheme. Latest data 504W
  from the Association of British Insurers reveals that 335,719 employers had designated a stakeholder pension scheme by the end of September 2002. This suggests a compliance rate of over 90 per cent.

  The Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (Opra) is the body responsible for regulating compliance with the workplace access requirements in respect of stakeholder pension schemes. Opra will continue to follow up all reports of non-compliance and will take action where compliance has not been achieved. It is also looking into ways to identify employers who have not yet complied with the requirements. It has begun writing to employers to ascertain whether or not they have any pension provision, and whether this pension provision would exempt them from offering access to a stakeholder pension scheme. Where Opra identifies non-compliant employers it will actively pursue such cases.

  Surplus Properties
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many surplus properties his Department(a) has and (b) will have over the next 10 years; what their value is; and if he will make a statement. [87000]

  Mr. McCartney
  There are currently 44 properties that are surplus to the Department's accommodation requirements, six of these are freehold and 38 leasehold. The freeholds are valued at £1,605,000. It is difficult to place a value on the leaseholds, given the prevailing market conditions.

  The Department is currently developing an estate strategy to meet our future business requirements and in particular support the implementation and rollout of Jobcentre Plus and the Pension Service. Until the strategy work is completed we cannot forecast how many properties in total will be required and consequently how many properties in total will be surplus to requirements.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what distinction is made when sending winter fuel payments between houses with numbered addresses and those with house names but no numbers; [85140]

  (2) in what way his Department distinguish between single pensioner households and those with more than one pensioner when distributing winter fuel payments; [85141]

  (3) how many appeals by pensioners living alone were received against incorrect awards of winter fuel payments in (a) 2000 and (b) 2001. [85142]

  Mr. McCartney
  To ensure all eligible people in a household receive the correct level of winter fuel payment, personal information from the benefit computer systems is matched to ascertain how many eligible people live at each address. No distinction is made between houses with numbered addresses and those with house names but no number when determining entitlement to winter fuel payments.
  505W
  Addresses are converted to a standard format and then matched against the Royal Mail Postal Address file, including the unique alpha/numeric value for each address known as the Delivery Point Suffix.

  During the data matching, various computer scans are run. Where more than one person's details are linked by the Delivery Point Suffix, each will be allocated £100; where the details are not linked to another, the person is awarded £200. A number of further scans are run to correct errors and mismatching.
  506W
  The Delivery Point Suffix is identified in 98 per cent. of cases, but in cross-referencing over 12 million records, there will unfortunately be some errors. Anyone who receives £100 when they believe that they are entitled to £200 is asked to contact the address on the notification letter.

  This is then investigated and where further enquiries reveal that a £200 payment was due, a top up payment is issued. For Winter 2000–01 45,332 top up payments were made, and for winter 2001–02, there were 38,853 top up payments issued.

LORD CHANCELLOR

  Transsexual People
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton)
  I will tomorrow announce the Government's plans for implementing the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in Goodwin v The United Kingdom and"I" v The United Kingdom, following collective Ministerial consideration of the recommendations received from the Interdepartmental Working Group on Transsexual People. Copies of the announcement will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses, the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office. The announcement will also be made available on the LCD website at www.lcd.gov.uk.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Employer's Liability
  The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown)
  In the Pre-Budget Report of 27 November my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that:"Premiums for Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance (ELCI) have increased substantially in recent months, affecting many businesses, and especially Small and Medium Sized Enterprises in high-risk sectors. Following a request from the Government, Fhe Association of British Insurers (ABI) and trade associations are working to ensure that affordable cover is available. The Government has engaged with a wide range of stakeholders including the CBI, TUG and ABI to discuss the long-term issues affecting ELCI. The Department for Work and Pensions will now undertake a formal review of the operation of ELCI. Full details of this review will be announced shortly."
  I am pleased now to announce the start of that review and its terms of reference.

  The terms of reference of the review are to:
  Survey the operation of ELCI, taking into account any relevant aspects of the state benefits systems;
  Assess the scale and nature of the current difficulties being experienced in relation to ELCI, in particular the extent to which these difficulties are likely to be short-term only, repeated in the future or permanent;
  Make recommendations to Ministers as to the case or otherwise for reforming ELCI; and
  If a case for reform is found, make recommendations as to the objectives, principles and high-level options for such reform.
  The review will be led by the Department for Work and Pensions, but will have the close involvement of a number of other Government Departments including HM Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Lord Chancellor's Department. It will report to Ministers in Spring 2003.
  24WS
  Written contributions to the work of the review are welcomed. Any such contributions should be sent to the ELCI REVIEW TEAM at the Department for Work and Pensions, The Adelphi, Level 2, 1–11 John Adam Street, London WC2N 6HT by Monday 17 February 2003. I have arranged for further details to be made available on the Department of Work and Pensions web site at: www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/2002/index.htm.

  International Labour Conference
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks)
  The 89th Session of the International Labour Conference adopted a new Convention 184 on Safety and Health in Agriculture and a Recommendation 192 supplementing the Convention. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today laid before Parliament a White Paper entitled 'International Labour Conference' (Cm 5703), copies of which have been placed in the Library.

PRIME MINISTER

  Council of Europe and WEU Assembly
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair)
  The United Kingdom Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Assembly of Western European Union is as follows:

  Tony Lloyd Esq MP (Leader)

  Full Representatives

  David Atkinson Esq MP

  Malcolm Bruce Esq MP

  Sir Sydney Chapman MP

  Tom Cox Esq MP

  Terry Davis Esq MP

  Bill Etherington Esq MP

  Paul Flynn Esq MP

  Lord Judd

  Jim Marshall Esq MP

  Chris McCafferty MP

  Kevin McNamara Esq MP

  Eddie O'Hara Esq MP

  Lord Russell-Johnston

  Sir Teddy Taylor MP

  Robert Walter Esq MP

  John Wilkinson Esq MP

  Jimmy Wray Esq MP

  Substitute Members

  Tony Banks Esq MP

  Baroness Billingham

  Peter Bottomley Esq MP

  Lord Burlison

  Ann Cryer MP

  Jane Griffiths MP

  Michael Hancock Esq CBE MP

  Baroness Hooper

  Rt Hon Lord Kilclooney

  Baroness Knight of Collingtree DBE

  Khalid Mahmood Esq MP

  Humfrey Matins Esq MP

  David Marshall Esq MP

  25WS

  Alan Meale Esq MP

  Gordon Prentice Esq MP

  Geraldine Smith MP

  Lord Tomlinson

  Dr Rudi Vis MP

TRANSPORT

  National Travel Survey Data
  The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar)
  Statisticians in my Department have discovered errors in the urban/rural coding of the National Travel Survey data. A statistical release issued today presents revised data for key analyses for 1996–2001. Copies of the document have been placed in the Library of the House. The effects of the revisions are in general small, but they do affect the 10 Year Transport Plan indicator of rural bus service availability.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Sustainable Farming and Food Strategy
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett):
  I am pleased to report to the House that Government are today launching a Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food. Later today, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I will meet farmers and leaders of the food industry, rural, environmental and consumer bodies to discuss the new strategy and hear examples of good practice from across the food chain.

  The strategy is further evidence of this Government's commitment to help deliver innovative and practical solutions to the challenges faced by those involved in the food chain. We do not underestimate the scale of these challenges: farm incomes remain under pressure and the foot and mouth disease outbreak also added to the momentum for change.

  This strategy builds on the invaluable work conducted by the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food to chart a way through these challenges. It sets out how industry, Government and consumers can work together to secure a profitable and internationally competitive future for our industries, whilst contributing to a better environment, improving nutrition and public health and prosperous communities.

  The strategy is backed by £500 million from Government over the next three years. Subject to clearance under the usual EU procedures, this will provide:
  a new entry-level agri-environment scheme: developing a simple scheme, suitable for all farmers which will pay them to farm in a more sustainable way, a core Curry Commission recommendation. Subject to successful piloting, this would be rolled out nationally in 2005.
  Continued expansion of premium rural and environmental schemes like Countryside Stewardship: further work to improve the targeting of these schemes and make them simpler to applicants.
  26WS
  A new 'whole farm' approach to management and regulation: helping farmers plan their business as a whole to meet commercial and regulatory needs. The Government also plan to develop an audit-based approach to identify a farm's strengths and weaknesses as a basis for cutting red tape and the number of inspections required.
  The new Agricultural Development Scheme: to improve competitiveness and marketing, including the priority areas of co-operation, farm assurance and spreading best practice.
  New funding to assist small regional food producers: extra money channelled through Food from Britain will enable it to work with Regional Development Agencies and the Regional Food Groups to expand this sector.
  More money for skills and training: knowing how to make a profit is fundamental, but respecting the environment and marketing require different skills and knowledge. We are reviewing training and advice services to help farmers develop and to exploit new opportunities.
  A Food and Health Action Plan: led by the Department of Health, to build on existing work to improve diet and nutrition, working with industry and consumers. The Plan will address food production and access as well as consumer information.
  A network of demonstration farms: in early 2003 a pilot network of farms will open their doors to share best practice and experiences.
  Improving animal health and combating diseases: government is drawing up a new animal health and welfare strategy, has strengthened our emergency preparations and efforts to combat illegal meat imports.

  In addition, the Government will ask the Institute of Grocery Distribution, in conjunction with the Food Chain Centre to undertake analysis of the impact of nutrition initiatives such as the National School Fruit Scheme and the five-a-day programme, on the food chain. This will highlight the commercial opportunities for English farmers and growers and other sectors of the food industry.

  The strategy—which builds on the work of the Curry Commission—also underlines the need for farming to reconnect with its markets, better cooperation with the food chain, investment in people and technology and the adoption of environmental best practice. There are many examples of good practice to build upon:
  More than 25,000 farm holdings in existing government environmental schemes.
  More than 400 farmers' markets offering producers the opportunity to sell direct to their markets.
  Over 78,000 farmers and growers are already members of farm assurance schemes with their produce branded under logos such as the Red Tractor and a number of industry initiatives being taken forward as part of the strategy:
  The Food Chain Centre is working to improve the efficiency of the food chain through the provision of information, analysis and training and promotion of benchmarking and best practice.
  The Red Meat Industry Forum is working to improve efficiency and information flow in the red meat supply chain.
  English Farming and Food Partnerships, established by the industry with Defra support, will promote cooperation between farmers and between farmers and the rest of the food chain.
  Assured Food Standards is working to broaden support for farm assurance within the food chain and to consolidate and develop assurance standards.
  27WS
  The Government have already announced that an independent Implementation Group, led by Sir Don Curry, will oversee the delivery of the strategy by both Government and industry.

  Across England, regional delivery plans will be drawn up between government offices, Regional Development Agencies, local farmers, Rural Affairs Forums, Regional Chambers and a range of stakeholders, assisted by Sir Don Curry's Implementation Group.

  The strategy is being laid before Parliament at 11.00am today and copies of this and the strategy related documents will be available in the Vote Office and the Libraries of the House at that time.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Race Monitor
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes):
  I have now received a copy of the first interim report prepared by the Race Monitor, Mary Coussey who was appointed this year to the post created under Section 19E of the Race Relations Act 1976, as amended by the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.

  The report is based on Ms Coussey's short time as Race Monitor and describes the visits to ports she has made so far and also gives an indication of her work programme for the rest of this financial year. She has not on this occasion made any recommendations.

  Under the terms of her appointment, the Race Monitor will be submitting a full annual report to Parliament in March next year.

  A copy of the interim report has been placed in the Library.

  Prisons (Hostage Incidents)
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett):
  I have considered the current arrangements on the use of intrusive surveillance of prison cells during hostage incidents and have concluded that the current arrangements do not assist the Prison Service in bringing a hostage incident to a safe conclusion. As things stand, the Prison Service Incident Commander is required to obtain my authorisation of any hostage incident where he considers it necessary to use surveillance in the management of the incident. This can take an hour or more, which could be a dangerous delay.

  It makes no sense that the Prison Service is hampered in its safe management of the incident through concerns about the hostage-taker's privacy. The Prison Service has taken advice of the Chief Surveillance Commissioner, who concluded that a hostage-taker forfeits his right to privacy by engaging in this activity. I agree with this approach and I have instructed the Prison Service to alter procedures accordingly.

  This will mean that in future the Director General or Deputy Director General will authorise applications for covert surveillance in hostage incidents. The Prison Service will however be required to maintain an audit trail of each authorisation demonstrating that the use of
  28WS
  surveillance was necessary, proportionate and consistent set out in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA).

  Should the Prison Service require the use of intrusive surveillance of a prisoner's cell for any other purpose, those applications will still come to me, as they are likely to raise issues of privacy.

  Independent Police Complaints Commission
  The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham):
  Nicholas Hardwick has been appointed by Her Majesty as Chairman of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which will replace the Police Complaints Authority on 1 April 2004 under the provisions of the Police Reform Act 2002. The Commission will exist in shadow form from 1 April 2003.

  The appointment will be for five years in the first instance, and Mr Hardwick is expected to take up post on 1 February 2003.

  Nicholas Hardwick has been Chief Executive of the Refugee Council for the past eight years. Prior to this, he was Chief Executive of Centrepoint, the charity and Housing Association, from 1986 to 1995.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  National Professional Qualification for Headship
  The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband):
  The Department for Education and Skills, in conjunction with the National College for School Leadership, carried out a wide-ranging consultation exercise earlier this year on our proposals to make the NPQH mandatory for first time headteachers. Over 650 responses were received from individuals, LEAs and the main teachers' professional associations. Respondents were in favour of the NPQH being made mandatory for first time headteachers. Following this consultation, I have taken the decision that from 1 April 2004, all those appointed to their first headship post in the maintained sector, including nursery schools, and in non-maintained special schools, will be required to hold, or be working towards, the NPQH.

  Working towards NPQH means that appointees must have at least successfully applied for a place on the course prior to their first headship appointment. The working towards arrangement is a transitional measure that will be in place for five years until 31 March 2009. After this date, the requirement to hold the NPQH will be a pre-appointment requirement for those appointed to their first headship post.

  Those currently serving as headteachers will not be required to gain the qualification.

  The NPQH provides aspiring headteachers with practical, professional training and the introduction of the mandatory requirement will give governing bodies a choice of qualified, well prepared new candidates for headship, in addition to any applications from experienced headteachers. We have carried out

  29WS
  extensive modelling work and we are confident that there will be enough holders of the NPQH by April 2004 to meet demand.

DEFENCE

  Project Aquatrine Package A
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie):
  The Ministry of Defence has appointed Brey Utilities as the Preferred Bidder for Package A of Project Aquatrine, the MOD contract to provide water and wastewater services for the first pack age of work in the Midlands, Wales, and South West England. Project Aquatrine, one of the leading Public Private Partnership projects in the MOD, will transfer the responsibility for the maintenance and operation of all the Department's water and wastewater assets and infrastructure in Great Britain to private sector providers.

  This project will enable the transfer of environmental risk to those in the private sector who are best placed to manage it.

  It is anticipated that Contract signature for the first package of work will be achieved in March 2003, following a three-month Preferred Bidder negotiation period. On this basis, it is expected the Contract will go live in December 2003. The Reserve Bidder for Package A is C2C.

  Training Estate
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie):
  The competition announced in May 2000 has resulted in the selection of a preferred partner, Landmarc Support Services. Detailed negotiations will now take place to secure a contract to provide support services to the Army Training Estate with effect from 1 April 2003.

  This will result in the transfer of approximately 1,400 Ministry of Defence civilian personnel to the private sector. The full protection of the Transfer of Undertaking (Protection of Employment) will apply. The departmental trades unions will be fully consulted in the normal way.

  This contract will maintain existing command and control arrangements together with safety and public relations under MOD whilst introducing best commercial practice in all areas of non-core business. It will also lead to a more cost-effective professional and relevant means of service delivery.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Standard Board for England
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Christopher Leslie):
  I have today placed in the Library of the House the Standards Board for England's Annual Report and Accounts for 2001–02.
  30WS
  The Report and Accounts cover the period when the Standards Board for England was being established and was putting in place its basic procedures. Since May 2002—shortly after the period covered in this report—all local authorities in England have been required to adopt a new Code of Conduct and it has been open to anyone to make an allegation of misconduct to the Standards Board.

  The Annual Report sets out very clearly the role of the Standards Board and describes the approach which the Board is seeking to take to handling complaints and to working with other regulators. Importantly, the report emphasises very strongly that the Standards Board will seek to work in partnership with councils, offering support and advice in a joint effort to promote high standards and confidence in local democracy.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Radiocommunications Agency
  The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Stephen Timms):
  The Agency currently charges £50 per hour plus VAT to provide advice and undertake remedial work at the request of business users where problems are identified in the own radio systems. The charge, which has not been increased since 1997, will be increased to £57 per hour plus VAT and the charge for the use of the Agency's specialist mobile laboratory which is accredited to the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (ACAS) will be increased from £1140 to £1293 plus VAT per day with effect from 1 January 2003. The Agency does not charge business users for enforcement work which is carried out as part of its regulatory duties. The charge only applies for remedying problems which can be dealt with by filters and improvements to site and equipment.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Ambient Noise Strategy
  The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael):
  I am pleased to announce that today we have published a summary of the results of the consultation, Towards a National Ambient Noise Strategy.

  There was very clear support for the Government's proposals for the development of an ambient noise strategy and I am pleased to confirm that we are taking the next steps to develop the strategy. These include: continuing the mapping already underway across England, the establishment of an expert working group to address the effects of noise and to establish cost-effective techniques to take action to improve or preserve noise levels, as appropriate.

  A significant number of respondents indicated a need for a more strategic approach to neighbour noise. I agree that there is a need for a separate Neighbour Noise Strategy and as a first steps towards developing this I am pleased to launch a study to examine neighbour noise, both from the point of view of the noise makers and their victims. The research will generate appropriate and realistic options for action both to raise awareness and

  31WS
  to influence behaviour and, with many of the proposals identified during the consultation, should provide us with a solid basis to also develop a more strategic approach to the control of neighbourhood noise.

HEALTH

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears):
  The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's 11th Annual Report and Accounts 2002 were laid before Parliament today.

  Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Generic Medicines
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn):
  The Government have decided to roll forward, unchanged, the maximum price scheme for generic medicines used in National Health Service primary care. This follows consultation with stakeholders that concluded on 29 November 2002.
  32WS
  The scheme was introduced in August 2000 as a result of price increases in the generics market that started in 1999. It was rolled forward in October 2001. The scheme has restored stability in the generics market and the NHS has saved some £330 million annually as a result. The continuation of it will ensure that this stability continues and that the expenditure savings are maintained.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Security Vetting (Northern Ireland)
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy):
  In order to ensure that security vetting is up to date and appropriate to current circumstances, and in view of recent events, I have asked for a review to be conducted of security vetting arrangements operating in Northern Ireland. This review will be led by the Northern Ireland Office, and includes senior representatives of the Northern Ireland Civil Service and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The review will report to me with recommendations, and a plan for their implementation. I will inform the House of the outcome.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIR MAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

Consolidated Fund Bill
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.

Licensing Bill [H.L.]
11.6 a.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
Viscount Astor: My Lords, at Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, gave a commitment to reply in writing to questions that he was either unable or did not have time to answer at the end of the debate. I raised a number of questions and have received no letter from the noble Baroness's department; nor, so far as I am aware, have a number of my colleagues on this side of the House.
If a Minister makes a commitment at Second Reading to answer in writing questions with which he was unable to deal, the department and the Minister should make some effort to reply to us, or indeed to explain why we were unable to receive replies. Serious points were made during the debate. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a commitment to consider them and that, between now and Committee stage next week, she will reply to any issues to be dealt with then.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, of course I can do that. I received a number of letters yesterday to sign, but I thought that some of them needed changes.
332
Because of the preparation that was necessary for this morning's proceedings, I did not feel able to ask officials to spend a lot of time changing them. I will, however, endeavour to obtain replies to the specific questions raised, some of which were not answered by my noble friend Lord McIntosh—although he did a splendid job, standing in for me at the last minute, in answering many of them. I will look specifically at the questions raised by the noble Viscount and at any others relating to points that will not be covered in ministerial responses today.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Brabazon of Tara) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Licensable activities and qualifying club activities]:
Lord Faulkner of Worcester Lord Faulkner of Worcester moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert—
"(e) the provision of indoor spaces in which smoking is permitted in premises where other licensable nib, activities are carried on."
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 78 and 90, which are grouped with it.
The first amendment adds a further licensable activity to the list contained in Clause 1. The proposed new paragraph (e) relates to the provision of indoor spaces in which smoking is permitted in premises where other licensable activities as already described in paragraphs (a) to (d) are carried on.
There are four main reasons why the amendment is desirable and necessary. The first is to continue what has been a previous practice and to give to the new licensing authorities the responsibility which currently lies with magistrates. It is thus in accord with the main thrust of the Government's Bill.
Magistrates have historically imposed conditions on smoking in public places in licensed premises, especially in banning smoking in areas open to children. The amendment would continue that practice but would make it the responsibility of the new licensing authorities.
Secondly, it is in line with the Government's general policy of making decisions locally. My noble friends increasingly emphasise the importance of local communities in policy-making and delivery. This follows that approach. Local authorities are best placed to make, and are properly accountable for, decisions made about smoking status in pubs and restaurants. Experience overseas indicates that most progress is made in this area when relatively small jurisdictions are given the responsibility. It would be much more difficult to impose a "one size fits all" approach from Whitehall for the whole nation.
By giving powers to local authorities to impose conditions, we are more likely to get appropriate solutions for the local community and solutions sensitive to the commercial needs and practical constraints of particular premises.
Thirdly, the amendment is intended to contribute towards linking the objectives of the Bill with health. The BMA's recent report on passive smoking, Towards Smoke free Public Places, establishes beyond doubt that passive smoking is a cause of lung cancer, coronary heart disease and asthma attacks in adults; and cot death, middle ear disease, respiratory infections and the development of asthma in children.
The most recent statement of the Government's policy on passive smoking is contained in an admirable Written Answer given two days ago by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath to the noble Lord, Lord Laird. It contains these words:
"we accept the right of everyone to breathe air unpolluted by cigarette smoke and we encourage the introduction of smoke-free environments. We recognise that this is not always going to be possible and encourage in these circumstances other measures to be taken to reduce people's exposure to smoke".—[Official Report, 10/12/02; col. WA 21.]
I hope that my noble friend will accept that my amendment is a helpful "other measure" which goes some way towards meeting the Government's aims.
The fact that "public safety" and "the protection of children from harm" are specified as licensing objectives—in Clause 4(2)—makes smoking status relevant in licensed premises. Including the provision of smoking areas as a licensable activity in such premises will mean that the licensee and licensing authority must make active decisions about smoking status.
Fourthly, it is consistent with other approaches to smoking. At present, there are no meaningful regulatory requirements on landlords or restaurant managers to improve air quality in pubs or restaurants.
The hospitality industry seeks to introduce a voluntary agreement known as the "public places charter". But, as that permits its members not to participate, progress has been slow and patchy. I am advised that only 50 per cent of premises are expected to be covered by January 2003. It also allows a "do-nothing" option whereby all that happens is that a sign is placed at the entrance to indicate that smoking is permitted throughout. Even if the hospitality industry meets its own very modest, informal targets, this approach will be chosen by two-thirds of the premises that comply.
So, in other words, only 17.5 per cent in total will have done more than nothing. The rest will opt to do nothing or will not join the charter. Local authority licensing would stimulate uptake of the options under the charter for smoke-free areas, improved ventilation or both. The charter signage would be used to indicate what smoking status is available in premises.
If—dare I say, when—the Government introduce the Approved Code of Practice and Guidance on Passive Smoking at Work drawn up by the Health and Safety Executive four years ago, it would give specific effect, in the case of passive smoking, to general duties to protect employee health and welfare as required under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.
When the ACoP comes in, it would be better to have a local authority responsible for determining what is deemed a "reasonably practicable" approach to smoking in each local establishment. Even if the Government continue to stall on the ACoP, there are still duties under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. Local authorities should uphold them with clear guidance from environmental health officers rather than leave the employers' obligations vague, as they are now.
I do not intend to make provision of smoking spaces anywhere a licensable activity, but only in places licensed for other licensable activities, such as retailing of alcohol or entertainment. The reason for making the provision of smoking areas a licensable activity is to recognise non-smoking as the norm and then require smoking status to be granted under licence. That principle is already accepted by the hospitality industry. Its public places charter states:
"The signatories to this Charter recognise that non-smoking is the general norm and that there should be increasing provision of facilities for non-smokers and the availability of clean air".
My final word about Amendment No. 1 is that I am not trying to use the Licensing Bill as a means to sneak in a back-door ban on smoking in pubs. My aim is to give local authorities powers and responsibilities to tackle this issue in a way that suits the local community. That could include doing nothing except complying with existing law, or it could mean taking a progressive approach to health and to health inequalities. But it will be up to a local authority to decide what is best for its own area.
My second amendment, Amendment No. 78, which is grouped to Amendment No. 1, is to include a further licensing objective under the general duties of licensing authorities in Clause 4. The new Clause 4(2)(e) would specify as a licensing objective,
"the protection of health, safety and welfare of workers in licensed premises".
These objectives already focus on public safety and protection of children from harm, and rightly so. But the rights of workers in licensed premises should be considered. That would apply in such matters as violence, noise and smoke exposure. Although there is overlap with the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and related regulations, it would enable the licensing authority to apply conditions that are specific to the kinds of hazard present in licensed premises. We know that the HSE finds it difficult to give one-size-fits-all guidance on obligations under that Act. This amendment would allow the local authority to impose licensing conditions that would protect workers in licensed premises.
My third amendment, Amendment No. 90, is consistent with the other two, and is also wholly in line with the Government's policy on protecting children from the effects of environmental tobacco smoke. The Government's Smoking Kills White Paper stated:
"Children, more vulnerable than adults and often with little choice over their exposure to tobacco smoke, are at particular risk".

335
We know that other people's smoke makes children ill. It is hard to find a much clearer definition of harm from which children need to be protected than that. As adults, we can choose whether to enter a smoky environment. But children, who under the terms of the Bill will be free to enter licensed premises, do not have that choice if their parents take them in.
Amendment No. 90 makes clear that licensing authorities should do their best to ensure that children are excluded from areas of licensed premises where smoking is permitted. Already, some of the more enlightened pub operators operate such a policy voluntarily. I beg to move.
11.15 a m.
Baroness Buscombe: Before responding to the amendments referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, I say to the Minister that, with regret, we had a difficult task last night and this morning dealing with the draft groupings presented to us mid-afternoon. To give one example, the amendments were grouped with the debate on whether the whole licensing system should be moved from magistrates' courts to local authorities. That was entirely inappropriate and ill thought through. Although the Minister may be under pressure to respond to questions raised at Second Reading two and a half weeks ago, we on Her Majesty's Opposition Benches and other noble Lords are also under enormous pressure. We urge the Minister to encourage her officials to think through carefully the drafting of the groupings.
Turning to the Bill, the Opposition do not support the amendments. We feel that they would be an inappropriate addition to the scope of the Bill. The Bill is intended to provide for unified regulation of the sale and supply of alcohol, the provision of regulated entertainment and the provision of late-night refreshment, referred to collectively in the Bill as the licensable activities.
The Bill is intended to ensure that the provision of additional opportunities for licensable activities is matched by additional measures enabling the police and licensing authorities to act promptly to maintain public order and safety. The Bill is therefore not about the sale or supply of tobacco products or about smoking in the workplace or in public places and it is not appropriate that it should be.
It is entirely inappropriate and wrong that the four licensable activities currently stated in the Bill should be added to by a fifth, as the amendment proposes, to include,
"the provision of indoor spaces in which smoking is permitted in premises w here other licensable activities are carried on".
That means that smoking—not generally, but in otherwise licensable premises—would require approval by licence and licence conditions. I disagree entirely with the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. We believe that the proposal would lead to a possible back-door ban on smoking in
336
pubs. If the noble Lord wishes to make it necessary for licences granted under the Bill to make specific requirements as to the conditions under which smoking may be permitted, Clause 1 is not the appropriate place.
The amendments, individually and collectively, would unnecessarily add to the regulatory burden. The key purpose of the Bill is to reduce the burden of unnecessary regulation. The amendments take no regard of the obligations under existing legislation and regulation and of the widespread and growing effectiveness of self-regulation.
It is not appropriate that this or any other legislation should seek to achieve statutory regulation when it is so obvious that voluntary self-regulation of smoking is already a satisfactory and increasingly effective alternative in the workplace or in public places.
Employers have a common law responsibility to provide a safe place and system of work. Under Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, employers have to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all their employees. Under the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, employers have to ensure that there are arrangements to protect non-smokers from discomfort caused by tobacco smoke in rest rooms or rest areas. If there is a risk to health, the employer must take action to deal with it. Health and safety inspectors can take enforcement action if necessary. Ultimately, it would be for the courts to decide in a particular case whether a risk to health was significant.
These facts make the noble Lord's amendment to Clause 4 redundant. In any event, well over 80 per cent of workplaces now have policies in operation that have the acceptance and agreement of employees and all other parties. Smoking in public places is also likewise now regulated largely on a voluntary, self-regulatory basis without the need for legislation. This is true on most forms of public transport and in taxis, hotels, restaurants, shops, shopping malls and many places of public entertainment.
A significant public demand exists for improved air quality generally in the hospitality sector, represented for the most part by pubs and bars. There is widespread and growing adoption by owners and operators of the public places charter on smoking. We disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, who says that progress is slow. On the contrary, we understand that substantial improvements are being achieved in the provision of cleaner air in the hospitality sector through ventilation, filtration and separate smoking and non-smoking areas. The charter is based on education and training and has the support of all the relevant trade associations and leading commercial operators. It is a progressive scheme that encourages operators to agree and implement a smoking policy with appropriate signage, and to invest in improvements over a number of years.

337
It is worth noting the Government's stated position. As recently as 3rd December, the Secretary of State for Health said that,
"we have been trying to persuade employers, through our local tobacco control alliances, to take action locally. We want to encourage more of them, especially in the restaurant and pub business, either to make their environment smoke free or to at least make it clear to consumers and workers where smoking is allowed. Many employers want to take such action. I agree that there is a lot more to do, but we are beginning to make real inroads into a real problem".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/12/02; col. 741–42.]
In conclusion, in enclosed spaces, environmental tobacco smoke is far from being the only or most significant element in the context of air quality. Nor is the significance of the health implications clear or undisputed. There are many air pollutants—gaseous, chemical and biological—that are most satisfactorily dealt with by improved ventilation and filtration techniques. Regulation that relates only to environmental tobacco smoke would have an unmeasurable effect on overall air quality. Surely the key to improved indoor air quality is proper ventilation and filtration.
Lord Redesdale: As a non-smoker, I can well understand the noble Lord's motivation in tabling the amendment. There are obviously health implications of smoking in pubs. However, we do not support the amendment. I shall not give the detailed reasoning, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has already done so, but we believe that such regulation should be part of the role of the Health and Safety Executive rather than part of this Bill.
Lord Skelmersdale: My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, have responded to the amendment in moderate terms. I have been known to lose my temper on this subject inside and outside the Chamber. I do not intend to do so today.
My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, are absolutely right. Knowing the background of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, described in Dod's as a liaison Peer to the Cabinet Office, I was amazed that he tabled these amendments to the Bill. As my noble friend on the Front Bench said—or almost said—the Bill was originally sold to us as a flagship deregulation Bill. It contains a lot of balancing of retained regulation on one side and easing on the other. It retains the need to maintain public order and safety. The amendments would be an unnecessary addition to the regulatory burden. I agree with everything that my noble friend said about smoking in the workplace.
The charter was agreed between the Department of Health and originally five—now 14—hospitality trade associations. It is very new, having come into effect only in 1999. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, mentioned 2003, which is when the first targets should have been achieved. The targets are that half the pubs and some restaurants must be signed by early 2003, in fewer than 65 per cent of which smoking would be allowed throughout. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, doubted whether that would be achieved. However,
338
according to the public market report of 2002, 39 per cent of pubs have already achieved that aim. Therefore, it is a growing occurrence.
Although the targets will not be exceeded, I have no doubt that over the next three or four years we shall find that around 80 per cent of pubs and restaurants will, at the very least, have smoke-free areas. At best, we shall find a significant number being totally smoke free. I accept that there is a public demand for improved air quality generally. As the noble Lord said, the charter is a voluntary agreement; but, as my noble friend said, it has the approval of the Secretary of State for Health. I believe that it will actually achieve its objectives.
I do not believe that anyone on this side of the Committee has spoken about Amendment No. 90. It is a very worrying trend when the state seems to know better than parents what is good for their children. I hope the noble Lord will accept that it is good for children to be with their parents, whether in pubs, restaurants, or anywhere else. Indeed, as I understand it, this is part of the thinking behind the Bill. Surely it should be for parents to decide where the family sits in a public restaurant; it should not be a matter of law. It follows, therefore, that it should not be a licensing condition.
11.30 a.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: I do not want my noble friend to feel that he is the only person in the Committee with such views, so I rise to support him. My noble friend outlined the reasoning behind these amendments. Therefore, I do not propose to reiterate the points that he made. I shall merely say that I wholeheartedly support the amendments, especially Amendment No. 78, which gives protection relating to the health, safety, and welfare of those working in licensed premises. At present, workers in this industry do not have a choice as to whether or not they work in smoke-free areas. I accept that there are provisions in other Acts that currently cover such workers, but, unfortunately, they are outstandingly inadequate. The proposed provisions would further protect workers in licensed premises.
I do not believe that these proposals represent a backdoor method of banning smoking in pubs—I only wish that they did. I used to enjoy a drink in a pub. But, as I have become older and seem to be more and more affected by cigarette smoke, I can no longer do so. We shall have to wait for another day for such a ban. Indeed, we have been waiting for the ACoP for four years. I worked on the ACoP when I served as a health and safety commissioner. I do not know why we are still waiting. I have my suspicions, but I shall not verse them today. I support the amendments.
Lord Geddes: I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, on two counts: first, I congratulate him on the impeccable and lucid way in which he read his brief, which was masterly. Secondly, I congratulate him on managing to keep a straight face

339
when he said that his proposal was not to try to bring in legislation by the back door. It is. This is a licensing Bill; it has nothing whatever to do with smoking.
As the late Lord Benson once said, "Everything that I wish to say has been said". But just to reinforce my argument, I should point out to the noble Lord that if he wishes to bring in legislation of this type, Clause 1 is not the place to do so; neither is this the right Bill for such provisions.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: Before I speak to the amendments, perhaps I may declare an interest for the purpose of this Committee stage; namely, that I am a non-executive director of a large regional brewer, which operates 1,500 pubs countrywide, including the famous Pitcher & Piano in Westminster—the subject of a good deal of publicity of which noble Lords may be aware. I quite understand the objectives that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has put forward. If he were to use the words, "discourage people from smoking", I could understand his argument, especially where passive smoking is involved. But I share the view that this is not the way to achieve the discouragement that the noble Lord outlined as his objective.
However, I can offer the noble Lord, my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, some comfort. Within the estate that, we operate there is clearly a continuing and rising tide of public opinion in favour of smoke-free areas and the view that the number should be increased. Therefore, market forces and public opinion are on the noble Lord's side. That must be the way to achieve the objective, because we would arrive at the desired point with complete consent. Everyone would buy into the solution that had been found, which is better than trying to impose an anti-smoking provision in licensing legislation and, at the same time, increasing the regulatory burden on both the operator of the pub and licence holder of the premises.
Where attempts have been made to widen the smoke-free areas too far and too fast because of a vocal minority, there has been a backlash from smokers who believe that they, too, have rights. This proposal would put the personal licence holder, the premises licence holder, or the brewer, into the frontline of a battle of public opinion, which would not be fair on any of them. It is up to the legislature to set the framework; it should not be passed down the line and left to people on the frontline to arbitrate and address.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I may begin by responding to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, about the groupings of amendments. This is always an issue, and the Opposition have the right to degroup when they believe it to be necessary. However, my officials put forward these groups in good faith, in the belief that that was the best way to organise the debate. I do not believe that the extent of the degrouping carried out by the noble Baroness will help the debate, though I completely sympathise with some degrouping. We have a great many single groups that seem to deal with more or less the same issue.
340
However, I am perfectly happy to accept the degroupings that have been made by the Opposition; that is their right. We, too, have had to reorganise our way of approaching the Bill in order to take such degroupings into account.
Baroness Buscombe: I am grateful to the Minister, but surely it is the job of officials to help all of us in terms of the way that these groupings are presented. To group this debate with the whole transfer of the licensing system from magistrates to local authorities indicates, perhaps, the depth of misunderstanding of the Bill, which is most disturbing. It simply does not make sense when we are dealing with a Bill that has been coming towards the statute book for two-and-a-half years.
We have degrouped considerably because we believe that the Bill is worthy of full debate. The way that the original groupings were drafted was, to be honest, frankly dismissive of so many of the important issues that have been raised by both individuals and organisations. We have been lobbied extensively on this legislation. We believe that it is right for it to be properly scrutinised.
Baroness Blackstone: I am most puzzled by what the noble Baroness says about the group that we are debating at this stage. In its original form, this group was smaller rather than larger in size. It certainly did not have anything in it about transport. There is some misunderstanding in this respect. I saw the groupings that were put forward yesterday, and this first group of amendments was smaller. It did not refer to Amendment No. 90, which has since been perfectly legitimately added.
I must defend my officials. The groupings originally put forward were designed to enable a sensible debate to take place, without the need to repeat the same argument endlessly. That was the intention. The Opposition have a right to disagree, and they have done so. However, it is not fair to my officials to suggest that they approached the matter on any other basis than in good faith to promote the best possible debate. I am sure that Members on all sides of the Committee who have served as Ministers will accept that that is the case. I hope we can proceed on that basis, with that shared common understanding.
I turn to the amendments. As my noble friend Lord Faulkner said, Amendments Nos. 1, 78 and 90 seek to address concerns about smoking on licensed premises and the protection of those who work on such premises. Smoking is an issue that should be taken seriously. I take it very seriously, as I know do many other noble Lords. On a number of fronts, the Government are considering whether sufficient controls are in place to protect customers and employees in venues where people smoke. However, this Bill is not about smoking. I entirely agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, when she set out very clearly that this Bill is not about smoking. On that she was also supported by her colleagues on the Conservative Benches and by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale

341
I share some of the views of my noble friends Lord Faulkner and Lady Gibson and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. I am not a smoker and I do not like going into pubs full of smoke. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, that public opinion has been shifting quite dramatically and that the market itself will lead ever more pubs to want to restrict smoking. I think that he will have more customers in the pub chain where he is a non-executive director if that organisation moves in that direction. I am sorry that I do not know the story about the pub in Westminster, but perhaps on another occasion he can tell me and other noble Lords who are a little curious about what went on there.
As my noble friend Lord Faulkner said, one way in which we are already addressing public smoking in pubs and bars is through the public places charter to which various speakers have referred. The charter is a Department of Health initiative focusing on the link between smoking, drinking and eating. It does not ban outright the right to smoke in various premises, but it has provided a number of helpful practical solutions to smoking issues in what are known as "hospitality venues" in England and Wales, making it possible for customers to know whether the premises have smoke-free areas and the quality of the ventilation provided.
I have not seen the statistics quoted by my noble friend Lord Faulkner. However, I am inclined to agree with the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that much progress is being made, and rather more than he suggested. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, also mentioned that and quite rightly pointed out that, as the targets do not have to be reached until next year, there is still quite a lot more time for people to put in place better provision for those who prefer to be in a non-smoking environment. I think that he quoted a figure of 80 per cent of pubs responding. I cannot comment on that as I do not yet know the figures, and I am not sure that we yet have figures on which we can rely.
I tell my noble friend Lord Faulkner that the Good Practice Guide issued by the Magistrates' Association and the Justices' Clerks' Society advises the licensing justices not to set conditions that generally relate to health. I think that we should be absolutely clear about that. The Good Practice Guide states that these matters are properly for local authorities under their responsibilities for environmental health and are not properly dealt with in a licensing context. I think that we should all expect local authorities to take seriously their duties under other legislation such as environmental health law about health and safety matters, and I believe that they do.
The Bill's four licensing objectives were developed after extensive and detailed consultation with stakeholders. From the first consultation, and including the Government's White Paper, it was made clear that the purposes of the licensing regime needed to be absolutely clear and focused. The result of consultation was to choose for that clear focus the prevention of disturbance and disorder, as well as ensuring public safety wherever possible in places
342
where people gather together for leisure purposes, whether as staff or patrons, and of course including children.
Amendment No. 90 would require licensing authorities to have regard to the need to exclude children from areas of licensed premises where smoking is permitted. For exactly the same reason as we do not believe that the regulation of smoking on premises where other licensable activities take place should be included in the Bill, I am not able to accept this amendment. However, I am ready to consider what more might be done to bolster the charter we have discussed, to discuss this with my right honourable and honourable friends in the Department of Health, and, in particular, to encourage its adoption by the licensed trade. I am sure that there will be general agreement across the Committee on that.
The issue of regulating smoking on premises is, however, beyond the scope of this Bill. I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
11.45 a.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I am most grateful to everyone who has spoken. I particularly appreciate the comments of my noble friend Lady Gibson and the reply just now from my noble friend the Minister. This is an issue that will not go away. It is clear from the tone of all the contributions that the climate on smoking in public places, in licensed premises and indeed elsewhere, is changing steadily; on that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, is absolutely correct. I would expect that the climate will have changed sufficiently for the great majority of businesses to realise that it is good commercial practice to provide properly for those who dislike the smell and taste of other people's tobacco smoke.
The purpose of moving and speaking to these amendments was to give a helping hand to my friends at the Department of Health who are desperately attempting to secure a proper tobacco control policy in this country. I pay tribute to what they are doing. The Answers that they are giving to parliamentary Questions and other Statements in this place and in the other place show that they are absolutely on the right lines. These amendments were a contribution, I thought, to joined-up government.
I should like to pick up one or two of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. I am pleased that he did not lose his temper this morning; he is an agreeable and equable character most of the time. I do, however, have to make the point about children and adults. Of course I am not suggesting that children should be separated from adults when they go into licensed premises. What I am saying is that, because of the damage which we know that passive smoke does to children, adults should be persuaded not to smoke in front of their children. Clearly that cannot be enforced at home, but it does not appear to be an unreasonable aspiration in public places and in licensed premises.
Nevertheless, I shall, as my noble friend Lady Blackstone suggests, not press the amendment to a vote. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Provision of regulated entertainment]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No.2:
page 108, line 10, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 2, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 3, 7, 18, 19 and 20. This group brings us immediately to Schedule 1 and the issue of what constitutes the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of the Bill.
These are very straightforward amendments to achieve what we believe is a simple purpose: to remove the question of "facilities" from the Bill. We believe that the proposed legislation is quite rightly directed towards licensable activities. The step beyond that whereby an attempt is made to license the mere provision of "facilities" ceases to focus on the potential problems related to activities. We believe that the reference to facilities creates a whole tier of unnecessary and onerous regulation. We believe that there is no need to define "entertainment facilities" in this schedule. A simple provision to allow music, dancing and similar forms of entertainment to take place within the regulatory framework, subject to conditions deemed necessary and appropriate, is all that is required. The permission for the public to participate should be included under sub-paragraph (2) as proposed.
If the Government were to accept these amendments, they would remove one of the core problems of this part of the Bill by eliminating references to facilities and concentrating instead on the activity; that is, the description of the entertainment. Our amendments seek to exclude references to facilities in sub-paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) of the first paragraph of Schedule 1 and add two obvious descriptions of entertainment; that is, dancing and making music.
We believe that the measures relating to the provision of entertainment facilities are very vague. Will the Minister confirm whether entertainment facilities could include, for example, music shops, music studios, music and dance teachers? Does the Minister really intend to catch those facilities?
My next point relates to many of the amendments that we have tabled. I refer the Minister to a letter written by the Secretary of State dated 13th November 2002 which states with regard to music that the introduction of new arrangements will promote live music and encourage performers. We fear that that kind of unclear and vague reference to facilities will achieve precisely the opposite of what is intended. Many organisations and individuals have written to us asking what the provision means and whether they will be caught by it. We should be grateful if the Minister would confirm the meaning and intention of the provision. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: I support the amendments we are discussing to which I have added my name. I welcome
344
the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. The Bill's purpose as set out in the White Paper is deregulation. However, the provision we are discussing appears to add a whole raft of areas which we believed were outside the ambit of the Bill and should remain there. The owner of Hobgoblins Folk Music Shops wrote to me suggesting that the provision could jeopardise the survival of his shops. The licence itself may not be too onerous a burden to bear if the fees are to remain within the guidelines set in the White Paper—although they may, of course, vary—but in the past the ongoing costs of meeting health and safety requirements under the public entertainment licence scheme have been onerous. Therefore, we hope that the Minister will accept the amendments. We shall almost certainly return to this matter at a later stage.
Lord Skelmersdale: I have a rather more fundamental point to make. Will the Minister explain to an ignorant mind such as I possess how you can have entertainment without providing facilities? Therefore, why is sub-paragraph (3) needed at all?
Lord Carlile of Berriew: Will the Minister clarify a point that perplexes many noble Lords such as myself who are involved with small charities, often in rural areas? If I make my house and garden available to a local charity, a harpist plays to welcome people as they enter, wine is provided and perhaps a juggler turns up to entertain the children, will I and the charity now be faced with an expensive bureaucratic burden or can I carry on holding such events at my premises? Many people are asking such questions as the explanations provided for the Bill are poor as regards small charities and, indeed, some other larger organisations that we shall discuss later today.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We have started on Schedule 1. It is appropriate that I should comment: in general terms on the way in which we approach these matters. We did, indeed, group together many amendments to Schedule 1 regardless of which noble Lord tabled them as we considered that that was exactly what would happen in practice. What I shall say now applies not only to the amendments in the group we are discussing but to many amendments in subsequent groups.
The first point to be made about Schedule 1 is that the provision of entertainment or entertainment facilities is strictly set out in the early paragraphs of the schedule. Sub-paragraph (2) of the first paragraph of Schedule I refers to,
"entertainment or entertainment facilities… provided… for members of the public or a section of the public… for members of a club… and their guests, or in any case… for consideration and with a view to profit".
I believe that we shall discuss that matter further when we discuss a later amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. I refer to the matter now to respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.
The point here is that the facilities and the entertainment are provided as the main object of the exercise, so to speak. In other words, the horrible and

345
ubiquitous muzak is not covered by the provision. There is no licensing requirement for it whether it be played in a pub, a shopping mall or, indeed, in the public street, where it is even worse.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: I must take advantage of the noble Lord's kind offer to allow me to intervene. Where does the schedule say that the main purpose of the provision of the entertainment is the music? Nothing in the schedule removes the impression that has been gained that an event will be caught by the schedule if music is provided, which is incidental to the event but furnishes some entertainment for people attending that event.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall continue with the argument as I want to refer specifically to music as, clearly, it is of particular concern. A whole series of amendments relate to music and to the differences between live music, recorded music, amplified and unamplified music and so on.
The provisions of Schedule I do not attempt to discriminate in any way between one kind of music and another, or indeed, to discriminate between one kind of entertainment and another except in the sense that we are concerned with its effect. The effect is twofold: first, there is a health and safety issue as regards the protection of the audience—I refer only to entertainments carried out in the presence of an audience or members of a club or their guests—and, secondly, there is an effect on the area surrounding the premises. I refer in that connection to noise and disturbance. That is the basis on which the whole of Schedule I is constructed.
Lord Redesdale: The Minister refers to entertainment being provided in the presence of an audience. But if someone was paid to prepare music for a wedding, would he not be caught by Schedule 1? That person would be presenting music to an audience for profit. Could that also not apply—perhaps I prejudge what the Minister will say—to music shops whose main purpose is to make a profit out of the provision of music?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, that is not the case. A wedding party, for example, does not constitute an event conducted in the presence of members of the public. It involves invited guests. A music shop does involve members of the public but the main purpose of the music shop is to sell music, not to invite people in to listen to music. Those people are not charged for coming into the shop to listen to music. There is no question of music shops, wedding parties or anything else of that sort being covered by the Bill. That is simply not provided for.
The second question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, was about facilities. Why do we need to cover not only entertainment, as defined in paragraph 1(1), but also facilities, as in paragraph 1(3)? Entertainment facilities are needed in the Bill to ensure that, when a nightclub provides a dance floor
346
rather than staging performances, it is still required to have a licence. The effect of dancing in a nightclub, and the music that is necessary for dancing, constitutes a health and safety issue for those taking part and the audience and an issue of protection for those living nearby. That is why it must be included in the provisions.
Noon
Lord Redesdale: I apologise to the Minister for interrupting at this point. I have a particular question that he may be able to answer now. If a dance floor is already in a venue but is not used for that purpose, does the physical presence of the dance floor mean that an official could say that the premises must be licensed, or does the dance floor have to be removed? That question has been raised by the industry, because the financial provision of pubs will be affected. What is a dance floor?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I come to the third part of the argument, because we need to consider the matter as a whole. I refer to the availability of licences. One is not going to have a dance floor in a nightclub unless one is proposing to dance, and one is not going to dance except to music—at least, not in my experience. Any licensed premises, such as a nightclub or pub, which is selling alcohol, is going to have an alcohol licence to start with. At the same time as applying for its alcohol licence, and at no extra charge, it will be able to apply for an entertainment licence.
As I have made clear, the judgment on the entertainment licence will not be made on the basis that the music is live or recorded, or amplified or not amplified. It will be made on whether an audience is present that needs to be protected on the grounds of public safety, and whether protection is needed for those who live around. The conditions that will be applied to the licence relate not to whether it is live or recorded or amplified or not amplified but to whether health and safety and public safety requirements are met by the premises and by the emission of noise and other disturbance from the premises. In other words, they could be controlled in terms of the numbers of decibels, such as a requirement for a lower level of noise later at night. All those matters can be dealt with in the conditions of the individual licence.
Therefore, it is unnecessary to go into all the detail into which many of the amendments go, except for the purposes of explanation, as we do in paragraph 2 of the schedule. The purpose of facilities is to have entertainment, for which they will need a licence. The purpose of protection from licences is to discriminate not between one form of entertainment and another but in terms of public safety and public nuisance. That purpose is set out in the licensing objectives, although we have not yet come to that part of the Bill.
Taking the amendments in more detail, I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that, if there is any concern about rehearsal studios or music practice, those rooms are not subject to licensing. The playing of music at either of those would not constitute regulated

347
entertainment because it would not satisfy the first condition set out in the schedule, which is that the entertainment must be,
"for members of the public or a section of the public",
or for "members of a club" or their guests, or "for consideration". There would be no audience at a rehearsal studio or practice, and no,
"consideration … with a view to profit".
I believe that the Committee will agree, however, that when there is a public dress rehearsal or press night, for which people are not paying but to which they are invited, the same issues of public safety and nuisance arise as if it were a paid public performance. Therefore, it should be subject to licensing.
Amendment No. 18 would add dancing and making music to the list of descriptions of entertainment in paragraph 2. The performance of live music and any playing of recorded music is already caught, so I do not understand what that amendment would add.
Amendment No. 19 would amend the description of entertainment by including entertainment provided for the purpose of "participation by the public" in addition to that provided for,
"an audience and … for the purpose … of entertaining that audience.
If an audience is present when an entertainment under the Bill is carried out, and the other conditions of the schedule are satisfied, the entertainment will be licensable. The Committee will agree that issues of public safety and nuisance arise under those circumstances. The participation or otherwise of the audience does not make any difference as to whether a licence would be required.
I was asked a specific question about where incidental music is exempted. Paragraph 7, in Part 2 of the schedule, exempts,
"recorded music … that … is incidental to some other activity",
whether that is selling music, shopping, walking in the streets or travelling up and down in a lift. I believe that sort of music to be absolutely horrible, but it is not, and should not, be licensable.
Lord Skelmersdale: Perhaps it will be a subject for future regulation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Not in this Bill.
Baroness Buscombe: I find the Minister's reply depressing, in the sense that it has raised more questions than it has answered. I shall want to read his comments carefully in Hansard. For example, if there is a party to which there are invited guests, does a gatecrasher trigger the need for a licence?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No. I shall not find out where it mentions gatecrashers in the Bill.
Baroness Buscombe: The point I am making surely shows that our amendment would simplify the Bill. It would remove the vague reference to facilities and concentrate on the description of entertainment, so that we can all understand to what extent licensing will be required.
There are questions of health and safety and with regard to the effect on the area around the premises, but we remain confused about the extent of the meaning of "facility". In later amendments we shall develop the argument about why the schedule needs clear amendment. All we are doing in the amendments to which I have spoken is to seek to assist the Government in simplifying the schedule so that it focuses on the entertainment itself, and on the impact that that entertainment will have on its environment.
We shall read carefully what the Minister said. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that if the Government do not accept the amendments, we shall probably return to the matter on Report. This is an important area of the Bill, in relation to which we have been lobbied heavily because it raises so many questions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 108, line 14, leave out "to any extent"
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 4 relates to paragraph (2) of Schedule 1. Does the phrase,
"to any extent for members of the public or a section of the public",
mean that any entertainment to which the public may be admitted will be covered, even if the purpose of the entertainment is mostly or nearly entirely private? Will the performance—this question has to an extent already been asked—of a concert by children for their parents at a school, village hall or elsewhere he a performance for,
"a section of the public",
even if all those in the hall are related to or know the children and no consideration was provided? How wide will the provision cast the net? I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: The Bill appears vague and somewhat confusing and is therefore almost a paradise for lawyers, who will need to explain what we meant when we passed this wonderful Bill. Will the issues raised by it be covered by the guidance, which of course has not yet been published?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I support the amendment. It was said earlier that weddings will be for invited guests but my experience is that if a wedding is in a church, the public are not excluded; anyone can walk in. The phrase, "to any extent" could mean that that answer about the church might not be correct.

349
Similarly, the point about the gatecrasher might be covered by that phrase. It is a very sweeping phrase and I support its removal from the schedule.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I ask the Minister—I am glad that she has regained her dulcet voice—whether agreeing to the amendment would make any difference. Paragraph 1(2)(a) of the schedule states,
"to any extent for members of the public or a section of the public".
Even if one removed "to any extent", the phrase "a section of the public" could mean two people. If one wants to carry home the point, another amendment will be needed next time. Will the Minister confirm that?
Lord Carlile of Berriew: The phrase, "to any extent" will be pored over by the courts; the whole Bill will provide a field-day for lawyers and there will be a huge number of judicial review applications as a result of the transfer to councils of licensing responsibility. What the Minister says in Committee about the words "to any extent" will be pored over, bearing in mind the Pepper v Hart decision, which allows courts to look at Hansard in certain circumstances.
I intervene on this issue to try to tease out of this Minister, having tried with the previous Minister, whether this provision provides a gateway through which small charities, such as those that I mentioned earlier, can go. If the event is organised on the basis that tickets are sold by people with a particular interest so as to invite some members of the public to private premises—a village hall or church, for example—in order to support a charity, will the words allow us not to have to apply for a licence? If not, what do they mean, if anything at all?
Lord Bridges: I raise another example, which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, might care to consider. I speak as a former vice-president of the Aldeburgh Foundation. One of our most successful activities are the Britten-Pears musical schools, in which a number of masterclasses are given by experts: singers, violinists and so on. They are extremely interesting events, to which one can go and pay a small fee. Not many people can go but they are generally very popular. If one is ambitious to become a Lieder singer, one will learn much by going to listen to a masterclass. At the moment, the funds received, which are not considerable, go to help to pay for the foundation's expenses. Would they be caught by the phrase "to any extent"? I suppose that they will be.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: The Minister may regard my observation as dated but I raise a footnote to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. I offer to the Chamber the remark by Raymond Asquith's mother-in-law, Lady Homer, in about 1900. She said that there is no social event in the entire kingdom to which one cannot gain access by writing "Admit two" on your visiting card.
12.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I remember many years ago being in Carmel, California, for the summer musical festival and discovering that, as is often the case, fire safety regulations were at odds with security. If one went up the fire escape, one could get into part of the hall and obviate the need to pay for a ticket at the door. I hasten to say that I have not done that for many years!
I can answer the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, very simply. Of course the public can go into weddings, but weddings are not covered because they are religious services. I was discussing wedding parties; in other words, the "do" afterwards, not the wedding service. That also applies, I believe, to the register office.
I shall respond to the amendment about the phrase "to any extent" before dealing with some of the other challenges. Members of the Committee may appreciate why we wanted to group these amendments: all the questions being raised could and should have been raised in relation to the subject matter of Schedule 1.
Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 defines the "provision of regulated entertainment" for the purposes of the Bill. Sub-paragraph (2)(a) sets out the condition that the "entertainment or entertainment facilities" must be provided,
"to any extent for members of the public or a section of the public".
That is one of three alternative descriptions in the paragraph that must be satisfied for the entertainment to be regulated. The amendment seeks the removal of the phrase "to any extent" in that condition. That expression is understood by the courts. I say that with some trepidation in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. It removes any argument that the provision of entertainment for any number of people, including a single person attending an event, if only for part of that event, is covered by the licensing regime.
There are entertainments—some fringe entertainments at the Edinburgh Festival—at which only one person turns up. I have heard of an entertainment on the fringe of the Edinburgh Festival at which only one person was allowed to be present; in other words, it was a one-to-one entertainment. However, the consideration in this regard, as always, is about the twin issues of public safety and protection of the public from public nuisance. If we took out the phrase "to any extent" there would be the possibility that the definition of "members of the public" and "section of the public" could be open to misinterpretation and a good deal of argument. The law must be clear for venue operators.
I was asked a number of specific questions, which I shall try to answer, anticipating future amendments in future groups. School concerts, surely, are for invited guests—that is, the parents and relatives of those in the school—and are therefore not covered.

351
I have already dealt with the issue of the wedding service. On the question of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, about Aldeburgh masterclasses, I have only got into a masterclass once—
Lord Carlile of Berriew: Will the Minister—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps the noble Lord would allow me to finish my sentence; I am trying to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges.
I have got in only once because the tickets are very difficult to get hold of; but, yes, they are licensable activities. They are for members of the public and issues of public safety and public nuisance apply.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: I am grateful to the noble Lord. He made an assertion that school concerts are for parents and members of the school. That is right. But, now, in a great many schools where school concerts are given by, for example, the school orchestra, the local community is invited to attend the concert and to pay money for a ticket; nevertheless, it is the school concert. Will that be included within the licensing requirements and, if so, is that reasonable?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If any query were to arise on the basis of public safety and public nuisance, it would be in relation to the exemption which is being made only for those who are invited to school concerts. The answer is: yes, if the public attend, the event will be licensable because issues of public safety and public nuisance arise. However, the question should be: should events which are not open to the public be licensable because issues of public nuisance and public safety arise? Perhaps I may be allowed to finish and I shall then give way to noble Lords in turn. The fundamental consideration must be public nuisance and public safety. Within that, we are trying to be as deregulatory as we can. I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale.
Lord Redesdale: I thank the Minister. He mentioned public nuisance and public safety and, quite legitimately, that has been the catch-all for a number of his points. However, we are talking about schools, churches or certain other institutions that are already covered by health and safety guidelines on safety at work. Obviously, this point will be raised in relation to churches. But this is meant to be a piece of deregulation. We are adding on top a piece of regulation which already exists because school halls are already adequately covered by fire and noise regulations. Therefore, we are simply adding a piece of secondary legislation. I believe that the Minister's point that we cannot object to this because of health and public nuisance issues somewhat misses the point of the amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No. That is the reason for the exemptions. But if anyone stages a commercial concert and charges for admission, and if there is any,
"consideration and with a view to profit",
as stated in Schedule 1(2)(c), then clearly issues of public nuisance and public safety arise.
Lord Crickhowell: I am now utterly bemused by the argument about safety and public nuisance. Following on from the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, I take a keen interest in an organisation known as the National Opera Studio. The Minister will know that that organisation is responsible for training all our best young opera singers from every opera company in the country. During the course of a working week with one of our national opera companies, it usually holds a concert in a school hall. During the week, it also goes out to, and does work with, a number of schools.
I attended the last event organised by the National Opera Studio in the school hall of a school in Penarth. I cannot see that a safety issue arises for those who attended that concert to listen to people being trained in a school hall that does not arise for anyone attending a school concert in the same building. No other question of health and safety arises from people being present to listen to those performers than it would for anyone else sitting in a school hall and listening to a performance. Therefore, I simply cannot understand the argument.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: From this side of the Chamber perhaps I may support some of the contributions thus far. I went to St Mary's Church in Battersea a week last Thursday for a musical event which raised funds for the fabric of the building. Members of the congregation and members of the public generally were charged £7.50 per head for attending. Presumably, under this provision, the church would be required to be licensed. Is that or is that not so?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am sorry to extend the debate but this is obviously a matter of huge importance and wide application. I believe that the last comment made by the Minister before he kindly gave way—I thank him again for letting me intervene—concerned consideration being charged for events. However, as he earlier said correctly, subsection (2) does not require tickets to be sold for an event in order for the event to fall within subsection (2). Therefore, taking the example of the school play, one would not need to charge anyone attending the event for the event to be caught by subsection (a) if,
"to any extent … members of the public or a section of the public",
were present.
As the noble Lord said in defending that wording, it is designed to catch one or two people who are present for part of an entertainment. I put it to the Minister that, in fact, the organisers of most school plays, especially those held in a large hall and with several performances, encourage pupils to bring along friends. As the wording stands, I believe that if friends are allowed—indeed, encouraged—to come along to a school performance of any kind without charge, that is caught.
Lord Williamson of Horton: I am sorry to add to the woes of the Minister but perhaps I may ask for

353
clarification on one other point. The amendment that we are discussing does not refer only to "entertainment"; as we were aware earlier, it refers also to "entertainment facilities". Those are still covered by the wording,
"to any extent for members of the public",
and so on. Let us take the example of a school which has its own concert facilities—a stage and so on. Normally that school would not use those facilities for the public; they would normally be used only for the school. However, under certain circumstances every year or two years, the public might be present at an event. I refer specifically to the "facilities" that are available. In those circumstances, it seems to me that the school will require a regulated entertainment licence because the facilities exist and might be used to any extent for the public. I refer not to the entertainment itself but to the facilities.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Perhaps I may also ask the Minister to clarify the point which follows on from the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. He said that one does not necessarily have to charge. Can he clarify whether, in the school concert scenario, there is a difference if people are not specifically charged but are asked to donate? I cite as an example the case of the charge of £7.50 for the event at a church. When one enters museums, one often sees a notice saying, "Donations suggested", with an amount, even though it may be a non-charging museum. Can the noble Lord clarify whether the word "donation" makes any difference?
Lord McNally: Before the Minister reads those helpful pieces of paper that are on their way to him, perhaps I may, in a spirit of comradeship, give him a little advice. He knows of the affection that I have for him. Part of my job from these Benches is to go to another place and sit in on our parliamentary party meetings. Very rarely do I receive questions or comments on what we are doing at this end of the building. Last night, a large number of Members said that their post bags were already being filled by complaints, fears or doubts about this part of the Bill. Before the Minister plays his usual elegant, straight bat in response, perhaps I may suggest that he takes back the matter to the department. He will certainly have trouble from this end of the building and my suspicion is that, as those post bags fill up, he will also have trouble from the other end.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I can get a word in edgeways—excellent! Clearly a large number of specific questions about specific cases—whether they be master classes, opera schools or whatever—have been raised, and it would be foolish of me to attempt to answer them at the Dispatch Box. I shall undertake to write to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate about all the issues raised.
There will obviously be difficulties at the margin. However, I believe that the fundamental principles that I stated in relation to Schedule 1 deal with the
354
large bulk of the questions raised in the post bags of the colleagues of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and, indeed, with the questions raised in this House.
I want to return specifically to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, about existing health and safety legislation and whether it is being duplicated. Our existing health and safety legislation relating to the workplace covers schools. It does not matter whether it is a place of work or an educational institution; health and safety issues are addressed in a place of work or educational institution. It does not cover the issues which may arise when those premises are used for other purposes; in other words, when the public have access to entertainments which are comparable to those provided in commercial premises. The issues when large numbers of the public come into a school are different from those concerning schoolchildren in a school.
12.30 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: I apologise to the Minister for interrupting at this late stage. As I understand it, under health and safety legislation a school hall in which 200 to 300 children sit, and where there is amplification for the teachers, is covered in the same way as a play.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: What if a rock group plays in a school? There are issues of public safety and public nuisance.
I shall try to answer as many as I can of the individual points raised in so far as they could be helpful to the general tenor of the debate. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton: no. Clearly, that is an exact example of an occasional licence for up to five occasions a year. He said once every year or every two years. For the reasons I have given, although that is licensable, it is on a restricted and a limited scale.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, raised the question of donations. Donations are not a charge made for the entertainment provided and do not give rise to the need for a licence.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I apologise to the Minister, who is being extraordinarily patient. However, I believe the Committee would want me to say that that reply was unintentionally misleading. Under this paragraph, it does not matter whether there is a charge, a donation or nothing. That is the point. As was rightly said in introducing the amendment, there are three alternatives, any one of which being satisfied brings in the whole of the registration procedure.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The word used in the Bill is not charge but
"for consideration and with a view to profit".
Donations, which are clearly voluntary, do not fall within that category.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He was right the first time. In order for this paragraph to be applicable, it is not

355
necessary for there to be any consideration or a view to profit. Regardless of that, one is caught if members of the public, or any section of the public, to any extent are present at the occasion, full stop.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is right, and that is why issues of public safety and public nuisance arise. That is exactly the reason.
I did not properly deal, except flippantly, with gatecrashers. The answer is that a gatecrasher would not make an event licensable, because the entertainment has not been provided for the public. The entertainment must be provided for the public in order to bring it within the regime. If someone gatecrashes your wedding party, you are not in retrospect guilty of not having applied for a licence.
Baroness Buscombe: I do not know where to begin. I shall try to be brief. In relation to previous amendments, the Minister said that it is unnecessary to go into all the detail. I hope he now accepts that we are raising significant questions with regard to clarity and the implications of the Bill, which require answers.
I am grateful to the Minister, as I am sure are all noble Lords, for offering to write to us to give answers to some of the questions raised. However, surely the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is right when he says that as currently drafted, this provision will create a field day for lawyers. As a lawyer, I support that. I simply do not understand some of the answers given by the Minister. My noble friend Lord Brooke put it succinctly and summed up the problem. When referring to how to get round the problem of an event which is private, one has an invitation card on which one writes, "Admit 2". The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is right. Perhaps the amendment is not the right one, and we should consider excluding the whole of the subsection.
Questions have been asked about weddings as religious services. Sadly, many weddings today are not religious services, although now we are told that they do not need to be religious in order to be exempt from the Bill. There is much here that is unclear. The noble Lord, Lo rd Redesdale, rightly said in relation to school concerts that schools are subject to considerable burdens in relation to health and safety issues—quite rightly. However, this is another layer of regulation. We believe passionately that this is entirely against what we were led to believe; that is, that this would be a deregulatory measure. The Bill will give us more regulation, more red tape, and more cost.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, rightly said that complaints following this debate alone will mean that our postboxes will be fuller than they have been hitherto, as will our e-mail accounts. We shall consider with care the Minister's remarks. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. We hope very much that the Government will consider carefully before Report all that has been said. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 108, line 14, at end insert "(otherwise than by an educational or religious institution)"
The noble Baroness said: We now turn to another important area. In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 23, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, which we entirely support, and to Amendment No. 24.
The amendments relate to the question of whether "public" should include educational and religious institutions. We ask whether schools, churches, synagogues and mosques will be required to have premises licences for the performance of plays and concerts. This subject was covered to some extent by previous amendments. However, I believe it is important that we now consider this in detail.
While there is an exception for religious meetings and services in paragraph (9) of the schedule, that does not appear to extend, for example, to an orchestral concert or a play performed in a church, cathedral or other religious building. Do the Government intend that where such activities are performed in religious buildings, they would be licensable, and that therefore a premises licence would be required if there were more than five such occasions in any one year?
What does the Minister have to say in respect of the Written Answer in another place given on Monday 9th December at col. 1W to my honourable friend Anne McIntosh, by the Second Church Estate's Commissioner, Mr Stuart Bell, which was as follows:
"Final figures for complying with the proposed provisions of the current Licensing Bill, which has had a second reading in Another Place, will depend upon the level of fees set by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, as well as on the extent to which church buildings apply for licences to cover the proposed provisions of 'regulated entertainment". The figures provided in the Regulatory Impact Assessment would, however, suggest that under the Bills proposals churches or other places of worship seeking to provide entertainment five times a year would pay £100 each year. If more events than this were required, a full licence would be needed a ad annual inspections would be necessary, each of which would attract a fee.
There are 16,250 church buildings belonging to the Church of England alone: many other denominations and faiths will also be covered by the proposals as they stand".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/12/02; col. 1W.]
If each of those 16,250 buildings had to pay £100—never mind the fee that would be attracted in terms of inspections—the cost to the Church Commissioners would be £1.6 million. The level of fees would probably be much higher than £100 in many cases, as they would require full premises licences if they held more than five concerts, plays or "other entertainment" events in any one year.
Does the Minister intend that such costs to churches of all denominations should be attached to the consequences of this legislation? In essence, does this mean that the proposals will cost the Church of England and other religious communities of whatever faith, many millions of pounds in licence fees, either in the form of temporary event notices or full premises licences?
There are no exceptions for schools. Thus, will school halls be required to have premises licences and/or issue temporary event notices? Schools put on plays and concerts—defined as "entertainment" in paragraph 2—for
"the public or a section of the public",
and the premises are,
"made available for the purpose…of enabling the entertainment…to take place".
Thus, all the conditions for the provision of regulated entertainment laid down in paragraph 1(1) are satisfied. What discussions have been held with the Department for Education and Skills about the position of schools?
I conclude by referring to one of many letters I have received, particularly in relation to churches. I was written to by a well-known actress, Prunella Scales. She wrote:
"Many rural churches, struggling financially, asked to find £200–£300 for a licence would simply not consent to the use of the church by village organisations and schools".
Is that really what the Government intend? She continued:
"The Church of England is struggling to maintain ancient churches which are part of the Nation's Heritage with very little help from the state. Only two English Heritage/Lottery grants have been made to Sussex churches [for example] in the last three years, and VAT is still 5 per cent".
Prunella Scales went on to say:
"Churches need new roofs and urgent work on spires. The only way open to them to raise money is by the holding of concerts. Again, even reduced Health and Safety and Fire standards would be difficult or impossible to meet.
What effect will this have on the cultural and musical life of the country? At present, students from the London College of Music gain experience performing in local churches. Financial and administrative obstacles would deter churches from providing this opportunity.
What evidence is there to show that churches need to be included in this legislation?"
As I said at Second Reading, the Government have shown their support for evidence-based research in draft legislation in relation to the draft communications Bill. What evidence-based approach can we see in relation to this Bill? I beg to move.
12.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for her speech. I agree with much of what she says. The amendment standing in my name covers ground that is treated by other noble Lords, but it is not tabled in a spirit of unseemly competition. We simply wish to help the Minister, who will be understandably concerned to secure some form of words that would protect from any abuse a general exemption for places of public religious worship and educational institutions.
Many of the arguments for maintaining the present position were rehearsed at Second Reading. I do not wish to weary your Lordships by repeating them and delaying the Committee proceedings. The exemption was approved by Parliament in 1982 and we have
358
heard no argument that justifies removing it. The present situation has assisted places of worship to fulfil their wider community role, as they have for centuries.
Since Second Reading, some two-and-a-half weeks ago, countless examples have come to light of just how close the relationship of church and community entertainment often is. St Paul's, Covent Garden, for example, is a place that provides facilities for young musicians and actors at the beginning of their careers, while children from local schools and special art schools use the space for concerts and drama.
We have already heard examples from across the river in Southwark diocese. I must say that I admire the scale of fees it seems to be charging just across the Thames. But as to the situation countrywide, I have been told of one church in Ludlow which has held 27 performances so far this year, ranging from the local choral society to the rugby club. A church in Carlisle has detailed 10 events from organ recitals to a concert by local people. They are far from being money-spinners; for example, that programme in the church in Carlisle has been subsidised.
That is an important point which has been emphasised again and again in correspondence. Some of the events are simply seen as part of the church's outreach into the local community. Some are intended, as in the example we had from Battersea, to raise funds, but usually for charity or to maintain the building itself. Many places of public religious worship are listed as important parts of the architectural inheritance of the whole community. Nearly one-half of Grade I listed buildings in the country are ecclesiastical. They are cared for, very cost effectively I may say, on behalf of the whole community by an army of volunteers. If unamended, the Bill would represent a further tax on their efforts.
I note Dr Howells' comment in his letter to The Times that it would be possible for the Secretary of State to waive or reduce charges for places of worship and charities, but that would still be an added layer of regulation imposed on hard-pressed volunteers by a Bill with the laudable aim of deregulation.
I fear very much—Prunella Scales has got the matter absolutely right—that if volunteers contemplate the costs of obtaining a licence, the time involved in annual inspections and making temporary notifications, they will conclude that it would be safer and simpler not to hold the events at all. This is a very law-abiding part of the community and I can hear in my inner ear now the anxious debates on the PCC.
I know very well that this would be a long way from the intentions DCMS. The department's paper A Force for Our Future argues cogently for the wider use of heritage buildings for community activity and as a focus for tourism and regeneration. There is an army of unpaid volunteers countrywide who are trying to do just that. They need encouragement.
The amendment I have tabled, with the support of friends from all the major faith communities—I must underline that this is not just a Church of England pitch—seeks to provide this encouragement by

359
exempting from the definition of "regulated entertainment" events in a place of public religious worship.
Why have we used the formula:
"place of public religious worship"?
Because, we understand, it is a phrase that has a clear and precise legal meaning; it covers both Christian churches and places of worship of other faiths without laying the exemption open to abuse. It is the wording that the Government themselves employed in relation to relief from rates in local government legislation.
The second element in the amendment recognises the problems likely to arise from the attempt to exempt those entertainments that are incidental to a religious service. Of course, it is often difficult to make a dear distinction between religious services and entertainment—although unfortunately, sometimes it is only too easy. For example, how should we classify a medieval mystery play or a Christmas carol concert at which some crooner sang "White Christmas"? By inserting the word "anything", we hope to assist the Minister by avoiding confusion and making the exemption workable.
In the light of so much that has been said in this debate and real and—judging from my post bag—growing concern, I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendments and take the opportunity to improve the provisions by taking into account the valuable contribution made to community and cultural life by educational institutions and all the nation's faith communities.
Lord Redesdale: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 24, to which my name is attached. However, I must admit that I prefer the amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, which I should have supported if I had read it in time. The amendments highlight a massive concern that goes to the heart of the Bill. The Bill is "one size fits all"; it deals with massive venues as well as the smallest church in the land.
I raised with my local church, St Marks, the question of a Nativity concert of a school nursery that was based in the church. I asked whether the Bill would apply but, being in London, it already has a public entertainment licence. St Marks could perhaps bear the cost. However, my local church in Northumberland, which has a congregation of eight, would find it a different matter altogether.
I support everything that the right reverend Prelate said. We shall return to the issue, and I hope that the Minister will make some concession on it, because I am sure that if the right reverend Prelate were to press it, it would receive support from around the Committee.
I have two questions. Are carol concerts covered under paragraph 9 of the exemptions? What about instrumental music? What if there was a religious service, an orchestra performed and at the end of the
360
orchestra's performance a prayer was said? Would the orchestra's performance become part of the incidental music and therefore exempt under the Bill?
The Lord Bishop of Peterborough: I do not want to add to the arguments advanced by my friend the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of London, but I want to stress the widespread concern about the matter and the importance of churches and religious buildings in the cultural life of the countryside. In my episcopal ministry, I have served in two dioceses—Peterborough and Chichester—which are typical of the English countryside. They combine urban settlements, small towns and even smaller villages. In all of those settings, churches and other places of public religious worship are increasingly used by the local community for concerts, school plays—as we have heard—and other cultural activities.
My predecessor was probably unfair when he described Peterborough as a cultural desert, but without Music in Country Churches, Music in Quiet Places, the Oundle Organ Festival, Music in Lyddington—and so the list could go on—the cultural life of our communities would be considerably impoverished. Many of those events use a variety of venues in different villages and different churches, all of which would have to apply at least for a temporary licence under the proposals. Many of the organisations involved run on a small and fragile budget and, as we have heard, are subject to subsidy.
I therefore warmly support the amendments, and I hope that the Minister will reconsider the schedule. It would be anomalous on the one hand to encourage the increasing use of churches and other places of religious worship for cultural purposes by the community and on the other to add financial and bureaucratic burdens that could frustrate that purpose. When, as far as I am aware, there is no evidence of abuse of the current exemption, why are the Government legislating to remove it and require those places to seek a licence?
Lord Ahmed: I rise to support the amendment, and that in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. As a Muslim, I know that musical events do not affect the Muslim community. However, cultural activities do, and, in any case, in solidarity with all religious groups and places of worship, I support the amendment.
Before I became a Member of the House, I was a local councillor, and from my experience I know that many groups use places of worship such as churches for cultural events—especially those people who cannot afford to go to opera houses. Places of worship are the local, community place available to be used. I do not know of any crime and disorder in any place of worship. The White Paper talks about encouraging tourism and self-sufficient rural communities, reducing crime and disorder and reducing the burden of unnecessary regulation. I cannot see how including places of worship achieves any of those objectives.

361
I support the amendment, and hope that the Minister will consider all that has been said, with which I entirely agree.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My name is also attached to Amendment No. 5, and I support everything that has been said so far. It is extraordinary that at a time when schools have been working so hard to forge good relationships across the whole community by bringing people in to use school premises sensibly and by holding events for all kinds of groups in the community, they should then be penalised for doing so by having to pay a fee.
I turn to the community work of and cultural activities in cathedrals and churches, which have been so greatly valued by the community. Southwark Cathedral, where I worship, has a full, constant programme of events. I must tell my noble friend Lord Luke that we once had a knifing in Southwark Cathedral, but that was in the middle of a carol service, not of an alternative cultural event. I do not think that a licence for a carol service would have helped.
I reiterate to the Minister that it would be counter-productive and contrary to government policy to discourage the community outreach of schools, universities, colleges and churches by penalising them in that expensive way.
1 p.m.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: A few weeks ago, I had the daunting task of cross-examining the right reverend Prelate in the Central Criminal Court. I am, therefore, pleased to speak on the same side as him, on this occasion—again, some might say.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My noble friend should make it clear that the right reverend Prelate was not the accused.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: He was not the accused.
I want to say a word about small music festivals. Immediately, I declare an interest or, at least, the interest of my wife, who is chairman of the Gregynog festival in mid-Wales. It is one of a large number of small music festivals that operate on a shoestring but bring high-quality music to communities that cannot always gain access to it. However, I shall not use my wife's festival as my example.
I want to draw the Committee's attention to three other examples. One is the Llanfyllen festival, which takes place in a small town on the Montgomeryshire-Shropshire border. The festival depends entirely on the remarkable goodwill of the Allegri String Quartet, who perform two or three concerts there every year as a result of the fact that a retired member of the quartet has a holiday home locally. Festivals such as the Llanfyllen festival have no financial margin of error; they operate on a shoestring. Indeed, that festival recently had to reduce the number of concerts.
362
The festival takes place in a beautiful church that is not full every Sunday, despite the great efforts of the local rector, but it is more or less full for the festival concerts. It brings people into the church; it brings the church into the mind of the people; it binds the community together; and it brings high-quality culture to that small town. If there is to be a charge that falls on the church, it will have to be passed on to the festival. If it is passed on to the festival, the festival may no longer be viable.
Another example is the remarkable English Haydn Festival, which takes place in a church in Bridgnorth. The church is redundant, but, I believe, it is still consecrated. It is a large festival in terms of the quantity of Haydn's music that is brought to the community around Bridgnorth, in Shropshire and mid-Wales. It, too, is run on a shoestring. A sum of £1,000 makes a huge difference, and £100 makes some difference. As I said, the church in which the English Haydn Festival at Bridgnorth takes place is no longer used for regular religious worship, but the festival provides a rationale for the retention of the building, which is in a crucial architectural position in the historic centre of a town that has, over the years, seen some poor development round its edges. So, as well as the cultural issue, there are architectural and civic issues.
The third example relates to the activities of an organisation with which my wife and I have had some dealings over the years—the Welshpool Choral Society. Not so many years ago, the Welshpool Choral Society sang the "Messiah" in Welshpool parish church. The society paid an organist to play for the occasion and sold tickets to the public. It lost a lot of money. We who sang had to pay for the privilege of singing and did so gladly, but the margins on which such small societies operate mean that extra charges will possibly bring such events to an end, along with the involvement of the community.
I already hear the Minister saying, "Ah, but we must be sure that health and safety law isn't broken. The same rules apply". I suppose that we will hear from the Minister that there is a danger at a chamber concert of the cello being played too loud and that there will have to be licensing conditions before it takes place. That is illogical. Under paragraph 9 of Schedule 1, a gospel rock band taking part in a religious service would not require licensing under the Act. There is a great deal of such activity, particularly in evangelical churches throughout the country. I have witnessed it myself in mid-Wales.
The schedule will create a bureaucratic nightmare that will drive small musical performances, particularly the smallest music festivals—which mostly take place in rural areas—out of existence for the sake of what appears to be only the principle of uniformity. I strongly support the amendments.
Lord Crickhowell: I can be brief, as the case that I was going to make has just been admirably made from the Liberal Democrat Benches. I was going to speak on the same subject—music festivals, particularly music festivals in Wales. The case was also comprehensively

363
and adequately presented from my Front Bench and by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. I prefer the right reverend Prelate's amendment to the other amendment.
I speak, I suppose, as a representative of the disestablished Church in Wales. I am churchwarden of a small church in a group of parishes in a Welsh valley. I think that I could speak equally well for the chapels of Wales, in which the same situation would arise. The importance to churches and communities of the kind of social and entertainment activities that have been described by speakers on the Bishops' Benches, the Liberal Democrat Benches and, indeed, the Government Benches, cannot be over-emphasised.
I have two detailed points. One—on health and safety—has just been made. In the church of Crickhowell, there is a wonderful choral festival every year. We all sit in the seats that we might have occupied at a church service the previous week or at a wedding. In fact, there are almost exactly the same numbers as there would be for a large wedding service or as there were recently for the funeral of a popular local figure. I cannot see that there can be a health and safety question that arises for the people who attend the concert that does not arise for those who are present for a funeral or a wedding. I find the argument on health and safety utterly unconvincing and incomprehensible. As the right reverend Prelate also said, there has been exemption for about a hundred years, and no good case has been made for removing it.
For all the reasons so cogently given and as a passionate supporter of the kind of concerts and musical activities that take place all over the country—certainly in my part of the country—I strongly support the amendments. I suspect that they will not be pressed to a Division today, but I hope that, if the Government do not listen to our arguments, there will be an occasion later in the progress of the Bill when we can vote for the right reverend Prelate's amendment.
Lord Williamson of Horton: Many noble Lords have spoken about the disadvantages of what is in the Bill, and I support what they said. However, I ask the Minister to set out in her reply the reasons why the proposal is in the Bill. I am an ex-bureaucrat, and I have a vivid imagination, but I am unable to see why it is in the Bill. It is not sufficient to make a general argument about health and safety. It is not sufficient just to say that there could be a problem with health and safety in some parish church or elsewhere. I am not convinced by that argument; we need a lot more than that, if we are to respond to the Government's position. At present, I see no reason to do that.
I have one other question. Is there a district council in the kingdom that has asked for the power?
Lord Bridges: There is one aspect of the clauses that has not yet come to our attention—their financial effect. Although it is made clear who will conduct the licensing, there is no procedure for appeals against the amount of the fee for the licence or the annual inspection. The relevant references are Clause 54 and Schedule 5.
364
I know the effect that it will have on my parish church, which is a Grade I listed building, with 130 people on the church roll. We are at a loss as to how we would finance activities without collaring four or five string quartets who come each year to play in the excellent acoustic. That helps us. Not only will we lose that amount, but we may have to pay more. The district council's finances are always in a difficult condition. If it sees that it can up the ante and charge more, as far as I can see there is nothing in the Bill to prevent it from doing so. Therefore, I believe that this is a serious matter and hope that we shall adopt one of the two amendments to those clauses. Like the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, I have a marginal preference for that produced by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: To follow up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, I should be grateful if the Minister would say what would be the average cost of an annual visit for licence purposes, if one has to be undertaken.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I support the previous speeches and, in particular, that of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. St Leonard's Church in Bridgnorth—the home of the Haydn concert to which he referred—will undoubtedly be affected by the type of charges that are in contemplation. Astley Abbots is a small village two miles outside Bridgnorth and I have known the church all my life.
The right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London referred to Ludlow. That brings us to wider implications of the Bill. St Lawrence church, Ludlow, where the concerts to which he referred take place, does not just maintain the fabric of the church—good though that is—it also maintains the grave of A E Housman, the famous poet and writer of "A Shropshire Lad", in the churchyard. Therefore, all those activities have more to offer the community than first appears to be the case. I very much support those amendments and I hope that the Government will consider them and return with a sensible and thought-through amendment to the Bill.
The Earl of Sandwich: I simply want to underline the important point of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London as regards public access. I speak as someone with some years experience of small rural communities in the West Country where the tiny parish church is often an important—if not the only—focus of rural life. As the right reverend Prelate said, it is the Government's own heritage policy—is it not?—to encourage access to all our public buildings and make every possible use of, say, churches built for a religious purpose. In the case of my local community, half the church is a badminton court.
I am partly responsible for access to a tiny church. I feel that any licensing system would be a nonsense and would deprive churches of income that they desperately need for repair and maintenance.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I seem fated in these debates to be adding footnotes to speeches made

365
from the Liberal Democrat Benches. Those ancestors of mine who sat as Liberal Members of Parliament in another place are, I hope, smiling in yet another place, to see me do it. I declare an interest as a former chairman of the Churches Conservation Trust. That is a trust which maintains the very church in Bridgnorth to which the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, referred. It maintains in excess of 300 other churches as well.
The Minister will know particularly well how the Churches Conservation Trust is encouraged by her department to engage in outreach to a national public. That involves making available for events, as well as for the occasional services, churches which, long before they came into the hands of the trust, were declared redundant by the Church of England. Moreover, in addition to holding events, as a method of outreach, it is the case that ancient buildings gain immensely by being used and not simply being left shut up. The Minister, again, is particularly well qualified to recognise the irony that 70 per cent of the funding for the Churches Conservation Trust comes from her department.
1.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: The common intention of Amendments Nos. 5, 23 and 24, is to exclude places of worship from the entertainment aspects of the licensing regime. Amendment No. 5 goes further and also exempts educational institutions.
I am sure that all Members of the Committee will want to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on our churches. I entirely accept that, as the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London said, unnecessary burdens should be avoided. The Bill, as currently drafted, exempts all music and other entertainment which is for, or incidental to, a religious meeting or service. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that would certainly include carol services. However, it does not exempt secular entertainments in churches or other places of worship, as I believe those who have taken part in the debate clearly understand. It is that matter to which many speakers object.
The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, asked—
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I apologise to the Minister for interrupting so early and am grateful to her for giving way. I believe that she may have misled the Committee inadvertently in saying that incidental music was exempted by the Bill. It is only recorded incidental music that is exempt, under paragraph 7.
Baroness Blackstone: I did not say that incidental music was exempt. I said that programmes such as carol services are exempt. But it would be so much easier if I could complete what I want to say without being interrupted—it might make some difference to how we proceed.
The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, asked why those provisions were inserted. I have to remind the Committee, again, of a matter that arose at the beginning of the debate. Churches in London are
366
already subject to a premises licence regime. Concerts take place in London churches. I believe that my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey is involved in some of those concerts. They are not just in rural areas, although there are many in rural areas too.
I believe that it was thought right that one regime should apply to the whole country and that this was an anomaly. Of course, Members can argue that the Government could have gone in the other direction and taken London out, rather than that there should be one rule for churches in London and another rule for churches in rural areas. I entirely accept that it could go in that direction rather than being extended to cities, towns and villages elsewhere in the country.
We are naturally concerned that the Bill should treat all faiths equally—indeed, it must, as my noble friend Lord Ahmed said. A definition which properly includes all potential places of religious worship and does not drive a coach and horses through the Bill is no easy matter. Members need to think about so-called "new-age" religions and "raves" which some people believe masquerade as worship—and, indeed, they sometimes do. Therefore, we should be extremely careful before settling on a form of words which does not protect bona fide places of worship.
Therefore, we intend to consider our position again in respect of places of worship and to do so carefully. I undertake to return at a later stage and address a way forward. In those circumstances I hope that Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 will not be pressed today.
The issues that arise from Amendment No. 5 also came up in the previous debate. It calls for educational institutions to be exempt from the licensing regime. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, asked whether the Department for Education and Skills had been consulted, and the answer is no. There was no need to consult it because we are not changing the position of schools or colleges in any way in the legislation. In so far as schools, colleges, universities or any other educational institutions involve the public in paid events, they are currently not exempt from the licensing regime.
We should be absolutely clear that the provisions of the Licensing Bill—or, indeed, of the current regime—will not affect musical instruction or musical tuition. The performance of live music falls within the scope of the Bill where the entertainment takes place in the presence of an audience and is provided for the purpose of entertaining that audience. Tuition is not provided for the purposes of entertainment but for the purposes of instruction.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, referred to the possibility of a teacher or head teacher standing in front of a very large group of 500 or even 1,000 children and possibly having amplification. That teacher or head teacher is clearly not there for the purposes of entertainment—although some of the pupils might find what he or she has to say entertaining, or might seek to find it entertaining—but for the purpose of instruction. I can again assure the House that entertainment provided without charge for pupils, their parents and other invited guests is not a

367
licensable activity. It is a private event to which the public are not admitted and no charges are made. However, it would probably be wrong to go further and exempt automatically schools, colleges and universities which stage public and commercial concerts. They sometimes stage extremely large pop and rock concerts where public disorder can take place. The public safety implications of such concerts in terms of very loud noise and disturbance are no different from other commercial concerts. I hope that the Committee will accept that point. Some schools put on first-rate commercial performances—sometimes with professional orchestras—but the safety of the public must be our first concern.
Having made a very important concession—which I hope will be welcomed—that we will go back and look carefully at the issue of an exemption for churches which is watertight and not subject to all kinds of difficulties, including cases being taken to court, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Redesdale: Before the Minister sits down, she asked a perhaps rhetorical question about whether London should be exempt or the rest of the country. Although the debate has centred around the difference between London, being a metropolitan area, and rural communities, especially Wales, it is only London and not the rest of the country, rural or urban, that falls within this category. So it is only the position of London that is at issue.
Baroness Buscombe: I am grateful to the Minister, as are all noble Lords, for the concession that she 'will reconsider whether or not places of worship and religious establishments should be exempted. I wrote down three words while noble Lords were speaking to this issue—"heritage", "cultural" and "community". Next to those words I wrote, "It is not worth it". Is this really what the Department for Culture, Media and Sport really intends? I think not.
A number of important points have been made. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough said that there is no evidence of abuse of present legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, said that the Bill is intended to reduce crime and disorder and encourage tourism, and that that is exactly what places of worship and schools are doing already across the country. As my noble friend Lady Perry of Southwark added, they are building relationships in the community.
We have had a full debate. We all believe passionately that religious establishments should be exempted. We on these Benches also believe that the position of educational establishments should be reconsidered and that they should form part of the concession to which the Minister has kindly agreed for the many reasons given by noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, asked what are the reasons for including schools and places of worship. I return to the point that I made—perhaps not forcibly enough—in relation to previous amendments: that the Government expressly support the evidence-based approach to drafting legislation.
368
May we please now have the evidence, particularly in relation to schools? We cannot agree with the Minister that the Bill means no change for schools.
I again thank the Minister for her concession. I am glad that the Government will reconsider the amendments. Given that several noble Lords said that they prefer the amendment of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, I have drafted a different amendment should we need to bring it forward on Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Does the Minister wish me to proceed with the next amendment three minutes before the lunch break?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: It will cut what I have to say into two parts.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): First course and second course.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 108, line 19, at end insert—
"other than in circumstances where the whole proceeds of the entertainment, after deduction of expenses thereof, and the relevant expenses of any exempt lottery under the provisions hereof, are applied for purposes other than private gain"
The noble Lord said: The disadvantage with the previous set of amendments is that they cover only a very small part of the concern mentioned. The crucial point—which, by now, the Committee may fully comprehend but I am not sure that the Government Front Bench do—is that even if you have a case where there is no consideration made for an event with a view to profit, you will still be caught under paragraph (a). So all the ecclesiastical occasions referred to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London would still be caught under paragraph (a).
Three possibilities will sweep up entertainments and catch them within the tentacles of the Bill. The first—and much the most dangerous—is any event to which, to any extent, members of the public or a section of the public are admitted. Even if the right reverend Prelate's amendment had been carried, that would still catch all the ecclesiastical events to which he referred.
More important, it is clear from what has been said that the Committee demands that the whole of the voluntary sector—the little clubs, organisations and charities that fortunately proliferate in this kingdom—is not caught up in a new, complicated and expensive regime.
At Second Reading I referred to the fete held for my local church, St Gregory's, in my garden. I ventured to suggest that under the Bill it would be caught in four ways. I received an astonished look and a shaking of the head from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I have

369
gone back to the Bill and I must tell him that each of the four circumstances I mentioned are caught by the Bill.
First, we have a puppet show. That is caught because it is the performance of a play. Secondly, we have a barrel-organ. That is caught because it is the performance of live music. Thirdly, we have a folk singing group. That is certainly caught, being a performance of live music. Lastly, we always have a small group of country dancers. That is caught as a performance of dance. As if that were not enough, we have a raffle—who does not?—and some tickets are sold beyond the gates of the fete because that is where we get money from the non-believers. That is caught under Clause 172, dealing with the raffle and tombola exemption, for the reason that a bottle of whisky is always given as one of the prizes—I give it.
If I may say so with respect, what we need to concentrate on is not the Churches, vital and important though they are, but voluntary society as a whole. I venture to suggest that anyone in this Chamber who runs through the voluntary organisations in his or her own community—the Scouts, the Royal British Legion, the choirs, the clubs, the Brownies, the Rotary clubs, and so on—will see that every one of them is caught under one or other of the Bill's many-headed branches.
I venture to suggest that Amendment No. 6 would exempt all those voluntary and charitable organisations that hold these types of events, not for profit but to increase their own resources. I have used the language of Clause 172 dealing with exempt raffles. I am hopeful, therefore, that the amendment will be acceptable, at least in terms of its drafting. However, as I believe other Members of the Committee will agree, this is an extremely dense and interlocking Bill into which to insert amendments that do nor reverberate unintentionally in other parts.
I want to emphasise a point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough and other speakers. There is no abuse of which I am aware in relation to the status quo—indeed, quite the contrary. Given that the Government are repeatedly on record as supporting the voluntary sector and wanting to do everything possible to aid and abet its endeavours, it is astonishing that this part of the Bill has been included.
I want to refer to an aspect of paragraph 1(2)(a) of Schedule 1. Members of the Committee may have attended a memorial service recently. Such services are often advertised in communities so that anyone can attend. If, after the service, people are invited back to a place where there is refreshment, that occasion will be caught by the Bill if any music is provided—the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, shakes his head, but it is a fact—whether or not for consideration.
To take an extreme case, if at the funeral of a well-known Welsh chorister a group of his or her friends at the reception afterwards broke into song, they would inadvertently have consigned the event to a breach of these wretched regulations. It would be an occasion to
370
which the public were invited. There would be a performance of live music. And, hey presto, they would be sunk.
I believe that Schedule 1 needs sinking. Short of that, I commend Amendment No 6, which I believe will come to the aid of the whole scope of voluntary and charity organisations. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry to say that although I enjoyed the noble Lord's speech it does not bear much relation to the amendment or to the way in which it would affect the Bill. Paragraph 1(2) of the schedule provides under heading (a) that the condition is that the entertainment or entertainment facilities are provided,
"for members of the public or a section of the public";
under (b) that it is,
"exclusively for members of a club … or … their guests";
and under (c) that it is entertainment or entertainment facilities,
"in any case not falling within paragraph (a) or (b), for consideration and with a view to profit".
Clearly, the fete referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, does not fall under (c). It falls under (a) because it is open to the public. So amendments to (c) are irrelevant to his village fete.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am sorry, but the Minister misunderstands my amendment. It applies to (a), (b) and (c).
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It does not say so. It comes at the end of line 19 rather than as an additional provision. If I have misunderstood, I am sorry, but if it is meant to apply to (a), (b) and (c), it should have been in a separate sub-paragraph.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I acted on the advice of those who purport to know, and this will apply to all three headings.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It will not. That is all I can say. I have to deal with the amendment as it is. It seeks to qualify the condition relating to profit—that is the point about heading (c)—by exempting circumstances where the proceeds of an entertainment after deductions of expenses of any exempt lottery are applied for purposes other than private gain. That is where I understand the point being made about the village fete to lie.
The only way we could make that work would be by examining the accounts—not so much those of a village fete, but let us think, for example, of a Live Aid concert or an entertainment where people are paid to take part. I referred to such a case at Second Reading: a choir and an orchestra play in a church and the choir is not paid but the orchestra is. Are we going to examine the accounts every time? Even if the proceeds of an entertainment are not intended for private gain, they will be licensable if they are provided for members of the public—which is the village fete. Incidentally, any memorial service is exempt under Schedule 1(9).

371
To return to the example, unless I wholly misunderstand the nature of his village fete, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is forgetting the provision of the Bill which says that if there is provision for an audience of less than 500, and provided that there are no more than five occasions, which can each be three days long, in any one calendar year, notice must merely be given; there is no provision for a licence. Does the noble Lord's village fete attract more than 500 people for more than three days, more than five times a year? I very much doubt it.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: A few days ago, I attended a memorial meeting of a secular nature for a celebrated forensic scientist. It was held in a room in a college at Cambridge University. Some recorded music was played, chosen by and at the request of, the deceased person's children. It seems to me that that would be caught under the Bill as it was not a religious service. If so, I invite the Minister to reconsider whether that is appropriate.
I refer to an example I gave earlier. I am a trustee of a small mental health charity in mid-Wales which holds events in private houses, sells tickets to members of the public and, typically—because we have a large number of young harpists in Montgomeryshire—we invite a harpist to play. Are we really to be subject to licensing in such a situation? If so, it seems to me a ludicrous piece of regulation. A government who seek to support small charities such as ours, which do a lot of work that used to be done by the National Health Service, should make life easier for us, not more difficult.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, should look at paragraph 2 of Schedule 1, which, after listing descriptions of entertainment, states,
"where the entertainment takes place in the presence of an audience and is provided for the purpose, or for purposes which include the purpose, of entertaining that audience".
The audience at the memorial meeting to which the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, refers, came to honour a forensic scientist. Incidental music is not licensable.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to the Minister for his response but I am unswayed by it. He is not right in saying that one does not need a licence for a fête—he said that there must be five occasions. Equally, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is wrong to say that schools are excluded from the provisions of this licensing regulation. Can she show me where they are excluded? There is no reference to schools' exclusion from this legislation. The amendment applies to sub-paragraph 2(a), (b) and (c). Nothing that the Minister has said affects my case. We will certainly bring this back at the next stage.
Baroness Blackstone: Before my noble friend gets up, perhaps I may explain to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, that I did not say that schools were exempted. On the contrary, I said that schools, colleges and HE institutions are covered by the existing licensing regime if they are holding events
372
involving the public and charging, for commercial purposes. There is no change from the longstanding situation. We have not had complaints from either the Department of Education or schools.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: With great respect to the Minister, I heard her correctly. I am reluctant: to contradict her blankly, but there is no option. She is not taking account of the fact that sub-paragraph (2)(a) stands alone. To be caught by this Bill, an event does not need to involve charging or to be run in a school for profit. The mere admission to an event of any member of the public, or any section of the public, whether or not there is a charge, will catch it, with the result that it will be licensable. That is new. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 1.42 to 2 p.m. for Judicial Business and to. 3 p.m. for Public Business.]

Winter Fuel Payment
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the winter fuel payment has been extended to any other groups of people in the past two years; if so, to whom; and whether they intend to extend it further in the next two years, and, if so, to whom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, winter fuel payments were introduced in the winter of 1997–98. They are universal, non-contributory, age-related payments made to those ordinarily resident in the UK. We have recently agreed with the EU that EEA citizens receiving WFP in this country may port them to another EEA country.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that response. Does she agree that many severely disabled pensioners receiving the attendance allowance and many severely disabled younger people receiving the disability living allowance are struggling to get by? Pensioners receive the winter fuel allowance, which is very helpful, but incredibly, the Government refuse these payments to younger severely disabled people. That cannot be right, because their needs are very similar. When will the Government reconsider this? Chronically and severely disabled people are just as vulnerable to the cold, whether they are old or young. That is why the issue needs reconsideration.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I have to disappoint my noble friend. It is not the case, as he says, that severely disabled people are as vulnerable to the cold as are older people. Severely disabled people are less poor than older people. Far fewer of them are in fuel poverty compared with older people. Above all, they are at far less risk of dying in the winter due to cold. Something like 95 per cent of the additional deaths that occur during the winter months are of those aged over 60 or 65. It is therefore not the case, as my noble friend says, that severely disabled people are at greater risk as a result of their disability.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the noble Baroness has rejected the appeal by the noble Lord behind her, but can she confirm that it is possible that some people who have gone to live in warmer countries will still be in receipt of the winter fuel payment? Can she also confirm that men between 60 and 65 who were affected by the European Court's decision can still have their claims backdated three years? If that is so, how many have been paid?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, on the first of those two questions, some countries in the EEA, such as former French colonies, have warmer climates, but many, such as Scandinavia, Germany and the like, have very cold winter temperatures. As a result of the agreement with the EU, we expect that something like 30,000 people may be able to export their winter fuel payments. They can do so only if they acquire their eligibility while ordinarily resident in the UK. So far, about 2,000 of them have claimed it.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, will the Minister please bear in mind that in some areas in the north of this country, particularly up in the mountains, the weather in the winter is very much colder than it is in the south? Will the Government please consider that people living in those areas might need more help with fuel in the winter than do people in the south? I live in one of those areas. I am lucky enough not to need such help, but I know plenty who do.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lady is right. That is why over the past year about 1.8 million cold weather payments were made, totalling something like £15 million, disproportionately to Scotland. The right answer is obviously to make sure that houses are well insulated and, as a result, people can afford to heat them properly. I am delighted to report that under the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme, around 400,000 households have been able to take advantage of grants of up to £1,500 to do precisely that.
Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the allowances that are given to the severely disabled are targeted to meet existing and current needs? Surely it is not beyond the powers of the Government's imagination or totally removed from
374
their thinking to make a cold weather payment for the specific small group who have problems generating body heat or are incapacitated.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, somebody who is severely disabled would get full income support rates. In addition, they would get disability living allowance of up to a further £95 a week, a disability premium of another £23 a week and perhaps even a disability enhanced premium of a further £11, at a cost of something like £7 billion in extra benefits to help disabled people meet some of the additional costs of their disability. I think that is remarkably supportive treatment from the Government and we should be proud of our record.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, notwithstanding the progress that the Government are making on tackling child poverty, the poorest group in our society are still the children of lone parents? Do the Government have any plans to extend winter fuel payments to that group?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my noble friend is exactly right. The poor in this country include pensioners and some disabled people, but, on average, while about 20 per cent of pensioners are in the bottom 20 per cent of income and only about 10 per cent—or possibly less than that—of those who are severely disabled are in the bottom 20 per cent of income, 50 per cent of the children of lone parents are in the bottom 20 per cent of income.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, will the noble Baroness answer my second question? Is it true that the 60 to 65 age group affected by the court's decision can backdate their claims three years, and how many have been paid?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. Anybody who has come into the system as a result of the eligibility age for men changing from 65 to 60 is entitled to backdated payments. However, in the normal course of events, the right to an automatic payment expires at the end of March. I shall write to the noble Lord about the figures on a yearly basis. We estimate that there may be 20,000 to 25,000—perhaps a few more—still outstanding, but it is difficult to pay because many of those men between 60 and 65 are in work and are not receiving the state pension, so we have no national insurance records of their eligibility or records of where they are working. It is a question of records, not entitlement. Any pensioner is paid automatically, but we have to encourage active claims coming to us from men between 60 and 65, because they are not in the state national insurance system for that purpose.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I am afraid that we are out of time.

Press Complaints Commission
3.8 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick Lord Lamont of Lerwick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the working of the Press Complaints Commission.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, while the Government are currently satisfied with the workings of the Press Complaints Commission, we recognise that, as with any regulatory system, there may always be room for improvement. For this reason, the Government continue to monitor closely the effectiveness of the newspaper industry's self-regulatory system. We would not hesitate to suggest improvements if appropriate.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Can the noble Baroness explain why, of all institutions in this country, the press is almost uniquely allowed self-regulation in contrast to other institutions for example, the House of Commons, where freedom of speech is equally important? Despite many warnings, is it not clear that many dubious practices are continuing, such as payments to witnesses in criminal proceedings, as highlighted by the Lord Chancellor, contempt of court, as recently highlighted by the Attorney-General, payment to criminals like Ronnie Biggs, and entrapment as in the case of the Countess of Wessex?
Is it not clear that eminent journalists, such as Mr Kelner of the Independent, or, dare I say, Mr Rusbridger of the Guardian, are right in saying that there are too many cosy deals between the commission and the tabloids? What we want is not conciliation or arbitration: it is adjudication by a genuinely independent body.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lord, as I am sure is the case with the Opposition, the Government support the principle of a free and responsible press as the cornerstone of our democracy. Newspapers are, and should remain, completely independent of government. It is for the press to decide what, and what not, to publish. The Government are committed to preserving that freedom. However, the Government also continue to believe that effective self-regulation, with a code of practice overseen by the Press Complaints Commission, is preferable to any statutory measure. Nevertheless, as with any regulatory system, there may be room for improvement. The Government certainly expect the press to abide by the rules and the commitments set out in the code of practice.
Lord McNally: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, if they run true to form, the press response to the excellent Question from the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, will be to "thcream an'thcream" like Violet Elizabeth Bott about press freedom? Has the noble Baroness read the research by Ian Hargreaves and James Thomas entitled New News, Old News from the University of Cardiff, which
376
shows a catastrophic level of public trust in either the truth or the impartiality of our national press? Any other industry incurring that kind of public contempt would display some sense of urgency as regards putting its house in order in terms of ethics and standards. That is totally absent in our press.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I have not seen the research mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I should very much like to receive a copy of it, and, indeed, read it. I am certainly aware of a growing lack of trust among the public in the accuracy of our newspapers and in some other aspects of the way they operate. It is for the press to take note of that public concern and to respond accordingly. That must be the position. Where they have legitimate grounds to do so, it must also be the case that members of the public take their complaints to the Press Complaints Commission where they will be properly investigated.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that what is really needed is a completely independent press commission, that is, one independent of the press barons or their representatives?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, this is a difficult question—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Blackstone: I believe there is a strong case for involving editors in the Press Complaints Commission. They are a minority. Lay members form the majority on the commission. It is the task of those editors on the commission to take most seriously the issues that are investigated. Where complaints are found to be justified, it is their task to return to the newspaper industry—not just their own newspapers, but to collective discussions in the industry—to ensure that any decisions made by the PCC are acted on.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, noble Lords are inclined to ask: what are the Government afraid of in relation to the PCC? Does not the Minister agree with Mark Stephens, of Finers Stephens Innocent, that the injustices of cheque-book journalism—for example, in the case of Alex Ferguson, or that of Peter Foster—highlight the need for tougher regulation?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, there are a whole range of issues on which there is possible need for tougher regulation. As I said in my initial Answer, the Government are carefully monitoring the way that the PCC operates. I have in mind issues about contempt of court. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is undertaking a review on that very issue at present; I believe it will be completed in December. So it is not true to suggest that the Government are in some way afraid of taking action to investigate whether there is a need for a change in the present arrangements.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, are the Government aware that one does not have to be one of their

377
supporters to feel contempt for the vicious hate campaign carried out by the Daily Mail against the Blairs, especially Mrs Blair? The Daily Mail campaign has shown little regard for accuracy or for the truth. It reeks of hypocrisy and smug self-satisfaction. When a newspaper makes false allegations, should not an independent press commission be empowered, of its own accord, to investigate such matters?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I associate myself with the remarks made by the noble Lord about the "vicious hate campaign" carried out by the Daily Mail in relation to Cherie Blair. However, for the time being, we have to stick to the current arrangements whereby it is up to any party who feels that he has been maltreated by our newspaper industry to make a complaint to the PCC. It would become extremely difficult to undertake regulation if it were carried out by third parties.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords—
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps we could hear from the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. A soft question always "turneth away wrath".
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I suppose that I should declare an interest as a director of the Spectator Ltd. Does the Minister consider that there is something faintly undignified, and, to many people, rather unsatisfactory, about a group of politicians attacking the press for not telling the truth, or for even coming out with unworthy stories? Powers exist to pursue the press in cases such as those for contempt of court. We should all welcome it if they were more vigorously used. Should not politicians remember that when they attack the press they are also attacking those who buy the newspapers with such keenness? As for the noble Lord from the Liberal Democrat Benches, I hope that he gets the job he is looking for somewhere.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, may not be aware of the fact that over 90 per cent of the complaints received by the PCC are from ordinary members of the public. It is right to say that newspapers should be accurate, as should politicians.

Queen's Counsel
3.17 p.m.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to continue to make appointments of Queen's Counsel.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): Yes, my Lords.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, given that the office of Queen's Counsel involves no public duties, is there any
378
justification whatever for a government Minister and a government department being involved in the appointment process at all? If appointments to the rank of Queen's Counsel are to continue—and that, in itself, is highly questionable—should not the appointment be made by the senior judiciary and the profession?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Lord Chancellor is the head of the judiciary, and the judiciary, along with many others, is consulted on the appointment of Queen's Counsel. So the Lord Chancellor is at the end of a line of process that includes independent civil servants, the judiciary, the legal profession, and now lay assessors. Every stage in the process is open to the closest scrutiny by the Judicial Appointments Commission. It is the duty of the Lord Chancellor to ensure that applicants are treated impartially and on their individual merits without reference to connections, allegiances, or contacts that are irrelevant to the award of Silk.
I repeat to your Lordships, as I have previously, that I have not excluded the possibility of an appointments commission to take over some part of these processes. But there are powerful arguments why a quango would not command greater public confidence than the existing system. Moreover, if the function were to be handed over to the profession, I very much doubt whether that would command public confidence or whether, on the contrary, it would be thought that the profession was feathering its own nest by the creation of an excessive number of Queen's Counsel.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords—
Lord Renton: My Lords—
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, could we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it was a very modest contribution from a practising member of the Bar of some years. Would the noble and learned Lord accept that his assessment of this situation is certainly wholly acceptable to me?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I could have no better ally.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, is there any truth in the oft-repeated allegation that the selection system is based on secret negotiations?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think that the phrase is "secret soundings". The allegation that judicial and QC appointments rest on secret soundings is false, but it is constantly repeated, presumably because of an unshakeable affection for the expression regardless of its inaccuracy. The names of all consultees are known; there is no secret about them. What individual consultees say about individual applicants is kept confidential.

379
However, that is a common feature of practically all appointments systems; otherwise assessments would not be full and frank.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords—
Lord Renton: My Lords—
Lord Ackner: My Lords
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it must be the turn of the Cross Benches, I think.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend recognise that there is a strange conflict in this area? On the one hand, as I understand it, public funds are to be used rarely in employing QCs. On the other hand, as I understand it, the fee that an applicant must pay to apply to become a QC is going to be at least doubled this year.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the state, as any other purchaser of legal services, is entitled to be sparing in the hiring of the services of Queen's Counsel—who represent at any one time only about 10 per cent of the Bar. On the other hand, I see no objection whatever to applicants for the rank of Queen's Counsel paying a fee that represents overall full costs recovery for the highly expensive scheme administered. This year, for example, in the current Silk round, we have consulted nearly 500 automatic consultees and nearly 1,500 nominated consultees, making approximately 2,000 in total. It is a massive exercise. There are no quotas, but recent experience shows that anything from about 70 to slightly more than 100 may succeed when 400 to 500 apply, and all deserve to have the merit of their applications scrupulously assessed. The Government took the view that a fee of £720 was fair since it represented, as I just said, overall full costs recovery.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor consider it more appropriate for the ultimate decision to be made by a very powerful Cabinet Minister, nominally the head of the judiciary, rather than by the Lord Chief Justice, who does not exercise any political power and could not then even be thought of as having any appearance of political patronage?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not think hat that question goes any further than the supplementary question which I answered from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.

NHS: Cancelled Operations
3.24 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to reduce the number of cancelled operations in the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, we have invested £8.5 million in the current financial year to help reduce the number of cancelled operations and ensure that good practice in operating theatres is implemented throughout the National Health Service.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is not the high number of cancelled operations simply part of a wider picture of falling productivity in the health service? Is the Minister aware that, over the three years to last April, the NHS budget increased by more than 21 per cent, yet, during the same period, NHS activity increased by only 1.6 per cent and the number of hospital admissions actually decreased? Do those figures cause the Minister any concern? Should we not question whether all the extra money promised for the health service will succeed in treating a commensurately large number of extra patients?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords, because it is not possible to measure NHS performance purely by hospital activity—although, by 2001–02, the number of finished consultant episodes had increased by 11 per cent compared with 1997–98. Surely the noble Earl will recognise that there has been a great expansion in services. Better and more expensive drugs can improve the quality of life and keep people out of hospital, and an expansion in primary care also is desirable. We need to paint a rounded picture to see the results of the extra expenditure. I am confident that we will meet the targets, reduce waiting, increase capacity and produce the type of health service the public want.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, are not the real figures actually far worse than those published? It appears that only operations cancelled on the day are included in the figures, and that patients put on standby are not included. Whatever happened to the troubleshooting managers who the NHS announced in February and said were capable of tackling the problem?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we have taken action to improve the situation in relation to cancelled operations. The £8.5 million programme to which I referred has been accompanied by direct intervention and action in individual hospitals to help reorganise their processes. The figures I have seen for the first two quarters of the current financial year indicate that, by the end of the financial year, compared with last year, there will be a reduction in the number of cancelled operations.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, what are the most frequent reasons for cancellations? Is it non-availability of operating theatres or other reasons?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my information is that although the pressure on theatre time may be a contributing factor, there are a number

381
of reasons for cancelled operations, including bed availability and shortage of theatre staff. There are also emergency pressures on theatres whereby patients scheduled for routine treatment are asked to wait because of an emergency case. The real solution to these problems is to increase capacity in the health service. That is why we are seeing such a large increase in the number of nurses employed, up to 40,000 more since 1997; an increase in bed numbers; and an increase in staff training places. All those actions will enable the health service to increase capacity and, therefore, to deal with the problem most effectively.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, can the Minister say to what extent the shortage of staffed intensive care beds is contributing to the cancellation of very major surgery in patients who are extremely ill with life-threatening conditions?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is not possible for me to quantify how many operations might have been cancelled because of a particular problem with a critical care bed in a particular hospital. What I can tell the noble Baroness is that, just as we have seen an increase in the past three years—for the first time in 20 years—in the number of general and acute beds, we have also seen a big increase in the number of critical care beds. Using as a baseline 15th January 2000, there were 2,362 critical beds; by July 2002, the number had increased to 3,070.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that while the causes of cancelled operations are multiple and vary from place to place, in many instances surgeons find themselves unable to operate because of a lack of time or space in theatres? Is not this whole matter compounded by the difficulty in discharging patients into the community where they would be better off?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as regards the discharge of patients, we shall introduce a Bill to incentivise local authorities to do what is required to ensure that when a patient has finished his treatment and is ready to return to the community the relevant local authority makes the necessary arrangements. There are instances of pressures with regard to theatre use but that matter is being tackled. I believe that a more flexible working pattern on the part of staff in the NHS would enable those theatres to be used more effectively.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the growing body of anecdotal evidence that the money to which he referred in his reply to the first supplementary question of my noble friend on the Front Bench is simply not coming out of the other end of the pipe into which it is poured? Will the Minister reassure me as regards the following matter? In the spring I heard at a meeting held by people running cancer units in Greater London that they had not received the money that was promised to them. I also
382
heard at a meeting of people running hospices that they had not received the extra money promised to them in September. Does the Minister recognise that that makes it difficult for me to accept what he said?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we monitor carefully the two matters to which the noble Lord referred. I understand that the improvements that we wanted to see take place in cancer services are taking place. As regards the general resource question, as I think I have already said, one cannot judge the use of resources simply in terms of the number of hospital admissions. Resources are being used, for example, to increase drug budgets. That enables people to receive better treatment and often means that they do not have to go into hospital. We are also using resources more effectively by increasing the use of GPs and primary care. Overall, the NHS is treating more patients more quickly and more effectively. That is the pathway to an improved and excellent NHS.

Licensing Bill [H.L.]
3.32 p.m.
House again in Committee on Schedule 1.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 108, line 33, after "facilities" insert "other than a person who is a performer in relation to the entertainment or a person representing such performers in dealings with the promoters of the entertainment"
The noble Baroness said: This amendment aims to try to plug a number of loopholes which the drafting of the Bill has left open. It is my understanding that as the Bill stands any payment made by the promoter to the performers of music at a private event is enough to trigger the regulation of an event. By that rationale, an event within a private home, or a private rehearsal by musicians who receive payment, becomes a licensable activity. While it is clearly important to try to give a comprehensive definition of the provision of regulated entertainment, there are also cases where regulation imposes needless bureaucracy and causes confusion and complication for those taking part in the entertainment, most particularly for professional musicians.
I hope that the Government will clarify the issue of payment and explain their thinking on that aspect of the Bill. We on these Benches have turned to lawyers with expertise in licensing law. Their view of the situation with the Bill as currently drafted is clear. They state that they understand that the Bill's wording not only captures private events where band leaders, for example, are hired to organise live music, but also children's entertainers, for example, Cocoa the Clown. This amendment is essential to ensure that simply because a musician is paid to arrange live music, which may include several different bands, solo performers and so on, private events such as wedding receptions or bar mitzvahs do not become illegal unless licensed. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: I support the amendment which stands also in my name. Is it the intention—as we

383
believe—that an individual could trigger the question of whether an activity is licensable? There appears to be confusion and concern about the matter, especially among those who organise private parties.
Lord Skelmersdale: Does not the matter go wider than that? The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is an opera lover. She will have attended performances given by, for example, Diva Opera, in private houses and other locations which may or may not have raised money for charitable purposes. At Question Time hospices were discussed. Is it the intention to cover those events? If so, I, and I am sure, various noble friends would consider that that is quite wrong.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 1 of the first schedule requires that certain conditions must be met for entertainment to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment under the Bill. Sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 1 provides:
"The first condition is that the entertainment or entertainment facilities are provided—

(a) to any extent for members of the public or a section of the public,

(b) exclusively for members of a club which is a qualifying club in relation to the provision of regulated entertainment, or for members of such a club and their guests, or

(c) in any case not falling within paragraph (a) or (b), for consideration and with a view to profit".

Sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 1 states:
"For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(c)"—
that is, other than for members of the public or members of a club or their guests—
"entertainment is, or entertainment facilities are, only to be regarded as provided for consideration if any charge—

(a) is made by or on behalf of any person concerned in the organisation or management of that entertainment or those facilities, and

(b) is paid by or on behalf of some or all of the persons for whom that entertainment is, or those facilities are, provided".

The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, made a wider point about private parties to which I should like to respond if an amendment were tabled on that subject. However, the measure we are discussing does not concern that point. The amendment would exempt instances where a charge was made by or on behalf of someone organising the management of the facility if they were a performer or a person representing performers dealing with the promoters of the entertainment. But, as I said, the exemption would apply only where the entertainment or facilities were not provided to members of the public or members of a club and their guests.
Taking the amendment literally, I do not see why the safety concerns of the public would be reduced simply because the performer, or someone representing performers, was the person organising or managing the entertainment facilities to whom a charge was paid. Why should a premises owned by a musician, for example—because that is what the measure would mean—be exempt from a requirement when a normal
384
business person would not? I understand what the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is saving but that is not what her amendment says.
Lord Redesdale: Before the noble Lord sits down, his explanation gave the impression that a private performer, for example, concerned with musical dance, would have to license his or her own home. If the entertainer in question offered children's entertainment, would the relevant child's home have to be licensed premises under the Bill?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Of course not. I thought that I had made that entirely clear. Private parties become licensable only if the holder of the party charges those for whom an entertainment is provided and only if the purpose of the party is the provision of entertainment. Incidental entertainment provided even when the entertainer is paid as part of a private party is not licensable. Certainly, anything where no charge is made for admission is not licensable. Mozart and Haydn spent most of their lives being paid to do work that was not licensable. Count Esterhazy's soirees at Eisenstadt, to which he did not charge admission as far as I know but which did include performances conducted by Joseph Haydn, would not have been licensable.
Lord Skelmersdale: That is all very well, because nobody is paying, but I still have not had an answer to my charitable problem.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Would the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, be good enough to repeat his question?
Lord Skelmersdale: I asked whether, for example, the owners of a private house who employed the Diva Opera to raise money for a local hospice would need a licence for the premises. The people who came to such an event would be paying, although the profits would go to charity. Under the definition and the explanation that the Minister has so far given, that would be a licensable activity. I, for one, think that that is quite wrong.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I believe that we dealt with that question when we debated Amendment No. 6, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. Yes, if a charge were made for admission to a private house, whether it was for private profit or charity, the same issues of public safety and public nuisance would arise. To that extent, it would still be licensable. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, for it to be licensable, other than simply subject to the serving of a notice, there would have to be five events. Each of those events could last up to three days in the course of one calendar year, and there would have to be more than 500 people involved. There are not many of those.
Lord Avebury: Could the Minister say what would happen if, at such a private party, no charge was made for admission but a collection was taken up on behalf of a charity, for example?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was here when I answered that question before. That would not be a charge for admission and would not make it licensable.
Baroness Buscombe: Looking around the Chamber, there seem to be concerns on two levels. First, I am concerned that the Minister's explanation does not fit my questions. Secondly, there is consternation among Members of the Committee that such events to which we have referred, such as the one mentioned by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, attract the need for a licence. There is concern on those two levels.
As I said to noble Lords, we have consulted licensing lawyers with expertise in these matters, and we believe that there is a problem with this part of the Bill. We believe that our amendment clarifies the situation, but clearly in the view of the Minister it does not. I shall read his comments carefully in Hansard, but I fear that we shall return to the matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 109, line 11, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Baroness said: The amendment is designed to probe further what is meant by "indoor sporting event" for the purposes of the Bill. I am sure that most of us are clear that it would include a gymnastics competition in a sports hall, a swimming competition or an indoor bowling competition, but will the Minister tell us how far the definition of "sporting event" goes? It would be helpful to have that explained clearly.
Would the definition include a regular amateur club darts competition, for example? Would it include a skittles, bridge or whist competition in a church or village hall or in private premises, designed to raise money for a good cause? On some definitions, that would certainly be sporting. It would certainly be an entertainment. There would probably be a charge if the reason was to raise money for a good cause. There would certainly be an audience, and a large number of people might come and go in the course of an evening. Do the Government envisage that every small, local, casual competition of that sort would be subject to the full rigours of the law?
On a separate aspect, what is constituted by "indoor"? Does an event have to take place within a permanent structure? What happens in the case—possible today and increasingly likely in future—when a stadium has a retractable roof? Would that be caught
386
by the provisions? What would happen if a sporting event started as an open-air event and was concluded under cover because of rain or snow?
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Buscombe: Well, they are all good questions, as I hope Members of the Committee will agree.
Would that example be covered by any regulations that would apply to the relevant subsection? Would an operator have to apply for permission to close a structure? Does the definition include a marquee near a sporting event, or a tented structure? What about the circumstances, which are increasingly common in some events, in which an awning or cover is placed over some parts of an otherwise open-air structure to shelter the sporting entertainers?
Those may seem small issues, but they are part of everyday life throughout the country, and it is important that we should be clear at the outset how far and in what ways the Government intend the provisions to bite. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: The amendment also appears in my name. The Explanatory Notes helpfully describe sporting events:
"For the purposes of this Bill, sport is defined as any contest in which physical skill is the main factor. For example, tennis would be covered by the definition. However, a game of chess contested publicly would not".
However, the notes do not refer to darts. That may seem an amusing factor, but darts is one game often played in pubs. The Sports Council does not recognise darts, and it is not an Olympic event as yet. Often, of course, darts is covered as a licensable activity in large competitions through the sale of alcohol. However, will the Minister give some definition? Although the definition of sport in paragraph 14 of Part 3 of Schedule 1 uses the word "includes", darts is an issue that many councils will ask about.
Lord Skelmersdale: I must declare an interest as chairman of the House of Lords bridge group. I understand from the very helpful Explanatory Notes that bridge would not normally be covered. However, there is surely a bit of a muddle here. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that the Bill does not really explain what "sport" means. It clearly covers more than contact sports and clearly means sports that people pay to view specifically. Darts in a pub is incidental, and the pub would have to be licensed anyway, so it seems to me that it would not be a factor in the equation.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, who has answered one of the difficult points for me. I am not a darts fanatic, but I have seen the game played from time to time, and I cannot remember any circumstance in which I have seen a dart thrown when drink was not in fairly close proximity. The issue with regard to a licence would

387
certainly be in play, although I imagine that there could be some circumstances when that was not the case. The noble Lord referred to darts in a pub; we are obviously talking about licensable premises in that case, which would be covered by the licence for which it had applied.
The noble Lord rightly said that not all sports were contact sports, but sport is sport, and bridge is not a sport. I think that we can agree on the two ends of the definition. We are seeking to indicate that there are a number of indoor sporting events with a fixed roof. I shall refer to the intermittent contraption or sliding roof in a moment. Let us deal with those events that are definitively indoors. They are currently covered by the requirements because indoor arenas can have large crowds. Indoor arenas have substantial capacities for sports such as cycling and athletics, to say nothing of boxing.
We do not intend to exclude any entertainment covered by the current licensing regime. Such events are covered because there is a public interest in terms of health and safety on such occasions. Indoor sporting events can attract sizeable crowds and generate an atmosphere of excitement owing to the competitive nature of the activities provided. Bridge does not quite fit into that category, which is not to say—I seek to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale—that bridge is not competitive. Although it engenders emotions among onlookers, it does not produce quite the same response or involve such huge numbers as the sporting events we seek to cover with this provision. We believe that the events should continue to be licensed because only regulation through such a system can ensure public safety and prevent public nuisance and crime and disorder. To exclude indoor sporting events without proper justification would lead to serious problems. After all, a number of issues are raised in relation to external sporting events although the arenas are not very different from the indoor arenas we seek to cover. We shall come to a relevant amendment later. 'The amendments were grouped at one point but they have been decoupled. The amendment I have in mind relates to retractable roofs. I shall reserve my salient remarks until we reach that amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: It would help many of us if the Bill referred to incidental activities. The reason for licensing is for the primary activity, not for darts, bridge or whatever. The licence would be granted on that basis. I have not yet understood whether a supplementary licence would be needed in relation to a park, for example, if a pub suddenly decided to put on a wrestling match for which entry was charged.
Lord Davies of Oldham: We should expect the pub to ensure that it had a licence that covered its normal practice—the sale of liquor—and one for entertainment if it had facilities for wrestling or boxing, if it was that sort of pub. There are some. Under the present regime, it would have to apply and
388
give guarantees of public safety with regard to such provision. We are not seeking to change that regime in any way.
Lord Redesdale: I want to pursue the questions raised in relation to darts. The Minister said that a pub with a darts board would be covered by the licence for the premises. However, if it did not have an entertainment licence, does that mean it would have to apply for a variation to add an entertainment licence under the guidelines?
Lord Davies of Oldham: No. We are concerned with events that generate a significant audience involving public safety and health and different from the normal licensing operation governing the pub. When there is a facility for a boxing match, an additional licence is required. The noble Lord discussed darts. There might be three or four people around who take a pas sing interest in the darts match. That would not raise a specific consideration.
Lord Redesdale: I raised that example because, although darts can be played by as few as three people, I have been to many pubs, particularly in rural areas, that stage darts competitions that can attract hundreds of people. That is a completely different area and would probably fall under the auspices of the conditions as described by the noble Lord.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I hope that Members of the Committee will forgive me if I underestimate the drawing power of darts in terms of an audience. As the noble Lord said, pubs with darts boards can stage competitions to which the public come—they do so in addition to drinking in the pub. That would be an event and increased numbers of people would come to the pub to see it. That would be covered by our proposal.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: The pubs in my part of the world have weekly darts competitions. All local pubs do; they even hold darts leagues.
Lord Avebury: I want to pursue the comments of my noble friend and to declare a past interest, from some 35 or 40 years ago, as chairman of the Melbourne and district darts league in south Derbyshire. It had the sort of league that my noble friend mentioned. Weekly competitions were played in all the pubs throughout the Melbourne area. They were very popular events, attended by reasonably substantial numbers of people. We were not unique. Similar leagues, as my noble friend said, exist in many parts of the country. They are very popular events. People go especially to pubs to attend them and visit other pubs, of which they are not normally habitués, to follow their team.
Darts is not the only game of its kind played in pubs. I point out what appears to be an anomaly. I was also many years ago—even more years ago than when I was chairman of the darts league—a member of the second Aunt Sally team at the Plasterer's Arms in Oxford. That extremely popular game is played in the open air. The Bill appears to require that entertainment at darts league

389
matches would be licensable but that Aunt Sally matches, which were of a similar nature—all the pubs in the Oxford area played in a league—would not be subject to licensing. What is the logic in that, considering that both events are of a sporting nature? One of them happens to take place in the open air and the other does not, but both are closely associated with pubs.
Lord Skelmersdale: It would help us all to bring realism into this debate; otherwise, we shall be discussing the Bill in Committee for about 10 days, which would be in nobody's interests. The fact surely is—as stated several times today and at Second Reading when, unfortunately, I was not able to be present—that if the darts playing is incidental to the activity for which the licence was granted, it is not covered by an extra licence condition. If, however, people pay not for beer but to attend the darts match, surely it is covered. Is that not the end of the problem?
Baroness Buscombe: I am grateful to Members of the Committee for their overwhelming support for my question about darts competitions. These questions are in themselves small but they are symbolic of the fact that the Bill overall lacks clarity. Similar questions have been raised today seeking more clarity in the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale said, at this rate we will be here far longer than is necessary.
I urge the Government to think again about the Bill's wording. We on this side of the Chamber are certain about our interpretation of the Bill, although that interpretation appears to be rather different from the Government's. The Central Council of Physical Recreation has been in touch with us expressing deep concern about what is meant in relation to indoor sporting events. It asks for clarification about whether parents watching their children might be deemed spectators in terms of public entertainment.
Good questions continue to be raised. I understand that the Government's view is that the Bill answers those questions, but we assure them that it does not. I urge the Government to look again at this and earlier amendments. I shall read carefully what they said in Hansard and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 109, line 12, after "boxing" insert ", martial arts"
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 16. These amendments are both designed to probe the difficult issue of what might be called "violent entertainments". They also raise a specific concern relating to martial arts.
I understand why the Government have listed separately in the schedule boxing and wrestling entertainments. We have all seen the way in which so-called "wrestling" now seeks to incite the audience to anger against one or other participant. Often—
390
sometimes as part of a fake entertainment but sometimes, sadly, in real life—people from the audience become involved in scuffles, or worse, with the wrestlers. That is sometimes an intended consequence of the way that the entertainment is presented. Equally, we can all recall appalling scenes of disorder at some boxing matches. In recent times, there have been cases of mass brawls involving horrific injuries to members of the audience. Usually that has happened when members of the audience have been inflamed with drink.
Does the listing of boxing and wrestling in this way as a separate category mean that the Government envisage that licensing authorities may be able to impose stricter regimes on these kinds of competition? If so, can the Minister clarify where in the Act or in the regulations these powers will be explicitly set out? If not, will she consider this matter carefully? Will she also consider whether different rules might apply in the case of so-called "unlicensed" boxing, which poses particular threats to the health of participants and has frequently been associated with drink-related disorder?
Both amendments also seek to add to the definition of "boxing" and "wrestling" other so-called "martial arts". They offer different ways of achieving the same objective. Many noble Lords will know that so-called "sports", such as kick-boxing and similar activities, are growing in popularity alongside more established martial arts, such as karate. No one can doubt that kick-boxing, tae-kwan-do and other sports can involve considerable violence and could act as an incitement to audiences. Therefore, will Ministers consider writing clearly on to the face of the Bill the fact that such martial arts will come under the same rigorous control as boxing and wrestling, in particular, where drink is involved? I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Perhaps I may raise one question in relation to this amendment, although it could well have been raised with regard to any amendments to paragraph 2 of the schedule. I hope that this is not unfair; if it is, the Minister will no doubt write to me. The point referred to by many noble Lords concerned cases where entertainment takes place in the presence of an audience and—this is the point—is provided for the purpose of entertaining an audience or for purposes which include the purpose of entertaining that audience. I believe that it would put many of our minds at rest if we had a little guidance on what is meant by,
"or for purposes which include the purpose",
of entertaining the audience. We have already had the example of young people taking part in a sporting competition with their parents present. If the parents are there to see their children perform in a competition—for example, in an indoor badminton competition, although it could be any other type of competition—would that be taken as falling within paragraph 2 as the parents would be there for purposes which include the purpose of entertaining that audience? It seems to me that the matter can be argued either way. However, if, either now or later, the

391
Minister could assure us on that point, I believe that it would take out of purview a great many of the more marginal prospects about which people are worried.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I turn, first, to the closing comments of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. I shall certainly write to him as I believe that my immediate answer to the point that he raised will probably be inadequate. The concept behind an "audience'", or possibly a paying audience, is rather more objective than where parents go along to see, and support, their children. They do form an audience because they are watching, but their participation in the event is not quite that of the public audience, which we are seeking to identify and safeguard in relation to these issues. The noble Lord may consider that response to be less than precise and I shall write to him before the next stage of the Bill.
In relation to the general matter of the martial arts, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, rightly identified, we know that boxing and wrestling and their audiences present a significant issue with regard to public safety. As the noble Baroness said, the relationship between wrestling and its audience is particularly engaging, and its showmanship can engage the audience very directly. But, as has been known for many decades, boxing also engages passions. From time to time, boxing bouts have aroused as much vigour in the audience as in those participating in the ring—in some cases, rather more than occurs in the ring.
In this measure we are seeking to ensure that boxing and wrestling fall within the necessary requirements of licensing. However, I am having some difficulty in accepting the noble Baroness's depiction of the martial arts. I am not sure that I am totally familiar with every single one of them, but I do not believe that martial arts normally set out to engage the audience in quite the same way as do wrestling or boxing.
Lord Addington: Does the noble Lord agree that boxing is growing in popularity but that it is very under-regulated at present? The noble Baroness is correct in that.
Lord Skelmersdale: Would it help the Minister to take up my suggestion of using the expression "contact sports", which would cover all these matters?
Lord Davies of Oldham: That is, of course, a helpful suggestion. The noble Lord is always helpful. But this is a deregulation measure. We are not looking for additional elements to bring within the framework of the regulation. The Opposition Front Benches are raising an issue about martial arts which we believe has occasioned very little public discourse. We have received no representations from the sport. No one who has attended martial arts performances has said, "By heavens, do you know just how dangerous or what a threat to public health this is?". We have received no representations on the matter. If noble Lords have received some, no doubt they will convey them to us.
At present, the martial arts are a fairly limited sport in terms of public presentation. They are conducted within a framework which gives us no cause for
392
anxiety. Therefore, I resist the amendments on the grounds that I am not seeking to include sports, activities or pursuits but am seeking simply to continue with our process of deregulation.
Baroness Buscombe: I am very disappointed with the Minister's response. While we would not look for ways to include other sports just for the fun of it, we have a serious purpose in tabling these amendments. As I said, the martial arts can attract audiences where there will be a possibility of violence, and perhaps considerable violence where drink is involved. In some ways, martial arts may be seen as a minority sport. In that case, it is hard for us to understand—perhaps that is the reasoning—why sports such as wrestling and boxing should be included but martial arts excluded. There seems to be discrimination in favour of minority sports, such as the martial arts.
It is not our purpose to add regulation where it is not necessary. Indeed, as I shall say when we debate the next amendment, our concern is that the Government are regulating where it is entirely unnecessary, including areas such as carol singing. There is seriousness in our purpose. As Her Majesty's Opposition it is important for us to show all those individuals and organisations who are watching closely the passage of the Bill our will and our wish carefully to scrutinise it. We need to show the outside world that we are serious in our purpose. On that basis I should like to test the opinion of the Committee.
4.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 93.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hanham, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Blatch, B.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Brightman, L.

Howe, E.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Buscombe, B.

Liverpool, E.

Caithness, E.

Luke, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lyell, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Chorley, L.

Mancroft, L.

Cobbold, L.

Marlesford, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Monson, L.

Craigavon, V.

Naseby, L.

Croham, L.

Noakes, B.

Cumberlege, B.

O'Cathain, B

Denham, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dundee, E.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Plumb, L.

Elton, L.

Renton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Garel-Jones, L.

Selsdon, L.

393

Skelmersdale, L.

Trumpington, B.

Strange, B.

Wakeham, L.

Tenby, V.

Weatherill, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Wilcox, B.

Williamson of Horton, L

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord chancellor)

Ahmed, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Alderdice, L.

Jeger, B.

Ampthill, L.

Jordan, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Judd, L.

Avebury, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Barker, B.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.[Teller]

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Billingham, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Blackstone, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carter, L.

Mishcon, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Morgan, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L

Clinton-Davis, L.

Pendry, L.

Crawley, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Desai, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dholakia, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Razzall, L.

Dubs, L.

Redesdale, L.

Eatwell, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Elder, L.

Rennard, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Rooker, L.

Falkland, V.

Roper, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Sewel, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Simon, V.

Goodhart, L.

Taverne, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Greaves, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Grenfell, L.

Thornton, B.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Tope, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Walmsley, B.

Hayman, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Whitaker, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Whitty, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Wilkins, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hoyle, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. ((Lord privy seal)

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.20 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 109, line 13, leave out paragraph (e).
The noble Baroness said: There has already been much talk today about exceptions to the definition of "regulated entertainment". Amendment No. 11 draws attention to yet another area where the categories seem to be so broad as to verge on the ridiculous. On page 109, line 13, we learn that entertainment includes,
"a performance of live music".
394
I wonder whether any noble Lords have had the pleasure of watching their children sing in a school nativity play? That activity would, in future, be licensable. It appears that we would also need a licence to go carol singing. Such an all-encompassing definition as the one that is offered in paragraph (e) demands greater clarification. I am sure that there are keen musicians up and down the country who fear that the Bill, as it stands, will force restrictions on activities which they see as a basic human right. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: When we started our consideration of Schedule 1, I hope that I made clear the basis on which Schedule 1 is drafted. The principle is that the first concern should be for public safety and the avoidance of public nuisance. In the licensing objectives, there is also the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of harm to children. They should be included in the appropriate places. But I hope that at that stage I explained that if one is concerned with public safety and with the avoidance of public nuisance, it does not make much difference, as regards music, whether it is live or recorded.
Recorded music can be quiet and cause few problems to anyone. Live music, on the other hand, can be extremely loud and offensive to some people. Anyone who has been to the Wembley Arena or to the Glastonbury Festival surely would not say that they, being live music, should be exempt from the licensing procedures. Indeed—I hope the Committee will not mind my saying so—anyone who has been to a State banquet will have heard the bagpipers going around the table twice very loudly indeed. That is all right in St George's Hall and in Buckingham Palace, but it would not be much fun if one lived next door.
What we are concerned with is the public safety and avoidance of public nuisance aspects.
Lord Redesdale: I apologise. But there seems to be a theme to some of the Minister's answers that any live music will bring about disorder. I know that some of the original regulations about live music were brought in because it caused disorder in the 16th and 17th centuries. Some of the noble Lord's comments indicate that live music is a cause of disorder and of public nuisance. I did not wish to speak to this amendment but the noble Lord's comments have forced me to. Can the Minister tell us what evidence he has for the assertion that he makes?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have made no such assertion. I am saying that there is no distinction to be made, from the point of view of public safety or public nuisance, between live and recorded music. To single out live music for the purpose of the amendment is to misunderstand both the purpose of the Bill in the way it is drafted and the effect that it has.
It is a widespread misunderstanding but it is just wrong. As a result of the Bill, not only will there be no further impositions on live musicians, but there will be huge new opportunities for live musicians. The Bill does not discriminate against live music in any way. Let us take as an example the pubs, which after all

395
much of the Bill is about. At the moment one has the "two in a bar" rule. One must get special permission for more than two live musicians in a bar.
Under the Bill as drafted the pub licensee will get a licence for the sale of alcohol. At the same time, without any difficulty and without extra charge, and subject only to conditions about noise and capacity levels, he will be able to get a music licence. In that sense, the possibility of live music being available in pubs and other places where alcohol is being sold will be greater rather than less. Regulation is being reduced not increased.
I simply do not believe that the distinction between live music and recorded music that is made in the amendment helps in any way. Of course that is not saying that all live music is damaging. I gave examples—perhaps extreme examples—of Glastonbury and the Wembley Arena. Of course a small folk group in a pub will not cause the kind of problems that Wembley or Glastonbury can cause. But it should not make a difference whether it is two, one or three people taking part in such a group.
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, introduced the amendment by talking about carol singers and nativity plays. Singing in nativity plays is not going to be licensable. In most cases those activities will come within the exemption in paragraph 9 as incidental to a religious meeting. In any case, they will be for the family and friends of children and will not be for members of the public. Neither of those circumstances will be licensable. Carol singers going door-to-door, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, or taking part in a religious service are not licensable. People singing carols in a supermarket or a railway station and so on would need to be covered by a premises licence or a temporary event notice. That is hardly different from the present situation. In any case, a temporary event notice just says that there will be carol singers. That is all. It does not require any more than that.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: The Minister cannot be allowed to get away with saying that there will be no real difference from carol singing at the moment. Nor, with respect, should he be allowed to get away with the notion that there is nothing to getting one of these notices. Getting the forms, filling them in, returning them 10 days before the event and paying the fee is a series of bureaucratic impediments that will put off a great many people who are only too happy now to sing in Liverpool Street station or wherever. The Minister misjudges the feeling of the House if he believes that this combination of bureaucratic hurdles is of no significance.
4.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Let us talk about that aspect; I am certainly happy to do so; but I have given the assurances sought by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, about both Nativity concerts and carol
396
singers. I insist that the regime that we propose is enormously easier for live music and would not be helped by the amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: I appreciate the Minister's reasoning as to why, on this occasion, my noble friend Lady Buscombe is wrong, but he made the most amazing assertion in his answer. He said that there was no difference to him between live and recorded music in this regard. Why, then, are they separated in the Bill?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: They are both there; they are separated, presumably, for the sake of completeness. There is a much greater difference in terms of public nuisance between amplified and unamplified music than there is between live and recorded music.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his reply, but I am now deeply confused. I heard the Minister say that, to take carol singing as an example, it is perfectly all right to go carol singing in certain places but not in others. With regard to the need for a premises licence, there must be people up and down the country who are about innocently to go out on carol singing sprees and may enter supermarkets—where I am sure that they would be welcome—or railway stations, not realising that they would be in difficulty if they did not have a licence to cover that activity. I must disagree with my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale when he said that I was wrong in that regard.
The Minister said that school Nativity plays would be exempt from the need for a licence if, as was suggested, they were incidental to a religious meeting. That returns us to an argument raised earlier: most Nativity plays attract all sorts of people, not just immediate family and friends. How far and how wide does the definition of friends extend?
In essence, we seek clarification from the Government. We said on Second Reading that we support the Bill in principle, but we passionately believe that, in a number of areas, it deserves and demands improvement. Otherwise, to return to the reference made this morning to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, the Bill will be a licence for lawyers.
I urge the Government to reconsider what we have said on this and previous amendments. We are in Committee; there is an opportunity to revisit the issues on Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 109, line 14, leave out "playing" and insert "performance"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 12, I shall speak also to Amendment Nos. 21 and 25, which are grouped with it. I shall speak first to Amendment No. 25, which sums up the meat of our objections to the Bill.
I have campaigned against the "two in a bar" rule, and I do not intend to introduce grandfather rights for the "two in a bar" rule into the Bill—although in a way, that might be helpful to the Bill as drafted. I understand—and, to a degree support—the Government's objective of making entertainment licences an easily accessible form of variation of a licence.
However, I have concerns about such variation of licence. The Minister said that varying the licence to include an entertainment licence will be easy. However, will licensing authorities reject variations if people then seek to add an entertainment licence? That is a matter of considerable concern. If someone applies for a variation of licence, the licensing authority has the opportunity either to reject the variation or to impose conditions. Pubs may be worried that if they apply for an entertainment licence they may be rejected unless a vast amount of work is undertaken at the pub for live music to be performed there—because of health and safety considerations, which have been cited in the past in the granting of public entertainment licences.
That is one reason why we were so keen to remove the "two in a bar" rule. Amendment No. 25 is therefore an attempt to allow live, unamplified music to take place outside the confines of the Bill. That is important, especially as the Bill is promoted by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, because we are discussing a vast amount of folk music. Folk music is a form of culture in this country and is often passed on by word of mouth in pubs. Reducing people's ability to hear folk music played could lead to its decline and extinction. I think especially of areas such as Tyneside, where much traditional folk music has been passed down through word of mouth in pubs.
We are therefore attempting through Amendment No. 25 to exempt unamplified music. As the Minister said, amplified music can be extremely loud and intrusive. However, unamplified music is rarely complained against. The Noise Abatement Society, which most keenly opposes any noise pollution, states that 81 per cent of noise complaints about pubs and bars are due to noisy people outside. Most of the rest are due to recorded music and noisy machinery. The United Kingdom Noise Association states that noise complaints about live music are relatively rarely lodged. There are more complaints about amplified pre-recorded music, which is exempt under the Bill.
I find it anathema that, under the Bill, while pubs can happily play canned music—most pubs do—they cannot host unamplified live music of a type that is so important to the cultural diversity of our country through folk clubs, which often meet in pubs. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: I support the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on all the amendments to which my name and that of my noble friend Lord Luke have been added. It would be otiose to repeat what he said. The
398
Bill appears to be clamping down on entertainment while liberalising the drinking of alcohol—a strange juxtaposition.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I shall speak briefly to Amendment No. 21, which would remove from Paragraph 7, which exempts incidental music, the word "recorded", so that the exemption would apply to incidental music whether recorded or live. I agree with what the Minister said about the previous amendment, when he was adamantly disinclined to distinguish between live and recorded music, and said that they should be treated the same. What is good for the goose in that amendment should be good for the gander in this.
Lord Bridges: Perhaps I may make a brief suggestion about the amendments and some of those that we discussed earlier. It concerns the concept of live music as a discrete and recognisable commodity. Live music varies enormously between the chap crooning with a friend over a ukelele in a bar and the "Hallelujah Chorus". The Government have got into difficulty by providing such precise definitions that do not translate into the world in which we live. Perhaps they will reflect on that as we consider the Bill further.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is entirely justified in reminding me of what I said on the last amendment: I was very deliberate. The difference between amplified and unamplified music is more important than the difference between live and recorded music.
The noble Lord referred to Amendment No. 21 and to paragraph 7 of Part 2 of the schedule. The point is that we are referring to recorded music when it is incidental to other purposes, rather than being the purpose itself. Generally speaking, I hope, live music is not incidental. I have been to parties at which pathetic string quartets of music students play in the corner and no one pays the faintest attention. People clap politely when they finish. That is as deplorable, in its way, as Muzak is. However, my personal views should not come into it. Generally speaking, background music may be offensive aesthetically. But it is not offensive in public safety or public nuisance terms. That is why there is an exemption in paragraph 7.
The fundamental point is the one I have made—clearly, not to adequate effect—on several groups of amendments. The licensing regime that we propose is related to the effect of the entertainment, not to its origin. When a distinction is made between amplified and unamplified or live and recorded, we must consider the effect. There can be quiet—relatively quiet—amplified music, and there can be loud unamplified music. A brass band can be very loud, and I gave the example of bagpipes. A symphony orchestra is loud. I would not care to live next to the "1812 Overture", even if—especially if—a live orchestra was playing it.
If we stick to the fundamental principle that we are licensing the effect for the sake of public safety and the avoidance of public nuisance, we will not get into the

399
trouble that the amendments would get us into. The amendments would not help musicians or live music and are not in the public interest.
Lord Avebury: I would like the Minister to clarify something that I find mysterious. Under paragraph 7, it will be permissible for stores, hotels and so on to play the revolting Muzak that most customers loathe. I cannot understand, from a marketing point of view, why they do it. If they had live music in the foyer, for example, would that be regarded as incidental to the other purposes of the establishment? They hope to attract people to stay in the hotel or to eat or drink there. Railway stations, already referred to, are there to persuade people to travel on trains. The position is similar for any other termini. Where is the logic in saying that there can be Muzak in all those places but not a string quartet or carol singers?
4.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am in danger of being swayed by my aesthetic judgments, rather than by the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is right. People go to a rail way station to travel by train; they go to a shop to buy things. If the criterion used is whether the music is incidental, it may be that we should think again about the adequate distinction being whether the music is live or recorded. I say that because Amendment No. 21 is in the group.
Lord Redesdale: I am rather interested by that change of tack. The Minister is talking about incidental music. Surely, folk musicians playing in the corner of a pub are incidental to the licensing criteria of the pub. If they are playing for their own amusement, and it is incidental that they are doing so, music is being performed.
Noise abatement, noise pollution and health and safety are important issues. However, I find it amazing that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which is promoting the Bill and should be promoting live music as a cultural aspect of our life, is more interested in the health and safety aspects. The health and safety aspects are already covered by the premises licence and the facilities licence.
If the Government are prepared to change their view on the incidental playing of music in, say, hospitals, railway stations or anywhere else, that is fantastic. However, I must bring to the Minister's attention something about which he might get a few letters. He mentioned his personal aesthetic view that it is sad that people play in a corner and are never listened to. Many music students make a living or support their studies by providing that service. That is an important point. I am sure that the music schools will put him right on it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am not objecting to their playing; I am objecting to the fact that no one listens.
Lord Redesdale: Of course, that is a different aspect.
The incidental nature of the music is one aspect of the matter. On this side of the House, we are concerned about our cultural heritage of folk music and the ability of people to play it in local pubs so long as they do not infringe health and safety or noise pollution rules. Those rules should be covered by the premises licence criteria anyway; the Bill is too restrictive.
The Minister said that the purpose of the Bill was deregulation. We believe that also. If it is, and if the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is to take seriously its responsibility to promote culture, the issue must be addressed. I say that because we will bring the matter back at the next stage. I hope that the Government will consider changing their position. We will press the issue hard at the next stage. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale moved Amendment No.13:
Page 109, line 14, at end insert "to the public"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 13, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 28. Amendment No. 28 deals with the issue of play rehearsals. The issue has already been covered and the Minister has, I think, spoken to it. However, I would like some reassurance that if the rehearsal of a play was not for the benefit of the public, it would not be covered by an entertainment licence. I say that because the issue has direct financial consequences for production companies that are rehearsing. There can be a difference in the fee they are charged, according to whether the premises are licensed. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: I support the amendments, to which my name and that of my noble friend Lord Luke have been added.
There is huge scope for confusion between the reference to,
"any playing of recorded music"
and paragraph 7, which provides an exemption for the playing of recorded music,
"to the extent that it is incidental to some other activity".
That begs the question of when recorded music is deemed to be incidental. I was pleased by the Minister's response to the previous group of amendments and will read that part of Hansard extremely carefully tomorrow.
The question of when music is,
"incidental to some other activity"
could make an enormous difference to the gulf that exists between how we on this side of the House and in other parts of the House interpret the Bill and how the Government interpret it. Will businesses risk being in breach of their operating plan if they misinterpret their recorded music as incidental and do not include it when submitting their application to the licensing authority?

401
I turn to Amendment No. 28. It is unnecessary to regulate a rehearsal without an audience. Surely, if it has an audience, it is caught anyway.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 lists the descriptions of activities that are entertainments, including,
"any playing of recorded music".
Amendment No. 13 proposes inserting at the end the words "to the public". Any playing of recorded music to the public which is not exempt under paragraph 7—because it is incidental to other activities and satisfies all the conditions in the schedule—is clearly a licensable activity. If the intention is to exempt the playing of recorded music which is not to the public, I am baffled. I cannot envisage a situation where recorded music would be played for consideration or with a view to profit where neither the public nor members or guests of a club were present and the other conditions of the schedule were satisfied.
As regards Amendment No. 28, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, recognises that I have already given the assurance for which he asked. Rehearsals are specifically mentioned in that paragraph because we want to make it clear that a rehearsal to which an audience is invited—such as a press performance or a dress rehearsal—should be licensed because of concerns for the protection of the public. People attending would expect to be protected as they would be for a proper performance. But I can give the assurance that closed rehearsals need not be licensed.
Lord Redesdale: On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 109, line 15, at end insert—
"( ) a performance of comedy which is not a play,"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 14, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 15. This is a small point—a probing amendment. Both comedy—the obvious example being stand-up comedy—and hypnotism shows, such as those staged by Paul McKenna, are forms of performance put on for the purposes of entertainment and take place in the presence of an audience. Therefore, as with the amendment that we sought to include in relation to martial arts, we see no reason why they should not be included within the definition of entertainment in paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: The amendments seek to bring within regulated entertainment as defined in Schedule 1 comedy routines—I assume mainly stand-up comedy—and stage hypnotism. I shall deal with hypnotism first—not a subject on which I have a great deal of expertise. The Hypnotism Act 1952 apparently already controls and regulates performances of hypnotism at places licensed for public entertainment
402
and at other places. Therefore, it would duplicate those provisions to regulate it under this Bill. I should perhaps point out that hypnotism and, I assume, hypnotism shows, give rise to issues which go beyond the licensing objectives of the Bill, but there are obviously health matters at issue. It remains the case that many people are concerned about the effects of hypnotism on certain vulnerable groups. It is right that it is addressed separately by its own legislation and we would not want to change that.
I am rather puzzled why the noble Baroness wants to add stand-up comedians to the list in Schedule 1. Laughter is not normally excessively noisy. Therefore I believe that the proposal would be unnecessarily bureaucratic. In addition, there are problems with defining, in practical terms, what constitutes stand-up comedy. How does one define whether someone is funny or not? We might say that there is a good deal of stand-up comedy in this House, but people would probably disagree about the extent to which some noble Lords are being comic and some are being serious. Therefore, it probably would not be appropriate or make much sense to extend the coverage of the regime in this way, and certainly not as far as hypnotism is concerned.
In the light of my comments, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment, which I recognise was a probing amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her reply, especially in relation to hypnotism. I am grateful to her for informing us of the 1952 Act. It was a probing amendment. It sought to give clarity to the Bill and send signals to those in the business of hypnotism that while they are exempt from the Bill, they are not exempt in every which-way. In relation to stand-up comedy—for example, a performance of comedy which is not a play—the purpose of a probing amendment is to highlight the fact that there is an opportunity perhaps for individuals or groups to circumvent the Bill by saying that whatever performance they provide, it will be stand-up comedy as opposed to the performance of a play.
I hear what the Minister has said and I do not want to detain the Committee on this point. But it is important to show that many areas are not covered in the Bill and that there are questions beyond your Lordships' House as to what is included in the term "entertainment". On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.]
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 109, line 17, at end insert—
"(i) a playing of a programme included in a programme service within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42),"
The noble Baroness said: Schedule 1 contains a number of definitions relating to entertainment. The various descriptions of entertainment are to be found in paragraph 2 which include.
"an exhibition of a film",
and,
"any playing of recorded music".
Curiously, entertainment, for the purposes of the Bill, does not include television. We doubt that the reason is that television is no longer entertaining, but we cannot think of any good reason why television should not be included. The televising of live sporting events on large-screen televisions on licensed premises is a frequent occurrence. Quite often a considerable amount of alcohol is consumed at those events. 'They attract large crowds and are frequently the source of disorder. Indeed, the potential for disorder from such an event could be greater than the potential for disorder from the exhibition of a film.
Similarly, we find it curious that any playing of recorded music is within the definition of entertainment, but not the playing of a radio programme even if that radio programme consists only of recorded music. We believe that it would be appropriate for television and radio to be included within the definition or entertainment in paragraph 2 of the schedule. We are not saying for a moment that events involving television or radio should be banned or be subject to onerous conditions. What we are saying is that there should be a licence for such events so that if there is likely to be an adverse effect on the promotion of the licensing objectives or such an event would undermine the crime prevention objective, appropriate steps can be taken by the licensing authority. Those steps may be minimal but at the very least it should be open to the licensing authority to take those steps. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: I support the amendment, especially as it could involve the showing of football matches close to grounds where football is being played. I understand that there are other provisions under which the police can control such activities. However, this seems to be an easy measure. One of the major problems of crowd control at many sporting events is not within grounds but outside them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This is a deregulatory Bill and Amendment No. 17 would increase regulation. We have listed several types of entertainment and are providing regulation for those. But these entertainments in themselves are noisy or could constitute public nuisance. Everyone has television in their own home. It cannot be turned up beyond a certain level without it becoming impossible to hear. We are regulating where we have to; namely, for noisy entertainments, late-night refreshment, fire safety grounds, and so forth. But the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, are saying that the very showing of television—especially the showing of football matches—could give rise to disorder, particularly where alcohol is being sold. I do not deny that. But the solution is not
404
licensing the showing of television. Televisions are on in the background in pubs all the time, I am sorry to say—with the admirable and notable exception of JD Wetherspoon, which is not the brewery of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson—and we would not want to license them merely because on occasion football is shown and may give rise to disorder.
The solution to disorder arising from the showing of television is by imposing conditions on alcohol licences, not by increasing the regulation of the showing of television itself.
5 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: I am looking at a comment sent to us by ACPO, the Association of Chief Police Officers, which is deeply concerned by the exemption. It states, quite rightly, that very often these events are accompanied by drinks promotions, which attract large crowds and are frequently the source of disorder. We entirely agree with the Government's stated aim of being deregulatory, but they seem to be deregulatory as it suits. On the one hand, we find that carol singing in a supermarket will need a licence, but, on the other, enormous pubs, with huge screens, drinks promotions and hundreds of people in a crowd near a sports stadium, can make as much noise as they like without the need fir a licence. This seems to be entirely inconsistent.
We urge the Government to consider what we have said and the concerns raised by noble Lords. The Musicians Union, as well as ACPO and others, has raised concerns in this regard. We are at the Committee stage and we can ask the Government to think again on this issue. We are not seeking to regulate where it is not necessary, but we are concerned about inconsistency.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Baroness decides what she is going to do. I have listened carefully to the point she made about ACPO. I repeat our strong belief that the correct way to deal with this issue is by placing conditions on a licence and ensuring that if a licensee permits disorder and noise nuisance on his premises he will face a review of his licence, and it will therefore be in his interests to maintain an orderly public house. However, in view of what ACPO has stated, we shall talk to it again about this matter. I believe that there is a misunderstanding here.
Baroness Buscombe: I am grateful to the Minister for his intervention. ACPO has a deep concern. As to the point the Minister made about conditions on the licence, that is a possibility. But the Explanatory Notes dealing with such conditions exist in a framework for guidance which will not be published until the spring, way beyond the time for scrutiny of the Bill in this House. It is a matter to which we shall return later in the Committee stage. I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said in this regard and welcome the fact that he will meet again with ACPO on this point. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 18 to 20 not moved.]
Lord Monson: I had not realised that Amendment No. 21 was grouped with an earlier amendment. If I am not out of order, I should like to add my plea to that of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, to the Government to accept Amendment No. 21 when it comes up at the next stage.
The other day I was in the lobby of a London hotel, having battled my way through Livingstonian traffic jams.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The amendment cannot be moved. The proposer is not present. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, will have to find another way of making his point, perhaps on another amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: I hesitate to correct the Minister, but if he looks at The Companion to the Standing Orders he will find that once an amendment is on the Marshalled List it is the property of the Committee and not of an individual peer.
Lord Monson: In that case, perhaps I may complete my short intervention.
I was in the lobby of a large London hotel, having battled my way through traffic, waiting for a guest. I heard some marvellous, soothing, attractive, beautiful music coming from somewhere. I went round the corner to investigate, and there was an attractive lady harpist plucking on her harp, giving pleasure to all those present and offending no one. It is perfectly preposterous that a licence should be needed for that kind of music. The case rests there.
[Amendments Nos. 21 to 25 not moved.]
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 110, line 32, at end insert—
"Small premises
The provision of entertainment or entertainment facilities is not to be regarded as regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act if—

(a) it is undertaken on premises on which no more than 250 persons are present;

(b) no charge is made for entry; and

(c) the provision of the entertainment ceases no later than 11 p.m."

The noble Lord said: The Minister has made much of deregulation, and this is an extremely good piece of deregulation. The amendment seeks to promote mainly folk singing. I know that some Members of the Government find folk singing anathema and have said so in the press—I am sure that they were very unfair comments and probably misquoted—but I am sure that if tickets to folk concerts were sent to those people they would be only too glad to accept. Or perhaps not.
This is a probing amendment to which we may return. We believe that it meets the criteria for allowing folk singers and other small musical groups to practise and perform among themselves in licensed premises. The amendment introduces the criteria that there should be no more than 250 people present; that there should be no charge for entry, and therefore
406
raves would not fall into this category; and, in order that we do not again receive the threat that it should be treated as a rave, the entertainment should cease at 11 o'clock at night, the start time of entertainment of the rave variety.
The amendment seeks to ensure that traditional folk music can take place in an acceptable environment. I hope that the Government will consider the amendment in the spirit in which it is put forward. It seeks to maintain and promote the proliferation of music. One of our major problems at the moment is that through the PEL system which the Bill seeks to remove—I quite understand the Minister's view that that is a good thing and may lead to many more venues opening up—the number of venues providing for folk music, jazz and other types of entertainment is presently 5 per cent of premises, which is unacceptable.
Music should be a part of everyday life. Indeed, one of the reasons for tabling the amendment is that we believe that some of these regulations could infringe on human rights legislation. I know that the Minister may say that that is debatable, but I am not sure that a case taken to the European Court of Human Rights under the relevant articles would not be successful. Given that the Minister has signed to say that the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, that is an extremely serious point.
The aim of the amendment—and, indeed, of the previous amendment—is to allow the flourishing of a cultural renaissance in folk music. I understand that certain Ministers would not like that to happen, but I hope that this Minister, when considering the amendment, will take forward the point we are making and perhaps even accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: I support the amendment, to which my noble friend Lord Luke and I have added our names, and I support the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. We believe that the amendment helps to address many of the questions that have been raised. It reflects the Government's clarification that spontaneous activities are supposed to be free from regulation. In a sense, it provides a measure of de minimis. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that it attempts to meet the requirements of Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights—Article 10 in particular: the right to perform such music being an intrinsic part of an individual's right to freedom of expression. This is a good amendment. It would help to alleviate an enormous amount of concern, and it would reduce the work of lawyers. We therefore hope that the Government will seriously consider supporting it.
Lord Colwyn: I, too, support the amendment. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, restricted it to folk musicians. I feel that it should be wider and take in jazz musicians. Many young jazz musicians in

407
this country have nowhere to play. To cut down on their ability to perform would severely restrict a good British art form.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It depends on the kind of jazz that is being played, does it not? It depends on whether it is West Coast or somewhat louder.
This is a well-meaning amendment. I well understand the frustrations that have given rise to it. We have agreed that the "two in a bar" rule is a nonsense. It is a nonsense to suppose that two musicians using amplification who are presently exempt from restrictions will cause less disturbance than a quintet playing at a tea dance. There is a whole range, both in terms of numbers of musicians and in terms of the kind of instruments they are playing, or indeed in terms of their voices.
But this amendment, like the others, goes against the way in which we are approaching regulation here. We say that, whatever the origin of the music, the concerns should be for public safety and the prevention of public nuisance. That can happen whether there are 250 people present, or more, or fewer than that. I am sorry to say that public nuisance could be caused before 11 o'clock. What about music being played next door to where a mother is seeking to put her child to bed at seven o'clock?
Given the way in which the amendment is drafted, a full orchestra could be performing in premises with a capacity of fewer than 250 people. It means that a small pub, for example, would have to employ people to count. It could cover a free rave involving 250 people. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said that it does not cover raves, but not all impose an admission charge: they make money on the sale of drinks.
The fact that music is presented commercially on a regular basis to boost sales of alcohol would be irrelevant. Pubs are commercial enterprises. They do not present music for altruistic reasons. We license many activities because the profit motive can make people careless about safety and the nuisance caused to others. The fact that no formal charge is made does not alter that. As I said, the 11 p.m. finishing time suggested in the amendment does not help mothers who want to get their children to sleep. I do not believe that it would be appropriate to introduce an exemption of this kind. It is better to rely on what the effect of the entertainment is, as we do in the Bill, rather than to introduce new criteria of this kind.
As to the human rights issue, Article 10 provides, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said, for the right of freedom of expression. But residents are entitled to the right to enjoy their possessions in peace. That is the balance that must be struck. The European Convention on Human Rights—notoriously, I almost said—recognises that this balance needs to be maintained, which is why there are always disputes about what it means.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: It is unfortunate that the Minister has taken the line that he has. He talked about
408
disturbance. There are many venues throughout the country which hold regular events in regard to which there is no complaint. The Minister said that it was possible to put an orchestra into small premises. I cannot think why anyone would want to do that. Yes, you can stick 31 jazz players in a cupboard, but that is a ridiculous concept.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Not if they are all the size of the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn!
Lord Redesdale: Indeed. As a former member or the Parliamentary Rugby Club, one would hope so. However, the issue is that many venues are already covered by health and safety regulations. Noise abatement is already one of the considerations that is undertaken. If a pub plays music, those noise considerations are already covered. So the issue of disturbance is already dealt with.
If disturbance is covered already, there can be no counter-argument under the convention. If no one is being disturbed, the counter-argument to the first argument about right of expression does not apply. It has been suggested that someone might try to bypass these rules. But as the noble Lord has pointed out on numerous occasions and will no doubt continue to point out, there are both new and existing regulations in terms of police powers, council noise abatement orders and all kinds of other regulations. If all these are in place, the argument about disturbance is unfortunate. This provision will lead to the destruction of a cultural form of expression—namely, jazz, folk music and many other forms of music.
I very much hope that the Minister will reconsider the rather hard line that he has taken. This is an issue to which we shall return at the next stage of the Bill, which may well leave this House containing such an amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 110, line 32, at end insert—
"Educational and social establishments
The provision of entertainment or entertainment facilities is not to be regarded as regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act if it is undertaken on the premises of—

(a) an educational establishment for purposes directly connected to the activities of the establishment;

(b) a prison for purposes incidental to the activities of the prison;

(c) a hospital for purposes incidental to the activities of the hospital; or

(d) a museum or public gallery for purposes incidental to the activities of the museum or public gallery."

The noble Baroness said: The amendment seeks to provide exemptions to educational and social establishments for the provision of entertainment.
We propose that performances in certain educational and social establishments should be unregulated—a point to which we referred in earlier debates. While some may argue that providing exemptions to the licensing of entertainment would

409
leave loopholes in the system, we believe that an insistence on including in the Bill the establishments and social institutions which we have sought to exclude is over-regulatory.
It is over-regulatory to insist that people cannot perform a play or even rehearse one without paying a fee for a licence. Since such establishments would be likely to host more than five such entertainments a year, a full licence will be required. Our amendment, however, seeks to protect social establishments from incurring these extra costs.
It is a recurring problem in the Bill that one type of legislation is imposed to fit all circumstances. It seems abundantly clear that entirely different considerations arise for a school play than they do in relation to, say, a public performance in a pub. We have heard what the Minister has said regarding concern for public safety and public nuisance, regardless of the origin. But we urge the Government to think carefully about the effect that the Bill will have on educational and social establishments. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: I support this amendment, to which my name is attached. I particularly support the provision to exclude hospitals. Live music in hospitals, as performed in some London hospitals, has been shown to be extremely beneficial in patient recovery. It has also been shown to be extremely helpful in staff retention. There is good evidence in several studies that that has happened.
Incidental music in museums and galleries could be seen as extremely beneficial to visitors, creating a mood that canned music often fails to achieve. It is an excellent amendment.
Lord Avebury: I also support the amendment, particuarly with regard to prisons. A couple of years ago, the board of visitors at Brixton prison organised a visit by the National Theatre, which put on performances with prisoners as actors. It invited many local people and friends of the prison to attend the performance and raised a substantial sum of money for Macmillan Cancer Relief.
Surely such an activity is incidental to the purposes of a prison, which is to enable prisoners to lead a good and useful life, as rule 1 of the prison rules states. What could be more enhancing of a prisoner's self-esteem and ability to cope with a variety of situations than taking part in the live performance of a play with distinguished actors from the National Theatre who were giving their services free? It would be a frightful nuisance for prisons if, on top of their myriad paperwork, they needed a special licence every time an external theatre group came to engage in such activity.
On the contrary, we should encourage entertainment provided not only by theatres but also opera companies. Recently, I heard a radio programme about a performance of the opera "Sweeney Todd", which some might think an unsuitable subject for the group of prisoners involved, who were "lifers". Nevertheless, the activity engaged
410
them and the staff. Everyone was enthusiastic about it. I am sure that the noble Baroness would not want to discourage such activity. I hope that the Government will favour the amendment and do everything possible to encourage incidental activities that are therapeutic to the people involved.
Baroness Hanham: I declare an interest as chairman of an NHS trust. I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, about music in hospitals. It is becoming increasingly popular and prominent. Some organisations specifically provide music in hospitals, playing in wards and amphitheatres. It would deter them if they had to apply for a licence every time they wished to take a quartet into a ward or to provide music elsewhere in a hospital. I support the amendment, particularly that aspect.
Lord Redesdale: If a hospital needed an entertainment licence, the provision of health and safety would be an issue. But it would be difficult to say where the musical activity should take place. Incidental music for therapeutic value would have to be performed in wards or corridors. An entertainment licence may specify that it would have to be performed in an auditorium, which would contradict the purpose of using live music as a therapeutic method.
Lord Colwyn: I imagine that many museums survive only by holding evening functions. The Science Museum and the Natural History Museum host functions virtually every evening, for which they charge a lot of money. I imagine that that helps their budget a great deal. I do not have figures, but I am sure that this point should be considered.
Baroness Blackstone: Paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 exempts the provision of entertainment or entertainment facilities for a religious service or meeting under the requirements of the Bill. The amendment would exempt entertainment incidental to the activities of prisons, hospitals, museums or galleries where they take place on the premises of those bodies. It would also exempt activities undertaken at an educational establishment for purposes connected to that establishment.
Entertainment is regulated under this Bill to achieve licensing objectives, not least public safety. The establishments that would be at least partially exempted through this amendment host occasions that the public can attend. For example, occasionally prisons put on plays for the public. Museums such as the Natural History Museum—the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, has just mentioned museums—rent out their buildings for dinners with dancing, for example. Some schools stage commercial music concerts, as we discussed with reference to earlier groups.
Just because events are taking place at schools, prisons, museums or hospitals does not mean that the public should not be protected. Of course they should be. Members of the Committee might argue that the activities I described are not incidental to the purposes of the establishments. I am not entirely clear about

411
what is meant in the amendment by "incidental activities". However, if a performance is for therapeutic purposes for hospital patients and staff, it is not licensable. It is a private event. In fact, it is not incidental to the activities of the hospital. It is part of the process of helping people to get better. Similarly, a performance in a prison for the benefit of prisoners is not licensable. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said about that. Prison regimes should allow such events to take place.
A major public event attended by many people from outside is a different case. People would expect such an event to be licensed. I hope that, in the light of what I have said, the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw the amendment. The purpose of the Bill is to try to have a coherent, unbureaucratic system, with a light touch. But it must create a level playing field between all the different bodies that might hold public events at which noise could be an issue and where the public need to be protected.
To exclude some premises entirely from the provision while including others would not further the aim of the Bill. I hope that I have assured Members of the Committee who have spoken that, where entertainment is obviously for the benefit of patients, prisoners and other recipients of care from the institutions mentioned, or for the benefit of pupils in a school, it is not licensable.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, the vast majority of museums host many events. They already have licences and would need to continue to do so for such activity.
Lord Redesdale: Perhaps we are being pernickety about the issue because of the bad experience many premises have had with public entertainment licences in cases where only one or two members of the public have triggered issues. That might not happen if public entertainment licences cost much less.
If staff spend their lunch hour at a performance by a small group of musicians in a ward, is the activity defined as a public or private one? Is there not a crossover at that point?
Baroness Blackstone: This is a good example of where common sense must prevail. Common sense tells me that, if people wish to use their lunch hour to listen to music being played for the benefit of patients on a ward, it is a private activity and should not therefore be licensable.
Lord Avebury: The noble Baroness talked about the performance of music in a hospital as part of the activities of the hospital. Will she extend those remarks to the provision of entertainment by schools that are designed for that purpose, particularly drama schools and music schools? Putting on performances is part of their activities. It is what they are there to do for their pupils. If somebody from outside comes to attend a performance at, for example, the Royal College of Music or the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts, do those performances then become licensable?
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: If the performances are for the public, they are licensable. That is the key issue. If, on the other hand, they are done entirely privately, with students listening to students, they are not. Most conservatoires put on public concerts and would expect to have to get a licence.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her response. Sadly, I am disturbed by it. In a sense it confirms our worst fears. We are talking about particular institutions that we have singled out for exemptions—prisons, hospitals, educational establishments, museums and public galleries. I am grateful to noble Lords who have supported the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to performances in prisons attended only by those directly involved with the prison. We understand that that would not attract the need for a licence. I went to a performance of "The Threepenny Opera" a couple of years ago at Winchester prison. It was a fantastic performance put on over a number of nights by prisoners working with professional actors. It was the best form of rehabilitation I have ever witnessed, giving the prisoners a feeling that they were working with the outside world and gaining confidence and self-respect. I am pleased to report that some of those prisoners are now free again and pursuing the activity of drama. That must be applauded and I applaud Winchester prison.
I am depressed to think that such activities would attract a licence. I hear what the noble Baroness says about noise, but surely that issue would not arise for prisons and hospitals. When I went to Winchester, my family and I—particularly my children—remarked at the level of protection provided for the public. The public do not need protection. My noble friend Lady Hanham referred to the patients and staff of a hospital. What about if visitors of those patients come in and listen to the performances? An element of common sense must prevail, but, regrettably, the Bill will unquestionably cause insecurity for musicians and performers across the board about what they can and cannot do and the spontaneity with which they can perform.
We will not divide the Committee at this stage, but given the support shown around the Chamber we will want to return to the issue on Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 111, line 23, leave out "(other than" and insert "(including"
The noble Lord said: This takes us back to Amendment No. 11, to which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, replied. He said he wished to save his ammunition for later. He now has a chance to fire it off.
The amendment relates to Clause 14 in Part 3 of the Bill. The definitions of buildings have been drafted to exclude structures with roofs that may be opened or closed. The amendment would treat them as if the roof was permanently closed.
The aim of the provision is probably the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff, which is a splendid building. It is currently the only major building with a sliding roof, but it is unlikely that it will be the only building with a sliding roof over the next 25 or 30 years, which is the likely life of this legislation.
When the roof is closed, I do not see how the stadium is any different from any other major indoor arena, such as Earl's Court, Docklands or the National Exhibition Centre in Birmingham. I understand that rock concerts in the latter three would fall within the provisions of the Bill, but rock concerts in the Millennium Stadium, even with a closed roof, would not. Except for the convenience of the parliamentary draftsman, who could not find a way of excluding it neatly, that does not seem logical.
It also raises the wider issue of the position of people who live close to major rugby and football grounds. We heard much at Second Reading about late-night drinking in central London and the associated problems. Those living next to major football grounds experience some of the same problems that occur in central London; people being sick in their front gardens and worse. In these cases, not even the council will help to clear up.
I accept that this is a difficult issue, but it is part of the general policy area covering the licensing of entertainment and the sale of alcohol. My fundamental point is that, given human ingenuity, legal tenacity and developing building techniques, if the Bill is not amended we must expect that wholly or partly movable or removable roofs will become more prevalent. In the meantime, I am not clear why a stadium that can be roofed in should have any special treatment in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for the way he moved his amendment. I assure him that I said only that I would reserve my arguments for later on. I certainly did not talk about ammunition. I have not come here armed. In fact, I am seeking to disarm on this issue.
I recognise the noble Lord's point. Of course the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff is a unique sporting venue. I must emphasise that it is subject to its own safety and licensing regime, as would any other stadium of such a size that had this particular facility. I am not sure that I share the noble Lord's pessimism that we may be several decades away from getting a replica, but, as he rightly says, such stadiums will be few and far between. That is why the Millennium Stadium has a regime all its own, as would other similar stadiums. It is certainly the case that it has a development in terms of the roof which gives added protection to spectators. We realise what an enormous asset that is to the sporting facilities at Cardiff.
414
In drafting the Bill's provisions, we had no desire to make such stadia subject to duplicate licensing regimes merely because "indoor" sport, when the roof is closed, could cover football or rugby played in the stadium. We therefore explicitly exempted them. Members of the Committee should rest assured that, like all such stadia, the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff—and other buildings that can close their roofs in the future—are subject to strict safety regimes. I recognise the point identified by the noble Lord that this particular stadium is a mix between "closed" and "open" buildings because of this special facility. I can reassure him that there is a licensing regime in existence that controls and ensures public safety. That regime does not need to be replicated by adding further provisions to the Bill.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to the Minister for his assurances, and his "disarming" comments. I just wanted to ensure that we were not allowing a lacuna to develop in the Bill. In the light of the noble Lord's explanation, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bridges Lord Bridges moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 111, line 38, at end insert—
"(2) For the avoidance of doubt, "music" does not include the ringing of church bells, for the purposes of this Act."
The noble Lord said: I shall begin by declaring an interest in the subject. I am a bell-ringer. I normally ring bell number four in a peal of eight at our parish church—a bell that my wife and I gave to the parish. I am also a member of the Suffolk Guild of Bellringers.
The reason for troubling noble Lords with this subject is that, unless you are careful when engaged in bell-ringing, you can cause a certain amount of inconvenience to people living nearby. Unless we insert a provision of the kind that I suggest in this amendment, I am worried that some people who are unhappy with the noise made by the bells, or with the time at which they ring, may approach the licensing authority or take legal steps to stop the bell-ringing. I do not believe that that is the right way to set about it.
Our church tower fell down in 1830 and was only reinstalled in 1960 with the help of many people, including assistance from the millennium bell fund. We managed to get a peal of eight bells installed again. Our bell-ringer, who was a wise and sensible person, took certain steps; for example, he made sure that the recruitment of the band covered the whole social spectrum of the village, and all ages. At the age of 75, I am one of the eldest, if not the eldest. We also took the unusual step of placing louvres with shutters attached to them in the bell chamber. Therefore, when we are practising, we close the shutters and the sound of bells ringing is not heard outside the church. In that way we have managed to gain the overwhelming support of our small community. That is what we should try to do.
It would be helpful if we could put into the Bill the reassurance that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, gave on Second Reading when he said that,
"bell ringing and carol services do not require licences".—[Official Report, 26/11/02; col. 734.]
All my modest amendment seeks to do is to insert that wording into the Bill. I trust that Members of the Committee will feel able to approve it. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: Church bell-ringing is not music that is licensable under this Bill. I can confirm what my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey said on Second Reading. Amendment No. 30 seeks to make this explicit on the face of the Bill, but it would be very odd if we listed in the legislation every single thing that is not licensable. Indeed, the Bill is about directly the opposite. Schedule 1 sets out a series of conditions that must be met before particular entertainment, or entertainment facilities, become a licensable activity. It also sets out a number of exemptions in Part 2.
In many cases, church bell-ringing is unquestionably for the purposes of, or incidental to, a religious meeting or service. It is, therefore, without doubt exempt from licensing. When the bell-ringers are practising, there is no audience present, as would be required if it were entertainment. Practice is also not for the purposes of entertainment, as would be required. Finally, if we examine the term of "entertainment facilities", we find that the church makes no charge on the bell-ringers for the use of the bells. Whichever way you approach the issue, church bell-ringing is not licensable under the provisions of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bridges: I listened with attention to what the noble Baroness said. I must say that I am both surprised and disappointed by her response. It seems to me that we are dealing with a very detailed Bill, which contains provisions regarding everything under the sun. I am attempting to make life simpler for the citizen, while at the same time seeking to avoid unnecessary litigation or appeals as regards the licensing authority. I very much hope that the noble Baroness will reconsider the arguments. I may have to retable the amendment at the next stage if she is unable to give me the reassurance I seek. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Provision of late night refreshment]:
Lord Luke Lord Luke moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 112 line 5, leave out "5.00" and insert "7.00"
The noble Lord said: This is a very straightforward amendment. Schedule 2 deals with the provision of late night refreshments and includes the definition of "late night refreshment". The late night refreshment licensing regime will operate between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m., thus reflecting the existing night café licensing regime.
It is generally and understandably considered that the night café licensing regime is there to ensure that there is some control over cafés and takeaway premises
416
so as to prevent disturbance to local residents late in the evening. It should also be borne in mind that residents may be just as likely to be disturbed early in the morning; and, to many people, "early in the morning" means before 7 a.m.
This amendment is intended to bring into the scope of the licensing regime premises open between 5 a.m. and 7 a.m., thus extending the scope of the regime to cover the whole of the night-time period when it is generally accepted that the majority of people sleep. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Williamson of Horton: It seems a little strange to say it at this stage, but I think that we are at a watershed in the Bill. We have left the realm of the potential imposition of licensing on the activities of Coco the Clown, the martial arts, hypnotism and noisy renderings of "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring", all covered by Schedule 1, and moved on to something much more simple—eating and drinking—which is covered in Schedule 2. That is why I am intervening now. I should like to declare an interest which applies now and for the remaining 436 amendments to which we shall come. I am a non-executive director of Whitbread plc, an extremely large hotel company and a very large owner and operator of restaurants and sports clubs. I declare that interest now as we move from entertainment more directly into the operation of hotels and restaurants.
Rather remarkably, I can support the Government on the text of the provision. I know that the Minister will be extremely pleased by that. I have been in the Committee all day, since just after 11 a.m., and I think that this is the first time that a noble Lord has stood up and supported the Government on any aspect of the Bill. I therefore know that she will be very encouraged by my view that the Government's proposal in this amendment, on going to 5 a.m., is quite reasonable.
Baroness Hanham: I apologise for not being able to participate in the Committee's earlier proceedings, but I hope to be able to take part in the later proceedings. I declare my interest now and hope that it will apply for the duration of our debates in Committee. I ant a member of a local authority, and local authorities will certainly be affected by later provisions in the Bill.
I support the amendment. The provision will not matter very much in small villages, but it will matter very much in big urban areas with accumulations of premises operating late at night. Such accumulations could cause a disturbance. It may seem odd to say that those two hours can make a difference, but I think that they probably do. Control of premises open at that time, particularly as regards people entering and leaving them quietly, is probably important, particularly in urban areas.
Baroness Blackstone: I begin by declaring my great gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, not only for supporting the Government on this amendment, but for so patiently sitting through the debate. I think that he has it right. Paragraph 1 of

417
Schedule 2 provides that, between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m., the provision of late night refreshment must be licensed as under the existing regime. We see no reason to extend the existing regime and thereby to extend regulation. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Luke, was in favour of our being deregulatory, but his amendment would extend regulation.
Amendment No. 31 would extend the coverage to all premises providing late night refreshment until 7 a.m. I think that the Committee should be very careful before accepting this proposition. Our main aim is to minimise the impact of disorder and disturbance on local residents late at night. The main cause is people who have been drinking alcohol, turning up at takeaways and night cafés on their way home and making a terrific din. If we extended the regime to the early morning, after which I believe that most of those people will have gone home and tucked themselves up in bed, we would catch all kinds of early morning cafés that provide breakfast for workers.
Members of this House may not often get up at five in the morning—we tend to get up later and work later—but many people do. I do not believe that there is a problem with regard to those premises. Therefore, it would not be right to bring them within the ambit of the Bill. I do not believe that local authorities would want that and nor would that part of the industry that provides for cafés that open in the early morning. In the light of what I have said, I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Luke, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Avebury: The evil that the noble Baroness says that we seek to address is indeed that of some establishments catering specifically for people coming out of pubs and clubs who do not want to go home until they have eaten a burger or fries.
Last Saturday I went to central London to have a look at the late night economy. I was interested to learn from the police, particularly those in the Charing Cross division, that up until fairly recently—I am not sure when the change was made—they experienced enormous problems with people coming out of pubs and clubs, particularly those between Piccadilly Circus and Leicester Square where several thousand people are being entertained at any one time, going into burger joints in that neighbourhood and causing an enormous amount of nuisance and litter which the council then had to clean up. Some of us heard about that when Councillor Simon Milton attended a meeting here sponsored by the noble Baroness. Westminster Council has to employ people who are on duty at three and four o'clock in the morning—I saw that for myself—to clean up the mess left by these mostly young people who indulge in that form of entertainment.
However, the police have somehow managed to persuade the late night eating establishments to close at an earlier hour so that when people leave clubs—particularly when they do so between three and four
418
o'clock in the morning—they have no option but to go home. That made an enormous difference to the amount of litter and nuisance that had to be dealt with.
The Bill will allow drinking establishments to open much longer hours. People leaving such establishments may well want to visit the kind of completely unobjectionable refreshment establishments that cater for early morning workers who want a cup of tea and so on. If the result of allowing people to drink all night—which is what the Government's policy appears to be—is that at five, six or seven o'clock in the morning they may want to eat a burger, and we do not include any measures in the Bill to deal with that situation, we might regret that.
I have some sympathy with the amendment. Will there be a power for the police, or the local authority as the case may be, to ensure that wherever late night licences are granted to allow people to drink, for example, until four, five or six in the morning, eating establishments will not continue to serve after that time as it is the juxtaposition of drinking and eating that causes problems? Could such a situation be avoided by including a provision in the Bill, whether it be the amendment we are discussing or some other measure? I hope that the noble Baroness will ascertain what can be done.
Baroness Blackstone: I am not sure that the amendment would solve that problem. If large numbers of people wish to remain at drinking establishments all through the night, they will do so irrespective of whether we extend the schedule to cover the provision of late night refreshment up until seven in the morning. If we did so, we would catch many perfectly innocent cafés that provide breakfast for people who start work early in the morning. The noble Lord needs to raise his concerns about the general issue of late night drinking when we reach that part of the Bill.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Luke, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Luke: This has been an interesting little debate. In view of the fact that we shall debate later some of the items referred to, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Luke Lord Luke moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 112, line 6. leave out first "hot" and insert "immediately consumable"
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 33 to 35 and 37 to 60. Of this long list, the amendments at page 112, line 11, and page 112, line 17, are the substantial ones. The remainder are consequential.
Schedule 2 provides a novel approach as regards the type of refreshment to be provided for an establishment to come within the night café licensing regime. Under current legislation, at least in London, an establishment would fall within the regime if it provided "public refreshment". Different local

419
authorities take different views as to what is meant by refreshment. Some take the view that "public refreshment" means "immediately consumable refreshment"; namely. any type of refreshment that can be enjoyed immediately without the need to prepare it at home. The schedule provides that the regime will apply to premises where "hot food" and "hot drink" are served.
One concern is that, in order to avoid the licensing regime, premises will adapt so as to serve only cold refreshment. That may result in a proliferation of juice bars, which would be perfectly entitled to serve cold drinks and sandwiches without the need for a licence. Given that the whole purpose of the licensing regime is to ensure that licensing authorities can place proper controls over the location of late night premises and place conditions on their operation to ensure that residents are not disturbed, it is curious that the legislation provides such an obvious loophole. There is no reason to suspect that somebody drinking cold orange juice and eating a sandwich could cause less or more disturbance than someone drinking a coffee or eating a burger.
The amendments would introduce into the regime premises in which immediately consumable food was served. A definition of "immediately consumable" is provided. Food is immediately consumable unless it has to he heated, or prepared in some other way, before consumption, or if it requires a device such as a tin opener or corkscrew to be able to open the package. The amendments would bring into the scope of the Bill not only cafés but also shops selling crisps and cold drinks.
I turn to Amendment No. 45. Currently, premises that hold a cinema licence are not required to register as night cafés—in London, again—or suppliers of late night refreshments elsewhere, even when cinemas provide hot drinks or hot food, such as popcorn. My experience of popcorn is that it is usually no more than warm. It is understood that the purpose of the Bill is not to extend licensable activities unnecessarily. No reason has been given as to why cinemas should be required to register another activity under the Bill with the probability that new conditions of licence would be imposed. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I support my noble friend on this amendment. I see what he is driving at and understand the illogicalities that he is addressing. However, I want to extend the debate beyond the London-centric implications of the amendments. I particularly want to draw the Minister's attention to the concerns of the Forecourt Stores Association and discover from her the implications of the Bill, and these amendments, for that trade. I refer to small garages, perhaps on trunk roads, that are open throughout the night and which perhaps offer food as well as an opportunity to fill up the car with petrol. I shall give an example. I set out to drive and fill up with petrol at a garage that sells coffee from a machine. I buy a cup of coffee when I pay for my petrol. In those circumstances, the owner of the forecourt shop—of the premises—will presumably need a licence because
420
under paragraph 3(1)(a), I have been "admitted to the premises" and I do not fall within the exemptions in paragraph 3(2). Suppose, for security reasons, that the owner decides to lock the garage at night, and drink machines are placed in the forecourt. In those circumstances, as I read the Bill, I can buy Coca-Cola, which is non-alcoholic and cold, but not coffee because it is hot, and has to be licensed because it involves the supply,
"of hot food or hot drink on or from [the] premises".
I do not see the logic of that distinction. If the regulations apply to small forecourt garage shops outside London on trunk roads—I seek the Minister's guidance on that point—they will be very damaging. Petrol retailers are already heavily regulated in terms of the safety of the sale of petrol. They provide an important centre for village life—I do not suggest that they do so at 2 a.m. but they do so the rest of the time. We should try to find ways of making their lives easier rather than harder. I have tabled relevant amendments to Clause 173.
How will the position of those garages, which offer incidental food and drink—hot and cold—change under the provisions of the Bill, and will the fact that they are heavily regulated be taken into account? In the mean time, I entirely support my noble friend Lord Luke in his attempt to remove the distinction between cold and hot food or beverages.
6 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I declare an interest as a former Member of Parliament for the Cities of London and Westminster. I am delighted to have given the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, the maiden chance to support the Government during this Bill's Committee stage. I exercised discretion in that regard when the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was praying in aid the noise at Wembley and Glastonbury. I could have supported him in that argument by referring to Hyde Park on behalf of my former constituents living around Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens. I erred in favour of discretion because the concerts there are a matter of controversy with the Royal Parks Agency and even the DCMS. I thought that such a reference would be unfriendly to the Government's overall position and therefore counterproductive. However, I am delighted to have given the noble Lord that opportunity.
I rise to speak to Amendment No. 36, which stands in my name. I recognise that it is possible that my amendment may not be self-explanatory to Members of the Committee; it is just possible that it is not even self-explanatory to the Minister. One of the main problems experienced in certain parts of London is the smoking of tobacco in Shisha pipes late at night.
To expand on that, those pipes are used by Muslims at—to give a specific example—open-air cafés along the Edgware Road, where they are serviced by waiters. Because that provision of supplies is not included in the current definitions relating to late-night refreshment, they are a potential nuisance to residents outside ordinary licensing hours. If the licence of a café

421
finishes at 1 a.m., the smoking of these pipes and their servicing by waiters can continue long into the small hours with, to the annoyance of other residents, all the consequential noise of extended activity.
I understand that a local government (miscellaneous powers) Bill is to be introduced in the other place to extend the definition to include such pipes, but that is the reason that I moved the amendment. The amendment is intended to give the power, if necessary, to a local authority to regulate this activity.
Baroness Blackstone: All premises where licensable activities are carried on will be required to operate in a way which is consistent with the four licensing objectives—that is, ensuring public safety, the prevention of crime and disorder, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. As we know, people who have consumed excessive alcohol often seek to obtain hot food or hot drink from take-aways, fast-food outlets and late-night cafés. That can lead to disorder and disturbance and these premises should be regulated. It is therefore logical to include such establishments in the licensing regime between the hours of 11 p.m. and 5 a.m.
Amendments Nos. 32 to 35, 37 to 44 and 46 to 60 seek to extend the licensing regime to include any premises, including late-opening or all-night supermarkets, which sell any food or drink products for immediate consumption between the hours of 11 p.m. and 5 a.m.
Any move to bring into the regime late-night supermarkets and grocery shops selling food that can be readily eaten would be immensely bureaucratic and simply cannot be justified. Again, if the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench is in favour of trying to maintain a deregulatory regime, then I do not believe that we can justify going down this path. It would include every premises selling bread and milk late at night. I am a little surprised that the Opposition Benches would be happy to present such a policy to the retail industry, and I wonder whether they have thought through the enormous implications. I know that the retail industry would greatly object to it.
I turn to Amendment No. 36. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, seeks to extend the definition of "late-night refreshment" to provide for the inclusion of tobacco sales. Again, I do not believe that there is a great deal of justification for the inclusion of such sales. I have not heard of premises which sell tobacco attracting drunken crowds and giving rise to disorder and disturbance. We should impose restrictions only where there is a very clear necessity to do so.
The point of licensing night cafés is to deal with premises where people behave in a drunk or disorderly fashion. Muslims do not usually consume alcohol. Therefore, I cannot see that we need to extend the regime in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, suggests.
422
I wonder whether we could deal with the issue of the prohibition of alcohol sales at service areas, garages and so on when we reach the point where the Bill deals with that. I believe that amendments will be, and already have been, tabled on Clause 173.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. It is not a question of selling alcohol; it is a question of selling food. The Forecourt Service Association is concerned about alcohol, but in the letters that have been circulated, which I am sure the Minister's department has received, two distinct issues are raised. One is alcohol and the other is whether more regulations will be placed on an already heavily regulated sector in relation to the sale of a coffee or a sandwich to people who fill up with petrol in the middle of the night on some A-road in the country. I am happy to return to the matter, but this issue does not concern alcohol. I am driving at non-alcoholic sales which are incidental to petrol sales but in the middle of the night. Are those caught?
Baroness Blackstone: I understand that they would be caught by the amendment but not as far as the legislation is concerned. If I am wrong about that, I shall write to the noble Lord.
On a rather different note, Amendment No. 45 seeks to exempt premises when they are used for the exhibition of films under a premises licence. That is odd. If premises already have a premises licence for the showing of films, why would not late night refreshment be covered under the same licence? Under the Bill, unlike the existing regime, all those activities can be covered by a single licence. Therefore, the terms of the amendment do not appear to make much sense. As I made clear, we do not consider that there is justification for extending the late night refreshment house regime beyond the terms in the Bill. I hope that the amendment can be withdrawn.
Lord Skelmersdale: Throughout the day I have become more and more confused. My most recent confusion is that the noble Baroness has just said that a single licence will be required. However, we heard earlier from her noble friend Lord McIntosh how easy it was to get a supplementary licence for various events. Surely, she cannot have it both ways.
Baroness Blackstone: There must be a misunderstanding. The position is clear. Under the Bill it will be possible to get a single licence, but that licence will have to specify what it covers. I believe that that is what was meant by my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
Lord Luke: I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. Like many others, this amendment is a probing amendment. We seek clarity. Some of us find it rather difficult to achieve that. No doubt by the end of Committee stage we shall have a great deal more clarity than appears possible at present. In any case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 33 to 60 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Licensing authorities]:
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Grenfell): Before calling Amendment No. 61, I must advise the Committee that if that amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments. Nos. 62 to 66.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 2, line 33, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Baroness said: We now come to Part 2 of the Bill, which relates to licensing authorities. I make clear that in Amendment No. 61 and in any debate on the question that Clause 3 stand part, we are probing what the Bill proposes. We do not have any intention of wrecking the Bill. However, having said that, I wish to return to what I said at Second Reading. I said then that we were not convinced that the case had been made by the Government for this radical change of procedure from magistrates' courts to local authorities. We have nothing but praise for the magistrates who give up their time for no reward and for their clerks, without whom the magistrates' court system could not operate.
We believe that the Government are determined to introduce this change, but we are concerned, as we have been on earlier occasions during the proceedings today, to probe the Government in relation to the evidence and the reasons for making this change. We are doing so in response to approaches from many outside organisations, including the Magistrates' Association and many publicans, who want to know why the Government are making this change.
The Government support the evidence-based approach to drafting legislation. That being the case, we should like to have the evidence from the Minister today as to why this change is being made.
We are confident that local authorities, controlled by elected councillors, are well placed to take on the responsibility, and in so doing represent the interests of their respective communities, but we shall want to consider carefully whether this new system will work in practice.
Under Clause 5 each licensing authority must publish a licensing statement setting out its policy with respect to its licensing function. The licensing statement must cover a period of three years. In preparing that licensing statement the authority must consult with the police, the fire authority and various representatives of the industry in the locality and representatives of residents in its area.
As I said at Second Reading, the difficulty that might arise is the pressure on those elected councillors. As residents all have votes, any local authority ignoring their views, one might suppose, would do so at its peril.
There has been widespread anxiety among local authorities that the guidance described in Clause 177 may fetter their discretion to respond to local concerns. The role of residents and councils will, they fear, be diminished in the process. Conversely, industry representatives understandably fear that the process will be politicised and—again, as I said at Second Reading—that the "not in my backyard" syndrome might work unfairly against local businesses and consumer choice.
As I have already said, we have been inundated with letters and representations from different quarters. I quote one or two publicans who are concerned about this change. One said:
"I am concerned that, if the licence is derived from the local council, the power vested in me [as a publican] is bestowed with far less authority and far more political consideration. This alone will devalue the responsibility for the licence and its associated responsibilities".
Another publican's concern was:
"The magistrates have been performing the task of licensing for many years now in a fair, impartial and knowledgeable manner. Publicans do not wish to see local politics creeping into what is part of our National Heritage … Why do we need to change a proven system, which from what we read and hear in the media will cost over £1 billion? Who will pay for this? The poor old publican we expect".
Further concerns have been raised time and again by the various quarters to whom I have referred. There is the question of delay and of how this will all be implemented. Also there is an important question of consistency.
The Secretary of State, Tessa Jowell, in a "dear colleague" letter dated 13th November 2002 said:
"Existing public entertainment licensing law lays clown no procedures for the processing of applications and local authorities have been left to create their own. This has produced inconsistency between one local authority area and another and uncertainty for operators".
Surely, inconsistency will continue. Noble Lords may say that that is not a problem. Do the Government accept that there will be inconsistency across the land? If one goes into one pub, which may have a well-known name, will it have a different licensing regime in one area from that of another pub with the same name in another area?
Different policy statements by different authorities in pursuit of their interpretation of the licensing objectives under Clause 4(2) may cause real problems, bearing in mind that one of the Bill's objectives—which we accept—is to encourage tourism and an understanding on the part of those entering this country of what they can do in a blanket manner. Will that happen in practice if local authorities have those powers and responsibilities?
We are also concerned about the question of fees and consistency. Again, we shall return to this at much greater length later. Publicans, in particular, ask about the costs of moving the system from magistrates' courts to local authorities. A question understandably raised at length by local authorities is that of resource implications for them. Do the Government intend to transfer resources from the Lord Chancellor's Department budget to local authorities to cover the

425
additional costs of the alcohol licensing regime currently administered by magistrates' courts? Do they intend the additional costs to be met from fees or from local council tax payers' pockets? The Bill is unclear about that.
At the end of the day, magistrates will still need a system in place to respond to appeals—which will arise. We understand from the Bill that where there is a problem at local authority level, applicants can appeal to magistrates' courts. In that case, can magistrates' courts afford to reduce the costs and resources that they apply to the licensing system if they are to be ready and able to sit wherever and whenever necessary to consider appeals?
Many more questions are being asked. On behalf of those asking them, we look to the Government for clarity and confirmation. For example, many magistrates feel passionately that they have a unique local knowledge of questions of crime and disorder—they are dealing with it, they are dealing with the local problem individuals and areas day to day; they have that knowledge. We therefore ask again: is it right that responsibility for the system be moved to local authorities?
We also ask those questions and have tabled the amendments to highlight one of the most important concerns—raised at length by noble Lords at Second Reading—to which we shall return later in Committee, when we reach Clause 177. So much of the nuts and bolts of the new regime is not written into the Bill. That is why so many questions have been asked today about what are the real implications of the Bill. So much is left to what is to be called the national guidance, which at Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, told us will not be published until the spring. Of course the definition of "spring" allows for a broad period. My definition of spring is probably May or June, in our current climate.
We shall return to the matter, but we are being asked to accept so much, including a radical change to the licensing system—to which we do not necessarily object, but for which we must ask for the reasons—without clarity as to how it will be administered, because that will be in the national guidance. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: The amendment goes to the heart of the Bill, and I am glad that the noble Baroness said that it was an probing amendment and not one that she would push at this stage. It would wreck the Bill and, perhaps, give us an easier Christmas.
The question of whether responsibility should go to local authorities or magistrates has divided us. My party has always advocated the devolution of powers to local councils. The direction that the Government are taking is the right one. However, that is not to say that the magistrates have not done an excellent job. I welcome the fact that magistrates will be the court of appeal for any decisions. That seems fit and proper.
The amendments are the springboard for a long debate. At this time of night, I shall not do that. I shall wait for other amendments that meet our objectives.
426
However, I have a question about one matter. I have not got my mind round it, and I have not found anybody who knows why it is in the Bill. The sub-treasurer of the Inner Temple and the under-treasurer of the Middle Temple are included in the clause, but Cambridge University has been kicked out into the cold, after centuries. Is there a particular reason why the Inner Temple and Middle Temple retain such wonderful powers?
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My noble friend raised an important point of principle that should be debated. In the country at large, it is fair that the Government's view should be on the record as part of the Committee stage of the Bill. There is a hearts and minds job still to be done. Not everyone is, by any means, convinced about the change. There are concerns about the breadth of the change and about the detail—Clause 177—as my noble friend said.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey—I am sorry that he is not in his place—teased me by comparing the brewery of which I am a non-executive director unfavourably with JD Wetherspoon. He should be aware that Wetherspoon's takes a tougher line than my employer does. It thinks that the Bill should be killed; they take a robust view of it. There is a hearts and minds job still to be done. It would be helpful for the Minister to put on record the philosophy. It would ease some of the issues as we go forward to further discussions and when we get to Clause 177.
Lord Williamson of Horton: This is a central part of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, did well to draw attention to the importance of the issues. We need the maximum clarification, and I support her view that the more we can learn about the nuts and bolts, the better. The fees issue will become more important when we get further on with the discussion and people calculate the fees that, they think, will fall on them. It will be important to get more clarity on those issues.
It is a matter of balance which way to go. I thought about it for a long time, and I did not have an immediate view. On balance, I take the view that the Government have done the right thing in moving to local authorities, for the wider reasons that have been advanced by, for example, the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats. In the longer term, it is right that those with responsibilities for the affairs of our citizens at local level should also be responsible for this part of the regulation of premises and people concerned with the provision of alcohol.
I support the approach, but it is a balanced issue. The more that we know about the reasoning, the better it would be for those of us who have taken that view.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I echo the commendation given by my noble friend Lord Redesdale to the role and history of the magistracy vis-à-vis licensing, which are wholly honourable and effective. On the democracy issue, I think that it works well in allowing

427
local people to understand the system and being able to make objections and have them heard in an impartial manner that has public confidence.
I make only two brief points, which are not novel. My first is to ensure that impartiality is maintained. For example, the Lord Chancellor strongly advised magistrates who are also councillors not to seek election to licensing panels. Effectively, we are throwing the whole of the council system into the heart of the licensing process in a quasi judicial way. I am interested to know whether the Government have concerns about that aspect of the new regime.
My second point is that there will be a huge amount of extra work for councillors. They will want to do the job effectively and properly. These days they are already burdened with work. Again, it is an issue which gives rise to real concern. Does the Minister have anything to say on the matter?
6.30 p.m
Lord Cobbold: The purpose of the Bill, as I understand it, is to combine the licensing of premises with the existing responsibilities of licensing authorities. Amendment No. 61 suggests that one should ask what would happen to the existing licensing powers of the licensing authorities. Would they have to be transferred?
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful for the way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, introduced her amendment as a probing amendment. As she reflected, and other noble Lords supported her, this clause goes to the heart of the Bill. Therefore, it would be a wrecking amendment if it were pursued with force. However, as a probing amendment it gives a chance to engage further in the debate we had at Second Reading, and, it is to be hoped, meet the point which the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, suggested. Outside, there are those who still need to be convinced about the wisdom of this move. We recognise that. It would be strange if we introduced a change to the licensing regime, a transfer from an extremely reputable body, the magistrates—to whom, rightly, tribute has been paid today for their licensing work—without explanation. I share in those commendations.
However, we see the advantages of bringing the whole of licensing under one regime. The local authorities do not lack experience as regards licensing and they will have additional functions as a result of this measure. However, we are consolidating under one body with the advantages that I believe the noble Lords, Lord Phillips and Lord Redesdale, reflected. We are transferring to licensing authorities the advantage of local accountability, which is an important role in local life.
I want to emphasise that local government's long experience in other functions relating to licensing, such as planning, have been part of the warp and weft of local life for a long time. The transfer will now create a more transparent and consistent licensing regime. In the Bill we shall ensure that the functions are discharged openly in the public interest. Local authorities have already managed the majority of the
428
licensing functions in relation to entertainment and late-night refreshment. The effect of the amendment would make all our arrangements inoperable.
I recognise the strength of the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, in regard to consistency. I am not sure that people who go into a pub which is part of a national chain say, "The reason I come into this pub is because there is national consistency in regard to its licensing". They may go in because there is national consistency in regard to its beer or its food, but I doubt that people go into a chain of pubs in different towns on the basis of, "Thank heavens I am going into a comparable licensing system across the board". That does not happen. So it is not the licensing aspect that is the consistency.
It is necessary that there should be consistency and fairness in regard to licensing. That is where the guidance, for which the Secretary of State is responsible, will play such an important part. The noble Baroness chided us on the grounds that the guidance has still to be completed. I share with her an elastic notion of spring. These days, none of us seems to know what season it is. Certainly, most things in my garden do not know, but I take her point that she is pessimistic and believes that spring can he as late as May. We understand the importance of the guidance and it will be published in due course.
It is of course the case that people have anxieties when transferring from that which is familiar to that which is different. The number of publicans I have met from time to time who have expressed their anxiety about changing national life are absolutely legion. It is not always because they believe that they have a radical standing on the other side of the bar because I am also from time to time prepared to say that not all change is absolutely essential.
We intend to reduce red tape. We shall bring licensing regimes together in the local community and we shall safeguard its interests. Ministers have met with the British beer and pub associations and other trade organisations. They are largely content t hat the proposals contained in the Bill provide adequate safeguards against local authorities acting unreasonably, a point made at Second Reading and more obliquely today. A local authority's discretion will come into play only where a relevant representation has been made. The local authority will be able to impose conditions on a licence only when it is necessary to promote the licensing objectives.
As has been rightly identified, a local authority will be obliged to publish its policy and will be answerable to the community. Does that mean that local councillors are likely to be overworked, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, indicated? In my experience, local councillors are resilient people who organise their lives extremely well. They are busy people but sometimes they bemoan the fact that certain functions are taken away from them and they exercise less power than they did in the past. Here is an opportunity for them to play an increasing part in their local communities.
The committees are not meant to be large. Not by a very long chalk will every councillor be involved in the licensing committee; it will be those who decide that

429
this is an area in which they wish to make a contribution. I do not underestimate the onerousness of the work but, like national democracy, local democracy is demanding and we all respond to the challenges put before us. I have no doubt that local councillors will take on this responsibility and discharge it with the experience, commitment and enthusiasm that we have grown to expect of them. They will of course be governed by guidance.
Anxiety was expressed that local authorities will use the fee structure to advantage local taxpayers. That will not be the case. The fees charged will only defray the costs of the licensing system and they will be regulated under guidance. We do not envisage this as a revenue-raising activity for local authorities. We recognise that fees are involved in any licensing system, but the fees imposed will be only those necessary to meet the costs of carrying out the function.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Since he is addressing the important question of fees, has he any idea as to the cost that is likely to be incurred by a typical district authority, given that the demands of the Bill are very particular and will be very demanding of the bureaucrats who will have to be deployed? Have we any idea what kind of sum we are talking about?
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am wrestling with the concept of a "typical authority". These are district councils, with a whole range of licensed premises in their areas. I cannot give a flip answer in terms of what this would involve for a typical authority. I am seeking to give an assurance that the fees will be strictly related to the costs involved. That is a cardinal point that we seek to emphasise, and in regard to which we seek to reassure people.
So I am seeking to convince the Committee. I recognise that this is a significant change. Clause 3 is as important as any clause in the Bill. But we are bringing together under one authority all licensing requirements. It will reduce bureaucracy. It will make it possible for a licence application to be considered by one body, and an applicant will know where to go. There is a proper appeal to the magistrates. At Second Reading there was a slight suggestion that the Government hold magistrates in less regard than they ought. That is not so, and the fact that the appeal system involves the magistrates is proof of that. The reason for the transfer is not in any way, shape or form a matter of loss of confidence in magistrates. It relates to the advantages of bringing licensing under one set of auspices and at the same time ensuring democratic responsibility.
There are anxieties that councillors may come under undue pressures. It is a function of councillors to come under undue pressures in all aspects of their lives. I do not under-estimate the licensing dimension. I am all too well aware that, as a local feature, it can loom quite large in terms of local complaints. But a whole swathe of local complaints are being sharply articulated by an
430
ever more demanding electorate, and local authorities, we trust and know, respond to those demands. That is why we have the quality of councillors that we do.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing a probing amendment at this stage. I hope that I have met the major points raised. I emphasise that this is quite a significant change. It is, therefore, bound to create some anxieties outside this place. All my interests are engaged in this transformation of our licensing regime. But it is based on firm principles. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that we can move on to the more detailed amendments that follow, including one relating to the Inner Temple.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: In speaking after the Minister has replied to the amendment, I give him an absolute assurance that I do not seek a response to anything that I say. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Buscombe for having provided us with the opportunity to revisit some of the issues that were raised at Second Reading. The noble Baroness who is in charge of the Bill knows that I was not able to speak at that stage. I give the Committee a categorical assurance that I am not about to make a long Second Reading speech now, but I want to resile in one regard from the alliance that I formed with the Liberal Democrats during the course of the morning.
I do not disagree with them about the way in which the magistrates fulfil the historic regime, except that there was a problem in one regard in inner London. Magistrates might be sitting on cases in inner London where residents came to explain what it was like to be in the vicinity of the relevant licensed premises. The magistrate, who was not from inner London and had no experience of living there, would say, "If you live in London, that is what you might expect". That is not the most sensible or friendly thing to say to someone who has lived in inner London for 60 years, who was born there and has never moved from his own street.
The regime removes that problem and transfers the issue to councillors. I rise only to say that that will be an improvement on the condition that I have just mentioned if councillors have the opportunity to exercise genuine discretion in their own areas. There are signs, in parts of the Bill that we still have to discuss, that there will be a high degree of central prescription and that the substitution of a councillor for a magistrate will not necessarily make any difference.
Lord Avebury: I wish to reinforce what the noble Lord has just said by reference to the Framework for Guidance To Be Issued Under Clause [177] of the Licensing Bill. The Government have presented this debate to the effect that we are enhancing local democracy. They say that we are giving councillors—elected representatives of the people—the opportunity to make licensing decisions on their behalf. It is a smokescreen for the fact that local authorities will be given very limited discretion, as the noble Lord has just said.

431
I shall refer to two sections of the framework document. First, on personal licences, it says,
"the norm should be for the vast majority of these registrations to be automatic".
Secondly, on page 5, on premises licences, it states that the document will,
"comprehensively detail the Government's recommendations in terms of best practice".
Do your Lordships, on reading that, think that local authorities will have much scope to make decisions in the best interests of their residents? Or will they be hedged about with such severe restrictions under the framework that they will get all the blame for things that happen in the neighbourhood that residents do not like, but will have no power to remedy objections made to them by local residents suffering severe hardship and distress because of the late-night economy?
I have a letter from people who were constituents of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville. The letter is from the South East Bayswater Residents' Association. They are apprehensive, to say the least, about what will occur in their area. They will go to the local authority and say, "You have been given this job. It has been taken from the magistrates and now you, our elected representatives, must deal with the nuisance and distress caused to us as a result of the licensing policy". The local authority will have to have a licensing policy. It will go through the motions of making decisions on what kinds of licences they will award and what kinds they will refuse. All the time, they will be constrained in the procrustean bed of this guidance, which will be issued after the Bill has completed its passage through this House.
I object to that most strenuously. The Government have got into a most pernicious practice of waiting until after all the stages of the legislation in both Houses before introducing the guidance, which is the guts of any legislation. It is an insult to Parliament. We are to blame ourselves. We do not take a stronger line on it. We have allowed governments of both complexions to get away with this over the years. We have not insisted that we will not look at legislation until we see its real meaning.
We are in grave danger of allowing the whole Bill to go through before being confronted by the restrictive clauses in the framework, which local authorities will have to operate, getting all the blame.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for his reply to the amendments and his appreciation of the fact that this was intended not just as a debate. There are many beyond your Lordships' House who still need to be convinced. As my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts said, this is a hearts and minds issue. There is no question but that Her Majesty's Opposition entirely support local accountability and local democracy, but it is important to respect the fact that many outside are still not convinced of the need for the change or its desirability, and question some of the implications.
432
I remain concerned about one or two issues. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, introduced a very good point. Perhaps he would like to think of an amendment on impartiality. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has said. However, it is important not only that councillors and magistrates show impartiality, but that the structure, the procedure and their behaviour is seen to be impartial if it is to be credible. As many of us know, in local communities it is often the same few public-spirited individuals who take on the very onerous and responsible roles of councillors, magistrates and school governors. The same few faces regularly appear in different situations in public service. It is therefore important to consider whether a magistrate, who may well sit on an appeal case, should also be on a licensing panel as a councillor in the same ward, district or area.
We shall return to the question of resources, but it is important for the Government to reassure us through the scrutiny of the Bill about the continued resourcing of training for magistrates for appeals and of the administration and mechanism for appeals, which will continue, notwithstanding that the hulk of the role of the licensing system will then be placed with local councils as licensing authorities.
Several noble Lords have raised the interesting question of consistency. I pointed out earlier that the Secretary of State has made it clear that one of the purposes of the Bill is to get rid of the problem of inconsistency between local authority areas. I am more confused now having heard the quotes from the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and how he interprets some parts of the framework guidance on the potential powers and responsibilities of local authorities. The noble Lord expressed concern about the extent to which local authorities will be restricted in their power to carry out the onerous task of ensuring that their licensing objectives within their area are achieved.
I am holding another part of' the framework guidance, which relates to the statement of licensing policies. Point 11 states:
"This section would provide guidance on the preparation of local licensing policy statements by licensing authorities.the general principles that should underpin them and core content to which local authorities would be free to add".
I make this point now because it would be helpful if the Minister were able to consider some of this evening's debate, particularly in relation to Clause 177, before we reach that clause so that we can better understand the breadth of powers that are being realistically given to local authorities to carry through their responsibilities properly, effectively, impartially and in a way that will reassure local residents that their interests and concerns have been covered, as well as reassuring the industry, which rightly wants to respond to a very different culture that has developed in recent years. We want flexibility on the serving of alcohol over a greater period of time.
I refer quickly to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold. If these amendments were successful, he questioned whether this would mean that the whole of the licensing system would then move from local authorities to magistrates' courts. That is

433
certainly not the intention. However, I recall that the noble Lord referred to the question of temporary events on Second Reading, expressing a real concern as to what this will actually mean in practice. For example, there are organisations and individuals beyond this Chamber who are questioning whether local authorities will have the resources, and the capability, to respond with speed and offer licences to those who wish to stage events at reasonably short notice. These are some of the areas that we need to probe as much as possible at this stage, so as to give reassurance both within this Chamber and well beyond.
I could continue, but many of the other issues have already been covered. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for the spirit in which he has responded to our probing amendments. On balance, there seems to be support in the Committee for this move. The many individuals and organisations who have expressed concerned to us feel somewhat reassured that this move will be effective and work for them, and for the benefit of all. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 2, line 34, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: We are dealing now with the definition of "licensing authority", which is given in Clause 3(1). There are seven categories involved, the first of which is,
"the council of a district in England".
My amendment, which is a probing device, seeks to delete reference to councils of a district in England, while leaving the councils of a county in England, those of a county or county borough, or of a London borough, as licensing authorities.
I understand the reason behind putting in the words "council of a district"—namely local democracy. We are trying to get decisions as close to individual people as possible, and to have as responsive a licensing framework as possible. But this is a very significant step because of the requirement on each licensing authority to produce a statement of licensing policy. That applies, therefore, to every district council.
I do not know how many district councils exist across the country, but I should imagine that they run into the hundreds. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, they will cover a whole range of opinion. We shall, therefore, see hundreds of licensing statements, which will amount to a patchwork quilt of views on licensing. Some people may say that that is an extraordinarily good idea, because that is what we should be trying to achieve with such a quilt. It will show that the process is very responsive. However, the problem with a patchwork quilt is twofold: first, there is always the danger of regulatory arbitrage between local district councils—that is, between those who take a minimalist view or a maximalist view of the provision of alcohol. Secondly, there are those who wish to push
434
licensed premises towards the periphery of their area, or hold it at the centre. The result—in terms of the need to keep the licensing statement under review at all times, as provided for in Clause 5(4)—could be considerable regulatory arbitrage.
The second problem, as mentioned, is the possibility that, by having a local statement of licensing policy, we shall arouse expectations that the specified conditions will be enormously responsive. I share the concerns expressed by noble Lords that we may be setting up a system that cannot deliver those expectations. We may be arousing expectations about a system that will be wildly popular to begin with, but wildly unpopular when it proves that our intentions cannot have a practical impact.
A patchwork quilt approach presents the industry with problems. I believe that there is an argument for creating a scale in the establishment of licensing authorities. It would provide a framework which is more comprehensive and more comprehensible to the industry and the general public. We need a clear framework that can be explained to people in the relevant area without arousing too many expectations. If we do not do that, we could undermine people's confidence in the regime we are seeking to create. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: I cannot support the amendment, but I have some sympathy for the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. It will be difficult, especially for some of the larger pub chains, to write guidance based on all the authorities' specifications.
I thought that the noble Lord was going to raise another point, but he did not, perhaps because an amendment to that effect has not yet been tabled. It is nevertheless a provision that we should consider—extending local accountability down to the ward councillor level. It is currently proposed that ward councillors should not represent their own wards on licensing authorities. The point goes wide of this debate, but we shall probably return to it. Although we support such provision, we also understand that it will be difficult for local councils to fill licensing committees. There will be much debate about how large committees should be and who should sit on them. The issue will be considered at local council level and it should not be underestimated.
The time issue was not raised in the previous debate. However, many bodies have objected to the transfer from the magistracy to local councils—I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, would deal with this point—because many pubs realise that, in some circumstances, such as when the licensee dies, the licence will have to be transferred in a hurry, perhaps over a weekend. The magistrates were able to act reasonably quickly, but local authorities may not be able to do so.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I strongly oppose the amendment. However, I liked the statement by the

435
noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, that the new regime will create "regulatory arbitrage"—and a very good thing, too. However, what he calls "regulatory arbitrage" I call "local variation according to local needs". It is what old-fashioned Liberals call local democracy. I am very suspicious every time I hear a government spokesman—I am surprised to hear it from a member of the Opposition—advancing consistency as the great virtue because in these matters surely the important factor is to be sensitive to local needs which are so different as between at one end, a city centre, and, at the other, a country area.
I echo the points made by my noble friend as regards the framework guidance. If the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, reads it—I am sure that he has it by his bath—he would derive great comfort. It states, as I said on Second Reading,
"The Guidance … is a key mechanism for ensuring consistent application of licensing powers across the country".—[Official Report, 26/11/02; col. 711.]
That worries us. The guidance goes on to say—this appears at col. 712—that the norm,
"should be for the vast majority of these registrations to be automatic".
The noble Lord should take great comfort from that. The guidance, again I refer to col. 712, would,
"underline the need for … minimum bureaucracy in the process".
That worries some of us.
I come back to the underlying framework. If the guidance is subject to no parliamentary scrutiny, it could become an instrument of severe centralist control of a severely insensitive nature. We shall debate that later. Suffice to say that I—I cannot speak for anyone else—am dead opposed to the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I am afraid that I too take a rather different view from my noble friend on this issue. If we are to accept that local authorities are the appropriate bodies to administer licensing policy, we find it hard to envisage that district councils, which are the bodies closest to local communities, should not be involved. I speak as a former district councillor. I would have been rather upset if, as an elected councillor, I was expressly excluded from such matters.
As drafted—I realise that my noble friend tabled this as a probing amendment—the effect of the amendment would be that in any county where there were district councils there would, if the amendment were successful, be no licensing authority at all. Clearly, that cannot have been envisaged by my noble friend.
But the upshot of the acceptance of the amendment, coupled with an amendment to transfer powers to county councils, would be a major burden falling on county councils, a responsibility on them to devise a licensing policy that might have to apply to distant and diverse communities.
436
I fear that removing licensing policy from local communities would be counter-productive, arousing suspicions where none need exist. This is a major change in policy that is being proposed where all of us who are involved and who want to see it succeed will have to carry the public with us. That, I think, must involve leaving policy close to local communities with bodies that the public feel are sensitive to local conditions. I see no reason to fear that those bodies will be more obstructive of the liberalised regime that we all wish to see. I do not support my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Davies of Oldham: It will come as no surprise to hear that I found the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, most attractive. It was a response I shall seek to emulate, but with considerably less eloquence.
I have identified the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, as the Scylla and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, as the Charybdis in this debate in terms of their polarity of view with regard to the licensing regime. The Government intend to sail a safe course between two such positions. Of course we recognise that there must be some consistency with regard to licensing policy. That is why the Secretary of State will issue guidance in order that local authorities will know the parameters within which they must work. The complete devolution of power would be an odd concept in regard to licensing. As I say, guidance will be issued. But, by the same token, we shall not have the regulatory arbitrage from the centre that has been mentioned. Local communities will play their proper role in determining licensing policy locally.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, we recognise the significance of one point that he made. It is important that local authorities should be able to respond quickly to emergency situations. The death of a publican might, for example, put the whole business at risk unless a speedy decision was made on reviewing the licence. Of course, we intend to have procedures, and expect local authorities to have procedures, to meet those emergencies.
Local magistrates are volunteers, too. They put their time at the disposal of the local community and meet their obligations. We are merely saying that this obligation will be fulfilled as responsibly by local authorities as it has been by magistrates in respect of speed and effectiveness with regard to policy. The great advantage is that local authorities are democratically responsible. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is right in saying that if we accepted this amendment, we would not have any licensing authorities left at all. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, tabled this amendment with an exploratory, probing intent, such as has governed our discussions so far, so that we could advance the debate further.
We will not have a patchwork quilt with regard to overall licensing policy, but we will have local authorities that are able to be responsive to their local communities and to develop a licensing strategy against that perspective. That is the concept behind the

437
Bill. We need to strike a balance, because people in the industry will need some certainties about aspects of the licensing regime, irrespective of where they are in the country. That goes without saying. By the same token, we see enormous value in the ability of local representatives to play their part in the development of a local policy.
I am merely reiterating the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, which preceded mine. It is crucial to this Bill that the amendment is withdrawn, and I rely on the noble Lord to do so.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I understand the case for local democracy, which has been eloquently made. I shall withdraw the amendment and start pulling out the arrows that have been stuck into me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 2, line 40, leave out paragraph (1).
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 64 and consequential Amendments Nos. 120 and 123.
The Inner Temple and the Middle Temple are treated as falling within the City of London for the purposes of the law relating to county courts, commissioners of the peace, justices of the peace, magistrates' courts, sheriffs, juries and connected persons. They are local government areas for the purposes of the Local Government Act 1992, but are neither principal areas nor local government areas for the purposes of the Local Government Act 1972. In layman's terms, the Temples are sometimes local authorities and sometimes not.
In the Bill, the sub-treasurer of the Inner Temple and the under-treasurer of the Middle Temple are to be the licensing authorities for the areas where they act. I am not convinced that that is a good idea. I am open to persuasion, but I need persuading.
First and foremost, one of the main purposes of the Bill is to transfer licensing powers from licensing justices to committees of democratically accountable local authorities. I am a keen supporter of the institutions of the Middle and Inner Temple, especially of the Inner Temple, which is the Bar to which I was called in 1977. However, with great respect, I could not describe either the Inner Temple or the sub-treasurer as a democratically accountable local authority.
The Inner Temple and the Middle Temple are governed by what are called "Benchers". New Benchers are elected by the existing Benchers, not by members of the Inn or those who live or work there. They are self-perpetuating bodies answerable, in effect, only to themselves. If the main purpose of the Bill is to move licensing powers to committees of democratically accountable local authorities, that aim will not be achieved with respect to the sub-treasurer of the Inner Temple and the under-treasurer of the Middle Temple, if they will be the licensing authorities.
Furthermore, we should be told what steps the Inner Temple and the Middle Temple have taken to prepare themselves for carrying out the functions in the Bill. Do they have the expertise to prepare a statement of licensing policy? I cannot imagine that they would wish to do so. Will they really establish procedures for granting premises licences or even personal licences? I doubt it. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I can be fairly brief about this very limited pair of institutions. As the noble Baroness said, she is seeking to remove the ability of the Inner Temple and the Middle Temple to act as licensing authorities. They presently enjoy that role; that relates to the question of competence, which the noble Baroness raised by asking about the preparations that they are making in this regard. We have not sought to inquire whether they are involved in any additional activities to fit them to do this function; they have done it to the satisfaction of everyone concerned to date.
These are not arcane institutions from which privileges should be stripped. As the noble Baroness said, they are in some respects local authorities of a very limited part of central London, and only in a limited way. She will recognise that we are seeking to amalgamate all licensing functions within local authorities; that is a key part of the Bill. They are a specific and special kind of local authority. They have indicated that they wish to continue in their role. They have given no cause for dissatisfaction with the way in which they have discharged it, and we do not see any reason to alter the situation.
Lord Skelmersdale: I hope that the Minister can help me. If local authorities have objections to the non-granting of a licence, they appeal to a magistrates' court. To whom do the Inns of Court appeal?
Lord Davies of Oldham: We are dealing with a very limited and specific group. I have to say to the noble Lord that I have not the faintest idea of the answer to his question! I shall write to him about it.
Baroness Buscombe: At the risk of being a little mischievous, I am sure that the Minister did not really intend to say that the Middle Temple and Inner Temple are a limited pair of institutions.
I accept what the Minister said. If the Inns of Court have indicated that they are content to be included in the proposed way, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 64 not moved.]
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 2, line 41, after "Temple," insert—
"( ) the University of Cambridge,"
The noble Baroness said: We have just been discussing exceptional provisions relating to the licensing of what I may call the apex of the legal world; we now t urn to the apex of the university world.
Since time immemorial—since 1382, so the White Paper tells us—the University of Cambridge has had responsibility for policy on drinking in the university. Since the university was founded in only 1284, we can safely say that it has had it since the origin of the university. There is no evidence of which I know that Cambridge or Cambridge students are seen as the epicentre of unlicensed and unacceptable drinking in this country. I know of no complaint calling for the ending of a practice that has clone no one any harm for centuries.
It may well be that the Minister will cite a statement from the university to the effect that it no longer sees the case for this power. That would hardly be surprising in the climate of fear that has been set for our so-called elite universities since Mr Brown's outburst against Oxford. It may well even be that some in new Labour smack their lips at another blow against what they see as ancient privilege. I hate to think that anyone on Cambridge City Council would like to have a go at the university, as has been known in the past.
This is not a big issue. However, it is symptomatic of something that is, in its way, quite big—a matter of principle. We believe that that is the apparent mania of this Government to sweep away anything that is anomalous, ancient or quaintly illogical in this country of ours. It is what I believe one of the metric martyrs referred to as the drive of the Government to narrow in on anything out of the ordinary and to homogenise, eliminate or abolish it.
I believe that everything is done according to the wish and will to modernise, whether or not it is any good. It is all summed up in that ghastly phrase that runs like a thread through all the failures of this Government and sums up their condescending arrogance: it has no place in modern Britain. I think too well of the Minister to think that he would use such a phrase.
What harm has this anomaly done and what harm does the Minister think it could do? What is the point? Why not leave it alone? Why not allow a little of our historic variety and colour to survive? Will the Minister not show some independence from his brief and think again? I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I rise to declare an interest as a graduate of the aforesaid university but also to plead for a touch of harmless colour. I dissented from the eloquent plea of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, only when she said that the drinking habits of Cambridge students were anodyne. That is not my recollection.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I appreciated the debate on this limited area of the Bill. The reason that the University of Cambridge enjoys the privilege of being able to operate a licence is because it was granted by Richard II in 1382, which is certainly some time ago. I imagine that this week, when Cambridge scored a rather significant victory over Oxford, it probably took full advantage of the licence during the events following the rugby match.
Although the Government recognise that the Inner and Middle Temples are rather interesting institutions for which to make provision, they do exercise a local authority role, which is the basis of the clause to which the amendment relates, whereas the University of Cambridge does not.
I understand the democratic sensitivities of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. He always extends a little colour to a point when it immediately involves his own past enjoyment of such privileges. But, for other—
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I cannot let that pass. Perhaps I may ask the Minister how many members of the Cabinet will benefit from the two exemptions that he has just extolled.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I should think very few. I imagine that the number of occasions on which members of the Cabinet find the time to indulge in drinking in the Inner Temple is probably fairly limited. However, I will let that pass. I emphasise that, so far as concerns the Government, the University of Cambridge is not a local authority. This clause is central to the Bill. It seeks to bring all the licensing procedures within the framework of local authorities. Therefore, we believe that modernisation of the licensing laws should sensibly remove this rather obvious anomaly for which there is no clear current justification.
Baroness Buscombe: I am deeply disappointed by the reply given by the Minister, particularly when I had—I thought quite powerfully—referred to the need to do away with the drive for modernisation and so forth. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, that there is no question that I said that the students of Cambridge were anodyne in their drinking habits. I said that there is no evidence that Cambridge students are seen as the epicentre of unlicensed and unacceptable drinking in this country, at least not to my knowledge. That does not mean to say that they do not do a lot of drinking.
The reply was disappointing. This is a small point but, as I said, it is symbolic. I hear the Minister's comments. I could almost have written his response myself, with some regret. It was expected. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Baroness sits down, can she confirm that she reserves the right to return with this amendment at a later stage when there might be rather more noble Lords in the Chamber?
Baroness Buscombe: Absolutely. It is regrettable that so few noble Lords remained this evening. I wonder whether this has to do with the changes in our sitting hours, which mean, sadly, that many noble Lords leave the Chamber at an early hour on a Thursday. The noble Lord is right. We shall consider carefully whether to return on Report to a fair number of the amendments we have withdrawn tonight. I believe that there would be great support from a number of noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber for this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past seven o'clock.

  Irish Language Agency
  Irish Language Agency
  Northern Ireland Civil Service: Security
  Northern Ireland Civil Service: Security
  Food Safety Promotion Board: English and Irish Bilingualism
  Food Safety Promotion Board: English and Irish Bilingualism
  Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and Assembly of the Western European Union: UK Delegation
  Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and Assembly of the Western European Union: UK Delegation
  Sudan
  Sudan
  Turkey
  Turkey
  Nigeria
  Nigeria
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  EU: Working Rights
  EU: Working Rights
  Biological Weapons Convention: 5th Review Conference
  Biological Weapons Convention: 5th Review Conference
  Asylum Seekers: Single-sex Accommodation
  Asylum Seekers: Single-sex Accommodation
  Asylum Seekers: Dispersal
  Asylum Seekers: Dispersal
  Carriers' Liability: Level of Penalty Code of Practice
  Carriers' Liability: Level of Penalty Code of Practice
  Government Websites
  Government Websites
  Anthrax Immunisation: Armed Forces
  Anthrax Immunisation: Armed Forces
  Army Training Estate: Support Services Contract
  Army Training Estate: Support Services Contract
  Generic Medicines: Maximum Price Scheme
  Generic Medicines: Maximum Price Scheme
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority: Annual Report and Accounts
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority: Annual Report and Accounts
  Tax Harmonisation
  Tax Harmonisation
  Air Travel
  Air Travel
  Charitable Gifts: Tax Relief
  Charitable Gifts: Tax Relief
  Consolidated Fund Bill and Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill: Human Rights Act Compatibility
  Consolidated Fund Bill and Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill: Human Rights Act Compatibility