Sitting of 22 October 2002

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

  LONDON DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BILL
  MILFORD HAVEN PORT AUTHORITY BILL [LORDS]
  Read the Third time, and passed.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [16 October],
That Mr. John Hayes be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Mr. Peter Luff be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
Hon. Members: Object
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  SCOTLAND

    Business Start-ups
    Dr. Julian Lewis: If she will make a statement on Government support for new business start-ups in Scotland. [73572]
    Gregory Barker (Bexhill and Battle): If she will make a statement on Government support for new business start-ups in Scotland. [73575]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): This Government have provided a stable economy with low inflation, low interest rates and, since 1997, cuts in the average corporation tax bill for small companies by 30 per cent., all of which are essential for new business start-ups; and the new 10p starting rate of tax is of great value to small firms, many of whom in Scotland are unincorporated.
    Dr. Lewis: The Secretary of State recently travelled all the way to Australia and New Zealand to promote the virtues of the private finance initiative. Does she think that PFI will help to arrest, and even reverse, the decline in small business start-ups in Scotland? Was she any
    106
    more successful in promoting the virtues of PFI to the New Zealanders and Australians than she has been with her own Scottish Back Benchers?
    Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman should do his homework before he asks questions. There were 10,769 new business start-ups in the first six months of 2002–22 per cent. up on what they were previously. Great use is, of course, made of public-private partnerships in Scotland. Indeed, the complete refreshment of the secondary sector in Glasgow has meant that there has been a considerable increase in procurement from small businesses, which helps the overall environment for small business start-ups.
    We are well aware of the popularity of the Government's proposals on PPP, which have been widely taken up by my colleagues in the Scottish Executive. Wherever one travels, the first point one must make is that this is not the old Tory model of PFI, which did not work.
    Gregory Barker: What is the situation for business start-ups compared with that in 1997? Will the Secretary of State confirm that since 1997 business start-ups have dropped by 30 per cent.? Will she also confirm that 50 per cent. of Scotland's graduates emigrate each year because there are not enough opportunities for them in small business?
    Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman obviously does not know his Scottish history, because one of its great strengths is that our graduates have moved throughout the world. Indeed, the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), who is sitting next to the hon. Gentleman, is a Scottish graduate who sought to pursue her career elsewhere, as is the shadow Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait). That all adds to the resource that is available to Scotland internationally.
    I am not going to confirm the hon. Gentleman's figures, but I will say to him that there has been an historic problem with small business start-ups in Scotland. There has been a wealth of research over the past 25 years. Some of the evidence relates to risk aversion in the Scottish population, some to a fear of failure and some to the fall in informal finance. The Government, working with the Scottish Executive, have a target of 100,000 new Scottish start-ups by 2009; we are doing what we can to reverse the trend.
    The key to the future of small business start-ups in Scotland is the overall European climate. During the Lisbon processes, the Government began a change that will assist small business start-ups; that change will continue to create the 20 million new jobs that will be needed throughout Europe. The splits in the Conservative party do not help that one bit.
    Mr. David Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend share my view that a very important niche market for Scottish business start-ups is the Scottish film industry, from the new Inverness film studio to the very successful "Monarch of

    107
    the Glen", filmed in my constituency? Is not Scottish film going to be the start of the renaissance in Scottish jobs and business?
    Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend asks an important question and makes an important point. The film industry in Scotland is composed mainly of small businesses, many of which are extremely successful. Ecosse Films, which made "Monarch of the Glen", is a very successful company. I had the privilege of visiting the "Monarch of the Glen" set a few weeks ago. I am very conscious of the fact that as a result of "Monarch of the Glen", 50 million people throughout the world can see how attractive my hon. Friend's constituency is. That helps more than small business; it helps the tourism industry the length and breadth of Scotland.
    Mr. Iain Luke: Given the initiatives in this year's Budget to stimulate the growth of small business throughout the United Kingdom, such as small business start-up helplines and starter packs, will the Secretary of State undertake to work closely with her colleagues in the Scottish Executive to ensure that both Administrations lend their weight to the creation of more small businesses in Scotland, especially in areas such as mine that suffer from high unemployment?
    Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I agree that we must work very hard to ensure that there is daily co-ordination between national schemes and Scottish schemes. Moreover, this is not just about Government schemes, because Governments alone cannot establish businesses, but about creating the right climate. The Government are creating the climate that helps small businesses to start—low inflation and low interest rates, reform of value added tax and changes to personal taxation—but politicians must make a co-ordinated effort to ensure that entrepreneurship is valued, as it should be. In fact, some years ago, research conducted by Scottish Enterprise revealed that entrepreneurs were classed with politicians and journalists; we have to do something to improve the status of entrepreneurs in Scottish society.
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I hope that the question is brief, and that I shall get a brief answer. As new business start-ups are as likely to suffer from fires as any other business, can the Secretary of State tell us whether, when she leaves here, she will urge the First Minister and the Joint Ministerial Committee at No. 10 to make available all firefighting equipment to the troops wherever possible?
    Mrs. Liddell: The Prime Minister has already made a statement on that issue, as has the Deputy First Minister in Scotland. Securing safety for people is a pre-eminent issue, and I share the view of the Prime Minister and First Minister that there is a need for the Fire Brigades Union to accept the recommendation; it should await the result of the independent review.
    Mrs. Lait: I understand that the Deputy Minister for Justice in the Scottish Parliament, who is a member of the Labour party, has said that firefighting equipment will not be made available to the troops—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is out of order. She must stick to the question before us; she should ask a supplementary question about start-ups.
    Mrs. Lait: Indeed, Mr. Speaker. Fires will affect small business start-ups just as much as they affect other businesses, so will the right hon. Lady make it clear that she supports making firefighting equipment available to the troops to protect Scottish small businesses and lives?
    Mrs. Liddell: I reiterate the point that I made: the Prime Minister has made the Government's position absolutely clear, and that position is shared in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Stephen Hepburn: How can the Minister seriously talk about economic development when in some places the basic business link between Edinburgh and Newcastle is nothing more than a country road? Does not the fact that that road was closed by a little drop of rain today pour scorn on the multi-modal study? I ask the Minister to get in touch with the Scottish Executive and United Kingdom Transport Ministers with a view to building a proper road, dualled all the way from Newcastle to Edinburgh, so that we can achieve proper economic development.
    Mrs. Liddell: I understand that rather more than a little drop of rain has affected the border between Scotland and England. Indeed, my sympathy goes out to all those people who have been inconvenienced as a consequence of the adverse weather conditions. The Government and the Scottish Executive are now putting considerable resources into transport policy, not just in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom, with a view to ensuring that roads and the rail network are improved, especially the links between Scotland and England.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Mark Simmonds: If she will make a statement on unemployment levels in Scotland. [73573]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Anne McGuire): Claimant count unemployment in Scotland is at its lowest level since 1975 and has fallen by more than 57,000 since the spring of 1997—a reduction of 38.8 per cent.
    Mr. Simmonds: I am grateful to the Minister for her response to my question, but it would be interesting if she could explain to the House how she squares comments made in August by her colleague, the Secretary of State, with the latest figures to emanate from the Scottish Executive. Her colleague said:
    "These encouraging figures are proof that the Scottish economy remains strong."
    However, the Scottish Executive says that Scottish gross domestic product has reduced by 0.7 per cent. in the first quarter of this year, compared with the rest of the United Kingdom, where it rose by 0.2 per cent. Will not the problems of the contracting Scottish economy be

    109
    further exacerbated by the introduction of the North sea oil and gas tax, which could cost up to 18,000 jobs in certain areas of Scotland?
    Mrs. McGuire: I am always fascinated when colleagues who represent parts of the United Kingdom other than Scotland seek to talk Scotland down. Data for the past two quarters have, of course, been disappointing, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the glitch is temporary and is nothing like the downturns that we saw over the previous 20 years. Underpinning the Scottish economy there is health, vibrancy and energy.
    I use the opportunity to allow the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the fact that the Government's economic policies have created stability and brought many benefits to his constituency, where more than 720 people have benefited from our new deal policy.
    Mr. Russell Brown: My hon. Friend will be aware of the problems that arose in my constituency last year as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak. At that time, many people were forecasting significant job losses, but unemployment in my constituency is 3 per cent., which is 14.8 per cent. down on last year and about 34.9 per cent. down on 1997. However, I ask my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to impress on our colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry the need to revitalise the manufacturing sector.
    Mrs. McGuire: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The area that he represents suffered terribly from foot and mouth disease. I know that he has been leading the campaign to reinvigorate the agricultural industry in his constituency, and I am delighted to hear that there has been a reduction in unemployment. Interestingly, the figures that he highlighted reflect the reduction in unemployment throughout all rural communities in Scotland. When the Government come under pressure about their attitude to rural communities, we should reflect on the fact that, on average, rural communities in Scotland have seen a reduction in unemployment of more than 45 per cent. I will take up my hon. Friend's specific point about discussions with the Department of Trade and Industry.
    John Thurso: Is the Minister aware of the many reported job losses in the oil and gas supply industry, which particularly affect constituencies such as mine, where they have contributed significantly to unemployment? Many would attribute these factors, at least in part, to the changes set out in the Budget. What consultations has the Minister had with the Treasury on royalty? When might we expect a result from the recent consultation?
    Mrs. McGuire: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We must be careful about the figures that have been bandied around about job losses in the North sea. There are job gains—in the new Ardmore field, for
    110
    example. The hon. Gentleman knows that there is ongoing consultation. A report will be made available soon.
    Mr. Eric Joyce: My hon. Friend will be aware —unlike those in Skegness, perhaps—that since 1997 unemployment in my constituency has dropped by 30 per cent., and long-term unemployment by 70 per cent. Does she agree that it is important to focus on providing additional support through the new deal to those who are still unemployed?
    Mrs. McGuire: My hon. Friend is correct. The new deal has been one of the Government's success stories. Wherever Members go, they will come across people who have been long-term unemployed, who were thrown on the scrapheap because they have disabilities or because they are lone parents. It was rich of the Conservatives to say at their conference that the war on lone parents has been ended. The reality is that they left many vulnerable people on the unemployment scrapheap.
    Michael Weir: The Minister will be aware that Scotland has the second highest unemployment of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom and that the Scottish economy is in technical recession. Would she like to revise the statement that the Secretary of State made last November that the Scottish economy is performing well? Does she agree that Scotland is under-employed, rather like the Secretary of State?
    Mrs. McGuire: No.
    Mr. Michael Connarty: I am sure that my hon. Friend accepts that Opposition Members talk a lot of nonsense purely for the sake of publicity —they are always talking down Scotland. As one who is deeply involved in the oil industry, does she accept that analysts say that the Scottish economy, and the oil industry in particular, are riding out the world recession very well? That is seen in the chemicals industry in her own area, where Avecia is applying for a biotechnology research park. The future is there and the companies are going towards it—unlike Opposition parties, who are running away from it.
    Mrs. McGuire: My hon. Friend is right, and, knowing that he represents Grangemouth, I bow to his superior knowledge of the petrochemicals industry. I recently held discussions with senior oil industry people and I know that they are extremely optimistic about what can still be produced from the North sea by introducing new technology and finding different ways of accessing North sea resources. Like my hon. Friend, I am really weary of hon. Members trying every month to talk Scotland down.
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: What message is sent to the unemployed when the PA to a Scottish Minister is put up for two nights in a five-star hotel, paid for from a fund that is supposed to benefit the people of Lanarkshire?
    Mrs. McGuire: That is not a matter for the Government; it is a matter for the Labour party.

    111
    The hon. Lady should not have gone down that path at a Question Time that is intended to highlight the issues that affect Scotland —jobs, education and employment, in which the Government are scoring a great success.

    Debt
    Mr. David Marshall: What plans she has to help combat poverty arising from debt in Scotland; and if she will make a statement. [73574]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Anne McGuire): We are consulting on a major overhaul of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to provide better safeguards for individuals taking on borrowing commitments. We are determined to tackle abuses by unscrupulous lenders head on.
    Mr. Marshall: Is the Minister aware that last year the citizens advice bureaux service in Scotland dealt with more than 160,000 cases involving some £70 million of debt, an increase of £10 million on the previous year? Credit unions and money advice centres also deal with several thousand similar cases each year. Given that responsibility for dealing with debt lies with both the United Kingdom and the Scottish Parliaments, does she agree that the best way to deal with that serious problem might be to draw up a joint parliamentary strategy between Westminster and Holyrood, as suggested by Citizens Advice Scotland; and will she take steps to ensure that that is done as soon as possible?
    Mrs. McGuire: Like my hon. Friend, I am a great admirer of the work of citizens advice bureaux, and I was especially pleased to be able to speak at their annual conference in Scotland in August. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was a volunteer in a citizens advice bureau during a recent volunteers week. CABs do significant and valuable work on debt and with people who find themselves in debt. I agree that the Government and the Scottish Executive should look for ways in which to work together, so I am sure that my hon. Friend will be delighted to learn that the Government, the Scottish Executive and the financial sector are piloting three debt telephone helplines, one of which is in Fife, and seeking ways in which they can provide additional advice and support for those who find themselves in difficulties.
    Malcolm Bruce: Will the Minister acknowledge the important role that LETS —local exchange trading schemes —and credit unions play in helping people not only to manage debt, but to avoid it? I am thinking in particular of the Strathbogie credit union in my constituency, which I believe covers the largest rural area of any credit union in Britain. Does she acknowledge that credit unions have a good record of protecting their customers' interests as well as giving them advice, and will she make representations to ensure that the Financial Services Authority does not regulate them in a way that creates excessive charges and means that they cannot operate effectively?
    Mrs. McGuire: I agree about credit unions' valuable work. The credit union in the Raploch area of Stirling provides a very valuable resource. However, we have to
    112
    recognise that if credit unions in Scotland are to come of age, they need robust financial regulation around them. Work is being done with the FSA and volunteers and staff at credit unions to make sure that they have a robust regime that has the confidence of both creditors and those who want to borrow.
    Tony Worthington: Does my hon. Friend agree that credit unions have come of age in Scotland, and none more so than Dalmuir credit union, which now has 7,000 members? It has grown since the Secretary of State opened the new building and it lets out £4 million a year. Scotland leads the way in that, and the biggest credit union in Scotland and in Great Britain is the Scotwest credit union, with more than 16,000 members. That is truly coming of age.
    Mrs. McGuire: My hon. Friend is correct. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State helped launch the Dalmuir credit union a few months ago. Yes, both the Government and the Scottish Executive have shown their support for credit unions. They are coming of age. All of us in the House have a duty not just to highlight the advantages of credit unions to some of our more disadvantaged areas, but to encourage people in our more advantaged areas to see the credit union as a valuable way of supporting their local communities.

  The Advocate-General was asked—
  ADVOCATE-GENERAL

    Human Rights
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What human rights issues she has dealt with since 9 July. [73597]
    The Advocate-General (Dr. Lynda Clark): Last week, I appeared in the Privy Council in the case of R v. Her Majesty's Advocate. The case raises important issues, such as the interpretation and effect of article 6 in so far as it deals with the right to have a trial determined within a reasonable time, and its relationship with the Scotland Act 1998. In addition, I have dealt with more than 60 new cases, which have been intimated to me as devolution issues alleging various breaches of convention rights.
    Mr. Dalyell: In view of the fact that the distinguished Glasgow solicitor, Eddie McKechnie, has taken the case of his client in Barlinnie to the European Court of Human Rights, what is the role of the Westminster Parliament in the Lockerbie case now?
    The Advocate-General: There is a special procedure whereby the registry of the European Court of Human Rights would, if it thought fit, in due course make communication to the UK Government in relation to the Lockerbie case, but unless and until such communication is made there is no role for the UK Government.

    Trident Fishing Boat Inquiry
    Mr. Alex Salmond: What her role has been in the re-opened inquiry into the loss of the fishing boat, Trident; and if she will make a statement. [73598]
    The Advocate-General: I requested and arranged a preliminary meeting of potential parties to the rehearing and their representatives, which took place before the Sheriff Principal at Aberdeen sheriff court on 27 September. I appeared personally to deal with the wide range of preliminary issues. As the hon. Gentleman may recall, I had previously met him in his role as constituency MP and one of the relatives on 25 April, at which time I explained my role and the general procedure that regulates such inquiries.
    Mr. Salmond: I thank the Advocate-General for her consideration in meeting the relatives with me. As she is well aware, they have waited a quarter of a century to find out what happened to their loved ones in the loss of the fishing boat, Trident. Can she therefore give an assurance, first, that, in so far as it falls within her responsibilities, there will be no unnecessary delays in the inquiry process, and secondly, that the families will have proper legal representation throughout the process through public funds?
    The Advocate-General: A vast amount of the delay was caused by the fact that the fishing boat in question was not discovered until relatively recently. So far as it is within my power, I shall certainly do as much as I can to expedite the process. The hon. Gentleman is aware that it involves highly technical work, which is dependent on the seas and the weather, so there will inevitably be further delays.
    Legal expenses and representation is a matter for the Department for Transport, but the matter was raised formally at the preliminary inquiry and it is always open to parties to make representations directly to the Department.

    Devolution
    Annabelle Ewing: What devolution issues have been raised with her since 10 July. [73599]
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What devolution issues have been raised with her since 9 July under the Scotland Act 1998. [73602]
    The Advocate-General: Since 9 July 2002, 67 devolution issue cases have been intimated to me; all but three related to criminal matters, such as the right to a fair trial, the right to silence and undue delay in trial. Of the three civil matters intimated, two concerned professional disciplinary bodies and the right to a fair hearing before them. The third related to planning law.
    Annabelle Ewing: As the Advocate-General has explained on a number of occasions in the House that a key reason for her limited number of interventions in devolution cases is the desire to save the taxpayer money,
    114
    can she confirm the total cost of her interventions to date, and the percentage that it represents of the total cost of her office since its inception?
    The Advocate-General: I do not think that I said that cost was a key issue, although it is certainly important. When I handle cases personally—I do so whenever I can—a substantial saving is made, but I regret that the figures for which the hon. Lady asks are not available.
    Miss McIntosh: May I say what a pleasure it is to see the hon. and learned Lady in her place? Has she yet had occasion to give advice on the following scenario? The making of an application to extend a Scottish airport would be a reserved matter, whereas planning remains a devolved matter. Which jurisdiction would have the final decision?
    The Advocate-General: I am always delighted to see the hon. Lady and I am glad to see that she, too, is still in her place. As I hope she knows, I always try to give her as much assistance as I can, but I regret that I must invoke the parliamentary convention that Law Officers have followed in the House for many years under different Administrations. I am afraid that it is not possible for me to give advice to the House about the various issues that I may or may not have considered.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
  The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—
  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Court Proceedings
    Mr. Graham Allen: How many (a) lawyers and (b) others were held to be in contempt of court for delaying court proceedings in the last year for which records are available; and if he will make a statement. [73604]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Yvette Cooper): The Lord Chancellor's Department does not collate the requested information, but I am informed by the Bar Council and the Law Society that it is rare for lawyers to be held in contempt of court, but that where they are informed of cases, they can pursue disciplinary action. We are looking at new measures to reduce unnecessary delays in the courts.
    Mr. Allen: I congratulate my hon. Friend and her Department on their input into the criminal justice White Paper, which will be a great step forward for many people, especially in my constituency, who need the nuts and bolts of the criminal justice system to be attended to. Before the proposals are considered in Committee, will she meet Inspectors Emmott, Wilson, Windmill-Jones and Whitmore from my constituency and hear their frustration about some of the difficulties that they encounter when witnesses are intimidated by yobs, youths and others in the constituency and fail to attend court? Will she talk to those people and listen to their concern that certain defence lawyers—not many, but significant numbers—abuse the system? Will she

    115
    also consider using contempt of court and waiting cost orders to a greater degree in the Criminal Justice Bill when it finally comes before the House?
    Yvette Cooper: I am certainly happy to meet my hon. Friend and any delegation that he chooses to bring from his constituency to discuss the issues. He is right that there can be immense frustration among victims and witnesses when court cases do not go ahead on the day for which they are scheduled for trial. About 24 per cent. of trials do not proceed on the scheduled day, compared with 28 per cent. in 1997, so progress has been made but we need to go further. That is why we are considering a series of measures, including different incentives and sanctions for those involved in the process.
    Mr. David Heath: Delays and adjournments are not entirely the responsibility of defence lawyers. In magistrates courts, they are often due to the distances between courts following closures or the lack of availability of solicitors in criminal practice. May I make a positive suggestion to the hon. Lady? Will she consider applying a new rule to the Crown Prosecution Service requiring that all cases be prepared at least 36 hours before the listing of a case? Such a rule would ensure that all parties can be advised in due time if difficulties arise and that a costly adjournment that is pointless to everybody concerned can be avoided.
    Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman is right that there are a series of reasons why cases do not proceed on the scheduled day, including the failure of witnesses and defendants to show up. About 6 per cent. of trials in 2001 did not go ahead on the scheduled day because either the prosecution or the defence said that they were not ready on the day. We are considering a series of ways of improving case preparation, involving judges, lawyers and other court users. Part of the issue is that nobody takes responsibility when the case does not go ahead on the day. We need to specify who is responsible in what circumstances and what the different sanctions or incentives might be when something goes wrong. That is what the case preparation project is dealing with and I shall certainly take on board the points that he made.
    Andrew Mackinlay: We have not mentioned one matter: the cover-up in the courts, to which we cannot refer in the House of Commons. Under the contempt rule, we cannot draw attention to cases that have been delayed by wealthy, greedy barristers who cannot agree their diaries. Cases have been drawn to my attention that I cannot mention on the Floor of the House because of our arcane contempt rules. Will the Minister go to the relevant file and discuss with the House authorities whether, without trespassing into the substance of criminal cases, we can, as custodians of the public purse, at least draw attention to the fact that the legal brethren are manipulating their diaries and maximising their profits and earnings at the expense of justice delayed?
    Yvette Cooper: I shall certainly look into my hon. Friend's points. Anxieties have been raised. For example, last year's Audit Commission report stated that
    "the current fee structure for lawyers may be seen to offer an incentive for legal representatives to prolong cases in the judicial process unnecessarily. That could be countered by the establishment of a culture in the courts that challenges inadequate preparation and measures the performance of lawyers, and a payment scheme that rewards the expedition of cases where possible."
    We are keen to consider such matters as part of the case preparation project. There is a series of different issues involving the courts, the police and other players. However, I shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's points.

    Comprehensive Spending Review
    Dr. Vincent Cable: If he will make a statement on the implications of the comprehensive spending review for the performance of his Department in relation to IT. [73605]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Yvette Cooper): The comprehensive spending review set out plans to invest more than £1 billion in IT in the criminal justice system over the next three years. The Lord Chancellor's Department, the Home Office and the Office of the Attorney-General have been working together to determine the best spread of investment throughout the criminal justice system. Those discussions are not yet complete, but we expect the programme to include IT infrastructure in the Crown courts, the development of exhibit and the investment for magistrates courts that is already under way.
    Dr. Cable: Does the Minister's answer imply that she accepts the criticism of the Master of the Rolls, Lord Phillips, who said that the Department was seriously at fault for under-investing in IT in the courts, such that the Lord Chief Justice's reforms are being seriously imperilled and there is a major pile-up of costs and delays in the civil courts?
    Yvette Cooper: We certainly believe that there is a need for more investment in IT infrastructure, not only in the courts but in other parts of the criminal justice system and on the civil side. We are making progress in using IT. For example, the money claim online service, which allows people to issue claims over the internet, is proving a great success. The number of cases that now go through it means that it is the fourth largest county court in the country. Progress is being made, but it takes time to put in place the new infrastructure and IT that we need.
    Mr. William Cash: Does the Minister accept that it is a matter of using IT not only in her Department but in other Departments such as the Home Office? She knows that not enough progress has been made in reducing unnecessary delays in the court system from arrest to sentence. Surely the time has come to embrace the concept of modern IT strategy. which will assist with

    117
    the more effective disposal of cases and reduce the alarming proportion that is unnecessarily discontinued. Will she make a pledge to use it more effectively?
    Yvette Cooper: I am glad that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) is present; we heard that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) had taken over his responsibilities. I am glad that the hon. Member for Stone remains in his place; I imagine that he would be reluctant to give up being the shadow spokesperson for the Lord Chancellor's Department's new responsibilities for referendums and European elections.
    I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for IT throughout the criminal justice system. He is right that it needs to be applied throughout the system and that we need to examine the links between the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the courts, the prisons and so on. That is why all Departments have been working closely together. We are making progress in reducing delays. I draw to his attention that the time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders is now 66 days, whereas when the Conservative party left office in 1997. it was 142 days.

    Child Contact Centres
    Mr. Anthony D. Wright: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of facilities at child contact centres [73606]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton): My Department is working with the child contact organisations to survey the current provision of child contact centres. This will help us to identify where the gaps are in provision and how we can improve that provision. The Government are also providing funding of £900,000 over three years to key child contact centre organisations to develop models of supervised contact aimed at supporting those most at risk.
    Mr. Wright: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware that, in a few cases, contact is between not only parents and children but sister and brother? Over the past three or four years, I have been involved in a case in which the sister is also subject to the provisions involving supervision when she meets her brother. What facilities can the Minister offer in rare cases such as this, in which sister and brother also have to meet under supervision?
    Ms Winterton: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance to children of keeping in contact with their siblings, when it is safe to do so. Through the parenting plan, the Government are encouraging parents who are separating to take that into consideration and to discuss it with their children when appropriate. When a court is considering contact between siblings, the children's views should be taken into account, whether through parents or through reports presented to the court. A child may also be separately represented. Of course, if a sibling is unhappy with a contact order, there are ways in which he or she
    118
    can challenge it. I should be happy to write to my hon. Friend to set out those provisions in detail, if he would like me to do so.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Minister's statement concerning contact with children, but is she aware of the deepening concern in Northern Ireland, in the courts and among social services and parents, about the lack of secure accommodation for children and young adults who need that particular kind of care?
    Ms Winterton: I am certainly aware of the need for more facilities for supervised contact. Obviously, the issue of secure accommodation is not a matter for my Department, but we are looking into the issue of proper facilities for supervised contact, which is why we are carrying out the current survey. I take on board the hon. Gentleman's comments and shall ensure that the appropriate Ministers are made aware of them.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my hon. Friend aware that, although the contact centres do a really important job, it is also vital that the supervision that they offer is precise? There has been a number of very upsetting cases in which children have been attacked, and I hope that my hon. Friend will look closely at the provision of proper security for children who are already at risk and need to be absolutely sure that they are not going to be put into an even more dangerous position by coming to a centre.
    Ms Winterton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is not only an issue for children; it can be an issue for other family members as well, particularly women who may be bringing their children to contact centres. It is certainly true at the moment that we need to look much more closely at what is available, particularly in terms of supervised contact. We want to work with children's organisations to develop proper methods of determining what is supervised and what is purely supported. Too often, we feel that there is not enough information available. Sometimes, there is not enough information available to the courts about where children are being sent, or about the adequacy of their supervision. This is something that the survey that we are conducting and the work that we are doing with those organisations will sort out.

    Criminal Justice
    Simon Hughes: What representations and submissions his Department has received in response to the criminal justice White Paper of July 2002. [73607]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Yvette Cooper): The Government published the criminal justice White Paper, "Justice for All" on 17 July. Since then, the Lord Chancellor's Department has received 39 responses, the Home Office has received 64 and the Crown Prosecution Service has received four. A wide range of interested parties has responded.
    Simon Hughes: Will the Minister ensure that the responses are published as a matter of urgency by

    119
    placing them in the Library? Will she undertake that there will be time for the Home Office to consider them properly and, possibly, to respond to them—accepting the good ones and giving some public argument about why it rejects the poor ones, a bit like the way in which Select Committee reports are responded to?
    Finally, does the Minister accept that we have not yet heard a good argument for changing the present rule under which previous convictions are not normally before a court because such evidence would prejudice a trial? Will the Government ensure that no such proposal is made unless there is a much better argument for changing the law than anyone has heard so far?
    Yvette Cooper: I will certainly engage in further discussions about the responses that we have received—many from individual magistrates replying to letters we have sent them giving details. On previous convictions, the hon. Gentleman will know what was said in the White Paper. The Home Office has been leading a series of consultations and discussions with a range of stakeholders and will report to the House in due course.

  PRIVY COUNCIL
  The President of the Council was asked—
  PRIVY COUNCIL

    Modernisation
    Helen Jackson: To ask the President of the Council what plans he has to implement reforms of the sittings of the House. [73618]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The Select Committee on Modernisation recommended that the House sit at 11.30 am on Tuesdays and Wednesdays so that questions, statements and opening speeches could take place earlier in the day and there would be a better opportunity to set the agenda on public debate. The Committee's report will be debated in the House next week, and I look forward to receiving my hon. Friend's support then.
    Helen Jackson: I am one of those Labour Members who are immensely proud that it was this Government who established the Modernisation Committee and are driving forward a programme for change not just for our own convenience, but for the better working of Parliament and better linking of Parliament with the public. Would it not be a pity if, despite their natural inclinations, Conservative Members who might be inclined to support our modernisation agenda were prevented from doing so next Tuesday?
    Mr. Cook: I entirely agree that sitting hours should be changed not for the convenience of Members, but to enable us to do a better job on behalf of Parliament and to enable this place to be more objective. At present we take ministerial statements at 4 pm. They constitute major announcements of Government policy. No Member on either side of the House would voluntarily plan a press conference to take place at 4 pm, which in itself is a case for our meeting earlier.
    120
    The other issue raised by my hon. Friend is more a matter for the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I recall that on Thursday, when I asked him whether there would be a free vote on sitting hours for Conservative Members, he nodded.
    Mr. Eric Forth indicated assent.
    Mr. Cook: He has now done so again. Regrettably, however, Hansard has problems recording a nod, so it would be helpful if the right hon. Gentleman put his assent on the record from the Dispatch Box today.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: Is it the President's understanding that should we decide, sensibly, to revert to a more intelligent method of dealing with our business at a more intelligent time of day—that was the arrangement at many times in the past— the earliest that the BBC could broadcast our proceedings would be January, because otherwise Prime Minister's Question Time would appear in the middle of children's programmes? Some Members would think that entirely appropriate; but can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that if the House votes for these important and useful changes they can be in place by the new year, at least?
    Mr. Cook: I am happy to give that assurance. It is important that those substantial changes, if we vote for them on Tuesday, should be introduced properly. I understand that the Table Office does not feel confident about handling the shortening of the period of notice for oral questions, which we will also discuss on Tuesday, before January. I think it right for us to introduce that at a time when it can be dealt with competently.
    As for the earlier sittings, the hon. Gentleman is right. The BBC has assured us that it can accommodate Prime Minister's Question Time at noon from January, and I therefore propose that we sit earlier from January. I personally believe that that will not just assist the BBC, but will be of wider assistance in ensuring that the media have no excuse for not reporting what goes on in Parliament.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Assuming that the House approves the reforms next week, as I sincerely hope will be the case, can my right hon. Friend explain what implications his proposals on the carry-over of Bills will have for private Members' Bills, possibly giving them more time to get through?
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes a large assumption about the House agreeing to the proposals. The House will agree to them only if those who support them turn out and vote for them on Tuesday, and that would be my message to those who wish them well. On the question of carry-over, perhaps I should clarify that we are proposing carry-over only for Government legislation, not for private Members' Bills, for which there is a separate specific allocation within our Standing Orders. On the issue of principle, I have never understood why we have a sudden death for every Bill at the end of each Session. We are elected for a four-year Parliament, so it seems quite wrong—[Interruption.] Perhaps I have given away a secret and I should retract that. We are elected

    121
    for a potential five-year Parliament, so I have never understood why we then carve it up into one-year lumps. If we want to carry out a better job of scrutinising legislation, we need more time and we will get more time only if we escape from the sessional straitjacket.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the President of the Council accept that we are elected here to serve our constituents and not the media? Will he tell the House how many people responded to the survey that he conducted during the recent recess and what percentage of those Members were not seduced by his proposals for these ridiculous new hours?
    Mr. Cook: Of course we are here to serve our constituents. Certainly many of my constituents think that we are rather odd and eccentric when we sit here until 10 o'clock and occasionally until midnight, whereas we could be working normal, reasonable hours. Of course, our constituents know about us through the media and it is therefore perfectly proper that we should operate in a way that enables us to communicate with them.
    On the survey, I am pleased to say that five sixths of the House responded. I shall be sharing the figures with the Select Committee when we meet tomorrow, but in the meantime I can inform the House that there is a narrow majority in favour of change. Whether that narrow majority succeeds on Tuesday depends entirely on whether those who support change turn up to vote for change.

    Modernisation
    Fiona Mactaggart: To ask the President of the Council what plans he has to make proposals to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on the experimental seating arrangements in Westminster Hall. [73619]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): The Modernisation Committee recommended in its recent report that Westminster Hall be made permanent, but made no recommendations on the seating arrangements. My right hon. Friend has no plans to propose a change to the current seating arrangements, but he is aware that my hon. Friend preferred the original layout.
    Fiona Mactaggart: I am very disappointed by that reply, as I feel that Parliament has been perhaps inadvertently misled on this matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] When the original seating arrangement was changed, we were informed that it was an experiment, just as the original seating arrangement had been. I would have expected some assessment of the preferred outcome of the experiment. May I therefore urge the Minister to ensure that such an assessment is conducted if the Modernisation Committee's recommendation that Westminster Hall sittings be put on a permanent basis is pursued?
    Mr. Bradshaw: Just because the arrangement for sittings in Westminster Hall is to be put on a permanent basis, it does not mean to say that the configuration of the seating is being made permanent. My hon. Friend is
    122
    absolutely right that the current configuration, although it is continuing, is still experimental and she is as free as any other hon. Member to make representations to the Modernisation Committee. However, I would say to her that, as things stand at the moment, she is the only hon. Member who has expressed that view.
    Michael Fabricant: The Minister will confirm, I am sure, that the original design of the semicircular seating based on the Assemblée Nationale was to try to bring a spirit of co-operation between the parties. Has it worked?
    Mr. Bradshaw: The hon. Member knows that the original configuration was changed because a number of hon. Members, including those who chair meetings in Westminster Hall, complained that it sometimes made it extremely difficult to identify hon. Members who wanted to speak when large crowds of the public were coming in and out. I am not aware that the change to the configuration that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) is not so fond of has resulted in a less consensual atmosphere in Westminster Hall, but if I am wrong I am happy to hear from hon. Members that that is the case.

    Written Questions
    Mr. Ben Chapman: To ask the President of the Council if he will make a statement on plans to allow hon. Members to table written questions during the recess. [73620]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): If the House agrees to a parliamentary calendar without a three-month summer recess, there will be less need for questions to be tabled and answered during the recess. The Government and the House authorities have already co-operated this year to ensure that questions tabled shortly before the House rose for the summer were answered during the recess.
    Mr. Chapman: If one effect of the modernisation proposals is to shorten the period in which we are not permitted to ask questions, to that extent I welcome them. I accept that, hitherto, it has been axiomatic that the House needs to be sitting for us to ask questions, but I wonder whether that is necessarily always so in relation to written questions. In recesses, Departments remain Departments and continue to function, and Ministers remain Ministers. Is it possible to find some mechanism whereby we can ask written questions, at least, when Parliament is in recess? Writing letters does not have the same effect as asking parliamentary questions. Could the Minister consider at least a weekly bulletin of questions during recesses that could be tabled and answered?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I shall certainly take away my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I ask him to acknowledge that the Government have made significant improvements in the way that the system operates. As he himself says,

    123
    Members are still free to write letters to Ministers during the recess, and it is expected that those Ministers will reply within 15 working days.
    Mr. Eric Forth: Has the Minister read the report of the House of Commons Procedure Committee on parliamentary questions? As he will agree, it has a majority of Government Members, as have all Committees. In particular, has he read paragraph 101, which states:
    "We…recommend that with effect from 1 September each year, Members should be permitted to table written questions. We recommend this change should be made irrespective of whether the Government's proposals for September sittings of the House are adopted"?
    The view of the Procedure Committee is perfectly plain. It has looked at this matter on our behalf and has recommended very strongly that there should not be a blanket ban on the asking of questions throughout the summer recess, whatever its length might be. Why is the Minister apparently ignorant of the contents of that report, and if he is not ignorant of them, will he please tell us that he is going to do something about it?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I am not ignorant of what is in the report, which I have read, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman will be pleasantly surprised when he sees the Government's official response to it tomorrow. However, it is also within the Government's prerogative not to accept all the recommendations of a report from a Committee such as the Procedure Committee. For the reasons that I have already given, we believe that the most sensible way forward is for the House to approve the changes in respect of September sittings, so that we can halve the time during which Members are unable to table questions.

    Modernisation
    Andrew Mackinlay: To ask the President of the Council what proposals he plans to put
    124
    to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on improving the system of Select Committees. [73621]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The House debated the report of the Modernisation Committee on Select Committees in May, when it agreed to a large number of its recommendations, including increased specialist staff, better administrative support and a clear focus on core tasks. It is rather early to revisit the topic so soon, but I am always willing to listen to proposals for improvement.
    Andrew Mackinlay: After 10 years of serving on Select Committees, may I point out to the President of the Council that—too frequently, unfortunately—some witnesses approach the process with insufficient candour, and that there is often much ambiguity? That is true across the spectrum of witnesses. Is it not time that we introduced automatic use of the oath, so that a person tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Even if I cannot persuade my right hon. Friend on this issue, could the attention of every witness at least be drawn to the Sessional Orders that we pass—to the sound, wrongly, of much laughter—at the beginning of each Parliament? They state that anybody giving false evidence before a Committee will be dealt with with the utmost severity. It is time that we made people focus on this issue rather like a hanging, so that they concentrate on what they must do: show frankness and candour before Parliament.
    Mr. Cook: I cannot say that I come to the Dispatch Box as a supporter of capital punishment, but I congratulate my hon. Friend on his many years of service on Select Committees, some of which—in fact, rather too many—overlapped with my period as the relevant Minister. Of course, it is important that witnesses tell the truth and the whole truth, and there may be merit in routinely making the Sessional Order available to witnesses so that they are aware of the gravity of the occasion in which they are participating. However, I would hesitate to involve lawyers any more than we have to and would deprecate a situation in which any witness came with a solicitor just in case they ended up committing a criminal offence.

Firefighters' Dispute
3.30 pm
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the fire service pay dispute.
I am sure that hon. Members on both sides would agree that firefighters do a magnificent job. We greatly appreciate the contribution that they and staff in the other emergency services make to public protection. They are rightly held in high regard for their professionalism and dedication. As a previous Transport Secretary, I have visited some terrible scenes of disaster and one cannot but admire what the firefighters do.
Fire service pay is the responsibility of their employers, the local fire authorities, and the Fire Brigades Union. The negotiating process started earlier this year and the FBU lodged its claim on 28 May. It demanded a 40 per cent., no-strings-attached pay increase for firefighters, a 50 per cent. increase for control room staff and a review of the 1978 formula that governed their wages.
That formula has done a good job over the years. Since 1997, firefighters' pay has increased by 20 per cent. Over the same period, pay for police and teachers has increased by 19 per cent. I assume that is why only two years ago the general secretary of the FBU, Andy Gilchrist, said:
"Our wages remain ahead of other essential public sector workers precisely because we have maintained the formula".
The old formula solved the last pay dispute and has kept industrial peace for 25 years. I am sure that the House welcomes that.
The employers responded to the FBU's claim by indicating that any significant pay increase had to be matched by modernisation. But little progress was made in negotiations over the summer because the FBU refused to consider the employers' modernisation proposals. I want to be particularly clear on one point about the negotiations over the summer: at no point did the Government intervene in the negotiating process. Sir Jeremy Beecham, the leader of the Local Government Association, has made that clear on numerous occasions. I made it absolutely clear that we had played no part in the negotiations when I met Andy Gilchrist on 8 August. He accepted the Government's position, but made it clear that the FBU wanted a 40 per cent. increase and no inquiry.
On 2 September, the employers offered the FBU a 4 per cent. increase, plus an agreement to establish a new formula that would link increases in firefighters' pay to increases in the economy in general. The employers also invited the FBU to join them in asking for an independent review to be established. They also gave an undertaking that any increase in pay agreed by the review would be backdated to the 7 November pay settlement date. By any standards that was a reasonable offer. Nonetheless, the FBU rejected it.
It became clear that there was no prospect of a solution being found through the normal negotiating process. The employers made it clear that the negotiations had broken down, and requested a Government review. In those circumstances, the House
126
will recognise that the Government could not stand aside. Fire disputes are different from most disputes. People's lives are put at risk and the Government have a responsibility to secure people's safety. So we acted quickly and decisively.
On 5 September, just three days after negotiations broke down—and after consultations—we set up an independent review. All sides, including the Fire Brigades Union, were asked for their input on the terms of reference. We secured the services of Professor Sir George Bain to conduct the review. Sir George is widely respected and has enormous experience of industrial relations. He is a former principal of the London business school and a member of the ACAS panel of arbitrators. He was also the chair of the Low Pay Commission. The TUC and the employers nominated one member each to support him. The TUC nominated Sir Tony Young and the employers nominated Sir Michael Lyons. That is an exceptional team to conduct an inquiry, and it is certainly independent. It is a team with the right expertise and the right background to provide a fair and balanced assessment of the way ahead.
Every relevant body, with the exception of the FBU, has submitted evidence to the review. The review is making excellent progress and will produce a report by mid-December, yet still the FBU refuses to take part in the review, and it has announced a programme of strikes covering 36 days before Christmas.
The FBU will not even suspend its industrial action until the review has reported. That is despite an offer from the employers to extend the mandate period in which the FBU strike ballot result is valid for another four weeks. If the FBU accepted that offer, it could take action without another ballot if, having seen the Bain report, it still felt that that was necessary. So industrial action is completely unnecessary and unjustified. The FBU's position is simply indefensible.
I turn now to the plans that the Government have put in place to secure public safety in the event of industrial action by the FBU. Following the FBU's claim and the initial response by the employers, the Government undertook prudent planning on the basis of the FBU's threat to initiate a national strike.
The fire service is a large and complex operation. It involves some 47,000 firefighters in England and Wales, and more than 3,000 appliances operating from 1,600 fire stations. Our focus has been on taking what steps we can to safeguard life and, as far as possible, to protect property where the normal fire cover is not available.
Detailed planning began in August and training started on 28 August, before the pay negotiations had broken down. The plans are based on support from the armed services, and the acceptance by the police of additional responsibilities during industrial action.
There are three main elements to the plans. First, on the assumption that the fire control centres will not be operating during the strike, arrangements are being made for fire service 999 calls to be redirected. Every call will be answered.
Secondly, emergency cover will be provided by a range of appliances staffed by crews from the Army, RAF and Navy. Nationwide, there will be 827 Green Goddesses, which will be able to provide a basic

127
firefighting capability. There will also be 331 specialist breathing apparatus rescue teams and 59 rescue equipment support teams that will offer specialist skills.
Thirdly, on Friday, immediately after the FBU's announcement of its programme of strikes, the Government made available basic safety guidance and information to the public and to business. That is being supplemented by a range of other measures such as a public information campaign on radio and television, a mail drop to some 4 million households and a letter to the 15,000 largest businesses giving specific advice on fire safety and general health and safety issues.
I can assure the House that the contingency arrangements are now in place. If the FBU goes ahead with its strike on Tuesday 29 October, the military and police, assisted by those firefighters and fire officers who choose to continue to work, will be in a position to provide a basic emergency service. Members of the public should continue to call 999 in case of emergency, and each call will receive a response. However, the military will not be able to respond to emergency calls as quickly as the normal fire service.
The emergency crews will have fewer specialised capabilities than the normal fire service, and they are likely to be unfamiliar with the incident site and the local geography. In this situation, I have messages for the public, business and the FBU.
I urge the public to take sensible precautions in their homes to prevent a fire occurring in the first place. To managers, safety representatives and others in industry and commerce, my message is to work on the basis that normal activities will continue during the strike. However, the single most important step is to check that all existing fire safety provisions are in place and fully effective. My message to the FBU is, "Think again."
Despite the wide range of measures that we have put in place, there is no doubt that the risk of loss of life and property will be higher when FBU members are refusing to work. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions therefore met Andy Gilchrist yesterday to urge him to clarify the extent to which the union would continue to provide a response to life-threatening incidents, whether house fires, major transport incidents or terrorist attacks. Mr. Gilchrist agreed to consider this with his executive tomorrow and to let the Government have a quick response. I hope that that response will be constructive.
We face a very serious situation. The House can be assured that I will, at every opportunity, keep it fully informed.
David Davis: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for that statement and for prior sight of it. I agree with him that we cannot but admire the work that firefighters do. However, I am also glad that he joins me in condemning, without reservation, the strikes planned by the Fire Brigades Union in pursuit of its unsustainable 40 per cent. claim. I hope that he will also agree with me that after more than 20 years of modernisation of the British economy and British industrial relations, now is not the time to plunge back into the dark days of the 1970s, when trade union bosses held the country to ransom and the picket line called the shots.
128
Britain is living in the 21st century, yet we stand today on the verge of the first national firefighters' strike since 1977. The threatened Fire Brigades Union strike is a matter of serious national importance that puts lives at risk. Against the background of a significant terrorist threat, the start of the strikes coincides with one of the busiest times of the year for the fire and ambulance services, when bonfire night and Diwali take place. The extreme gravity of the situation transcends normal political debate. Nevertheless, its very seriousness demands that the answers to a number of specific questions are put on the record.
Last night, a leader of the Fire Brigades Union made it clear on "Newsnight" that it would be "just not possible" to maintain current levels of public safety as a result of strike action, irrespective of any arrangements they come to. I think that the Deputy Prime Minister effectively confirmed that point. What are the emergency plans in the event of a major incident, and is the Deputy Prime Minister satisfied with the safety levels associated with them?
We have known for some months that the strike has been likely. Given that, why is it not possible to enable military personnel to have access to the best equipment for preserving public safety without having to cross picket lines on a daily basis? Is this an issue about crossing picket lines, as the Minister for Local Government and the Regions claimed yesterday, or is it merely one of practicalities, as Downing street claimed this morning? Is the Deputy Prime Minister making any arrangements to ensure proper training and access to modern equipment in the event that the strike unfortunately lasts longer than expected?
It has been reported in the press that a number of other unions will refuse to operate transport and other facilities—for example, the London underground—on the basis of safety. Clearly, nobody wants any unnecessary risks taken, but neither should this be used as an excuse for what would otherwise be illegal secondary action. This could cripple a series of vital industries from the railways to power stations, from chemical plants to oil refineries. That is unacceptable. Who will take the final decisions on safety? Will it be the Health and Safety Executive, senior fire officers or the Deputy Prime Minister? If it is the right hon. Gentleman, on whose advice will he act?
Has the Deputy Prime Minister discussed with the fire authorities where the liability lies for fatalities and destruction arising from failure to provide full cover? What is the situation regarding household and other insurance fire cover? Is there a danger that people's household policies will be invalidated and, if so, what will he do about it? The Minister for Local Government and the Regions knows that I gave advance notice of that question.
The Bain inquiry is not expected to report until nearly Christmas. Throughout its deliberations, the public will be at risk, and there are likely to be fatalities. That is unacceptable. In 1972, the Wilberforce inquiry, meeting night and day, came to a conclusion in eight days flat and allowed the rapid resolution of a bitter national dispute. Will the Deputy Prime Minister make the resources available to ensure that Professor Bain's inquiry comes to an equally rapid conclusion, to allow early resolution of this very serious dispute?

129
Finally, given the Deputy Prime Minister's assertion that the Government did not intervene, the other outstanding question is how we got into this dangerous situation and the Government's role in it. I should like the Deputy Prime Minister to confirm or deny whether the account that I have been given is correct. We have been told that the employers' organisation was committed to making an offer on or before 9 July this year. However, on 3 July, at a meeting ahead of the LGA conference in Bournemouth, the Deputy Prime Minister told a number of Labour LGA members and officials that he intended to set up an independent inquiry in the immediate future, and that any settlement above the rate of inflation would not be funded by central Government.
As a result of that intervention, the employers failed to meet their commitment to make an offer by 9 July. The Fire Brigades Union discovered the proposal for an independent inquiry and lobbied Ministers and Labour Members of Parliament throughout July, culminating in a meeting, without officials, between the Deputy Prime Minister and Mr. Gilchrist in early August.
As a result, the inquiry was not called until 5 September. Had it been called in early July, the result would be available now and we would not face an impending threat to public safety. Can the Deputy Prime Minister corroborate that version of events? If so, does he accept his personal responsibility for the crisis that the country is facing today? All summer, that problem has been brewing, and all summer the Government have sat on their hands. A few frantic days of activity do not make up for a summer of neglect.
The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman's last statement about the circumstances of events is totally untrue. As he was not in the country at the time, and facing his own difficulties, he will not know.
As for the wage settlement, most public authority wage negotiation settlements have been at least twice the level of inflation—that is a gain that those workers have made under this Government, not under the previous Administration—so it would be most unusual for me to oppose that in regard to the FBU, if I were actively involved. It would go against common sense and recorded history.
On whether I attempted to raise the matter on the day to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—I think that the meeting with the Local Government Association was in Bournemouth—I was there to make a speech. I did not interfere in any way with the firefighters' negotiations. It is true that we have been asked from time to time whether we would fund more than the 4 per cent. that was being offered. We put the ball back with the employers, telling them that it was for them to make a judgment on the wage negotiations. I gave the same advice in the local authority negotiations, which were taking place at the same time and had also reached a difficult situation—I think that they settled for something like 7.9 per cent. over two years. In neither case did I actively interfere with the negotiations; they were settled between the employers and the employees.
The FBU general secretary raised the matter with me on only one occasion. I had a discussion with him in my office, one to one, in August—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]
130
It is a matter of record. I have said so before. He asked me whether I had interfered in the negotiations, the point being that he had heard the rumour. I made it very clear that I had not and, to be fair to him, he accepted that and has since gone on record to make that precise point. I know that he is making a different point at the present time, but he has made conflicting statements on the formula. Two years ago, he thought that it was a very good formula. That does not seem to be his view at the moment. However, one can have different views and the right hon. Gentleman asked me to comment on the points that he made about that.
On whether the timetable for the inquiry could have been more rapid, when the general secretary saw me in mid-August he was complaining that the employers had not made any offer and that there was to be a meeting in September. It seemed ridiculous that the employers had not made any offer. We made it clear that they should make an offer to find out whether the firemen would accept it. That was done on 1 or 2 September, as I recall. The firefighters made it clear that they did not want an inquiry.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions asked the FBU general secretary whether he wanted to contribute to the terms of reference of the inquiry, even though he did not want to participate—this is another contradiction, but we have the letter here. He made it clear that he did not. We made that offer in writing—the letter is available if anyone wants to see it—and in telephone conversation. He chose not to reply. I understood his view, but in those circumstances I could set up an inquiry, about which there was a division, only after the negotiations had broken down, and they broke down only on 2 September, when the FBU rejected the local authorities' offer. In three days, I had established an independent inquiry and it had started its work.
As to when the inquiry will report, the timetable would be quicker if the FBU was actually co-operating. It believes that a new formula is required, so I presume that means that we should debate it rather than just accepting it. An inquiry is needed so that we can make a judgment. The employers have pointed out that if they are to pay more, they want some modernisation, so there is a dispute about whether modernisation should be tied to pay increases. We believe that the two are connected and that an independent study should consider them. The inquiry is due to report in the middle of December.
If the FBU now wants to give evidence to the inquiry, we could ask the chair to consider that and we might be able to hurry up the process. It is difficult for an independent chair, who is being attacked by the Fire Brigades Union for not knowing about the circumstances, to give them due and proper consideration in the inquiry, but that is what we have been doing.
The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) asked what we had been doing about insurance liability. We have had some discussions with the people involved and they are continuing. The situation is not yet fully satisfactory and I shall report to him when my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions has concluded those discussions.

131
In respect to safety, we cannot offer a service as good as that provided by the firefighting service. There is no doubt about that; we have never hidden that fact. Green Goddesses of that age cannot begin to provide the sophisticated service offered by modern fire machines. We accept that, but we will do all that we can to assist, as is right.
Some trade unions have pointed out that the situation is unsafe and cite health and safety legislation. That is fine, but that legislation, passed by the House, gave independence to the Health and Safety Executive to make objective judgments about safety. I take advice from the HSE, as the legislation requires, and the unions, too, should stand by its objective judgment and not make it an excuse to extend the strike.
Mr. Don Foster: I, too, thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement.
Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that in all his subsequent actions, the safety of the public will be of paramount importance? Does he acknowledge that, as much of the legislation relating to the fire service dates back to 1947, the Government could have taken action earlier to modernise the service?
We share the right hon. Gentleman's admiration for the work of our firefighters, but does he acknowledge that, even without changes in their terms and conditions of employment, they deserve a better deal? Does he acknowledge that the employers have already made an offer that is more than the rate of inflation and have agreed that they will backdate the recommendations of the Bain inquiry, subject to additional funds being made available by the Government? Will the Government give an assurance today that they will provide whatever funds are recommended by the Bain inquiry? If those assurances were given, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the strike would be unnecessary, counter-productive and life-threatening?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I think that the strike would be counter-productive and there is no doubt that it would be life-threatening. That is why we appeal to the trade union to take part in the inquiry. I recall disputes in which trade unions were actually fighting for an inquiry. In this case, an inquiry was guaranteed right from the beginning.
The hon. Gentleman rightly points out that there has been considerable modernisation in the fire service. If we compare the money given during the first five years of the Labour Government with the money given during the last five years of the previous Administration, we see that there is a considerable difference in the resources not only for local authorities but also for fire brigades.
The hon. Gentleman points out that firefighters need and want a better deal. Everyone has acknowledged that the present formula is not acceptable and says, "Let's discuss another formula." There has not been a strike in the fire service for 25 years and the House should welcome that as the contribution of a professional force that wants fair pay for its work in helping to keep the country safe. We all accept that.
The hon. Gentleman asks for Government assurances that we will accept the Bain report. The inquiry is independent, and it has to judge whether there should be
132
extra pay over and above the 4 per cent. that has been offered, which is twice the rate of inflation. However, if there is to be more than that amount, there would have to be modernisation and changes in working practices. That is why local government wanted the inquiry. If the inquiry comes up with a balanced picture—as is often the way in this country—it will, no doubt, along with whatever pay increases it recommends, make recommendations about modernisation and changes.
Now, do I have a guarantee that the FBU will say, "Okay; if that's the package, we'll take that package and we'll accept the modernisation"? As a Government, we cannot write a blank cheque to everything, but if a deal is dependent on both parties' accepting it, it is very difficult to say yes or no in those circumstances. We must wait. But we have given our evidence; the FBU should give its.
Ms Bridget Prentice: My right hon. Friend has said twice that Andy Gilchrist, general secretary of the FBU, was consulted about the terms of reference of the review. Can he explain to the House, if he knows, why Andy Gilchrist has not participated in the review, and say whether he gave any reasons as to why he would not respond on the terms of reference?
The Deputy Prime Minister: Having spoken personally to Andy Gilchrist in August, and read his statement since—I have no doubt that it is an honest statement—I know that he does not want pay of this form and his 40 per cent. claim to be connected in any way to any change in the organisation of the fire service. It is a straight position. We disagree with it as a Government, and so does local government in those circumstances
We did ask Andy Gilchrist whether he would take part in the inquiry. He said no, so we thought that he might be interested in the terms of reference. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions rang him and made it absolutely clear, as he also did in a letter dated 3 September, that we invited him to make a contribution to the terms of reference of the inquiry. I believe that Andy Gilchrist has since told people, including some Members of Parliament, that that was never so, but that letter and telephone call are on record; he just refused to play a part in it. It is all right for him to take that position if he wants to, but I regret it. I would still encourage him to play a part, because to find a settlement—a just settlement—requires both parties to the dispute to give evidence.
Mrs. Angela Browning: The evacuation of hospitals, hospices, residential and nursing homes is patently going to be very difficult. We hear that in the case of emergencies of a certain scale, the firemen will come in and operate the usual vehicles. Would such establishments fall within the category of those that the firemen would attend if a fire were reported?
The Deputy Prime Minister: That is precisely the question that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions was discussing with the general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union. The hon. Lady will recall that he had asked me, in the press, to pick up the telephone and put down the megaphone.

133
Most of the statements that we have had have been in the press. We did pick up the phone on Monday and dial four numbers in the office of the Fire Brigades Union. There was no one to answer them, but we eventually made contact.
When that offer was made, it was to discuss the very issues that the hon. Lady raised. We wanted to ask, on serious fire issues, whether the firefighters would play a part, make the vehicles available and attend. We have had the first meeting with Andy Gilchrist and asked him whether he would consider that. There is some consideration regarding the TUC formula on these matters and the agreements and the code of conduct that would operate in the essential public services. He has offered to put the matter to his executive and he will report back to us on Thursday.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: My right hon. Friend, like me, has been involved in a number of industrial skirmishes over the past 30 years. Some we have won and some we have lost, and his presence here today is partly due to what happened way back in 1966. All that I would say—I hope that my right hon. Friend will comment—is that in all those disputes there were statutory incomes policies; in this one there is not. Notwithstanding that, the Government may win a skirmish but they might lose in the long term. I suggest to him that although the union is refusing to do this, that and the other, somebody has to take command. In view of that, I think that it would be useful if the Bain inquiry were brought forward, because I was around when the Wilberforce inquiry settled a dispute in just over a week—it was a great victory. In these circumstances, it is important that the Government retain the high moral ground. Governments in the past have been stubborn and won in the beginning, but they can lose in the long term. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear these thoughts in mind.
The Deputy Prime Minister: That is important, and I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend says; we can recall the firemen's strike because we lived very close to one of the fire stations at that time.
At the end of the day, this is about social justice and whether we can arrive at a solution that all parties can live with, not necessarily totally agree with, but when there is such a different approach, we have to find an agreement, which is what inquiries are for. Of course how long the inquiries take depends on how people co-operate with them. I have been involved with a number of inquiries. In the seamen's strike, it took three months to come to a conclusion, but there was an interim report.
What is happening in this case is that the inquiry is being conducted, but it is taking evidence from only one source. I can only appeal to my hon. Friend to appeal to those in the Fire Brigades Union and ask them why they do not give evidence. The miners did so with regard to the Wilberforce inquiry. What is wrong with that? Someone's case either stands up, or it does not. What is different now is that the lives of our citizens are involved in this situation; it encompasses every one of us, and we must do whatever we can to get people to the negotiating table and to get a fair settlement that is accepted by all parties.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman will understand that most of
134
us think that this impending strike is dangerous and wrong and should be stoutly resisted. Given that, will he say whether he is planning to allow the armed services to train on and use modern fire fighting equipment, which is the property of the nation, not of the Fire Brigades Union? Will he also tell the House whether he might be minded to introduce legislation to prohibit the withdrawal of emergency cover, thus giving statutory reflection to the TUC guidelines?
The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman always has a legal solution to everything, but that does not always satisfy industrial situations. With regard to access to the vehicles, we must readily accept that it takes three months to train people to use them. I ask him to consider what judgments Governments have to make.
Should we have started three-months training in the middle of the negotiations and told the firemen, "Well, we are going to get ready because you are going on strike"; or should we encourage people to reach an agreement? There are difficult judgments to be made. Should we go to fire stations, saying, "Give us six of your machines. We want to practise on them in the next three months to get ready for you guys when you come out"? I ask hon. Members to make practical judgments about that. [Interruption.] I admit that these are not lawyers' points, but they are about the reality of industrial relations. In the circumstances, we should say, "Right, we need to get an agreement with you." That is what we are doing, and we have to make a balanced judgment.
Let us bear in mind that the current industrial relations situation is that the Fire Brigades Union has proposed to strike for two days, then two days and then eight days. Let us hope that will not happen, but there is a period when they will be using those machines at work. So would it not be better for them to have their machines to operate for the community, so that they are not damaged by unskilled workers who may not be sufficiently trained to deal with them, and nothing else happens that might inflame the situation?
Governments have to make a judgment, and we are accountable to the House. At the moment, what we have done is the best way to find a solution, and that is where we are focused. Let me make it clear that no one should doubt the Government's commitment to secure the safety of our citizens, and we will do everything to ensure that that is achieved.
Mr. Colin Challen: May I remind my right hon. Friend that, a couple of months ago in west Yorkshire, a fire tender was called to assist a man who had suffered from a heart attack? That is just one example of the new burdens that are placed on the fire service, showing why it has to be multi-skilled. For that reason, I would support a genuinely independent review, but would it be better if both sides of the dispute did not make statements about what they expected to come out of the review? One side is saying that it must have a certain percentage figure and the other side is saying that there must not be a certain percentage figure. It seems that the independent review will be bound, and it will not have the respect of the general public if both sides to the dispute try to tie its hands in advance.
The Deputy Prime Minister: There is a lot of sense in that, but it is an inevitable part of disputes that people

135
will arrive at figures, one of which will be at one end of the dispute and one at the other, and an independent review is the way to deal with those circumstances.
My hon. Friend is perhaps referring to whether the Government should say whether a 40 per cent. increase is affordable, but I have to tell him that £450 million is quite a hefty bill, which Governments cannot ignore. Since I have been in this job, local authorities have settled for something like 7.9 per cent. over two years. If £450 million were to come out of the local authority budget, the money would basically be coming from other people's wages and conditions. I must take that into account. I have not made the judgment; I have allowed a committee to make an independent assessment.
My hon. Friend made a good point when he referred to the fire service attending a heart case. The service now is more of an emergency service than a fire service. It does a great deal of tremendous work and it needs proper equipment. Under our rules there is the absurdity that certain equipment that is needed for the work that the service undertakes is denied to it even though in some instances it does not act as a fire service. There is a need for modernisation. The service needs change. We should provide the necessary resources. We are asking that these considerations should be recognised all together. That is fair and that is right.
Sir Patrick Cormack: As public safety is rightly the right hon. Gentleman's prime concern, will he do two things? First, will he give clear guidance to those in my constituency and elsewhere who are planning bonfire night parties? Will he urge them to be as cautious as possible? If necessary, will he tell them to delay these parties? Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman rethink his answer to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and give members of our highly trained armed forces whose own lives will be put at risk when using Green Goddesses, some of which are 50 years old, some access to modern equipment?
The Deputy Prime Minister: The House will be sympathetic to concerns about injuries, and sometimes deaths, that occur on 5 November, in or out of an industrial dispute. The timing of the dispute is to have one weekend on strike and the other weekend on strike, it being felt that 5 November is bonfire night. Anyone with any experience knows that there are bonfires during the weekend before bonfire night, the weekend after it and possibly during the weekends leading up to it. I have already talked to local authorities. In some instances they organise municipal bonfires, and I have asked that they make an appeal that perhaps fewer bonfires take place during the weekends to which I have referred, and that municipal bonfires should be attended in the circumstances. We should not get into a controversy about fireworks, because there are strong feelings in the House about that issue. It is a difficult and sensitive time and we will again be appealing to those involved not to take the actions that are being talked about, and to take the chance of co-operating with the inquiry.
Kali Mountford: At the risk of repeating what others have said, I say to my right hon.
136
Friend that public services turn to public harm when a set of public servants, such as firefighters, take such actions. Is it not time they took cognisance of the TUC guidelines to which they signed up, and provided the cover that we would like to see provided? Should not we in turn ensure that the review completes its work early so that we can all be sure that there will be an end to the dispute?
The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The TUC code of conduct, to which she referred, came about immediately after the dispute in 1977. It was designed to deal with public services and essential services. It was agreed to by the Fire Brigades Union and the TUC. I know that the executive is meeting tomorrow, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions discussed this with Andy Gilchrist when he met him yesterday. Consideration is being given to these points.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Deputy Prime Minister says that the Government have not interfered in this matter, but it is clear that they have. I shall ask two brief questions. First, when he met Andy Gilchrist on 8 August, did he mention the question of an independent review? Secondly, given that there was interference at that stage, why did it take so long, from 8 August to 1 September, for the Government to ask employers to make an offer, which subsequently was made two days later?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I understand the misunderstanding about dates and local authority negotiations. When I met Andy Gilchrist, I was surprised when he made the point strongly to me. I thought that the negotiations had broken down on 8 August. He said, "No, we have not been made an offer." That seemed rather silly. When I talked to the local authority negotiators, I asked them, "Is it true that you have not made a final offer? The FBU says that negotiations have not broken down because it has not even been given an offer." The local authority negotiators said, "Right. On 2 September we'll put on the table what we are offering and the union can say yes or no", which it did. I think that that was right in the circumstances. It was a bit unusual that no one asked that an offer should be put on the table, with both parties going around saying that negotiations had broken down. I thought that the part I played was common sense.
As for whether I asked Andy Gilchrist whether he would co-operate with an inquiry, the local authorities had already made it clear in negotiations that they would go further than 4 per cent. and alter the formula if the firefighters were prepared to co-operate with an inquiry into the modernisation of the fire service. Their view was that there had been many reviews of the fire service, the money had been taken, but little had been done about modernisation; they felt that there should be an independent assessment. I thought that there was a lot of sense in that and encouraged the union to accept an inquiry, but the general secretary made it absolutely clear that he did not want an inquiry—he believed that the union had co-operated in modernisation before and that that was not the issue. He said, "Give me the 40 per cent. or the 50 per cent." and

137
suggested nothing else. I did not push him on that, because I was not involved in negotiations. All I wanted to know was whether he would play a part in an inquiry. to which he answered, "No."
Claire Ward: What discussions have been held with the Retained Firefighters Union, what assessment has been made of the number of retained firefighters who have expressed a wish to work during the strikes, and what modern appliances might they be able to crew?
The Deputy Prime Minister: We readily acknowledge that, although a comparatively small part of the service, retained firefighters provide an excellent service in the areas in which they operate. They have taken the view that they are perfectly prepared to go to an inquiry and give evidence and that they do not want to take part in the industrial dispute. It is their right to do that and they have told the FBU that. They will have the same facilities as they have at the moment and, presumably, they will provide service even during the periods of industrial dispute. That is their decision.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the fire safety problem would be far more serious if British industry and commerce managed their fire safety arrangements with the same incompetence as the House of Commons? Is he aware that after 25 months Portcullis House still does not have a fire certificate, and that this morning the fire alarm was activated and the fire doors closed, but owing to a fault the evacuation signal was not given, so no one was evacuated? Will he tell everyone involved in British industry and commerce—and the House of Commons—that the best thing they can do to prepare is to review their fire safety arrangements and make sure they work more effectively than the House of Commons' current arrangements?
The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I appealed to industry and all parties who might be affected by the dispute to do precisely that. As for conditions in the House of Commons, I am glad to say that that is nothing to do with me. No doubt my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will take the hon. Gentleman's comments into account.
Alan Simpson: The Deputy Prime Minister certainly does not need to take any lectures on trade union rights from Opposition Members. He will remember the days when he was accused of leading
"a tightly knit group of politically motivated men",
when all he was doing was negotiating properly on behalf of his members. In current circumstances, it is difficult to know with whom the FBU should negotiate. Given that negotiations have broken down, is there not a case for intervention by the Prime Minister to accelerate the Bain report and to summon both employers and trade unions to continuous negotiations, so that we can prevent lives and public services being put at risk in an entirely avoidable dispute?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I have some sympathy with that point, but my hon. Friend must remember that
138
the two parties disagree fundamentally on what might conclude the dispute. I have taken the opportunity to provide for an independent inquiry. As for his historical reference to me, at that time I was fighting for an inquiry; the firefighters have got one right away.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: The deputy chief fire officer in Buckinghamshire has rightly been concerned for some time about large warehouses used by the retail industry because they pose such problems for firefighters that, even in normal times, operational pre-planning is required. Has the Deputy Prime Minister made specific arrangements to ensure that the armed forces are fully trained to deal with that extremely hazardous type of warehouse fire? If not, and if no lives are threatened, will warehouses be left to burn?
The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Lady will understand that if there are two incidents, one in which lives are threatened and the other in which a building is simply burning down, the choice is clear. If two machines are not available to tackle both incidents, one goes where the greatest threat to human life is present. That is the rule that will apply, but the forces will be trained to deal with every type of eventuality that they may be called upon to tackle.
Mr. Michael Connarty: The Deputy Prime Minister may know that I represent the town of Grangemouth, which has the largest integrated chemical and petrochemical plant in the UK. Will any advice be given to the emergency planning teams as to whether such companies should consider rescheduling their production so that the threat, which has already caused two fires and a major explosion on that site in the past three or four years, may be avoided by management?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. I have a similar chemical complex in my own area. He will know that in negotiations with chemical companies, there are special rules and regulations about intensive cover inside the plant, but inevitably the plant is also dependent on outside help from the fire services. In that respect, I am sure that the emergency services will do what they can. but I say to the employers, and I hope that my hon. Friend will say the same to the employers in his chemical plant, that they should make sure that all their safety arrangements are up to scratch, and that they should do their utmost in these difficult circumstances.
Mr. David Laws: If the FBU calls off this dangerous strike, which it clearly should do, will the Deputy Prime Minister consider asking the independent review group to bring forward its recommendations?
The Deputy Prime Minister: The FBU has made it clear that it feels that the inquiry is not independent. It must make a proper assessment of controversial matters. That is what dictates the time. If we have a reply by December, I have said and I repeat that if only the FBU would co-operate, perhaps we could consider how the hon. Gentleman's suggestion could be achieved. The co-operation of both parties in giving evidence makes it

139
much easier for an inquiry to make its judgment. Unfortunately, it has been denied the co-operation of the FBU, so every assistance should be given to persuade the FBU to come and give evidence.
Mr. Mark Hendrick: Could my right hon. Friend reassure the House of the complete independence of the Bain inquiry?
The Deputy Prime Minister: Anyone who knows Sir George Bain knows that he is a man who makes recommendations and deals with inquiries without courting favour from Government. His recommendations on poverty pay and minimum pay are a good example of that. I trust him; his record is good. I also trust the people advising him.
Mr. Simon Burns: Has the Deputy Prime Minister any estimate of the proportion of retained firemen who will be expected to work if there is a strike? Also, have the Government any estimate of what proportion of incidents retained firemen will deal with, and what proportion the armed forces might deal with?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I will keep the matter under review. When I get any information, I will inform the House. It is a difficult issue. There is some dispute about the proportion of retained firefighters. The union says that it is organising for a particular number, and the other body says that it is organising for a different number. We do not know whether the retained firemen will heed the call to strike. It is difficult to make that judgment. As soon as I have any information about that, I will let the House and the hon. Gentleman know.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: There can be no doubt that our firefighters do a fabulous job on our behalf and deserve the highest of incomes that can be afforded by the Government. However, I fear that what they are asking for—a 40 per cent. increase in one go—is too much for any Government to contemplate. and they need to get realistic. During 1984, I was a member of the National Union of Mineworkers Yorkshire area executive committee, and we made provisions and gave dispensation to miners to make sure that safety work could be carried out underground and coal could be delivered to hospitals, old people's homes and so on, where it was needed. I cannot for the life of me see the ordinary firefighter sitting back when a disaster occurs in this country and not going to assist. We cannot say often enough that the Deputy Prime Minister must do all he can to ensure that if there is a disaster, firefighters go out there and do what they are best at.
The Deputy Prime Minister: In this House there is no doubt in anyone's mind that firemen feel strongly for their jobs and for safety. They are in that job because they like to do the job, and they are among the few groups of people who risk their lives to carry out their job. I am sure that it is a difficult decision for them to withdraw their labour, and they know that. The possibility of an inquiry was immediately granted so that they did not have to face that choice. I do not deny,
140
as I said earlier, that they may have to make the choice, but not before the settlement date, 7 November. Why can they not co-operate with the inquiry up to that date or until the report comes out? I appreciate that it is a dilemma.
I cannot ignore the fact that, on the 40 per cent. figure, in my meeting with the general secretary, I said, "Your demand is obviously £400 million" and he said, "No, it is £450 million." I asked him how the Government should pay for such an increase—a legitimate question for the Government to ask in such circumstances. He said that we had all had a consultants' report and that X amount could be saved in respect of damage by fire. He estimated the figure to be about £600 million and said that we could pay the settlement with that money. Unless the insurance companies have discovered a way of transferring dividends to the Government in order to meet a wage requirement, however, that does not seem a sensible way of dealing with the problem.
We have not made a decision about the matter and have left the independent inquiry to produce a balanced judgment about the pay to be awarded—we agree to having a different formula—and the modernisation that should accompany it.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have said that our constituents cannot expect from the Army the same sort of service as is offered by the fire service. Our constituents have paid money to the fire service for a service that they will not get. What message does the Deputy Prime Minister have for the insurance companies and what discussions have been conducted with them to make it clear that, even though our constituents are not getting the service that they should receive, they are expected to stand by their obligations?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. He can be sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I are constantly in discussions with parties that will be directly affected by the dispute. On the essential question about insurance payments, which is a general one, I am well aware of what happened in respect of floods, let alone an industrial situation. In those circumstances, the companies did not face up to their obligations. This is a constant problem, but it is not really associated with industrial disputes.
Mr. Chris Bryant: Is not the offer of an immediate 4 per cent. pay rise plus any enhancement that may be recommended by the Bain review a pretty good one? Has the Deputy Prime Minister received any explanation of why the FBU is not prepared to accept it?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I think that the general secretary is clear about that. First, he wants the money to be given now and he wants a new formula. We are agreed that he should have that formula, but presumably, we must discuss why the old one is no longer acceptable, even though until two years ago he thought that it was very good. Clearly, he does not hold the same view now. Secondly, he says he does not want any settlement above 4 per cent. to be connected to modernisation. He makes it clear that he does not want any reorganisation or modernisation. He may be

141
rethinking that position—who knows? I hope that he does so and that he will give the reasons why he does not want modernisation. He may be fully justified in holding such a view, but in that case, he should put the evidence to the inquiry, so we can all make a judgment.
Mr. Steve Webb: Given that lives will almost certainly be lost if the strikes go ahead, do not the Government have a responsibility to ensure that any eventual settlement incorporates a no-strike deal so that we do not face the same situation again?
The Deputy Prime Minister: The House will recognise that, even with a full fire service, lives are lost. That is tragic and many fewer lives are lost because of the firemen who risk their lives daily. The fact that they came to a voluntary agreement on a formula that gave us 25 years of industrial peace seems good sense. If we can get such agreement again, I will take it.
Mr. Bill Tynan: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that, in a dispute of any kind, there are no winners or losers. Everyone is a loser in such circumstances. Does he also accept that the firefighters have expressed the view that the 1977 agreement is outdated and that, on that basis, the review would make a difference if it were implemented as soon as possible? Does he agree that, as a way of eliminating the bitterness that has tended to arise in the dispute, which will create an impossible situation in terms of reaching a settlement, we should be asking the general secretary of the FBU about an acceptable interim arrangement to ensure that no strike takes place in the next few days?
The Deputy Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions is meeting the general secretary, and also met him yesterday. He is talking to the executive about some of these matters and will report properly back to us so we can have some discussions. My hon. Friend is right to point out that the formula is no longer acceptable to the FBU. That has been accepted by the local authorities and by us, but if somebody wants a change in the formula, they have to come forward with some ideas that can be discussed in a proper review. It is difficult to comprehend the argument that the formula has produced poor pay for the fire brigade over the past 25 years.
One can argue that the pay is not good enough or that it should be more when compared with that of others, but two years ago, when the same Andy Gilchrist was general secretary, he said:
"Our wages remain ahead of other essential public sector workers precisely because we have maintained the formula".
He is entitled to change his mind, but he cannot claim that the formula failed for all those years.
By all means, let us discuss the formula, but we also discussed reorganisation for a modernised fire service that meets all the emergency needs, which require the courage, dedication and specialised skills of our fire people. We accepted that in principle, and Andy Gilchrist should sit down and negotiate the matter, as any trade union leader should.
Mr. Edward Garnier: I understand that if the retained fire service in Market Harborough
142
decides or has to stop working, the nearest Green Goddess cover will come from Corby, which is some miles away. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that in such circumstances, a Green Goddess is stationed in Market Harborough to cover that large rural area?
When the fire authorities get rid of their modern fire machines after several years, may I suggest that they are taken into Government ownership to replace Green Goddesses? It is ludicrous that we continue to rely on such elderly machines.
The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Gentleman makes a fair point and raises a proper concern. We do not know whether retained firemen are likely to operate during an industrial dispute. Many said that they would, and there would not therefore be a problem. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman properly said that matters are more difficult if Green Goddesses have to provide cover. We shall review the position from time to time and consider his interesting suggestion about old appliances.
Ms Joan Walley: First, I want to put on record my appreciation of the work of the Staffordshire fire service and the Staffordshire FBU in my constituency.
We are all losers in the current circumstances, and it is vital that we resolve the impasse. Will my right hon. Friend consider trying to find an informal channel of communication so that the review that we support can take place before we have to deal with members of the public whose loved ones are lost because of the strike? Will he search for an informal way of getting people back around the table?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I promised earlier that we would do whatever we could to help prevent the dispute. We have offered an inquiry, but there are many other methods, through connections and formal and informal discussions. The Government have not set their face against that. We have made our position clear. We are properly worried about safety and we have taken appropriate measures to deal with it. However, if there is good will on all sides in such a dispute, agreement can be reached.
I am sure that firemen in many stations throughout the country have made it clear that they support the dispute. They are dissatisfied. I say to them that that has registered with us, but we ask them to acknowledge that it is right for us to negotiate on such matters and reach a fair settlement. If they cannot trust us as a Government, they should rely on the Bain inquiry as an independent method of solving matters. That has been the British way for a long time. It served us well in the past and it will do so in future.
David Burnside: Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that there is great support and sympathy for firefighters? That has always been the case in this country. They are perceived as decent, providing an essential service and doing a good job. After 11 September and the performance of the firefighters in New York, the service has become one of the most admired in the world.
Do we not need a more fundamental review of what constitutes an essential service in the wider industrial relations framework? There is a price to pay for such

143
services. If we pay a high enough price, does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that we should consider the possibility of an industrial relations framework that removed the right to strike?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I am not sure, especially in Northern Ireland, whether one can proceed if all parties do not agree. The democratic method of dealing with such a problem is trying to get all parties to agree. I am not sure that making strikes illegal is a satisfactory way to achieve consensus in the community. There is much evidence for that. The recent programme about Orgreave reminded us of the possible consequences of such action. In a democratic system, we try to achieve a balance and find agreement between all the parties.
The available evidence shows that we manage to get our industrial relations right in this country. Few days are lost through strikes when compared with other countries. That is a credit to those who are actively involved. I prefer democratic accountability and consensus to simply imposing something on a community. The latter is not the democratic way.
Mr. Andrew Miller: In recent letters from a couple of firemen, the inquiry has been described as a sham. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) rightly drew parallels with the Wilberforce review, which worked at the time for the people he represented. Will my right hon. Friend use this opportunity to make it absolutely clear to the firefighters and to all the people out there in the country that there is no sham here, and that there is an open, honest offer from the Government to have an inquiry undertaken that has, as it were, parallels with the Wilberforce situation? This is an honest offer from the Government and it is important that the firefighters receive that message loud and clear today.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I hope that the House will believe that I would not appoint an inquiry if it was made up of people who were not independent of mind. I ask Members to judge the record and background of the people involved. To be fair, there have been very few inquiries in this country, under any Administration, that people have not found to be fair, in their judgment. That does not mean that we agree with their conclusions—whether it be Wilberforce or the inquiry relating to the seafarers' strike—but if they produce an honest judgment arrived at by trying to find consensus for an agreement, that is what is important.
144
In this case, however, the Fire Brigades Union has not given a fair chance for the inquiry to be independent in that sense. It has given no evidence to it. The incident in which the general secretary of the union went to a private reception and talked to one of the inquiry members as someone within the trade union movement, then released details of that personal conversation to the press saying that the inquiry was fixed, does not make it look as though he wants to co-operate with the inquiry. He has a political position; he does not want to do that. I think that he is wrong. I hope that we can appeal to him to co-operate, but the judgment at the end of the day—this will be as true of this inquiry as of any other—will depend on whether it was a fair inquiry into all the circumstances. Whether it will be a proper one, producing an independent judgment, will be conditional on all parties putting their case. If one party does not do so, there is a great danger that a proper judgment cannot be made.
That is the view of the Fire Brigades Union, and I say to the firefighters and the people in the fire stations, "Look, what have you got to lose? Wait and see, and then you can make your judgment. Why subject us to a strike prior to the inquiry's findings coming out?" The date of the payment is 7 November. We are having a strike before that date, on which the old formula would have produced 4 per cent., which the firefighters are being given, with other factors involved. That is unreasonable, and the attitude of the union to the inquiry has to be seen against that background. I say to Andy Gilchrist: "Think again, Andy. Let your executives think again. Let us work it out. All the parties want consensus in this country, the inquiry will give us the forum, so think again and come into the inquiry."
Mr. Nigel Waterson: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that during the last dispute, emergency cover in Eastbourne was provided by the Royal Navy and the Parachute Regiment? Will he urgently reconsider his decision to deny modern equipment to our service men and women? After all, their lives will be put at risk every bit as much as those of the professional firefighters are now.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I would say to the hon. Gentleman that he would not want to put any of those service men and women into dangerous situations and expect them to use sophisticated equipment when they have not been properly trained to do so. That is the reality that we are faced with; that training takes three months. I have explained to the House why we made the judgments that we have. I think that they are the right judgments, and they are the ones for which we will be held accountable.

Points of Order
4.34 pm
Mr. David Lidington: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last Thursday, during questions to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I asked the Minister, at column 459, when the Government were planning to publish their new contingency plans on foot and mouth disease and respond to the various inquiry reports. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) replied that the Government were
"under way with the definitive strategy and contingency plan".
He continued:
"That involves a great deal of consultation and discussion. That is right and proper because we want to be open and transparent about this. We intend to bring forward the completed conclusions as quickly as possible and to encourage as much involvement and debate as possible."—[Official Report, 17 October 2002; Vol. 390, c. 459.]
Having heard the Minister's reassurances about openness and transparency, I was somewhat startled to see in The Times newspaper this morning a detailed account of what that newspaper described as the
"draft report from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, seen by The Times, that is its"—
the Department's—
"response to the two official inquiry reports into the disease".
The newspaper went on to give details of policy proposals such as the use of vaccination and the imposition of duties on farmers to insure against disease, as well as other initiatives such as increased media training for veterinary surgeons and the creation of a dial-in message service called DEFRA Direct.
May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether in the few hours since I gave your office notice of my point of order you have been able to ascertain how information withheld from Parliament appears to have got into the possession of The Times? May I also ask whether you have had any
146
approach from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs wishing to come to the House and make a statement, either simply to express her shock and outrage at the fact that a newspaper should have been informed ahead of elected representatives of the British public or, even better, to give Parliament a full account of whatever the Government intend to propose?
Mr. Speaker: I have had no such approach from the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman has raised matters that are for a Minister to handle. What I will say is that if there was a leak I deplore that, and I certainly hope that the matter will be investigated.
Mr. Andrew Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State for Education and Skills misled a Select Committee—inadvertently, I am sure—about her promise to resign if literacy targets were not met.
During an Opposition Day debate on 2 March 1999, my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) asked
"Will the Minister commit herself to the Secretary of State's pledge to resign if the Government do not reach their literacy and numeracy targets by 2002?"
The right hon. Lady replied
"Of course I will; I have already done so."—[Official Report, 2 March 1999; Vol. 326, c. 948.]
When the right hon. Lady appeared before the Select Committee of which I am a member on 24 October last year, she was asked whether she would resign if her predecessor's targets were not met. She replied:
"No, and I never said I would."
Would it be appropriate for her to appear either before the House or before the Select Committee to put the record straight, and to take the action that she promised?
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Select Committee and the Secretary of State, not a matter for the Speaker.

National Nutrition
4.38 pm
Ms Oona King: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the establishment of a national nutrition strategy; to provide development funding for Primary Care Trusts to address the issue of diet and obesity; to establish a minimum requirement for physical activity in schools; to develop a system of food labelling to enable consumers to identify high-fat foods and total calorie content; and to make it a requirement for health warnings to be displayed on all packaged convenience food with a high-fat or sugar content.
The arguments for a Government-backed nutritional strategy centre on three facts: the scale of the problem of obesity among adults and children, the health and economic consequences of obesity, and the fact that although obesity—like smoking—is portrayed as an issue of personal choice and action, the Government are in a position to make the healthy choice the easy choice for all our citizens.
The scale of the problem is alarming and growing. The latest figures quoted by the British Heart Foundation show that 46 per cent. of men and 32 per cent. of women are overweight. Moreover, 17 per cent. of men and 21 per cent. of women are obese. One in five six-year-olds in England is overweight, and one in 10 is obese. One in three 15-year-olds is overweight and the figure for obesity is nearly one in five. In the last decade the percentage of overweight children in the United Kingdom has virtually doubled. The worrying fact is that overweight children are more likely to become overweight adults with reduced life expectancy. Some health professionals are saying that if the trends continue there is a risk that a generation of parents will outlive their obese children. Worse, those from deprived families are most at risk, so social inequalities are involved. People in low socio-economic groups or with manual occupations are more likely to be overweight. Those who are south Asian or from other ethnic minority groups are also more likely to be overweight.
The health and economic consequences of poor nutrition are grave. Obesity is a risk factor for diseases and conditions such as high blood pressure, raised blood cholesterol and non-insulin-dependent diabetes. Poor diet and inactive lifestyles are thought to account for about 30 per cent. of cardiovascular disease, which is the United Kingdom's largest single killer, and for a third of cancers. Doctors are now treating type 2 diabetes in children; until recently, it was regarded as a weight-related disease of old age.
According to the National Audit Office, the minimum economic burden to the health service from obesity amounts to £0.5 billion a year—around £2.5 billion a year if indirect costs are included. The international obesity taskforce estimates the cost of obesity in the UK at around 1.5 per cent. of health spend, so obesity is a burden in terms of individual illness, disability and early death as well as in terms of the costs to employers, taxpayers and society.
As a nation our eating habits are poor, yet food matters from cradle to grave. Beginning with the cradle, there is good evidence that babies are programmed during development in the womb to be susceptible to obesity and related chronic diseases later in life.
148
Breastfeeding reduces that risk, yet the UK has one of the worst rates of breastfeeding in Europe. Children are targeted commercially from pre-school onwards with high-energy-dense foods—foods and drinks that are high in fat and sugars. Sugar is the main cause of dental decay. Evidence shows deterioration in young children's dental health in areas of social deprivation and among ethnic minorities. Only 18 per cent. of children aged two to five eat fruit. Only 14 per cent. eat vegetables more than once a day and there is a long way to go until the majority eat five portions of fruit and vegetables every day.
Our couch-potato lifestyle is taking over. In England, 55 per cent. of boys and 39 per cent. of girls aged two to 15 are moderately active for at least one hour five or more days a week, but after the age of eight those rates decline sharply so that by the age of 15 fewer than one in five girls is active at that level. I recognise that many hon. Members may worry that they fall into those inactive categories, but I am sure that we all hope that more can be done to encourage greater physical activity in schools.
In 2001, the US Surgeon General said:
"Many people believe that dealing with overweight and obesity is a personal responsibility. To some degree they are right, but it is also a community responsibility."
Community responsibility includes the Government. I believe, as do the Government, that they have a responsibility to ensure that people throughout the UK have a choice of affordable, healthy food, accessible and clear information on the contents of food and access to simple, clear messages about what constitutes a healthy diet.
I therefore call for action along the lines of that taken in Finland. That was a whole-community approach whereby the food processing industry, farming, voluntary groups. health professionals and the media all contributed to Government strategy. There was monitoring and evaluation throughout, which allowed changes to be made as the programme developed. The result is that national vegetable consumption in Finland has trebled in 20 years; the Finnish diet, once so high in dairy fats, now has among the lowest fat contents in Europe, and after 20 years of action, premature deaths from coronary heart disease have been reduced by more than 50 per cent. That is something that the UK should emulate.
In the national health service, we need to ensure that the relevant national service framework for specific conditions such as coronary heart disease and diabetes address these issues and that national service frameworks for children bring together action to tackle obesity and overweight. Primary care trusts need to be funded to lead locally through their health improvement plans, and through practical grassroots work such as food co-operatives. We also need to monitor how national action such as the national fruit scheme works locally.
We need a comprehensible system of food labelling, and standards such as that proposed by the World Health Organisation, with bands of high, medium and low levels of fats and sugars. However, it has to be said that vested interest groups have systematically opposed that. We need to develop and implement a comprehensible system of food warnings on high-fat

149
and sugar-prepared foods. We need to protect children who are targeted in the marketing of high fat and sugar foods and drinks—from breakfast snacks and cereals, to confectionery. and takeaway and prepared meals. There is enough good evidence on this—from studies by Sustain: the alliance for better food and farming—in the form of the experience of Scandinavian countries, some of which have actually banned children's television advertising or the commercial sponsorship of children's television programmes.
Physical activity in schools is another area in which we must improve: a minimum requirement should be developed. Although the national curriculum provides for physical education, many children do not have adequate opportunities to be physically active because the school concerned has been allowed to disapply the national curriculum owing to a lack of facilities. That, unfortunately, is another legacy of the great playing field sell-off. The requirements of the national health school standard should be strengthened and monitored through Ofsted. We need transport and planning policies to encourage walking and cycling as everyday means of travel by children and adults.
I have touched only on some of the strategies that are required if we are to reduce the deaths to which I referred. I welcome the initiative announced by the Secretary of State for Health to set up children's trusts to bring together health and social care in local councils. This is an opportunity for joined-up government. It is an issue that we must take seriously, because the lives of future children depend on it. I want to ensure that we grasp this opportunity for joined-up government, and that we prevent obesity and poor nutrition from needlessly ruining and shortening lives.
Question put and agreed to
Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Oona King, Sandra Gidley, Siobhain McDonagh, Ms Julia Drown, Andy Burnham, Ms Debra Shipley, Geraint Davies, Dr. Jenny Tonge, Miss Anne Begg, James Purnell and Mr. Tom Clarke.

NATIONAL NUTRITION
Ms Oona King accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the establishment of a national nutrition strategy; to provide development funding for Primary Care Trusts to address the issue of diet and obesity; to establish a minimum requirement for physical activity in schools; to develop a system of food labelling to enable consumers to identify high-fat foods and total calorie content; and to make it a requirement for health warnings to be displayed on all packaged convenience food with a high-fat or sugar content: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Thursday 7 November, and to be printed [Bill 195]
Opposition Day
[UNALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Affordable Housing
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I should announce to the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.48 pm
  Mr. Don FosterI beg to move,
  That this House notes that the current crisis in affordable housing has reached such a level that there is a national need for more than 80,000 new affordable dwellings per annum for the next decade and beyond; regrets the failure of the present Government to take earlier action while welcoming additional funding for that housing announced in the Spending Review 2002 and recent measures to tackle homelessness; and believes that urgent action is needed better to link local and regional planning and housing policies, to bring back into use empty properties, to increase the density of housing developments, to encourage local authorities to implement fully PPG3 and to reform the right to buy to prevent abuses of the system, while resisting the Conservative Opposition's proposals for its extension.
  Judging by the amendments to our motion, there appears to be a great deal of agreement about the existence of a crisis in affordable housing, and a recognition that in recent years, inadequate attention has been paid to it. Of course, we could get bogged down in a debate on the definition of "affordable housing", and I am well aware that some make a very strong case for the alternative definition of "social housing". However, I hope that we can avoid definitional arguments and address instead the crisis that undoubtedly exists, and which has been brewing for many years.
  Party manifestos of the past 50 years have promised action. It is interesting to note that the 1950 Labour party manifesto stated:
  "The demand for new homes is pressing. We must move forward until every family has its own separate home, and until every slum is gone."
  In 1966, the Conservative manifesto called for the following:
  "Increase council house building for slum clearance. Expand the work of housing associations, so as to provide more good homes, at reasonable prices."
  Dr. Julian Lewis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving way. While he is on the subject of manifestos, what has he to say about the Liberal Democrats' 2002 alternative Budget, which proposed the infliction of VAT of up to 7 per cent. on all new building? How would that help to increase the supply of affordable housing?
  Mr. Foster: I will answer that in full at some point, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind waiting until later in my speech. Various Labour and Conservative manifestos have contained many fine

  151
  words on the subject, but despite that the crisis is mounting. The Deputy Prime Minister honestly accepted that when he said:
  "We know the problems…We…recognise in the country and on both sides of this House that we have not done enough over the years. We need more homes where people want to live, near where they work, in the north and in the south, at a price that people can afford and in a way that protects our countryside."—[Official Report, 18 July 2002; Vol. 388, c. 442.]
  That is a clear admission that enough has not yet been done. Fine words in manifestos and on the Floor of the House have not led to sufficient action to prevent the problem.
  Mr. Andrew Love: As the hon. Gentleman is speaking about manifestos, I wonder whether the Liberal Democrat manifesto at the last election included a commitment to provide 80,000-plus new affordable dwellings, as suggested in the motion.
  Mr. Foster: The manifesto proposed a range of solutions for the crisis that I am describing. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall list several measures that were contained in the manifesto that would—I am sure he will agree—be sufficient to solve the problem. I hope that we will see much agreement across the Chamber tonight.
  What do the problems mean in real terms for real people? In Friday's Evening Standard, I read about Emily Hill, aged 27, who teaches at Forest Hill school in Lewisham, where the shortage of affordable housing is acute. She earns £21,000 a year and is unable to find an affordable home. Indeed, only six new affordable houses have been completed in Lewisham since January. As a result of Emily Hill's particular problem, she may have to leave London.
  The housing problem varies from one part of the country to another. Bath, for example, has increasing difficulty attracting so-called key workers. Applications for teaching jobs are falling dramatically, because potential applicants fear that they will not be able to find somewhere to live. An average home in Bath costs some £160,000, which is nine times the average starting salary for a teacher. Even a one-bedroom flat is likely to be beyond the means of a new teacher. We also have difficulty attracting nurses to our Royal United hospital. For a nurse, the average house price is 10 times his or her likely salary.
  With such house prices, rents have also become unaffordable for teachers, nurses and other young people and families. Before anyone suggests that the Government's key worker scheme will help, I should point out that funds for the scheme are such that only 10 teachers in my constituency are likely to benefit. I question the merits of a scheme that is likely to fuel house prices instead of helping the vast majority of key workers. Surely it would be better to use the funds in building more affordable homes.
  Mr. Gary Streeter: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech on what is a serious and important issue. Does he agree that it is of immense concern that the Government do not seem to have realised that the crisis in affordable
  152
  housing afflicts the west country as well as the south-east and London? Is not it a pity that the challenge fund money is not available to us in the south-west, but only to those in the south-east?
  Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Government seem to be myopic about the needs of the south-west in many respects. We are losing out in the area that the hon. Gentleman has described and it seems that we will continue to lose out in terms of local government funding and the provision of improved public transport facilities. He gives but one example of the Government's myopia in respect of the south-west.
  In the country as a whole, housing is in a significant mess. More than 80,000 statutory homeless households live in temporary accommodation—the highest figure ever—and 100,000 children become homeless every year. More than 500,000 households are overcrowded. More than 3 million people live in poor housing.
  It is no wonder, therefore, that Jon Rouse, the chief executive of the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, should have told the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Select Committee that we have "a housing crisis" on our hands. He is absolutely right
  The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) referred to the need for specific figures for affordable housing. He is right. Cambridge university's housing and planning research centre estimates that, to meet current and future needs, between 83,000 and 99,000 new affordable homes will be needed every year for the next decade, and well beyond.
  This year, the lowest number of new houses has been completed since 1924. There are far too few affordable homes—more than 80,000 are needed each year, but fewer than 20,000 will be added to the stock this year. Although some 10,000 additional properties have been acquired, converted or rented for affordable housing, even that means that there will be only 30,000 extra homes, compared with the need for well in excess of 80,000.
  Bob Spink: The hon. Gentleman is right to bring this matter to the House's attention. It is most important, especially for my constituents. Does he agree that it would be a good idea to extend the right to buy to certain categories of housing association members, provided that all the receipts went towards the building of new social housing? Would not that be a way to secure the extra social housing that is so badly needed?
  Mr. Foster: The simple answer to that question is no, it would not. I apologise for giving so many similar replies, but Conservative policy on right to buy is of great interest to the House, and I shall return to it in some detail later.
  Mr. James Gray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foster: Go on then.
  Mr. Gray: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is my near neighbour. [Interruption.] That was close. My mobile telephone nearly rang. I shall put it down.

  153
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the importance of building large numbers of new houses. How would Liberal Democrat Budget proposals to impose value added tax of 5 per cent. on new build affect that? Surely that would mean that there would be fewer houses, not more of them.
  Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman has a problem with his mobile, and with listening to the debate. Had he come into the Chamber slightly earlier, he might have heard us deal with that point. However, the good news is that I have promised to reply in detail to that point later.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foster: Of course.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has been generous in giving way. When he winds up his speech, will he also explain the Liberal Democrats' proposals on land value taxation, set out by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders)?
  Mr. Foster: Yes, I will. I shall cheat slightly and leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, so that he can give a full explanation a little later, but I want the House to be aware that I fully support the proposal.
  I have been trying to say for some time that the Government have made some progress, and I pay tribute to them for that. Indeed, the motion notes their recent measures to tackle homelessness and the increased funding made available for housing. I note that the spending review 2002 promises an extra £1.4 billion for housing capital investment by the year 2005–06.
  Additional resources are desperately needed. However, they alone will not solve the affordable homes crisis entirely. We have not yet had a definitive statement on how those additional funds are to be spent. It is difficult to know how much will be used to plug the affordable housing gap. We are conscious that some will go towards the important issues of tackling low demand in areas of the north and the midlands, while some will quite rightly be used to bring up to standard existing housing stock. Shelter estimates that what may remain of the total additional funds that will be available is still likely to lead to a shortfall of between 25,000 and 35,000 new affordable homes each year. Therefore, those additional funds will not, by themselves, end the crisis.
  We believe that a number of other initiatives are needed. First, we need to tackle the scourge of empty properties. It is a disgrace that with 200,000 homeless households in this country we have, and have had for far too long, some 750,000 empty properties. Every region has more empty properties than homeless households, and that is a national disgrace. Urgent action is needed to start bringing back more of those empty properties into use. To do so would make a significant impact on the crisis in affordable homes.
  For example, the southern regions of England have some 325,000 empty properties, more than 90,000 of which have been empty for more than12 months. If all those were brought back into use, they would constitute
  154
  two years' worth of the required supply of affordable housing in the southern regions. It is, of course, a well-known problem. Indeed, only last week, in answering a question from me, the Deputy Prime Minister said:
  "The point about empty homes is obvious".
  He also admitted:
  "we have not done anything about that."
  Sadly, he is right. Nothing has been done about the scandal of empty homes.
  Many steps could and should be taken. I said last week:
  "Is it not a disgrace that, if someone wants to build a four-bedroomed, double-garage, mock-Georgian house on a greenfield site, they pay no VAT, yet they have to pay full VAT at 17.5 per cent. to renovate empty properties? Should not VAT be equalised for both at 5 per cent?"
  In answer to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) about the implications of an increase in VAT for house building, the net effect of the measures that I have just described, by reducing for renovation and increasing for house building, would be zero. There would be no additional cost to the taxpayer and there would be increased opportunity to bring back many empty homes into use. Therefore, I was delighted when the Deputy Prime Minister, in an uncharacteristic display of generosity to the Liberal Democrats, said:
  "That sounds like quite a good policy."—[Official Report, 16 October 2002; Vol. 390, c. 300.]
  He went on to indicate that it might even come to fruition if only he could persuade the Chancellor. I hope that he does. However, other steps could also be taken.
  Dr. Brian Iddon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foster: I should like to make a little progress
  Local authorities could be given increased powers compulsorily to purchase houses that have remained empty for an unacceptable period. They should also be given powers to charge council tax on such homes. Their powers could be extended still further so that they have the same borrowing rights as housing associations. We should also introduce site value rating, a point on which my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay will elaborate, if he should happen to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Second homes are another problem, often remaining empty for far too long. Ending council tax relief on such properties, as we have long proposed, would encourage owners to make better use of them, perhaps renting them out when they would normally lie empty. The Government have promised to adopt this policy, but so far we have not heard when. It was expected to be included in the draft local government Bill, but it was not. I hope that we will hear from the Minister today precisely when the Government intend to introduce that Liberal Democrat policy. I hope that we may also hear her say that she is willing to go still further on second homes. In some sensitive parts of the country, the requirement for local authority planning consent for a change of use for a second home would be very welcome.
  We can make better use of empty properties and we could also make better use of land, and I do not mean any further encroachment into the green belt.
  Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell): Will the hon. Gentleman set out his views on the Government's plans

  155
  for substantial investment in affordable housing, which I believe were the centrepiece of the Deputy Prime Minister's proposals to the House earlier in the summer? Those would include substantial developments around Stansted airport and Milton Keynes. for example. Does he support that policy?
  Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman has heard me say on a number of occasions that the central determination of housing provision is not a sensible way forward. We have long argued that, within a regional framework and regional guidance, local authorities should make such determinations. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for me to pass judgment on the rights and wrongs of a particular housing measure. I hope that I have already indicated, however, that the additional investment from the Government, which is very welcome, will be insufficient to meet all the affordable housing needs and that other measures, such as those that I have proposed and others that I will mention, are vitally necessary.
  It should be possible to meet the need for affordable housing without reneging on the 60 per cent. target for building on brownfield sites. Indeed, it should be possible to increase that target to somewhere in the region of 75 per cent. There can be little argument about the fact that land supply is restricting house provision. We continue to waste land throughout the country because of the density of housing developments. The figures for 2000–01 show an average density of housing of around 25 dwellings per hectare. We have not moved forward for a number of reasons—largely, inertia and resistance to change on the part of local authorities and developers and a reluctance on the part of the Government regional offices to intervene to enforce national planning policy guidance. If the sites developed for housing in the past year had been developed at an average density of 40 dwellings per hectare—midway in the unambitious minimum range set out in PPG— 60 per cent. more housing could have been provided on exactly the same amount of land. The waste of land is a serious issue and it affects the entire country, not only the pressurised south-east.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman has come up with an inconsistency. On centralised Government targets, he said that decisions should be taken at a local level, dictated by the local regional assembly via its regional spatial strategy; on the other hand, he wants central Government to intervene on density through the regional assemblies. He cannot have it both ways. Either central Government are going to intervene through the regional assemblies, or they are not. Which is it?
  Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman should have read the wording of the motion and listened to what I said. I spoke of the need to encourage local authorities to accept guidance. I did not suggest that the policies should be imposed.
  Mr. Streeter: Send them flowers.
  Mr. Foster: Sending flowers might help some local authorities, but probably not those that are Liberal-Democrat controlled
  156
  I would pursue the argument about the importance of the revisions to PPG3 with the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). I am well aware that his party and mine accepted that the Government's revisions to that policy were very welcome. We have argued that, where possible, local authorities should adopt those recommendations. The sad truth is that the Government are not doing enough to encourage local councils to adopt them. For example, we know from research that about 37 per cent. of councils have not bothered to update their figures for available brownfield sites. We also know that, sadly, many local authorities have not done enough, or what is recommended in PPG3, to link their planning policies more carefully with their housing policies. Much more work needs to be done to encourage local authorities—not to force them—to accept the recommendations.
  Mr. Adrian Flook: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foster: No, I want to make some progress.
  There would be widespread agreement that more work needs to be done. I also suspect that there would be agreement as to the need for the privately rented sector to play a greater role in meeting the need for affordable housing. I note that the Conservatives' amendment refers to that point, although they might not agree with some of the measures that we think should be introduced to assist in increasing that role—for example, the use of tax credits to encourage landlords to provide accommodation at sub-market rents.
  However, the hon. Member for Cotswold and I might agree that we can see no way at all in which the latest announcements about revisions to housing benefit can help. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) has pointed out, the Government seem to believe that there is a world in which those on housing benefit are happy tenants, surveying a wide range of quality affordable accommodation with the opportunity to sit down with landlords to discuss the rent over a mug of coffee. That is certainly not the world in which I and many of my constituents live.
  Much help could also be given to enable the private sector to work with others. There are many useful self-help and part self-build schemes throughout the country that need more encouragement. I draw the Minister's attention to the excellent habitat for humanity team, which is doing good work in Southwark with the private sector, the local authority and would-be tenants to develop and build affordable housing in the area.
  There will not be agreement, however, about the right to buy. I return to the question put by the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink). More than 1.5 million houses have been sold under the right-to-buy scheme since it was introduced in 1980, but the receipts have been wholly insufficient to replace the stock of affordable homes that were lost. In the current year, although 52,000 properties were sold, fewer than 20,000 new affordable homes were built. The Government are right to consider changes, not least to end some of the unacceptable exploitation that currently exists.
  Dr. Julian Lewi rose—
  Mr. Gray rose—
  Mr. Foster: I promise that I will give way in a moment.

  157
  The hon. Member for Cotswold referred to one practice as a scam. He said:
  "When a local authority has decided that a compulsory purchase order should be implemented, it is totally wrong for developers to be able to come along and make an instant profit"— [Official Report, Westminster Hall, 16 May 2002; Vol. 385, c. 355WH.]
  I entirely agree with him. He is right.
  Sadly, however, that is not the only scam. In this month's edition of London Housing magazine, Julian Blake describes another—a legal exploitation of the rules—which he claims involves about 20 companies in London alone. Those companies cash in on the discount of up to £38,000 offered to tenants exercising their right to buy and sidestep the laws on resale. A company offers cash incentives to tenants to buy under the right to buy, subject to the tenants signing an agreement immediately to vacate the property so that the company can rent it out. The tenants formally sell the house to the company only after the three-year period during which they would normally have to repay the discount. As a result of that scam, valuable homes are being snapped up for private gain at sub-market prices, with the permanent loss of valuable, affordable housing stock. That scam should end. It cannot go on. Rather than row back on the right to-buy scheme, however, the Conservatives want to extend it.
  Mr. Gray: There is no doubt that the type of scam described by the hon. Gentleman must be stamped out. However, does he agree that if he does away with the 60 or 70 per cent. discount under the right-to-buy scheme and replaces it with the 25 per cent. scheme proposed by the Liberal Democrats, it would make homes much less affordable? Secondly, does he recall the Liberal Democrat document entitled "A Home of Your Own", which stated that
  "we recognise the benefits that owning a home can bring. We would extend the right to buy rules that apply to housing associations to all…housing providers"?
  When did the Liberal Democrats change their view?
  Mr. Foster: We changed our view in the run up to the last general election and we changed it for the reasons that I have given—that increasingly we began to be concerned that in some sensitive areas of the country there were growing problems associated with the shortage of affordable housing. We changed it because we recognised that, under the rules introduced by the Conservative party, there was no possibility that the money released from the right-to-buy scheme would be sufficient to provide a one-for-one matching with a new affordable home. We also recognised that, in any further moves in that direction, such as those which the Conservatives are now proposing, there was no possibility whatever of a matching one-for-one proposal. I therefore believe—
  Mr. Paul Tyler: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Foster: I hope that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) will acknowledge—
  Bob Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foster: No. I shall just finish answering the question.
  158
  I hope that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire will acknowledge that anyone who is sensible, having reviewed how a policy has worked and its implications and effects, would be prepared to change their mind. [HON. MEMBERS: "Wrong."] Sadly, that is what the Conservative party is not prepared to do. It is very interesting—[Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire will listen, because both the leader of the Conservative party and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), at their recent party conference, announced their so-called "new" right-to-buy policy. The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "We will give more than a million Housing Association tenants the same rights as council tenants to their own homes".
  "New", for the Tories, is a very flexible word. Most of us would certainly not consider "new" a policy first announced in 1979, as it was in the Conservative manifesto at that time.
  Bob Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foster: No. I will not.
  But 1 million is also, for the Tories, a rather flexible number. They claim that 1 million people will benefit from their policy and yet—I hope that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire will correct me if I have got this wrong, but the figures are very clear—already 300,000 housing association tenants have the right to buy under the 1980 legislation, and 200,000 have the slightly different right to acquire under the 1996 legislation. So for the Tories, for new read old and for 1 million read 500,000.
  Mr. Tyler: Is my hon. Friend aware that under the Conservative rules, a further scam has taken place in areas of considerable housing shortage, whereby some properties have ended up, under the right to buy, as second homes? Is he also aware that that has exacerbated the situation in areas such as the south-west—Cornwall and Devon? Is he further aware that if the Conservative party's proposals were pursued, it would be central Government dictation to local authorities to do something that they know is completely mad in local circumstances?
  Mr. Foster: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. That is why, first, we have made the proposal—shortly, we hope, to be accepted by the Government—in relation to council tax subsidy, and secondly why we will continue to urge the Government to introduce the planning requirements at a local authority level for a change of use to a second home.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foster: No, I want to conclude. There is no doubt whatever—
  Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foster: No, I have said that I want to finish now

  159
  There is no doubt whatever that the Conservative party proposals to extend the right to buy are totally uncosted. It is clear that they will never, under their proposals, be able to help to solve the affordable housing crisis. We have a very significant crisis in affordable homes, and it is not just the homeless, the overcrowded, the poorly housed or the poorly paid who are losing out. We all lose out, because if key workers cannot find housing, the crucial public services on which we all depend will collapse.
  Everyone deserves a decent home; it is a scandal that not everyone has one. Despite many fine words—[Interruption.]—although not from the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), not enough has been done. Now we must act.
  5.19 pm
  The Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women (Mrs. Barbara Roche): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes the additional funding for housing announced in the Spending Review 2002 and recent measures to tackle homelessness; and supports the action being taken better to link local and regional planning and housing policies, to bring back into use empty properties, to increase the density of housing developments, to encourage local authorities to implement fully PPG3 and to reform the right to buy to prevent abuses of the system while resisting the Conservative Opposition's proposals for its extension."
  Let me start on a note of consensus by saying that it is absolutely right that we are debating this important subject today. It is agreed in all parts of the House that this is one of the most vital issues confronting us, and it is good that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has raised it
  On 18 July, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made a statement in which he set out his aim of achieving a step change in the provision of
  "decent, affordable homes for people wherever they live"—[Official Report, 18 July 2002; Vol. 181, c. 438.]
  Our priority is to create sustainable communities and to provide decent homes for all. As the House knows very well, the problems differ in different parts of the country, and it will be very interesting to hear hon. Members' views, which will vary according to the parts of the country that they represent.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does the Minister agree that one of the problems facing the New Forest is that Whitehall-imposed rules prevent the district council from using its housing budget to build new homes? Instead. it has to renovate its existing housing stock. It cannot deploy its budget to secure more affordable homes. That might be appropriate for northern metropolitan councils that have long neglected their stock, but it is quite inappropriate for a beacon council in the south-east.
  Mrs. Roche: It is interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman say that—he would not have taken that line during the Conservative years. Let me make some progress, and I shall deal with some of those issues.
  160
  As we know, the solutions to the problem must involve policies, such as those for planning, transport, education, health and regeneration, but this is not just a question of bricks and mortar; we are talking about sustainable communities, yet there is no reference to them in the Liberal Democrat motion. The hon. Member for Bath congratulated us on some things, but he claimed that we had failed to take early action on affordable housing. If he examines our record, he will see that the truth is otherwise. For example, we have already made excellent progress towards delivering our commitment to ensure that every home in the social housing sector achieves decency standards by 2010, and I shall deal with that in a little more detail.
  Bob Spink: The hon. Lady will recall the joy in the country when the Government announced earlier this year that they would do away with families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation within 18 months.[Interruption.] I am genuinely trying to he helpful. Is she aware that about 36 families with children are in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in Castle Point? Will she explain the caveats that the Government have now entered into that policy? Will she urge her ministerial colleagues to ensure that they deliver on that much-needed policy?
  Mrs. Roche: The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. We are all worried about the problem of homeless families with children living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. That is why we have set the target. I assure him that I will deal with the problem in a little more detail, because it is so important. I certainly share his view of its importance as my constituency is in London, where the problem is particularly acute, but it also exists in other parts of the country.
  Ms Oona King: My hon. Friend has just touched on making affordable housing decent, but does she recall that the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble). who previously had responsibility for this issue, told the House that she would review the regulations governing overcrowding, many of which date back to 1935? Will the Minister assure us that that undertaking will be honoured, that the review will be conducted and that legislation will be introduced to bring the current rules into the 21st century?
  Mrs. Roche: I know of my hon. Friend's concerns, and I will look into the issue and write to her about it.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: The problem of bed-and-breakfast accommodation, the scale of which has trebled over the past four years, is a real concern to everyone. There is also the problem of rough sleepers. Either now or when the Minister responds to the debate, will she clarify an answer that she gave to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) about how many rough sleepers were living on the streets in London. She replied:
  "As far as we are aware, our information which includes street counts and client lists, suggests that there are no under 16s sleeping rough."

  161
  That does not sound correct. Will the hon. Lady consider that answer and, if necessary, give us a revised answer?
  Mrs. Roche: I remember the answer well. As the hon. Gentleman would expect. Ministers take their replies to questions extremely seriously. I took the answer to which he refers especially seriously. As far as we are aware, the information is accurate for that age group. It is based on the figures, especially street counts. When young people are found to be sleeping rough, the police and social services are alerted straight away. I know from my contact with the rough sleepers unit how seriously its members take these issues.
  When I refer to the rough sleepers unit, I am talking about admirable men and women who most nights of the year are on the streets of London speaking to people and trying to get them into proper accommodation. I have the greatest respect and admiration for them. I have seen the work that they do. The written answer sets out the best information that we have. If it alters in any way, I shall let the House know.
  Mr. Mike Hancock: Will the Minister give way?
  Jeremy Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend give way to someone on the Labour Benches?
  Mrs. Roche: How could I resist Islington? First, however, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock). When I have given way to my hon. Friend, I shall make some progress.
  Mr. Hancock: I am grateful to the Minister for showing her normal courtesy.
  So that we can follow the debate more closely and understand the Government's latest position on this important issue, will she give us their current definition of affordable housing and tell us who will be able to afford it?
  Mrs. Roche: I was going on to deal with that. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that what is affordable in Bath will be very different from what is affordable in Burnley, for example, or other places. The problem is different in London and the south-east. There are other areas of high demand where other issues arise. In the north, particularly, there are issues of abandonment. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said, it is extremely important that the House comes together to consider these issues seriously.
  Jeremy Corbyn: I am glad that my hon. Friend finds Islington irresistible.
  As my hon. Friend knows, I represent an area of enormous housing stress. There is a massive boom in prices and a terrible shortage of affordable accommodation. Is she prepared to have regard to local authorities such as Islington that are deliberately selling vacant street properties, land and existing council buildings to private developers? Islington is doing so partly to subsidise lower council taxes, but also to encourage estate transfer for refurbishment. Does my hon. Friend recognise that such a loss of
  162
  accommodation removes the dream of a family in a high-rise block with children of living in a house with a garden, which is something that we would all want?
  Mrs. Roche: My hon. Friend is a neighbouring constituency Member, so I am aware of his experience in these matters. It is worrying if homes that could be made available are being lost. It is clear that all local authorities in London and elsewhere have a tremendous responsibility.
  I was talking about what we have been doing so far, including the action that we have taken on decency standards. By 2005–06, we shall be spending £5.9 billion on housing compared with the planned spend of £1.5 billion in 1997–98. We will—
  Lynne Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
  Mrs. Roche: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to make a little progress
  We shall be setting out a comprehensive long-term programme of action that will meet the different needs of north and south. It will include a major boost for social housing and link policies on housing, planning, transport, education, health and regeneration. I know that we are enjoying a degree of consensus, but I have to say that such a programme is necessary because the Conservative Government did not do enough to meet the housing needs of the current generation, let alone future generations
  Half a million homes were repossessed between 1990 and 1997. In 1992 alone, more than 1 million households suffered negative equity. Between 1979 and 1997, mortgage rates averaged 11 per cent. Mortgage rates are now less than half the average under the Conservatives. There is still a great deal to do, but it is worth reminding ourselves of the background.
  Chris Grayling: The Minister reminds us of the record, but does she accept that, since 1997, compared with what happened under the Conservative Government, a dramatic reduction has occurred in the construction of affordable housing?
  Mrs. Roche: I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman can say that, given the amount of money that we have put into housing. We also inherited a £19 billion social housing repair backlog and a cut in investment in new affordable housing. In 1996 more than 2 million homes in the social housing sector were substandard.
  I will now take an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones), but then I must try to make progress.
  Lynne Jones: My hon. Friend is right to point out that the Labour Government have trebled investment in housing since 1997, but that was from an all-time low. A better comparison might be made with earlier years, in particular with spending under previous Labour Governments. She says that we are well on target to meet our aims on decent homes, but will that target be met at the current rate of progress? That has been called into question by researchers such as Christine Whitehead and Alan Holmans of Cambridge university.
  Mrs. Roche: As I said, we are on target in terms of decency standards in the social housing sector. I shall go into detail later.

  163
  It is because of all the years of neglect that the hon. Member for Bath can claim that 80,000 new affordable dwellings are needed every year, although it is right that we can talk about different numbers—
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister give way?
  Mrs. Roche: Yes, but for the last time and only because the hon. Gentleman is a Front Bencher.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the Minister-her generosity is great. She talks about all the years of regret—I mean neglect—but in 1980 we built 108,000 affordable social housing units, whereas last year a miserly 22,000 such units were built. Last year, the Government spent £637 million on affordable social housing, whereas in equivalent terms we spent £2.3 billion in 1992. How can she talk about "all the years of neglect"?
  Mrs. Roche: I thought that the hon. Gentleman got it right the first time—when he said "regret". It would be nice to hear a note of regret from the Conservatives. Let me remind them that, between 1992 and 1997, there was a year-on-year decrease in housing investment throughout the country. At the same time, local authorities were prevented from releasing capital receipts to repair council homes, and council rents more than doubled in real terms— [Interruption]It is no good the hon. Gentleman chuntering on. That is the truth, even though he would like to ignore it.
  Let me see whether I can return to some form of consensus—the House knows what a deeply caring, sharing and consensual person I am. The real questions facing us are how to get the right housing in the right places, and how to sustain communities that offer an attractive quality of life. Different regions and places have different priorities and need different solutions. That is why we believe that regional planning bodies are best placed to assess the need for open market and social housing in their regions. We need to strike the right balance, providing homes and protecting the countryside, and at the same time ensuring that communities thrive.
  The perspective of sustainable communities is extremely important. It is not simply a matter of how much housing, but how that housing contributes to mixed use and diverse communities. We cannot afford to waste land. as we used to do. I was pleased to hear the warm welcome that the hon. Member for Bath gave to the new PPG3.
  Siobhain McDonagh: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mrs. Roche: May I make a little progress?
  The new guidelines have introduced a curb on low-density housing in favour of high densities delivered through good design. We have met the target of 60 per cent. of development being built on brownfield land. I am pleased to see— [Interruption.] I am sure that the discussion is terribly interesting, but I assume that hon. Members have come to take part in the debate. I am
  164
  pleased to see that the new guidelines are starting to deliver, but the hon. Member for Bath was right to say that local authorities—and let us not forget developers—should do all they can to ensure that PPG3 is implemented.
  Siobhain McDonagh: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Does she agree that there is no point beseeching local authorities to use much of the land that they have, particularly brownfield sites, when they simply intend not to use such land and to keep it empty for years, as my local authority does in Merton? It is not just a question of money in London, especially south London. It is also a question of access to land. Large ex-industrial sites that will never be used for employment again are kept empty for years, by authorities such as mine, because they are unwilling to reconsider their planning policies. What could the Government do to encourage or force them to do so?
  Mrs. Roche: I will certainly take my hon. Friend's remarks into consideration. I know how serious the issue is. I was near her part of the world over the weekend, and I know that it is an important issue locally.
  People with reasonable expectations of participating in the open housing market simply cannot afford to do so, because house prices are rocketing. We know that young families on modest incomes cannot set up home because they cannot afford to rent. Homeless people are housed in unsatisfactory temporary accommodation. During the debate, I am sure that many hon. Members will raise the topic of the right to buy and its impact on the availability of affordable housing in London and the south-east.
  Let me make it clear that we have no plans to end or to extend the right-to-buy scheme. However, we are looking at what can be done to tackle abuses, and the effects of the scheme in housing crisis areas. The previous Government acted to help people who needed affordable homes in rural areas by restricting resales of right-to-buy homes. We will act to help people in urban areas who also need affordable homes, but we believe that proposals to extend the right to buy to all housing association tenants would lead to a greater shortage of affordable homes. We, unlike the Conservatives, want to increase supply, not reduce it.
  Andrew George: Will the Minister give way?
  Mrs. Roche: No, I must make progress.
  Our agenda for more housing that people can afford extends to helping our essential public servants, such as nurses and teachers, who in many parts of the country cannot afford a home on the open market. The starter home initiative aims to help 10,000 key workers, particularly teachers, police, nurses and other essential health workers, to buy their first homes within a reasonable travelling distance from their workplace in areas where the high cost of housing is undermining recruitment and retention. We are considering what further resources will be made available for key workers beyond March 2004, when the current starter home initiative finishes. We seek to extend and expand the provision of affordable housing and seek the closer

  165
  involvement of employers. We are also looking to work closely with registered social landlords in the high-pressure areas of London and the south who are capable of quick and efficient delivery of new stock.
  That is why we recently announced the establishment of a new challenge fund through the approved development programme. We are top-slicing up to £200 million of the ADP in 2003–04 to deliver more housing where it is most needed more quickly and more efficiently while maintaining good value for money.
  Mr. Streeter: Does the Minister accept that there is a crisis in access to affordable housing to buy in the seven counties of the south-west? Does she accept that the problem is not merely a London or south-east phenomenon? If so, why on earth is the challenge fund not also available to innovative schemes in the west country?
  Mrs. Roche: The fund is available in some areas where there is high demand, so some assistance has been made available. When all the results have come in, I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman has the available information. The challenge fund is a radical new approach that will encourage housing associations and developers to produce better affordable housing more quickly.
  At the beginning of my speech, I dealt with the problem of decency, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak referred. It is worth reminding ourselves of the figures. Some 1.6 million social rented homes were not of a decent standard in April 2001. We are on track to reduce that number by 500,000 by 1 April 2004. Of course, we should not forget that the problems with housing conditions also extend to the private sector. More than 4 million owner-occupied homes and more than 1 million homes in the private rental sector do not meet decency standards. That is why, following the spending review, we have a new objective to increase the number of vulnerable households living in private sector homes that have been brought up to decent standards.
  The hon. Member for Bath mentioned empty homes. I agree that the issue is of great concern and that we certainly have far too many such homes—currently, some 750,000. Although that represents 3.5 per cent. of the housing stock, the figure is still far too high. That is why we are working with local authorities and other partners, such as the Empty Homes Agency, to develop policies and strategies to bring more of the homes back into beneficial use. Last year, we introduced a tax allowance to encourage the bringing back into rental use of empty residential accommodation situated above commercial premises. We also reduced the rate of VAT applicable to the renovation of long-term empty homes.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Minister give way?
  Mrs. Roche: I must make progress.
  I recognise that we need to do more. That is why we are giving very careful consideration to the proposal made earlier this year by the Select Committee on Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions in its report on empty homes that local authorities be
  166
  given powers to take over the management of homes that have been empty for a long time and bring them back into housing use.
  The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South raised the important issue of homelessness, and it would be remiss of me not to deal with it in a debate of such importance. We certainly believe that improving the supply of affordable housing in the next few years will be critical to tackling homelessness in areas of higher demand. We must do more to provide settled housing solutions for homeless families if we are to avoid the long-term damage that life in unsatisfactory temporary accommodation can cause to parents and their children. Hon. Members in all parts of the House will have knowledge about that subject from our experience as local Members of Parliament.
  We must acknowledge that creating more accommodation in isolation will not tackle homelessness. To deal with homelessness more effectively, we must provide more than housing. We must also tackle the reasons for people's homelessness, such as debt, drug misuse, unemployment and domestic violence. That is central to the Government's approach to homelessness.
  Our approach is underpinned by the Homelessness Act 2002, and I was grateful for the welcome that it received. It requires all local authorities to set out the way in which they intend to tackle homelessness in their districts and to outline the resources that they expect to be available to deliver their policies. The deep-rooted problems of homelessness cannot be tackled overnight, but we are making an early start by dealing with one of its worst manifestations: families with children who are forced to live in bed and breakfast hotels. We are committed to working with local authorities. The hon. Member for—is it High Point?
  Bob Spink: Castle Point.
  Mrs. Roche: I must get my Essex constituencies right. The hon. Gentleman raised that matter. We are committed to working with local authorities to end the scandal by March 2004.
  We have strengthened the protection for vulnerable, homeless people through the Homelessness Act and the priority need order. Many charities and non-governmental organisations that work with homeless people have welcomed those measures.
  It is right to discuss other challenges. So far, we have considered those in the stronger housing markets, but we must not forget the weakest. In parts of some towns and cities in the north and the midlands, the bottom has fallen out of the housing market. In those places, we need to promote demand for housing as part of our wider regeneration measures.
  On 10 April, we announced that nine areas had been invited to work with the Government to establish pathfinder projects to tackle low demand where the problem was worst. The projects' aim is lasting solutions to turn around the worst-affected areas. Let me make it clear that tackling low demand and abandonment in parts of the north and the midlands does not simply mean knocking down homes. Although some properties need to be demolished because they are of a type that people simply do not want any more or in areas from

  167
  which people have moved away, that is not the end of the story. Other physical works will be completed, such as repairing decaying homes and improving the nearby environment. That will be done as part of a unified agenda to improve the area through better job prospects, schools and health care.
  As the Minister responsible for regeneration, I stress that one cannot deal with poor housing in isolation. The key to lasting change in the poorest neighbourhoods is, for example, reducing crime, improving access to good health care, attacking joblessness and improving educational achievements as well as dealing with poor housing. All those aspects must go together.
  The Government have a big agenda. If I may say so, that also applies to the House. We recognise the scale of the challenge. We have a long-term strategy, which acknowledges that the neglect of the past can be overcome only by investing in the future. We are working to fulfil housing need where demand is highest and to promote demand where housing markets are weakest.
  Our solutions will be tailored to fulfil the differing needs of our regions. However, overall, we must have a clear objective: more homes where people want to live, near where they want to work and at a price that they can afford. Housing is at the top of our agenda and we want a step change in our policies for building successful, thriving communities. In short, our aim is providing decent, affordable homes for people wherever they live.
  5.49 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am pleased to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in such an important debate. I am grateful to Liberal Democrat Members for enabling the House to discuss the subject. The lack of affordable housing constitutes a major crisis that affects all parts of the country. The situation is urgent and serious, and is blighting the lives of millions of people.
  While we welcome the Government's decision finally to do something to help to resolve the crisis, it is the Conservatives' contention that the Government are doing too little to solve the problem and that some of their proposals may well turn out to be counter-productive. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) may laugh, but I have some figures. She talks about the neglect of the Conservative years, but I have the figures. She knows perfectly well that 108,000 affordable housing units were built in 1980, compared with a miserly 22,000 last year. That causes many of her constituents misery because they cannot get a house.
  Glenda Jackson: Were not the large number of houses that the Conservative party now tries to claim as its own actually part of the previous Labour Government's long-term plan for the development of affordable housing? We simply have to look at what happened in London during the 18 years of Conservative misrule. When the Conservatives came to office in 1979, there were, on average, 17,000 properties
  168
  being built by local authorities in London. When we came into office in 1997, there was precisely one such property built in the whole of London.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Lady may live in the past of 30 years ago, but I prefer to live in the present, and to consider what the present Government intend to do. Those waiting for houses will be listening to this debate carefully to see what the Government intend to do to improve their situation.
  The lack of affordable housing hits the most vulnerable members of our society, and the number of priority homeless today stands at 102,650—up a staggering 11 per cent. in the last four years under the Labour Government. Crisis—it used to be called Crisis at Christmas—estimates that the number of hidden homeless could be as high as 400.000. The hon. Lady may not like that figure, but she had better listen to it carefully. If that is the correct figure, it is a scandal. It is the highest number of homeless people that this country has ever seen, and it is a disgrace that we should be in such a situation under a Labour Government.
  Mr. Adrian Sanders: The hon. Gentleman referred to the organisation that used to be known as Crisis at Christmas. Did it not change its name during the Conservative years from Crisis at Christmas to Crisis all the year round?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I honestly do not think that that point is worth replying to.
  Nearly 81,000 statutory homeless households live in temporary accommodation. We also have the scandal of the number of people living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation having trebled over the last four years. Even worse, the number of homeless children has increased by 11 per cent. in that time. If anyone does not have sympathy with children who are homeless, they ought to think again.
  The problem involves not only those who have lost their homes; the housing situation can also be very difficult for those who have a home. According to Shelter, 518,000 households are officially overcrowded, and more than 300,000 families with children live in overcrowded conditions. More than 3 million households live in poor housing. The Government must take serious steps to address the situation.
  As well as having a devastating effect on people's lives, the lack of affordable housing can also have a crippling effect on the local economy. If the labour force cannot find suitable affordable housing, it is likely to have to commute long distances. The Housing Foundation suggests that, in West Sussex, for example, there are more than 100 job vacancies at county hall. The foundation states:
  "The eventual consequences of such a situation are not pleasant to consider."
  The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate mentioned the situation in London. There, people in their late 20s on average earnings need a mortgage of eight and a half times their income to buy a home. That is why it is becoming very difficult for young people to buy a home in London, where the average house price is now estimated to be £205,000. London is undoubtedly suffering from a major shortage of new housing.

  169
  The number of households in the capital increased by more than 6 per cent. over the past four years to 184,000. For the first time, the number of new houses has dipped below the number of households being formed, and the number of houses being built in London in the last year for which figures are available was just 58,000.
  Chris Grayling: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I want to deal with rural housing, and then I will give way to my hon. Friend.
  It would be folly to suggest that the lack of affordable housing is an issue only in urban areas. If anything, the crisis is greater in rural areas. According to the Countryside Alliance. rural property prices are 15 per cent. above the national average. That means that local people on low wages cannot afford them. This is a real problem for young people who want to remain in our rural villages. Labour Members may well laugh. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) is laughing, but how would he like to be one of those young people who cannot afford to buy a house?
  Andrew George: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: No, I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) first, as I said I would.
  Chris Grayling: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government are presiding over a system that actually makes it more difficult to construct new affordable housing in the south-east? The Housing Corporation formulae no longer recognise the possibility that land values could be at the level that they are. My local housing association in Epsom, Rosebery, therefore cannot purchase land on which to build affordable housing because the Housing Corporation will not let it pay the market value for the land. The formulae do not allow it. Is not that an example of the Government presiding over a system that works against, rather than with, some of the most vulnerable people in our society?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I shall come to our proposals for the right to buy in a moment, and we shall need to look at the ratios in those proposals.
  Dr. Iddon: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the right to buy in connection with rural villages. Will he state whether the Conservative party would give access to all housing association properties in rural villages through the right to buy, just as it did with council housing? If so, I do not have much sympathy with his comments about the lack of affordable housing in rural constituencies.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful for that intervention, because it allows me to put on record that we are consulting on that matter, and I am certain that we will wish to retain the current exemption that exists for the right to acquire, namely that rural settlements of under 3,000 people are likely to be
  170
  exempt. We will consult on the number, but there will certainly be an exemption or a right to re-acquire in very small rural areas. I want to put that clearly on record.
  Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of affordable housing in rural areas. Does he regret the previous Conservative Administration's policy of providing a 50 per cent. council tax rebate to second homes in rural areas? That policy added to the inflationary impact of the purchase of second homes in such areas. This year, £200 million of taxpayers' money will be spent subsidising the second homes of the wealthy in areas where many thousands of rural folk cannot even afford their first home. Does he regret that, and would he support legislation to remove that council tax discount and make the money available to provide affordable housing in rural areas?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that lengthy intervention. I was one of the first Members to ask for local authorities to be given the discretion to charge full council tax for second and part-time homes. I fully support that policy today; it is in line with Conservative party policy to give local authorities in general more discretion to make decisions at local level.
  Ms Oona King: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I will give way to the hon. Lady because she is sensible.
  Ms King: I understand why the Conservative party has supported and introduced restrictions on the right to buy in rural areas. Please will he tell us why that is not applicable, so far as his party is concerned, to urban areas, where there is a desperate shortage of affordable housing as a result of the right to buy?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Lady tempts me. I will come to the right to buy later, and I will explain why we wish to pursue the policy that we have adopted.
  The crisis of homelessness in rural areas continues to escalate. Since 1997, the number has risen by 13 per cent. and increased at three times the rate of homelessness in urban areas. More than 17,000 rural households are unintentionally homeless and in priority need.
  Peter Bradley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: No, I want to make some progress, otherwise I will not allow my hon. Friends to contribute. If the hon. Gentleman wants to speak, he can try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  There is a drastic shortage of new houses. We are building the lowest number of houses since records began: 160,000 is the lowest number since 1927, excluding the war years. That has given rise to the current housing problems and high market values.
  What would the Conservatives do to address the problem of homelessness and build more affordable housing? First, we would ensure there was enough pump-priming to return brownfield land to use for building. That is critical, because it would stop

  171
  increasing amounts of our green belt from being swallowed up by concrete. For there is no doubt about it: if the proposals of the Government and the Deputy Prime Minister to build an extra 100,000 houses in the green belt are enacted, more and more of our green belt and green fields will be swallowed up, and once rural land is under concrete it is very difficult to get it back.
  The Government have done two things that have adversely affected the cleaning up of brownfield land. They abolished the derelict land reclamation grant, and they made a muddle of European gap funding. We think some pump-priming is essential to return brownfield land to a state in which developers will want to develop it. The director of the Environmental Industries Commission, Mervin Hyman, recently argued:
  "Cleaning up contaminated land is a key part of releasing brownfield sites for regeneration and relieving pressure on greenbelt and rural sites…Yet this vital work is being undermined by bad regulation."
  Peter Bradley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: No, I want to make some progress.
  As the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) suggested, we shall give careful consideration to the 753,000 houses that are empty. The Minister mentioned a tax allowance to return empty homes above shops to use. Perhaps she will tell us how effective it has been, and how many empty flats have been returned to use. It seems to us that, given the ratio of eight empty houses to one homeless person. there should be some scope to encourage, in particular, institutional landowners with a blanket policy of not letting flats above shops to consider doing so.
  In fact, we want to encourage more private sector investment in affordable homes, full stop. That may require us to examine the current tax arrangements, and to seek changes in housing law. At present, very little private sector investment goes into the residential sector in general, let alone the affordable sector.
  Mr. Hancock: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to stray too far from his point about pump-priming. He did not explain how the Conservatives would prime the pump. It is important for us to understand how they would overcome the present difficulties in returning brownfield sites to use.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Conservative party has been the most successful at urban regeneration. Members need only recall our schemes in the centre of Leeds, Glasgow and docklands. They need only recall how we managed to accumulate enough land to make developers want to redevelop it, and how we created the infrastructure to enable them to do so.
  Mr. Love: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I want to make progress.
  Let us examine the way in which the Liberal Democrats want to reform the housing sectors. It is interesting to look at some of their proposals, such as
  172
  the equalisation of tax on greenfield sites and renovation of houses. Do they really propose an additional 5 per cent. of value-added tax on houses in the green fields and green belts? In fact, they propose a 5 per cent. and a 7 per cent. rate. Even the lower rate, if imposed on a house with the average price of £153,000, would have a considerable effect. Are the Liberal Democrats really telling their constituents that they will add between £7,500 and £10,000 to the price of each new house? Have they costed their proposal, and established whether it will be tax-neutral? Have they taken into account the VAT sixth directive, which will not allow a zero rate on the renovation of houses and provides for a minimum of 5 per cent.?
  Mr. Don Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Having attacked the hon. Gentleman, I will allow him to explain what he is going to do.
  Mr. Foster: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is yes: we are well aware of the directive, and I hope he heard me when I said that we proposed an equalisation of the VAT.
  The hon. Gentleman can attack the details of our policy as much as he likes, but I wish we could hear some detail from him. He has said that he will pump-prime the return of derelict land to use, but has not told us how he will do it. He has said that he will return empty houses to use, but has not told us how he will do that either. Let us at least hear some decent policy proposals, so that we can attack them if we do not agree with them. We cannot do that if we do not know what they are.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I shall deal with our right-to-buy proposals in due course. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be interested to hear about them.
  Let me now turn to the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders). Not only would he impose VAT on all new houses, thus adding between £7,500 and £10,000 to the price—his constituents will be very interested in that proposal—but on 24 July he said:
  "I am talking about not a development land tax, but land value taxation. It was attempted in the 1920s but sadly, it was blocked for one simple reason: we did not then have a comprehensive land register".
  The hon. Gentleman continued, even more extraordinarily,
  "Such a tax would raise significant sums and could replace the uniform business rate altogether."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 24 July 2002; Vol. 389, c. 277WH.]
  The hon. Gentleman proposes to tax developers at a rate of about £50 billion. How does he expect any new houses to be built? He wants to put the price up, and tax the developers by a huge amount. He knows perfectly well that the uniform business rate affects all businesses, not just developers. Imposing such a huge tax just on developers is likely to wipe out the development business altogether.
  Mr. Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Once more, for the last time.
  Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman has answered the question in his own words. As he himself pointed out.

  173
  we propose that site value rating, or land value taxation, replace the uniform business rate. That would have huge benefits. It would solve a problem that he has still not said how he would solve, and return to use, for example, properties above shops.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I shall now move on to the Liberal Democrats' policy on the right to buy. Here we have an interesting conundrum. In a speech to a housing conference on 5 March 1996, the Liberal Democrats promised that they approved of the right to buy. In "A Home of Your Own", a policy paper produced in September 1996, they said:
  "we would extend the right to buy rules that apply to housing associations to all social housing providers".
  They then seem to have had amnesia, changing their minds entirely. A press release issued on 8 October 2002, quoting the hon. Member for Torbay, stated:
  "Liberal Democrats have recently opposed any extension of the Right to Buy".
  As usual, the Liberal Democrats performed a 180-degree about-turn.
  We think it inequitable that, while council-house tenants have a right to buy, the increasing number of housing association tenants, who have ceased to be secure tenants and become assured tenants, have no such right. We have therefore made a policy announcement that we will extend the right to buy from council to housing association tenants. We estimate, taking into account the 3.5 per cent. who applied during the first year of the right to buy council houses, that as many as 40,000 people might be able, and might wish, to buy their homes.
  Those who buy their homes are given a stake in them, and an interest in what is going on. They gain an interest in keeping their homes in good repair, and, above all, an interest in their communities.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I have got them all rising like sheep now. I think that the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) was first.
  Peter Bradley: The hon. Gentleman may be able to make a case for its not being equitable for housing association tenants to have no right to buy. It may well be that many would apply, and would enjoy the benefits of home ownership; but how would that contribute to increasing the amount of affordable housing available to people in housing need?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman should have been more patient, as I was just coming to that. However, I welcome his admission that people enjoy buying their own houses as it gives them a stake in their home and their community.
  Up to 40,000 people may wish to buy their houses, empowering themselves and their families. We estimate that for every two houses that are sold we will be able to build one more house. That means that we will be able to build 20,000 extra affordable units. As the Government are currently building 22,000 affordable
  174
  units being built, so it would be a win-win situation. At a time when the Deputy Prime Minister wants to restrict the right to buy, we want to extend it.
  Bob Spink: As my hon. Friend is doing so well, does he agree that if the 40,000 people who chose to buy their houses—thereby releasing 20,000 new houses on to the market for people who want social housing—were not allowed to buy their houses, they would never move on and release their houses; they would block them for ever and 20,000 people who wanted houses would be betrayed by the Liberal and Labour party policies?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend has made an important and potent point. Last year, only 3.6 per cent. of the affordable housing stock in London became available for re-letting. The average tenancy in affordable houses is getting longer. That is bound to happen. When house prices and rents increase, of course people want to stay longer in subsidised housing. We estimate that the average tenancy in the affordable housing sector is 20 years, so unless we encourage some release from those 1.5 million houses in the registered housing sector, there will never be any movement. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) is absolutely right. People on the waiting list at the bottom of the housing ladder will welcome a policy that involves building an extra 20,000 affordable units.
  Mr. David Drew: I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is my near neighbour, for giving way. I wonder how his proposals would affect parish and town councils. As we share a common boundary, he will realise that under the current planning regime, which is long overdue for change, it is difficult to get communities to allocate new land for social and affordable housing. If we also propose extending the right to buy, can the hon. Gentleman honestly, hand on heart, say that such a proposal would be attractive to those parish and town councils? I do not believe that it will be.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman is trying to trap me. I have already said that we propose some rural exemption or rural buy-back policies. We have to do that; he is right about that. He is my near neighbour and represents similar villages. If a village had only half a dozen affordable houses, one had been bought under the right to buy and the average tenancy is 20 years, that would mean that there would be no existing affordable units in a small village. Of course we have to treat those matters sensitively and we shall do so.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I will not give way again as I must conclude.
  The essence of the debate is simple. We have a crisis on our hands. The number of homeless people is rising at a huge rate. If the figures from Crisis are to be believed, there is a hidden figure of 400,000 homeless people—a record number. It is a scandal that there are so many homeless people. It is a scandal that so many people live in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. It is a scandal that we are not building more houses and it is a scandal that the Government are not building more

  175
  affordable housing. The Government are presiding over one of the worst declines in the housing situation and the Liberals are doing no better. All they want to do is tax everybody and everything that moves.
  The message is simple. The Liberals will tax the people; the Labour party will control the people; the Conservative party will set the people free.
  6.14 pm
  Margaret Moran: At one point this afternoon, most Labour Members could have left the Chamber, as the debate had descended into a fight as to who the official Opposition on this issue are. I was also rendered almost speechless by the outrageous comments made by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). I cannot believe that he can stand at the Dispatch Box, given the Tory legacy of two decades of asset-stripping of our national housing stock, a £19 billion backlog of disrepair, leaving homes empty and council tenants in appalling housing conditions, and the desperate slashing of the housing association development programme. During their two decades in office, funding for council housing was halved, the number of rough sleepers doubled and there were record numbers of homeless people and repossessions. My constituency of Luton was dubbed the capital of repossessions. Only now are families recovering from having their homes repossessed as a result of two desperate Tory decades.
  Week in, week out, in my constituency surgeries I see families who live eight to two bedrooms. They have no prospect of moving elsewhere because homes are being sold. Those sold under the right to buy have not been replaced and capital receipts cannot be used to replace them. I would have thought that Conservative Members would have the decency to apologise to my constituents, to the homeless and prospective homeless, and to families living in overcrowded accommodation up and down the country.
  Ms Oona King: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just the damage that right to buy has done in the past by allowing affordable homes to be sold off, but the damage that it is doing now? Although the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) recognised the need to ensure that right to buy does not continue to damage rural areas, the same must apply to urban areas. For example, in the Ocean estate in Tower Hamlets a £21.5 million project to increase social housing has been swamped by £28.5 million of buy-back costs. It is the economics of the madhouse.
  Margaret Moran: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I was about to make precisely the same point.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Houses that are purchased under the right to buy do not disappear. Under our policy they would enable new houses to be built. We should tell that to the people at the bottom of the housing ladder. They would like more affordable houses to be built and that is exactly what our policy would do in the hon. Lady's constituency.
  Margaret Moran: I believe that people who are homeless, living in overcrowded housing or in housing need will judge the Opposition on their record and recognise that their legacy has caused misery to thousands. As I will explain, their proposals make no economic sense. In government, they presided over record levels of spending on homelessness and bed and breakfast. Because of their dogma of doing away with affordable social housing, they preferred to put record numbers of families—including children—into bed-and-breakfast accommodation rather than allow social housing to be built or renovated.
  Those of us who have been involved in housing for longer than we care to remember, those of us who started out in the days before "Cathy Come Home", recall what homelessness meant then. This Government restored the rights of homeless people, after the Tories removed the safety net of social housing in the face of wholehearted opposition in the dying days of the Tory Government and turned the clock back to the days of "Cathy Come Home". The Opposition should remember that legacy and some of the images that will stick in my mind for a long time. There were reports of Tory housing Ministers on their way to the opera stepping over homeless people and a Housing Minister who preferred to drink champagne with Tory sponsors rather than talk to people like us in local government who were trying to deal with the issues on the front line.
  Those are the realities of the Tory decades. We recognise, and we are reversing, the economic madness that was Tory housing policy—a policy that involved escalating personal cost, costs in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, costs to the council tax payer, and the cost to society in general of doing away with social housing. We are reaping that whirlwind, and Opposition Members would do well to remember that. We recognise that thriving communities and decent housing underpin all our other social policies, such as tackling poor health and child poverty, regenerating our urban and other areas, and making sure that we have a proper, sustainable fabric for our families and communities.
  The Liberal Democrats should not get away with things entirely. Their everlasting 1p on income tax is intended to fund health, education, transport and housing, so it is inexplicable how, under that arrangement, they intend to match our threefold increase in spending on affordable housing, our extra investment over the next three years to provide 30,000 affordable houses to rent per annum—including 10,000 homes for key workers—the £5 billion capital receipts released to improve 1.7 million council homes, and the spending on 143,000 private homes in poor condition. I await their answer. Those are just some of the things that this Government have already achieved, and it is worth reminding Opposition Members of them. For my constituents, the fact that mortgage rates are now less than half the level that they reached under the Conservatives is a very important factor. Those rates would not have been sustainable under the fairytale economics of the Liberal Democrats.
  What are the Opposition parties' policies? We have heard something of the Liberal Democrats', but all that we have heard from the Conservatives is that they will extend the right to buy. Of course, that is not a new policy—it is a re-tread, a discredited policy. As a former

  177
  chief executive of a housing association, I remember that, in the early 1980s—[Interruption.]Yes, I do have to remind the Opposition of their history. Back then, we not so gently pointed out to the Conservatives that there were fundamental problems with such a policy, not least of which was the fact that many associations—including my own—had homes that were fully or partly funded through charitable funds. Their policy constitutes a legal nightmare that would require primary legislation. Untangling which homes, or which parts of which homes, could be sold would create an amazing number of administrative problems.
  Dr. John Pugh: As I understand it, under the Labour party policy of voluntary transfer, those people who transfer from local authorities to housing associations do retain the right to buy. Is that not correct?
  Margaret Moran: That is correct in terms of transfer associations, but I am talking about housing associations that are not stock transfer associations.
  I should point out another small error on the Opposition's part. It is estimated that such a policy would cost more than £1 billion in public subsidy. They have made great play of saying that the funds from such sales would be ploughed back into new social housing, but it is much more likely that they would substitute new investment in social housing and delay building affordable new homes. I see no reason why we should trust the Opposition. They did not plough capital receipts from council house sales back into the building of new, affordable homes, so why we should believe that they would do so now for housing associations is beyond me.
  Peter Bradley: Drawing on her experience as a chief executive of a housing association, can my hon. Friend clarify the Opposition's mathematics? If a housing association disposes of a property at up to 70 per cent. discount, and, having relinquished the asset value against which it can borrow, is forced to buy back that same property at full market price, how can it then afford to fund the 50 per cent. of "like for like" to which reference was made?
  Margaret Moran: That is a telling point which the hon. Member for Cotswold will doubtless be keen to answer. Again, that is the economics of the madhouse.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Margaret Moran: No, other Members are waiting to speak. The hon. Gentleman will doubtless have an opportunity later.
  To add to the excellent point made by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley), I should point out that the Opposition's proposal could seriously undermine the future provision of social housing, as lenders worried about declining assets and equity value. As a result, the cost to housing associations of borrowing on the private market would increase. I am told that some smaller associations might simply be unable to sustain any future borrowings; indeed, their existing loans could be put at risk, perhaps at the expense of those associations altogether. Indeed,
  178
  as lenders sought to cover the increased risk, there would be an increase in tenants' rents to cover those costs, and a likely increase in housing benefit bills. Who would pay the price? Not just homeless families, who would lose the prospect of a home, but housing association tenants, whose rents could well spiral, and all council tax payers, who would pay for increased homelessness and increased housing benefit bills in their areas. That is the economics of the madhouse.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Lady is raising lots of hares that are not actually going to run under our policy. She might like to know that we are issuing a consultation document on this subject that will be on our central office website. She is extremely welcome to comment on that document, thus helping to make Conservative party policy work in this area.
  Margaret Moran: I notice that the hon. Gentleman has no answers to the specific questions that my hon. Friends and I have raised. He simply does not understand the way in which registered social landlords and housing associations are funded.
  I want to comment on the right to buy and the related issues that we need to address. As we have all pointed out, the need for affordable social housing is great and is increasing, which means that we need to sustain the increased investment resulting from the spending review over a longer period. I ask the Minister to look at the record of the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), who brought forward more than £100 million of housing corporation-approved development programme funding from 2003–04, so that new houses can be built now, rather than backloading the programme. In view of the current crisis, such action will have a greater impact now, and I ask that the Minister consider that option in his winding-up speech.
  I want to comment on a few of the shorter-term issues that need to be addressed. We need to roll out choice-based lettings swiftly. The pilots seem to be working, and in areas of housing crisis such as my own, we have to make some difficult choices. We need to give tenants some opportunities, so that they can make the distinction between the length of time spent on a waiting list, and the chance to move to other areas, difficult though that is. In the short term, families in areas such as mine who need five-bedroom housing, but who are living in two-bedroom accommodation, are unable to be moved at all because of the way the rules work. It would be far better to prevent those families from breaking up—thereby preventing the attendant social consequences—by being a bit more flexible and allowing them to move to properties that are not necessarily ideal. Those families need to understand the options available to them. That is grown up and difficult, but those are the sort of decisions that we face.
  There are simple, small measures that we could adopt. When we, as owner-occupiers, do not want to move, we build extensions to our houses. Why are local authorities not incentivised to do the same? The

  179
  opportunity exists to do so. We certainly need to address the issue of empty private sector properties. For every homeless family in Luton, there are seven empty private sector properties. We also need to consider the balance in VAT charges on renovation and new build.
  Mr. John Hayes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady has been on her feet now for 16 minutes. This is an Opposition day—albeit a Liberal Democrat one, so I regard it with a certain distaste—so is it not a little unfair of her to hog the Floor? I know that she is just getting to the main thrust of her speech, but would not it be better if she restricted her remarks so that more people can speak?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that is not a point of order for the Chair. Points of order simply take more time out of the debate.
  Margaret Moran: I was concluding my remarks. We need to consider the right to buy as a serious issue in areas of housing need. We need to consider more positive alternatives to enable tenants across the spectrum of housing tenures to obtain some form of portable equity that they can transfer, instead of housing stock being lost. That applies to local authority and RSL property, and we might consider including other tenures. It is certainly a proposal that colleagues in the Labour Housing Group—which includes many of my hon. Friends—have worked on for many years.
  We also need to consider how we can amend the right to buy, which need not be through primary legislation, to tackle some of the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) mentioned and which are connected with regeneration schemes and the way in which some companies are using the right-to-buy legislation. Perhaps we could fund buy-backs of right-to-buy dwellings demolished in regeneration schemes.
  We also need to target recycling of housing capital receipts in high-demand areas. A number of options that would not require primary legislation could make a significant difference, especially in areas of housing need. I hope that the Minister will have the opportunity to commend some of those measures to the House when he winds up.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is not much time left in this debate and many hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. Unless all contributions are considerably briefer, many of them will be disappointed.
  6.32
  Mr. Mike Hancock: I wish to offer the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) the opportunity to answer the question about the one-for-two policy that he did not have time to give the House.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: It depends entirely on the discount that is given. The hon. Gentleman, too, is
  180
  welcome to comment on our consultation paper. We look forward to receiving his comments so that the Liberal Democrats can help Conservative policy in this area.
  Mr. Hancock: It is obvious that the Tories will need all the help that they can get to explain their policy. They will manifestly not be able to introduce a policy that people will take seriously.
  I intervened in the Minister's speech on the definition of affordable housing and what that means today. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said that he did not want to spend too much time on that point, but in Portsmouth we have a continual debate about the terminology of affordable housing. There is a distortion between the words and the delivery, and in most instances we have little chance of providing truly affordable housing.
  A recent speculative planning application was made for 450 homes, of which 100 would be designated as key worker housing of a type to be defined by the developer. The other 350 houses would be very high priced, and as many as 50 per cent. would probably be bought by people from outside the greater Portsmouth area as second homes, because they would be located on one of the most desirable developable sites outside London. Those 350 houses would do little for the 4,000-plus people on our waiting list, the thousands of people living in multiple-occupation properties or the more than 4,000 people on the transfer list. However, that did not stop one council officer claiming that those 450 houses would represent one year's building for Portsmouth under the quota system. It would be unrealistic to assume that any of the houses would satisfy one single instance of true housing need in the city.
  The development of housing is subject to a series of contradictions.
  Mr. Flook: If the Liberal Democrats are so concerned about affordable housing, can the hon. Gentleman explain why Liberal Democrat-controlled Taunton Deane has reduced from 40 per cent. to 30 per cent. the element of affordable housing required of developers of new schemes in Taunton? Housing need in Taunton is as great as it no doubt is in Portsmouth.
  Mr. Hancock: The hon. Gentleman is better placed than I am to ask the Liberal Democrats in Taunton that question. I suggest that he set up a meeting as soon as possible to confront them on that very issue. I am sure that the House would be interested to hear their response. Whatever that response might be, I am sure that it is one that they could justify to the people they represent as the majority on that council.
  Much has been said about the benefits of housing associations. As someone who was brought up in a council house in Portsmouth and who will be for ever grateful for the opportunity to live in a decent house after moving out of a bomb-damaged property just after the war, I will never listen to an argument that suggests that councils should not build and manage houses. Of course, some councils have got it wrong and it has been necessary to improve the way in which housing has been managed by local authorities, but it was a big mistake to suggest that housing associations were the only option.

  181
  There is now a wide divergence between what is provided by local authorities and by housing associations. The Conservatives stopped funding for the Housing Corporation and suggested that housing associations should borrow their money in the future, but that has pushed up their rents. For example, the average weekly rent last year on a three-bedroom house on an estate managed by Portsmouth city council was £62. The nearest comparison for a housing association property was £78, and that figure is a year older than the council figure. In most cases, people need to be unemployed and on maximum benefit to rent such properties from housing associations.
  Mr. Drew: I hope that we will not consider only local authorities and housing associations. Co-operative housing, co-housing and community land trusts all have a role to play, but they have not featured significantly in the debate. All those options should be central to the solution, not pushed to the margins.
  Mr. Hancock: I agree entirely, and I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman took the opportunity to put that on the record. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government are considering all the available options. The transfer of equity. which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran), also needs to be considered. If we are ever to tackle the problem properly, we must be fearless and willing to change things that have so far been set in stone. For example, if the Tories are really so keen on the right to buy, would they consider—if they ever, God forbid, got back into power—the right to buy for tenants of private accommodation? I think not. That is a challenge for the hon. Member for Cotswold. Will they grasp that opportunity? Perhaps it will be in the manifesto. Perhaps the hon. Member for Luton, South and I will offer that suggestion when we respond to the Tories' consultation paper. It is a policy that would be very attractive to people who have paid over the odds for private accommodation for many years and would love—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that the Chair takes a dim view of mobile phones in the Chamber.
  Mr. Hancock: For the record, let me clarify that the mobile telephone in question was not mine. However, to save his embarrassment, I shall refrain from mentioning the hon. Gentleman involved.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hancock: The hon. Gentleman was extremely courteous during his speech, and I would normally give way to him gladly, but I am conscious that other hon. Members want to contribute and that there are barely 20 minutes before the wind-up speeches begin.
  I hope that the Minister will accept that the debate will be welcomed by hon. Members of all parties. Labour Members have contributed significantly, but much more remains to be done. The Government must clearly acknowledge that they do not have all the solutions. They need to look at some of the other options that have been set out.
  182
  Brownfield sites will not be brought back into use simply because someone says, without explaining how, that the process will he pump primed. Developers will not look keenly at affordable housing without a real incentive to do so. Local authorities will not be able to do more about empty houses unless the Government give them the power to do so.
  We can talk endlessly about the obscenity that empty houses represent. I live in a city where the Tories' last-but-one privatisation gave a lot of Ministry of Defence properties to a company called Annington Homes. It is obscene that that company should be deliberately keeping blocks of former Ministry of Defence housing in desirable areas close to the sea front empty, with the aim of selling them off. The company does not want to rent the properties to Ministry personnel but, just a few hundred yards up the road, the Ministry of Defence is building new housing. What is that if not unjoined-up government? Is not it an obscenity for all those people desperately in need of homes?
  This debate was urgently needed. My regret is that the Government did not allow a full day's debate in their own time on the issue. on a substantive motion.
  6.42 pm
  Peter Bradley: I should like to commend Liberal Democrat Members on having given up at least half of their Opposition day to this debate. Precious few have attended, however: if the party attached so much interest to the matter, I would have expected more of them to be here.
  There are certain rights and freedoms that distinguish a civilised society. They include the freedoms from fear, hunger and destitution, and the right to a home. I need no lessons from Conservative Members about the human consequences of inadequate housing. I saw them at first hand when I was a councillor in this very city during the 1980s and 1990s. The Conservatives took the right to buy one or two steps further, and I might add that they were unlawful steps. They sold off council flats as if they were going out of fashion—as indeed they were under the previous Conservative Government—and they cynically spurned opportunities to replenish the stock through the planning system.
  The result was that the growing number of homeless people in the centre of London had no hope of finding housing. There were no transfers for growing families needing larger accommodation. Children's lives were blighted because they were never able to sit quietly and do their homework, or play, or simply grow up.
  There were no transfers for sick and disabled people. I was a councillor for Millbank ward, just a stone's throw from the Palace of Westminster. I knew of people who needed oxygen tanks to allow them to breathe who were trapped on the sixth floor of their block of flats and did not leave their homes for six months. They could not move to empty flats on the ground floor because they were boarded up and for sale.
  No one need tell me about the consequences of the Tories' policy or their record on affordable homes. The lives of individuals and families were blighted. Communities were broken up and dispersed. What made it worse was that that is what they set out to do in Westminster, the Tories' flagship authority. I have yet to hear a word of apology, regret or even acknowledgement from Tory Members.

  183
  There is much to welcome in what the Government have done already. Last Saturday I attended an exhibition of the proposals for the East Ketley millennium village in my constituency to mark the opening of a public consultation by English Partnerships. Six months ago, I complained in Westminster Hall about the role of English Partnerships, whose aim seemed to be not to promote affordable housing but to deprive the local authority of the means of achieving it. That has changed, which is a credit to the Government. The role of English Partnerships has been transformed, and the East Ketley millennium village is an exemplary scheme.
  The scheme is based on public consultation, which first assesses and then addresses what people say they need. That involves providing schools, facilities for community, leisure and recreation and shops. Of the 800 homes that are to be built, 200 will be affordable homes. That compares with the 92 affordable homes that English Partnerships offered in the two years between 1998 and 2000. That is a credit to the Government.
  My constituency is semi-urban and so, by definition, semi-rural. I want to focus this evening on the rural dimension. Opposition Members speak of the decline of the rural as distinct from the urban way of life. Whatever the rural way of life is, its decline has little to do with foxes and much to do with the lack of affordable housing.
  Why have shops and post offices in villages closed? Under the Conservative Government, 450 rural schools closed in 15 years. Why are rural pubs closing? The answer is that the people who used to use those facilities do not live in the villages any more. Twenty years of Tory housing policies sucked the lifeblood out of many rural communities.
  In the countryside, 86 per cent. of people are homeowners, and just 14 per cent. pay rent. That compares with the respective averages in urban Britain of 77 per cent. and 23 per cent. In the early 1990s, the Rural Development Commission estimated that 25 per cent. of people in the countryside lived on the margins of poverty, and that 40 per cent. of them could not afford to own homes. Where are those people now? Some are living, neglected and isolated, in abject rural poverty, next door to the comfortable Conservatives in their country houses. The rest live in towns—the only places where they can find decent housing.
  In the five years to 1990, 91,000 rural homes were sold off under the right to buy and were not replaced. The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), spoke of a crisis of affordable housing in the countryside, but that crisis was created over 20 years by the Tory Government. Tory Members cannot defend their own record, much less feel pride in it.
  In 1990, it was estimated that 80,000 affordable homes were needed in the subsequent six years, and 17,700 were built. Homes that communities needed to renew and sustain themselves were sold to commuters, retirees and people looking for second homes. That forced land and house prices up and the younger generation to move to the towns. It brought homelessness to rural communities.
  184
  The Opposition's response is to oppose any attempt to develop affordable housing on green fields. The hon. Member for Cotswold said a great deal about providing housing where it was needed, but we have yet to hear whether that includes providing houses in villages where people already live and where they want their younger generation to remain.
  The Opposition now want to make that hugely difficult problem infinitely worse with their second initiative, which is the proposal to extend the right to buy to housing associations. I do not know whether the question is unparliamentary, but what sort of idiot could produce that idea? The answer is that it is none other than the shadow Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Lowden (David Davis), who is also a challenger for the Opposition leadership.
  The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden wrote a letter to The Times last week, in which he said:
  "Under our plans, proceeds from right to buy sales would be reinvested to acquire or build new property."
  The right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to
  "allow housing associations the first right of refusal to purchase former housing association properties that come on to the market."
  I repeat my earlier point that, if a housing association sells property at a discount of up to 70 per cent. and then buys it back at market price, how will it be able to afford to build anything other than the garden path up which the Opposition want to lead us?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is one of the few Labour Members who represent a semi-rural if not a rural constituency. Under almost any measure, the closure of shops, pubs, garages and post offices has accelerated hugely under this Labour Government. If there are not enough affordable houses in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, why does he not ask his council to consider a large-scale voluntary transfer? My council has used such a transfer and managed to build as many affordable units as it has sold. If there are too few affordable units in the hon. Gentleman's area, he should ask his council why it has not done anything about it.
  Peter Bradley: I shall not address all the fallacies in that short intervention, except to say that Telford and Wrekin council has transferred its stock to a housing trust, which is not, incidentally, building new properties. Moreover, there are 180 Labour Members in rural and semi-rural seats, which is rather more than the Conservative party can muster in its entirety.
  Matthew Green: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Peter Bradley: No, I would like to make progress, because other hon. Members wish to speak.
  On the loss of social infrastructure, I referred earlier to the 450 village schools that were lost under the Conservative Government. The hon. Member for Cotswold may like to know that we have slowed that rate of loss from 30 a year to three. Even the

  185
  hon. Gentleman's mathematics must lead him to accept that we are making real progress in our attempt to sustain rural communities.
  Jim Knight: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Peter Bradley: I should like to make further progress. I want to draw attention to the recent Conservative policy initiative—perhaps rather more attention than the Opposition Front Bench would like. The hon. Member for Cotswold may talk about consulting now, but it is a little late. He should have spoken to the Rural Housing Trust, for example, before he published this ill begotten initiative. Its press release of 11 October begins and ends with an indictment of Conservative policy past and present. It says:
  "much of the current shortage of affordable housing in villages has its roots in the sale of council houses in the 1980s and 1990s. Special safeguards mean that housing association homes built in villages are exempt from the right to buy. It is imperative that Mr. Davis"—
  for it is he—
  "should announce immediately that this exemption will continue.
  In rural areas, where land use is becoming a fiercely debated topic, the Trust has been successful in persuading land owners to provide agricultural land for small developments of affordable housing on condition that they will be retained for local people in perpetuity. If land owners believe that houses would change hands at high prices and be sold to outsiders, forcing out people from the village, they will be extremely reluctant to support such projects."
  The press release continues:
  "Similarly, village communities whose support is vital to a housing development proceeding, would have no confidence in the projects if they do not have the reassurance that the houses will be retained in perpetuity to meet local needs."
  That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) made.
  The highly respected chief executive of the Rural Housing Trust, Moira Constable, says in the press release:
  "We will not miss a single opportunity to point out the folly of introducing this right in the future. We see at first hand the hardships faced by local people priced out of their communities and the benefits that are reaped when they are given the chance to stay. The statement has already caused alarm among landowners from whom we are in the process of acquiring land."
  There is already a blight on the provision of land for affordable housing in the country. Someone should tell landowners in rural England not to panic; there is a very slender chance that a Conservative Government will return, and the eventuality is made even more unlikely by this policy initiative.
  I believe that the Government are on the right track, and so do most organisations that represent rural communities.
  Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman believes that the Government are on the right track. The Deputy Prime Minister's consultation paper would force Bridgnorth district council, which the hon. Gentleman and I share in our constituencies, into carrying out large-scale voluntary transfers, which their members have not, until now, supported.
  Mr. Streeter: They have already transferred them.
  Matthew Green: No, that is the Wrekin. The hon. Gentleman's constituency covers two councils.
  186
  Does the hon. Gentleman support the Deputy Prime Minister's move to force Bridgnorth to make large-scale voluntary transfers?
  Peter Bradley: The simple answer is that nobody can be forced to undertake a voluntary transfer: it is voluntary and depends ultimately on the vote of the tenants.
  Let me put down some pointers for my Front Bench. We want more affordable housing in rural communities and the jobs that go with it, because that is the only way to prevent migration to towns. People who live and work in the same community send their children to the village school, do their shopping in the local store, transact their business in the local post office and relax in the local pub. We want more of the same from the Government. We want more Housing Corporation funding. We desperately need more flexibility in the planning system; we want a creative planning system, not one that simply focuses on development control. We want more of the same encouragement to parish councils to build the visions and consensus that will deliver the change we need in the countryside.
  My plea to Ministers is to be bold and to listen to rural organisations and communities, unlike the Conservatives. Such organisations welcome development in the countryside as long as it meets identified need and is of the highest quality. I ask Ministers not to make affordable housing for rural communities dependent solely on planning gain. That will simply introduce yet more executive private housing that nobody wants in a rural community. We do not want crumbs from the table; we want equity for people in rural communities.
  I ask the Government to consider how much the need for all kinds of housing could be met by requiring landlords to open up empty properties. I ask them at last to allow local planning authorities to distinguish between housing tenures and to recognise that housing, particularly in rural communities, must be where it is needed and not just on brownfield sites. I support the Government's impetus in recycling brownfield sites and ensuring that as much development takes place on them as possible. However, I do not want young people from village communities migrating to those brownfield sites because the only way to sustain those rural communities is to build in their villages. Finally, above all, funding for affordable housing needs to be increased.
  I believe that the Government are doing many of the right things, but we need to accelerate the process in town and country alike if we are to ensure that no one in our society is denied the basic right to a home of their own.
  6.56 pm
  Mr. Anthony Steen: I want first to apologise to my hon. Friends the Members for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) and for Witney (Mr. Cameron). They have waited, just as I have, throughout the debate, and because some of the speeches have been inexcusably long, they will not be called. I think the whole House would have liked to hear what they had to say.
  Although I am delighted that you have called me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I find it puzzling that of all the Front-Bench and Back-Bench Members who have spoken, no one has mentioned the very simple problem

  187
  Surrounding affordable housing, which is that we need a lot more houses. That is the basic problem. We need more homes for sale on the social and the open market. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said in the 1990s that we needed 4.25 million new homes by 2011. The Deputy Prime Minister said that that figure was a bit high and rounded it down to 3.8 million. However, in the past five years, 687,500 new homes have come on to the housing market. I do not understand all these complicated formulae. It is a simple problem we need many more homes. The Liberal Democrats do not say so because they know that the houses would have to be built on green field sites, and they do not want to lose votes. If the Liberal Democrats get in it is because they are populist; they do not want to talk about the reality.
  If housing provision continues at its present level until 2011, the Government will fall short of their housing target by 50 per cent. The Deputy Prime Minister may say that we need 3.8 million houses, but we will get 1.9 million. That is where the problem lies.
  It is pointless building new houses in areas where people do not want to live. In the past, Labour moved industry up to the north-west, to Halewood, and then built massive council housing estates. It did not work. As soon as there is a recession, private enterprise companies first pull out of is the places they have been put by the Government with the help of regional aid.
  Jim Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Steen: No, time is too short, and I have a lot to say.
  Most of the pressure for new housing is in London and the south-east. That is why we are tearing down council housing estates in the north-west, in Liverpool, and all over the place. We have to build houses in places where people want to live.
  Jim Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? It is on this point.
  Mr. Steen: I know that it is on that point, but the hon. Gentleman will have to wait.
  The demographic profile is a big issue. Britain has the highest divorce rate in Europe, which means that we need two homes for every married couple when they split up. More people are living longer, and although we are delighted about that, they are occupying houses. More young people are moving out of the family home early and need accommodation.
  So, we have a demographic and a regional problem. People do not want to live in urban areas; they want to live in the countryside. Therefore, we have a problem with locating land—greenfield sites—where people want to live.
  While I welcome the new Conservative policy—who would not—to give tenants in housing association properties the right to buy, it can only be a long-term strategy.
  Mr. Love: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Steen: No, I will not.
  188
  That policy would simply reduce the amount of social housing available to local authorities and registered social landlords. It will work only if it is combined with a massive house-building programme. The state has now based its ability to provide affordable housing on the viability of private developers. It is amazing that the Liberal Democrats have not mentioned the key to the problem—they have mentioned everything else but that. I hope that the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) will refer to it in his reply.
  Section 106 agreements under the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 are the key to affordable housing. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is familiar with those. That section allows planning authorities to grant development permission subject to a set of conditions. Increasingly, section 106 has become the main way for local authorities to force developers to provide affordable homes. I do not know whether hon. Members are familiar with how it works. The local authority planners tell developers that they can develop a site, but that x per cent. of the houses built must be affordable. That is where the problem lies. In London, the suggested figure is 50 per cent. In my constituency of South Hams, the Conservative-controlled council says that it should be 66 per cent.
  The problem is that developers will develop only if they can make a profit. They cannot do so if 50 per cent. or 66 per cent. of the houses must be affordable. That is why when the Minister replies he will probably say that the Government's yardstick is 25 per cent.
  Mr. Streeter: I am enjoying my hon. Friend's speech. Does he agree that it is not only a question of affordable homes? In many parts of the west country, there is particular demand for affordable homes to buy. We know that 93 per cent. of the population aspire to own their own homes, which is a wonderful thing to do. Does my hon. Friend agree that, while the Government are introducing a number of interesting schemes to meet the required number of affordable homes, their mindset is still stuck on social housing to rent? They need to make a paradigm shift and understand that in many parts of the country the pressure is for affordable homes to buy.
  Mr. Steen: I hope that the Minister and the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman will have heard my hon. Friend's excellent intervention. I am sorry that he did not get the opportunity to speak, as he would have concentrated on that important point.
  Jim Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Steen: No, I cannot give way again. I have done so once already.
  New Labour wants new mixed communities—the special mix in the community. I am not against mixed communities, but one must have affordable housing—both houses to let and private housing. The problem is with the percentage. Private developers are not building enough houses and that is why I started by giving the figures. The Government targets are falling short by 50 per cent. because the developer has no financial incentive to build houses as the local authorities are asking for too high a percentage to be low-cost, affordable housing and the developer cannot build those houses and make a profit. They also have to put in all the infrastructure.

  189
  Section 106 is the key to affordable housing. The building of such housing has slowed down because the developer has no incentive to build. It seems clear that the large affordable housing quotas imposed on developers by the section 106 agreements make many developments uneconomical. Developers still have to pay the market rate for the land, as well as for the materials and labour They are also duty bound to help to provide the local infrastructure, to resource the new developments and to provide financial assistance for flood prevention, which is a new Government requirement.
  Local authorities have forgotten that the provision of housing operates in a market where the usual rules of economics still apply. The result will be twofold. First, developers will not develop—at least, not in the areas where affordable housing quotas are high and housing is badly needed. Secondly, they will simply wait for a policy change, probably at a local level—a reduction in the affordable housing quota. Either way, that will damage our ability to provide any form of housing. It will further deepen the affordability crisis in many areas.
  For section 106 agreements to work, there needs to be a thriving market For developers, where capital is available and the baseline margins are enough to satisfy investors. Squeezing margins by demanding high affordable housing quotas will damage the private developer's ability to operate and will cause an ever-growing problem of scarcity, put up the price of housing and lead to demands for higher wages, ultimately creating an inflationary spiral.
  Those are the issues, and neither the Liberal Democrat nor the Labour Front-Bench spokesmen have dealt with them. The Conservative Front-Bench spokesman had an insight into the problems—not enough houses being built, section 106 agreements and developers not building. Those are the issues.
  7.5 pm
  Mr. Adrian Sanders: This has been an interesting and sometimes passionate debate, and it is long overdue. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) opened the debate and laid out the case for action. He highlighted the effect of rising house prices on low-income groups. He argued against centralised housing targets and in favour of more powers for local authorities. He committed me to answering the question of the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) about land value taxation, which I shall gladly do.
  The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) is absolutely right. The question is one of supply and the lack of supply of affordable housing. The second problem is that money is relatively cheap to borrow and that cheap money is chasing that lack of supply. It is increasing house prices and raising the entry point to home ownership for lots of moderate and lower income families.
  The sale of stock during the 1980s without properly replacing it has exacerbated the existing housing crisis. It is not due to a shortage of land, as some people say, although every hon. Member present will point to a shortage within their constituency. We need a mechanism that will release land—a mechanism that will end speculative windfalls from land that has been kept from the market while the price has risen, that will
  190
  encourage the most efficient use of space, and that will help to bring empty homes back into use. That mechanism is land value taxation, which is sometimes called site value rating. It is our alternative policy to the uniform business rate. It is not an extra tax but a replacement tax.
  The Minister recognised that housing markets vary dramatically across the country. That is important when considering this issue. There is not a single solution that will solve the crisis in every housing market. She mentioned the circumstances that the Government had inherited, but she did not explain why we had to endure three further years of neglect. Only now are additional sums of money are being found for housing. The Minister rightly said that housing should not be seen in isolation. It is certainly our view that it has to be considered alongside all other regeneration, transport, health, social services and planning policies—the whole gambit of Government policy needs to be brought in when considering housing.
  The lack of supply is causing immense difficulties for many families. Inadequate or inappropriate housing leads to additional social costs. The lack of social housing is of itself a social cost. There is a link between low educational attainment and poor accommodation. It is more likely that a family in poor, overcrowded accommodation will have a greater demand on social or health services. There is a link between crime and poor housing—so the social cost of not having enough social affordable housing is great.
  The hon. Member for Cotswold gave us all the statistics and some of the reasons for the problem. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Totnes was not present for his speech. Perhaps he was watching it on a monitor outside, but I do not remember seeing him here until the very end. [HON. MEMBERS: "He was here!"] He was not here at the beginning of the debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] I will withdraw that accusation if the hon. Gentleman was here for the speech of the hon. Member for Cotswold. He was certainly not here for that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath, which is probably why he made that attack on the Liberal Democrats, in absentia.
  The hon. Member for Cotswold rightly set out all the statistics and explained why we need to do something to increase the supply of affordable housing. He then tried to explain Conservative policies. He talked about the pump priming of brownfield land, but he did not explain how he would do that, or what would be cut from public expenditure or which taxes would be raised to support the policy. The hon. Gentleman wants more homes above shops, but, again, he did not say how that is to happen. He wants to encourage more private sector investment—again, answer came there none as to how that would be achieved.
  We then heard about the extension of the right to buy. The Liberal Democrat view is simple: we believe in property ownership and we support the aspirations of tenants who want to become owner-occupiers, but we do not support the rundown in social housing stock that

  191
  has led to so many of the consequences raised by the Minister, by the hon. Member for Cotswold and by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath.
  Mr. David Cameron: So that we can be clear about Liberal Democrat policy on the right to buy, will the hon. Gentleman explain whether they want to extend it, reduce it or keep it just the same?
  Mr. Colin Breed: Yes.
  Mr. Sanders: My hon. Friend gives a beautiful precis of my answer.
  The hon. Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) spoke well and with passion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] The answer is yes, but it depends entirely on the housing market. We do not want to extend the right to buy council housing by increasing discounts. We want to respect the position of people who already have the right to buy, but where there are acute housing shortages we may need to restrict the discount and even to change the qualifying period—but we do not want to take away the right to buy.
  Dr. Pugh: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Sanders: I will in a moment.
  The hon. Member for Luton, South spoke well and with passion on behalf of those who have paid, and continue to pay, the price for the social housing stock that has never been replaced. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) argued for a level playing field for councils and other housing providers. That point was at the heart of the message of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath—we need a level playing field.
  In response to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South agreed that we should not rule out any form of housing provision; there is a role for co-ops, for self-build and for community land trusts. The Government must tell us how they plan to encourage alternative forms of housing provision.
  The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) talked about rural communities and the devastation caused in them by the non-replacement of social housing. That lies at the heart of the problem, which was summed up beautifully by the hon. Member for Totnes, namely, that there is a lack of affordable housing both for purchase and for rent. Unless we tackle that problem, house price rises will continue, the number of people in poor and inadequate accommodation will increase and the number of people in wholly inadequate bed-and-breakfast accommodation will also rise. Let us tackle affordable housing.
  7.13 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty): I welcome this debate. I have had to follow many hard acts during my short time as a Member, but the contribution of the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) was not one of them. There were many
  192
  useful contributions to the debate. The most interesting speech from the official Opposition—not for the first time—was made by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen). His comments were well informed and well couched. I am grateful for them and shall read them with great interest. I may get back to him on a few points. The hon. Gentleman's speech was very different from the Cotswold hysteria or hurricane from the Opposition Front Bench, which did not say much at all.
  The most substantive comments came from the Government Benches—not unusually. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) made some telling points about rural housing. He effectively highlighted the sham of the official Opposition's crocodile tears and their new-found love and affection for the countryside—not least housing in the countryside. He also made some pointed remarks about the urban version of Conservatism: what they did in Westminster, to their shame and disgrace, under the lamentable Shirley Porter.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) made some interesting comments. I can tell her that we intend to introduce a new housing, health and safety regime when parliamentary time permits. The overcrowding standards to which she referred will indeed be considered in that context.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) made some excellent points about land use. In London in particular, but also elsewhere, land is a factor in the provision of affordable housing. Yes, as the hon. Member for Totnes pointed out, section 106 is important, but land is a precious resource—certainly in our urban areas—and to see some local councils fritter sites away or sell them unnecessarily without getting full social use from them is regrettable. Furthermore, as I have discussed with my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden, it is not appropriate for councils to land-bank sites and claim that, for the 20th year, this year might be the right year for industrial use even though the previous 19 years were not. That is why, as and when we get the chance to introduce planning legislation, there will be a sharp focus on local development frameworks.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) made some excellent points on homelessness and the right to buy. She tried to tempt me down the resources road and to talk about the divvying up of the resources in the comprehensive spending review. I shall not do that. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will deal with that in due course.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) made some useful points, not least about the role of the co-operative and mutual sector in housing.
  I shall refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) later. Most of the other comments seemed almost to have been made in a vacuum. Apart from the contribution of the hon. Member for Totnes, nothing of substance was offered or suggested from the official Opposition. Nothing was offered or suggested to show that currently we are doing anything wrong or that there is anything wrong with the policies that are unfolding. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South pointed out, there was certainly no apology for the 500,000 homes repossessed between 1990 and 1997.

  193
  There was no apology for a regime in which interest rates shot up to 50 per cent. and inflation was more than 22 per cent. at various stages. Imagine if the current difficulties in affordable housing had occurred during the economic disaster of the Conservative Government. As my hon. Friend pointed out, we inherited £19 billion—
  Mr. Mark Francois: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McNulty: I shall because Rayleigh, as opposed to most of these other characters, has been here all the time.
  Mr. Francois: I thank the Minister for giving way. On a factual point, will he tell us in which year under the Tory Government inflation stood at 22 per cent?
  Mr. McNulty: You are a historian, you work it out—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must use correct parliamentary language.
  Mr. McNulty: The hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) is a Conservative historian and he can work it out, rather than you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I was not offering that to you at all.
  The only sensible thing that the hon. Member for Torbay said was that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) had said nothing. I waited with bated breath. We heard the usual rendition—the little family internecine dispute between the two Opposition parties. We heard the critique of the Liberals and waited with bated breath for the hon. Gentleman to explore Conservative policies, but we got nothing. Solutions were offered. I wrote them all down. We heard about pump priming of brownfield land. As the hon. Member for Torbay said, nothing was offered apart from a reworking and repetition of the words "pump", "priming", "brown", "field" and "land". There was no substance of any description and a complete absence of knowledge of what has happened post the derelict land grant, gap funding and the European regime. The hon. Member for Cotswold should have known about that because he was there when Winchester put up the PPG3 debate last July. That regime has been replaced. Empty homes—I think that he mentioned that problem three times—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is going to refer to Members of this House, he should do so correctly.
  Mr. McNulty: I thought that I had, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I apologise if I did not.
  The hon. Member for Cotswold mentioned empty homes three or four times and offered no suggestions, save for, "Encourage more private sector money." He continued lamely, "It may well mean legislative changes and we might look at that but we might publish something; we might consult a bit later." That was it—the sole substance of the Opposition's—
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McNulty: Of course.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Instead of going into his ungracious usual rant, will the hon. Gentleman now tell
  194
  us what the Government will do to rectify the current situation? We have the largest number of homeless people in this country ever. When will we get back to building 33,000 affordable social housing units a year, as the Conservatives did in their last year in government, instead of the miserable 22,000 that are currently being built?
  Mr. McNulty: All that the hon. Gentleman offered was an exposition of some sorts on the right to buy, which showed, rather like—[Interruption.] I think that I have another 10 minutes yet; you will have to wait and see. [HON. MEMBERS: "You."]
  All that the hon. Gentleman offered us was another extended right to buy. That merely offered us a stark misunderstanding of the regime under which housing associations currently operate. He asked how on earth two could become one. It is possible to sell off two houses and rebuild one under the current criteria. He shows a profound lack of understanding of the current regime and charity law. How on earth will the banks and private financiers say, "That is okay; you are selling off the assets against which the money that we are lending you, and have loaned you, is secured"? They certainly would not say that.
  We are told by the shadow Deputy Prime Minister—I almost said shadow Leader of the Opposition—that more than 1 million people would be eligible for the new right-to-buy extension. The numbers simply do not stack up, to the extent that we cannot find 1 million people who would be eligible for such an extension; they simply do not exist. I repeat: housing associations raise private money. The level of their borrowing is based on their assets and rental incomes. If we disposed of their assets—sold their houses—they would no longer have that asset stream. If they were forced to sell at large discounts, it could put their existing loans and future borrowings in jeopardy. I should be very interested indeed to see, if the Opposition stick with this scheme, where in their next shadow Budget—should there ever be one—we shall see the £1 billion housing subsidy that even 20,000 homes will require. The scheme is, in short, stark raving bonkers and purely and utterly a device for the next Conservative party leadership contest. That is a matter of profound regret in the context of what should be an extremely serious public policy debate on housing—a problem about which every hon. Member on both sides of the House agrees something must be done. We are unfolding those proposals now.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown rose—
  Mr. McNulty: If the hon. Gentleman wants to get in very quickly, please do.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Perhaps we might have some answers to the previous intervention. When shall we get back to the number of affordable social housing units that were built in the last year of the Conservative Government—33,000 instead of the current miserly 22,000? The Minister is misrepresenting our policy. The assets, of course, will still be there, even once those houses are sold, because new houses will be built.
  Mr. McNulty: New houses will not be built under the existing financial regime, so the hon. Gentleman or his

  195
  friends, or the putative next leader of his party, needs to tell us where the public subsidy is coming from and how these new houses will be built under the current Housing Corporation regime. In the context of what he says about social housing, I can tell hon. Members how it will not be built. That number of houses will not be built by extending the right to buy in the way that he suggests. If the Leader of the Opposition is a quiet man, the Conservatives' policies on housing offer only deafening silence. It is shameful that they offer such a gimmick. Our policies are clearly laid out—[Interruption.] I am responding to pitiful debate from the Opposition.
  We then come to the Liberal Democrat motion, which is very interesting in the sense that it does not say a lot. Actually, if stripped bare, it really says: "We give you half a pat on the back. If we include the word 'regrets', it means that we are opposing you; if we include the words 'urgent action', that means that we are in opposition to the Government." Beyond that, the rest of the motion says, "We support every single thing that the Government do". That is obtuse, to say the least. If the Liberal Democrats want, as they say, to be entirely honest, now that the motion has been somewhat tidied up by the Government they should drop their motion, accept the amendment in full and then get very serious about it.
  I question in part the Liberal Democrats' seriousness, not least because I decided to have a little look at exactly what previous expositions they had made in terms of housing policy. They have taken great care and pride, at Budget time, to produce their own little books full of facts and figures. Some little person always stands up and says, "It has all been costed, so these are real policies, which, if we were ever to be the Government, would actually be implemented." I have "Invest to Innovate", the last Liberal Democrat alternative Budget. Where does it mention housing? Where does it mention anything comparable to the comprehensive spending review figures, or the figures that the present Government have spent over the last couple of years? It does not mention anything at all. There is no section on housing. As a number of Opposition Members said, it mentions in passing VAT on development land, and that is it. Naturally, one starts to wonder how serious the Liberal Democrats are.
  The speech two weeks ago by the leader of the Liberal Democrats, whose constituency I cannot remember at the moment, was the defining moment that made the leader of the third party the leader of the effective Opposition, as opposed to the actual Opposition. Did it contain nuggets about housing—how serious a problem housing need was and how serious the provision of affordable housing was as a matter of public policy? There was nothing there, not even a passing mention.
  I assure the House that we are in the business of real solutions—solutions which, by and large, the Liberal Democrats support, so they should be supporting us tonight. If hon. Members want to know what they are, read the speech that the Deputy Prime Minister made on 18 July: not vacuity, not empty-headed gimmicks, but real action and policies.
  We are the Government who attack homelessness. The figures for homelessness have gone up purely and simply because, for the first time in 20 or 30 years, the
  196
  Government have recognised that what we need to capture is the real amount of homelessness. We have entirely redefined vulnerability. We have redefined the definition to capture as many people as possible—read the priority needs order. Under previous Governments, the statutory framework never took account of women fleeing domestic violence. Under previous priority needs orders, they did not exist in terms of homelessness. Now they do; we recognise them and we recognise that they have a full right to housing when they are fleeing domestic violence. That never existed before under Labour or Conservative Governments.
  We are tackling bed and breakfasts in a way not done at all by other people.
  Mr. Hancock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McNulty: I will not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me; I have just two minutes.
  The Government share the frustration that teachers cannot afford a home of their own. not least in London. The people who teach, treat and police our communities need a home. Public services are vital to every urban area. That is why up to 8,000 more homes for key workers are in the pipeline next year. That is why, however much people knock it, the starter homes initiative and many other things that we are doing are important.
  I was astonished that not many Opposition Members mentioned the positive, productive and imaginative role that the private sector is increasingly playing in securing key worker and affordable housing, and without any public subsidy. That is to its credit. The Government also want people to feel the pride that comes from a home renewed. We are well on the way to achieving a decency home target and are considering moving into other areas beyond the social sector for that.
  We stand, as a Government, for more homes for more people in need, at a price that they can afford, within communities that thrive. There should be real cross-party consensus on that, because we all represent these communities. It annoys me that the people who suddenly want more affordable housing one day are those who want the Government to slash the house building outputs in regional planning guidance and local plans the next day. It annoys me that those who have put their name to the motion—the Liberal Democrats—are the very people who lead the Nimby charge against development when they are in the countryside one day, but want as much affordable housing as possible when they are in urban areas the next day.
  This is a national crisis that needs national responses; it does not need feigned differences between party policies. There is much to unite all three main parties. The Government know that power involves the responsibility to take tough decisions. We have set the agenda very clearly—far more clearly than any Government during the past 20 or 30 years. We are helping the homeless to help themselves. We are providing better housing and shaping stronger communities.
  With the help of all those hon. Members who are serious about solving housing difficulties, overcoming the problems of affordable housing and meeting the

  197
  needs of key workers, we can achieve a step change for the first time in a generation, so all our cities and urban communities thrive and are sustainable in ways that they have never been before. We have one chance, so I urge all parties to work with us, not against us.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question—
  The House divided: Ayes 50, Noes 447.

  Division No. 325]

  [7.31 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Baker, Norman

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Barrett, John

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  Breed, Colin

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Moore, Michael

  Burnett, John

  Öpik, Lembit

  Burstow, Paul

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Rendel, David

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Salmond, Alex

  Chidgey, David

  Sanders, Adrian

  Cotter, Brian

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

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Doughty, Sue

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro & St. Austell)

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Thurso, John

  Gidley, Sandra

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Tyler, Paul

  Hancock, Mike

  Webb, Steve

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Weir, Michael

  Williams, Roger (Brecon & Radnor)

  Heath, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Wishart, Pete

  Keetch, Paul

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Mr. Andrew Stunell and

  Lamb, Norman

  Dr. John Pugh

  NOES

  Ainger, Nick

  Betts, Clive

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Allen, Graham

  Blunkett, rh David

  Amess, David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Borrow, David

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Boswell, Tim

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Austin, John

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Bacon, Richard

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Baird, Vera

  Brazier, Julian

  Baldry, Tony

  Brennan, Kevin

  Banks, Tony

  Brown, rh Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Barker, Gregory

  Barnes, Harry

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Battle, John

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Browne, Desmond

  Beard, Nigel

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Bryant, Chris

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Bellingham, Henry

  Burgon, Colin

  Benn, Hilary

  Burnham, Andy

  Bennett, Andrew

  Burns, Simon

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Burnside, David

  Bercow, John

  Butterfill, John

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Berry, Roger

  Cairns, David

  Best, Harold

  Cameron, David

  198

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Etherington, Bill

  Caplin, Ivor

  Evans, Nigel

  Cash, William

  Fabricant, Michael

  Caton, Martin

  Fallon, Michael

  Cawsey, Ian

  Farrelly, Paul

  Challen, Colin

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Fisher, Mark

  Chaytor, David

  Flight, Howard

  Chope, Christopher

  Flint, Caroline

  Clapham, Michael

  Flook, Adrian

  Clappison, James

  Flynn, Paul

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Follett, Barbara

  Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Forth, rh Eric

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Francois, Mark

  Gale, Roger

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Gapes, Mike

  Clelland, David

  Gardiner, Barry

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Garnier, hon. Edward

  Clwyd, Ann

  Gerrard, Neil

  Coaker, Vernon

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Gilroy, Linda

  Cohen, Harry

  Godsiff, Roger

  Collins, Tim

  Goggins, Paul

  Colman, Tony

  Goodman, Paul

  Connarty, Michael

  Grayling, Chris

  Conway, Derek

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Grogan, John

  Corston, Jean

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Cranston, hon. Ross

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Crausby, David

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hammond, Philip

  Cummings, John

  Hanson, David

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Havard, Dai

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Hayes, John

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Heald, Oliver

  Curry, rh David

  Healey, John

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Dalyell, Tam

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Hendrick, Mark

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Hendry, Charles

  David, Wayne

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Davidson, Ian

  Heppell, John

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Hermon, Lady

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Heyes, David

  Dawson, Hilton

  Hill, Keith

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Hinchliffe, David

  Denham, rh John

  Hoban, Mark

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Hodge, Margaret

  Dismore, Andrew

  Hoey, Kate

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Hood, Jimmy

  Dobbin, Jim

  Hope, Phil

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Doran, Frank

  Horam, John

  Dowd, Jim

  Howard, rh Michael

  Drew, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway & U Nithsdale)

  Hughes. Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Hurst, Alan

  Edwards, Huw

  Hutton, rh John

  Efford, Clive

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  199

  Illsley, Eric

  Mallaber, Judy

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Mann, John

  Jack, rh Michael

  Marris, Rob

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Martlew, Eric

  Jamieson, David

  Maude, rh Francis

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Jenkins, Brian

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Merron, Gillian

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Miliband, David

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Miller, Andrew

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Moffatt, Laura

  Joyce, Eric

  Mole, Chris

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Moran, Margaret

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Morgan, Julie

  Morley, Elliot

  Kelly, Ruth

  Moss, Malcolm

  Kemp, Fraser

  Mountford, Kali

  Key, Robert

  Mudie, George

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Mullin, Chris

  Kidney, David

  Munn, Ms Meg

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Norman, Archie

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Norris, Dan

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  O'Hara, Edward

  Lansley, Andrew

  Organ, Diana

  Laxton, Bob

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Lepper, David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Leslie, Christopher

  Owen, Albert

  Levitt, Tom

  Page, Richard

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New F E)

  Paterson, Owen

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Pearson, Ian

  Lidington, David

  Perham, Linda

  Linton, Martin

  Picking, Anne

  Lloyd, Tony

  Pickthall, Colin

  Loughton, Tim

  Pike, Peter

  Love, Andrew

  Plaskitt, James

  Lucas, Ian

  Pollard, Kerry

  Luke, Iain

  Pond, Chris

  Lyons, John

  Pope, Greg

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Pound, Stephen

  McCafferty, Chris

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  MacDonald, Calum

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  McDonnell, John

  Prescott, rh John

  MacDougall, John

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  McFall, John

  Prisk, Mark

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Prosser, Gwyn

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Purchase, Ken

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Quinn, Lawrie

  MacKay, rh Andrew

  Rammell, Bill

  McKechin, Ann

  Rapson, Syd

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Maclean, rh David

  Redwood, rh John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Reed, Andy

  McNamara, Kevin

  Robathan, Andrew

  McNulty, Tony

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  MacShane, Denis

  McWalter, Tony

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  McWilliam, John

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Malins, Humfrey

  200

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Rochford & Southend E)

  Rooney, Terry

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Ruane, Chris

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Ruffley, David

  Tipping, Paddy

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Todd, Mark

  Ryan, Joan

  Trend, Michael

  Salter, Martin

  Trickett, Jon

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Truswell, Paul

  Sawford, Phil

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Kemptown)

  Selous, Andrew

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Tynan, Bill

  Sheridan, Jim

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Simmonds, Mark

  Vaz, Keith

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Viggers Peter

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Singh, Marsha

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Ward, Claire

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford' E)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Watkinson, Angela

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Watson, Tom

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Watts, David

  Smyth, Rev. Martin

  White, Brian

  Soames, Nicholas

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Soley, Clive

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Southworth, Helen

  Wiggin, Bill

  Speller, rh John

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Wills, Michael

  Spink, Bob

  Wilshire, David

  Spring, Richard

  Wilson, Brian

  Squire, Rachel

  Winnick, David

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas(Macclesfield)

  Steen, Anthony

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Stevenson, George

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Wood, Mike

  Woolas, Phil

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Worthington, Tony

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wray, James

  Streeter, Gary

  Wright Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stringer, Graham

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Swire, Hugo

  Yeo, Tim

  Syms, Robert

  Young, rh Sir George

  Tami, Mark

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Jim Fitzpatrick and

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Charlotte Atkins

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the additional funding for housing announced in the Spending Review 2002 and recent measures to tackle homelessness; and supports the action being taken better to link local and regional planning and housing policies, to bring back into use empty properties, to increase the density of housing developments, to encourage local authorities to implement fully PPG3 and to reform the right to buy to prevent abuses of the system while resisting the Conservative Opposition's proposals for its extension.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  7.47 pm
  Dr. Vincent Cable: I beg to move,
  That this House notes with concern the decision of the Government to put at risk over £600 million of public funds in order to prevent the bankruptcy of the privatised nuclear power company British Energy; further notes that several competitor companies in the deregulated market also face financial collapse and that some are petitioning for Government assistance; believes that nuclear power has been shown in a competitive market to be uneconomic as well as to generate long-term environmental costs in respect of waste disposal and decommissioning; further believes that it would be wrong for the Government to continue to bail out British Energy shareholders with a massive unplanned injection of public money or encourage new nuclear power projects; and calls on Her Majesty's Government urgently to bring forward its response to the PIU energy review, with measures to initiate a sustained long-term improvement in energy efficiency and conservation, and to facilitate the more rapid introduction of a variety of new renewable energy technologies as the favoured electricity generating source in the long-term, taking into account the Government's Kyoto targets and the Prime Minister's support for sustainable energy use at Johannesburg.
  I shall concentrate on the wide-ranging implications of the Government's intervention in the energy market in the closing days of the summer recess. I shall pose several issues. The first is to register alarm that the Government have now put at risk about £650 million of public money in the form of what appears to be—no doubt we will receive clarification—an unsecured loan to a privatised company that is running serious losses.
  The second issue is that slightly over a year after introducing a competitive energy market—NETA—the Government have decided to panic at the first sign that the energy market is doing what it was supposed to achieve: identifying the companies that could no longer compete in an environment of excess capacity.
  My third concern is that in intervening to bail out one company but not others—a variety of projects that have failed, some in the renewable energy/combined heat and power sector—the Government have acted in a discriminatory way that may be illegal, although that remains to be tested. They have prejudged fundamentally important issues about long-term energy strategy.
  I am partly making debating points, but mainly I am posing questions. It is extremely unfortunate that the Government did not make a statement on the issue. Regardless of how people regard nuclear or other forms of energy, they want to find out what is going on.
  Bob Spink: The hon. Gentleman talks about the Government panicking. Far be it from me to defend the Government, but the Minister for Energy and Construction is an excellent Minister, and the Government do not appear to me to be panicking at all—in fact, quite the contrary. They realise that if we are to save the planet, we must reduce the amount of CO2, and that we must therefore replace nuclear with nuclear. If we are not brave enough to take that decision
  202
  to control global warming for the sake of the planet, the Liberals will have a heavy burden to bear. Will the hon. Gentleman address that point?
  Dr. Cable: I certainly shall. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, there are different ways of reducing carbon emissions, not least by placing far greater emphasis on energy efficiency, energy conservation and new renewables than the Government have placed on them so far.
  I recognise that we must pose questions as well as make assertions. I acknowledge that the Government face difficult choices—for example, thousands of people working in one generator or another being at risk of losing their livelihood is clearly a serious matter. I recognise, too, that the Government have inherited some serious problems in energy policy, not least the privatised company British Energy.
  It is important to delve into the past to some extent. The circumstances in which British Energy was privatised were scandalous: it was sold at a price that barely covered the construction costs of one of the eight reactors that were sold off. We saw such rip-offs in Russia in the early days of the post-communist era, but it happened here in this country with British Energy. The people who have subsequently run the company have displayed a mixture of stupidity and greed comparable to that seen in some of the other utilities. In 1999, when severe losses were already accumulating, the company decided to pay out £430 million in an extra dividend to its shareholders. Earlier this year, when the company had already recorded very large losses of more than £500 million, the chief executive was awarded a performance bonus. Those who ran British Energy went around the world making acquisitions—for example, in north America—but did not concentrate on the increasing competitive problems within their own industry. That is the company whose shareholders the Government now want to rescue.
  There are other factors to be taken into account—for example, many of the reactors are old. The nuclear power industry has a long and complex history: it started in the 1950s, often inspired by genuine and admirable idealism—people wanted to convert the dangers of nuclear warfare into creating a form of cheap energy that would last indefinitely. Policy was taken forward in the 1960s by Harold Wilson, Tony Benn and others who believed that big science and state planning could drive the nuclear energy sector. Mrs. Thatcher was a great fan—perhaps inspired in part by the fact that it was a form of energy that did not pass through the hands of either Arabs or coal miners. Nuclear power had strong patronage from both sides for a long time, but then came an abundance of reports from the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development and others, including the Brundtland report in the mid-1980s, which shows that not only did the nuclear power sector pose serious environmental problems—waste disposal and so on—but it was not economically competitive. It beggars belief that in introducing an energy market the Government did not anticipate the development that has taken place in the past few months.
  Mr. Tom Watson: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Government should

  203
  allow British Energy to enter bankruptcy? If he is, will he suggest how the 15 per cent. reduction in base load could be replaced overnight?
  Dr. Cable: The logic of my argument is clearly that British Energy should, if necessary, go into administration—the process that deals with companies that can no longer trade commercially. I shall explain how I think some of the problems surrounding that could be resolved.
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: No one could ever accuse me of being a supporter of nuclear power— I have never been—but I recognise that the Government have to have their eye on security of energy supply in this country, and that to maintain that properly they must secure diversity of production, which has to include some element of nuclear power production. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that?
  Dr. Cable: I certainly accept that security of supply is an important consideration, but I do not think that that is an issue at the moment—there is vast spare capacity in the industry. Nuclear power may or may not be part of the story—we neither advocate nor oppose it as a matter of principle.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman refers to the uneconomic character of the introduction of nuclear power generation, but whether it was economically viable at the outset is not so much the issue today as whether the continuing operation of that nuclear plant is economically viable in relation to the current market for electricity. Does he agree that that is the case, and what is his view on economic viability in terms of the marginal costs of operating British Energy's plant?
  Dr. Cable: The current market position is as follows. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there has been a fall of 40 per cent. in the wholesale price of electricity in the past three years. British industry has benefited considerably from that reduction to the extent to which it has been passed on. As a result of competition, monopoly profits in the privatised energy generators have been stripped out to a large extent. That has left the nuclear power industry, especially British Energy, selling at a price 20 per cent. below the price at which it could make a profit. That is how fundamentally uncompetitive the industry has become.
  The question is, in those circumstances and with a lot of excess capacity in the energy industry—estimates vary, but National Grid says that there is 30 per cent. excess capacity, and that figure could well rise if there is a downturn in the economy—why should the Government intervene to assist one company? A series of answers to that question have been given, and I shall work through them.
  The first and probably the most important answer cites nuclear safety. Last Thursday, I asked the Leader of the House about this matter. He is clearly a highly intelligent Minister and he is familiar with the arguments, so he did not simply spurt out his answer, which was that the Government had intervened because
  204
  they were concerned about the safety issues that might arise if British Energy were to cease production. The right hon. Gentleman is right to put the fundamental issue of safety at the top of the list—we share that starting point. However, it is an odd argument, because there is no reason why the closure of a nuclear plant should present a risk to public safety. One of the reactors—Torness—has already been closed, for technical reasons. Perhaps the Minister can give one, but there is no obvious reason why a company that has been received into administration should present a health and safety risk. The Government have a health and safety system that is designed to protect the public in such circumstances.
  What I think is happening—if it is, it is an alarming development—is that the company is, in effect, blackmailing the Government. The company is saying to the Government, "You sign the cheques to pay to bail us out; otherwise, we will lock the doors, walk away from our installations and leave you to take the risk of any accidents that occur."
  Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: The hon. Gentleman might be aware that in the local elections earlier this year the Liberal Democrats gained Barnwood ward in Gloucester, which happens to be the home of British Energy. Does he have a message for that Liberal Democrat ward and the 1,000 or more employees of British Energy it contains?
  Dr. Cable: The message that I would send to those employees is the same message as I would send to thousands of people across the country, in wards where there are plants with power generation through gas, coal and nuclear, all of which are faced with the loss of their livelihoods. The issue is why the Government have intervened to help one type of plant but not others.
  The first ground given for intervention was safety. As I suggested, and I use the word reservedly, I think the Government are being blackmailed into supporting the company. That is a dangerous game. The company could well come back to the Government and say, "You have given us £650 million. That is not enough. We need more. We need £1 billion. We need £2 billion, and unless you provide it, public safety is at risk." That is a very dangerous argument, if the Government have embraced it.
  The second argument that has been advanced relates to the security of supply, which the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) raised a few moments ago. It is right that the Government should be concerned that the lights are not switched off—that we do not have a California-style situation. If that is what the Government are concerned about, it is a reasonable preoccupation. However, nothing could be further from the present position. We have, as I said, roughly 30 per cent. spare capacity, despite conditions of peak demand in winter, in an industry where British Energy is generating about 17 per cent. We have a great deal of capacity in the industry. The equivalent of eight nuclear power stations have already received planning consent. As the Government's energy review demonstrated, with reasonable policies the Government could save about 30 per cent. of nuclear output through energy

  205
  conservation, so the idea that we face a California-style switch-off is ludicrously far removed from the present circumstances.
  Mr. George Osborne: The hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) said that nuclear power may or may not form part of the future energy supply, according to the Liberal Democrats. Is the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) telling us that he has initiated a debate on nuclear power but that his party has not decided whether nuclear power should form part of the future of energy in this country?
  Dr. Cable: I shall deal shortly with the so-called issue of keeping the nuclear option open. I have one point to make before I come to that.
  The third issue is the Government's concern that if the company goes bust, they will have dumped on them about £5 billion of decommissioning liabilities that at present, technically and legally, are the responsibility of the shareholders. I understand why the Treasury would be concerned about that, but we are grateful to Greenpeace, among others, which has done some delving into the exact accounting position in respect of decommissioning liabilities. Greenpeace made the point, which many people overlooked at the first run, that those massive sums are not discounted to present value. They represent commitments stretching decades into the future. If the Government were concerned about provision for decommissioning, that could be met by an annual payment of £40 million.
  Mr. Kevin Hughes rose—
  Paddy Tipping rose—
  Dr. Cable: I will give way, but I was hoping to deal with the question from the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) about where we see nuclear power in the picture.
  The fourth argument that is advanced, which comes to the heart of the debate, is that we must at the very least keep the nuclear option open. The problem is that there are different ways of doing that. It is quite possible that, in years to come, nuclear power technology will have advanced to a point at which it has dealt with the environmental problems that concern us and it is cost-competitive. That is why my colleagues and I believe that it would be prudent and right for the Government to invest in research in nuclear power. That would be a profitable, useful role for the Department of Trade and Industry. That is quite a different matter from a large-scale bail-out of one particular company that cannot compete at this stage.
  Paddy Tipping: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is over-capacity in the industry, but he is wrong when he says that it is 30 per cent. at the peak in winter. The figure is probably 17 per cent. His party relies on renewables to make up any gap, but of course renewables are not effective in the winter. There needs to be a reserve power. Is he saying that his party does not support nuclear today, but will support nuclear in the future? That seemed to be the way that he was arguing.
  Dr. Cable: I said that we should invest in nuclear research, and we would do so with an open mind.
  206
  [Interruption.] Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman's question. He made a perfectly good intervention, and I shall take it seriously and deal with it. He disparages renewable energy, but the Minister of State, Foreign Office used a wonderful phrase last week in a speech on energy security. He spoke about the need for a portfolio of renewable energies—a variety, not one or a particular one, but a mixture of biomass, wind, wave and so on. All sorts of artificial obstructions, such as planning consents, are being put in the way of wind development. Biomass has developed, but has shut down in this competitive market. The Government are not proposing to bail that out. They are proposing to bail out nuclear power.
  Mr. Watson: The National Grid believes that overcapacity of 20 per cent. is sufficient to ensure security of supply in times of peak demand. Should British Energy go under, the estimate is that the capacity would be only 8 per cent. over average. Will the hon. Gentleman answer my original question about where the additional capacity would be generated from?
  Dr. Cable: There is clearly a debate about the right numbers. The figure that the National Grid supplied to the Government was 30 per cent. It may not be right, and the Minister may come up with different numbers. Of that total, about 6 per cent. has been mothballed, although it can be re-opened at any time.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: It is important that we try to establish what Liberal party policy is. I am indebted to federal policy consultation paper No. 61, which states:
  "Current party policy calls for nuclear power to be phased out as the current stations come to the end of their lives".
  The hon. Gentleman has just told the House that he and his hon. Friends have a quite different policy. Perhaps he can help us.
  Dr. Cable: The hon. Gentleman is either not concentrating or not terribly bright. Any sensible, open-minded energy policy must research its options. The document stated that we supported the phasing out of nuclear power at the end of its life, and I entirely endorse that. I should be interested to hear what public expenditure commitments the Conservatives are prepared to make. The present crisis in the industry has foreshortened the period over which the phase-out will occur.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Dr. Cable: Let me press on. I have taken a fair number of interventions. I shall take one more from the Government Benches, but then I shall move on.
  Mr. David Drew: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he envisage that the phasing out of nuclear energy would include the interconnector? One of the problems for the German Government and the politicians of some parties in the

  207
  UK seems to be the willingness to use foreign nuclear sources, while getting rid of national nuclear. Is that not hypocritical as an energy policy?
  Dr. Cable: I was not proposing to get rid of the interconnector. If French taxpayers are so foolish as to subsidise British consumers, I am not sure that we should look a gift horse in the mouth.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Dr. Cable: Let me move on to the future.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Gentleman is clearly not giving way.
  Dr. Cable: I have tried to deal with the arguments that I think are being advanced for the Government intervention. I shall move on to the future and consider the Government's intentions.
  The first question that we need to ask is how the Government will get their £650 million back. That is an important question, because we know that the budget is not as comfortable as it was six months or a year ago. How is the money to be retrieved? As far as I understand it, the loan is not secured. It was made to a company that was losing money in the previous financial year at a rate of £500 million a year. The energy market is not improving, so how will the money be generated? Another £1 billion-worth of creditors have secured their loans. Where will the money go? I have a very strong suspicion that it will simply be lost.
  The Government have aired in public a series of options for retrieving the situation. The approach will involve one of two things. Either they will scrap the energy market that they have created, do a complete volte face in respect of the whole principle of competition in energy supply and go back to the days of direction and quotas, or the companies will find money through a different route—in other words, a hidden subsidy rather than an overt one.
  I believe that two mechanisms are being seriously negotiated in Government. The first is exemption of the nuclear power industry from the climate change levy. At first sight, that seems perfectly sensible. After all, the nuclear power industry does not produce any carbon dioxide, so why should it pay a climate change levy? If the Government had listened to our advice and established a proper carbon tax that was charged upstream on gas, coal and oil, the problem would never have arisen. However, what they call a climate change levy is not such a levy at all; it is an energy tax that is arbitrarily applied to a set of industries. If they now exempt the nuclear power industry while applying the measure to other suppliers despite the fact that nuclear energy generates its own environmental problems, they will create severe problems in ensuring a level playing field in the market that they have created. The possibility of such an approach also raises the question of where the money to pay for the exemption should come from. The Chancellor said clearly that the funds
  208
  need to be offset against employers' national insurance, so any rebating will have to be found through that mechanism, which will impose a charge on the rest of British industry.
  Mr. Michael Weir: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the climate change levy argument is a bit of a red herring? Should British Energy finally go under, the inherent cost of dealing with nuclear waste would offset any savings made by the non-emission of carbon.
  Dr. Cable: That is absolutely right and it is one very good reason why any attempt to introduce such exemption from the levy would not be plausible. Of course, the sums involved are also much smaller than the losses that are being incurred, so the problem would not be solved.
  The second mechanism—the one that I think the Government are taking seriously—relates to a technically complicated area. We must closely watch what the Government are doing. They are discussing offloading British Energy's obligation to reprocess waste through Sellafield and BNFL. There is a perfectly good environmental reason for questioning that process. I do not know whether any hon. Members representing the Sellafield region are present, but there are all sorts of worries about Sellafield and sea pollution. I can understand the environmental factors that are involved, but using such issues as a financial mechanism will simply shift the losses upfront from British Energy shareholders and on to the taxpayer through a publicly owned entity. It is a subsidy by the back door.
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: I think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make the point that the switch from the pool system to the new trading arrangements has imposed a heavy burden on nuclear energy. I am sure that I can carry him in that assessment. However, the point is surely that vertically integrated operators, such as EDF—Electricite de France—have been able to buy downstream retail operations and transfer the burden in that way.
  Dr. Cable rose—
  Mr. Robinson: If the hon. Gentleman will wait one second, I shall finish the point. Of course, BNFL and others have not been able to do the same thing. All that he is doing is trying to transfer a solution from one area to another, but the simple fact is that we need a balanced—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's contribution is rather long for an intervention. Perhaps he could draw his remarks to a close.
  Mr. Robinson: We need a balanced arrangement for the pricing of energy throughout the country.
  Dr. Cable: The fact is that the people who run British Energy had the option of buying into the downstream. They considered it and walked away. They made a very bad commercial misjudgment and the Government are now expecting taxpayers to pay the bill for the error.
  Mr. David Chaytor: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that even if British Energy had

  209
  acquired an electricity retail business, that would not have disguised the essential point, which is that the generation of nuclear power is intrinsically uneconomic and will always remain so?
  Dr. Cable: The hon. Gentleman makes the point with considerable eloquence and I thank him for doing so.
  In conclusion, the Government are risking very large amounts of public money to support a failed enterprise in the nuclear power industry for very questionable long-term reasons. If they have large amounts of public money available for that purpose—I did not think that they had—there are other ways in which it could almost certainly be used more cost-effectively. For example, they could support energy conservation. There are probably Labour Members present who, like me, were members of the Committee that scrutinised the Home Energy Conservation Bill before it was sunk because the Treasury was not willing to give the relatively small support that was required. If the money is available, the Government could provide pump priming support for renewables.
  I hope that I have posed a series of questions to Ministers. I think that they are legitimate questions about where their intervention is leading. I hope that the Minister can answer them, but I fear that the Government are creating a subsidy on a scale that will eventually make the millennium dome look like a very small leakage indeed.
  8.16 pm
  The Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. Brian Wilson): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes the publication earlier this year of the Performance and Innovation Unit's review of the strategic issues surrounding energy policy for Great Britain up to 2050; welcomes the Government's commitment to publish an Energy White Paper in the New Year setting out a long-term framework for energy policy following its recent extensive and innovative public consultation on energy issues; understands that British Energy's problems, and those of certain other players, are about companies rather than a way of generating electricity and welcomes the speed with which the market can respond to protect the interests of consumers; recognizes that the future of nuclear power in the UK is a question that has to be addressed on its own merits, not in the light of a particular set of circumstances surrounding a particular private sector company; further recognizes that it is not the responsibility of Government to bail out electricity suppliers unless it threatens safety or security of electricity supplies; and welcomes the work Government has done to promote sustainable energy use in terms of energy use reductions and to promote the development of renewable energy."
  What we heard from the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) was mainly a restatement of anti-nuclear arguments dressed up in a slightly different context. The thrust of his argument is that the Government have acted wrongly in relation to British Energy by giving the loan. After he had said that, I sensed some confusion in his argument. I believe that the Government have acted absolutely properly in relation to British Energy because we are motivated by two overriding imperatives: the absolutely safe operation of nuclear power stations and the
  210
  maintenance of security of supply. According to those criteria, what the Government have done is both proper and absolutely necessary.
  Gregory Barker: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Wilson: I shall do so shortly.
  I understand that the Liberal Democrats have a big problem on energy policy. They are against lots of things, including nuclear power, and if all those things were withdrawn from our energy mix, the lights would go out and carbon emissions would rise. Therefore, they must also purport to be in favour of things, however hypothetically, to resolve their dilemma. What could be cleaner and cuddlier for them to support than renewables? As we have again heard, they want to outbid the rest of us on renewable targets.
  The problem is that the Liberal Democrats did not reach their current mighty heights by being in favour of things. They got there largely by jumping on every opportunistic local bandwagon that happened to be passing. Notoriously, from my point of view, local bandwagons tend to be against renewable energy schemes rather than in favour of them. That is why, in the real world, two thirds of proposed renewable energy developments never happen and why one leading figure in the wind power industry recently said that three issues were obstructing the growth of renewables—planning, planning and planning.
  Malcolm Bruce: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Wilson: No; I shall first give the hon. Gentleman something more to feed on.
  So what are the Liberal Democrats doing, as opposed to saying? Let us remember that they are saying that we must abandon existing sources of energy, drive nuclear companies into bankruptcy and replace them with renewables targets far more ambitious than the wimpish ones that we are striving to achieve.
  Let us go on a little tour of Liberal Democrat Britain, beginning with the Solway Firth, one of the best areas in the country for developing offshore wind. Only a couple of weeks ago, the rainbow coalition of Dumfries and Galloway turned down the Robin Rigg project, with the Liberal Democrat chairman of the environment committee—yes, folks, the environment committee—leading the opposition. A few years ago in Langholm, it took a public inquiry to overcome Liberal Democrat opposition to a five-turbine wind farm.
  Let us travel north to Skye, where the leader of the Liberal Democrats is also the local Member of Parliament. One might have thought that that provided an opportunity to show leadership in the movement to triple or quadruple our renewables targets. However, wind farm proposals in Skye have inevitably met with noisy, albeit minority, resistance. The website of the group that opposes wind farms on Skye includes a letter from the leader of the Liberal Democrats. He does not support the opposition, but comes as close as possible to requesting that the application be called in. He writes, "Any proposal will require at the very least the approval of the Highland council and will be closely scrutinised at every stage. I would imagine a proposal of this scale may

  211
  require the approval of the Scottish Executive. I will certainly be monitoring developments closely." With such leadership, how can the renewables revolution fail?
  Malcolm Bruce: Will the Minister explain whether he is in favour of the new electricity trading arrangements that the Government set up? If so, and if that drives electricity down to the extent of making nuclear power stations uneconomic, do the Government believe that they should ignore the market and intervene? If that is the case, what sort of broad energy strategy do they have? Would not it be helpful to tell us when and why they will next intervene in the market?
  Mr. Wilson: A detached observer might believe that the hon. Gentleman was trying to change the subject from Liberal Democrats' actions as opposed to their theory.
  Let us go to Hereford. At Prime Minister's questions last week, the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) famously called for a public inquiry into a wind farm that has not even been proposed. That is spectacular.
  I often take hon. Members north to Lewis in the Western Isles, but tonight I want to take them down south to Lewes in Sussex, home to a one-man Liberal Democrat wind machine, and a Liberal Democrat-controlled council. Again, we look for leadership and, in that instance, we find it, albeit in unexpected form. The Liberal Democrats have banned solar power because it does not look nice. That is extraordinary but true. They have ordered Lady Wedgwood, a public-spirited individual as far as I can tell, to remove her solar panels because they do not suit the ambience of the area. Moreover, they have introduced a blanket ban on other solar panels in that part of Lewes because it is a conservation area. We now face a new Liberal Democrat pressure group: not NIMBYs but NIMCAs—not in my conservation area.
  Sir Robert Smith: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Wilson: No. If the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) were here, I would give way to him. I believe that Lady Wedgwood speaks for the nation when she writes, "I am very concerned about saving the environment. It is something everyone should be interested in, especially considering what has happened in Lewes with the flooding. I think the whole thing is ridiculous." So do I.
  Mr. Mark Francois: I have very much enjoyed the Minister's tour de force, but I ask him not to omit Wales. The Liberal Democrats often make great play of renewable energy except in the Welsh Assembly, where they consistently oppose applications for wind farms.
  Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Doubtless the tour could be extended ad infinitum. I welcome further contributions. However, I am making a serious point. There is no point in standing up in the Chamber and saying that we should get rid of
  212
  nuclear power, oil, coal and so on without being prepared to will the means for an alternative. Time and again, local pressure groups, often with support from the precise people who declare most loudly that they favour renewables in principle, vote against them and block projects so that two thirds are never realised. Then they have the cheek to come here and say that our targets are not sufficiently ambitious.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: The Minister is making a good cut-out-and-keep speech, which will certainly be in my back pocket the next time the Liberals come round in Ceredigion. He knows that the Liberals opposed the Cefn Croes application, which was for the largest wind farm in both England and Wales. He approved it, though not in the democratic way that I would have liked. Nevertheless, the application was approved with my support and against the opposition of Liberal Democrats in Ceredigion.
  Will the Minister move on to deal with the serious point at the heart of the debate? He must explain the justification for the £650 million British Energy subsidy, how the money will be returned to the Government and whether further demands from British Energy—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is too long.
  Mr. Wilson: I am unlikely to forget Cefn Croes because the Bishop of Hereford, no less—I do not know whether he is a Liberal Democrat—
  Mr. Robert Key: Yes, he is.
  Mr. Wilson: He compared me with the Taliban destroying the statues.
  Mr. Roger Williams: The Minister appears to be saying that there should be a fundamental review of the planning system. [Interruption.] We should have a system whereby we can identify suitable places for renewable energy—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Williams: We should have such a system rather than speculative applications that are based simply on profit and do not pay due attention to the application's environmental aspects.
  Mr. Wilson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We must work together to find ways in which to overcome Liberal Democrat opportunism.
  I dispute the view of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) that I am not making a serious point. It is immensely serious. I am drawing attention to the contrast between words and actions. Liberal Democrats' words on other subjects such as nuclear power are meaningless if they are not matched by actions that give them at least a hypothetical basis of rationality.
  Gregory Barker: I want to lead the Minister to the serious point, namely the £650 million bail-out of

  213
  British Energy. I presume that the money met the Government's famous best value criteria. At what colossal subsidy will it become uneconomic to bail it out—£800 million, £1 billion, £2 billion? What price will he not pay to keep British Energy afloat?
  Mr. Wilson: What we put in place lasts until 29 November. Before then, we must decide how to take matters forward after all the discussions that are taking place with the company. However, to characterise our actions as bailing out British Energy is inaccurate. First, the money is a loan [Laughter.] That is an important point. The bond gives us priority over bondholders or shareholders if the company becomes insolvent. However, we are motivated not by bailing out British Energy as a company, but by the safe operation of nuclear power stations and by maintaining security of supply. In spite of the rubbish that we heard earlier, we need nuclear power. Whether we should do so or not is an historic argument, but the idea that any political party in the House could blithely say "Let British Energy go to the wall" is preposterous.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Wilson: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does my hon. Friend agree with the British Energy brief, which states:
  "Closing stations early would bring forward decommissioning costs and transfer £5bn of liabilities to the taxpayer."?
  Is British Energy right to say that?
  Mr. Wilson: I am sorry. I lost the earlier part of my hon. Friend's intervention in the hubbub.
  Mr. Dalyell: The British Energy brief makes the important statement that:
  "Closing stations early would bring forward decommissioning costs and transfer £5bn of liabilities to the taxpayer."
  I am asking the Minister—I do not know the answer to this question—whether British Energy is right in making that important statement.
  Mr. Wilson: I am not going to give my hon. Friend a definitive answer to that. What I will say, however, will put into perspective some of the points that have been made. I have no doubt that it would cost more to close nuclear power stations than it costs to keep them going, and, in keeping them going, we also have that 25 per cent. of the nation's electricity that we need to keep the lights on.
  Mr. Chaytor: If we are now moving from the knockabout section of the debate to the serious section, may I ask the Minister about his reference to the 30 per cent. of renewables applications that are turned down? Is it not the case that that figure applies only to onshore wind farm applications, which form only a small part of the whole gamut of renewable energy technologies?
  Mr. Wilson: It was not one third, but two thirds of the projects approved under the non-fossil fuel obligation that never came to fruition. By definition, most of them
  214
  were for onshore wind farms. Now that offshore wind farms are coming forward, we are, of course, beginning to hear objections to them. I quoted the example of the Solway Firth site. The only reason that people were in favour of them before was that no one was suggesting them. As soon as sites were suggested, all sorts of interest groups came out of the woodwork—some of them perfectly legitimate, such as civil aviation, Ministry of Defence interests and other maritime users. It is not true that the conditions exist along most of the coastline for offshore wind farms. Furthermore, it is not true that the applications will automatically have an easy ride.
  I believe that wind farms have a huge contribution to make, but they are still at the developmental stage, and their technology is not yet fully commercial. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) probably noticed, we have approved two grants of £10 million each over the past two weeks, for the North Hoyle development and for Scroby Sands. I hope that those two examples are the first of many. Okay, most of these are wind projects at present, but that is not because of any preference. It is because, although the other kinds of project have been around for a long time, it is very hard to get them up to a level at which they can be commercially viable.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Is it not the case that one of the biggest objectors to wind farms—even bigger than the Liberal Democrats—is the Ministry of Defence? Might not a partial solution be for the Minister to have a word with some of his MOD ministerial colleagues and ask them to stop objecting?
  Mr. Wilson: I have done, but not in that spirit, because I recognise legitimate interests. Often, when the MOD is blamed for making objections, they turn out not to be from the MOD at all, but from aviation interests in general and civil aviation interests in particular. There is a concern about the impact of wind farms on radar, for example. There are, therefore, perfectly reasonable grounds for concern. I am trying to get a much more stated position from the MOD, so that people know when they are likely to run into objections, but the Ministry is actually co-operating with a large number of developers to give them the advice and guidance that they need. It is worth pointing out that, of the first tranche of 18 offshore wind farm sites to be cleared by the Crown Estate, the MOD objected to or raised concerns about only two. It is not, therefore, true to say that the MOD is making blanket objections.
  Mr. Lansley rose—
  Mr. Drew rose—
  Mr. Wilson: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew).
  Mr. Drew: I thank my hon. Friend; he has been generous with his time. I believe that he will get total support from the whole House—particularly from Labour Members—for the drive towards more renewables, but we must also look beyond renewables to the hydrogen economy. One of the problems involved in trying to shut down the nuclear industry is that, if we

  215
  lose the knowledge and expertise that it contains, where will the hydrogen economy come from, if not from that source? Perhaps my hon. Friend could tell us that.
  Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I keep saying that we have now moved into an era in which the world should not be divided into pro and anti-nuclear fan clubs. We are not fighting the arguments of the 1960s or the 1970s, when the decisions were taken that led to the existence of the nuclear industry. The point is that we have a nuclear industry, and it supplies us with 25 per cent. of our electricity. In Scotland, it supplies us with much more.
  The rational, intelligent argument in which we must engage is whether it makes any kind of sense to run down an industry that is the major low-carbon contributor to the energy mix, just when we face an enormous challenge to reduce the carbon content of our energy supply in general. That is the nub of the debate, and it is perfectly possible to talk about it sensibly.
  Mr. Patrick Hall: Surely we do not need to talk about running down the nuclear industry. We must look at the next 20 years, during which the existing nuclear power stations will reach the end of their safe lives. Has not the performance and innovation unit suggested in a recent report that that period could present an opportunity for renewables and other sustainable means of electricity production to bridge the gap, meeting the need for a secure supply while reducing some of the public costs and liability involved in the decommissioning of nuclear power?
  Mr. Wilson: That is roughly what the PIU report said, and I think that there is a strong element of truth in it. In five years, we will know much more about what renewables will actually, rather than potentially, deliver. We will know much more about the potential of offshore wind, biomass, wave power and all the technologies that are being developed. It is a difficult balance, however. If the formula that we should keep the door open to nuclear power is simply repeated as a mantra rather than being backed up by action, at some point it will become a formula for closing the door. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), the skills base will be lost, and a long planning run-in is needed for the building of new stations.
  Mr. George Osborne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wilson: I will give way once more. I am trying to be helpful.
  Mr. Osborne: One of those skill bases is in my constituency, where NNC, which built virtually every nuclear power station in Britain, employs 1,000 people. The Minister says that to keep the door open we need to start planning new nuclear power stations. Is that what the Government are saying in this debate?
  Mr. Wilson: I think that I have said what I had to say on that. [Laughter.] I am not sure of the reason for the hilarity. Perhaps I have missed something.
  Mr. Osborne: I merely wanted to know whether keeping the door open to nuclear power meant starting to plan to build new nuclear power stations. Are the Government in favour of that?
  Mr. Wilson: I am even more puzzled about what the laughter was about. I have just recognised that what the hon. Gentleman has raised is an issue. Lines must be drawn; a form of words about keeping the door open means nothing. Those are weasel words unless something is done at some point to give them substance. Because of the long run-in, the decision must be made sooner rather than later.
  Mr. Lansley: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Wilson: I want to wind up my speech, because I know that others on both sides of the House want to speak, but I will give way once more.
  Mr. Lansley: I do not wish to interrupt the Minister too much, but there seems to be a confusion that I think he could help to clear up. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) pushed the idea that running the current British Energy nuclear plant was uneconomic. Will the Minister confirm that essentially, as British Energy told the Trade and Industry Committee earlier this year, it aims to get its costs down to 1.6p per kWh? That is below the current price curve under the new electricity trading arrangements. It is clearly economically viable to continue to run the plant; the question in relation to British Energy is how to deal in the longer term with the decommissioning costs.
  Mr. Wilson: That is a fair point. The problems of British Energy are complex—[Laughter.] This is weird.
  The central point about NETA and the price of electricity is that no form of generator can indefinitely produce electricity at a price higher than what the market is paying. In fact, it does not matter what the commodity is; the principle still applies.
  In the context of this debate, what I find puzzling is why the Liberal Democrats or anyone else should say that that argument is the death knell for nuclear power. By the same token, it would be the death knell for renewables. We recognise that, and the whole House agrees. The renewables obligation is a mechanism enabling renewables to be freed, for excellent reasons, from precisely that trap.
  In conclusion, all the issues have to be brought together in the White Paper. Essentially, there are three imperatives of energy policy. First, we must deliver the security of supply that our people are entitled to expect; secondly, we must meet our post-Kyoto environmental targets and obligations; and thirdly, we must deliver affordable energy to households and to industry. This debate and others clearly demonstrate that reconciling those three objectives may be difficult, but it is a central challenge of policy making in the UK.
  In many ways, competitive markets are working. In 1998, we passed legislation to create a competitive and liberalised electricity industry that has improved the

  217
  way in which the electricity and gas industries operate and are regulated in the UK and the early creation of a truly competitive single European energy market remains our priority. It is worth noting that in the competitive market some 900,000 accounts a month are being switched. That is a remarkable degree of churn.
  Mr. Chris Mole: Does my hon. Friend welcome the acquisition of TXU(UK) and its associated businesses by Eon-Powergen because, subject to further competition considerations, that will provide some reassurance of supply for consumers and, in the short term at least, of employment for 1,900 TXU employees, many of whom live in my constituency?
  Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend will understand my difficulty in simply welcoming the takeover, but I note it with interest and I well understand his point. On my previous point about switching accounts, one of the questions that I raised with Eon-Powergen yesterday was specifically about the "Stay Warm" scheme, which applies to pensioners. I would not like to think that there was any concern about the impact of a takeover of TXU on that scheme. I was given the assurance that certainly the existing contracts will be honoured. That is an important message.
  The competitive market is working well in many ways. It is true that competition has brought benefits, but it is also true that reductions in the retail cost of electricity, particularly to domestic consumers, in no way reflect the 40 per cent. drop in the wholesale price of electricity over the past 18 months. I believe that if the liberalised market is to have credibility, it must be clear that consumers are benefiting.
  I welcome the debate. There is much to be discussed before the White Paper and I genuinely look forward to contributions from hon. Members from all parties as there is a lot of valuable input to be made.
  8.42 pm
  Mr. Tim Yeo: I am delighted that we have this chance to debate nuclear policy and related issues, and I congratulate the Liberal Democrats on choosing it for the second half of their Supply day, although after hearing the Minister's entertaining tour of Liberal Democrat seats and councils where proposals for renewable energy schemes have been turned down, I wonder whether the Liberals may now slightly regret their choice of subject, in view of the fascinating insights into the way in which their policy on energy, particularly renewables, is working out in practice.
  I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box and I congratulate him on an entertaining speech. It was not as informative as some of us had hoped, but I shall come back to that in a moment. I regret the fact that the Government did not consider that a statement on this subject was necessary last week, given the fact that during the recess £650 million of taxpayer's money was committed to supporting British Energy. It is a matter of widespread concern not only that no such statement was made, but that the Secretary of State chose not to attend tonight's debate on an important and urgent subject. I hope that the Minister will pass on that concern.
  Conservative Members take these issues seriously. That is why I have chosen to speak at the first available opportunity that the House has had to debate the
  218
  subject since I took on the DTI portfolio at the end of July. The fact that the Secretary of State is not here and the delay in deciding what to do about British Energy suggests uncertainty at least, or perhaps some confusion, about the crisis and how to resolve it—perhaps about energy policy generally, but certainly about nuclear policy in particular. It may be that it is more than confusion. Perhaps the reason for the delay is a conflict between Ministers. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) is known as someone who supports the nuclear industry, but his view does not seem to be universally shared by his ministerial colleagues. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that either the Government do not really know what to do, or that they do know, but are afraid to do it. Whichever of those explanations is true, the outcome is bad for the industry, bad for consumers and bad for taxpayers.
  This industry, almost more than any other, needs clarity and stability if it is to have the confidence required to make long-term investment decisions. Those decisions are very long term, and some of them have to be taken quite soon. Indeed, Britain's ability to meet our climate change commitments could be compromised without an early resolution of the conflicts that appear to exist inside the Government. The current crisis—
  Mr. Weir: For the sake of the clarity that the hon. Gentleman mentions, can he say whether he would have put £610 million into British Energy?
  Mr. Yeo: If the hon. Gentleman is patient, I shall come to exactly that point. The current crisis is played out against the background of an industry that is undergoing fundamental change. After more than a quarter of a century of largely benign conditions in the energy markets in Britain, we face two very big challenges, the first of which is the move from self-sufficiency—we are one of only two G8 countries to enjoy the status of a net exporter—to heavy dependence on imports. Most of that will be gas, and much of it will come from countries that may be subject to some degree of political risk. Secondly, there is the growing international recognition of climate change as an urgent issue. Our obligations to meet our CO2 emissions reduction targets are already quite challenging, and they may well become much more so if future international negotiations set even more demanding targets. I want Britain to play its full part in responding to the problem of climate change, but I do not want us to get ahead of what other countries are doing. However, I certainly do not want us to lag behind them, either.
  The Liberal Democrat motion reflects their underlying hostility to nuclear power, but despite 29 minutes from the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), I am little the wiser about the actual substance of Liberal Democrat policy. He began by attacking the privatisation of British Energy not, the House will have noticed, on ground of principle, but apparently because the price that was charged at the time was too low. The Liberal Democrat position on privatisation appears to be, "It's all right—if investors lose enough money."
  The hon. Gentleman ducked a question about whether the Liberal Democrats support nuclear power, but their "Federal Policy Consultation Paper No. 61" is

  219
  quite clear. Should he hold different views, I am glad to tell him that the consultation period ends on 25 October, so he has just enough time to make his own submission—if he can work out what his views actually are. The document states:
  "Current party policy calls for nuclear power to be phased out".
  He also agreed with an intervention from the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), who said that nuclear power is intrinsically uneconomic. Despite not contradicting such views, the hon. Member for Twickenham did say that he wanted to commit more taxpayers' money to research on nuclear power. At the end of his speech, however, it was still not clear whether he would put in the £650 million of loans. [Interruption.] He would not—at least that is now clear.
  The Liberal Democrat claim to support renewables gave the Minister the opportunity to entertain the House exceptionally well, I thought. As was suggested, I shall keep the relevant extract from Hansard with me when I visit the target seats that the Conservative party will regain at the next election. It is worth asking whether the Liberal Democrats have any commitment on the ground to the introduction of renewables. Are there any constituencies in which they would support the siting of wind farms?
  Richard Ottaway: Twickenham.
  Mr. Yeo: Indeed. Siting a wind farm in Twickenham is an excellent idea—although not, I hope, on the rugby ground.
  Have the Liberal Democrats calculated the cost of turning down every application for an onshore wind farm, on the achievement of the renewables target to which they are committed? How far would the Liberal Democrats regard it as acceptable to raise the price of electricity to consumers in pursuit of their determination to allow Liberal Democrat Members to oppose planning applications up and down the country?
  The Minister left several questions unanswered. I was not clear about his present view of the new electricity trading arrangements. Does he feel, for example, that the cuts in the prices paid to generators have been adequately passed on to consumers? Does he believe that the problems at TXU—which were touched on by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole) and which, happily for consumers, appear to have been resolved satisfactorily—will have a domino effect elsewhere in the industry?
  Mr. Wilson: I want to be clear about this point. I do not think that the cuts have been adequately passed on to consumers—I thought that I had made that clear.
  Mr. Yeo: I thank the Minister for that clarification. The Minister was also unclear in his answer to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne). Indeed, the Government's amendment is ambiguous on the subject of nuclear power generally. At least the Liberal Democrats are clear—if wrong on the issue—that they rule out new nuclear power stations. They appear to rule new stations out even if they would deliver cheaper electricity to
  220
  consumers and might be the best way for Britain to meet its climate change obligations, however important those obligations become in the future. We still do not know the Government's position on the issue; perhaps that is because they do not yet know it.
  Every day the Government delay making their position clear—and the decision is left in the in-tray—adds to the costs that taxpayers and, eventually, consumers may have to pay. The Minister made some reference to 29 November, when the issue will have to be resolved, but it is not clear what Ministers will know then that they do not know now. Why do we need to wait another five and a half weeks for the Government's position to be unveiled?
  The costs of keeping British Energy afloat mounted rapidly, from £410 million on 9 September to £650 million on 26 September. To put the latter figure in context, it should be compared with the annual budgets of £22 million for the Energy Saving Trust, £26 million for the Carbon Trust and £17 million for the energy efficiency best practice programme. It should also be compared with the £55 million spent on research into renewables.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: Surely the more frightening figure is the £2.6 billion that went from the non-fossil fuel obligation to the Magnox nuclear site, purportedly to help to pay decommissioning costs. Not a penny appears to have been spent on decommissioning costs. Would the hon. Gentleman have paid the £650 million?
  Mr. Yeo: I am coming to that point. [Laughter.] Hon. Members must be patient, because we need to develop the argument logically.
  When did the Government realise the extent of British Energy's difficulties? The fact that British Energy was trading at a loss must have been clear to the Minister's advisers well before 9 September. When did British Energy first discuss its anxieties with officials in the Minister's Department? Did not those discussions start months before the crisis package was announced on 9 September? Was not the first advice that his Department sensibly gave to British Energy to go away and discuss with BNFL a renegotiation of the high reprocessing costs that British Energy pays? Can the Minister confirm that those discussions between British Energy and BNFL took place and that an agreement was reached, but that the deal was unfortunately blocked, not by him or his officials but by the Treasury?
  Apart from the reprocessing costs, the other big burden that has been imposed on British Energy is the climate change levy. On this point, I agree with the hon. Member for Twickenham. The climate change levy is not a climate change levy, but simply a clumsy and arbitrary energy tax that has nothing to do with climate change. If it did have anything to do with climate change, it would not be applied to British Energy. It is time the Government stopped insulting the intelligence of the energy industry and calling the levy a climate change levy.
  It is also time to recognise that there are better ways to encourage reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. Those reductions would ensure that the resources were applied where they would be most effective. That could be achieved by means of a carbon tax, and an emissions trading system that was fully compatible with what will be introduced in Europe.

  221
  Does the Minister agree that the cost of supporting British Energy would be much lower if the Government were to allow the company to negotiate freely a new deal with BNFL, and if the Government replaced the climate change levy with a mechanism that directly targeted the carbon dioxide problem?
  In that context, I make it clear that the cost of propping up British Energy in the short term could be much lower if the Government were to adopt the measures that I have set out. However, even at £650 million, that cost is lower than would be the decommissioning cost that would fall on the public sector if British Energy were closed down immediately. That cost could not be met by a company whose financial difficulties are as obvious as British Energy's, and it would dwarf the £650 million that has been put in.
  That in no way, however, reduces my concern about the delay that is taking place. The matter should be resolved urgently, and I have made two practical suggestions about how the burden could be reduced. To be fair to British Energy, if it must bear the decommissioning and waste disposal costs, it is entitled to have its contribution to helping Britain achieve its climate change commitments recognised. Unfortunately, not everyone is willing to give it that recognition.
  The Minister has not yet made clear the Government's solution to the problem. When he winds up, I hope that he will explain to the House what Project Blue is, and whether the Government are examining the possibility of taking British Energy back into public ownership. If he does confirm that, will he explain how that will help reduce the costs that British Energy faces? The problem is that market prices are lower than the costs of production, and that does not have to do with who owns the shares.
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: Does the hon. Gentleman's last point mean that he believes that it would be right for the Government to take British Energy back into public ownership?
  Mr. Yeo: No, I do not believe that that would be right. I do not see that it would help the current problems in any way. Whether the company is owned privately or publicly would not alter the fact that the costs of production are higher than the prices that it can receive. There is no advantage to be found in taking the business back into public ownership.
  Will the Minister also clear up doubts that have surfaced recently about the Government's intentions with regard to the creation of the Liabilities Management Authority? Recent press reports have suggested that the Bill to create that authority may not appear in next month's Queen's Speech, and it would be helpful if those doubts could be set aside. If that Bill does not appear, it will raise further questions about the Government's attitude to the industry.
  Looking ahead, the Opposition support the Government's target that 10 per cent. of electricity should be generated from renewable sources by 2010, although we realise that achieving that target now looks a challenging task. We support the mechanism—the renewables obligation—that the Government have chosen to achieve the target, and we are sympathetic to
  222
  the suggestion in the PIU report that a further, higher target could be set in the longer term, perhaps for 2020. However, Britain will struggle to meet its climate change obligations if the portion of electricity currently generated by nuclear power is generated in future exclusively by fossil fuels. In my view, it would be folly to rule out nuclear power today. A responsible Government would want to keep that option open.
  Future generating capacity will have to meet economic and environmental objectives. The environmental costs and benefits of nuclear power would have to be reflected properly in future electricity markets, and the value placed on the instruments will change as our understanding of the scale of the threat from climate change develops and our appreciation of the true cost of the nuclear legacy is refined.
  We have the opportunity—but it is only brief—to take advantage of a lull in the development of new non-renewable generating capacity to improve our knowledge and to develop policy instruments that will reflect those costs and benefits fairly in a free market. A future Conservative Government would not take a decision to replace nuclear with nuclear: nor would they rule out new nuclear-generated electricity if, with the legacy costs provided for and the associated risk accounted for, it proved to be the most economic way of continuing to meet the global requirement of addressing climate change.
  Gregory Barker: Does my hon. Friend think it telling that in the greatest free market in the world, the United States, there is no nuclear generator under construction, nor is there ever likely to be, because of the fundamental economics that are recognised there? To do so would require private finance.
  Mr. Yeo: I think that the circumstances in the United States market are not always the same as those in ours. However, I am clear that we should allow the market to be the primary determinant of where we generate our electricity from. If there are ways of generating it more cheaply from other sources, we should use them. I believe that we will face more onerous obligations because of the greater recognition of the climate change threat. So the need to be able to generate power from sources that do not make the climate change problem worse is likely to grow. Any future Government will have to bear that factor in mind.
  Mr. Chaytor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Yeo: No, I am about to finish, because I want other right hon. and hon. Members to be able to take part.
  There are many other issues on which I hope we can touch on other occasions, including the need to work harder to promote energy efficiency and to avoid unnecessary delays in making grants available for the construction of offshore wind farms.
  In conclusion, I hope that the Government's White Paper will not be subject to further delays. I hope that its explanation of Government energy policy will be clear enough to remove the uncertainties that plague the industry. Some matters, however, need not wait until the White Paper comes out next year. The problems facing

  223
  British Energy, which have led to taxpayers' money being lent to the company, could be significantly reduced by an announcement this evening or in the very near future of a recognition by the Government that their policies have contributed to the company's difficulties. I regret that the Minister has not yet made such an announcement, and I think that the effect of his failure to do so and the continuing delay in deciding how to resolve the problem will be felt by energy consumers—that is, every man, woman and child in the country. The price of the Government's delay will be paid by the people of Britain, and for that reason the Opposition support neither the motion before the House nor the Government's amendment.
  9.2 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Although I welcome the fact that Liberal Democrat Members have taken the opportunity to initiate this debate, Government and Conservative Members alike can only deplore the lack of seriousness with which they have addressed it. We are dealing not with a single crisis in the nuclear industry but with the entire energy policy for the United Kingdom, not just now but for the next 50 years. Energy policy supremely transcends the time scale in terms of which each of us is naturally inclined to think—the time scale that takes us up to the next election. I thought that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) had a great opportunity, living in the nether world of non-office, to say that the Liberal Democrats would take a stand, make their policy clear and overcome their natural tendency to try to exploit the Government's immediate crisis.
  I wanted to speak in the debate this evening—I am grateful for being chosen, Madam Deputy Speaker—because I suppose that I bear some responsibility for the change from the pool arrangements for pricing energy to the present new electricity trading arrangements or NETA. Under the old pool arrangements, nuclear energy, including French nuclear—we did not even know whether it was French nuclear; it could have been any energy from France—was guaranteed baseload under any circumstances. All the gas that came in was on baseload as well. All such energy was guaranteed, not at the competitive market price, as was often erroneously thought, but at the intervention price—the price at which the marginal producer, coal, quoted for the production that the others on baseload could not meet. The effect was a very high price, which was rightly paid not to the marginal producer during the short period when marginal total production was required but to everyone—to all those guaranteed baseload. The system was not only anti-competitive but clearly anti-coal. On that basis, in the Treasury, it unfortunately—or perhaps in some ways fortunately, as I welcomed the challenge—fell to me to say that that was no argument for closing down coal-fired energy production or for closing down our pits. It was simply a rigged market that worked in one direction.
  I was not there when the new arrangements were entered into. Clearly, since then there has been a switch in the whole bias away from the anti-competitive anti-coal situation to an anti-competitive anti-nuclear situation. The entire drop that was required in the cost
  224
  of energy has been borne by the generators and not by the retail operators, as yet. Those generators— in particular, nuclear—that have not been able to control their retail outlet and offset the 40 per cent. reduction in the price paid for the generation of electricity have come badly unstuck—none more so than British Energy.
  British Energy has behaved very responsibly—unlike Railtrack, if I may say so. It explained its problems to the Government and said that it wanted to be responsible, but that there was no way that it could meet off its own bat a 40 per cent. reduction in a matter of a year or two in the price paid to it for a production cost that it had until then been guaranteed under the old pool arrangements. It took the problem to the Government, saying that it was at least in part of their making. This Government and I personally must accept that element of responsibility for it, even though we were not responsible for setting up the arrangements that preceded that.
  That is why my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy has done a very good job tonight in a brilliant response to a good Opposition-day debate that was marred by the vacuity that the Liberal Democrat party brought to it. My hon. Friend has not tried to evade responsibility for the £600 million plus—it may well turn out to be more—that that policy is going to cost us. Nor, as yet, has he pre-empted the options that are open to him to deal with it.
  We can always attribute blame, but rather than looking back we must look forward to find out how we can deal with this problem. I shall devote a few remarks to that subject. First, hon. Members on both sides of the House—even the Liberals with their fantastical imaginations—must accept that the three dominant criteria that must be met in British energy policy are security of supply, diversity and an environmentally acceptable means of delivery. The idea that is implicit—I hate to say this, but at one point one can almost see the drafting hand of the Treasury in it—in the performance and innovation unit report is that those three criteria can be reconciled in a market-oriented policy, but that is just not realistic.
  Energy affects the whole country and is vital to our existence—as we have said, the development of a supply can easily extend over 50 years—and it cannot be left to the vagaries of an oil price that might double or treble from one year to the next, or a gas price that could do the same. What company could possibly price its products against that background? What private sector company is going to invest against the background of those criteria, not knowing from one day or one year to the next whether it may face a 100 per cent. change in its gross and net margins? It is for those reasons that, like it or not, the Government have to be involved in energy policy.
  The Government will always be involved; they can try to avoid the problem and say, "These are hideous things and we want to leave them to the market". They could try to do what the Tories did, which was to dismember the sector and liberalise it; but at the end of the day, as we have all seen, all those problems come back to the Government. I certainly saw that when I was faced, in 1997–98, with the imminent collapse of the coal industry, just as the present Minister faces the imminent collapse of our private sector nuclear industry. We must face the problems.

  225
  Instead of facing the problems, the Liberal party gave us a trivial contribution, although I hate to say it, from the normally distinguished hon. Member for Twickenham. If we are to face the problems, we have to reconcile those three key criteria. If we are to have diversity, we must accept that gas will become more predominant; it is the cheapest and, to some extent, the cleanest fuel. We need nuclear energy. Where else will the 20 per cent. come from? There must be a continuing role for coal for as long as the supply lasts, for as long as there are reserves and mines are sunk and miners are willing to work them. There must be an increasing role for renewables. I am sure that the whole House will agree about that.
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: Coal has a future; it has a key role in our energy supply. It can produce fewer emissions with the use of the new-generation clean-coal technology that could come on stream with some support and help from the Government. My hon. Friend rightly points out that we need to maintain diversity. Any sensible Government must do that.
  Mr. Robinson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I am grateful for his intervention. Coal is seen as old technology that has to be subsidised; nuclear technology is new, yet subsidy is implicit in its use. What price do we want to pay?
  What of security? If the House decided that the free market should reign and that we should again let loose the dash for gas that we halted in 1998, we would be 90 per cent. dependent on gas within 20 years. I do not believe that we can obtain much more than 10 per cent. from renewables. However, even if we get 15 per cent. of our energy from renewables by 2020, we will still be 85 per cent. dependent on gas. Where will it come from? What security will there be? I mean no disrespect to the gas-producing countries, but there are thousands of miles of pipeline. Countries that do not have —
  Gregory Barker rose—
  Mr. Robinson: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's views and although we are under time restriction— [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] Very good. I shall give way in a moment—
  Dr. Alan Whitehead: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Robinson: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, too.
  The argument was made at the Treasury in the past: how can we let this country become 90 per cent. dependent on gas that travels thousands of miles from countries that are subject to political turbulence, to put it no more strongly than that? That scenario is not acceptable. Rather than letting the free market—although it would not be entirely free even in that context—hold sway, this country would do much better to plan. I hate to use the word "plan" because I know that it is anathema to both sides. However, we need an arrangement or a scheme to provide a balanced source and diversity of energy supply.
  Gregory Barker: The hon. Gentleman looks to the future by as much as 20 years, yet the solutions to our
  226
  energy problems have been distinctly 20th century. He has made no mention of fuel-cell technology or combined heat and power. Surely, we should be investing in new technologies such as those, and breaking the grip of large-scale generators, rather than trying to project 20th-century solutions on to 21st century challenges.
  Mr. Robinson: On the contrary, I think that I have something of a reputation for being a pioneer in new technologies—new industry. I believe, though, that one cannot be totally dependent on their coming off. That is one thing on which we cannot depend. One can plan on the basis of one's coal reserves, knowing what they are and being reasonably sure of extraction and production rates. We do not know so much about the new technologies, in which, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart) would agree, we must invest more. We must move towards fusion and so on. What we cannot do is count on technologies being available in future and close down what is available to us now.
  Dr. Whitehead: Does my hon. Friend accept that one cannot rely on market mechanisms alone to ensure the future of energy supply—that, almost uniquely, requiring renewables to come to market by predominantly market mechanisms is not a logical part of a future energy policy?
  Mr. Robinson: I agree with my hon. Friend entirely. I believe that it is a desirable part of a future energy policy, and I would support those new technologies, as all Labour Members do. The Liberals support them in theory, but—as always with the Liberal party—not in practice. We have to put in place every mechanism that is available to us to help the new technologies succeed in due course. But what I cannot do, and what I am sure, in light of his intervention, my hon. Friend would not do, is to base the security and diversity of our supply on their realisation.
  Mr. Tynan: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Chaytor: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Robinson: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan)
  Mr. Tynan: On the question of new technology, does my hon. Friend accept that as regards nuclear waste, there is an urgent need to ensure that we invest in technology that can deal with our present problem; and that if we do, we should not necessarily agree that that would open the door for nuclear energy to be used as a fuel in the future?
  Mr. Robinson: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I think I accept what the chief scientific adviser to the Department of Trade and Industry said: broadly speaking, in the absence of any immediately credible alternative to nuclear fuel, we have to see that nuclear fuel, at 20 per cent. approximately, is replaced by

  227
  nuclear fuel. That is the position that we come to. We must have a big national debate on that, focused on the House and decided on in the House. I noticed that the Tory party was agnostic in its approach, although I suspect that its Members agreed with me that the option has to be decided one way or the other, because if it is left open for ever while the reactors close down, it is clear to everyone that one no longer has an option.
  Mr. Chaytor rose—
  Mr. Hopkins rose—
  Mr. Robinson: I give way once more, but I do not think that I should give way again after that.
  Mr. Hopkins: I listened with interest to my hon. Friend's speech and agree with much of what he is saying, but I was disappointed by his slighting reference to planning. Some 22 years ago I was co-author of a document called "A Planned Energy Policy" for a fine trade union called NALGO. I think my hon. Friend would agree that had we followed a planned energy policy for the last 22 years, we would not be in the mess that we are now in.
  Mr. Robinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was not suggesting that I had changed my spots over the past few years. I still believe that in certain areas, planning is a very sensible thing to do. We have not always got it entirely right in the past, but I am sure of one thing—that in energy, a sensible Government overview of the whole situation and a sensible principle that will guide the decisions that we take, are essential.
  I shall now discuss the immediate crisis, which is the occasion of our debate. The transfer of the liabilities—the legacy—must be carried through in the next Queen's Speech. The agency must be set up. These are things that we all, as Governments and consumers, have accumulated and inherited. The agency must be set up, to enable us to move to a new situation in which there is a solvent British Energy. That too will require a very sensible, commercial approach to dealing with what will be left of British Energy, together with BNFL.
  I put this concept to the Minister. There is a possibility, admitted throughout the House—even by the Liberals, who say that we should continue research into it—of an ongoing role for nuclear energy. It is well known that BNFL owns Westinghouse, has the licence to generate electricity from pressurised water reactors and has created 200 power stations throughout the world. The Minister and the Government should therefore consider bringing together BNFL and British Energy in a new public-private enterprise, in whichever way one wants to structure it and in whichever of today's acceptable terms one wants to define it, so that they can be shorn of the inherited liabilities and free to make their case to join in a role—the House must decide if there is one—for nuclear energy in the future.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Michael Jack: The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) made some important points about the way in which the electricity
  228
  generation market and the pricing thereof has developed over time, but I want to spend a few moments saying a few words on behalf of the 1,500 nuclear energy workers at BNFL Salwick in my constituency. With the exception of the fuel for the pressurised water reactor at Sizewell, they make all the nuclear fuel in this country. If some of them had been in the Public Gallery tonight, they would have scratched their heads in disbelief, particularly at the terms of the Liberal Democrat motion, given that it simply expresses concern, without giving an opinion, about the very proper action that was taken to safeguard British Energy's short-term future.
  The Liberal Democrat motion also refers to the so-called competitive market proving that nuclear-generated electricity is uneconomic and also generates long-term environmental costs. Neither in the motion, nor with great clarity in the remarks made by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), was any serious comment made about energy security, carbon dioxide emissions or a proper, sustainable balanced energy policy—all of which are vital to the United Kingdom.
  Although the Minister was excellent in his scathing denunciation of Liberal Democrats' equivocation and double-dealing in their policy statements, the Government motion is equally unclear on the industry's future, which affects so many of my constituents. It says that it:
  "Recognizes that the future of nuclear power in the UK is a question that has to be addressed on its own merits, not in the light of a particular set of circumstances surrounding a particular private sector company".
  At the heart of our nuclear policy lies a publicly owned company—BNFL. It is very much the key to some of the issues involving the disposal of the waste of the nuclear electricity generating business, but there is not much mention of that in the Government motion.
  One company's difficulties do not necessarily make a policy, but the Minister touched on the new electricity trading arrangements. That illustrated the important failure in the Liberal Democrat motion to acknowledge that Governments have effectively determined the market for electricity and its price in the United Kingdom since the end of the second world war.
  To return to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West, if the previous market had some failings, one must acknowledge that there may be something wrong with NETA. If a company such as British Energy, which turns over £1.9 billion a year, is effectively on the brink of not making any profit and having to be shored up by a Government loan, given the disparity between the receipts from the sale of the electricity and its wholesale price, there is, as they say, something wrong in the state of Denmark, which ought to be investigated without delay.
  Those of my constituents who are involved in the manufacture of nuclear fuel have observed that the current market arrangements lack any serious long-term underpinning. The base load characteristics of nuclear electricity generation are not properly recognised in the present market arrangements.
  To put it very simply, we have to decide whether this country wants to enjoy what it has been happy to enjoy until now—a balanced electricity portfolio including coal and nuclear energy, which is under our direct control, and gas, which is questionable because it comes

  229
  from more volatile and less secure sources of supply, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West.
  If we want to keep those issues in balance, we had better quickly reach decisions about the future disposal and legacy of nuclear waste, about the right pricing model to ensure that the base load characteristics of nuclear energy are properly recognised and about the need for some long-term assurances to enable planning to take place, for example, with the improved technology of the AP 1000-type generator, which would certainly be more economic and efficient in the future.
  The nuclear fuel workers in my constituency have striven to improve their operation and to reduce their production costs. They have an excellent safety record. As a company, they have taken full cognisance of their environmental responsibilities, yet their prospects seem deeply uncertain.
  Everyone who speaks in the debate will wish to acknowledge the important role of renewables. However, with the kilowatt hour charge for landfill gas of between 2.5p and 3p per kilowatt hour, for wind of between 4p and 5p and for renewable crops of between 6p to 8p, we are considering important economic developments, but at a cost. With energy, we cannot have our cake and eat it.
  Mr. Chaytor rose—
  Mr. Simon Thomas rose—
  Mr. Jack: I will not give way now because I want to speak for 30 more seconds and then resume my place to allow others to make their points.
  If we want to have a sustainable supply of electricity with proper investments in the right sorts of energy that recognise environmental obligations—there is the long-term question of the disposal of waste for all industries, with the exception, perhaps, of wind and wave—we cannot have electricity that is so cheap that it does not generate long-term investment funds. The nuclear fuel workers in my constituency will look to the Minister for answers—if not tonight, in his White Paper—that will secure their future and the security of the nation's energy supplies.
  9.27 pm
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: My hon. Friend the Minister said that in perhaps five years' time we shall have seen what renewables can contribute. I may have misunderstood what he was saying because we can work out now what renewables can contribute. I am a great supporter of renewables, as is everyone who has contributed to the debate. However, it is important that we are realistic about what we can and cannot achieve through them.
  The 10 per cent. target that the Government have already set is a stretch target. There are already serious doubts about whether we can reach it. The 20 per cent. target that is proposed in the PIU report by 2020 is almost impossible. Any discussion with engineers or anyone else who is involved with trying to implement renewable resources will lead to them telling my hon. Friend the Minister that it is impossible.
  230
  I shall run through one or two of the reasons why it is impossible. For example, let us consider the number of windmills that we would need to match the output from the type of power station that the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) mentioned—that is, a 1,000 MW nuclear power station. We would require 6,000 windmills with 20 m blades. To reach 20 per cent. production of our electricity capacity using wind by 2020, we would have to start building 40 windmills per month, every month, from now until 2020. That will not happen in Liberal Democrat constituencies, will it? It is impossible to have such targets.
  I was grateful for some comments that were made by Professor Ian Fells at a meeting that was held at Portcullis House last night. He gave a vivid example. He said that if we put the whole of Kent—the entire landmass—into coppiced willow and converted that into biomass energy production, we would have only half the energy production of Dungeness B on the coast. Those are the simple facts. We can make these calculations; we do not need to wait five years to find the answers to such calculations.
  The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, talked about the problems of NETA. He said that under the current arrangement a market is being created in which nuclear power is not economic. If we take that argument to its logical conclusion—if we say that we will have only that which is economic in the short term with no intervention in the marketplace—we have to start building gas-powered stations and nothing but. There will be no renewables because by any estimate of costs, renewables are three times as expensive as nuclear power—not even taking into account the additional capacity needed for the times when renewables are not available.
  Professor Laughton of the university of London sent a letter during the recess—to all of us, I assumed, although having listened to the comments of those who overestimate wind input I realise that either some hon. Members did not read the letter or it did not reach them. He points out that the times that wind capacity in this country can generate power do not coincide with the times of peak demand; therefore if we build 20 per cent. wind capacity, we have to build matching conventional capacity that can be switched on to supplement provision when wind power is not available.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Ladyman: I cannot, because other hon. Members want to speak and I have only a few minutes in which to make my key points.
  My hon. Friend the Minister and his team have to address the following issue when they are preparing the White Paper. The reason why intervention in the marketplace is necessary is that if we rely solely on a market mechanism, we will not achieve the balanced energy supply that we need. We will be forced into consuming increasing amounts of gas and into becoming net importers of energy—in fact, we became net importers about two weeks ago. Ultimately, we will be forced to buy our energy from Scandinavia and then the countries of the former Soviet Union. That is no way to build a stable energy supply for this country. We must not only keep the nuclear option open, but force it forward.

  231
  Everyone seems to forget the health consequences of energy policy. We talk about global warming, but ignore air pollution. The United Nations estimates that 3 million people die each year as a consequence of air pollution caused by burning fossil fuels. The Minister for the Environment estimates that each year 24,000 people in this country die prematurely as a result of the burning of fossil fuels. Every year, the 25 per cent. of our energy production that is currently produced by nuclear generation saves 4,000 lives in this country. If our efforts to build a broad energy portfolio result only in our replacing the 25 per cent. nuclear production with 25 per cent. renewables, we will have made no contribution either to cutting greenhouse gas production or to reducing the huge number of people who die prematurely as a result of inhaling pollutants.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to think carefully when he is drawing up the White Paper. Not only must he keep the nuclear door open, but he must kick it down and make sure that we start actively to pursue a nuclear policy. That is right for our energy policy and right for the environment.
  9.33 pm
  Richard Ottaway: I declare my interest as a consultant to AEP Energy Services, as set out in the register.
  Two dogs have not barked tonight: first, the European Union, and secondly, the role BNFL is playing in market interaction. For the first time, we in this country have a pure market in energy, and the consequences are profound. Since 1998, there has been a 40 per cent. fall in wholesale electricity prices but, tragically, the consumer has not benefited. Ann Robinson, chair of Energywatch, the independent gas and electricity consumer watchdog, said:
  "This long-awaited NETA end of year review fails to answer the questions we have raised about the massive difference between the savings being enjoyed by electricity suppliers as a result of NETA and those being passed on to domestic consumers. The report has done little to alleviate our fears that consumers are being ripped off."
  That is the state of play: despite the fall in wholesale electricity prices, the consumer is receiving only about an 8 per cent. reduction.
  One of the problems that we face is that, in my judgment, in the vertically integrated players—the generators and the suppliers—there may well be cross subsidy going on, which is not feeding through to the consumer. I suggest to the Minister that he invite Ofgem to take a much harder look at what the suppliers are doing, particularly the vertically integrated suppliers, and what can be done to generate much more competition between the suppliers so that that can work its way through to the public.
  The first dog that is not barking is BNFL. In focusing on British Energy tonight, we are looking at the wrong company. It happens to be the weakest of the companies in the private sector, so it is the first one that hits the stops when the going gets rough in the market. BNFL, owned by the Government, is far more uneconomic. If one draws up a list of the 10 most uneconomic power plants in this country, the five Magnox plants still in
  232
  operation are Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 on that list. That is what is causing the distortions in the market. Under normal circumstances, one would expect those stations to be phased out, but for reasons that we have discussed and for the reason that we have not hit the stops until now, they are being kept open.
  Any restructuring of British Energy must take account of the whole market, so the Minister should not be looking just at British Energy—he should be looking at BNFL. If he were to phase out the uneconomic power stations in a sensible way, he would see the price of electricity rising, which would bring the cash back into the market and into the generators, so that alternative forms of energy could be considered, and nuclear and clean coal could become viable options again. However, he must get the price up and get more liquidity and more investment into the market.
  The second dog that is not barking tonight is the European Union. I have no doubt that giving state aid to just one company in the market is discriminatory and is distorting the market. I am sure that in the long term that would be in breach of the EU state aid regulations. I appreciate that, in the short term, the Minister is doing the right thing in sorting out the problems, but if there were a long-term package that favoured British Energy against the rest of the market, in my judgment he would fall foul of the EU regulations.
  That is not the Minister's fault; he is in a difficult position. He has the White Paper coming up, as well as the shake-out of the market and the problems in the nuclear sector. As other hon. Members have said, the difficulties with gas arise from the fact that from 2006 we will start importing and we do not want excessive reliance on gas. As regards coal, the rules for sulphur and nitrogen emissions will start biting, and unless the Minister can get clean coal technology into place, the coal-fired power stations will run into difficulties, but the market is too low at present, so he cannot get the investment into clean coal technology. As others have commented in respect of renewable energy, the Government will be hard pushed to hit their target of 10 per cent. by 2010. I wish them well in their efforts. The Minister is doing an admirable job in pushing the renewable project as hard as he can, but there are limitations.
  Any restructuring must take into account the whole market. My advice to the Minister is to take out the uneconomic plants, let the prices come back up and get the liquidity back into the market.
  9.38 pm
  Mark Tami: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in the debate this evening. It is a pity that we do not have more time to spend on an issue of such great importance for the country.
  The energy review published in February this year was a useful document identifying some of the key challenges facing Britain in the coming years. Identifying the problems is one thing; doing something about them is quite another. We have had reviews, reports and studies in the past, but we have never translated those into a meaningful and structured energy policy for Britain. In the pre-privatisation days, we relied predominantly on large coal-fired stations

  233
  supported by a strategic nuclear component. I seem to recall that the three new coal-fired power stations that were due to be built by the Central Electricity Generating Board were cancelled directly after privatisation. We have not seen, and nor are we likely to see, the building of another coal-fired power station.
  Likewise, nuclear generation enjoyed a turbulent ride through the privatisation process. First, it was to be included in National Power, but the City got cold feet and it was removed. The Magnox power stations were also removed and the rest of the nuclear power industry went to what has subsequently become British Energy. As in the case of coal, the end result is that we have not seen the building of another nuclear station and we are not likely to do so in the foreseeable future. The approach to renewables has perhaps been more consistent. The CEGB and the Scottish generators did not see them as a worthwhile and viable investment, and it is fair to say that the privatised companies have followed suit.
  We saw under privatisation an incredible and ultimately unsustainable dash for gas that led to the early closure of many coal-fired power stations that could and should have produced energy for many years to come. That had the terrible effects on the UK coal industry that we have all seen. For the longer term, the dash for gas has had even more damaging effects. A country that rightly prided itself on being self-sufficient in energy production now faces dependency on imported gas in the not-too-distant future. We will be a net importer of gas by 2005. The energy review is not worried about the increased use of imported gas in terms of energy security, but I am not too sure about that. While supply might not be a major problem, we cannot guarantee price, and that must endanger security. The recent changes in gas prices have already had an effect on existing gas-fired stations and on the likelihood of further stations being built.
  Where are we now? On the positive side, as many hon. Members have made clear, we have the cheapest electricity for 10 years. We have also made some progress on carbon emissions, although that is a by-product of the increased use of gas rather than part of any concerted plan of action. However, I do not think that we have addressed the major issues that we face today in terms of meeting our energy needs in the years to come and into the middle of the next century, while maintaining our presumably growing commitments on climate change.
  The industry is currently geared almost purely by commercial decisions. While that remains the case, I cannot see how we will make a meaningful change in how we produce energy in this country. The energy review rightly calls for an increase of some 20 per cent. by 2020 in the contribution made by renewables. That is a very tall order and I think that it will be unobtainable if we are not prepared to grasp the challenge of greater intervention in the mix of fuel generation. The review rejects that possibility on the ground that it distorts the market, but surely that is the point. It goes on to say that the
  "role of government should be to monitor the actions of the market participants and only intervene at the last resort."
  If we are not prepared to intervene or exert influence, we will recognise what we have done only when it is too late. We will then have to intervene, as we will be at the
  234
  last resort. If we leave things entirely to the whims of the market, the reality is that nothing will change, or if changes occur, they will be driven purely by price, rather than by any need for diversity or by environmental concerns.
  Nuclear power currently accounts for 15 to 20 per cent. of our electricity generation, but that percentage will fall. By 2020, the majority of our nuclear power stations will have closed. We must either be prepared to accept that or to change it. We must face up to the current situation. While nuclear power is not and never has been the cheapest means of energy production, it makes a major contribution to reducing carbon emissions. We must consider nuclear power in a full light and not purely in price terms.
  9.44 pm
  Mr. Robert Key: The debate has been a wasted opportunity. A pathetic, 19th—century motion was followed by a limp, 20th-century argument from the Liberal Democrats. We should have discussed the future of energy—science and engineering. We want to be involved in nuclear fusion and on the way to the hydrogen revolution. We will get there through science and engineering. We must abandon the country's perception that it is anti-science. It is preposterous to debate energy in an anti-science culture that looks backwards, distrusts science and will not understand the reality.
  The proposition that renewable energy is not favoured and is not on an even playing field with other forms of energy is ridiculous. The renewable energy programmes are important and we welcome them, but they would not have a prayer if they did not have free ride on the back of the formerly nationalised electricity systems. We must inject some science, technology, sense and engineering into our debates.
  Some of us are convinced that we must have a new generation of nuclear stations, constructed with new technology. I do not mean the old-fashioned, defence-based technology, which, as we all acknowledge, had terrible problems in the past. We want to move beyond that, and I hope that the Government will have the courage to do that.
  Will the Minister state that he genuinely wants to support the work in plasma physics at Culham, and to look forward beyond Jet to the ITER programme, which must be the greatest hope for the planet?
  9.46 pm
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: The debate has been lively and interactive. There are many points about which I wish to speak, but it is simply not possible to do so.
  After six and a half years, we do not have a Government energy policy, and the payment of £650 million to one company constitutes another contradictory bombshell. Other companies are in the queue, holding out their begging bowls.
  The Minister produced some good, knockabout stuff, which I enjoyed. I suggest that he speak to my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), who is desperate for an offshore wind project near his constituency; he has been denied one by the Ministry of Defence.

  235
  British Energy is 20 per cent. above the market price. If Conservative Members believe that a 20 per cent. price premium should be paid to keep the company afloat, good luck to them.
  On security, more than 20 per cent. capacity above maximum peak demand is available. On diversity, my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) referred to the necessary portfolio of technologies. On safety, I point out that a series of nuclear plants have been successfully closed down in good order in the past 10 years. There is no problem about closing down the remainder.
  It is important to keep the environmental impact of our energy policy in focus. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham made our position clear. If anyone wants more detail, I say for the third time in the Chamber, "Please buy my book." It deals with the matter in depth.
  The £650 million has been wasted. The Energy Saving Trust made it clear that if the money was invested in achieving the 20 per cent. improvement in energy efficiency in the domestic market, we could save the amount of energy that such plants produce.
  The Energy Saving Trust has a budget of £28 million rather than £650 million. Much more could and should be done. I tell those people who claim to be in favour of both nuclear and renewable energy that there is a competition for resources in this country. The Government must decide whether to pump the limited money into a failed nuclear giant, renewables or energy efficiency and conservation. It is competition for resources that this argument is blowing to smithereens; this is not about pro and anti-nuclear arguments. The Government have so far failed to explain how high a price they are prepared to pay to keep British Energy alive. How will they be able to justify refusing bids from other firms and other technologies if they have rescued British Energy?
  We had 20 minutes of knockabout from the Minister, followed by 10 minutes of evasion and three minutes of departmental brief, but we are still no clearer about where the Government stand on these matters. What is the Government's long-term energy policy?
  Malcolm Bruce: Next week.
  Mr. Stunell: Next week, next year. next decade—who knows?
  Our motion poses serious questions not just about British Energy but about Britain's energy in the future, and I urge the House to support it tonight.
  9.50 pm
  Mr. Wilson:I am delighted to hear that the Liberal Democrat spokesman enjoyed my opening remarks, so I shall give him just one more. We have had an excellent, if all-too-short, debate and contributions from both sides have served the important purpose of feeding serious views on serious subjects into the White Paper process. I would welcome more debates and more dialogue, because they would allow people who really know what they are talking about to contribute to the White Paper.
  236
  We have heard a great deal about renewables targets. This matter was summed up for me by a press release issued in Scotland. The Scottish Environment Minister, Ross Finnie, announced that the Scottish Executive were setting a new 40 per cent. target for renewables. Splendid! I have to say that I am slightly allergic to targets. If a target has been set for 20 years hence, for example. that can often be a substitute for the need to do anything for the next 10 years. Anyway, within milliseconds of that statement being made by Mr. Finnie—who, for the benefit of our external audience, is a Liberal Democrat—a press release was issued by the Scottish Liberal Democrat environment spokesperson, a Ms Nora Radcliffe MSP, under the inspiring—inspirational, indeed—headline
  "SNP scunnered over green energy challenge".
  [Interruption.] I am sorry. Is that word taught in public schools? Do we all know what "scunnered" means?
  Ms Radcliffe went on to say that the main point in support of this 40 per cent. target was that
  "The SNP have clearly been scunnered with this announcement as their own target stands at only 30% of green energy supplies by 2020."
  The comparison with wee boys—or, indeed, wee girls—in a playground making contrasts between their respective anatomies springs to mind here.
  I do not want to labour the point, but setting targets achieves nothing. Delivery achieves something, and I hope that the Liberal Democrats will take my remarks to heart, because, instead of being regarded as the party of sustainable energy, as it would wish, it is in some danger of being regarded as the party of unsustainable hypocrisy.
  The substance of this debate has been excellent. I fully respect the reasons why the Opposition spokesman has had to leave the House, but I want to answer some of the points that he raised on the nuclear issue. First, Project Blue is nothing sinister. That is not a name that I would have chosen myself, but the use of code words when discussing commercially sensitive information is perfectly normal, and there was no agenda there. The name describes a process of monitoring what was going on in British Energy.
  That leads me to the answer to another of the hon. Gentleman's questions. Of course we knew that there were problems with British Energy, and we were monitoring them very closely. It is true that we did not know the full extent of British Energy's problems until the company approached us in early September. When the discussions between two commercial entities—BNFL and British Energy—concluded without delivering the solution that had been widely hoped for, the extent of the difficulties became apparent and the company approached the Government. There is absolute transparency about what we discussed and when we discussed it. I shall be happy to answer further questions if they are asked.
  Mr. Lansley: I want to avoid confusion. Liberal Democrats assert that British Energy is producing electricity at 20 per cent. above the market price. If past liabilities are not taken into account, is not the marginal

  237
  cost of production for British Energy's nuclear fleet about 1.8p per kilowatt hour—only slightly above the prevailing market price?
  Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman makes his own point, which is a perfectly reasonable one.
  What is undoubtedly true is that even given the slight swing that has occurred because of the market difficulties with electricity, the wholesale price has risen to a point at which British Energy is presumably operating profitably. I agree with much of what has been said on both sides: decisions that are fundamental to security of supply, and the economic interests of the country cannot be left entirely to the vagaries of a marketplace that can produce such a swing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Your marketplace."] That sounds like an allegation, but my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) has been entirely open. He gave a frank and analytical explanation of why the changes were made. They were made for good reasons, and they have produced many benefits. What we must recognise, however, is that they have not been an unqualified good; they have had other effects, which we must now examine in the spirit of wanting not only a competitive market but of wanting to be sure that the objective of that market—driving down the price of electricity—is not achieved at the cost of security of supply or our environmental obligations. That strikes me as a straightforward proposition, but a complex one to deliver in practice, especially in a liberalised market.
  Malcolm Bruce: This is a serious point, which is at the heart of the debate. If the market is not the whole answer and there is a strategy, should not the Government make clear which kind of energy they wish to encourage, how they will react to changes in the market, and what their long-term policy is? Without that clarity, we do not know what they are doing. Are they just manipulating the market according to their whim? That is what they have been accused of doing. The Minister really must make their position clear.
  Mr. Wilson:We are manipulating the market in one sense, through the support we are giving to renewables. Are the Liberal Democrats criticising us for manipulating the market in favour of renewables?
  I believe that the £650 million loan to British Energy—I emphasise that it is a loan, and that it is capped—makes sense for the energy industry. Let me say in passing that it also makes sense for the people who work for British Energy. I believe it makes sense for security of supply, but I believe too that it makes sense for the taxpayer. The daftest option, from the taxpayer's point of view, would be to switch off electricity generation by British Energy, surrender the revenue, and at the same time pick up all the costs that would be associated with such action. That, it appears to me, is the sequence of actions that the Liberal Democrats and their associates are recommending, and it is bonkers.
  Mr. Paul Marsden:Is it not shameful that a Labour Minister should defend the nuclear energy industry when he knows as well as I do
  238
  that it should not be propped up by the Government? We should be giving far more support to the renewable energy industry. The Minister should be ashamed.
  Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman's comments reflect the fact that he arrived in the Chamber two minutes ago. Tell them that in Shrewsbury.
  Let me say something about NETA—
  Sir Robert Smith: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 54, Noes 313.

  Division No. 326]

  [10:00 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Baker, Norman

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &Atcham)

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Breed, Colin

  Moore, Michael

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Öpik, Lembit

  Burnett, John

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &Dinefwr)

  Burstow, Paul

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Rendel, David

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Chidgey, David

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Cotter, Brian

  Salmond, Alex

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Doughty, Sue

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro & St.Austell)

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyse F)

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Thurso, John

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Hancock, Mike

  Tyler, Paul

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &Ablingdon)

  Webb, Steve

  Weir, Michael

  Heath, David

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Holmes, Paul

  Williams, Roger (Brecon & Radnor)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Keetch, Paul

  Wishart, Pete

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Lamb, Norman

  Sir Robert Smith and Mr. Andrew Stunell

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  NOES

  Ainger, Nick

  Benn, Hilary

  Allen, Graham

  Bennett, Andrew

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Berry, Roger

  Best, Harold

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Betts, Clive

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Borrow, David

  Austin, John

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Banks, Tony

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Barnes, Harry

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Battle, John

  Brennan, Kevin

  Bayley, Hugh

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Beard, Nigel

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Browne, Desmond

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Bryant, Chris

  239

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Godsiff, Roger

  Burgon, Colin

  Goggins, Paul

  Burnham, Andy

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Burnside, David

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Cairns, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Grogan, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hain, rh Peter

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Caton, Martin

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Challen, Colin

  Hanson, David

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Healey, John

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Hermon, Lady

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clelland, David

  Heyes, David

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cohen, Harry

  Hodge, Margaret

  Colman, Tony

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Corston, Jean

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cousins, Jim

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Cranston, hon. Ross

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Crausby, David

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Cummings, John

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Hutton, rh John

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Dalyell, Tam

  Illsley, Eric

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Ingram, rh Adam

  David, Wayne

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Davidson, Ian

  Jamieson, David

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Denham, rh John

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Doran, Frank

  Kemp, Fraser

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Kidney, David

  Drown, Ms Julia

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Edwards, Huw

  Efford, Clive

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Etherington, Bill

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Farrelly, Paul

  Lepper, David

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Linton, Martin

  Flint, Caroline

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Love, Andrew

  Follett, Barbara

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Luke, lain (Dundee E)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Gerrard, Neil

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  McCafferty, Chris

  Gilroy, Linda

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  240

  MacDonald, Calum

  Ruane, Chris

  McDonnell, John

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  MacDougall, John

  Ryan, Joan

  McFall, John

  Salter, Martin

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Sawford, Phil

  McKechin, Ann

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sheerman, Barry

  McNulty, Tony

  Sheridan, Jim

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McWalter, Tony

  Singh, Marsha

  McWilliam, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Smyth, Rev. Martin

  Soley, Clive

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Southworth, Helen

  Martlew, Eric

  Spellar rh John

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Squire Rachel

  Merron, Gillian

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Michael, rh Alun

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Miliband, David

  Stevenson, George

  Miller, Andrew

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mole, Chris

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Stringer, Graham

  Moran, Margaret

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Morgan, Julie

  Tami, Mark

  Morley, Elliot

  Taylor Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Mountford, Kali

  Taylor David (NW Leics)

  Mudie, George

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Mullin, Chris

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Tipping, Paddy

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Todd, Mark

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Trickett, Jon

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Truswell, Paul

  O'Hara, Edward

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Organ, Diana

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Kemptown)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Owen, Albert

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Pearson, Ian

  Tynan, Bill

  Perham, Linda

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Picking, Anne

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Pickthall, Colin

  Ward Claire

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Plaskitt, James

  Watson, Tom

  Pollard, Kerry

  Watts, David

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  White, Brian

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Pound, Stephen

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wilson, Brian

  Prescott, rh John

  Winnick, David

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Purchase, Ken

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Wood, Mike

  Rammell, Bill

  Woolas, Phil

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Worthington, Tony

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Wray, James

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Mr. John Heppell and

  Rooney, Terry

  Mr. Jim Murphy

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question,That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to order [17 October] Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 52.

  Division No.327]

  [10:12 am

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Allen, Graham

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Dalyell, Tam

  Austin, John

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Banks, Tony

  David, Wayne

  Barnes, Harry

  Davidson, Ian

  Battle, John

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dawson, Hilton

  Beard, Nigel

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Denham, rh John

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Benn, Hilary

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Berry, Roger

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Best, Harold

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Betts, Clive

  Doran, Frank

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Borrow, David

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Edwards, Huw

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Efford, Clive

  Brennan, Kevin

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Etherington, Bill

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Browne, Desmond

  Fisher, Mark

  Bryant, Chris

  Flint, Caroline

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Burgon, Colin

  Follett, Barbara

  Burnham, Andy

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Burnside, David

  Gardiner, Barry

  Cairns, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Caplin, Ivor

  Godsiff, Roger

  Caton, Martin

  Goggins, Paul

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Challen, Colin

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Grogan, John

  Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hain, rh Peter

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Hanson, David

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Clelland, David

  Coaker, Vernon

  Healey, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hendrick, Mark

  Colman, Tony

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Connarty, Michael

  Hermon, Lady

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Heyes, David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Corston, Jean

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Cranston, hon. Ross

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Crausby, David

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Cummings, John

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  242

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Moran, Margaret

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Morgan, Julie

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Morley, Elliot

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Mountford, Kali

  Mudie, George

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Mullin, Chris

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Hutton, rh John

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Illsley, Eric

  O'Hara, Edward

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Owen, Albert

  Jamieson, David

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Perham, Linda

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pound, Stephen

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Prescott, rh John

  Kidney, David

  Prosser, Gwyn

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Purchase, Ken

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Rammell, Bill

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Lepper, David

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Linton, Martin

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Love, Andrew

  Rooney, Terry

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Ruane, Chris

  Luke, lain (Dundee E)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Ryan, Joan

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McCafferty, Chris

  Sawford, Phil

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Sedgemore, Brian

  MacDonald, Calum

  Shaw, Jonathan

  MacDougall, John

  Sheridan, Jim

  McFall, John

  Singh, Marsha

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  McKechin, Ann

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  McNamara, Kevin

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  McNulty, Tony

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McWalter, Tony

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McWilliam, John

  Smyth, Rev. Martin

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Soley, Clive

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Southworth, Helen

  Mallaber, Judy

  Spellar, rh John

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Squire, Rachel

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Stringer, Graham

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Martlew, Eric

  Tami, Mark

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Merron, Gillian

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Miliband, David

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Miller, Andrew

  Tipping, Paddy

  Moffatt, Laura

  Todd, Mark

  Mole, Chris

  Trickett, Jon

  243

  Truswell, Paul

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Kemptown)

  Wilson, Brian

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Winnick, David

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Tynan, Bill

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Wood, Mike

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Woolas, Phil

  Ward, Claire

  Wray, James

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Watson, Tom

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Watts, David

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  White, Brian

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Mr. John Heppell and

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Mr. Jim Murphy

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  Baker, Norman

  Barrett, John

  Moore, Michael

  Breed, Colin

  Öpik, Lembit

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Burnett, John

  Burstow, Paul

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Rendel, David

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Salmond, Alex

  Cotter, Brian

  Sanders, Adrian

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

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

  Doughty, Sue

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Stunell, Matthew (Truro & St. Austell)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Hancock, Mike

  Tyler, Paul

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Webb, Steve

  Weir, Michael

  Heath, David

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Holmes, Paul

  Williams, Roger (Brecon & Radnor)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Keetch, Paul

  Wishart, Pete

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Lamb, Norman

  Bob Russell and

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  John Thurso

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the publication earlier this year of the Performance and Innovation Unit's review of the strategic issues surrounding energy policy for Great Britain up to 2050; welcomes the Government's commitment to publish an Energy White Paper in the New Year setting out a long-term framework for energy policy following its recent extensive and innovative public consultation on energy issues; understands that British Energy's problems, and those of certain other players, are about companies rather than a way of generating electricity and welcomes the speed with which the market can respond to protect the interests of consumers; recognizes that the future of nuclear power in the UK is a question that has to be addressed on its own merits, not in the light of a particular set of circumstances surrounding a particular private sector company; further recognizes that it is not the responsibility of Government to bail out electricity suppliers unless it threatens safety or security of electricity supplies; and welcomes the work Government has done to promote sustainable energy use in terms of energy use reductions and to promote the development of renewable energy.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Ordered,
  That the Countryside (Provisional and Conclusive Maps) (England) Regulations 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 1710), dated 7th July 2002, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Caplin.]

  STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE CONVENTION
  Motion made,
  That the Order [12th June]relating to the Standing Committee on the Convention be amended, in paragraph (4)(b), by leaving out the words or be counted in the quorum'.—[Mr.Caplin.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Wednesday 23rd October, opposition business may be proceeded with, notwithstanding paragraph (2)(c)(i) of Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business), for three hours or until Seven o'clock, whichever is later, and proceedings shall then lapse if not previously concluded.—[Mr. Caplin.]

PETITIONS

  Food Supplements Directive
  10.25 pm
  Andrew Selous: I rise to present a petition about choice in health food products, signed by about 340 of my constituents, which reads:
  To the House of Commons
  The Petition of Consumers for Health Choice and its supporters,
  Declares that 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 the 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.
  10.26 pm
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I rise to present a petition in similar terms to the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous).

  245
  The petition reads:
  The Petition of Consumers for Health Choice and its supporters, declares that 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.
  That petition was signed by more than 120 people at Herbs, Gardens and Health, a health food store in St. Peter's, near Broadstairs.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Air Weapons
  10.27 pm
  Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: I am delighted to be able to present a petition calling for greater regulation of air weapons, which was signed by 272 people from my constituency of Gloucester. The petition
  Declares that greater regulation of our weapons will save lives and improve animal welfare.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Home Department to bring forward legislative proposals to raise the minimum age for unsupervised use of air weapons from 14 to 17 years, and to bring the regulation of air weapons into line with existing firearms legislation.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Hepatitis C
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Caplin.]
  10.28 pm
  Mr. Richard Spring: May I thank you personally, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity of introducing this debate, and the Minister for being here to reply.
  I would like to bring the Minister's attention to something about which there has already been correspondence with the Department of Health, namely the case of my constituent, Dominique Porché, who suffers from hepatitis C and for whom all avenues of compensation appear to have closed, most unjustly.
  Before discussing the circumstances surrounding my constituent's case, I would like to talk about the condition of hepatitis C itself.
  The Campaign for Effective and Rational Treatment estimates that there are between 300,000 and 500,000 hepatitis C, or HCV, cases in this country. By way of tribute to the Haemophilia Society, I should add that about 2,800 haemophiliacs also have HCV and the society has produced a well thought-out compensation package for consideration.
  I shall outline what we are dealing with medically. Hepatitis C is a disease characterised by inflammation of the liver, usually producing swelling and, in many cases, permanent damage to liver tissue. It is a contagious, viral disease that can lead to serious permanent liver damage. The identification of the specific hepatitis C virus in 1989 solved a mystery: over the previous 10 years, large numbers of hepatitis victims began to appear, but when examined those patients tested negative for both hepatitis A and B. In 1990, when a test was developed to identify individuals infected with a hepatitis variant, hepatitis C was found to be responsible for the majority of cases.
  In contrast with most other types of hepatitis, the majority of HCV infections lead to liver disease. Hepatitis C, in combination with hepatitis B, accounts for 75 per cent. of all cases of liver disease throughout the world. As HCV infection is typically mild in its early stages, it is rarely diagnosed and is often not recognised until it has progressed.
  The virus mutates frequently. Once an infection has begun, hepatitis C creates different genetic variations of itself within the body. The mutated forms are frequently different enough from their ancestors that the immune system cannot recognise them. Thus, even if the immune system begins to succeed against one variation, the mutant strains can take over and become new predominant strains. As a result, the antibodies developed against hepatitis C do not produce an immunity against the disease, as would be the case with most other viruses.
  I turn to the case of my constituent Dominique Porché who, despite his infection, has dealt with his illness in an enormously robust and positive way. I have come to admire his resilience, patience and good humour in adversity.
  In 1998, he contracted hepatitis C from blood transfusions given during operations at Addenbrooke's hospital in Cambridge. In September 1991, routine
  248
  testing for blood transfusions was brought in. It is unclear exactly when the National Blood Authority may have become aware of the likelihood of my constituent's infection. In any event, he was not informed of that possibility for a further five years.
  In 1996, he was informed by the National Blood Authority, via his GP, Dr. Bateman, that he had been identified as infected. That flowed from the Department of Health's national hepatitis C look-back exercise. My constituent said:
  "I was in such shock, confused and very worried. I did not know what to do about this horrifying news."
  In a letter from the consultant in transfusion medicine based at the East Anglian blood centre in Cambridge, my constituent was offered assistance to try to understand the implications of his infection. Disgracefully, there was not even an allusion to compensation.
  In April 2001, more than 12 years since my constituent underwent surgery, he happened to be watching a television programme and became aware of possible compensation claims. At no stage had he been informed either by Addenbrooke's hospital, the National Blood Authority or any other arm of the national health service of his right to pursue such a claim.
  I shall also mention the case of another constituent—Mrs. Angela Woodley of Haverhill. Although her case is different in some respects from that of Dominique Porché, there are similarities in that she contracted the disease at Addenbrooke's hospital from blood transfusions in the 1980s. Mrs. Woodley was receiving treatment for cancer at the time. Her situation represents another tragic story and she is still fighting for compensation. She recently observed to me:
  "It seems nobody wants to know. You never know when it will hit and nobody ever talks about it. The horrific truth is that there are hundreds of people that contracted this disease the same way as I did. How many have to die before this Government takes notice?"
  The Minister will of course be aware of section 32(4)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which overrides normal provisions concerning the deliberate concealment of facts. That means that even if it were proved that the National Blood Authority knew about the likelihood of infection sometime around 1991, there would be no way of extracting such evidence.
  Indeed, in a letter to me dated 25 January, the then Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), detailed the legal underpinnings of the so-called 10-year rule:
  "It should have been made clear that the ten-year ruling means that any legal proceeding needs to have been initiated with a solicitor within ten years of the injury or infection. The Consumer Protection Act 1987 is based on the European directive 85/374/ EEC on the liability for defective products. This states in Article 11 that 'Member States shall provide in their legislation that the rights conferred upon the injured person pursuant to this Directive shall be extinguished upon the expiry of a period of 10 years from the date on which the producer put into circulation the actual product which caused the damage, unless the injured person has in the meantime instituted proceedings against the producer'."
  In the circumstances surrounding the case of Dominique Porché, the cry has to be, "Where is natural justice?" There was a clear dereliction of duty on the

  249
  part of different NHS personnel not to tell him his rights. When he brought the matter to my attention, I obviously got into correspondence with both Addenbrooke's hospital and the then Suffolk health authority. In a letter to me dated 8 February 2002, the Administrative Director of Addenbrooke's hospital wrote with almost heroic understatement:
  "Without making any commitment on behalf of the Trust, I do have to agree that it seems that this chap has received a rather poor deal and I will have a further look into the way in which his case has been handled here to see if there is anything at all that we can do to help."
  It has been pointed out to me that the Consumer Protection Act 1987 is draconian in respect of limitations of actions. Schedule 1 of the Act introduced section 11A into the Limitation Act 1980. It provides for a 10-year long stop on actions for breach of statutory duty. At the end of 10 years the right of action is extinguished. There is no discretion to disapply the 10-year long-stop rule and no provision for extension in respect of late knowledge of a potential action.
  Similarly, in a letter sent to Dominique Porché' written at my instigation, the Chief Executive of the Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire health authority, Peter Houghton, wrote:
  "I refer to your letter of 4th February to Jane Rutherford at Suffolk Health Authority…I have discussed the issues you have raised with Jane Rutherford. Jane has taken, on your behalf, advice from the NHS Litigation Authority, which has been dealing with the Hepatitis C Litigation. Whilst both the NHSLA and the Health Authority wish to extend their deepest sympathy to you in view of the situation in which you find yourself, neither body is authorised to offer patients compensation by way of an ex-gratia payment, or where they have failed the litigation process."
  So we have reached a dead end, but it is scandalous that that should be the case. Of course there has to be a time limit on litigation, and of course litigation cannot be open-ended in the pursuit of a compensation claim; but how on earth can an individual know of his rights when no one in authority tells him?
  Dominique Porché is a self-employed painter and decorator. He has a young son and his wife is expecting another baby. Obviously, he worries about their future in the event of his condition deteriorating. I personally feel deeply committed to supporting him and to trying to secure him some compensation for the tragedy that has cast such a blanket of anxiety over his life.
  Let me tell the Minister that I shall not allow this issue to be pushed under the carpet after this debate. Compensation arrangements have been made in many other countries—Ireland, Spain, Hungary, Sweden, Canada, Italy and Norway, among others. The Minister will note the absence of the United Kingdom from that list.
  British citizens are entitled to clean blood, as Mr. Justice Burton ruled in the case of S and others v. the National Blood Transfusion Service and others last year. However, in practice, that right is not recognised in this country, as it does not extend to individuals, such as Dominique Porché, who are also seeking compensation.
  In my view, the moral argument is transparently obvious and powerful. I hope that the Minister will accept that Dominique Porché has been treated shabbily and unsympathetically because of inflexibility of the system. That really is not fair; it is simply not good enough.
  10.41 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I thank the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) for raising this very important issue. Like him, I should like to say a little about hepatitis C before coming to the individual circumstances of his constituent.
  Hepatitis C is recognised as a global public health problem. The World Health Organisation estimates that there are about 170 million people with chronic hepatitis C infection worldwide. The prevalence of hepatitis C infection varies in different countries. Studies suggest that we in England have a relatively low prevalence of hepatitis C compared with many other countries. The best estimate is that probably about 200,000 people in this country, or 0.4 per cent. of the general population, are likely to have been infected and to have become chronic carriers of hepatitis C.
  Although that is a low prevalence of hepatitis C, it is nearly ten times the estimated figure for those infected with HIV, which shows that it is quite a significant problem for us. However, unlike HIV, we have a drug treatment that can clear the hepatitis C virus in many of those infected, but we obviously recognise that there is no room for complacency. The drug treatment does not work for everyone, but there is a little more hope for those with hepatitis C than for those infected with HIV.
  In most cases, hepatitis C is spread by contact with the blood of someone who is infected. The main groups at risk of infection are injecting drug users and those who received blood transfusions or blood products before screening and viral inactivation processes were introduced.
  People with chronic hepatitis C infection may remain virtually symptomless for many years, and a large number of people will live out their life in the normal way. However, some people may suffer more general debilitating effects, which can affect their quality of life. In a proportion of cases, the liver may become progressively inflamed and damaged. If not treated, that may eventually develop over a number of years into cirrhosis, or occasionally liver cancer. So the disease has some very serious consequences indeed for those people who are not susceptible to the latest drug treatments and for whom the disease progresses to its end stages.
  Two groups of people contracted hepatitis C through blood—the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises. The first group includes about 3,000 haemophilia patients treated with clotting factors before 1985. That is an important date, because it was only in that year that it became possible to remove viruses from pooled blood products by using heat treatment. However, the hon. Gentleman's constituent falls into the second group of people: blood transfusion recipients who contracted the virus before September 1991, the month in which the United Kingdom first introduced blood testing for hepatitis C.
  About 700 such people, including the hon. Gentleman's constituent, Mr. Porché, were identified through a look-back study conducted by the National Blood Service from 1995, but it is likely that it has been impossible to trace many hundreds of others, even through that look-back study, who may be in a similar position.

  251
  The reason why people were still being infected with hepatitis C as a result of blood transfusions as late as 1991 requires some explanation. Unlike pooled blood products that can be heat treated, the red cells for transfusions cannot be treated to remove viruses. The only way to remove viruses from transfused blood is to screen out the infected donors. So there is no treatment of the blood itself that can be carried out. The hepatitis C virus was firmly identified only in 1989. The first screening test for hepatitis C for donors was marketed later that year. It was very experimental at that stage. The United States was one of the first countries to introduce hepatitis C testing in May 1990. The UK began screening blood for hepatitis C in September 1991, using a far more reliable second-generation test. These dates are crucial when considering people's entitlement to compensation. A key issue is whether the national health service was in possession of the scientific knowledge to enable it to carry out the processes at the time.
  I move on to compensation. Haemophiliacs infected with hepatitis C have been campaigning for compensation for a number of years. They have put forward a proposal for a scheme that amounts to about £500 million over 10 years. That was submitted early this year by the Haemophilia Society. We are currently giving the proposal our detailed consideration. There has also been a call for financial assistance in Scotland for all people infected with hepatitis C through blood. That has been discussed by the Scottish Parliament Health and Community Care Committee. The Scottish Executive is currently considering its response to that.
  The Government have listened carefully to all the arguments in favour of a compensation scheme. I am aware of the personal tragedy that is caused to those who find themselves in these circumstances. However, the fact remains that in the NHS compensation is usually given only when either the NHS or those working in it have been at fault. That is where there has been some negligence and the damage can be attributed to it. That is not the case with hepatitis C infection. We therefore do not believe that an exception can be made to the general rule in the case of people infected with hepatitis C. The same conclusion was reached by the previous Government. They examined the issue in the mid-1990s and decided that it was not possible to depart from the general principle.
  As the hon. Gentleman has said, a number of blood transfusion recipients with hepatitis C were successful in winning damages in the High Court through a judgment in March 2001. It was a landmark judgment made under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. Those who were awarded damages were infected between March 1988, the date when the Act came into force, and the start of screening for hepatitis C in September 1991. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that is quite a small window of the people who were infected between the date that the legislation, which is strict product liability legislation, came into force and the date when it could reasonably be held that the NHS should have, and did, introduce screening of blood donors. Those people who fell into that category were entitled to compensation.
  252
  The Consumer Protection Act implements the 1985 European directive on product liability. As I have said, it is a piece of strict liability legislation. That means that there is no requirement of proof of fault, unlike the ordinary law of negligence. It is about defective products. The judge ruled that hepatitis C-infected blood was a defective product and that, irrespective of fault, there was product liability. That is why it appears that the claimants who fell within the window to which I have referred were treated differently in that they received compensation. There is a good legal reason why they became eligible for compensation.
  The outcome of the case does not alter our position on the general rules of compensation. Damages were awarded on a no-fault basis, and at present we do not have such a basis of compensation. Although Governments have occasionally made ex-gracia payments to patients—for example, in the case of haemophiliacs with HIV and the families of people with variant CJD—these have been in truly exceptional circumstances that do not apply to hepatitis C. When HIV first emerged as a disease, it was almost undoubtedly the case that people would die quickly in dreadful circumstances as a result. Even to date there is no accepted treatment as there is in the case of some of those suffering from hepatitis C.
  My understanding is that the hon. Gentleman's constituent was infected after the Consumer Protection Act came into force, but he was not part of the group action and is now barred from seeking damages under the limitation period in the Act. It contains a provision stating that legal proceedings must be initiated with a solicitor within 10 years of the infection. I entirely understand the frustration felt by anyone who has missed out on an opportunity to take legal action for damages. The hon. Gentleman's constituent is not the only person in that position of whom we are aware, but it would set a most unfortunate precedent in other litigation where there are "time bars" if the Government were to accept that as a reason for awarding financial compensation, because it would be entirely outwith the legal framework that applies to our decision making in such matters. I recognise how hard that seems to individuals facing difficulties or family tragedies, but it is important that we maintain the integrity of the system and the rules by which we are bound.
  The hon. Gentleman made two points to which I want to respond. The first is that his constituent, Mr. Porché was not informed of his infection until 1996, five years after the start of screening. That requires an explanation. Secondly, Mr. Porché says that once he had been told of his infection, NHS personnel were derelict in their duty by not informing him of the opportunity to take legal action and become part of the litigation that was brought.
  As I mentioned earlier, the NHS began a look-back exercise in 1995 to trace, counsel and, if necessary, treat people who had been infected with hepatitis C through blood transfusions. That was announced in the House by Mr. Tom Sackville, who was the Minister responsible at the time, on 11 January 1995, and guidance was issued to the NHS in April that year. I have managed to obtain

  253
  a copy of the press release issued in 1995 by Mr. Sackville. In it, Dr. Jeremy Metters, the chairman of the advisory committee and the Government's deputy chief medical officer at the time, explained the reason for the delay:
  "Until recently there was no treatment to offer those who might be identified and it was believed that this exercise would have been technically very difficult. However, following a pilot research study procedures have been established which make it possible to trace those at risk and, more importantly, certain drugs have recently been licensed which may be suitable for the treatment of some of those involved. This look-back programme will go ahead without delay."
  That is the explanation for the time that elapsed between the infections and the look-back exercise: no treatment was available and there were technical barriers to the exercise. However, once they had the means, they got on with the action.
  As for whether Mr. Porché should have been told about the opportunity to claim damages, I am not sure of exactly when he was in contact with NHS officials; however, it may be that at that time the litigation had not started, or it was in its infancy, or people were not certain of the validity of the claim. The Act on which it was based was relatively new, and the judgment was not issued until 2001. If the hon. Gentleman gives me full details of Mr. Porché's contacts with NHS personnel, I shall certainly look into the matter, but it may well be that the litigation had only just started to be contemplated and was therefore not a significant feature in the mind of the NHS at that stage.
  The hon. Gentleman described how his constituent is, naturally, worried about his future and that of his family, and what would happen if his condition were to worsen and perhaps prove resistant to the drug treatments available. Many people with hepatitis C have had difficulties in obtaining insurance. It is, sadly, inevitable that policies and premiums offered by insurers will reflect health factors, but I understand that the Association of British Insurers has told us that applicants who are infected with hepatitis C should not automatically face increased premiums or refusal of cover.
  Many people with hepatitis C will live out their normal life span and not progress to serious liver disease, but some may do so. There will therefore be a range of outcomes for insurance applications from people with hepatitis C, depending on the individual case. Those will range from standard rates to a small weighting, through to a greater weighting or, in serious cases, refusal of cover.
  I know that Scottish Ministers have been working with the Association of British Insurers and the Council of Mortgage Lenders on the issue. I am happy to
  254
  consider a joint meeting with my Scottish colleagues to see whether we can take matters forward and give people some reassurance about their access to finance in the future.
  I shall finish by mentioning some of the steps that the Government are taking to ensure that we get effective prevention, testing and treatment services for people who have hepatitis C. Treatment has improved markedly in recent years. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence assessed the drug combination therapy of ribavirin and interferon for treating hepatitis C and published its recommendations in October 2000. The therapy has been shown to be twice as effective as any previous treatment and clears the virus in about 40 per cent. of those treated. We have provided additional funds to make sure that the NICE-approved therapies can go through.
  There are grounds for further optimism. I understand that there is a new treatment, a modified slow-release form of interferon called pegylated interferon, which became available last year. That appears to be even more effective than conventional interferon, and when used in combination with ribavirin, it clears the virus in about 55 per cent. of cases. That is good news for people who have been infected.
  We have recently been developing a national strategy on hepatitis C, and considering ways of raising public awareness, raising the awareness of clinicians, trying to prevent new cases of hepatitis C, making sure that there is early diagnosis and access to the new therapies, developing managed clinical networks to get everybody in the field involved and, crucially, improving the evidence base so that we can reduce new cases and treat people effectively. Much work is going on in connection with hepatitis C.
  The chief medical officer's infectious diseases strategy, "Getting Ahead of the Curve", recommended that we have the hepatitis C strategy. That will be followed up by an action plan setting out the action that we can take to make a difference. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the NHS takes the matter extremely seriously. I understand the frustration and the difficulties faced by his constituent, among others, but unfortunately, in the circumstances it is not possible for the Government to go outwith the normal system of clinical negligence in this case. We will do everything we can to make sure that people get the proper treatment, and that the proper support is available to the thousands of people and their families for whom hepatitis C is an extremely important issue in their lives.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Eleven o'clock

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Farming (Norfolk)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Joan Ryan.]
9.30 am
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I am glad to have the opportunity to raise an important issue—the state of farming in Norfolk. As hon. Members can see, the debate is genuinely an all-party occasion. I am delighted to see in their places Members from all parties who represent the county. I am sure, of course, that we are all happy to make an exception for the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), the Minister without Portfolio; he is a Cabinet Minister and is extremely busy, and his wife is unwell, so we fully understand his absence. However, his very supportive attitude at meetings with the Norfolk chairman of the National Farmers Union, Tony Williams, led Mr. Williams to believe that he is pushing at an open door in his discussions with the right hon. Gentleman.
Hon. Members from all parties have had the opportunity during the past year to discuss with farmers and others in rural Norfolk the current farming crisis and its effect on the county's economy. Our discussions with the farming community, including with the NFU, have majored on topics that will be dealt with by my hon. Friends. Those topics are economic issues, including world prices, modulation, and the United States farm Act; and biofuels, water matters, imports, genetically modified crops and planning and regulation.
I shall set the scene by describing farm incomes in Norfolk. For that purpose, I use the well-respected annual survey conducted by the accountancy firm of Larking Gowen, based in Norwich, a copy of which I shall hand a copy of the survey to the Clerk. The survey is based on 102 farms and involves a study of 60,000 acres. I believe that it is the largest farm survey undertaken. The 2001 harvest farm survey found that, during the past six years, farm turnover in Norfolk has fallen by 25 per cent., and farming incomes have declined by more than 75 per cent. The average farmer now earns about £3.60 an hour; the Minister will be aware that that is well below the minimum wage.
The survey points out that as a result of the halving of UK commodity prices during the past six years, the increase in bureaucracy and regulation imposed on the sector by the Government, the higher welfare costs and the increased pressure from retailers, farmers feel a growing sense of isolation. I feel sure that the Minister is aware of that, but he should be extremely anxious about it. This morning, we are talking about Norfolk; however, the 400,000 people who marched through London a few weeks ago did not do so because they were happy with their lot or with the Government's understanding of it.
2WH
What are we to infer from that survey? We cannot draw much comfort from it, certainly. Larking Gowen, whose clients farm about 300,000 acres in Norfolk and north Suffolk, predict that, for the foreseeable future, there will be low farm-gate prices, increased borrowing by farmers to stay in business and a further fall in the number of active farmers. It also suggests that there will be a further reduction in the number of farmers employed, increasing social isolation, older farmers delaying retirement because of low incomes and an increasing alienation of the agricultural and rural community from Government.
There are, however, glimmers of hope, because the survey reveals that Norfolk farmers are looking for ways to generate additional income to keep their farm businesses afloat. That can be done, given the right combination of location, capital and training. Indeed, off-farm income has risen from £72 to £100 an acre over the past five years—a clear improvement. That includes leasing land for vegetable production, rent from property, and contracting.
There is a keen interest in scientific advances among farmers in Norfolk. We are fortunate enough to have important scientific research institutes in the county and a lot of exchange of information between farm businesses and scientists. I know that the hon. Member for Norwich. North (Dr. Gibson), who is uniquely well placed to do so, will be talking about Norfolk farmers' enthusiasm for genetically modified crops.
The agriculture community in Norfolk is not backward-looking. One of the Larking Gowen partners, Mr. David Missen, was quoted in the Eastern Daily Press on 30 September as saying:
"It is clear from our survey that farmers are not merely sitting back and letting themselves be overtaken by events."
He also commented:
"We are heartened by the fact that farmers are not quitters … Many could probably sell up and get a better living from investments but this is just not in their blood. Many will come from generations of farmers and they will continue to adapt".
However, he said:
"It will be difficult to achieve this in a climate where there seems no interest in retaining national self-sufficiency in food production."
That is a nub of the matter and I would like the Minister to deal specifically with that aspect of the problem.
The survey is based on the 2001 harvest, but at the time of its publication it was possible to make predictions for this year, given that the corn harvest was complete and the prospects for the sugar beet harvest were becoming clear. Larking Gowen predicts low commodity prices; continued upward pressure on direct costs; problems arising from the ageing equipment base as machinery replacement continues to be deferred and cancelled; reductions in working capital and increased borrowing; and further alienation of agricultural and rural communities from Europe. Small wonder that the Eastern Daily Press headline, when it published the survey on 30 September, was "Farming Crisis Getting Worse".
The survey calculates the effect on the Norfolk economy of the fall in agriculture-related incomes at about £0.75 billion. The Minister will be aware of the national implications of such a figure. Certainly, the people of Norfolk are aware of it. This summer there

3WH
was a threat of closure to Fisher Foods in King's Lynn. I pay tribute to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) and the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who plunged briskly into the issue. While Norfolk people could immediately understand the implications for the people directly employed at the King's Lynn plant and for the 600-plus employed at a factory in my constituency, they could also see that disaster faced pea and bean growers throughout the county, for whom, when the crisis arose, time was of the essence.
Disaster loomed, too, for hauliers, packagers and labelers—and ultimately for the environment. The retailers would, we think, certainly have imported replacement crops from Europe, or possibly from much further afield. However, thanks to the vigorous efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk and the hon. Member for North Norfolk—helped a little by me—the situation was saved. We were all somewhat amused by a letter from the East of England Development Agency, which told us that it was on the case—several days after the problem had been solved. That crisis was averted, but it illustrated beyond doubt that disaster in agriculture is not ring-fenced in rural areas. Norfolk people understand that the problem affects them all.
Earlier this month, at the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) and myself, the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs held a chairmen's seminar at Easton college, as part of its inquiry into the future of British agriculture. Again, it was an all-party occasion, although the timing was unfortunate. Labour colleagues would have been happy to attend, but the seminar coincided with the end of their conference, and one hon. Member was on a parliamentary visit. Nevertheless, the spirit of the occasion was entirely all party. The Minister may be impressed, as we were, by the fact that nearly 300 people attended the seminar, which will be part of the Select Committee's inquiry into the future of British agriculture.
Farmers and growers were of course present, but there were also major employers, councils, charities, the Broads Authority, the Country Landowners Association, the National Trust and the Norfolk Rural Community Council. Some of Norfolk's biggest employers were there, including Bernard Matthews, Bowes of Norfolk and British Sugar. Representatives of the Salvation Army, the Methodist Church, the health service, the Women's Institute and the Norfolk Association of Town and Parish Councils were also present. The seminar's findings will be annexed to the final Select Committee report in the form of evidence and they will present grassroots opinion. The Minister will be interested to hear that they also suggest solutions.
On 4 October, the Eastern Daily Press commented:
"Norfolk's farm and food industries must not be allowed to wither—if they do, the fabric of village and rural life will be unpicked … Norfolk's evidence to the Select Committee should help explain to No 10 what reforms must be made in the opinion of those who know the countryside best."
Obviously, the report, with all its evidence, will cross the Minister's desk, and he will be interested in its conclusions. I am trying to emphasise the problems
4WH
facing agriculture, but also the fact that there is a positive attitude towards solving them where possible at the local level. Solutions include more flexible planning guidance, slashing bureaucracy and developing closer links between producers and their markets. They also include giving infrastructure, particularly in transport, a real boost—I cannot help but feel that the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) will make a point or two about that—and, of course, promoting clear leadership on the future of farming. Norfolk people who took the trouble to attend the seminar and others who submitted evidence—it is still rolling in—expect Ministers to take note of and act on what has been said.
I began by saying that colleagues would cover some of the specific concerns that were raised in our meetings with the Norfolk National Farmers Union and others I shall touch briefly on three of them and conclude with a series of questions, which I hope that the Minister will be able to answer. First, there is the question of conservation. Those of us on the Select Committee are becoming over-used to the repetition of the meaningless term "the public good" in debates on the future of farming. I do not know who coined the phrase, but, like most jargon, it can be defined according to the interests of those who use it. That said, most people would agree that the population as a whole benefits from the fact that 80 per cent. of Britain is farmed.
So far, we have been spared most of the visible effects of the crisis in the agriculture sector. It is probably not possible to quantify the visual and conservation effects of the wholesale restructuring that is taking place in farming as a result of increased contracting, sharing of farming and so on. However, those effects will eventually become evident. A study that Strutt and Parker carried out for the university of Exeter in 2000 found that 92 per cent. of farmers carried out conservation work, to the value of £150 million a year. When farmers can no longer afford to do that—I think that that time is now—what will be the effects on the countryside and tourism? Will the Minister give his view on that?
Secondly, there needs to be some kind of settled view on planning issues. Local farmers are told by Ministers that they must diversify. They attempt to do so and are then frustrated by local planning authorities, who have views on the use of barns, infillings, redundant farm buildings and highways access. One of the conclusions at the Select Committee Chairmen's seminar was that it was time for joined-up thinking on rural issues. May we see some, please?
Mr. Henry Bellingham: That is a crucial issue. I do not think that farmers are asking for help from the Government, yet they do not want them to make things any worse, as they often do. If one drives around my right hon. Friend's constituency or my constituency, one often sees extremely ugly 1960s barns, Dutch barns and large buildings that probably would not have got planning permission had they come under planning law. Yet it is ironic that when those same farmers try to convert, say, an 18th or 19th-century barn, every obstacle is put in their way.
Mrs. Shephard: I agree with my hon. Friend that there seem to be a lot of anomalies. Since we are looking at our county as a whole, none of us can fail to be struck

5WH
by the different standards, views and regulations of the different planning authorities. That, of course, is an integral part of our planning system. There is definitely a problem. The Government have tried to move towards more standardised approaches for planning. We must never forget that members of planning authorities are elected like ourselves, and they come under great pressures. There is no doubt that the great saga of the touring caravan park in the constituency of the hon. Member for North Norfolk will be fixed in all our minds, and it is not over yet. The land is boggy and cannot be cultivated—I have known it all my life.
Who has overall responsibility for water use? Some 60 per cent. of the country's unsupported crops, such as vegetables, are grown in East Anglia, many of them in my constituency. Many farmers have switched or are switching to those crops, often investing in irrigation systems, reservoirs, piping and so on. In accordance with ministerial exhortation, they are diversifying and getting closer to the market.
Mr. Anthony D. Wright: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way, as I have to attend a meeting shortly. There is another problem connected with diversification. Many of the farmers in my constituency—Richard Hirst from Hirst Farms in particular—have diversified into other crops that do not attract common agricultural policy area funding. There is a proposal that there should be an average area payment based on the previous three years. That would actually discourage some farmers from diversifying into other crops. Would she care to comment on that?
Mrs. Shephard: That excellent point illustrates the difficulty of achieving joined-up thinking when there are EU directives to reconcile with what is required from the market locally. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is the most extraordinary disincentive to the kind of diversification investment that farmers might otherwise be considering. If he must leave soon, we can report back to him.
I am sure that the Minister knows that the necessary permissions for water abstraction must not only pass muster from a number of statutory agencies, but are commented on by quite a lot of non-governmental agencies, whose interpretation of, for example, the habitat directive, can be variable to say the least. Farmers think that they have leapt over one hurdle, only to find English Nature and a whole galère of organisations with whom they have to pass muster. Who is in charge? Does the Minister understand the frustrating and sometimes impossible position in which farmers find themselves?
In addition, there is the issue of bureaucracy. I know that others intend to deal with the late payments from the Rural Payments Agency, but I can give an especially gross example of failures in the slaughter premium scheme. As the Minister may know, that scheme requires applicants to return a postcard to the British Cattle Movement Service when an animal has been slaughtered. Does he know that the cards stick together? If the BCMS claims that they have not arrived, the applicant can do nothing about it even if a slaughterhouse has given a certificate to say that the animals have been killed.
6WH
I am sure that the Minister knows of a side irritation; one really could not make it up. The postcards bear the applicant's name and address on one side and the BCMS address on the other, and applicants often send the postcards only to find them returned to them. The problem is simple. The Minister may think that trivial, but it adds to farmers' frustrations as they try to make a decent living.
Farmers and rural communities have a right to know the answers to the following questions. What is the Government's vision for the future of agriculture, and of the countryside, which I have tried to explain are inextricably linked? Do Ministers believe that food production should continue in Britain? Was it a good idea for the Secretary of State to appear to shun British beef while in France?
If Ministers believe that food production should continue in Britain, how can they help to make the sector viable in an enlarging European Union and given the challenges of, for example, the United States farm Act? Do they believe that that combination of contemporary circumstances gives British farmers a fair chance? If most of Britain's food were imported, what would be the consequences for employment, and for the balance of payments if it is still a consideration?
If Ministers do not think that food production in Britain should continue, to what use would they put 80 per cent. of Britain's land? Do they think that if land is not farmed it will look good enough to encourage tourism? If not, how do they propose to make good the obvious shortfall? If they believe that alternative non-food crops should be encouraged, what incentives do they propose? Do they understand the impact on rural economies of the continuing downturn in agriculture? Is the proposed reduction of Government grant to rural councils in the support grant review merely an unhappy accident?
Farmers and rural communities can do a great deal for themselves. I hope that I have explained that Norfolk has a highly skilled farming and agriculture sector, highly developed science and plenty of get up and go. Strong as that combination is, it can do little against a Government who sometimes give the impression that they think it expendable. The Minister could do something to put that right this morning.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: In the format to which we have become accustomed in these debates, Front-Bench speeches begin at 10.30 am. That leaves 37 minutes. I think that five hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, which, as a guide, gives a voluntary limit of about seven and a half minutes.
9.53 am
Dr. Ian Gibson: It is a pleasure to join colleagues in playing a part in the debate, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) on obtaining it in the ballot.
People often tell me that I have little justification for talking about farmers, because there are not many in Norwich, North. There was one at the last count, however, and I must check whether his farm still exists. Nevertheless, I am a Norfolk man through and through. I find time to go out into the county and enjoy the pleasures of the countryside, and I am aware of the deep

7WH
history of the agriculture industry in Norfolk, as well as the great part that its farmers and farm workers played during the agricultural revolution. I hope that we remember the work of the hundreds and hundreds of farm workers, many of whom have exhibited the achievements produced in their meadows at the Norfolk agricultural show every year during 30, 40 or 50 years of service. Their devotion to the countryside is deeply felt and as strong as that of farmers and others in the community. The agriculture industry extends from one end of Norfolk to the other, so many of my constituents work in it.
The Norfolk agricultural show is a highlight of Norfolk county life, and many people enjoy a day or two there to find out what is happening in the agriculture industry. It is part of the way of life, and long may it continue. Those who have lived in Norfolk as long as I have will be aware that many Norfolk MPs attained their positions as a result of the votes of thousands of agriculture workers who lived in that part of the country during the 1960s—Bert Hazell, George Edwards, Edward Gooch and, of course, great trade union leaders such as Wilf Page all fought hard to defeat the tied cottage and poor-wage system. We should pay tribute to them for establishing that great tradition in Norfolk agriculture. The rich history of struggle against poverty remains part of the culture, but enough of such nostalgia.
I welcome the work begun by the cross-party group in integrating the farming community and others so that they think about and prioritise issues and agitate determinedly at political level. No doubt others will talk about biofuels, the use of which is one of the ambitions of many Norfolk farmers, and we all support that. There is innovatory zeal in the Norfolk agriculture and farming community, and we must play on that strength.
The Norfolk farming community has always taken on board new technologies, as a result of which a lot of people have lost their jobs. Many left the land and went into the factories in King's Lynn when new technologies came along. It burns in my memory that jobs have often disappeared as part of the development of science and technology.
Let us consider the new technologies that will be taken on board. I make no apology for referring to GM technology, because the issue will be raised again and again—indeed, it has never really gone away. Sugar beet, peas, maize and oilseed rape are all common crops in Norfolk, and genetic modification of such crops is being considered to improve their herbicide tolerance and yield.
Scientific advances in plant breeding have been conventional—cross-breeding, back-crossing and in-breeding, for example—and we do not often hear about them in the way that we hear about Dolly the sheep, animal cloning and sex cell selection. However, they have all been introduced in the plant world, quietly and effectively, bringing us better crops and food. Norfolk was once regarded as the bread-basket of Great Britain, and I believe that it should still be regarded as such. Crops have been improved in respect of resistance to infection, better yield and growth parameters.
8WH
In the 1960s, the amazing political decision was made to bring the John Innes research institute from Hertfordshire to Norwich. That was a great move, promulgated by two or three people who thought that if good science and technology research were conducted in a county enriched with agricultural law and advance, we would become one of the world leaders. Soon, that institute was joined by the Institute of Food Research—those organisations grow in stature almost weekly with support from industry and the Government—and new technology is being developed there.
There are other centres of academic, scientific and technological progress, such as the Easton college of agriculture, the Maudley research institute and, indeed, the university of East Anglia, where research into the organisms that attack willow trees has saved the cricket bat industry. I see that we have a new Deputy Speaker in the Chair, but I am sure that Sir Alan would have welcomed that fact, as he is so endeared of the game and Essex county cricket club. Excellent work has been done in world-class institutes, which have developed many ideas that have benefited the food industry throughout the world.
Those institutes also produce the food and plant scientists of the future—the ones who go out into the world. The new vice-chancellor of Lancaster university, whose career began at the university of East Anglia and who has spent his life researching aphids, visited me recently. He was headhunted and went to Australia to solve the problems of aphid biology and aphid infestations. Through those institutions we produce brilliant people, who become part of Norfolk agricultural life. Norfolk agriculture has taken those institutes to its bosom, and they are very much part of the farming and agriculture community.
Norfolk has been in the spotlight over the GM crop trials. Norfolk farmers took the full blast of the Greenpeace onslaught, as its members trudged their way though the fields in their green welly boots, knocking out the crops. The farmers stood firm, in the belief that the trials would end in the development of better food crops. They still play a part in the Government field trials.
The Norfolk agriculture industry is huge and has expanded into other areas. On Sunday, I was looking at the Norwich "Yellow Pages". It is a big book, but on a quick flick through I noticed that it contains 10 full pages in small print of farmers and those who offer agricultural services. Thousands of people are involved in the industry and depend on farming, and not only farmers, although they often bear the brunt and take the lead. That is my answer to those who say, "Farming represents only 1 per cent. of gross domestic product, so it doesn't really matter. Tourism is what is important— there are many other important issues." That is true to a certain extent, but it is also true that farmers devote their lives to the countryside and to providing the food that we all eat.
The GM debate is returning to the fore, and the Government will conduct a public debate on the matter shortly. It is said that public confidence is low, but confidence is not low in the Norfolk agriculture community, although it was caught in the onslaught of

9WH
the Greenpeace attacks. I predict that the east coast will be GM positive and the west coast GM free, and that that will create a new split in Britain for the press to talk about. The culture of science and technology has been incorporated in the Norfolk way of life, and it has huge support under the surface. I am sure that Government supporters of GM technology will tap into that support to ensure continued GM research, so that we can discover whether the new technology will affect the environment, people's health or the food itself.
Recently, I saw a letter to The Guardian from an old colleague, which surprised me, as I did not think that he knew anything about GM issues. He pointed out that, even with conventional breeding, a new crop that has been bred through in-breeding or by another means is put next to the wild species. Pollen moves across—it always has and it always will—but that does not mean that super-weeds are produced. The biology is well understood, because of the science and technology base in the farming community. That is probably why GM is accepted in our farming community: Norfolk farmers understand that the problems associated with GM, when GM crops are planted next to non-GM crops, are not new, and that those problems have been resolved.
A lot is being done. There are many other areas of GM, but I shall not go on about dwarf crops, malting quality, herbicide tolerance or starch quality. Through science and technology, all those things have improved our crops. I have a list from the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission of the huge number of GM technology applications, even for such things as garden plants. That technology does not produce only crude herbicide tolerance, as is often asserted. Indeed, even such crops as plums and prunes can be improved through it. A huge industry is involved in improving resistance to viruses and bacteria, all of which will be to the advantage of the agriculture industry in the long run.
Incidentally, Norfolk farmers are not anti-organic. There are organic farmers in Norfolk who are as passionate about their work as those involved in other types of farming, such as conventional breeding, GM breeding and so forth.
Norfolk is at its best when at its boldest. Hon. Members may have heard that phrase before. I cannot remember when I first heard it, but I heard it recently at Blackpool and it is true: we in the Norfolk agriculture industry are best when at our boldest. At a recent meeting in the House of Commons, I was heartened to hear from Professor Julia Goodfellow, chief executive of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. In a recent article in the not-so-well-read but widely quoted Science in Parliament she states:
"Science can play an important role in the development of sustainable agriculture in the UK."
Norfolk agriculture workers and farmers know that. Sustainable agriculture ensures the continuing availability to the consumer of adequate supplies of wholesome, varied and reasonably priced food produced in accordance with generally accepted environmental and social standards, as well as, among other things, respect for a high level of animal welfare.
10WH
The Norfolk farming community understands and wants such sustainable agriculture, but, as Julia Goodfellow says, that
"has to be seen in terms of the willingness of industry and government departments to invest in the development of … research findings in areas of strategic importance and in the context of the social and political agenda surrounding UK agriculture."
The Norfolk farming community stands ready to serve.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Nicholas Winterton): Before I call the next speaker, I remind hon. Members that my predecessor in the Chair urged self-discipline to enable all hon. Members who wish to do so to participate in this important debate. The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) stretched that advice, and I shall be grateful if the remaining speakers who wish to catch my eye show self-discipline so that we can fit everyone in. We must start the winding-up speeches at 10.30 am.
10.7 am
Mr. Keith Simpson: I shall bear in mind your very good point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about keeping speeches short. It is a great pleasure to follow my right hon. embattled Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) who initiated this debate and the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), for his particular scientific contribution.
I reinforce the points made by both my right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman. This is a cross-party approach to solving problems that relate to the future of farming, the environment and rural affairs in Norfolk, and we have come to the debate in a positive rather than negative sense, which is important. The Norfolk farming community has highlighted five major areas of concern: biofuels, water issues, illegal meat imports, GM crops and planning and regulation. We could add half a dozen others such as the business of broadband, which is now a major problem in terms of finding alternative businesses within my constituency of Mid-Norfolk.
My first point is specific: I wish to take this opportunity to raise concern about the European Commission's decision to cut the sugar beet quota by 3.54 per cent. That is crucial to the 1,788 beet crop growers in Norfolk, including the 382 in my constituency. As the Minister knows, the quota cut was imposed for the current year only, to comply with European Union regulations and World Trade Organisation agreements. However, can he answer my constituent, Mr. James Keith, who grows 25 hectares of beet at Hoe near Swanton Morley? He asks:
" I was dismayed to receive my recent letter from British Sugar telling me that the EU had imposed a reduction of 3.54 per cent. onto the UK for the crop we are currently harvesting. I can understand some of the reasons for the cut, even if I do not agree with them. But how can we be expected to grow a crop to a quota scheme if the target is moved after the crop is planted and grown?"
Farmers and others find that type of goalpost moving frustrating.
On the future of biofuels, many Norfolk farmers, business men and members of the public believe that biofuels offer a great opportunity to farming and the community. As the Minister knows, biofuels can be divided into two groups: biodiesels, which are made from oilseed rape seed, or other vegetable oils—that

11WH
industry is almost wholly exclusive to Europe—and bioethanol, which is presently made from the fermentation of wheat, potatoes and sugar beet and could be made from straw and wood. The Minister may not, however, know that at Shipdham in my constituency there is a small business called Global Commodities UK Ltd. That company is run by Mr. Dennis Thouless, a retired business man, who produces on a small scale an important amount of biodiesel, mainly from processed chip fat.
Presently, Mr.Thouless produces about 4.5 million litres, but he has the capacity to produce 10 million litres and he hopes to develop a factory at Lowestoft that could produce 60 million litres. Mr. Thouless has said that he welcomes the 20p cut in duty, but he does not think that that is sufficient. Nevertheless, he sees great potential in the development of biodiesel from rape seed oil. That is a very exciting development for Norfolk farmers, but we need more encouragement. I urge the Minister to go for a zero rating on bioethanol as well as biodiesel in his discussions with Treasury colleagues. There is a great opportunity for Norfolk farmers because sugar beet and other root crops will be a real alternative in the future, if bioethanol can be developed. That would be environmentally friendly.
I raise a slightly more negative point that is based on the concerns of Norfolk farmers about illegal meat imports. I was a member of the Sub-Committee that was appointed by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee to consider illegal meat imports. The Minister has replied to the report that that Sub-Committee published. We are, however, still concerned that not enough is being done to prevent such imports. I know that the onus must also be on farmers at the farm gate, but I believe that there are still many other things that we could do. For example, I do not believe that enough joined-up agency work is being done to prevent the kinds of illegal meat import scandals that have occurred in the past. That matter has had a major impact on my constituency. In Norfolk in 2002 there was a swine fever outbreak, the origins of which were undoubtedly illegal meat imports.
I urge the Minister to consider whether there should be greater co-ordination between Departments, to consider the stop-and-search powers of environmental health officers and to employ a robust information campaign on inward flights at ports of entry. Such information is not presently as in-your-face as it is in New Zealand and America. I believe that there is a lack of resources with which to implement such measures.
I welcome the debate. We have heard some positive proposals for the development of farming in Norfolk. There are great opportunities for biofuel development, but there are still great concerns about illegal meat imports.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has set a fine example.
10.13 am
Norman Lamb: I congratulate the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) on securing the debate and I welcome
12WH
the all-party, cross-party approach that has been taken. This is just the latest example of hon. Members working together in order to promote the interests of the farming community in Norfolk.
In my time as the representative for North Norfolk, I have found that the farmers with whom I deal are an enlightened group of people who are willing to contemplate change and take new ideas on board. The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) has mentioned that tradition and we must do everything that we can to promote it. It is clearly in everyone's interest to map out a viable, economically and environmentally sustainable future for agriculture. Farm incomes are pretty bleak. The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk has already made that clear in her remarks about the survey.
Two farmers—Mr.Roberson from Catfield and Mr. Almey from Antingham—have told me about their concerns and experiences. Mr. Roberson mentioned the suckler cow premium scheme, which relates to sales of cattle during the six-month retention period. He was concerned about the lack of clarity in the guidance notes provided by the Rural Payments Agency. The chief executive of the agency, in response, accepted that the reduction was "severe". He said that there had been no attempt at fraud, but that discretion could not be used. That system is crazy, and must be re-examined.
Mr. Almey had problems with four movement cards posted to the British Cattle Movement Service. He has been asked to prove that he sent them. Those who receive the cards have failed to record them properly, and that has resulted in him losing out financially. It is not acceptable that hard-pressed farmers should have to wait ages while they try to prove their case to the agency. Christopher Deane from the National Farmers Union in east Norfolk says that the examples that I have mentioned are:
"just the tip of the iceberg … I have received numerous calls from farmers with alleged discrepancies over claims … Lots of time and effort has to put in by applicants to then try and prove that it is not them that have made the errors."
He says that, to date, nearly all the errors that the NFU has come across have not been of the farmers' making. It is time that the Department got to grips with the agency's problems. I hope that the Minister will provide some reassurance on that.
Norfolk fruit-growers have concerns about the impact of changes to the Agricultural Wages Order 2001. I agree with what has been said about the history of low payment in rural areas, but the changes to the order present a problem. The casual worker's rate will effectively be scrapped; it will be limited to the first 12 weeks only, during which the rate will be £4.30. That is more than the national minimum wage.
Place UK, which is in my constituency and is one of the country's leading suppliers and processors of soft fruit and vegetables, has raised concerns about foreign students who arrive each summer to pick fruit. For such students, that is holiday work. However, after 12 weeks, they will receive the same rate as experienced Norfolk workers who operate machinery and who have a great degree of skill that has resulted from years of experience. To such experienced workers it must seem unfair to lose the wage differential between themselves and those doing holiday work. That will place an impossible burden on the farming community.

13WH
I understand that the change to the Agricultural Wages Order has come about because of the imminent implementation of the fixed term work directive. As an employment lawyer, I am sure that the directive was not intended to produce such a result, and I ask the Minister to consider the matter.
I strongly endorse the comments made by the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) about biofuels. Norfolk, as an arable county, could make a massive contribution environmentally and contribute to the fight against global warming. I was interested to hear the speech made last week by the Minister for Europe, in which he highlighted the importance of securing supplies of affordable energy. That is vital for Europe's security and competitiveness. He called for urgent action to reduce our long-run dependence on oil as our principle transport fuel. He referred to the need to develop renewable sources of energy, and said:
"We need to provoke an even stronger shift in innovation and in vestment than experienced after the seventies oil crisis—and make it stick in the long term. This requires tackling significant entrenched interests in the status quo, and shifting investment between different technologies."
Our greatest entrenched interest is probably that of the Treasury, which has so far refused to give the reductions in duty needed to pump-prime that potential new industry. Massive progress has been made across Europe in promoting bioethanol and biodiesel. As the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk mentioned, there has been a reduction of only 20p in biodiesel duty. It is not enough. There has been no reduction in duty for bioethanol; that must be introduced in the next Budget. It is time for DEFRA, the Department for Transport, the Treasury and the Foreign Office—now that it has accepted the need for fuel security—to get their act together; they should work together to come up with a sufficient duty reduction to pump-prime this new industry. If they were to do that, it would be good news for the farmers, and for the environment.
Trickle irrigation, which has been brought to my attention, yet again, by the fruit farmers, is an environmentally attractive means of irrigation, but the new licensing system means that there is a risk that their interests will not be protected. It is essential that DEFRA provides reassurance that they will get their licences on a level playing field. I am grateful for having had the opportunity to contribute to this important debate.
10.20 am
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I will speak for exactly five minutes, so that my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) has a chance to contribute.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) on her excellent speech. She mentioned Fisher Frozen Foods. When the Albert Fisher Group plc went into receivership, Fisher Frozen Foods closed, but the plant was taken over by Pinguin, a Belgian company. I am pleased to say that all of the staff who were taken on again by Pinguin have now received their full redundancy entitlement. That is very good news. Of course, the staff who were made redundant from Fisher Frozen Foods and left to get other jobs received their full redundancy package, but there was a big question-mark over whether those who
14WH
were kept on by the successor company would get any redundancy payments. It has now been announced that they have received their entitlement. There is still a question-mark over 40 staff who stayed behind after the factory closed, to keep it going on a care and maintenance basis. They have received nothing. That is a deserving cadre of people, and if they do not receive any compensation there will be serious grievances in that plant.
There is also a question with regard to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. The Department of Trade and Industry redundancy payments office has said that because the staff at Pinguin are getting their full redundancy entitlement there can be no entitlement under those regulations to, for example, various rights, holiday pay, bonuses, and so forth. I know that that matter is not this Minister's responsibility, but perhaps he could have a word with the Minister at the DTI who is dealing with this matter, so that we can resolve these few remaining outstanding issues. This is one way in which the agricultural sector has a profound impact on the wider rural economy; my right hon. Friend was right to draw attention to that.
Unfortunately, in Norfolk, we are seeing the demise of the family-run farm. Many farmers are going out of farming: they are not selling their farms, but they are doing less farming. They are contracting out; they are getting farming companies such as Bookers to take over their farms. That contributes to the decline of the family-owned farm as we know it, and I am concerned about whether their sons and daughters will go into farming. I submit that they will not, unless the tide turns dramatically. We know that agriculture is cyclical, but I fear that it will take a long time for this decline to be turned around, and we do not want Government to make matters worse.
A Government can do various things to prevent the situation from getting worse. My right hon. Friend mentioned planning, red tape, bureaucracy, and the local government grant regime and the fear that money will be directed away from the shire counties to the inner cities. I would add the sugar beet regime to the list of things that the Government must not make worse. Fifty per cent. of the nation's sugar beet is grown in Norfolk; two out of the six factories are in Norfolk. The UK is only 52 per cent. self-sufficient in sugar production, whereas France is 76 per cent. more than self-sufficient—or 176 per cent. self-sufficient—Germany is 124 per cent. self-sufficient, and Denmark 176 per cent. self-sufficient. That means that the UK is importing the vast majority of the sugar that is coming into the EU—85 per cent. of it. The EU sugar regime is not part of the common agricultural policy mid-term review; it is part of the anything but arms initiative. When the regime is reviewed next year, it is vital that every conceivable effort is maintained to keep the status quo because, otherwise, there might be an effect on Norfolk farmers' one crop that is currently profitable. Grain is obviously giving most farmers a good yield but the price has gone right down. Potatoes are a disaster and every other crop is making a loss. Sugar beet is the one bright light on the horizon. I hope that the Minister will take that on board because if the sugar beet regime is changed, Norfolk farmers will suffer adversely.

15WH
I take on board the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) about biofuels. It is vital that the Government act. He and I visited Global Commodities UK last Friday. The potential of bioethanol is considerable but the potential of biodiesel is even more exciting. As Dennis Thouless pointed out, the oil fields of the future could be in Norfolk as fields of oil seed rape that would produce environmentally friendly biodiesel to power this country's diesel vehicles. The Government must get a grip of the situation and embark on joined-up government. They must act and seize the opportunity, which would give farming in Norfolk a slightly brighter future.
10.26 am
Mr. Richard Bacon: I join my hon. Friends and others in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) on securing this important debate. I also congratulate her and her colleagues on the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on visiting Easton college in my constituency to listen to local people from Norfolk who are involved in the farming and food processing industries. The information is still coming in, as my right hon. Friend mentioned, and I shall refer to some of it, and especially to points about the pig farming industry, which is enormously important to my constituency.
I do not want to dwell on biofuels or sugar beet, which were mentioned extensively by my hon. Friends, but I endorse what they said. I hope that the Minister will tell us what the Government plan to do because biofuels and sugar beet are important to farmers throughout Norfolk.
When considering the regime for food imports to which my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) referred, few people have complete confidence that food imports meet the stringent requirements that are placed on our own producers. That applies especially to poultry and pig farming, which are not subsidised by the taxpayer. People in those sectors have no confidence that the Government have taken on board the need to ensure that food imports meet our standards.
We must do more about food labelling and labelling food with its country of origin. We are currently discussing cigarette advertising and it is worth noting that the size and shape of health warnings on cigarette packets are determined statutorily. There is no reason why simple labels giving a food's country of origin that allow the consumer to support the British farmer, if he or she wishes, should not be determined in a similar way. The fact that there is no such statutory labelling of a food's country of origin allows people to get away with what most people would regard as tricks— importing food from overseas, putting cellophane around it and calling it Norfolk sausages. Neither we, nor our constituents, want that. I want the Government to make progress.
I am not confident that supermarkets are doing sufficient to promote British produce. Although they occasionally have food campaigns for various countries,
16WH
we are entitled to expect this country's supermarkets to support British agriculture. If we want a farmed landscape, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk said, it is up to us all in the community and in business to support that. The supermarkets do not do nearly enough.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) mentioned illegal imports. The Government might have done something about that—I have been discussing it with the Minister for nearly a year since we both served on the Committee that considered the Animal Health Bill. It is perceived that not enough is being done, although every report from the Curry report to the report by Devon county council on foot and mouth has mentioned the problem. I recently made two flights from abroad to United Kingdom airports, and to use my hon. Friend's description, the information campaign was certainly not in-your-face. We need more action.
My final point relates to gold-plating regulations. At the meeting at Easton college, Mr. Philip Richardson, a distinguished and well-known pig farmer from my constituency, said that people in his industry had identified 20 areas in which the Government were gold-plating pig industry regulations. One example relates to the directive on the welfare of farm animals, which requires that sows and gilts shall have permanent access to manipulative material. The Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs version is:
"All pigs must have permanent access to a sufficient quantity of material such as straw, hay, wood, sawdust, mushroom compost, peat or a mixture of such, to enable proper investigation and manipulation activities."
The Department should have asked a vet whether it is sensible to have peat anywhere near a pig. Peat is full of bugs, so are we seriously suggesting that the Government will require farmers to sterilise their peat before they make it available to their pigs? We can avoid such situations in 20 subject areas, and I will happily provide a full list to the Minister if he wishes.
I did not think that I would have time to mention planning, but it is worth stressing that vacant farm buildings—a main asset for farmers—need—close attention from central Government if planning authorities are not to get in the way of promoting our farming communities.
10.30 am
Matthew Green: I join others in thanking the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) for securing the debate. I shall keep my remarks as short as possible, and I hope that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) will too, so that we can hear the Minister respond to the concerns raised by Norfolk Members.
I want to reiterate some concerns, in particular the removal of the casual workers category from the agricultural wages board. That will have a major impact, on fruit farming especially, and, as my ho n. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) said, I do not think that that was the European Union's intention in introducing the directive. We have been perhaps too keen to see its implementation, and we must consider its potential effects.

17WH
The Liberal Democrats support the overall move to decouple subsidy payments—from production base to land management—but as always in farming, the details are critical. We know that details matter in farming. As we heard from the hon. Member for Norwich, North (I)r. Gibson), one problem is that basing the decoupled payments on historical subsidy payments of the previous three years will discourage some moves into new crops. The Government must find a way that does not discourage initiative from farmers.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk mentioned trickle irrigation. There is evidence that the Government are not yet using fully joined-up thinking on that, and we must ensure that the licences for water are available to the farmers who need them. They should not be told that all licences have been taken up by conventional irrigation.
Biofuels have been mentioned a lot, and I do not want to add to what has been said other than to give support for more action and for further reducing the duty on them. We have also heard about problems in the pig industry, one of which is historic and derives from when the Government introduced early an EU directive that had a huge impact on the industry. There is a danger that the egg-laying hens directive could go the same way, so will the Minister confirm that the Government have no intention either to gold-plate or add to the directive?
Members have spoken about meat imports, and I welcome the fact that the EU is considering a ban on personal imports. We have already heard some concern about the lack of Government action to ensure adherence to any new regulations that may be introduced on meat imports. What checks and measures would be taken at airports and ports to enforce a personal import rule?
We have also heard about the rural payments scheme. The Rural Payments Agency has clearly examined the bovine schemes, and both the beef special and suckler cow premium schemes have had numerous problems, of which we have heard several examples. Overall, the Rural Payments Agency is slower in making payments now than it was last year. When agriculture incomes are falling and many farmers are in debt, payments that are two, three, four or five months behind the time that they came last year are having a major impact on the viability of farms as businesses. We want the Minister to make a commitment that the Government will enhance the Rural Payments Agency, which is understaffed and overworked and needs extra resources if it is to work properly. There are genuine anxieties that the BCMS data base is flawed and not fully operational. I seek reassurance from the Minister that anxieties about that data base are being investigated.
Something that is still floating around the agriculture industry, and about which the Government have not yet made a definitive statement, is the future of livestock markets, which affects agriculture throughout the country. I would like the Minister to make a definitive statement that the Government have no plans for the widespread closure of livestock markets.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for shortening his comments.
10.36 am
Mr. John Hayes: This has been a useful debate; I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) on securing it. Her opening remarks displayed her typical combination of diligence and perspicacity; she speaks with enormous authority and experience about these matters. In the short time available to me—it is longer due to the generosity of the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), for which I am grateful—I hope to cover about 10 points that have been raised in the debate. I cannot cover them all in detail, but I will end with a series of questions to the Minister by which I will reinforce some of the points made by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
There is no point in understating the simple fact that agriculture in Norfolk, as in the whole of Britain, is in crisis. That has been reflected in all contributions to the debate, and I welcome the fact that it has been a cross-party effort. Many of the comments made have been non-partisan; we have not descended into party-political rancour because people's concerns, in this Chamber and in Norfolk, are cross-party concerns and not matters for party-political banter. They are of great significance to everyone who lives there, not just those directly involved in farming.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk has made it clear at the outset that the knock-on effects of the crisis in agriculture are felt throughout a rural county such as Norfolk. I speak with some experience in that respect, as Norfolk is the neighbour of my county, Lincolnshire, and many of the problems that farmers and rural communities face in Norfolk are shared by those in my constituency. The nature of farming in Norfolk is similar to that in south Lincolnshire; there is a heavy dependence on the arable sector, the topography is similar, and the knock-on effects of the crisis have created some of the same pressures on the delivery of local services and so on.
I shall deal with the points in the order in which they were raised, rather than in the order of priority, but it is appropriate to start with farm incomes. My right hon. Friend mentioned the 75 per cent. decline in incomes in Norfolk. The Minister's figures, which are reinforced by the Library, show a significant decline in farm incomes and suggest that in the arable sector that decline has been extraordinarily profound. The decline in arable sector incomes is sometimes understated because, due to foot and mouth and other problems that existed before the epidemic, much of the emphasis has been on the livestock sector and less favoured areas such as upland farms. In the large arable farms in the east of England, the decline in agriculture has had a real impact which should not be underestimated. According to DEFRA figures, incomes are as low as 10 per cent. of those in the early to mid-1990s. That decline is having a dreadful impact on farmers, their families and local communities, and it crosses all sectors.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) discussed sugar beet. Sugar beet is, in a sense, one of the few lights at the end of the tunnel—I will return to that issue later.

19WH
It is appropriate to emphasise that—again according to Library figures—average farm incomes are now around £7,500. If that is an average income, one can imagine the situation for farmers with the lowest returns—farmers on small farms and relatively difficult land, perhaps tenant farmers, could be earning £2,000 to £3,000 per year. That is nonsense, and anyone considering the matter objectively would say that that situation could not be allowed to continue. I am sure that the Minister is aware of those issues, but it is important to emphasise and amplify them and to ask him how he intends to respond.
In considering the economic state of farming, we must also examine product prices. We know that farmgate prices have declined across the industry, but it is important to emphasise the impact of that on arable farmers. The Minister will know the cereal price situation. Across the arable sector, farmgate prices have reached a point at which it is difficult for farmers to make money at all. A few days ago, a potato grower told me that current prices are equivalent to those when he entered the industry 30 years ago. Cereal prices, at just over £50 a tonne, are such that no one can make a profit. There is almost no product now that farmers can grow profitably and rely on as a steady source of income.
There are massive problems with product prices, with incomes and also with input costs, because the overheads for farmers are steadily increasing. That is not true across Europe—as I pointed out to the Minister last week in the debate on those issues. In Europe overheads, or input costs, are falling by approximately 1.2 per cent. a year. In Great Britain they are rising by about 0.6 per cent. a year. Thus this is not a European or worldwide phenomenon, but one specific to the United Kingdom.
What are the consequences of the decline in incomes for employment and for local communities? That fair and proper question was posed at the beginning of the debate. What are the implications for land use? The environment that we enjoy in the countryside is a manufactured one, made and serviced by farmers.
During this debate, a number of hon. Members have asked about the Government's approach to biocrops and biofuels. A confused picture emerges in relation to that issue. There is a very different regime of tax and regulation in the United Kingdom from that in France and Germany. Will the Minister address that issue in his remarks? He looks confused, but he should know the detail of that issue. I repeat that France and Germany have a different tax regime, and different restrictions on the production of those products. I would like the Minister to address that issue.
The question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) and by other hon. Members about the distortion of the food chain by supermarkets must be addressed. What is the Government's approach to the relationship between the retailer, the producer and the consumer, and to the need to examine seriously the distortion that supermarkets create in that relationship? We heard yesterday that some 30 per cent. of fruit production is wasted because of the facile concentration of major retailers on products being of the same size, the same shape and the same
20WH
colour. That contribution came from the fruit industry itself. The point was not made today, but it demonstrates the difficulties faced by fruit farmers mentioned by the hon. Members for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) and for Ludlow.
As to the Rural Payments Agency, we know about the beef Buckler scheme; the problems emerge from cross-checking with cattle movements, and from the new European direction in that respect. That has caused enormous confusion, inefficiency and delays, resulting in real problems for an industry that is already under pressure and that was expecting those payments as part of its budget.
The question of the availability of broadband must be addressed. If we are interested in diversification and the springing up of new small and medium-sized enterprises, we must make broadband available, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) said. What incentives are there for diversification? As my right hon. Friend said, it is difficult for farmers to diversify and reinvest in their businesses if they do not have the money to do so. If they are not making money, they cannot spend it on diversification. The Government must address that serious problem. Fair food labelling is another critical issue that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk.
I emphasise two questions that emerged in our debate—one at the beginning and one near the end. The latter was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk, who said that any change to the EU sugar regime must protect the interests of those farmers for whom sugar beet is possibly the only profitable crop.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk said, morale in the industry is at an all-time low because farmers no longer believe that the Government are committed to food production in the United Kingdom. Farmers believe that the Government do not have a long-term vision for growers and farmers.
At the beginning of the debate, my right hon. Friend spoke about a long-term plan for agriculture. It should not be beyond the wit of man to produce a balance sheet showing the true value of growing and farming in the UK—one that takes account of its effect on employment and the wider rural economy, of the benefits of land use and conservation and of the proper stewardship and management of our countryside. However, that would require the Government to take a long-term view. They would have to say how many producers were needed over the next three, five and 10 years, how much production they envisaged and what sectors they believed we should be seriously involved in—even what sectors they thought should be reduced or run down, and how and when it should happen.
Such a long-term view, strategy and plan are essential to reinforce the morale of farmers and give them something to plan for and work to. That is missing at the moment; and while it is absent we will not regenerate farming and growing in Norfolk or the rest of Great Britain.
10.47 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I add my congratulations to those already

21WH
expressed to the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard). Agriculture is as important a subject for Norfolk as it is for other parts of the country. This has been a good debate, and the right hon. Lady was right that it has involved Members representing Norfolk from all the main parties.
The Government recognise that times are tough for farmers, for which there is a range of reasons that I shall explore. I shall deal with all the pertinent points that have been raised, and the helpful and sensible suggestions that have been made in the context in which they were put.
I want to set the scene in relation to farming in Norfolk because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) said, the county has much of which to be proud. It has innovation and drive, and it is currently recognised as one of the fastest growing and prosperous regions in the United Kingdom.
Unemployment in Norfolk is 2.3 per cent. and in the east of England, it is 2.2 per cent., and that is below the national average of 3.1 per cent. Unemployment in the constituency of the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk fell by 54.1 per cent. between 1997 and 2002; in North-West Norfolk, it fell by 50.6 per cent.; in Norwich, North, it fell fallen by 51.6 per cent. Mid-Norfolk has had the highest fall of 58. 4 per cent.; North Norfolk has seen a fall of 52.4 per cent.; and South Norfolk a fall of 53.9 per cent. Most European countries would give their right arms for such economic figures. However, that is not to be complacent or to say that there are no issues of importance in the Norfolk economy in general or real problems in agriculture there.
I welcome the fact that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee visited Norfolk. It did a good job and I am sure that farmers appreciated the chance to put their problems to the Select Committee. We recognise that agriculture is an important part of the rural economy, although I remind the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) in particular that it is not the whole of the rural economy. I do not think that he would want to claim that.
To tackle a problem properly we need to know where and what the problem is and to put it in perspective. The Government want to do that, which is why we have obtained independent reports, such as that of the policy commission on the future of farming and food, chaired by Sir Don Curry, with a view to examining the long-term structural problems for agriculture. There are, of course, many. The work deals with the exchange rate, the increasing effect of global trade and the oversupply of world commodity markets.
In discussion, hon. Members have advanced sensible ideas about issues that need to be identified and addressed, including how to encourage diversification, questions of transport and infrastructure in the county, support for marketing and, of course, planning. Those can all contribute to the encouragement of agriculture.
The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk made some remarks about conservation, which has always been a matter of great interest to me. Agriculture and farmers have an important role in conservation. Farmers are land use managers with expertise and skills. Our approach to CAP reform is to move away from production subsidies to the so-called second pillar,
22WH
which provides more money not only to help with conservation and agri-environment matters, but also to help with broader rural economic matters, such as marketing, processing and diversification. That is the way we want the CAP to evolve and we are pressing for such reform in the mid-term review.
Mr. Hayes: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Morley: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I should like to make progress.
I accept that planning is important. Farmers often raise it with me and it was raised during the regional meetings to discuss the findings of the Curry report. The Government have studied the planning policy guidance in relation to rural areas. The item relevant to diversification is PPG7. As far as we can see, it gives quite adequate guidance to planning authorities on encouraging local businesses and farmers in diversification and conversion of buildings. Much of what happens comes down to local interpretation of the plans.
The right hon. Lady rightly said that the bodies concerned are elected. Of course, that is the idea. They must examine planning applications on their merits, and take into account matters such as vehicle movements and potential disturbance. We do not believe that there is necessarily an argument for new planning guidance. We believe that what is important is interpretation locally—working with and encouraging local businesses. However, I appreciate that people feel that that is not happening. We will continue to talk to our colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister about how to encourage appropriate support for farming diversification. I do not think that we disagree with the right hon. Lady.
Several hon. Members raised the issue of water use. We accept that agriculture is a major user of water. I have responsibility for water policy in the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which has brought matters together. A new water Bill is proposed, to address many of the water usage problems that exist.
I understand the point that was made about trickle irrigation. It is an efficient and sustainable way of using water, and we want to encourage it, but we cannot ignore the fact that it is a water user, so that there is a strong argument for bringing it within the licensing regime, in relation to water management in its broadest sense. However, I can give an assurance that we recognise agriculture's legitimate role as a water user. That will be recognised in future measures and policies. As a vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities, I should mention that those authorities play an important role in impounding winter water for summer abstraction. Their valuable role, and the way in which they have changed, will be recognised.
On the slaughter premium, I recognise that the problem of the cards is important. It is a small, but practical issue, and I assure the right hon. Lady that it will be examined. It is a small irritation, but I do not underestimate such irritations, which I am sure that we can rectify.
When DEFRA was set up, its mission statement included a vision of a sustainable, diverse, modern and adaptable farming industry, and we must tackle issues

23WH
such as the World Trade Organisation. Following on from the food and farming commission's response, we are introducing a strategy for agriculture. The commission was set up to address agriculture's long-standing structural problems, which must be resolved. The strategy will be produced before the end of the year, and there will be opportunity to comment on it and on the idea of giving agriculture a way forward.
Agriculture's role should not be underestimated. In 2000, the UK was 67 per cent. self-sufficient in all food and 80 per cent. self-sufficient in food that could be grown in the UK. That is not a bad record, although the figure dipped a bit in 2001, mainly because of the effects of foot and mouth on the livestock industry. None the less, we have a good record on food production and we want to promote farmers' role in that.
We recognise that the central tenet of the Curry commission is that farmers must move closer to the market, from which they have become disconnected. The Government want to encourage that and to assist farmers in addressing market needs, market changes and the structural changes that have taken place in recent years.
Mr. Hayes: The Minister generously acknowledged that the strategy is an important part of Government policy. Will it, however, take account of the different needs of different parts of the country in a way that reflects the following issues? Modulation will affect the east of England quite differently from other parts of the country because of the concentration of arable farms and the difficulties that farmers will have in replacing production-led income with environmental income. That is as important for Norfolk as it is for Lincolnshire and other parts of the east of England, and the strategy must take account of those issues.
Mr. Morley: It will certainly recognise the issue of modulation. Modulation should be seen as a transition; it is being applied only because of the production-subsidy regime that we find ourselves with under the CAP, which, it is widely accepted, must be reformed. That is not a party-political point, but a cross-party issue, and the farming industry itself recognises the need for reform.
As a Lincolnshire MP, I know that the east of England has many profitable farms. The Government have introduced measures such as the arable
24WH
stewardship programme, which is designed for large arable farms, with which it has proved popular. That is one way in which money comes back into the area through modulation. It is matched pound for pound, so it is a good deal for the agriculture industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North is an acknowledged expert on GM crops and he made some important points, which the Government accept. The approach to GM crops must be science based. We must be cautious, but we must not completely disown the science; we must have field-scale trials to examine some of the legitimate concerns that have been raised. We must go forward on the basis of science.
I was interested in my hon. Friend's comments about GM cricket bats. I do not know whether they would improve a team's playing, but that would be an important selling point.
I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) about sugar beet, and there is a problem because of the WTO challenge. The market is very protected, which is not popular with our food-processing industry because it must compete on world terms with sugar that is three to four times cheaper than in the UK. None the less, we are addressing the issue.
The same is true of biofuels. They are important, and we want to support them. According to the latest figures, the 20p cut has encouraged them.
On the Rural Payments Agency, we are introducing new IT systems to improve efficiency.
The Agricultural Wages Board is an important body. Its influence goes beyond agriculture, but it is due for review and modernisation.
The poultry and pig industries are important. We understand the role that they play and we are sensitive to the directives. I can assure the Chamber that the laying hens directive will not be gold-plated. We are consulting on the issue of enriched cages. The pig industry is encountering some problems, but we are working closely with the industry to see how we can assist it in future.
I hope that I have answered all the questions that have been raised. The issues are important and the Government take them seriously.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the Minister. We must now move on to the second debate in Westminster Hall, initiated by the hon. Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart).

Bus Security
11 am
Ian Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am pleased finally to have secured this debate, which I first requested after the Whitsun recess in June. I was beginning to think that I had fallen foul of Mr. Speaker for some unknown misdemeanour.
I have a particular interest in transport and health and safety issues, which I shall concentrate on. Wider social and community issues are interrelated with the issue of violence on and the provision of public transport, but, with Mr. Speaker's permission, I intend to address that in future Adjournment debates.
I am a lifelong member of the Transport and General Workers Union and I spent 20 years working as a full-time official for it, so I have seen at first hand the devastating effect that violence at work can have on bus drivers and their families. I am, therefore, grateful for the opportunity to raise some issues that are of legitimate concern to TGWU members and other workers in the bus industry.
Two thirds of public transport journeys are made by bus, and the Government give £1 billion a year to the bus network. Increased investment in buses is vital to the promotion of social inclusion for groups such as the elderly, to which the Government and the Labour party are committed, and to achieving the environmental improvements that we all wish to see. The public rightly put reliability top of their list for bus services, but buses will not become more reliable if intimidation and violence against bus crew is not tackled and reduced.
I appreciate the fears that the travelling public, especially women, have about their safety when waiting for or using bus services, although travellers say that they feel safe when they are on the bus and their journey is under way. Others may address those issues today, and they are as important as the one that I am considering, but I want to focus my remarks narrowly on the effects of violence on public transport workers in the bus industry.
I fully support the recent Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee report on the bus industry, which concludes that attacks on public transport users and staff are as serious as any other form of antisocial behaviour. The effect on staff is insidious. Harassment and physical violence lead to sickness and absence for those employees affected. Common problems after an attack include nightmares, sleeping difficulties, lethargy and depression. Violence against bus workers also deters staff recruitment and retention. The Health and Safety Executive-Home Office report "Violence at Work" found that 45 per cent. of public transport workers are worried about threats or actual assaults at work, the highest reported level of any occupational group.
Ms Julia Drown: My hon. Friend talks about the great concern among bus drivers, but does he have any data on incidents? In Swindon, there is an increasing number of reports of incidents of violence towards bus drivers, which is a real cause for concern.
Ian Stewart: I hope to come on to that very point.
26WH
It is a sad truth that 44 per cent. of assaults on drivers are serious enough to result in days off work, and that a further 13 per cent. are unable to finish their shift. No wonder drivers' families are sometimes fearful when drivers are working weekend night shifts. A dossier produced by the TGWU documents a horrifying range of physical attacks against drivers and buses, involving knives, bricks, stones, syringes, beer bottles, baseball bats and air rifles. Mercifully, such attacks are rare, so, as the man from "Crimewatch" would say, "Please don't have nightmares."
There is an argument that one should not highlight isolated attacks for fear of copycat attacks. Many people's fear of crime is disproportionate to the likelihood that they will be a victim of crime, and I do not want to make people fearful of using public transport, which is generally safe. However, we cannot solve a problem by hiding it. Serious attacks are uncommon, but menacing comments, threats and spitting are more widespread. They are an affront to workers in our transport services and to our local communities, and they must not be tolerated.
The public has recently shown overwhelming support for a teacher who was threatened with violence by pupils at his school and who has been absent from work because of stress. The majority of the public think that the pupils should not be allowed to return to the school. Of course, individual transport operators can ban those convicted of violence from public transport and can prevent them from using public transport by civil injunction, but that affects only those who are caught and convicted. By the very nature of bus travel, it is easy for an assailant to make a quick escape, and I am sure that most cases of verbal abuse go unreported. Rightly, we condemn attacks on our teachers and health service workers, but we must show the same indignation and concern about our transport workers.
I welcome the new guidance issued in April by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, as it was then called, on personal security and travel. It covers a broad range of issues from a call for better lighting at bus stops to effective surveillance systems, better procedures for reporting incidents and partnership initiatives with the police, schools and young people. We must have further investment in all those areas.
I also welcome the announcement, which the Minister for Transport made in August, on the safer travel on buses and coaches panel—it has the snappy acronym STOP. The panel brings together the unions, bus operators, local authorities, the police and others to discuss how best to consider assaults, antisocial behaviour and vandalism on vehicles and property, as well as spreading the word on good practices. I hope that the Minister can tell us something about the panel's work.
What are the flashpoints for conflict on our buses? An incident may start with a fares dispute, a driver telling passengers that a bus is full, a bus getting stuck in traffic or on a school run, or an opportunistic grab for cash. Those are different issues and there are several different solutions. We can get our buses moving more efficiently with dedicated bus lanes and bus priority schemes adequately enforced, such as we have in my area under the jurisdiction of the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority. People have differing views over

27WH
whether cash should be carried on buses, but I would like smart card technology to be phased in on all our buses. That will no doubt be the subject of continued discussions with interested parties.
I was interested to hear the Secretary of State for Transport say at Question Time last week that three pilots in England and Wales are trying out the yellow buses that are used in the United States to take children to school. The objective is to move children out of their parents' cars and into dedicated and safe buses. If such buses prove successful, they could play a role in improving congestion problems and freeing up regular, scheduled buses for other travellers.
How do we help the driver to prevent or deal with an incident on the bus?
Mr. Harold Best: Does my hon. Friend agree that an investigation of the possible benefits of a bus transport police might help to defend workers and the travelling public?
Ian Stewart: I have to say honestly that I have not considered that option, but I am sure that it is worth thinking about its wider implications. I am mindful of the fact that there is a transport police—a very small force that covers railways and other modes of transport. Nevertheless, I am sure that what my hon. Friend suggests could be a worthwhile facility.
I return to how we can help drivers to prevent or deal with incidents on buses. We can ensure that measures such as two-way radios, vandal alarms, digital video systems and optional screens are available. I must acknowledge that some bus operators have implemented some of those protections on some services, but it is clear that they should be implemented much more widely. That means increased investment in our bus stock.
Every incident should be logged rather than only those that require a driver to take time off work. That should include verbal abuse, threats and racial or sexual harassment. The TGWU is concerned that some bus companies consistently under-report the number of assaults, so I hope that reporting systems are improved. In addition, confidential freephone facilities and numbers should be established to encourage public reporting.
It is equally important to ensure that culprits are caught. Drivers are frustrated at what they see as the low priority that police appear to give to staff who have just been assaulted. When culprits are successfully prosecuted, we must ensure that they are punished with appropriate penalties, not just a derisory fine.
When a driver is attacked at work, he is a victim of crime. As such, the bus operating companies should ensure access to professional counselling, and there should be no loss of earnings for bus workers subjected to assault. That means guaranteed full earnings, not just sick pay.
The effects of an attack on an individual driver or his bus are deplorable, and they can also hurt communities if a service is reduced or withdrawn. That happened in my constituency, where persistent vandalism led to the withdrawal of services to a local estate. After discussion
28WH
with local interested parties, a replacement night link service was introduced by Greater Manchester PTA and championed by its chairman. Councillor Roger Jones. It involves the passengers booking their journey on a "demand and response" minibus service, which is sometimes called a shared taxi service. Passengers are picked up at home or a place of their choice, and dropped anywhere on the scheduled route at a slightly higher fare than the equivalent bus fare.
I am concerned that all too many bus operators may run what I call a main road policy, under which they progressively tender only for profit-making routes. Indeed, during one of my regular round-table meetings on a local estate in Eccles, one bus manager admitted that he had recommended that his company withdraw from estates in general, not only because of isolated incidents of violence, but for financial reasons.
If that is the case and private operators do not want to provide the much-needed service to estates and remote areas, I call on the Government to allow local transport authorities such as Greater Manchester PTA to buy buses and provide a service to local residents when no private operator will do so.
Before I conclude, I want to pay tribute to a friend and former colleague, Mr. Fred Greer, who is the passenger transport regional trade group secretary for the TGWU in north-west England. He is without doubt one of the experts on criminal injuries compensation claims. Sadly, that expertise, which was gained over many years serving TGWU passenger transport members, has built up because of the attacks on bus drivers and crew. Such expertise results from a need—a need brought about by violence against bus crew. That violence must be stopped.
I welcome the Government's initiatives to improve the safety of buses, crew and passengers. Security measures do not come cheap, however. Investment in safety not only meets our moral obligation to safeguard the health and safety of transport workers, but plays a key role in securing the reliability of our transport services, which the public have a right to expect.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Nicholas Winterton): Order. There are a number of Members—I am not sure whether they are all standing—who want to catch my eye. I hope that a little self-discipline will be exercised.
11.16 am
Mr. Clive Betts: I want to put it on record that I am also a lifelong member of the Transport and General Workers Union, and a vice-chair of the TGWU parliamentary group.
The group of workers that we are discussing are engaged in an important public service, which they perform while they are alone. Often they are alone in deserted areas at night in a confined space—a small cab—with cash. They are sitting targets for anyone who wants to attack them.
The attacks in my constituency have been cowardly and malicious. Sometimes robbery has been involved and sometimes gratuitous violence, such as that from drunken louts who, at night, refuse to pay their fares and

29WH
attack the driver. On other occasions there have been examples of mindless hooliganism—such people think that there is sport to be had from throwing bricks and stones at a passing bus. On all occasions, however, there is a risk to the employees involved and to members of the public.
I supported the Home Secretary a few months ago when he called for tougher penalties against yobs who engage in mobile phone theft and assault people in doing so. There should be equally tough sanctions, penalties and action against the mindless yobs who carry out the violence that we are discussing against public servants who drive buses in our communities.
The issue does not solely concern employees, however, as passengers are affected too. Shortly, I will describe a particularly horrific incident in which one of my constituents was involved. Passengers can experience the full force of appalling attacks in which bricks and stones are thrown, and the community and the public are also affected when a service is withdrawn because it is under persistent threat. I am sure that we all support the promotion of public transport, though that is undermined and people are deterred once such violence is known to happen regularly.
Ms Drown: I am reminded that I, too, should declare that I am a member of the T&G, though not a lifelong member. My hon. Friend mentions bricks and stones, and the danger to passengers and drivers. In Swindon there have been incidents in which airgun pellets have been fired at buses. Has he heard of such incidents? They would clearly he a danger not only to the passengers and the driver, but to everyone around the bus, should pellets hit the driver and send the bus out of control. That is a real concern for bus drivers in my constituency.
Mr. Betts: Absolutely. I mentioned bricks and stones because they were involved in some of the most recent incidents in my constituency, but a couple of years ago a driver in Sheffield was shot by an airgun pellet. That can have horrific consequences, and not only for the driver—if the driver is so affected that the vehicle goes out of control, all the passengers on the bus and other members of the public are put at risk.
Incidents in my constituency, which occurred earlier this year, involved me in the matter. Throughout, I have kept in close touch with the local bus branch and its secretary, Martin Mayer. I give the branch praise and credit for its positive and constructive response, working with the police, the local authority and the bus company owners to try to find ways forward that will cause the least inconvenience to the public. On at least one occasion, however, several services were withdrawn, as the union and the management recognised that some Saturday evening services could not continue due to vandalism.
One of the most horrific incidents earlier in the year involved a group of youths in Handsworth in my constituency, who switched the bus's engine off by hitting the outside control mechanism. When the driver got out to switch the engine on again, he was subjected to a barrage of stones. When one of the passengers went to assist him, he got a brick in the face, which caused him to lose an eye. That was an absolutely appalling incident and, fortunately, the culprit was swiftly apprehended by the police.
30WH
A short time after that, a driver at Halfway, which is also in my constituency, was slashed across the face with a Stanley knife. Fortunately, he was wearing glasses, which deflected the blow so that it caused cuts to his forehead, not the loss of sight that could easily have resulted. He was also slashed in the stomach. On the same night, a passenger punched a driver in the face. Two days later, two youths beat a driver with a baseball bat for the sake of trying to steal his £70 takings. All that happened in Sheffield in a week—an appalling number of incidents in a very short time.
The police say that, unfortunately—my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart) mentioned this—copycat incidents happen. When some of the idiots in our communities see one incident such as a robbery, they spot an easy way to make gain, perhaps for drug expenditure, and go ahead and repeat it. We have not had as many such incidents recently, but the stoning of buses in my constituency and other parts of Sheffield has continued. Local TGWU officials tell me that they are due to meet the police and the local authority again in the next few days to try to find a way forward.
The problem is not only the physical damage to bus drivers that such incidents cause, but the long-term psychological impact on those drivers. Many will never return to work because they are simply too traumatised to go back and sit in that cab, facing the prospect of the same thing happening to them again. We are trying to widen bus driver recruitment and to encourage women to become bus drivers, but there is press publicity for such attacks and that simply will not happen. The approach that bus companies and the unions want to take is being damaged.
I note the comments of my hon. Friend on the increase in such incidents. We have certainly never seen anything like this before in Sheffield, although in the past few months there have been fewer very serious incidents. There have still been some, however, and mindless attacks on buses in which bottles, bricks and stones are thrown, have continued. Union members tell me that although the newer buses are better at attracting people—they have larger windows and are the sort of vehicle that passengers want to ride in—their design acts as an incentive to the mindless yobs who target them for brick throwing.
I listened with interest to the points made by my hon. Friend about how we could hope to deal with the problems. He is right that, although the most serious incidents are reported, many, such as verbal abuse and threats that do not lead to physical violence, are not. There should be a proper reporting system. Bus drivers are rightly trained in customer services, and today we accept that most are friendly, will pull up between stops, say "Hello" or "Good morning" and treat people civilly. However, they unfortunately need training to deal with difficult circumstances and aggressive people. That is also important.
A joint plan must be drawn up among police operators, trade unions and local authorities, and a risk assessment should be made of difficult situations and where they are likely to occur. We should consider the possibility of mandatory police response times to such incidents, bearing in mind that they are unlikely to catch people, or act as a deterrent, unless they are on the scene quickly. I am told that in Sheffield the police have not

31WH
always arrived in time, but have reached a scene very quickly on other occasions. There must therefore be a plan with times set down.
Local authorities have a role. Some incidents have occurred at terminuses that are badly lit, so we need to improve lighting to make it more likely that people will be seen and to make them think twice before engaging in such incidents.
My hon. Friend referred to what can be provided on buses to improve safety: digital cameras, alarm systems, two-way radios and security arrangements for cash. Many of the best bus operators are already taking action, but we all know that in these days of free-for-all public transport some cheapskate operators try to put on poor-quality buses that have no such facilities; they are happy to send drivers out with no protection whatever. We must consider making some requirements mandatory. The Department for Transport has issued guidance on those matters, which perhaps it should now update and reinforce, as well as naming and shaming those operators that refuse to take proper actions to ensure the safety of their employees.
As my hon. Friend said, we also need other measures. From time to time, incidents will unfortunately occur. When they cause drivers to be off sick, those drivers must be on full earnings, not partial sick pay, and they must not be left to bear the consequences. We must ensure that proper counselling is available, because of the trauma involved in such incidents, and have far tougher sentences to punish those involved and to act as a deterrent to others.
The very nature of the job means that employees are vulnerable; they are extremely vulnerable public servants who provide a valuable public service. As representatives of the public, we must offer protection to drivers and to the public who travel on those vehicles, and ensure that services are not withdrawn because of mindless vandalism. We will then be able to promote public transport as the right way to travel in our towns and cities—this issue has consequences for the whole community as well as for individual employees.
It is time to act. The T&G nationally, and locally in Sheffield, has behaved extremely responsibly by making sensible and proper proposals. I hope that the Government support them and ensure that bus operators act on them.
11.27 am
Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to participate in the debate. I, too, am a member of the Transport and General Workers Union, and exceptionally proud of that fact.
My interest in transport began when I was an official of the National and Local Government Officers Association. The T&G allowed me to become joint secretary of the negotiating committees of the Scottish bus group in 1981, so I have a wealth of experience of the problems that drivers faced in that period.
My colleagues are right that the situation has clearly been worsening. At the centre of it all is the driver who has become a victim of a changing society. Examples
32WH
that have been given by my colleagues are particularly worrying; attacks on transport workers in Scotland that have come to my notice are equally worrying. The bus of a female driver ran out of fuel in an isolated area at 11.30 pm. Youths broke every window of the bus while the driver was inside, leading to her being off work for more then eight weeks due to stress. Another driver was slashed in the arm for asking for the correct fare from passengers boarding his bus. Another was assaulted by an attacker who used a knife, and when the ambulance driver turned up he was bitten by that same attacker. What happened when the matter went to court? The attacker was fined £25 and required to pay the miserable sum of £250 as compensation to the driver.
Those are just a few examples of the attacks that happen regularly in Scotland. A recent TGWU survey north of the border shows that some 57 per cent. of drivers expect to be attacked in their career. That is a frightening statistic and a clear demonstration that the matter must be addressed more urgently. Staff believe that more effort should be made to apprehend and seriously punish attackers. Short-term measures such as safety screens, CCTV, personal alarms and two-way radios are all very well, but I must emphasise that they alone are not the answer to the problem. We must consider the underlying causes of attacks.
How can we address the situation? We must consider positively how to improve drivers' health and safety at work. Bus drivers face ongoing problems with long hours and poor cab design, leading to increased stress, fatigue and injuries. I participated in and, indeed, started the process of regular bus inspections in my constituency and the whole of the west of Scotland. Some horror stories of buses that drivers are expected to drive are immensely interesting. I shall give one example.
A bus in my constituency had an open gas fire for a heater. The same bus had its axle held on with one screw. The driver, who was paid £5 an hour, was expected to drive that bus. If he did not, he would not have been employed. That shows the appalling circumstances in which some cowboy employers ask their drivers to work. If such employers are asked to fit screens and so on to their buses, it will not happen.
There are many good employers—Stagecoach, the First Group and others operating in my constituency, such as Docherty Buses—that offer professional counselling facilities to their employees and, in conjunction with trade unions, assess progress on health and safety matters. They put quality partnerships in place and local authorities, such as Strathclyde passenger transport authority, demand quality contracts with bus operators that are legally enforceable. We must regulate and address health and safety matters for transport workers. We also need local authorities to address the problem of attacks on drivers when they draft agreements.
Drivers provide a vital public service, and they deserve to be able to do their jobs without fear of being attacked or assaulted. One of the main changes that I have seen during my 20-year involvement with the industry is the introduction of one-man-operated buses, or OMOs, which have dispensed with conductors. I was involved in the negotiations. However, when buses are

33WH
operated outwith core hours, it would be sensible to have not just one person, but two on board. The Minister should consider that seriously.
My final and perhaps most important point, which is an example of what can be done, is that there is a responsibility on the public and the parents of the children and youths who go on the rampage. In my constituency, there was a threat to withdraw an important service to the main town. People relied on that service to travel to the shops and their entertainment, but it was withdrawn after hoodlums broke every pane of glass on the bus.
As in the case mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), hoodlums used the emergency switch when the bus was at a stop and let down its tyres. That issue had to be addressed and, given the circumstances, the bus company had absolutely no option but to withdraw the service from that bus-only route.
When the company withdrew the service, the public rose up and complained. They blamed the bus company; they blamed the drivers; they blamed everybody but themselves. When they came to see me, I said, "It's your responsibility to make darn sure that those hoodlums are not anywhere near the bus route and that they do not interfere with the service." The situation was resolved only when that issue was addressed, and parents kept their children in and knew where they were. The bus service has been reintroduced and has been running for eight months, fortunately without incident.
We can consider other options such as new technology, but the public need to stand up and pay attention to what is going on in society. We will be in a position to safeguard such bus routes only when the public have made darn sure that they have changed the situation.
Ian Stewart: My hon. Friend will remember that I said that it would be appropriate to debate the other issues that affect communities. I instituted round-table meetings two years ago on a particular estate in my constituency because the bus company had withdrawn a service. Initially, we all thought that we were meeting to discuss a transport problem with social implications, but it became clear that we were discussing a social problem with transport implications. There should be a series of Adjournment debates on those issues.
Mr. Donohoe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is spot on. We should be discussing those issues, and my hon. Friends and I will help him to apply for a further Adjournment debate to consider social problems—we need to press the Minister to address the situation. Perhaps he will bring along a ministerial colleague from the Home Office who could introduce legislation.
I am glad to have taken part in the debate. I am also glad that at least some of my hon. Friends recognise that there is a need for further discussion, and I look forward to that with interest.
11.37 am
Rob Marris: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not sure whether I was going to speak in the debate, but I have been driven to do so.
34WH
First, I declare my interests: like my hon. Friends, I am member of the Transport and General Workers Union, and the law firm Thompson's, which works for the TGWU and for which I used to work, gives money to my constituency party. Hon. Members will perhaps be more interested to learn that I am in a unique position in the House, because although my curriculum vitae makes it appear that I should be an author—I am not an author—I have done many jobs, one of which was driving a bus. After doing that for several years, I became a trade union lawyer, and part of that work involved acting for bus drivers who had been assaulted, which means that I have an interest in and knowledge of the subject.
Earlier, some hon. Members referred to designing out problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) finished his speech by talking about social problems, which are important. I hope that they are the subject of another Adjournment debate. However, I want briefly to focus on designing out problems by, for example, introducing bus lanes, which can speed up services. On daytime services—this is obviously less of a problem at night—passengers can become frustrated by full vehicles, slow vehicles and services running late, and that can boil over into incidents that all too often are not only verbal but violent, which is unacceptable.
As regards night services, we must consider simple matters such as the location of bus stops, how well lit they are and the frequency of services. The problem often boils down to two factors: the frustration of passengers, which, of course, should never be expressed through verbal abuse, let alone physical action, and people who cause vandalism. Those are separate issues, although they can overlap when frustration leads to vandalism.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) mentioned driver training in relation to customer service matters—charm school, as it used to be called. Drivers also need to be taught, as I was, how to try to defuse a situation. Social workers, who often face such circumstances, receive training in so-called breakaway techniques.
The perceived status of bus drivers can be a factor. Undeservedly, they are often regarded as having low status and as acceptable targets. Of course, they should not be accorded that low status and they are never acceptable targets, but that influences some of the little hellions who commit acts of vandalism or who physically or verbally abuse a driver.
We could address the problem by increasing bus drivers' pay and improving their training. As well as having been a driver, I am a regular bus user, so I know that some drivers—a minority—drive in a way that is not conducive to passenger comfort. That is not to say that it is acceptable for a passenger who has had an uncomfortable ride to take it out on the driver. Training is a management issue, and it can assist in designing out problems, as can CCTV, two-way radios and prompt police attendance when an incident is called in.
I hope that the Government are considering the role of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority scheme in cases where, sadly, a bus driver is off work owing to an incident of violence. Under the changes that have been introduced, that body does not reinstate sick

35WH
pay unless a person has been off work for more than 28 weeks. Unless there is a full sick pay scheme at work—an employer matter—a bus driver who has been the victim of violence will not necessarily get their pay, let alone compensation for the physical or mental trauma that they have been through. A range of issues must be addressed, and I hope that the Minister takes them up.
The west midlands metro, some of which runs through my constituency, has been bedevilled by acts of vandalism that create huge problems. When a brick breaks the front windscreen of a metro tram, replacing it costs about £3,000. However, the question involves not only finance, but trauma to the driver and passengers and the impact on the transport network caused by suspended services and so on.
Travel West Midlands, which runs the west midlands metro, has taken the step of introducing clippies—mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South—who provide a second person on the vehicle. That should be considered for buses, especially half-empty late-night services to estates with poor lighting, because such services are more likely to suffer acts of vandalism. Do the Government intend to consider changing how subsidies are offered to operators of routes that run infrequently and late at night to dark estates so that they can rejig them to provide a second member of staff?
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart) on securing the debate and hope that we can hold another.
11.43 am
Mr. David Marshall: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make a brief contribution. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart) on securing this worthwhile Adjournment debate. He is lucky to have done so this quickly, because many hon. Members have been trying for much longer to secure debates on other subjects. That shows how popular and worthwhile such debates are.
Like my hon. Friends, I must declare that I am a member of the Transport and General Workers Union. I have been a member since the age of 19, and a continuous member for the past 42 years. From 1960 to 1969, I worked for the Glasgow corporation transport department—two years as a tram car conductor and seven as a bus conductor when the trams were withdrawn from service. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), I never reached the giddy heights of driver, as I could not pass the eye test, nor was I a clippie.
For the last five of those nine years, I was a shop steward in Partick bus garage, and tragically one of my members was stabbed to death while collecting fares on his bus on a Saturday night. For two successive weekends, we took every single corporation vehicle off the streets of Glasgow on Fridays and Saturdays at 7 pm. That resulted in the fitting of two-way radios and alarm systems to the vehicles in 1968. I think that we were the first city in the UK to get those, although that has become standard practice in most transport operations, as has the installation of protective shields
36WH
for drivers, now that most vehicles are operated by one person. Those measures have made it somewhat safer for passengers and drivers to travel on buses.
Sadly, in recent years, threats of assault and actual assaults aboard vehicles have increased. Equally sad and worrying is the huge increase in off-vehicle incidents, and acts of vandalism and violence against public service vehicles and those travelling in them. That also applies to trains. Mindless thugs drop bricks and other missiles from overhead bridges and hooligans throw bottles, or whatever they can get their hands on, at windows. I think that we are seeing the tip of the iceberg. There are many more such incidents than we are aware of, and perhaps injuries. It is only a matter of time before there is a major tragedy involving several people being killed, losing eyes or being crippled. We must do something about that.
The public have been deprived of services in many areas, especially cities, and at times when they need them. Women, children and elderly, vulnerable people are put in danger if they have to wait at bus stops only for vehicles that normally come along at a particular time not to turn up because the driver has had to report sick, or the vehicle has been taken out of commission because of broken windows or some other damage. It is common in many cities—Glasgow is one of the worst at the moment—for 20 or 30 vehicles to be out of service on a particular night, usually at weekends. That does not give the public the service that they desire. It puts them at risk, and it deprives crews of many aspects of their life. It can deprive them of earnings, make them feel insecure and make them look for alternative employment.
The cost of training drivers and then losing them to other occupations must be quite substantial, and their quality of life has decreased in many ways, through fear and the loss of earnings. People stay at home because they are afraid to go out, and the loss to businesses and to the quality of life of many citizens is growing as a result of that ever-increasing spiral of vandalism.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) mentioned poor working conditions for many drivers. He could have added antisocial hours, as well as the worry that they suffer. Many drivers have to start at four in the morning. They are up long before most other people, but sometimes are not finished until midnight. They also work when everyone else has gone home from work, or after they have been enjoying themselves. Many have to work seven days a week, or certainly six days spread over seven, to earn a decent living. They also have to work many hours of overtime, which is essential if they want a living wage.
The poor pay and poor working conditions result in high staff turnover. That results in stresses and strains for the drivers and their families. Drivers give an excellent service in all kinds of weather. In fact, they have to take people out in conditions when the AA may say, "Do not travel unless your journey is absolutely necessary. Leave your car at home." However, the buses and trains are expected to run, and we tend to take our public services for granted. We really should do more to help them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles referred to the practice of avoiding publicity and keeping quiet about problems because of the danger of copycats. Frankly,

37WH
that method is just not working. The people who commit such acts are well aware of them and there is very little danger of others doing the same. Therefore, the strategy is a failure. Perhaps the opposite approach might be more effective. Why not begin a high-profile campaign that explains the harm and tragedy that may result from throwing missiles at buses and other vehicles? That might be more effective. However, such a campaign must be linked to an effort to catch the offenders and punish them severely, because their acts are not petty vandalism or the result of youngsters letting off steam, as some would have us believe, but serious criminal acts that should be treated as such.
My hon. Friends have made many good points, and I welcome the joint initiatives by trade unions, employers, police and the Government. I look forward to the Minister's response, but again I make the point that the courts must play the major role in dealing with the problem. Severe sentences for the thugs are the greatest deterrent regarding stamping out vandalism and acts of violence.
11.50 am
Mr. John Randall: I thank the hon. Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart) and congratulate him on introducing the debate. I am sorry that I missed the first five minutes of his contribution.
I am not a member of the Transport and General Workers Union. My closest interest is a bus stop outside my house, which I regard as a bonus rather than anything else. I have some experience, however, to which I shall allude briefly. In discussing violence against drivers and bus crews, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) referred to their lack of status. I spent a large part of my life behind a shop counter, and I believe that shop workers also suffer from violence and abuse. In a way, they are seen not as human beings, but as part of a service. Frustration and all sorts of things may play a part, but it is totally unacceptable that public workers in nearly every sector suffer violence.
I am appalled to hear of some of the acts that have been committed. I thought that we had serious problems in parts of my Uxbridge constituency, but I am relieved that, although our problems are significant, they are not on the scale that we have heard about today. It is right to discuss such difficulties.
I know many bus drivers, and I asked one who had worked for a company for several years why he was leaving his job. He said that the conditions were driving him out. When I asked what was the worst aspect of the conditions, thinking that it would be the antisocial hours and late-night shifts, he said that it was working after school. Although the incredibly violent incidents that we have heard about are not mirrored after school, one wonders whether the children who are responsible for the mindless vandalism and aggressive behaviour that happens during that period will grow up to be ever more violent against bus crews.
Ms Drown: Did the hon. Gentleman's discussion include the differences between single and double-decker buses? My local bus drivers worry about driving double-deckers with school children on board. That is regrettable, because it results in more buses on the
38WH
roads, more congestion and pupils sometimes being unable to get on particular buses due to lack of capacity. That issue must also be addressed.
Mr. Randall: I thank the hon. Lady, who is absolutely right that that is a problem. We have single and double-deckers in my constituency. I am not sure whether the introduction of conductors would necessarily help greatly, however. The lack of respect shown by some kids towards adults of any status is such that I am not sure whether a conductor would achieve any improvement. Indeed, I have wondered whether Metropolitan police officers could sit on buses in uniform to get the message across.
At a presentation by our local branch of the Federation of Small Businesses, I saw a piece on covert surveillance and discovered that a small camera can be implanted in the strap of an ordinary-looking bag, such as a school bag. Sometimes when I visit schools and say that I have heard complaints about the pupils, they deny that it could possibly be theirs causing the problem and claim that people will have seen just a child in uniform. I would like to be able to present such head teachers with evidence of their pupils causing trouble. Brent has been quite successful with surveillance on the buses, and I shall recommend to my local authority that it take note of what is happening there.
Another important point, especially later at night, concerns bus shelters. Like the travelling public, we all welcome the arrival of more bus shelters, but in the evenings they tend to become a honey pot, especially in poor weather. Local youths gather around them and launch into abuse when a bus arrives. I am not sure what can be done about that, but, some years ago, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) and I served on a Select Committee that examined the problems of parks and open spaces—the introduction of youth shelters elsewhere could help.
I found the comments of the hon. Member for Eccles on the minibus night link scheme, particularly interesting and relevant. Many universities including Brunel in my constituency, are examining a similar scheme, which is considering one because the buses normally stop too early for people coming out of clubs. Despite legislation, many people are wary of minicabs late at night. Local authorities, together with bus companies and universities, could consider such schemes, which should be extended not only to students but to law—abiding members of the public.
I echo what all Members have said about the need for tougher measures, as the authorities do not perhaps treat such incidences of violence with the severity that they deserve. The message must be sent out that they are totally unacceptable. We are trying to get more people to use public transport, so it is essential that the travelling public and all public transport services employees feel absolutely safe. I support any measures to stamp out violence, particularly on our public transport.
11.58 am
Mr. Don Foster: I congratulate the hon. Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart) on securing this important debate. Like the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), I must admit that I am not a member of

39WH
the Transport and General Workers Union, although the hon. Gentleman should know that I was briefly a bus conductor once, and use the buses in my constituency and elsewhere, so I have at least some experience.
In the main part of his contribution, the hon. Member for Eccles rightly drew our attention to the violence suffered by public transport workers, especially bus drivers. He urged us, as other Members have done, to take the issue far more seriously, and I fully support his comments. It was frightening to hear other hon. Members' experiences of the violence suffered by drivers in their constituencies. As the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, that affects not only those drivers' lives, but the rest of us. If a driver is injured or suffers from stress as a result of an attack, or the threat of an attack, and cannot therefore provide a service, bus reliability declines and we all lose out.
The hon. Gentleman also rightly touched on several issues, from the potential use of smart cards to reduce cash carried on vehicles, to the yellow bus experiment, which I shall mention shortly. He spoke for all of us when he said that he wanted the use of public transport, not least the buses, to increase to reduce pollution and congestion—and, I would add, to reduce social exclusion.
I note with concern that, under Conservative Governments from 1979 to 1997, bus passenger journeys fell by one third and car traffic increased by 82 per cent. Although in the past few months there has been a welcome increase in bus ridership, nevertheless, under the new Labour Administration overall ridership remains lower than it was when the Government came to power, so there is an urgent need to take action.
If we are to get people back on to the buses we must ensure that they are safe, reliable and affordable. Those features are linked, as reliability can have an impact on safety. As the hon. Member for Eccles said, if a bus is late or does not turn up at all, the passenger waiting at the bus stop is potentially at risk. It is therefore crucial to improve buses' reliability. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that sadly, so far the targets set by the Deputy Prime Minister in 1999 for improving the reliability of buses, are not being met—and reliability is crucial to safety.
In their secure station initiative, the Government highlighted the importance of safety while people are waiting for a train. Although I was critical of the way in which that initiative was pursued, as far too few stations have so far been accredited, nevertheless it shows that the Government see the matter as crucial. I hope that the Minister will undertake to give safety while people are waiting at a bus stop or bus station an equally high priority, not least because more people use buses than use trains.
Safety when people are on buses is also important. However the statistics are analysed they show that buses and coaches are, on the whole, very safe forms of public transport. For example, bus passenger deaths are only 3 per cent. of all road casualties. None the less, a worrying number of people are injured while travelling by bus. Every year about 1,000 people are injured while seated on buses and a further 600 standing passengers are injured. Clearly, there is more to be done.
40WH
Hon. Members mentioned additional work; driver training was raised, not least by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts). Improvements could be made to enhance vehicles' structural integrity—in the seat-to-floor mountings, for example. There is still a great deal more to be done with the interior design of buses; for example, the design should stop seated passengers falling to the floor when there is emergency braking, and the injury potential of vertical grab rails on some buses, seat backs and other interior features should be reduced. The average age of the bus fleet is eight and a half years, so many buses still in use do not benefit from recent research on interior design. We must find ways of modernising the fleet, especially older vehicles.
Many injuries occur when vehicles stop suddenly. which is often caused by pedestrians and other vehicles on the road. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton. South-West (Rob Marris) made an important reference to the great benefits of introducing more bus lanes, more priority left and right turns and other measures that give buses higher priority on our roads, for the sake not only of reliability but of safety.
The hon. Member for Eccles referred to the need for a wide range of different debates. He and the Minister will know about the continuing conflict between legislation to allow local authorities to introduce priority lanes and priority left and right turns through quality partnerships, and the competition legislation that tends to prohibit it. That would be an appropriate subject for a separate debate. The subject of improving bus ridership by giving the public more information about how to use buses and about the services that are available is relevant to this debate, but it would also be appropriate for a separate debate. In Perth, Australia, when a small amount was spent on promoting and explaining the bus service, bus ridership increased by 14 per cent.
Many other things can be done. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West referred not only to driver training, but to the way in which bus drivers sometimes drive. There is no doubt that several drivers could be given better advice about how to improve their driving, to make journeys safer and more comfortable for their passengers.
I pay tribute to First Group in my area. There were huge worries about drivers who set off quickly from bus stops when elderly and disabled passengers were not seated, causing several injuries. I discussed the matter with First Group, and Mr. Brian Noton, the managing director, agreed to put notices in all buses in my area to remind drivers of the importance of waiting for passengers to be seated to ensure that they were safe. The seated and safe campaign was a great success, for which I thank First Group.
Hon. Members have mentioned yellow buses, and I am sure that we are all aware of the benefits of those buses, which pick up school pupils at or near their homes, thus reducing safety problems. Hon. Members will also know about the benefits of specially designed ultra-safe vehicles. The hon. Member for Uxbridge spoke about the benefits of supervising passengers on the buses. I hope that the Government will take the experiments more seriously. The Deputy Prime Minister

41WH
referred to three trials, but I understand that the Government have had little or no input into the trials; I hope that they soon will have.
I am delighted that the hon. Member for Eccles has raised these important issues. The points that he has made, especially about violence toward bus drivers, deserve more attention.
12.8 pm
Miss Anne McIntosh: I am delighted to participate in this excellent debate. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) in declaring that I am not a member of the Transport and General Workers Union, but I admit to using buses frequently, especially in London. I declare a small interest in First Group. When I was a Member of the European Parliament, I sat on that august body's Committee on Transport and Tourism from 1989 to 1999.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart) on securing this important and timely debate. I pay tribute to the huge contribution that bus transport makes to our way of life. It is a greatly appreciated and central public service, and the extent to which buses run later in this country than in many continental countries is often not recognised. My experiences in Strasbourg, and during a recent weekend in Cannes, demonstrate that it is easier to catch a bus at night in a British city than in a French city.
Many hon. Members have had the opportunity to describe their truly frightening experiences this morning. A recent edition of the Manchester Evening News said that in Manchester
"Yobs are running up a yearly bill of more than £4m which has to be picked up by fare-payers and some services are under threat."
The article goes on:
"Aside from suffering to drivers and passengers, major bus companies in Greater Manchester estimate they spend around £1.5m a year repairing damage caused by bricks, stones, graffiti and fire."
One of the main rail companies says its annual bill is about £2.5m."
The Conservative party puts road safety very high on the political agenda. I am disappointed that we have not had the opportunity today to mention the particular vulnerability of school buses. The Minister might like to talk about that when summing up. Our intention, as has been set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), is to give a high priority to fitting seat belts on buses, especially those carrying children to school. I understand that under EU principles of subsidiarity, it is perfectly proper for us to take that action on road safety.
Before I list some truly shocking statistics from the Library about bus transport over the past five years, I should say, as background, that bus use since privatisation and deregulation has been a success. There have been more services, increased investment and much reduced subsidies. Privatisation slowed the decline in bus passenger usage—a remarkable fact, given the growth in car ownership and the hostility of several urban local authorities to the private bus industry. It is of concern that bus passenger usage is apparently declining in rural areas. What specific measures will the Government take to increase bus
42WH
usage in rural areas? Other hon. Members have paid tribute to the bus companies operating in their constituencies, and I shall do the same for those in my constituency, which provide a remarkable service.
Between 1997 and 2001 there was a 19 per cent. increase in the number of bus drivers killed or injured, and the number of bus passengers killed or injured on Britain's roads rose by 3 per cent. in the same period. There was also a 27 per cent. increase in the number of fatal accidents involving buses or coaches, and a 43 per cent. increase in the number of fatal accidents involving collisions between buses or coaches and pedestrians. Those figures speak for themselves; they have the authority of the Library, and they are deeply disturbing.
Many hon. Members will have received briefings from local bus operators. Stagecoach says:
"It is worth pointing out that crime on buses is low, however we are very aware that even the fear of crime can act as a deterrent in terms of people choosing to travel by bus or any other form of public transport."
Arriva says:
"Incidents of vandalism and attacks on employees and customers are thankfully rare."
First Group says—this supports what my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge said—that most bus crime occurs between 3 pm and 7 pm and involves youths, presumably as they are coming out of school. First Group in central Manchester says that it is involved with Crucial Crew. I should like to pay tribute to Crucial Crew for the work that it does across the country. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House have been involved locally with informing youngsters.
First Group writes:
"In Central Manchester, First is fully involved with Crucial Crew, a multi-agency initiative designed to provide preventative education for nine and ten year olds in an entertaining, fun way."
That welcome measure helps youths to adopt a positive approach to buses—to see that they are to be used, not abused.
I have the distinction of having served, with the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe), among others, for a couple of years on the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions, and I pay tribute to its report published on 12 September. That report identified an increase in passengers travelling by bus in urban areas and recognised that there had been a slight decline in passenger numbers in rural areas. The Committee's analysis of safety and security in part 3 of the report says that
"Actual and perceived safety and security problems can be a significant barrier to people using public transport. Women and older people feel most vulnerable, particularly at night. The Department believes"—
these are the Department's own predictions—
"that safety concerns are deterring around 10 per cent of potential public transport use mainly at off-peak times".
Perhaps the most worrying aspect of bus transport, which the Minister might like to address in his summing up, is that the proportion of users who are deterred—10 per cent. —corresponds to the 10 per cent. growth target that the Government set out in their 10-year plan. The Government have a good opportunity to revise and review their targets. All hon. Members would like increased passenger usage and increased safety on public transport.

43WH
The Select Committee report continues:
"The police must give greater priority to reducing anti-social behaviour in and around public transport. Attacks on public transport users and staff are as serious as any other form of anti-social behaviour."
That issue has come through strongly in the tone of the debate.
That part of the report concludes:
"Bus companies must use the Department's guidance on improving security in partnership with local authorities and police authorities."
I commend the report, with its horrific statistics, to the House and the Minister. The cost of vandalism and attacks, both for those who work for bus companies and for the companies themselves, is unacceptable, as are the threats to passengers. We have heard in graphic detail about some ghastly experiences.
I recognise that the Government have taken some action by setting out their guidance on safety and by creating the safer travel on buses and coaches panel. Have they done enough? From what we have heard this morning, the answer is: probably not.
12.18 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): This is the first time that I have spoken under your watchful and careful eye, Mr. Griffiths, and I look forward to many more such occasions.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart) on securing the debate. He presented his well argued points powerfully, as is his custom. He speaks with considerable authority on several transport issues and we are always pleased to hear from him. Had you been in the Chamber earlier, Mr. Griffiths, you would have noticed that at times the debate began to resemble an address to the parliamentary branch of the Transport and General Workers Union. I have to declare that I am not a member of the TGWU—but after today's debate I will give it some careful consideration.
Miss McIntosh: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Jamieson: No, I will not give way. I am coming to the hon. Lady's point.
There is widespread agreement on both sides about the subject of this debate, despite the fact that the hon. Lady finished her speech on rather a sour note. She asked whether bus provision in rural areas would be increased, and I have to respond that, after many years of decline in bus services in rural areas before the present Government came into office, we have turned the situation round.
The hon. Lady might want to consider her own local authority area. The local transport plan funding has increased two and a half times in her area in the past two years. That is funding that the local authority can use to assist in bus planning for urban and rural areas. Other grants, such as the rural bus grants, are also available for her area. None of those funds were available five years ago.
44WH
The Government are concerned about the fear of crime; we do not want that to inhibit people from using public transport. I shall take this opportunity to endorse many of the comments that have been made in the debate, and to make it clear that criminal and antisocial behaviour against bus staff and passengers is unacceptable. We are committed to reducing crime and the fear of crime in our transport system. I pay tribute to the campaign to highlight the issue that the Transport and General Workers Union successfully conducted earlier this year, which led to some positive outcomes.
Antisocial behaviour directed against buses or the people on board them is at best unpleasant, and at worst deeply dangerous to the people who use and operate them. As the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) pointed out, some of those problems occur during school run time, which is disturbing. I reinforce the point that people who serve the public, such as teachers, nurses and bus drivers, have the right to carry out their work without suffering abuse, assault or violence. As a society. we should do everything to ensure that that right is upheld.
One good point was made by several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts). When such violence occurs it often leads to the buses being withdrawn, and the communities where it occurs are almost invariably those most in need of a bus service, the areas with the lowest car ownership statistics, where people are most vulnerable when buses are withdrawn. I liked the approach of my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe), which I have not heard applied to this subject before. It is not only the bus operators, the police and others who have to deal with such violence; the communities that are affected must take responsibility, too. If they are losing their bus service, or its quality is deteriorating, because of the behaviour of some people, it is up to the community to take action and ensure that those people are reported.
I would say the same about the point that the hon. Member for Uxbridge made about schools. Where there is poor behaviour on buses, the bus companies should liaise with the schools and the local education authorities, and get the minority—it is often a tiny minority—of children who are causing problems off the buses, so that perhaps they have to walk in the rain.
Mr. Donohoe: Will the Minister see one of his colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills and try to convince him or her that they could solve that problem by putting a teacher on the bus? I understand that teachers currently refuse to perform that duty.
Mr. Jamieson: Sadly, that would put more pressure on teachers, who will frequently have had to deal with the same children for six hours during the day; the further imposition of having to go on the bus could present them with yet another problem. However, there have been some innovative ideas, such as appointing a responsible older pupil—who may be granted free transport on the bus—to act as the eyes and ears, and report back any difficulties with specific children. That scheme has been working successfully in my area and in others. I take my hon. Friend's point on board, but I do not wish to put more pressure on teachers.
Mr. Don Foster: Today in particular, when the Government are stressing the benefits of classroom

45WH
assistants, is not the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) right, in that it is possible to find responsible adults with additional training who could be brought in to supervise the buses? That is one of the key components of the yellow bus scheme.
Mr. Jamieson: That is correct.
Ian Stewart: What we must not do is examine such things in a unitary way. They are clearly all interrelated, which is why I have called for a series of Adjournment debates to try to link all the different aspects.
Mr. Jamieson: I am delighted to hear that my hon. Friend wants a series of Adjournment debates, and I look forward to joining him here on Tuesday and Wednesday mornings. I liked his comments when, in an intervention, he described the difficulties that we have been discussing as "social problems with transport implications". That is a useful way of looking at them
Despite the low recorded crime on public transport, we recognise the fear of crime and the impact that that has on the lives of ordinary people. For example, 44 per cent. of women and 19 per cent. of men feel unsafe waiting at bus stops at night. In April, my predecessor launched fresh guidance to help tackle crime on buses. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) will find the answers to some of his questions in that guidance, "Get on board: an agenda for improving personal security in bus travel". It set out safety measures that can be taken by bus companies working with local authorities to improve the personal safety of both bus staff and passengers. Better lighting at bus stops, effective surveillance and better procedures for reporting incidents were all recommended by the guidance, as well as sharing examples of good practice and partnership initiatives.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles asked about STOP, the safer travel on buses and coaches panel. We have now launched that group at official level, which will deal specifically with security on buses and coaches, and will work to bring together those involved in dealing with safety. The STOP group is due to meet for the first time very soon, and is charged with the important task of facilitating the exchange of ideas and spreading best practice. My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) asked about the quality of our statistics: the panel will also commission regular data collection so that we can determine the size of the problem and find a solution.
46WH
I am pleased to say that my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport met members and representatives of the Transport and General Workers Union earlier this year to discuss what could be done to reduce crime on buses. That meeting followed the highly successful campaign by the TGWU on behalf not only of its members but of bus passengers. My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles has taken a great interest in the matter and is taking the issue forward.
My hon. Friend also asked about the possibility of local authorities buying buses. I believe that it would be perfectly possible using local transport plan money—my hon. Friend is smiling at me now; perhaps he is going to ask me to renationalise the whole system. Although one could go down that avenue and purchase buses, that would have to be consistent with the objectives and priorities in the local transport plan, and must also satisfy the district auditor and the best value appraisal. The service would also have to be contracted out in some way through competitive tendering. I hope that that explanation is helpful to my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe graphically described some of the appalling things that have happened on buses in his area, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South. I assure my hon. Friend that if he passes on to the vehicle inspectorate any reports of open gas fires on buses, or parts of buses being held on with one screw, it will take urgent action and ensure that those buses are taken off the road.
Some hon. Members asked about the possibility of having buses operated by more than one person. That is an attractive idea, and it is open to the operator to make such a decision. Again, however, there would be huge cost implications. Every pound spent on putting an extra person on the bus to inhibit crime is a pound not spent on delivering other services. We need to find the balance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) made a studied and carefully argued contribution. I was interested in his valuable comments on designing out problems.
Time is against me, but this morning's debate has been most helpful, with some very good contributions. If my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles, or anyone else, is successful in securing a future debate, there will be more time to discuss such matters further and more fully.
Mr. Win Griffiths (in the Chair): We now come to the debate on the closure of West Freugh airfield and bombing range.

West Freugh Airfield
12.30 pm
Mr. Peter Duncan: Thank you for your introduction of the debate, Mr. Griffiths. I congratulate you on your pronunciation.
I am delighted to have this opportunity to debate the twin announcements made in March and July that have caused such despair and dismay in my constituency. The Government's review of evaluation and research requirements was announced by a planted parliamentary question on 24 July, with the result that public and parliamentary scrutiny of the decision has had to wait almost exactly three months. That is surely not acceptable. If ever there was an advertisement for modernisation proposals to include a resumption of parliamentary business during September, this is it. Communities that have served the Ministry of Defence and related bodies impeccably for more than 60 years deserve better than such cynical politics, seeking a carpet under which to sweep bad news.
The announcement in the House was followed by a degree of buck passing between QinetiQ representatives and the MOD over the origins of the review. I hope that the Minister can throw more light on the nature of the examination of test and evaluation facilities.
To say that the announcement on 24 July caused dismay in Galloway is no exaggeration. I want the Minister to be fully aware of the strength of public opinion in this remote corner of Scotland. The area has been extremely supportive of MOD testing and operations since the 1930s. I was amused and confused to hear the Minister say in this very Chamber only one week ago that if he were starting from scratch he would not be designating a range at Shoeburyness. That was the result of a number of complaints received from locals about military activity. It is truly extraordinary that, so soon after, we face the closure of facilities in a place, Wigtownshire, that the MOD, if it did start with a blank sheet of paper, would surely deduce was an excellent location for such a testing range.
Stranraer and its surrounding communities have been dealt some cruel blows in recent months. Last year's foot and mouth crisis left the area severely weakened through agricultural decline and the sudden fall in tourism, as Dumfries and Galloway bore the brunt of Scotland's battle with the disease. In an area with few significant employers, this year has been similarly devastating. Stena Line ferries, Grasshopper and Aprilia have all announced significant job losses. For those in employment, Wigtownshire is one of the three or four areas in the UK with the lowest average wage level. Through all that, West Freugh has been regarded as a centre of significant employment, mitigating our huge dependence on the continued ferry traffic with Northern Ireland.
It would be helpful to examine the review process that has resulted in the announcements. I understand that the Government gave QinetiQ what it described, in discussions with me, as "stringent cost-saving targets", which have resulted in job losses at West Freugh and other UK sites. However, when did that process start, and what local involvement in decision making was
48WH
there? I understand that there was almost no local input into the review, with the result that West Freugh was a major loser in the proposals put to the Government by QinetiQ.
That cost-saving process now sees the creation of a roving skills base, making use of various range facilities throughout the UK. Members of QinetiQ staff based elsewhere will be brought in to run exercises at West Freugh on an as-and-when basis. There seems to have been no assessment of the potential for staff resident in Wigtownshire to fill that roving role. Can the Minister justify the decision to exclude the West Freugh staff from that opportunity? A strong perception remains that West Freugh has been a punch-bag for this announcement—an easy target. Let me reassure QinetiQ and the MOD that we will certainly not take the decision quietly.
It is fair to say, however, that the announcements of the closure of the airfield and the rundown of the range were not entirely unexpected. Many, including me in parliamentary debate with the Minister, had predicted that action would be required to halt the decline. The airfield closure announcement was made in March, as the MOD claimed that Civil Aviation Authority regulations had insisted that insufficient flights were being handled for air traffic controllers to maintain a safe flying environment. In parliamentary answers last year, I learned that air traffic movements had declined from more than 11,000 in 1997 to fewer than 4,000 in 2001. Military movements have played a significant part in that decline, falling by than more than 40 per cent. in the three years since 1999. There remains a deep suspicion at the airfield that the decline in numbers is more attributable to internal accounting procedures between QinetiQ and the MOD than to any lack of demand.
Surely one of the effects of externalising some airfields is that landing for refuelling, say, at West Freugh is a more costly process for the RAF than landing at one of their own bases. What had caused the reduction in RAF traffic? Where is the traffic going? We live in dangerous times, as the Minister will appreciate. We put a premium on RAF expertise. The evaporation of RAF demand for West Freugh, without an instruction to favour other airfields, is inexplicable. If there has been such an instruction, perhaps word has not yet got through. I understand that there are still daily telephone calls to the airfield from the crew of RAF jets seeking permission to land.
I visited Campbeltown on parliamentary duties this month and was fascinated by the contrast between the seeming sustainability of the airfield RAF Machrihanish and West Freugh. Will the Minister explain why one airfield remains viable on air traffic grounds, although the other, apparently, does not?
Exactly what incentives are made available to private sector operators of MOD assets to develop new income streams? That is a key point. Can the Minister confirm that the MOD allows only 10 per cent. of the first year's income to be retained by the operator? Surely that is a guarantee that little or no effort will go into developing new ideas and markets. If we are to empower agencies and the private sector to create added value, it has to be in their interests to do so. To date, their interest has been, I am afraid to say, half-hearted to say the least.

49WH
The employment and redundancy terms that are being offered to those expected to leave West Freugh are one of the major items that require the personal intervention of the Minister. I remind him of the exceptional service that has been given by the work force at the airfield and the range. That service and dedication to duty runs the risk of being tarnished by heavy-handed and iniquitous treatment by employers.
Angus Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Duncan: I will give way briefly.
Angus Robertson: I intend to ask only a short question. Will the hon. Gentleman concede that had the facility not been effectively privatised by the Conservatives, workers would not be facing the iniquitous two-tier redundancy package that seems likely at West Freugh?
Mr. Duncan: One reason I was reluctant to give way, and wanted to give way briefly, is that, ironically, under the Scottish National party's defence policy there would be no evaluation or research.
The iniquitous treatment of workers at West Freugh, which follows their service and dedication to duty, requires ministerial attention. Many of the employees have worked at the base for many years. They have endured several changes to their working conditions and terms of employment, as successive Governments have changed the balance of out-sourced and in-sourced employment. Many of those now facing redundancy have been employed by the MOD, Serco and QinetiQ, although, in simple terms, they have always had the same job. I seek the direct intervention of the Minister to ensure that all the employees— whoever they have been employed by—receive a standard redundancy package.
It is unacceptable that a worker who was employed by the MOD in 1969 as an apprentice from school could face redundancy from his post as a technician with a package of £8,000, while a colleague at the same level could be offered £60,000. That difference could arise simply because the two workers had differing journeys through the privatisation maze. Surely even though the provisions of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 were predated by some of the changes that affected that loyal work force, the MOD must come forward with proposals to underwrite a common redundancy package for those who face an uncommonly bleak search for alternative employment. I seek an assurance that proposals will be forthcoming on that important point.
The closure announcement of 24 July referred to the downgrading of the range to campaign operation status. There has been much debate on the precise meaning of that term, particularly with regard to employment opportunities at the base. When we met the Minister in London on 7 August, I was keen to establish that the phrase did not mean that the site would be mothballed. The West Freugh range forms a significant part of the land area of that part of Wigtownshire. It is a valued resource and the MOD has regarded it as such for many years. It is also, however, valuable to the local community. Much of it is quality agricultural land;
50WH
some of it is as well connected as any other area in Galloway. There is excellent potential for developing alternative employment, but that will be prevented if campaign operation status leads to the mothballing of the site. The mothballing of the site will not be deemed acceptable by the community if only 10 jobs are offered in potential recompense. I insist on an urgent, systematic and thoroughgoing appraisal of the estate at West Freugh in which a critical eye is cast over the assets that are no longer required for campaign operation status. Views are being sought from the armed forces on the continuing demand for the range for exercises.
We look to the Minister for leadership. The local communities will find it unacceptable to reserve the whole estate merely on the off chance that there will be a military requirement. If the Government are determined to press ahead with the downgrading of the site, with limited opportunities for significant employment—a policy that I deplore—there must be a presumption that the MOD will return assets to private ownership for development unless there is a pressing need for their retention. I understand that the Minister has experience of that kind of balance in respect of other ranges throughout the UK, but I ask him to insist on imagination and urgency from his Department.
After I expressed my fears that mothballing would constrain economic development, it was suggested that I was being overly dramatic, yet a memo from the Minister's office to mine, dated 3 September, explains "campaign status" as mothballing. Indeed, in this week's edition of the Stranraer and Wigtownshire Free Press— I am sure that the Minister has it on his desk across the road-QinetiQ's director of ranges talks openly of
"the impact something like the mothballing of the range has on the local community"
The local enterprise company is desperately in need of development land and opportunities to market to inward investors. I ask the Minister to pull back from mothballing and to make a significant contribution to economic regeneration by releasing unneeded assets.
Over 60 years, Wigtownshire has earned the right to fair treatment by the MOD. The proposed downgrading of the site and retention of as few as 10 jobs will not be acceptable to the work force and the local communities. The Minister needs to think again.
12.42 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): I welcome the opportunity to debate the role of West Freugh airfield and I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) pronounce it correctly, as I would expect. When I heard my officials talking about it, I thought that, like Kirkcudbright, it must have an odd pronunciation, of which, perhaps, I was unaware.
I shall do my best to respond to hon. Members' concerns about the role of West Freugh airfield and the adjacent Luce bay bombing range. Sadly, over the past three years I have had extensive experience of the downsizing of our range operations throughout the United Kingdom. I must say at the outset that it gives me no pleasure at all to have to deal with such situations involving rural areas that have loyally supported our activities—in this case, for several generations. At his

51WH
request, I have already met the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, and at the end of September or beginning of October—I cannot remember the exact date— I had the opportunity to meet members of Dumfries and Galloway council and local trade unions.
West Freugh consists of the Torrs Warren area, the airfield with its surrounding agricultural land, and the Luce bay range. Torrs Warren covers some 5,900 acres in total and consists of about 2,600 acres of intertidal sand and mudflats, 3,000 acres of sand dunes and 300 acres of salt marsh. The whole of Torrs Warren is a site of special scientific interest. The airfield site covers about 650 acres. All but the 30 acres that are built on are covered by full agricultural tenancies.
There are two separate, but related, issues to address regarding West Freugh: the cessation of full-time operations at the airfield, and the campaigning of the bombing range.
Full-time operation of the airfield ceased in March as a direct consequence of the dwindling numbers of aircraft movements. They have declined on a steadily steepening curve over a five-year period. The number of aircraft movements, particularly fast jets, eventually reduced to levels below the safety minima set by the MOD regulatory authorities to keep air traffic controllers up to date with current practice. The statistics speak for themselves. The total number of air traffic movements handled at West Freugh reduced from 11,644 in 1997 to 3,861 in 2001. It was therefore decided to cease full-time operations and to put the airfield into care and maintenance for reactivation for limited periods as and when required. That decision means that the airfield is now closed for routine operations.
Mr. Duncan: What assessment has the Minister made of the reason for that decline? There was a substantial reduction in civil movements when the British Airways flying school moved, but there has also been a decline in military movements. Why is that?
Dr. Moonie: It is quite simple. There is a general reduction in requirement for the type of operations that we have been carrying out at West Freugh. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing sinister about the reduction. It is merely a reflection of the way in which we do our business nowadays. Sadly, some areas of that business may contract as others may expand. There has been a contraction in the requirement for that type of work. When we are testing certain weapons, for example, eventually the weapon is accepted into service, and further testing is no longer needed, or only minimal testing is needed. The overall volume of work will contract over time.
The site will continue to be used for military exercises on a regular basis and will remain available for urgent operational requirements. Those activities will be supported using RAF or QinetiQ assets and manpower, including military air traffic controllers, who will be temporarily relocated to the site from other locations.
There have been rumours in the West Freugh area that the decision to cease full-time operations was taken as an expedient to avoid the projected maintenance costs
52WH
of resurfacing the runway and replacing or upgrading other airfield facilities to meet current standards. That was not the case.
On the campaigning of the bombing range, I announced on 24 July that as part of QinetiQ's rationalisation proposals for the air sector of the test and evaluation ranges, the West Freugh range is to be reduced to operate on a campaign basis from April 2003. I made the announcement as soon as I came to a considered view on the QinetiQ proposals, which were put to me by officials. I fully accept that the timing of the announcement— falling on the last sitting day before the summer recess— was not ideal. In the circumstances, however, it was the right thing to do. Had I delayed an announcement until the House resumed, it would have needlessly prolonged the uncertainty of the West Freugh employees who were well aware that something was afoot. Alternatively, if I had made the announcement while the House was in recess, I could have been accused of discourtesy to the House.
Mr. Russell Brown: The Minister will be aware that QinetiQ has actually stated that trade unions could not be consulted until after that ministerial announcement. Is he able to confirm that such a protocol exists, and prevented early notification to the unions? After the meeting with local councillors, three Labour councillors from Stranraer contacted me to ask whether there was any further news for them on the points that they raised. Is the MOD committed to any further financial support for West Freugh, if the Secretary of State for Scotland and the First Minister of the Scottish Executive offer support, in whatever form that may come?
Dr. Moonie: I shall reply to the essential point about jobs retained, and what we are trying to do, as part of my speech. Consultation is now the subject of an employment tribunal, and unfortunately I cannot, therefore, give any comment today, but I will keep hon. Members informed, as I will inform them of any progress in the matter.
The West Freugh range is primarily a bombing range that supports development and in-service trials of weapons systems and their platforms. It also supports short-range missile firings, gun and rocket firings, explosive tests and other weapons systems trials and service exercises. The projected work load on the West Freugh range is mainly in support of two Ministry of Defence programmes, the BL755 trial and the batch acceptance testing of the high-velocity missile.
We accept that work on the HVM programme may last until 2014, generating up to 50 days a year of range activity including work-up and clear-up tasks. The BL755 trials work requires a further 12.5 days of activity per year on the range, again including work-up and clean tasks. There is also potential for a small number of one-off trials tasks that may be suitable for campaigning. QinetiQ's planning is therefore proceeding on the basis of an average annual requirement of some 65 to 70 days of range utilisation per year.
We also expect the site to host about three military exercises per year. Those, while making use of the estate and several buildings on site, will not make use of the

53WH
range infrastructure, and will require only a modest input from QinetiQ through the provision of health, safety and environmental oversight, together with some logistical assistance.
Mr. Duncan: I am grateful for the Minister's indulgence in giving way to me again. He cites the figure of 65 to 70 days of operations on the site. He will appreciate the concerns about outside labour undertaking work on the site that was previously done by Wigtownshire staff, so can he confirm how the 70-day figure compares with the ongoing situation? To what degree is it part of a rundown, or is it just a small decline, but a significant change in the sourcing of staff?
Dr. Moonie: I shall answer that question later in my speech, and the hon. Gentleman is welcome to ask it again if I do not answer it satisfactorily.
There is no question of QinetiQ running down operations at the site prior to submitting rationalisation proposals. Over the years, significant reductions have occurred in the work load at ranges that support the air programme, particularly at West Freugh. The same applies in Wales, where I have been faced with the same type of problem, as the hon. Member for Caernarfon, who is here today, knows—
Mr. Win Griffiths (in the Chair): Order. I think that the Minister means the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd).
Dr. MoonieThank you, Mr. Griffiths. I am glad to have a Welshman in the Chair to help me in my embarrassing lack of memory.
QinetiQ's proposals have been based on an extensive review of the facilities that it operates on behalf of the MOD. The review confirms that the MOD owns a large number of diverse sites and capabilities, but that substantial surplus exists in the testing and evaluation environment. The MOD still needs the West Freugh range for large-scale and specialist training exercises, but those activities can, and economically should, be supported on a more ad hoc basis than has been required in the past.
It would be easy for me to reply to an Adjournment debate such as this by saying that I shall do everything I can to bring as much MOD work as possible to the range under discussion. Much though I should like to be able to say that, I have to recognise that if I did, it would have the opposite, negative effect on other remote ranges. I am therefore caught between a rock and hard place. Requirements change, and who can say what the requirements will be 10 years down the road? Who can say, indeed, what the requirements would be if the Scottish National party were to win control of Scotland? I suspect that they would be considerably less than the 70 days that I have talked about. [Interruption.] I was being ironic.
We still need the range for our requirements, although at a reduced level. The decision to reduce the operation of the range to campaign status is expected to save £28 million in the first five years, with a reduction in annual running costs of some £5.9 million thereafter. Those figures compare with the significant financial loss that the range has been accruing over recent years. Last year,
54WH
the full cost to QinetiQ of the range and the airfield was £7.4 million. The total value of charges recovered from customers was £2.1 million. Facilities therefore made a loss of some £5.3 million in a single year, and future income predictions showed that that position would continue to worsen, and would in fact be compounded by costs incurred through site and airfield maintenance programmes. The position was therefore unsustainable.
QinetiQ is conducting a consultation exercise to determine exactly how many full-time jobs will need to be retained at the site to support campaign operations. We expect the number to be about 10, but it could be as many as 15. We are having discussions about that.
We are sensitive to the local impact of calling in staff from other locations for campaigns. Therefore, QinetiQ is examining the possibility of issuing call-in contracts for local people to be employed as and when required. I am sorry to say that it is just not viable to retain more permanent staff at West Freugh, because there simply is not enough work to employ them all full-time.
Equally, as I have said, it is not viable to consider the wholesale relocation of additional capabilities to West Freugh. The transfer costs would be significant and would bear down on other ranges. In the end, the taxpayer would be the loser. It would also be wholly inappropriate when suitable trial facilities already exist elsewhere.
I assure hon. Members that the decisions affecting West Freugh have not been taken lightly, and that I have carefully considered what the MOD can do to minimise the impact on QinetiQ staff and on the region in general. Shortly after the announcement, I asked officials from Defence Estates and the Defence Diversification Agency to meet senior QinetiQ staff, local MPs, MSPs, trade unions, local councillors and Dumfries and Galloway Enterprise in an effort to identify the potential for exploiting alternative commercial activity at the site. As a result of the meeting, Defence Estates is examining the effects of campaigning the site on the possible alternatives for use of the property, and I expect to receive its findings shortly. In the meantime, the MOD is considering the detailed operational plot of the site to determine which property or land assets can be sold off for possible public use or diversification.
Angus Robertson: Does the Minister not concede the clear injustice of a two-tier redundancy package? Does not he also concede that the so-called downsizing is the latest rundown, effectively, of the total number of MOD and defence-related staff in Scotland under a UK Government?
Dr. Moonie: There are constant changes in MOD staffing. For example, we are planning to relocate a regiment to Scotland under our plans for the Department's footprint. Job requirements change all the time. One thing that I can say with absolute certainty is that the number of MOD—inspired jobs in Scotland, including those associated with the 60 fast jets based in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, is considerably greater than it would be were the country ever to become independent.
Under the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency—the MOD agency that preceded QinetiQ—significant investment was made in the hope of bringing

55WH
other activities to the site. Several opportunities were pursued, including a high-speed rail test track, aviation explosives training and vehicle storing. Sadly, they all proved unsuccessful. DERA incentivised its support contract with Serco to encourage Serco to generate commercial income. Unfortunately, only a few tens of thousands of pounds per annum were ever raised. I appreciate that such sums may seem substantial in isolation, but they are only a small fraction of the cost of maintaining the site and are certainly not on the scale required to reinvigorate the area.
The staff who are being made redundant at West Freugh fall into two main groups: those who were brought into QinetiQ from DERA in July 2001 and staff more recently in-sourced from Serco as part of an overall programme to reduce QinetiQ's dependence on third parties for core activities. The issue causing concern to some is that the staff who joined QinetiQ from DERA will receive substantially better terms than the ex-Serco employees.
The terms and conditions of employment, including redundancy terms and conditions, of all site staff were transferred under Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 arrangements. That said, a range of conditions and entitlements will result in differing redundancy payments, according to the previous employment history of the affected staff.
The redundancy payments that will accrue to staff in-sourced from Serco are, however, greater than those due to the much smaller number of QinetiQ employees who joined the company after vesting. QinetiQ is acutely aware of the sometimes significant differences in redundancy benefit that that gives rise to, despite the fact that most of the former Serco staff can expect to receive a redundancy payment significantly above the statutory requirement.
It is imperative that we view the rationalisation plans in the correct context. The testing and evaluation environment is badly in need of radical restructuring if we are to ensure that it meets the MOD's current and future requirements. Furthermore, the MOD cannot be seen to be profligate with taxpayers' money, and we are bound by the regulations that govern us. Having said that, I shall look with others at any possible means of alleviating what, sadly, has to be done in that area, including how we transfer land or buildings to another enterprise.

Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy
1 pm
Kevin Brennan: I hope that this important debate will raise awareness of the serious medical condition of Duchenne muscular dystrophy.
Duchenne muscular dystrophy is named after Dr. Duchenne de Boulogne, who worked in Paris in the mid-19th century and was one of the first people to study muscular dystrophy. The problem is known to result from a gene defect in a single important fibre in muscle fibres called dystrophin. Without dystrophin to strengthen them, the muscle cells become weaker and eventually waste away.
DMD is the most common, most progressive and most deadly type of muscular dystrophy. It is an X chromosome-linked disease, and as such predominantly affects boys; worldwide, it affects one in 3,500 boys. DMD is usually diagnosed when a child reaches two to three years of age and has not reached developmental milestones such as standing and walking. As such children progress through childhood they are often prone to falls and are eventually unable to walk— they usually need a wheelchair by the age of 11. Through their teen years, such children will become progressively disabled as their muscles seriously weaken and waste away. In the final years of their life, 24-hour care will be required including night-time ventilation and feeding support. A young adult with DMD is unlikely to live beyond their 21st birthday, and death is usually caused by heart or lung failure as the muscles supporting the vital organs finally become so weak that they are unable to maintain life.
DMD is sometimes called an equal opportunity condition. Although many cases of DMD are hereditary, an increasing number of cases seem to be caused by spontaneous mutations. As such, the condition could cast its shadow over anybody of any background or nationality. In more than one sense, it is a case of genetic roulette.
I was first alerted to DMD earlier this year when two of my constituents, Nick Catlin and Janet Hoskin. approached me for help. Nick and Janet have a two-year-old son called Saul, and, without breaching any parliamentary rules, I can say that I know that they are taking a close interest in today's proceedings. Saul was diagnosed as having DMD at the unusually young age of five months following a routine blood test for liver function. Saul is Nick and Janet's first child, and I am sure that you will allow me to take this opportunity, Mr. Griffiths, to congratulate them on the birth of their second child, a girl called Amelia, who was born last week. I wish them all the best for the future.
Saul was Nick and Janet's first child, and receiving and accepting Saul's diagnosis was devastating for the family. Writing in February, Nick told me:
"There is a death sentence on the head of my son …A cure is not an impossible dream. We need more resources and facilities."
In the same letter, Janet added that they wanted the Government
"to fund research into Duchenne muscular dystrophy so that our sons are given the chance to live full and happy lives."

57WH
At present, Saul is a healthy, busy toddler more concerned with cars and diggers than health matters. It is very hard for anyone to believe that such a vibrant little boy will be condemned to such a short life in which he will never be able to fulfil his potential. The plight of their son and the intense desire to find a cure for the condition led Nick and Janet to form their own charity, Parent Project UK, in February 2002. One of the main spurs behind the establishment of PPUK was the passing of the Muscular Dystrophy Community Assistance, Research and Education Act through the United States Congress on 21 December 2001, which effectively ring-fenced millions of dollars for research into DMD. The main aims of PPUK are to raise awareness of DMD, to raise money for research and, like any good lobbying group, to put pressure on the Government to release funds to find a cure. At present, only a limited amount of Government money is earmarked for research into this specific area and scientists are forced to compete for funds with research into other serious illnesses.
Since the charity was founded, Nick, Janet and the other helpers of PPUK have worked long and hard to raise awareness of Duchenne muscular dystrophy and campaign for funding for new research. Nick and Janet were lucky enough to receive a start-up grant of £5,000 from the National Lottery and on Saturday 27 July this year members of the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers field support squadron took part in a relay organised by PPUK between Swansea and Cardiff. To date, that run has raised another £2,000. I am also pleased and delighted to say that PPUK has successfully bid for a grant of £48,950 from the community fund, which, over the coming year, will cover the cost of a project co-ordinator and the general running costs of the new charity.
As a relative newcomer on the scene, PPUK is following in the footsteps of two other charitable and lobbying organisations— the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign and the Duchenne Family Support Group. The Muscular Dystrophy Campaign is a national charity focusing on all the muscular dystrophies and allied disorders. It has pioneered the search for treatments and cures for more than 40 years and aims to provide medical and emotional support for sufferers and their families.
The Duchenne Family Support Group is a national charity. It was founded in 1987 and is run by and for families affected by DMD. The group strives to bring families together for mutual support, sharing of information and social activities. In recent months, the three charities have pooled their resources to coordinate a nationwide campaign called "The Right to Survive". The campaign aims to increase funding for research into finding a cure for Duchenne muscular dystrophy to give sufferers the right to survive into adulthood. Those charities are requesting that money be dedicated to research into treatments for this disease. Children born now with Duchenne muscular dystrophy could have the chance of a longer life. The UN convention on the rights of the child was adopted by the United Kingdom in 1991 and states that the Government are committed to children's right to life and to survival and development. The right to survive campaign calls in that pledge to give boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy the right to survive into
58WH
adulthood. The campaign has operated a three-pronged approach in its attempt to raise awareness. Earlier this year, on 20 May, I tabled early-day motion 1341, which has so far attracted 85 signatures from hon. Members of all parties in the House. I hope that as a result of this debate that figure will rise. The right to survive campaign has also been gaining pledges of support from the public. I shall be taking members of that campaign to No. 10 Downing street this afternoon to hand in petitions of support.
Tonight my hon.Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) and I will host a briefing in Committee Room 11, at which Members of both Houses of Parliament will be given the opportunity to hear some of the experiences of DMD sufferers' families and to discuss the issues surrounding DMD with campaigns from all three charities. I urge Members of this and the other place to spare time this evening to come to the briefing, for however short a time, and to find out more about Duchenne muscular dystrophy first hand.
The other main aim of the campaign is to try to persuade the Government, the Medical Research Council or anyone else to release more funding for research into a cure for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. At present, the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign is the only voluntary organisation in the United Kingdom funding scientific research into potential cures and treatments for all types of muscular dystrophy and related disorders. The charity supports a programme of around 30 research projects in the UK and Europe with an investment of £1.5 million in 2002. Those projects are working to characterise the genes and proteins responsible for different types of muscular dystrophy as well as investigating techniques for potential treatments and cures. Results from the projects are shared among the international science community to ensure that knowledge about the range of initiatives under investigation is pooled effectively.
The main agency through which the Government support medical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council. The MRC is an independent body and it receives its grant in aid from the Office of Science and Technology. As such, it operates under the auspices of the Department for Trade and Industry. MRC spending on muscular dystrophy research for 2001–02 is estimated at £950,000, or 0.24 per cent. of its £394 million gross expenditure. That proportion has been consistent over the past six years. In addition, the Department of Health funds the NHS research and development budget.
At current levels, the voluntary sector funds a third more research than the Government. Charities rightly find that unacceptable, and they are calling for increased ring-fenced funding for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. What plans, if any, do the Government have in that regard? I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say something about that.
Any change in Government funding will require a shift in strategy from the MRC. There is currently limited funding for projects associated with so-called rare conditions, and grant applications for research into muscular dystrophy often receive the highest technical ranking from the MRC only to be turned down on funding grounds. As part of the ongoing campaign, PPUK, the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign and the

59WH
Duchenne Family Support Group intend to meet the MRC to discuss ways of overcoming the funding issue and to prepare the ground for potential clinical trials in the United Kingdom.
Dr. Ian Gibson: My hon. Friend may be aware that the MRC now has a strategy of denying money to alpha-rated projects of great international prominence in the fields of brain function, leukaemia and asthma. It recently adopted a policy of funding only massive projects involving five or six groups. The chances of its funding what it may see as small problems, such as muscular dystrophy, seem remoter than ever. There must be pressure on the MRC to examine its funding strategy for research into rarer and more prominent diseases.
Kevin Brennan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that; he obviously speaks with great expertise and knowledge. He emphasises my point that it is vital for the MRC to reconsider its approach.
Another aspect of DMD that I want to mention is the method of genetic research employed. Dystrophin's role in the cell is not fully understood, and scientists are trying to determine it. One of its roles is thought to be structural, due to its position in the muscle cell membrane where it forms part of the dystrophin-glycoprotein complex, or DGC. It forms a link between the outside and the inside of the muscle membrane. Without it, the membrane becomes weak and breaks down, and the muscle cell dies.
The main body of research aims to pinpoint why dystrophin is absent in certain cases, and there are three main avenues of research: muscle cell transfer, gene therapy and more general pharmacological research. Muscle cell transfer utilises genetically modified self cells, and research using experimental models has shown that skin cells that are grown outside the body in a liquid medium that previously contained muscle cells may convert into muscle cells. Research is under way to find the factor responsible for that conversion— a reaction referred to as galectin 1— and to gain a better understanding of the type of cell that is capable of it. Should there be therapeutic potential, skin cells from a person with DMD could be removed and a correct version of the dystrophin gene could be inserted. The cells could then be grown and reintroduced into the person, where they would help to repopulate the muscle and form functional muscle tissue.
Gene therapy— or gene repair technology, to use the more technically accurate description— examines ways of repairing the gene in situ or outside the body and then putting the cells back. This new technology can use repair mechanisms that cells normally use to target and correct specific mutations. It does not involve introducing a new gene into cells, but repairs the existing, faulty gene. It may benefit 15 to 30 per cent. of individuals with DMD.
Both those types of research depend on stem cell research, and it is important that we applaud the Government's decision to continue it. It is a notable, if gloomy, irony that the United States has ring-fenced money for DMD research but at the same time called a
60WH
moratorium on stem cell research, which may have the most potential for finding a cure. It would be a tragedy if progress towards a cure were held up due to lack of resolve in the US Administration when funds were available, which is why it is important that funding be available in the United Kingdom for stem cell research.
Pharmacological approaches to DMD treatment could bring a more traditional range of approaches to alleviating some of the symptoms, if not to finding an eventual cure. Perhaps a combination of the three approaches might be the answer.
Every hon. Member is likely to have a child like Saul in their constituency. Every one of us bears a responsibility to do all in our power to find a cure for this dreadful disease. I hope that the Government will confirm that they support research for such so—called rare diseases, and will ensure that public policy supports the medical research most likely to produce a cure for Duchenne muscular dystrophy.
1.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) on securing this important debate, which I welcome. No one could fail to be moved by the plight of children who suffer from Duchenne muscular dystrophy. I note the support of my hon. Friends the Members for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) and for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant), who are at his side.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West mentioned Nick and Janet Catlin's charity, Parent Project UK. In preparing for the debate, I looked at the charity's website www.ppuk.org and read with great interest and humility about the plight of their son, Saul, and their work to raise awareness of the disease. There was a muscular dystrophy awareness week at the end of September, which I hope was successful in making the public more aware of these distressing diseases. I realise how serious the issue is for families whose children have the genetic defect that causes DMD. I admire Mark and Zoe Thein's effort to raise awareness of DMD by walking to Parliament from Peterborough.
As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, there is a meeting on the subject later today in the House. I am sad to say that my commitments mean that I cannot attend, but my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), will attend to hear more about the condition first hand.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West asked about some of the initiatives under way to help patients with this awful condition. They range from initiatives to look into the cause of the disease, through to the Department's providing much-needed assistance to those who suffer the condition so that they can maintain as good a quality of life as possible.
As my hon. Friend explained, DMD is an inherited, severe and progressive muscle—wasting disease that is estimated to affect around one in every 3,500 boys each year. It is caused by a genetic defect characterised by progressive weakness and degeneration of the skeletal or voluntary muscles that control movement. Most boys with the disease will be in a wheelchair by the age of 10.

61WH
Tragically, there is currently no effective cure or treatment for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. I therefore understand why the families of children with DMD call for a greater research effort to be applied. The main agency through which the Government support medical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council. The MRC is an independent body that receives its grant in aid from the Office of Science and Technology. However, it is a long-standing and important principle of successive Governments that they do not prescribe the detail of how individual research councils should distribute their resources between competing priorities. Researchers and research users should best decide that. I will, however, make sure that, through the offices of the chief medical officer, a copy of the report of the debate is placed before the Medical Research Council. I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend seeks to discuss the condition further.
The Government are committed to investing in genetic research. In 2001–02, the MRC will spend about £2 million on research into Duchenne muscular dystrophy. That is higher than the figure that we gave in April. The MRC is now funding five projects on various aspects of DMD, and I can provide details of them separately if my hon. Friend wishes. Other research projects are being carried out on muscular dystrophy, and on basic underpinning work that could apply to all forms of the disease.
The MRC does not usually earmark funds for particular topics: proposals for research in all areas compete for the available funding. When appropriate, high-quality research in the areas that we are prompting may be given priority in the competition for funds, but research excellence and importance to health will continue to be the primary considerations in funding decisions. In addition, although prevalence of a particular condition is an important factor, the MRC's funding decisions are based largely on scientific opportunity and the likelihood of significant development.
The report from the chief medical officer's expert group, published in 2000, is entitled "Stem cell research: medical progress with responsibility". It recognises that early research on stem cells is exciting and that it provides a real hope of new treatments becoming available in a few years for people with chronic diseases. I welcome my hon. Friend's comments in that regard.
The Government welcome the publication of the report of the House of Lords Health Committee on stem cell research, which endorsed the importance of research using embryonic stem cells. That report also upheld the Government's position that research using cell nuclear replacement—herapeutic cloning—is justified under the existing strict controls operated by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.
In January, the Secretary of State announced plans for the first national network of genetic knowledge parks. The aim is to put Britain at the leading edge of advances in genetic technology, which could transform treatments and services for NHS patients. We are investing £10 million in the genetics knowledge challenge fund, and the Department of Trade and Industry will contribute a further £5 million. There will be six genetics knowledge parks and two new national genetics reference laboratories. The genetics revolution is already under way. It is changing the world in which
62WH
we live; it holds out the potential for new drugs and therapies, for new means of preventing ill health and for new ways of treating illness.
In time, we should be able to assess an individual's risk of developing not only single-gene disorders such as DMD and cystic fibrosis, but our country's biggest killer diseases—cancer and coronary heart disease—as well as other diseases such as diabetes which limit people's lives.
The potential of genetic research is immense. Although genetics will never lead to a disease-free existence, greater understanding of genetics is one of our best allies in the war against disease. Advances in genetics will lead to a greater understanding of the causes of genetic defects and possible treatments to resolve them. I know that there are exciting developments in America and elsewhere using mice, and these advances have given hope to the parents of boys with DMD. We must recognise that genetic interventions are probably still some years away, although with the amount of research currently being funded worldwide, it is impossible to predict where and when breakthroughs will come. In the meantime, we must try to ensure that those children who suffer from the disease are supported and cared for by the health service to the best of its ability.
An important recent development in the management of long-term conditions has been the recognition that people who live with illnesses such as DMD have considerable knowledge of their condition. That means that NHS health care services need to be reorientated to ensure a more equal partnership between patients and health and social care professionals.
The 1999 document "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation", a public health strategy White Paper, proposed a programme to provide NHS-based training in techniques of self—management, allowing people with chronic conditions to develop skills in partnership with their health and social care professionals to manage their condition from day to day. An expert task force with representatives from voluntary, professional and clinical organisations, health service users and carers was established. Its recommendations for an NHS expert patients programme formed the basis of the report "The Expert Patient: A New Approach to Chronic Disease Management for the 21st Century", published in September 2001. Where appropriate, it will also promote partnership between users, carers and care professionals in the development and delivery of training. It will feature a mix of generic and disease-specific training and be piloted between 2002 and 2004 in each primary care trust in England. We expect that it will become integral to the mainstream NHS health care provision between 2004 and 2007.
DMD does not only affect the patient; it has a major impact on the whole family. I do not underestimate the role played by carers and the difficulties that they face in trying to maintain a normal family life. During the past few years, our national carers strategy has achieved much in improving carers' access to breaks, information and support. The Government are increasing the amount of money put aside specifically to support carers in England through the carers grant. In 2002–03, the grant is worth £85 million. By 2005–06, it will more than double to £185 million. The increase in the carers grant

63WH
will ensure that 130,000 more carers benefit from short-term breaks and the extended care that enables them to continue to care.
The Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 came into force in April 2001. The Act strengthens the rights of carers to an assessment of their needs. It gives local councils more powers directly to support carers by making direct payments to them. It makes provision for carers' services through the carers grant, as well as for flexible breaks through the short-term break voucher scheme, which will be implemented later this year.
During the past decade, the Department of Health has also provided support to the umbrella charity, the Genetic Interest Group, a national alliance of organisations that support children, families and individuals affected by genetic disorders, of which the Duchenne Family Support Group is a member.
In February 2001, the Secretary of State for Health announced the development of a national service framework for long-term conditions. The NSF will focus particularly on the needs of people with neurological conditions and brain and spinal injury. However, the NSF must also tackle some of the generic issues affecting a wide range of people with long-term conditions, and their families and carers. We hope that work to establish standards for neurological conditions will provide patterns of service provision that have wider application and will benefit people with non-neurological conditions.
I hope that my hon. Friend agrees with me that the Government are sympathetic to the needs of patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. The initiatives that I described, such as the important research work that is being done, the expert patients programme, the carers' strategy and the national service framework, will help make life better for patients with DMD, and for their families and carers.

Stromness Lighthouse Depot
1.30 pm
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Mr. Griffiths, I hope that you will indulge me for a minute or two while I reminisce about my student days. As I prepared for this debate, I cast my mind back to the halcyon days at Aberdeen university when, as LLB undergraduates, we spent our time drinking coffee, putting the world to rights and occasionally speculating why we felt it was necessary or appropriate to study law. There were various reasons why we did so: some of my colleagues wanted to spend their days working in a family firm, while others felt it would be good to go into commercial practice and make a lot of money. Still others had their sights set for the stars and wanted to be High Court judges, sheriffs principal or something along those lines. I do not remember anyone saying that they were spending all that time studying delict contract, commercial contract, revenue law or criminal law so that they could become commissioners of the northern lighthouses. Likewise, I do not recall any of the many people who have carved out careers in local government in the fair cities of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Inverness or even Argyll and Bute—where I was born and brought up—saying that their aim was to become a member of the northern lighthouse board.
In 2002, it is curious and anachronistic that we should constitute the general lighthouse authorities as we do. As I observed the manner in which the consultation on the proposed closure of the Stromness lighthouse depot took place, the words "curious" and "anachronistic" sprang to mind. In passing, I observe that there may be a case for examining the way in which we constitute those authorities, to bring them into the 19th or maybe even the 20th century, which would give them a springboard to join the rest of us in the 21st. I am not a supporter of change for change's sake, but the current set-up allows general lighthouse authorities to inhabit their own little dusty corner of the monolith of bureaucracy without the bright light of public accountability shining in on them. My personal feeling is that the jury is out on the constitution of general lighthouse authorities. I judge them on my own terms, and I hope that they and the Minister judge me in the same terms. I am not overly impressed by the way in which they have dealt with the concerns of my constituents or with their ability to engage with local communities over the closure of the Stromness base.
I have dealt with the lighthouse board on one other matter since I was elected—the withdrawal of attendants from several lighthouses. Having made local inquiries and taken advice from professional seafarers, I felt that the move was reasonable and justifiable and I decided not to go to the barricades to oppose it.
The consultation process for the proposed closure of the Stromness depot started on 28 August—at least, that is when it became a formal consultation process. A letter was sent to employees of the board and, on 30 August, a copy was sent to me with a covering letter similar to that sent to the employees. In the letter, the board advances three reasons for the closure, which seem to comprise the lighthouse board's case. There is no subsequent amplification of why it considers it necessary to close the depot.

65WH
We were first told that the Department for Transport had indicated that three general lighthouse authorities could justify the need for only one support facility each. We were told:
"This message was relayed to all 3 General Lighthouse Authorities in July, although even before that time we were looking closely at ways in which to rationalise our support structures."
The Minister has had sight of that letter-I have supplied him with copies. The letter also says:
"In order to realise fully the £4.2m investment made at Oban in 2001/2002, we should acknowledge the fact that the Board's base at Oban can now cope with all existing and planned work and likely spare capacity for commercial buoy work.…Internal Maintenance and Health and Safety Inspections have taken place and both have confirmed the need to invest heavily in NLB Stromness to ensure that it is safe, fit-for-purpose, and matches the workplace standards now achieved at NLB Oban."
I shall deal briefly with those points in turn, and then with the Department for Transport. Let us consider the money spent on Oban. That is undeniable, and I do not begrudge the Oban depot a penny. It sounds like it has been well spent. However, my constituents who were employed by NLB raised their concerns at the time. NLB management told them that the spending should not be considered a threat to the Stromness depot. Now that the management have turned round and cited the spending as justification for the closure, hon. Members can see why that leaves a sour taste in the mouth.
As for money that was to be spent on health and safety improvements and internal maintenance, I understand from subsequent correspondence that the board intends to retain ownership of the base, to retain a small staff— two technicians— and possibly to lease the pier or other facilities. I assume that at least some money would have to be spent in any event, so I am not sure why that is an argument for the site's closure. However, we are left in the dark because the NLB will not put information in the public domain.
I pursued the first point in the letter—the Department for Transport's role— with the chief executive of the NLB. By 20 September, the position appeared to have changed because he told me:
"Separate and individual circumstances have arisen in both England and Ireland where Trinity House and the Commissioners of Irish Lights have both come to the conclusion that a single base for each might be a way to achieve service improvements in the future … The Department for Transport has supported the aspiration of there being a single site for each Authority, but has not put any obligation or timescale on the Lighthouse Authorities to achieve it."
There might be a way in which a person who is cleverer than I could reconcile the two statements as mutually compatible, but I cannot understand how that can be the case. [Interruption.] The Minister says that that person is he, but I shall be interested to find out. Perhaps he sets himself up for a fall, but that is his choice.
Can the Minister tell me the stage at which the Department for Transport gave such an indication to the northern lighthouse board, and why it was given? That is an important question. What did the indication consist of, and what was the basis on which the assessment was reached? There is a clear implication in the first letter that it was done at the insistence of the Department for Transport, but that was later refuted.
66WH
I asked the northern lighthouse board the same question when the process began, although it has not yet properly answered me. It is not satisfactory that the chief executive of the board said in July that the plan had been considered by the board for some time when, in fact, on 20 March, he wrote to me, saying:
"The Board is not considering any job cuts at Stromness Depot."
The only answer that I have been able to get out of him came in a letter at the end of last week, when he wrote:
"The first date when the Commissioners formally considered withdrawal from the base at Stromness as an option was in August this year."
That did not answer my question. I knew that that was the first date on which board members had formally considered withdrawal, but I wanted to know when they had started planning it. If that was before they wrote to me in March, why did they tell me that they had no plans to make redundancies at the depot?
I apologise if I am labouring the issue, but I hope that hon. Members understand that we in the northern isles are not currently inclined to take on trust much that the board tells us.
The Minister will be aware that he has many powers. Section 194 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 gives him the power to ask the board for
"all such returns, explanations or information in relation to the lighthouses, buoys or beacons within their area and their management"
as he requires.On 16 September, I first sought the disclosure of information on the performance of the Stromness depot and on the board's reasons for wanting to close it. The chief executive has so far failed to provide that information and he has not even been able to give an indication of whether he intends to. When I ask a public body for information, I am generally naive enough to expect it to be provided. Since June last year, I have become accustomed to sometimes being told that there are good reasons why information will not be made available, but I have never become accustomed to being ignored in the way that I have been in this case. As Mr. Spock of the Starship Enterprise might have said, "It's public accountability, Jim, but not as we know it."
Will the Minister use the powers that Parliament has given him to bring the necessary information into the public domain? Is he content with the manner in which the board has conducted the consultation? Would he be content for officials in his Department—I give it credit for consulting often and comprehensively on a number of issues—to conduct a consultation in the same way? Would he be content for them to treat the Stromness community and local employees in the same way? Is it fair for the NLB to leave my constituents and their employees to second—guess the reasons for closure and to make the case for retention?
I have further concerns about the board's conduct. The local council in Orkney requested information so that it could compile an economic impact assessment. The chief' executive told it:
"The Northern Lighthouse Board advises on the appropriateness of the questions submitted to ensure that the information you request provides you with the fullest possible picture."

67WH
It sounds like the board is saying that it will answer questions only if they are the ones that it wants asked. That does not sound like an especially accountable or transparent way of doing business.
The other point that concerns me and many other people in Orkney is the length of the consultation. The chief executive consistently refers to a three-month consultation period. I may be a bit old-fashioned about these things, but I would never consider a consultation that starts on 30 August and concludes on 15 November to be three months long; at most, it will last for 11 weeks. I recently asked the chief executive to extend the consultation period because so many questions remained outstanding. He told me that he would not accede to the request because— this is the supreme irony— it would increase uncertainty among the employees of NLB Stromness. His concern is touching, if belated. A wee bit of uncertainty would be much appreciated by those employees, because they see the decision as a certainty. They see it as a done deal, cut and dried. They think that the board has decided to close the depot and the consultation is simply academic. I hope that that is not the case, but very little that I have seen of how the board has conducted itself would make me conclude otherwise.
Anyone who looks at a map can see the usefulness of a depot in Stromness. If the northern lighthouse board is to service lighthouses and buoys all the way down the east coast, in the northern isles, up to Shetland and down to the Isle of Man, it should maintain a facility there. This is not a question of some great contest between Oban and Stromness, as there is a good case for keeping both open. I want to know why the NLB think that it is necessary to close even one of them.
There is the possibility of bringing in extra commercial work that is compatible with the NLB functions in Stromness. Has that been explored? The NLB has what amounts to a commercial manager, but I understand that he has not brought in much work, although it is early days. If the board has been looking seriously at how to find extra work for such a facility, it should surely have considered the European marine energy test centre that is being established near Stromness, but I understand that there has been no consultation with any of the people involved. The base at Stromness has a high quality work force, who have many good ideas for improving the efficiency and operation of the depot. Have they ever been consulted? I do not know whether they have been now, but when I spoke to them on Friday morning, they had not.
Many people have noted, as I did, that although the basis for any change is supposed to be cost savings, no figures have ever been put in the public domain. We can see many ways in which it might end up costing more, but until we hear the board's case, we cannot judge that.
There is a feeling in the wider community that people in Orkney have been loyal to the NLB for many years. We are a seafaring and island community that appreciates the need for maritime safety. We know the
68WH
pain caused to people when they lose a member of their family or friend at sea, especially as bodies are often not recovered. That is why we value the work of the NLB and others. The relationship is long and strong, but if the NLB has decided that it is to end that and turn its back on Orkney, we are at least entitled to an explanation as to why.
1.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) on securing this debate. As always, he spoke powerfully on behalf of his constituents. He started by talking rather endearingly about his student days, which he said were spent drinking coffee and putting the world to rights. That may not have qualified him to become a member of the northern lighthouse board, but it certainly qualified him to become a Liberal Democrat MP. I appreciate his concerns, and I will attempt to answer at least some of his points. If I do not manage to answer them all, I will do so outside the scope of the sitting.
I should also like to say that I was delighted to visit the hon. Gentleman's constituency. He had invited me in a previous debate, and I managed to visit the Shetland isles this summer with my son. It was a very pleasant experience, and I was delighted to enjoy the hospitality of the hon. Gentleman and many others.
The hon. Gentleman's concerns result from the decision by the commissioners of the NLB in August to conduct a consultation exercise on the possible closure of the board's facility in Stromness in Orkney. I should make it clear that the depot's future is primarily for the NLB commissioners to decide. My Department will need to be consulted about the financial implications for the board, as it is accountable for the general lighthouse fund. The hon. Gentleman asked about the consultation process. We expect any consultation to be full and fair; it should provide those consulted with the maximum amount of information so that they can take part properly in that consultation. We also expect that the views expressed, including those of the hon. Gentleman and his constituents, will be fully considered. I do not know whether he has already done so, but I suggest that he seek a meeting with the chief executive. I understand that the chief executive may have written to him inviting him to a meeting and if that is so, I suggest that it take place.
Mr. Carmichael: My first letter to the chief executive stated that I was keen to meet him. I thought that it would be useful if he could provide me with information first. I have not received any information so there has not been a meeting yet.
Mr. Jamieson: I hope that in the light of the debate a meeting between the hon. Gentleman and the chief executive of the NLB will take place at an early opportunity. It may be a proper place for the hon. Gentleman to talk about some of the matters that concern him. If he then wants to explore them further with me, I shall be happy to do so.

69WH
The hon. Gentleman asked some specific questions about the Department's role in the matter, and I hope that I can clarify it for him. He may not yet have received my answer today to his written question about our advice to lighthouse authorities on the maintenance of their depots. The reply states:
"The Department discussed the overall requirements for aids to navigation support facilities with the lighthouse authorities in July. The Department has not given the authorities any specific advice on depot maintenance."
The original letter, dated 30 August, may have been slightly at variance with the advice that we gave. After the meeting, it was our view that possibly three depots would be appropriate for the United Kingdom, but not necessarily one for each of the areas. There may have been some misunderstanding of what we meant. We felt that three strategically placed depots might be sufficient to provide the coverage required.
The changes that have taken place in the use of lighthouses have substantially reduced the need for mainland support over the years, as the hon. Gentleman is aware. All three of the general lighthouse authorities are reviewing their support structures and all three recognise that they have spare capacity. All three authorities recognise the need to reduce overheads and their supporting structures so that they are more closely related to the statutory requirements. A useful side effect is likely to be that they will then be in a better position to compete for commercial work, especially the maintenance of aids to navigation that are the responsibility of other organisations. Success in that respect will further reduce costs to the authorities.
The GLAs have a good record of reducing operating costs. They are funded by the general lighthouse fund, which draws its income from the levy on light dues on commercial and fishing vessels using UK and Republic of Ireland ports. My Department is accountable for the fund and responsible for setting the light dues tariff. Rates rose rapidly during the time of automation in the 1990s, but the last increase was in 1993 and rates were reduced in 1997 and 2002. We have been able to fund major changes—new ships and improvements to depots—within the reduced rates. Even so, some shipping lines are paying more due to the increasing trade as more or bigger ships use our ports. Trinity House, the GLA for England, Wales and the Channel Islands, is also undertaking a depot review.
The northern lighthouse board, which is the GLA for the waters surrounding Scotland and the Isle of Man now operates from three locations: its headquarters in Edinburgh, and depots in Oban and Stromness, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. One depot —at Granton in Edinburgh—has already been closed. The Oban depot was almost 100 years old, and was not considered to be fit for purpose. The board considered that that site had the greatest development potential for a more efficient buoy-servicing facility, combined with the best access to support services— buoy storage potential, and helicopter handling capabilities.
The board therefore developed a detailed business case for updating the Oban depot. That case formed the basis for discussion with the officials in my Department who manage the general lighthouse fund. We were
70WH
satisfied that a good case had been made for that investment, and, over the last three years, £4 million has been spent on creating that new facility, which was opened last year.
We understand that the commissioners now believe that the new depot at Oban has the capability to meet all of the board's requirements. The commissioners are therefore reviewing the future of their other depot facility at Stromness, because that depot, if it were to continue in its current use, is likely to require significant expenditure to update it to meet modern standards of health and safety. That expenditure might be difficult to justify if the facility was no longer required to meet the statutory obligations of the commissioners.
Mr. Carmichael: I know that the Minister will not be able to respond to this question at the moment, but perhaps he could do so in writing. When in consultation with the Department over the £4 million to be spent on Oban, did the lighthouse board give any indication of its intentions with regard to Stromness?
Mr. Jamieson:It is my understanding— if I am incorrect, I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman— that that indication was given after the July meeting. The indication came from the board itself, not from the Department. Our indication was that there needed to be a rationalisation, and that, possibly, three strategically placed depots might be appropriate. However, the northern lighthouse board came up with the proposal for Stromness.
The commissioners are currently consulting staff and the local community about the future use of the facility. That consultation is neither an exercise nor a procedural formality. It is about achieving the widest possible input of facts and understanding the feelings of those affected by the final decision. I should like to hear from the hon. Gentleman and from his constituents if they feel that that has not been the case. I should be interested to know how any improvements might have been made to that procedure, if needed.
I understand that the board's review should be completed within the next few weeks. The commissioners are expected to consider the conclusions at their meeting on 9 December. I also understand that the commissioners are very aware of the socio-economic impact that any decision on the future of the depot could have on the local community, and that that is being taken into consideration along with the business case. To that end, I understand that the northern lighthouse board is providing information to the Orkney Islands council, which is undertaking a socio-economic review, the results of which will be shared with the northern lighthouse board.
The United Kingdom has a marine navigation aid service of the highest quality. Sailors over many centuries have travelled in greater safety thanks to the lighthouse keepers, and to those who work in the depots and on board the ships that support the aids to navigation.
The three GLAs are facing change so as to meet the challenge of maintaining new types of aids to navigation. The way ahead is still under development, but in broad terms the authorities envisage a reduction in the requirement for traditional aids, and a greater

71WH
reliance on satellite navigation and new aids such as automatic identification systems. I know that the GLAs are concerned about the welfare of staff, and that they will deal with the management of change in a sensitive manner. They wish to reduce the period of worry and uncertainty to the absolute minimum. I am sure that that will be of some consolation to the hon. Gentleman's constituents. My officials will keep in close touch with the northern lighthouse board, and with the other lighthouse authorities about the strategic decisions on
72WH
the future of support facilities and related matters. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will keep him, and the House, informed as those matters are taken forward.
This has been a short but helpful debate. As always, the hon. Gentleman has raised matters that are very pertinent to his constituency, and if he feels that any matter has not been considered properly in the debate, I will be happy to write to him. I urge him to seek a meeting with the chief executive, so that some of the issues that he has raised can be ironed out.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Cabinet Office Guidance
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, (1) pursuant to his answer of 24 July 2002,Official Report, in what circumstances it is not appropriate to follow Cabinet Office guidance; and whether there have been written consultations carried out by his Department when it has not been appropriate to do so; [73933]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 24 July 2002, Official Report, what assessment he made of whether it was appropriate to follow the guidance in relation to the consultation in the pensions statement; and if he will make a statement. [73934]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 15 October 2002]: As a general rule, the requirements of the Code of Practice on Written Consultation apply to all national consultations carried out by the Department for Work and Pensions.

  It should, however, be noted that the Code of Practice applies to those consultations that cover
  "the whole area of a Department's responsibility …"

  where views are sought from the public. The code makes clear that parts, but not necessarily all of the guidance it contains may be relevant to more limited consultation exercises, such as those seeking views from professional bodies or departmental trade unions, or consultation with local government. There may be occasions, for example on practical aspects of implementing technical legislation, where consultation is limited to those directly affected.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Paul Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to extend joint claims for jobseeker's allowance to childless partners of unemployed people who are aged 45 or under. [76869]

  Malcolm Wicks
  From 28 October 2002 we shall extend the provision for Joint Claims for Jobseeker's Allowance (Income Based) to include couples without dependent children where at least one partner was born after 28 October 1957 and is also aged 18 or over. Couples meeting the new joint claims criteria will be required to make a joint claim and meet the JSA conditions for benefit entitlement, in the same way as current joint claimants.

  Benefit Fraud
  Paul Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement about the inspection report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of Cherwell District Council. [76871]
  132W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate's (BFI) inspection report on Cherwell District Council was published on 19 September 2002 and copies of the report were placed in the Library.

  The BFI finds that the council had implemented improvements since its Best Value Review and the BFI Best Value inspection in October 2001. The introduction of a customer service team has had a positive impact on claims processing speed as this team deals with all telephone enquiries from claimants, which allows processing of claims without interruption. The council had set challenging targets to answering telephone calls quickly and BFI found the service to be efficient.

  The report identifies a number of strengths and good practices. The council is commended for the high standard of verifying claims for benefit, recording the required evidence to support the claim and using efficient procedures to control and monitor claims.

  The council has effective mechanisms for the identification, classification and recovery of overpayments and is commended for its use of management information for monitoring performance. However, the report notes that a number of cases sampled had been incorrectly classified. The council is recommended to use its powers to recover debt in all appropriate cases to improve the rate of recovery.

  The council is also commended for its partnership approach to long-term strategies. The Community Plan has been produced with 15 public, private and voluntary sector organisations after extensive consultation with local people.

  The report recognises the council's commitment to fraud prevention, deterrence and detection. Fraud awareness among benefit staff is high and this is reflected in the number of high quality fraud referrals that benefit staff make to the council's fraud investigators.

  BFI expresses concern with the lack of management checks on IT security. The council has responded positively to this and has taken immediate steps to rectify the situation.

  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement about the inspection report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of(a) North Ayrshire Council, (b) Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council and (c) the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames. [76870]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate's (BFI) inspection report on North Ayrshire Council was published on 18 September 2002 and copies of the report were placed in the Library.

  The report finds that in the first instance, the council had been delivering an inadequate benefits service. The council needs to take some basic decisions on its operational strategy for delivering benefits, such as the structure, location and management arrangements for benefits administration and counter fraud.

  In terms of delivering the service, the report notes that the standards expected for verifying claims to benefit were not being met. Contributory factors included a poorly designed claim form that failed to guide the

  133W
  claimant to complete it accurately, the absence of quality checks to identify weaknesses, insufficient staff training, the lack of a visiting team to undertake targeted checks and a constant backlog of cases. A high percentage of private sector claims were not being referred to the Rent Officer and were thus avoiding the required controls on rent and benefit levels.

  The council operates decentralised benefit processing within its housing offices. At the time of the inspection, there were longstanding backlogs of work. The speed of processing was poor but varied across area and benefit type. Claimants were not receiving the same standard of service across the council's area.

  The BFI expresses major concerns over the safety and security of the council's IT systems to support the benefits service.

  Overpayments have been found to be a particularly weak area of the council's performance. The BFI considers that improvement is needed across all areas, including accuracy, identifying, recording and recovering overpayments. Improvements are also needed on the audit trail for decision making and management information.

  The council was not generating the management information needed to manage benefits effectively. For example, in the areas of workflow and capacity, appeals and overpayments.

  BFI commends the council for funding Professionalism in Security (PINS) training for its counter fraud staff. At the time of the inspection, fraud investigation was found to be inadequate but the signs were that this would improve. The council needs to develop its Prevention and Detection of Fraud and Corruption policy to include objectives, reporting arrangements, sanctions, review arrangements and how it will evaluate its effectiveness.

  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate's (BFI) follow up inspection report on Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council was published on 19 September 2002 and copies of the report were placed in the Library.

  The BFI first inspected and published a report on Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council in October 1999. The report made eight major recommendations to improve performance.

  This follow up report finds that while progress had been made in implementing these recommendations it had been too little and too slow.

  The first inspection made a number of recommendations to improve the council's internal security. Some of these have been implemented but IT access controls remains weak, division of duties is not always appropriate, there is inadequate management checking and insufficient internal audit coverage.

  The correct verification of claims was highlighted as an issue at the first inspection and remained inconsistent at the time of the follow up inspection.

  Significant improvements were needed to the council's procedures for backdating claims. While some of these had been implemented, the follow up inspection showed there was still a need for improvement, in particular record keeping of applications for
  134W
  backdating. Further improvements were also needed to the council's claim form to ensure that claimants provide sufficient information to allow assessment of the claim.

  There had been a noticeable improvement, including the appointment of a new fraud manager, in the council's counter fraud work although much of this improvement took place in the months leading up to the on-site phase of the follow up inspection.

  The council dealt speedily with the processing of new and renewal claims, unfortunately, the BFI found that the number of errors entering the system at the time of inputting the information was increasing, with 11 mistakes found in a sample of 40 claims. The problem of a considerable backlog of new and renewal claims had been resolved.

  An improved working relationship with the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service (now joined as Jobcentre Plus) is noted in the report.

  The report makes recommendations to help the council address the remaining weaknesses and to further improve the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, as well as counter fraud activities.

  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate's (BFI) inspection report on the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames was published on 26 September 2002 and copies of the report were placed in the Library.

  The report finds that the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames had made many improvements during the 2 years before the BFI inspection and since bringing the benefits service back in house after a period of outsourcing. In some areas this improvement was significant.

  These improvements include reductions in the time taken to process new and repeat claims and notifications of changes in circumstances. However, the council needs to improve further in these areas if it is to achieve its Best Value targets.

  Other improvements made by the council include the implementation of the BFI national model claim form and Verification Framework, sustained improvements in key customer services and a reduced backlog of work which has led to reductions in customer complaints.

  The Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames still needs to improve its verification of claims, the quality of its fraud investigations and become more effective at recovering overpayments. This is critical if the £30.6m of benefit paid to 6,000 claimants is to be brought under tighter control.

  The report finds that the council had a clear prosecution policy to deter fraudsters but identifies weaknesses in the quality of fraud investigations. The report acknowledges the successful prosecution of fraudsters in 2001–02.

  Overall the report concludes that the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames has established a good platform from which it can make the necessary improvements.
  135W
  In 2000/01, the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames administered approximately £30.6 million in housing benefits.

  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement about the inspection report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of(a) the London Borough of Enfield and (b) Wakefield Metropolitan District Council. [76865]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate's (BFI) inspection report on the London Borough of Enfield was published on 18 September 2002 and copies of the report were placed in the Library.

  The BFI reports that the council's management of the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit was poor with weaknesses in many areas.

  Access to the benefits system was not sound and the council did not ensure that claims were right from day one. Information was not routinely verified or cross checked and management was not monitoring performance. This significantly increased the risk of fraud and error at the outset of the claim.

  The council did not detect when payments went wrong and take prompt action to correct them with appropriate penalties to deter a recurrence. Delays in dealing with changes of circumstances have increased the number and level of preventable overpayments.

  Considerable delays occurred in the assessment and payment of benefit. Management was not monitoring the processes to ensure that bottlenecks and backlogs were quickly identified as they appeared. This caused hardships to claimants and by failing to make payments on account in appropriate cases the council increased this.

  Insufficient resources were devoted to recovering overpayments of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. As a result, the council was failing to control the level of outstanding debt.

  The BFI also found that the council's counter fraud performance was poor. Weaknesses were identified in the management of the investigation team and the quality of the investigative work.

  The council is commended for its commitment to its anti-poverty strategy and for promoting the take up of benefit. Its dedicated team has helped Enfield residents to receive more than £12 million in new and additional welfare benefits since 1996.

  The report concludes that the council needs to improve the management and effectiveness of its working practices within the benefit service in order to deliver its corporate vision.

  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate's (BFI) inspection report on Wakefield Metropolitan District Council was published on 9 October 2002 and copies of the report were placed in the Library.

  The report finds that in March 2001, the council completed a Best Value Review of the benefits function. The review identified a need to improve in key areas such as claims processing, management checking and overpayment administration. The report finds
  136W
  performance in these key areas is poor. However, BFI recognises the efforts being made by the council to improve performance.

  The council's practices for processing benefit claims differed across its 13 sites, and there was a 6 weeks backlog of work creating queries and complaints. The council was intending to centralise its benefit function as an answer to many of its problems, however insufficient plans for centralisation had been produced.

  Whilst the report finds examples of good practices, it found differing levels of performance and procedures across the council. The inconsistent verification of benefit claims and low levels of management checks were identified as key weaknesses, increasing the risk of fraud and error entering the benefit system.

  The council intends implementing the Verification Framework before March 2003 and it was improving its corporate performance measurement framework. These initiatives combined with centralisation should put the council in a position to provide a much improved benefits service.

  The report finds very poor performance in the council's administration of overpayments of benefit, with benefit debt increasing and errors being made. However, the council was enhancing its IT system to improve its performance in overpayment administration.

  The council had a sound approach to countering fraud and corruption, and had undertaken some good quality fraud prosecutions.

  The report concludes that there is a clear need for the council to improve its benefit performance as the inspection identified many cases of poor performance. However, BFI was encouraged that the council was aware of the challenges it was facing, and with the level of interest shown by elected Members, both in the inspection and the benefit service.

  In 1999–2000, Wakefield Metropolitan District Council administered approximately £65.2 million in housing benefits.

  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement about the inspection report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of(a) Babergh and (b) Swale district councils. [76866]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate's (BFI) follow up inspection report on Babergh District Council was published on 10 October 2002 and copies of the report were placed in the Library.

  The BFI first inspected and published a report on Babergh District Council in April 2000.

  This report finds that Babergh District Council had made significant improvements since the first inspection. Despite backlogs of work, the council had made progress in its housing benefits administration and counter fraud work. Throughout the inspection, BFI identified improvements and good practices that had been implemented since the first inspection.
  137W
  The report finds that the council had introduced initiatives to raise awareness of housing benefits among its residents, and had reviewed its Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit claim form.

  The council had introduced the Verification Framework, improving the collection and recording of evidence to support new claims for benefit, and it was identifying and checking any inconsistencies to reduce fraud and error. All new claims were subject to a 100 per cent. quality check.

  However, the report finds that the council needed to improve its evidence gathering for renewal benefit claims and not make awards before all the necessary evidence was collected.

  The report finds backlogs of work, arising from the simultaneous implementation of the Verification Framework and a new IT system for processing housing benefits claims, which were severely affecting the processing times for all claims.

  The report finds a marked improvement in counter fraud work, with investigators receiving Professionalism in Security training and a full range of investigations being undertaken. The District Auditor had reported satisfaction with the council's counter fraud measures.

  Overpayments had increased since the first inspection, mainly due to the backlogs of work and IT changes. Levels of recovery had dropped and overpayment cases were not well documented or subject to quality checks.

  In 2000–01, Babergh District Council administered approximately £12.8 million in housing benefits.

  The report makes recommendations to help the council address the remaining weaknesses and to further improve the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, as well as counter fraud activities.

  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate's (BFI) follow up inspection report on Swale Borough Council was published on 25 September 2002 and copies of the report were placed in the Library.

  The BFI first inspected and published a report on Swale Borough Council in April 2000. The report found that while the council demonstrated some good working practices, the efficiency and security of the benefits system was compromised by a backlog of work and a lack of a clear sense of direction and purpose in its counter fraud strategy. At that time, the council had undergone a period of significant change.

  This report finds that of the 40 recommendations made in the April 2000 report, the council had implemented 6 in full, partially implemented 24 and not implemented 10.

  The report commends Swale Borough Council for its commitment in clearing the backlog of work, which was having a detrimental effect during BFI's first inspection. This required a heavy investment in increasing and training its staffing on the benefit section.
  138W
  There have also been improvements in the council's benefit claim form, the levels of verification and the speed of processing claims and notifications of change of circumstances.

  There were still problems with the council's counter fraud operations. BFI reports that a lack of effective management had hampered the way that the unit operated. The report finds a general lack of management checking and controls to guard the system against fraud, error and abuse.

  The report finds significant problems with overpayments not being accurately classified and the situation had worsened since the first report. The council did not always impose the maximum deduction for the recovery of fraudulent overpayments.

  The counter fraud operation was not being sufficiently managed and there was minimal management checking and little direction during fraud investigations.

  The council's post opening operation was found to be insecure and BFI expresses concern to find that numerous recommendations made in this area in the first report remained unactioned.

  In conclusion, the council had only partially delivered the improvements that it said it would in its response to the Secretary of State following the publication of the BFI's first inspection report, published in April 2000.

  The report makes recommendations to help the council address the remaining weaknesses and to further improve the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, as well as counter fraud activities.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement about the inspection report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of(a) Erewash Borough Council, (b) East Dumbartonshire Council and (c) St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council. [76867]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate's (BFI) inspection report on the Erewash Borough Council was published on 26 September 2002 and copies of the report were placed in the Library.

  The report finds Erewash Borough Council failing to deliver an adequate and secure benefit service. There were significant weaknesses in the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit and counter fraud work. There were also significant backlogs of work.

  At the time of BFI's inspection, the council had been in a state of constant change for over 4 years, and no senior manager was in post with specific responsibility, or expertise in, housing benefits or counter fraud work. This lack of expertise and key personnel had resulted in a complete lack of strategic direction. Council Members were aware of these problems but the council had made slow progress to resolve the issues. The report finds earlier plans had proved to be of limited use and much rested on the appointment of new chief officers.

  Despite the serious lack of managerial involvement at a high level, the efforts of benefits staff must not be ignored as they devised procedures, which were a positive measure. They attempted to improve standards

  139W
  by implementing the Verification Framework, expanding customer services and organising occasional landlord forums. Although fragmented, these efforts were a positive step.

  There was a serious lack of control of benefits work. There were no quality or management checks, no formal procedures and little training. Staff resources were inadequate.

  The introduction of a new IT system was poorly planned and managed, and the system was not used to its full potential. Management information from the housing benefits IT system was unreliable and there were serious flaws in the security of the system.

  The report finds errors in all stages of the overpayment process, with little control or monitoring, and no one appointed with specific responsibility for overpayment work.

  The council had poor counter fraud performance in all aspects of its operation. Fraud investigations lacked depth and substance and this impaired its ability to prosecute fraudsters.

  Erewash Borough Council only fully implemented 9 of 30 recommendations, made by the District Auditor 3 years before the BFI inspection, to improve its counter fraud arrangements.

  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate's (BFI) follow up inspection report on East Dunbartonshire Council was published on 7 October 2002 and copies of the report were placed in the Library.

  The BFI first inspected and published a report on East Dunbartonshire Council in March 1999. The report found that the council was a poor-performing authority that needed to design and develop a more secure and accurate benefits administration system and improve the quality of its benefits service.

  This report finds that the council had responded positively to the findings in the first report and had introduced some improvements in its administration of housing benefits. However, some key recommendations from the first inspection had not been properly addressed and minimal progress had been made in counter fraud work.

  The introduction of the Verification Framework in April 2001 had improved the evidence gathering process. However, the use of the same sub-standard claim form that was in place at the first inspection and poor staff training meant that the majority of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit awards were based on poor or inadequate evidence.

  There had been minimal improvement in counter fraud operations, which continued to be poor. Despite the introduction of a prosecution policy, no cases had been prosecuted and no other forms of sanctions had been considered. Weaknesses surrounding the council's post opening and cheque dispatch procedures continued to exist.

  However, the report finds that the council had significantly improved in the recovery of benefit overpayments from claimants and landlords who were
  140W
  still receiving benefit. The council was less effective at recovering overpayments from debtors who were no longer receiving benefit.

  The report concludes that while some progress has been made across benefits administration, it has in the main been slow. There is much to do to address the weaknesses identified at the follow up inspection and for those that remain outstanding from the first inspection. The council agreed to review the range of corporate duties allocated to the Benefits Manager to enable more management time to be given to improving its benefits service

  In 2000–01, East Dunbartonshire Council administered approximately £12.7 million in housing benefits.

  The report makes recommendations to help the council address the remaining weaknesses and to further improve the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, as well as counter fraud activities.

  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate's (BFI) follow up inspection report on St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council was published on 8 October 2002 and copies of the report were placed in the Library.

  The BFI first inspected and published a report on St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council in April 2000. The report found that the council needed to develop a more secure and accurate benefits administration system and improve the overall quality of its benefits service.

  This report finds that the council had responded positively and delivered all 16 major recommendations from the earlier BFI inspection. The report finds that the council had made significant progress and had delivered a major programme of change that had significantly raised the standards of its administration of housing benefits.

  Since the first inspection, the council had undertaken a Best Value Review of its benefits service and had introduced the Verification Framework. It had also increased management and staffing levels, reorganised the way it delivers benefits, and enhanced its IT systems.

  The council had also introduced a new claim form, and had introduced management quality checking to test the quality and accuracy of benefit awards. The council was also actively reducing the backlogs of work that had been affecting processing times and causing overpayments.

  The report finds that the verification process had improved significantly with 66 per cent. of cases examined containing proper evidence. Only 30 per cent. of cases were properly verified at the first inspection. The council plans to provide staff training to raise standards further.

  The council had introduced a benefits prosecution policy and had significantly improved its counter fraud operations, with the quality of its fraud investigations improving considerably since the first inspection. However, despite these improvements, outstanding overpaid benefit debt had increased and the council had brought few prosecutions against offenders and had made no use of other sanctions.
  141W
  The report concludes that there is scope for improvement across the council's benefit service but BFI was encouraged by the progress made since the first inspection.

  In 2000–01, St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council administered approximately £51 million in housing benefits.

  The report makes recommendations to help the council address the remaining weaknesses and to further improve the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, as well as counter fraud activities.

  Asbestos
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will lay regulations on the control of asbestos in the workplace. [76868]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Draft copies of the regulations and a Code of Practice are available for hon. Members in the Vote Office. This issue is the subject of a debate on a Government motion on 24 October.

  Housing Benefit
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average administrative cost was of delivering housing benefit for each London borough in each of the last three years; how many outstanding applications there are; and how many complaints were recorded. [76328]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information has been placed in the Library. Information on the number of complaints made to local authorities about their Housing Benefit administration are not collected centrally.

  However, in his Annual Report for 2001–02, the Local Government Ombudsman reported that complaints to him about Housing Benefit administration in England fell by a quarter on the

  As at 1 April 2001

  Department/Body/Organisation

  Scotland

  London

  Rest of England

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Overseas

  No. (FTE)

  %

  No. (FTE)

  %

  No. (FTE)

  %

  No. (FTE)

  %

  No. (FTE)

  %

  No. (FTE)

  %

  Core Departments

  3,130

  8.2

  4,840

  12.6

  23,220

  60.6

  710

  1.9

  3,060

  8.0

  3,360

  8.8

  Armed Forces2

  15,080

  7.2

  6,430

  3.1

  136,610

  65.5

  3,220

  1.5

  8,390

  4.0

  38,900

  18.6

  Non-Departmental public bodies

  —

  —

  250

  64.6

  140

  36.2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Executive Agencies

  6,290

  10.8

  3,290

  5.7

  43,470

  74.7

  4,070

  7.0

  100

  0.2

  960

  1.7

  Independent Statutory Bodies

  Information Not Available

  Total

  24,500

  8.0

  14,810

  4.8

  203,440

  66.6

  8,000

  2.6

  11,550

  3.8

  43,220

  14.1

  Notes:

  1 Figures in the breakdown exclude 1875 MoD civilian staff, for whom allocation to a specific region is not possible.

  2 April 2001 figures for UK based Service staff are not available and these have been taken as at 1 July 2000, this conforms with previously published data in UKDS 2001

  3 The information required for the "Independent Statutory Bodies" can only be obtained at disproportionate costs.

  4 Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 10.

  Creche Facilities
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 25 March 2002,Official Report, column 557W, regarding creche facilities provided by his Department, how much money
  142W
  previous year. Particular mention was made of the London Boroughs of Hackney, Islington and Lambeth which had accounted for 65 per cent. of complaints in the previous year. Complaints against those authorities dropped dramatically in 2001–02. Those against Hackney and Islington Councils fell by around a half, whilst those against Lambeth Council fell by nearly a quarter.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment has been made by his Department of the performance of contractors in delivering housing benefit; and if he will publish it. [76329]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department has commissioned a review of the impact and effects of outsourcing on the efficiency of Housing and Council Tax Benefit administration and delivery.

  We expect the findings to be published in the summer of 2003.

DEFENCE

  Job Locations
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many jobs under the remit of his Department in(a) the core department, (b) arms of the armed forces and their support staff, (c) non-departmental public bodies, (d) executive agencies and (e) independent statutory bodies, organisations and bodies financially sponsored by his Department and other such organisations, are located in (i) Scotland, (ii) England, excluding Greater London, (iii) Greater London, (iv) Wales, (v) Northern Ireland and (vi) overseas, broken down by (A) whole time equivalent jobs and (B) the percentage per individual department, body or organisation. [72742]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 24 July 2002]: The available information is given in the table below:

  was contributed in (a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02 to the costs of childcare schemes by (i) the Ministry of Defence and (ii) the Civil Service Modernisation Fund. [50341]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information regarding the Ministry of Defence's contribution towards the costs of childcare schemes is not held centrally and could only be provided
  143W
  at disproportionate cost. I regret 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.

  The Ministry of Defence has allocated some £900,000 of its Civil Service Modernisation Fund diversity grant to childcare related projects: £150,000 in 2000–2001 and £750,000 in 2001–2002.

  HMS Nottingham
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects HMS Nottingham to return to its port of destination in the UK: if it will be repaired in the Naval facilities in Portsmouth; and if he will make a statement. [75446]

  Mr. Ingram
  On current plans, the Type 42 Destroyer HMS Nottingham is expected to arrive in the United Kingdom on, or about, 12 December 2002. While a decision on the ship's future has yet to be made, there is no reason at this time to suppose that repairing her will not be worthwhile. We have therefore invited those UK shiprepair companies with the necessary in-depth knowledge and experience of maintaining and repairing Type 42 Destroyers and their systems to visit the ship to make their own assessments of the damage and tender for any repair work. This invitation has been issued without any commitment from the Ministry of Defence to proceed with the repairs should it not be cost effective to do so. One of the companies invited to visit Nottingham on this basis is Fleet Support Limited, the commercial operators of the Naval facilities at Portsmouth.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) to ask the Secretary of State what has been the cost of salvaging HMS Nottingham since she ran aground, excluding costs of repairs to the ship once in dry dock in the UK; and if he will make a statement; [75447]

  (2) what the cost was of berthing HMS Nottingham in Newcastle; and if he will make a statement; [75441]

  (3) what the cost was of towing HMS Nottingham from Lord Howe Island to Newcastle; and if he will make a statement; [75440]

  (4) what the cost was of bringing HMS Nottingham back to Britain on the heavy lift Swan; and if he will make a statement. [75438]

  Mr. Ingram
  The estimated cost of salvaging HMS Nottingham since she ran aground, excluding the costs of any repairs to the ship once in dry dock in the UK, has been some £9 million. This includes approximately £1.4 million to tow Nottingham from Lord Howe Island to Newcastle and berthing-related costs in Newcastle of some £0.4 million. In addition, it is estimated that the cost of returning Nottingham to the UK on the heavy lift ship will be about £3 million.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost of flying home the crew from HMS Nottingham; and if he will make a statement. [75442]
  144W
  Mr. Ingram
  The total estimated cost of flying HMS Nottingham's crew home from Australia on commercial airlines is expected to be in the region of £200,000. Available RAF aircraft were also used to transport personnel back to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost was of the accommodation for the crew of HMS Nottingham in Australia; and if he will make a statement. [75439]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since the grounding incident, HMS Nottingham's crew have been accommodated in service accommodation belonging to the Royal Australian Air Force. The bill for this accommodation has not yet been received, but costs are expected to be modest. From 19 October until the ship leaves Australia, essential members of the ship's crew will be accommodated in hotels in Sydney at an estimated cost of around £30,000.

  Plutonium
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much plutonium owned by his Department has been(a) considered for export and (b) exported to the Valduc facility in France as part of a joint project with the United States Department of Energy and the Commissariat.…L'Energie Atomique and Cogema in France, for test assemblies for plutonium MOX fuel rods, since 31 January 2000. [75459]

  Dr. Moonie
  None.

  Weapons Decontamination
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's contingency plans for the decontamination of British weapons systems covered by(a) Sarin, (b) Soman, (c) Ebola, (d) VX and (e) other similar long-lasting substances. [76179]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: In the first instance we seek to deter the use of chemical or biological warfare agents against our forces, or those of our Allies. We have made it plain that the United Kingdom would take an extremely serious view of this step and that it would invite a proportionately serious response.

  In the event of a release of chemical or biological agents we would seek to avoid direct exposure, and hence contamination, by using equipment and procedures that detect chemical or biological threats, warn of hazards and protect personnel. If exposure is unavoidable, individuals are equipped to decontaminate themselves and their personal equipment, and units to carry out decontamination to allow them to continue operating. Additional processes would be followed at the end of an operation.

  Lightweight Mobile Artillery Weapon System Rocket
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the projected cost is of the assessment phase of the British Army's Lightweight Mobile Artillery Weapon System Rocket; and if he will make a statement. [76000]
  145W
  Dr. Moonie
  I can confirm that the Lightweight Mobile Artillery Weapon System Rocket programme recently received initial gate approval to enter the Assessment Phase. The Defence Procurement Agency is currently in negotiations with the preferred bidder, which is a consortium led by INSYS. As negotiations are still underway, I am withholding the information requested under Exemption 7 of the Code of Practice on access to Government Information.

  F35 Aircraft
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the F35 aircraft to reach the end of its service life. [75955]

  Dr. Moonie
  On current plans, the United Kingdom's Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft is expected to remain in service until the 2040s.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what aspects of the design, development, equipment, manufacture and maintenance of the F35 aircraft are included in his estimates of the through-life costs of acquiring and operating these aircraft; and what costs of their deployment and operation are not included in his estimates; [75953]

  (2) what aspects of the design, development, manufacture, equipment and maintenance of the F35 aircraft were included in the intention to acquire up to 150 aircraft at a cost of up to £10 billion announced by his Department on 30 September; [75952]

  Dr. Moonie
  We currently estimate that the whole life cost of the United Kingdom's planned force of Joint Strike Fighters will be up to £28 billion in full resource terms, through to 2042. This includes acquisition costs of up to £10 billion dependent on aircraft numbers and how they are to be supported through life.

  Development costs include the United Kingdom's contribution to the JSF Prime Contractor (Lockheed Martin) as covered by the System Development and Demonstration MOU, which we signed with the US in January 2001. They also include funding for the integration of certain United Kingdom weapons systems to be selected in due course, securing JSF's compatibility with United Kingdom Command and Control arrangements and ensuring compliance with our safety and environmental requirements.

  Acquisition costs include the manufacture of complete aircraft including their engines and also certain related activities such as the provision of flight simulators. The production of weapons for operational use is not included within the whole life cost of JSF.

  Maintenance and other in-service support costs are not included in the £10Bn but are in the £28 billion. The in-service support costs include the provision of spares, fuel, training, storage, aircrew, ground-crew and station personnel, and flying station service costs including utilities, and the maintenance of runways and hangars.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what payments he expects to make in each financial year from 2003–04 to 2011–12 in respect of the design, development, manufacture and purchase of the F35 aircraft; [75951]
  146W
  (2) what payments he has made and plans to make in the present financial year in respect of the design, development and manufacture of the F35 aircraft. [75949]

  (3) what payments he expects to make in respect of the F35 aircraft in the financial year 2012–13 and each succeeding financial year while the aircraft is in service. [75956]

  Dr. Moonie
  We anticipate that the whole life cost of the United Kingdom's planned force of Joint Strike Fighters will be up to £28 billion in full resource terms. This includes up to £10 billion for the development and manufacture of Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft to meet our Future Joint Combat Aircraft (FJCA) requirement, dependent on the number of aircraft acquired and how they are to be supported through life. Of this figure, we forecast that some £2 billion will be spent on development activity.

  I am withholding the information regarding the annual profile of this expenditure under Exemptions 2 and 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Indonesia
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussion he has had with the Indonesian military forces during the past year; and if he will make a statement. [76334]

  Mr. Ingram
  Defence contacts with Indonesia over the past year have been focused on taking forward a reform programme within the Indonesian armed forces under the aegis of the inter-Departmental Global Conflict Prevention Fund. This has the objective of promoting the emergence of democratically accountable and professional security forces. Contacts have included visits to the United Kingdom by Indonesian politicians, civilian government officials, police and military officers to discuss issues such as defence management, promoting greater transparency and accountability of military expenditure, rules of engagement and the role of the military in support of the civil authorities. United Kingdom visitors to Indonesia have covered similar issues. In addition, two Indonesian officers and one civilian attended a United Kingdom-sponsored "Managing Defence in a Democracy" course in September 2002 in Singapore and two Indonesian officers attended a United Kingdom-sponsored regional peacekeeping course in Bangkok in August 2002.

  PFI
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many private finance initiative schemes are agreed and operating; for what projects within his Department private finance initiatives have been agreed; what the value of each project is; what the start date of each of the projects is; what the life of the contract is; and if he will make a statement. [76496]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence has signed 45 PFI deals with a total capital value of £2.3 billion. The deals are listed below.
  147W

  Name

  £ Million

  Financial Year Signed

  Contract Length (Years)

  Operational

  Germany White Fleet

  52.00

  1995

  5

  Apr-96

  Storage Facilities

  21.90

  1996

  40

  Dec-01

  Hazardous Stores Information System (HSIS)

  1.00

  1996

  10.5

  Dec-97

  MHE Vehicles

  1.00

  1996

  5

  Dec-96

  TAFMIS (IT)

  41.00

  1996

  10

  97/98

  RAF White Fleet

  35.00

  1996

  5

  Jul-96

  DHFS (Helicopter Flying Sch.)

  73.50

  1996

  15

  Apr-97

  Tidworth Water & Sewerage

  6.00

  1997

  20

  Sep-98

  Hawk Simulator

  19.00

  1997

  15

  Dec-98

  Electronic Messaging Service (Armymail)

  33.00

  1997

  10

  Sep-97

  DFTS

  70.00

  1997

  10

  97/98

  Medium Support Helicopter Aircrew Training Facility (MSHATF)

  114.00

  1997

  40

  98/99

  Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency (AFPAA)

  264.00

  1997

  12

  Jan-98

  Joint Services Command and Staff College

  93.00

  1998

  30

  Sep-00

  RAF Lyneham Sewerage

  4.00

  1998

  25

  Aug-98

  RAF Fylingdales (Power)

  7.00

  1998

  25

  Yes

  Yeovilton Family Quarters

  8.00

  1998

  30

  Jun-99

  RAF Mail

  12.00

  1998

  10

  Apr-00

  RAF Cosford/Shawbury Family Quarters

  15.00

  1998

  25

  Dec-99

  RAF Lossiemouth Family Quarters

  24.50

  1998

  20

  Aug-99

  Attack Helicopter Training

  165.00

  1998

  25/30

  No

  Light Aircraft Flying Training (LAFT) (Bulldog)

  20.00

  1998

  10

  Apr-99

  Central Scotland Family Quarters

  25.00

  1999

  *

  Jan-01

  NRTA Fire Training

  22.50

  1999

  *

  Dec-99

  Tornado GR4 Simulator

  61.70

  1999

  34

  Oct-01

  Army Foundation College (AFC)

  73.00

  1999

  30

  May-00

  DIS/IT (Touchstone)

  5.00

  1999

  *

  Dec-99

  Commercial Satellite Communication Service—INMARSAT

  2.50

  2000

  5

  Apr-01

  Tri-Service Materials Handling

  35.00

  2000

  10

  Nov-00

  Defence Animal Centre (DAC)

  11.00

  2000

  *

  Jan-02

  RAF Sentry E3D Aircrew

  7.00

  2000

  30

  Oct-01

  Lynx Aircrew Training

  15.00

  2000

  12

  No

  Defence Electronic Commerce Service (DECS)

  9.00

  2000

  10

  Dec-00

  Main Building Redevelopment Headquarters

  415.00

  2000

  30

  Aug-00

  Naval Comms

  55.00

  2000

  27

  No

  Tri-Service White Fleet

  40.00

  2000

  10

  Aug-01

  Wattisham Family Quarters

  34.00

  2001

  *

  Mar-02

  Defence Housing Executive IS (DOMIS)

  11.00

  2001

  10

  Oct-01

  Astute Class Training Service (ACTS)

  41.00

  2001

  *

  No

  Bristol, Bath, Portsmouth Family Quarters

  72.00

  2001

  *

  No

  Heavy Equipment Transporter (HET)

  54.90

  2001

  20

  No

  Marine Support to Range and Aircrew services

  11.30

  2001

  10 (with an option to extend to 15)

  Apr-02

  Materials Handling Equipment Services (Follow on)

  38.80

  2002

  8

  Aug-02

  Strategic Sealift (Ro-Ro Ferries)

  175.00

  2002

  25

  No

  Field Electrical Power Supplies (FEPS)

  57.87

  2002

  *

  No

  45 Signed deals

  2,359.47

  Note:

  * Where details of contract length are not held centrally for all projects, I will seek the information and write to the hon. Member when it becomes available.

  Iraq
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what preparatory work has been carried out within his Department to facilitate the deployment of the UK armed forces in the event of a war with Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [75717]

  Mr. Hoon
  No decision regarding the commitment of United Kingdom Armed Forces to any potential military operations in Iraq has been taken. Military action is neither imminent nor inevitable. The Government of Iraq is being given every chance to comply with its obligations under United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
  148W
  However, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, alongside the diplomacy, there must be genuine preparedness and planning to take action if diplomacy fails. We routinely take prudent steps to ensure that our armed forces are ready, fully trained and fully equipped for any actions that they may be called upon to undertake.

  Watchkeeper
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the equipment and systems procured for Watchkeeper will conform to the proposed NATO STANAG 4586. [75844]
  149W
  Dr. Moonie
  The United Kingdom is contributing to the development of NATO STANAG 4586 that relates to the definition of Standard Interfaces of Unmanned Air Vehicle (UAV) Control Systems for NATO UAV interoperability. Whilst this has yet to go through the ratification process it is intended that the equipment and systems procured for Watchkeeper will conform to the principles of interoperability defined therein.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the successful bidders for the assessment phase of Watchkeeper will be announced. [75843]

  Dr. Moonie
  The bids for the Assessment phase of Watchkeeper are currently being assessed and it is hoped to announce the result shortly.

  Tracer Programme User Trials
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much the UK/US Tracer Programme user trials will cost; how long these trials will be; when the results are expected to be published; and if he will make a statement. [75997]

  (a) Royal Navy

  Navy Officers

  Months

  April 2002

  July 2001

  July 2000

  July 1999

  July 1998

  July 1997

  Age (yrs)

  Percentage

  Under 18

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  18 to 19

  0.9

  1.1

  0.8

  0.7

  0.4

  0.3

  20 to 24

  9.4

  8.4

  8.0

  7.9

  8.0

  8.7

  25 to 29

  18.0

  18.5

  18.9

  19.5

  19.7

  20.1

  30 to 34

  17.7

  18.6

  19.2

  19.4

  19.9

  19.4

  35 to 39

  19.7

  19.5

  19.7

  19.7

  19.9

  20.1

  40 to 44

  16.9

  16.9

  16.4

  15.5

  14.4

  13.1

  45 to 49

  10.7

  10.2

  10.3

  10.8

  11.1

  12.0

  50 and over

  6.7

  6.8

  6.6

  6.6

  6.7

  6.3

  Grand Total

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  Navy Other Ranks

  Months

  April 2002

  July 2001

  July 2000

  July 1999

  July 1998

  July 1997

  Age (yrs)

  Percentage

  Under 18

  2.8

  2.3

  2.6

  2.6

  2.5

  1.8

  18 to 19

  7.9

  7.9

  8.0

  7.5

  6.0

  3.9

  20 to 24

  24.3

  22.7

  2-

  18.4

  18.5

  20.7

  25 to 29

  18.0

  20.1

  23.2

  25.3

  27.2

  28.2

  30 to 34

  20.3

  20.6

  19.8

  19.4

  19.7

  19.7

  35 to 39

  17.7

  17.8

  18.3

  18.9

  18.5

  18.4

  40 to 44

  6.3

  5.9

  5.5

  4.9

  4.6

  4.2

  45 to 49

  2.1

  2.1

  2.2

  2.4

  2.5

  2.6

  50 and over

  0.5

  0.6

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  0.4

  Grand Total

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  (b) Army

  Army Officers

  Months

  April 2002

  July 2001

  July 2000

  July 1999

  July 1998

  July 1997

  Age (yrs)

  Percentage

  Under 18

  -

  -

  0.1

  -

  -

  -

  18 to 19

  1.3

  1.1

  1.2

  1.1

  1.0

  0.9

  20 to 24

  11.2

  11.1

  11.1

  10.1

  12.0

  11.8

  25 to 29

  20.5

  21.0

  21.7

  22.1

  21.5

  21.2

  30 to 34

  14.4

  13.9

  13.8

  14.5

  14.5

  14.7

  150W
  Dr. Moonie
  Technology demonstrations for the TRACER programme took place during June and July 2002. The cost of these trials was included in the overall Assessment Phase contracts valued at some £90 million. Final reports have now been delivered and technology maturity data that they contain will inform decisions within the Department about how individual technologies might be applied to future equipment programmes. The results contain commercially sensitive proprietary information and there are no plans to publish them.

  Armed Forces (Strength)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the(a) Royal Navy, (b) Army and (c) the Royal Air Force were aged (i) under 18, (ii) 18 to 19, (iii) 20 to 24, (iv) 25 to 29, (v) 30 to 34, (vi) 35 to 39, (vii) 40 to 44, (viii) 45 to 49 and (ix) 50 years and over on 1 April each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [76166]

  Mr. Ingram
  The percentage of the(a) Royal Navy, (b) Army and (c) the Royal Air Force by age categories are listed in the following tables:
  151W

  Army Officers

  Months

  April 2002

  July 2001

  July 2000

  July 1999

  July 1998

  July 1997

  Age (yrs)

  Percentage

  35 to 39

  14.3

  14.7

  14.5

  14.6

  14.2

  14.2

  40 to 44

  17.0

  16.8

  16.5

  16.2

  15 7

  15.2

  45 to 49

  12.0

  12.0

  11.3

  11 6

  11 4

  12 6

  50 and over

  9.3

  9.4

  9.9

  9.8

  9.8

  9.4

  Grand Total

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  Army Other Ranks

  Months

  April 2002

  July 2001

  July 2000

  July 1999

  July 1998

  July 1997

  Age (yrs)

  Percentage

  Under 18

  5.8

  4.8

  4.4

  5.0

  4.4

  3.8

  18 to 19

  11.0

  11.0

  11.5

  11.5

  10.7

  9.1

  20 to 24

  28.5

  28.2

  27.2

  26.4

  26.5

  28.0

  25 to 29

  19.6

  20.9

  22.9

  24.5

  26.6

  28.5

  30 to 34

  18.3

  18.6

  18.1

  17.8

  17.7

  17.1

  35 to 39

  13.5

  13.4

  13.0

  12.3

  11.8

  11.2

  40 to 44

  2.8

  2.6

  2.3

  2.0

  1.8

  1.7

  45 to 49

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  0.4

  50 and over

  0.2

  0.2

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  0.2

  Grand Total

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  (c) Royal Air Force

  RAF Officers

  Months

  April 2002

  July 2001

  July 2000

  July 1999

  July 1998

  July 1997

  Age (yrs)

  Percentage

  Under 18

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  18 to 19

  0.4

  0 4

  0.4

  0.3

  0.2

  0.1

  20 to 24

  8.1

  7.8

  7.1

  6.2

  5.7

  6.0

  25 to 29

  14.1

  14.8

  15.7

  16.3

  17.4

  17.9

  30 to 34

  20.8

  21.1

  21.6

  22.5

  22.8

  22.4

  35 to 39

  21.5

  20.9

  20.1

  19.4

  19.0

  18.3

  40 to 44

  13.7

  13.3

  13.0

  13.1

  12.8

  13.0

  45 to 49

  10.5

  10.4

  10.3

  10.4

  10.8

  11.4

  50 and over

  10.8

  11.3

  11.9

  11.8

  11.4

  10.9

  Grand Total

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  RAF Other Ranks

  Months

  April 2002

  July 2001

  July 2000

  July 1999

  July 1998

  July 1997

  Age (yrs)

  Percentage

  Under 18

  1.3

  1.1

  0.8

  1.0

  0.9

  0.6

  18 to 19

  5.1

  4.9

  5.0

  4.9

  3.7

  2.4

  20 to 24

  19.7

  18.5

  16.3

  13.6

  12.2

  13.6

  25 to 29

  16.4

  18.0

  21.0

  24.3

  28.4

  30.6

  30 to 34

  21.3

  22.0

  22.1

  22.0

  22.0

  22.6

  35 to 39

  19.6

  19.8

  19.9

  19.9

  19.1

  17.3

  40 to 44

  11.0

  10.2

  9.3

  8.9

  8.3

  7.8

  45 to 49

  3.7

  3.7

  3.7

  3.5

  3 3

  3.1

  50 and over

  1.8

  1.9

  1.9

  2.0

  2.0

  2.1

  Grand Total

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  Note:

  -denotes 0

  Civil Service Pay
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the average pay rise for civil servants in his Department over each of the last five years; and what pay rises have been approved for each of the years(a) 2002–03, (b) 2003–04, (c) 2004–05 and (d) 2005–06; and if he will make a statement. [75716]
  152W
  Dr. Moonie
  The percentage pay rise for industrial and non-industrial civil servants in the Ministry of Defence is set out in the table below. The figures exclude trading fund and other agencies which have responsibility for their own pay bargaining. They show the increases to the Ministry of Defence paybill over each of the last five years and the increases recently
  153W
  agreed for the years (a) 2002–2003, (b) 2003–2004, (c) 2004–2005 and (d) 2005–2006. Up to 2001, there were separate pay systems for the two groups of staff, but these have been harmonised from 2002.

  Year

  % increase to paybill of non-industrial staff

  %increase to paybill of industrial staff

  1997

  2.7

  3.0

  1998

  2.5

  3.3

  1999

  2.7

  3 5

  2000

  2.6

  3.5

  2001

  2.7

  3.7

  2002

  3.2

  2003

  3.1

  2004

  3.1

  2005

  3.1

TRANSPORT

  Departmental Websites
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the website links associated with his Department, including sites now dormant or closed, and indicating whether they are live, dormant or closed; what the start up costs were for each site listed; what the operating costs were in each year since start up for each site; which company hosted each site; what assessment takes place for each site; which company does the assessment; if he will place the assessment reports in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [75576]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department has a number of web sites in addition to the Department for Transport web site (www.dft.gov.uk). It is not possible to state the start up costs as the site has been created out of the former DTLR (and before that, DETR) web site. The annual cost of running the web site is currently £85,000 (excluding staff costs). The web hosting company is EduServ, who are based in Bath. There has been no assessment of the DfT web site, as it has only existed since the creation of the Department earlier this year.

  Because not all sites are managed centrally, information about every web site could only be provided at disproportionate cost. However, the following are primary sites listed on our main web site and are live unless specified:

  Air Accident Investigation Branch

  www.aaib.gov.uk

  Airports consultation

  www.airconsult.gov.uk

  Bad Jobs (transport publicity spoof site)

  www.badjobs.co.uk

  Campaign for Integrated Transport

  www.cfit.gov.uk

  Civil Aviation Authority

  www.caa.co.uk

  Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (dormant)

  www.dtlr.gov.uk

  Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee

  www.dptac.gov.uk

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  www.dvla.gov.uk

  Driving Standards Agency

  www.dsa.gov.uk

  Hedgehogs child road safety

  www.hedgehogs.gov.uk

  Highway Code

  www.highwaycode.gov.uk

  154W

  Highways Agency

  www.highways.gov.uk

  In Town Without My Car (dormant)

  www.itwmc.gov.uk

  Maritime Accident Investigation Branch

  www.maib.gov.uk

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency

  www.mcagency.gov.uk

  Northern Lighthouse Board

  www.nlb.org.uk

  Strategic Rail Authority

  www.sra.gov.uk

  THINK campaign

  www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk

  Traffic Area Network

  www.tan.gov.uk

  Transport for London

  www.londontransport.co.uk

  Trinity House Lighthouse Service

  www.trinityhouse.co.uk

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  www.vca.gov.uk

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  www.via.gov.uk

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people are employed by(a) the Health and Safety Commission, (b) the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Council and (c) the Rail Passengers Council; what the annual budget of each has been for each year since 1997–98 and its projected budget for the next financial year; and if he will make a statement on the role and terms of reference of each. [75609]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) are statutory advisers to the Department for Transport on the transport and mobility needs of disabled people. The Committee was set up under S.125 of the Transport Act 1985 and it is also recognised in a number of other Acts including the Railways Act 1993 and the Transport Act 2000.

  DPTAC does not employ staff direct. The Department for Transport supports the Secretariat and administrative functions of the Committee and staff from the Department are appointed to those posts. Until the 2000–01 Financial Year the Committee's costs were not separately identified, but the cost to the Department since then has been: £215K (00–01) and £265K (01–02). The budget for this year is £289K and this is likely to remain the same for the following Financial Year.

  The Rail Passengers Council (RPC) was set up in its current form by the Railways Act 1993, with its powers and name amended by the Transport Act 2000. The Council along with the Rail Passengers Committees—whose work it co-ordinates—is the statutory watchdog protecting and promoting the interests of rail passengers. Its statutory duties are set out in sections 76 and 77 of the Railways Act 1993, as amended by the Transport Act 2000.

  The Council is finalising a new mission statement and long-term goals, on which it will be consulting later in the year.

  The Council's mission statement and aims are set out in its annual report. Copies of which are available in the House Libraries.

  At present the Council employs 21 permanent and fixed term staff. It is currently sponsored by the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) and the details of the overall annual budgets for the Council and Committees are as follows:
  155W

  97–98—£1.6m

  98–99—£1.8m

  99–00—£2.25m

  00–01—£2.9m

  01–02—£5m

  02–03—£6m

  The budget for the next financial year has yet to be determined and is subject to discussions between the RPC and the SRA later in the year.

  The Health and Safety Commission is sponsored by the Department of Work and Pensions.

  Water-diesel Emulsion Fuels
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research has been conducted and is planned by and for his Department into the(a) environmental and (b) economic benefits of the use of water-diesel emulsion fuels in public transport vehicles; and if he will place copies in the Library. [75848]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Following discussions with a producer of water-diesel emulsion fuel, some limited testing of their fuel was carried out as part of a much wider particulate research programme commissioned by this Department in partnership with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) and the Oil Companies European Organisation for Environmental Health and Safety (CONCAWE). The results of those tests are included in an Annex to the report on the Particulate Research Programme 1998–2001 which was published in May 2001. I am arranging for copies of the Summary Report, including the full report on CD, and the relevant Annex from the full report to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations have been received from, and what discussions have been had with,(a) the bus industry, (b) local authorities, (c) Transport for London, (d) passenger transport executives and (e) the Treasury on the role of water-diesel emulsion fuels in public transport vehicles. [75608]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department has had discussions with Transport for London and has received enquiries from other bus operators about the use of water-diesel emulsion fuels in public transport vehicles. The Department is aware that diesel emulsions can deliver some environmental benefits, in particular through reduced NOx and emissions of particulate mass but there is evidence of increased hydrocarbons and ultra-fine particle emissions. There is an emerging view among medical experts that, potentially, ultra-fine particles may have a significant effect on human health. Therefore, until the health effects are clearer, the Department has some reservations about the wider use of these fuels.

  Enterprise Bill
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made by(a) his Department and (b) the Strategic Rail Authority of the
  156W
  likely effects of the forthcoming Enterprise Bill upon the railway industry; and what plans there are to respond to them. [75616]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I am not aware of any likely effects unique to the railway industry. The particular circumstances of the industry were taken into account in the preparation of the legislation. Both the Department and the Strategic Rail Authority have been consulted during the passage of the Bill.

  Rail Passengers
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his Department projects the level of rail passenger(a) journeys, (b) kilometres and (c) passengers in the United Kingdom will be by 2004–05; and how these figures were calculated. [75602]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The targets for national rail set out in the Ten Year Plan include increasing rail use (measured in passenger kilometres) from 2000 levels by 50 per cent. by 2010. The latest official forecasts for rail passenger kilometres growth to 2010 were set out in the Ten Year Plan, with detail on the method of their calculation in "Transport 2010— The Background Analysis", copies of which are in the Library. There are no official forecasts to 2005.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made of the performance of the(a) Rail Passengers Council and (b) the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Council; and what reports are published on their performance. [76523]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Sponsorship and external assessment of the work of the Rail Passengers Council are matters for the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA). The Council is finalising a new mission statement and long-term goals, on which it will be consulting later in the year.

  The Council's mission statement and aims are set out in its annual report. Copies of which are available in the House Libraries.

  The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee produces an annual report covering the work they do and copies of those reports are placed in the Library. In addition, in accordance with Cabinet Office guidance on reviewing non-departmental public bodies, a formal review of the DPTAC is being carried out this autumn.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people are employed by(a) the Rail Passengers' committees and (b) the Traffic Commissioners; what their role and terms of reference are; what their annual budgets were for each year since 1997–98; and what their projected budgets are for 2003–04. [76201]

  Mr. Jamieson
  (a) The Rail Passengers Committees have 45 permanent and fixed term staff. The work of Rail Passengers Committees are co-ordinated by the Rail Passengers Council. The Council and Committees are the statutory watchdog protecting and promoting the interests of rail passengers. Their statutory duties are set out in sections 76 and 77 of the Railways Act 1993, as amended by the Transport Act 2000.
  157W
  The Council and Committees mission statements and aims are set out in their annual reports. Copies of the annual reports for the Council and the Committees for Scotland and Wales are available in the House Libraries, as required by legislation. I will arrange for the annual reports of the remaining committees to henceforth also be made available through the House Libraries.

  The Council is finalising a new mission statement and long-term goals for it and the Committees and will be consulting on them later in the year.

  The costs of the Committees are not separately identified in the overall annual budgets set for the Rail Passengers Council. For the overall annual budget for the Council and Committees I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 22 October 2002 [75609].

  (b) The Traffic Commissioners do not employ staff. The Secretary of State provides administrative support for them through the Traffic Area Network. Traffic Commissioners are licensing authorities for operators of heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles under the Goods Vehicles (Licensing Operators) Act 1995 and the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 respectively. Budgets were:

  (£000)

  1997/98:

  £9,400

  1998/99:

  £9,483

  1999/00:

  £10,184

  2000/01:

  £11,047

  2001/02:

  £12,533

  2002/03:

  £12,437

  The budget for 2003/4 is not yet known.

  Road Casualties (Herefordshire)
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking as a result of the increase in 2001 in the number of people killed and seriously injured on roads in Herefordshire. [75145]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There was a 2 per cent. reduction in the number of road deaths and serious injuries across Britain as a whole between 2000 and 2001. The number has now been cut by 15 per cent. from the baseline for the 40 per cent. target reduction that we want to achieve by 2010.

  The Government remains firmly committed to that target and to delivering the national measures necessary to achieve it. However, local highway authorities are best placed to explain the likely reasons for any year to year changes in their area and to supply details of local measures that are being taken to reduce road accidents and casualties.

  Air Passengers
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate this impact on the forecast for total United Kingdom air passengers in 2030 if the assumption in his consultation paper of a 1.5 per cent. annual fall in the cost of air travel were replaced by an assumed increase in the cost of 1 per cent. a year. [75035]
  158W
  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: The estimate of forecast total UK demand for air travel in 2030 is based on a 1 per cent. per annum reduction in air fares in real terms over the forecasting period, as noted in paragraph 5.9 of the consultation document "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East."

  Aviation Fuel
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the total United Kingdom air passenger demand in 2030 if a tax, equivalent to the current level of duty on unleaded petrol, were imposed on aviation fuel in 2015 and a sales tax of 17.5 per cent. were imposed on airline tickets for United Kingdom flight departures at the same date. [75034]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: The Government is committed to ensuring that the aviation industry meets its environmental costs. Since civil aviation is a international industry, the Government's approach is to support multilateral action through ICAO to end the exemption from tax for international aviation fuel. Unilateral action would create market distortions, such as "tankering" of extra fuel from aboard to avoid tax, and would have limited environmental benefits. The Government has given an undertaking not to remove zero rating for VAT purposes of international air (and sea) transport. In the consultation document, The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East, it is estimated that policies to meet the contribution of aircraft emissions towards climate change would reduce demand by around 10 per cent.

  Traffic Lights
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the national guidelines on the phasing of traffic lights. [76126]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: My Department issues guidance to highway authorities on the general principles of control by traffic lights, including where pedestrian facilities are provided. Guidance is contained in Technical Advice Notes TA/15/81 and TA/16/81, which are part of the Highways Agency's Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. Copies of these Technical Advice Notes have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  It is for individual highway authority to decide on the phasing of traffic lights on their roads, depending on the circumstances at each site where they are used.

  Transport Infrastructure
  Jon Cruddas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with(a) Transport for London, (b) the Mayor of London and (c) Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on transport infrastructure to support the regeneration of the London Riverside Thames Gateway Zone of Change. [76138]
  159W
  Mr. Jamieson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has discussions from time to time with ministerial colleagues and with the Mayor of London, who is chairman of Transport for London, on a wide range of issues of common interest.

  School Transport
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made of the potential of(a) amending existing regulations and (b) introducing new regulations to (i) reduce the cost of provision and (ii) increase the availability of school transport vehicles, including yellow school buses. [76189]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Regulations for buses provide minimum safety and accessibility standards for all passengers and in some circumstances dedicated transport for children requires additional features such as seat belts.

  The current regime allows education authorities the flexibility to use the most appropriate means of transport for schoolchildren, whether on dedicated vehicles or by using existing services.

  My Department has recently commissioned independent consultants to evaluate the American-style yellow school bus pilots which First is running. The objectives of the evaluation include comparing the daily cost per capita to local authorities of running a First pilot vehicle to that of running a traditional school contract vehicle. The study is expected to report in August 2003.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what(a) amendments to regulations and (b) new regulations (i) have been introduced and (ii) are planned relating to vehicle standards for school transport vehicles, including yellow school buses. [76477]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There is no specific category of School bus in regulations. Amendments to the Road Vehicle (Construction and Use) Regulations in 1996 require minibuses or coaches used for the transport of groups of more than three children on organised trips to be fitted with seat belts. In many cases this would include vehicles used for trips to and from schools. Further changes to these regulations require all new buses and coaches which are not certified to carry standing passengers to be fitted with seat belts from October 2001.

  The Department has recently consulted on the reform of national regulations and approval schemes for the construction and use of minibuses, buses and coaches. The main purpose of these changes is to simplify the current regulatory structure and align our requirements with those common in the rest of Europe. Whilst these proposals do not differentiate between the uses to which buses and coaches are put they will effect all such vehicles including those used for school transport.

  Road Signs
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent assessment has been made of the impact of changes in the density of road signs on the 160W
  road network upon (a) road traffic speed, (b) congestion and (c) pollution; and if he will place copies of related correspondence in the Library. [76480]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I am not aware of any such assessment, or of any work suggesting that density of signing might affect traffic speeds, congestion or pollution.

  Transport Area Network
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes are planned to the regulatory framework of the operating, licensing and compliance systems under the Transport Area Network; what consultation has taken place and is planned in relation to changes; and what discussions have taken place in relation to changes which(a) have taken place and (b) are planned. [76204]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The regulatory framework for operators of goods and passenger service vehicles is contained in the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 and the Public Passenger Vehicle Act 1981. In January 2001 Regulations were made to allow illegally operated heavy goods vehicles to be impounded. Following consultation, we are in the process of making regulations to increase fees relating to the licensing of operators and the registration of bus services. We are currently consulting on regulatory changes to facilitate the registration of flexibly routed bus services. We are planning to clarify and extend the categories of exemptions to goods O-licensing as soon as consultation has been completed. We continue to keep the systems under review with a view to improvement and the easing of the regulatory burden on industry.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what changes have been made to the timetable for the development and introduction of the Transport Area Network; what the reasons have been for these changes; and what costs were incurred as a result; [76210]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the new systems which (a) have been implemented and (b) are planned to be introduced as part of the Transport Area Network; [76193]

  (3) when the new finance system for the transport industry under the auspices of the Transport Area Network was introduced; what changes there have been to the timetable for introduction and nature of this scheme; and what assessment (a) has been made and (b) is planned of its progress. [76209]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 21 October 2002,Official Report, c. 21W. The Traffic Area Network computer system (TAN21) contains a financial module, which was delivered in February 2002, 3 months later than originally planned. It is for internal business use and does not provide any access for the transport industry. The delays have been caused by procurement, infrastructure, software issues and extensive testing.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Transport Area Network is due to end its status as a part of the Department; and when he plans to make a decision on its future status. [76203]
  161W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Traffic Area Network is not due to end its status as part of the Department for Transport. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) on 23 July 2002,Official Report, columns 964–65W.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research(a) has been conducted and (b) is planned by and for his Department on the progress of the Transport Area Network; and if he will place copies of completed research in the Library. [76208]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There has been no research and none is planned.

  Community Railways
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions have taken place with the railway industry on the directives on(a) European Rail Agency Interoperability and Safety and (b) the Development of Community Railways being discussed within the European Parliament; and if he will place related documentation in the Library. [76191]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Many railway industry parties responded to my Department's consultation exercise on the 2nd railway package, which ran from May to 23 August 2002. Copies of the consultation document and the replies (excluding those from respondents who have requested confidentiality) are being placed in the libraries of the House. In addition, my officials have participated in a number of seminars on these proposals organised by the industry and have held discussions with individual parties.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what submissions have been made by his Department to the(a) European Commission and (b) European Parliament on the Directive on the Development of Community Railways being discussed within the European Parliament; and if he will place copies in the Library. [76192]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No written submissions have been made to the European Commission. However, Ministers and officials from my Department participate on a regular basis in Council meetings convened by the Presidency to discuss these elements of the Commission's proposed Second Rail Package. The European Commission is represented at those meetings

  My officials provided written briefing to UK Members of the European Parliament on these proposals in April, July and September 2002. I will arrange for these sets of briefing to be placed in the libraries of the House.

  Strategy and Work Programme
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps have been taken to implement the DVO Blueprint Strategy and Work Programme; and what assessment has been made of its implementation. [76488]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have begun a programme of work to take forward the DVO Blueprint Strategy. This programme includes around 40 IT projects which will help to meet the government's e-business targets for 162W
  2005 by providing drivers and operators with new electronic services such as, for example, the opportunity to re-license their vehicles using the phone or the internet. Progress on this programme of work is monitored and reported regularly. We will also be conducting extensive research with our customers to ensure that these new services continue to meet their requirements.

  Transport Direct
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to disseminate findings from market research to support Transport Direct. [76487]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The current programme of market research to support Transport Direct is being completed. The results of these will be published by the within 2 months and will be available on the department's website. (http://www.dft.gov.uk/itwp/transdirect/index.htm)

  A further research project is planned which will look at usability aspects. The usability of a website can be judged by looking at whether the content is useful to the website user; and whether it is easy to use the website, in terms of how the content is presented and how the information is structured

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the research projects which have been, are being, and are planned to be conducted by and for his Department related to Transport Direct. [75612]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are two main themes to the research being carried out by Transport Direct, those that directly support the Transport Direct programme, and others where we provide a supporting role to other organisations, which will help provide the ambitions of Transport Direct.

  We are currently undertaking a programme of market research to support Transport Direct. This will inform us on what features and specific characteristics the service should possess from the point of view of the public. The results of these will be published within the next 2 months and will be available on the department's website. A further research project is planned which will look at usability aspects. The usability of a website can be judged by looking at whether the content is useful to the website user; and whether it is easy to use the website, in terms of how the content is presented and how the information is structured

  The results of previous research can be found on the Department's website http://www.dft.gov.uk/itwp/ transdirect/index.htm. These include a review of existing traveller information system and a project looking at how cycling can be incorporated into journey planners.

  The work on providing a business case for bus real-time is continuing, the business case will quantify the benefit of such systems. Recommendations for the business case are due for completion within the next 2 months.

  Transport Direct also has research work to support traveline and Journey Solutions. Work done by these organisations will contribute towards the goals of Transport Direct.
  163W
  Current Research

  Traveline: Customer research into current and future service specifications

  This research project is assessing issues that traveline may need to address to ensure effective delivery to the customer. This includes an assessment of extending the future minimum opening hours for traveline; identifying the requirements for existing traveline customers; and establishing the extent of information that needs to be given by traveline if we to encourage greater use of public transport, among public transport users and non-public transport users.

  Planned Research

  Standard of Trunk Journey Solutions provided by traveline and associated costs.

  The Department for Transport wishes to assess the extent to which the national requirements placed on traveline for the provision of trunk service information (i.e. data about the national rail and coach network) have been achieved. The requirements state that the traveline system must provide answers that are consistent with the information provided by the respective national trunk service information providers (i.e. Go By Coach, Scottish Citylink and National Rail Enquiry Service).

  PlusBus Integrated Ticketing

  Train and bus companies have been working together (under the umbrella of an organisation called Journey Solutions) to deliver a national integrated rail/bus ticket, known as the Plusbus Scheme. The principal aim of the research will be to measure awareness of PlusBus; examine customer satisfaction with the product; critically review each step of the PlusBus journey; test effectiveness of promotional components; confirm target market; and measure impact on travel patterns. The work will contribute to the Department for Transport understanding about multi-modal ticketing—one of the Transport Direct strategic objectives.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what work has been undertaken on the Transport Direct business plan. [76198]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Sufficient background work on the travel information and retailing internet service Business Plan has been undertaken to enable preliminary discussions to be held with stakeholders, including transport providers, existing information providers and representative groups. These discussions are now underway.

  Traveline
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps have been taken with regard to contracting market research relating to the future direction of the Traveline service. [76200]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department for Transport is providing a supporting role to traveline and has agreed to fund and manage two research projects.
  164W
  The first research project is underway and is assessing issues that traveline may need to address to ensure effective future delivery to the customer. This includes an assessment of extending the future minimum opening hours for traveline; identifying the requirements for existing traveline customers; and establishing the extent of information that needs to be given by traveline if we to encourage greater use of public transport, among public transport users and non-public transport users. Recommendations on changes to the future traveline service following research will be examined by traveline.

  The second project is planning to look at the standard of trunk journey solutions provided by traveline and the associated costs. The Department for Transport wishes to assess the extent to which the national requirements placed on traveline for the provision of trunk service information (i.e. data about the national rail and coach network) have been achieved. The requirements state that the traveline system must provide answers that are consistent with the information provided by the respective national trunk service information providers (i.e. Go By Coach, Scottish Citylink and National Rail Enquiry Service). The traveline parties will address recommendations following research.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes and improvements have been made to the Traveline website during 2002; what additional changes are planned; and by what date changes are planned to be implemented. [76199]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Traveline regional journey planners for East Anglia, London and parts of the North West have been added to the traveline website during 2002.

  It is expected that the traveline journey planners for the South East, East Midlands, South West, Scotland and Wales will be added to the traveline website by December 2002.

  A journey planner for the West Midlands and a journey planner covering the remaining parts of the North West will be added in 2003.

  A merger of the traveline website and a website that offers a comprehensive index to public transport information sites has been started during 2002 and will be completed in early 2003. The combined site will maintain the existing traveline web address and branding.

  Road Hauliers
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which suppliers provide the TAN21 self service online service for road hauliers to update operators' licences. [76205]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The suppliers are CMG Admiral plc.

  European Directive 2001/16/EC
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce regulations to give effect to European Directive 2001/16/EC. [76476]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We expect to make Regulations to implement the Directive next year.
  165W

  Railway Industry
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations have been made by(a) his Department and (b) the Strategic Rail Authority on the impact of the Enterprise Bill upon the railway industry. [76499]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I have given him today [75616].

  Bus Real-Time
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the study being conducted into the business case for bus real-time information; when he expects to publish the findings of this research; what steps are being taken to act upon these findings; and when he expects to produce best practice advice. [76471]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The work on providing a business case for bus real-time is continuing, the business case will quantify the benefit of such systems. Recommendations for the business case are due for completion within the next 2 months. We are still at an early stage of reviewing the business case and we will consider what actions are warranted.

  Fuel Duty
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with(a) the bus industry, (b) local authorities, (c) Transport for London, (d) passenger transport executives and (e) the Treasury on changes to the fuel duty rebate. [76188]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are at present conducting a review of bus subsidies, including the future of fuel duty rebate (now known as Bus Service Operators grant). A consultation paper was issued on 6 August 2002 and we will take account of the responses of all interested parties. The review will report to Transport and Treasury Ministers in February 2003.

  Front Seat

  Rear Seat

  Child under 3 years

  Appropriate child restraint must be worn

  Appropriate child restraint must be worn, if available

  Child aged 3 to 11 (and under 150 cms in height)

  Appropriate child restraint must be used if available. If not, an adult seat belt must be worn.

  Appropriate child restraint must be used if available. If not, an adult seat belt must be worn if available.

  If there is no seat belt available, then children may not travel in the front. Passengers in the rear seats of passenger carrying vehicles over 2.54 tonnes unladen weight are not required to use seat belts or child restraints.

  Casualty figures for children 0–3 years are set out below. Information on the use of seat belts is not recorded in official casualty statistics, and therefore it is not possible to say whether these casualties were using child restraints or seat belts or not. The figures include casualties in buses or coaches where the passenger was injured whilst getting on or off these are not disaggregated from the casualty figures.
  166W

  School Transport
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what research has been conducted for and by his Department on the effect of legislation covering school transport under the Education Act 1996 on(a) reducing congestion and (b) promoting social inclusion; and if he will place copies in the Library; [76197]

  (2) what research has been conducted by his Department on the role of free home to school transport, on (a) reducing congestion and (b) promoting social inclusion. [76484]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In March 2001 DTLR commissioned W S Atkins to assess what the effects would be of increasing the current provision of home-to-school transport. The study, which reported at the end of 2001, identified considerable interest in using home-to-school transport amongst households that were currently not entitled to free home to school transport. It concluded that relaxing the eligibility criteria would have a noticeable impact on car use. Copies of the report—Assessment of parental attitudes to and the potential take-up of additional home to school transport—have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  The Social Exclusion Unit is currently carrying out a study into transport and social exclusion. The full report is expected later this year and is expected to include a chapter on access to learning.

  Seat Restraints
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the rules governing the wearing of seat restraints for children under four years old; and what figures he has collated for incidents involving such children in the last five years. [76232]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The law on the wearing of child restraints is summarised as follows:

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the United Kingdom's position in the draft directive amending Directive 91/671 on seat belts; and if he will make a statement in the likely timetable for adoption and implementation into UK domestic law. [76233]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government has supported the general thrust of the Commission's proposals to update EU Directive 671/91 on seat belt wearing. The Directive has yet to receive the approval of the European Parliament but once it comes into force, probably early in 2003, the Government will consult on the necessary legislation to bring the provisions into domestic law. A timetable has not yet been established for that.
  167W

  1997 to 2001. Child, 0–3 years. Passenger Casualties in Road Vehicles (cars, goods vehicles, buses and coaches)

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Killed

  14

  17

  18

  10

  15

  Seriously Injured

  201

  222

  165

  149

  143

  Slightly injured

  2,840

  2,673

  2,571

  2,338

  2,440

  Total

  3,055

  2,912

  2,754

  2,497

  2,598

  Source:

  Road Accidents Great Britain, published by the Department for Transport

  First Railway Package
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions have taken place with the railway industry on progress with the implementation of the First Railway Package of the European Commission; and if he will place copies in the Library. [76186]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There have been a number of meetings sought by individual industry participants in connection with these directives which have included progress with implementation.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made by and and for his Department of the performance of(a) the Commission for Integrated Transport and (b) Rail Passengers' Committees including performance targets; what reports have been published on their performance; and if he will place copies of such reports not readily available in the Library. [76207]

  Mr. Jamieson
  (a) There is a requirement for all Non Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) to be reviewed quinquennially. The Commission for Integrated Transport's first quinquennial review will take place in 2004. There is no requirement to carry out any additional performance reviews of the Commission, as they are only an Advisory NDPB. The Commission does however publish annual reports that give details of their performance; copies of their first 3 annual reports have been placed in the House Libraries.

  (b) The work of Rail Passengers Committees are co-ordinated by the Rail Passengers Council. The Council and Committees are the statutory watchdog protecting and promoting the interests of rail passengers. Their statutory duties are set out in sections 76 and 77 of the Railways Act 1993, as amended by the Transport Act 2000. Sponsorship and external assessment of the work of the Council and Committees are matters for the Strategic Rail Authority.

  The Council is finalising a new mission statement and long-term goals for it and the Committees and will be consulting on them later in the year.

  The Council and Committees mission statements and aims are set out in their annual reports. Copies of the annual reports for the Council and the Committees for Scotland and Wales are available in the House Libraries, as required by legislation. I will arrange for the annual reports of the remaining committees to henceforth also be made available through the House Libraries.
  168W

  Ten-year Plan
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when each of the targets for Transport Direct outlined in the 10-year plan will be met. [76190]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The targets set out in the 10 year plan are that by 2003 Transport Direct will include:real-time (that is, actual rather than recorded or timetabled) train operating information
  real-time information on many local bus services
  multi-modal travel information on the Internet, covering road journeys as well as all public transport modes at a single point of contact
  booking of long-distance multi-modal journeys on the Internet
  development of Internet-based maps, which allow travellers to examine public transport options both for visiting a specific venue and for general travel around an area they are considering visiting.

  These targets are on course to be achieved during 2003.

  Tram Schemes
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the tram schemes(a) under construction, (b) being developed and (c) being considered for funding from his Department. [76470]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested is listed below:

  (a) Systems Under Construction

  Nottingham Express Transit-Nottingham-Hucknall, 14km. Due to open in November 2003.

  (b) Systems Being Developed

  Manchester Metrolink Phase III: three new lines to Oldham/Rochdale, Ashton-under-Lyne, and Manchester Airport. Bids are under consideration.

  Leeds Supertram—a 3 line 28km network linking the city centre to Headingley and Lawnswood; Seacroft and Whinmoor, and Tingley and Stourton Park and Ride. Detailed bids from the two short-listed consortia are due in October 2002.

  South Hampshire Rapid Transit, linking Portsmouth, Gosport and Fareham. Detailed bids from three qualifying consortia to design, build, maintain, and operate the scheme are expected at the end of 2002.

  Bristol and South Gloucestershire, linking Bristol and A lmondsbury. Economic appraisal provisionally approved subject to confirmation of details of proposals. The promoters are now reviewing these.
  169W
  (c) Systems Being Considered for Funding—Less Advanced Proposals

  There are proposals for a new tram system in Merseyside (economic appraisal under consideration), an upgrade of the Blackpool Tramway (economic appraisal under consideration) and extensions to it. There are also longer-term plans for further extensions to the Midland Metro, Tyne and Wear Metro, Manchester Metrolink, South Yorkshire Supertram and Nottingham Express Transit and proposals in outline for new tram systems in Hull and Medway.

  Lighthouse Depots
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions his Department has had with the Lighthouse Board over the possible closure of the Stromness Lighthouse Depot; and if he will make a statement. [75722]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department discussed strategies for support depots with the lighthouse authorities in July. The future of the Stromness depot was among the issues covered at my Department's annual bilateral meeting with the Northern Lighthouse Board on 18 October. The NLB is consulting widely on the possible closure of the depot, and the Commissioners are expected to consider their conclusions in December.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the Department will publish the advice it gave the lighthouse authorities regarding maintenance of their depots. [75721]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department has discussed the overall requirements for aids to navigation support facilities with the lighthouse authorities. The Department has not given the authorities any specific advice on depot maintenance.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date(a) his Department and (b) the Marine Coastguard Agency were first contacted over the proposed closure of the Stromness Lighthouse Depot. [75723]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Northern Lighthouse Board informed my Department in July of its intention to review the future of the Stromness depot. I understand from the Board that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency was included in its Consultation Exercise that began on 30 August.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Correspondence
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letter of 27 November 2001 from the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell, regarding Cornwall's integrated waste system; and if she will make a statement. [30758]

  Mr. Morley
  A reply was sent on 15 July following a meeting the hon. Member had with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment.
  170W
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight dated 22 May on the effect of nuclear processing. [72598]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 23 July 2002]: I am sorry, but we have no record of these letters in the Department.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Totnes of 17 June about access to inland waters for water-based sports. [71272]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 25 July 2002]: A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 14 July 2002.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letter of 13 May, from the hon. Member for the Vale of York, on behalf of a constituent, Joan Cambage, regarding S1843. [71241]

  Mr. Morley
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 2 July 2002.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letter of 12 March, from the hon. Member for the Vale of York, of a constituent County Councillor John Savage, regarding BSE in sheep. [71242]

  Mr. Morley
  The hon. Member's letter was transferred to the Food Standards Agency who take the lead on the issue raised. I understand that a Department of Health Minister will be replying shortly.

  Consultants
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much expenditure her Department has incurred in each year since 1997 on employing external consultants to deal with the press or public relations of her Department. [59674]

  Mr. Morley
  As DEFRA was set up in June 2001, retrospective information on expenditure before this date does not exist for the Department.

  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 23 July 2002, Official Report, column 916W.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which livestock markets are identified as receiving animals infected with foot and mouth disease in 2001; how many other farms became infected as a result of the movement of(a) infected animals, (b) contaminated people and (c) contaminated vehicles from each of these markets; what the results were of the laboratory tests conducted on animals from such farms for each of the three possible sources of infection listed; and on how many such farms no laboratory tests were conducted. [62256]
  171W
  Mr. Morley
  This information is not available in the form requested. The following table shows the livestock markets which are believed to have received FMD infected animals in February 2001, and the answer to(a) —the number of farms directly infected by the movement of infected animals and the results of laboratory tests on animals from these farms. These farms seeded further spread in a number of locations.

  Market

  Movement of infected animals to:

  Market

  Abattoir

  Farm (includes dealers)

  Total Infected Premises

  Sampled— positive result returned

  Sampled— negative result returned

  Hexham

  1

  0

  2

  3

  2 Farms

  Longtown

  0

  2

  9

  11

  7 Farms

  2 Farms

  Hereford***

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Ross

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1 Farm

  Northampton

  0

  0

  2

  2

  2 Farms

  Welshpool

  0

  1

  2

  3

  2 Farms

  Notes

  *** Believed to have received infected animals

  This information is based on data available in October 2001. Figures may change if further collation of field data is undertaken. It is unlikely that the markets identified as infected will change.

  Dairy Industry
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps the Government are taking to encourage the stability of dairy farms and businesses. [69014]

  Mr. Morley
  Lord Whitty recently met senior representatives of the dairy industry—as part of DEFRA Ministers' wider follow-up to Don Curry's recent report—to discuss a range of supply chain issues. The Government will continue to promote a sustainable dairy sector through further engagement with the industry on the challenges it faces.

  During forthcoming discussions on CAP reform, we will also be seeking an early and definite end date for milk quotas. This will enable businesses to plan ahead with certainty.

  Illegally Logged Hardwood
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent steps she has taken to prevent the importation of illegally logged hardwood timber. [71674]

  Mr. Morley
  Customs can seize illegally logged timber only if the species concerned is covered by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). New Eli-wide legislation is needed to empower customs authorities to prevent entry of illegally logged non-CITES timber. The UK is working within the EU to identify what legislation is needed and how it can be introduced. The UK Government has also committed its own central departments and their agencies to procure timber from legal and sustainable sources.

  In the meantime we are lobbying hard to ensure that the proposal to increase the protection afforded to big-leaf mahogany by uplisting it to Appendix II of CITES is approved at the Conference of CITES Parties in Santiago, Chile, in November. We will also work hard in the margins of the meeting to encourage more tropical
  172W
  Information on (b) and (c) has not been collated and is not available, but, for example, approximately 28 Infected Premises were directly connected with Longtown Market.

  timber producing countries to list more of their trees on Appendix III of CITES, which would bring these species under monitoring control.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs what reasons underlie the change in bovine TB compensation expenditure in Great Britain from 2000–01. [72306]

  Mr. Morley
  Expenditure on TB compensation in GB fell from £7,307,797 in 2000 to £7,074,125 in 2001. The reduction was due to the diversion of resources during the Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak away from the testing of cattle for TB. Therefore the number of animals identified as TB reactors and slaughtered as a consequence, fell from 6,954 in 2000 to 5,903 in 2001.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what reasons underlie the change in expenditure on the bovine TB programme, excluding compensation, in Wales from 1999–2000 to 2000–01. [72305]

  Mr. Morley
  Pursuant to the answer given to the hon. Member on 10 July,Official Report, column 948W, expenditure on the State Veterinary Service Bovine TB programme in Wales fell from £1,472,469 in 1999–2000 to £1,240,032 in 2000–01.

  SVS expenditure figures include the cost of dealing with reactor herds when new incidents of Bovine TB are identified. The reduction of expenditure between 1999–2000 and 2000–01 can be explained by a lower number of TB incidents in Wales in 2000.

  Parliamentary Answers
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether it is her policy to ensure that all documents referred to in parliamentary answers are available via her Department's website; and for how long she retains on her Department's website documents referred to in parliamentary answers. [72218]
  173W
  Mr. Morley
  The Department aims to be as helpful as possible in responding to hon. Members' Questions. Where it is helpful to refer hon. Members to other documents as part of the substantive reply, this may be done by making hard copies of documents available in the Libraries of the House, or by reference to material available on the Department's website.

  Minimum requirements for the type of documents which should be published on Government websites are set out in guidance issued by the Office of the E-envoy, "Guidelines for UK Government Websites" (Illustrated Handbook for web management teams section 2.2 "What content should be on your website?" and section 2.3 "Cross-government requirements"). In addition to setting out guidelines on documents for inclusion, the guidance also explicitly requires Departments to ensure that the content of the site as a whole is up to date and current, and where it is necessary to update the content of individual documents, to show the latest date of amendment clearly on the document concerned. Section 1.2.7 deals with the issue of Records management and the OeE currently has a consultation paper out on Archiving websites. The purpose of this draft annex to the Illustrated handbook is to provide government website managers with a framework towards developing within their website management policy suitable procedures and systems to assist in the management, appraisal and preservation of electronic records. A copy of this draft is available online at http://www.e-envoy.gov.uk/webguidelines.htm. A copy of the Guidelines for UK Government websites is available at http://www.e-envoy.gov.uk/webguidelines.htm.

  The Department's website carries all the categories of document identified by the Guidelines for UK Government websites, and displays the latest date of amendment clearly on each document. All documents are maintained on the website unless they become out of date or are superseded. We are taking account of the draft annex to the Illustrated handbook in developing our procedures and systems for maintenance of website material.

  Composting
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what plans she has to offer support to establish new facilities for the composting of cooked food waste; [72813]

  (2) when the guidance on the composting of food waste will be announced. [72819]

  Mr. Morley
  We are currently drawing up legislation to allow the treatment of catering waste in composting plants. We intend to consult on the draft legislation in the autumn.

  There are no plans to offer financial support to establish new facilities for the composting of cooked food waste. However, the 2000 spending review provided substantial additional resources to help deliver the statutory performance standards on recycling and composting.

  Guidance on the composting of food waste will be issued following the public consultation exercise.
  174W

  Egg Laying Cages
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will undertake not to make a decision on the future of enriched egg laying cages until after the results of her Department's funded research have been published. [73121]

  Mr. Morley
  The public consultation exercise, which has now started, on the future of enriched cages, will form part of our evidence gathering process about the welfare benefits of these cages. We will also consider all available scientific evidence. The industry needs to make long term investment decisions.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the scientific research which informed her decision to hold a full public consultation into the future of the enriched egg laying cage. [73113]

  Mr. Morley
  The public consultation exercise has been started at the earliest opportunity to allow the industry to make long term investment decisions.

  Scientific research into enriched cages is on-going.

  EU Committees
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 1 July 2002,Official Report, column 70W, when members of the Scottish Executive have attended meetings of the EU management committees of the common organisations of agricultural markets for cereals; and if she will make a statement. [73289]

  Mr. Morley
  Further to my answer of 1 July 2002, I can confirm that, since the creation of DEFRA, members of the Scottish Executive have attended meetings of the EU Management Committee of the common organisation of the market for cereals on ten occasions.

  EU Management Committee
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 3 July 2002,Official Report, column 368W, when members of the Scottish Executive have attended meetings of the EU Management Committee of the common organisations of agricultural markets for natural fibres; and if she will make a statement. [73180]

  Mr. Morley
  Officials from the Scottish Executive have not attended the meetings of the Management Committee for Natural Fibres held over the last 12 months. The UK has been represented by officials from the Department. The devolved administrations are fully consulted and can attend as necessary.

  Poultry Units
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the role small free range poultry units can play in reviving the agricultural sector; and if she will make a statement. [72518]
  175W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 24 July 2002]: DEFRA recognises the importance of free range egg systems in terms of consumer choice, but we have made no specific assessment of the role of small free range poultry units in reviving the agriculture sector as a whole. Individual producers will need to make decisions based on their own individual circumstances.

  Sustainable Development
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what further action the Government will undertake to eliminate subsidies to the fishing industry to reduce capacity as agreed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development and by which year this pledge will need to be met to help achieve the 2015 millennium development goals. [74618]

  Mr. Morley
  The UK does not provide subsidies to the fishing industry for the construction of vessels or for their modernisation in ways which could increase fishing capacity. We support Commission proposals to end such subsidies as part of CFP reform.

  Badgers
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had about the badger population in England. [75079]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department regularly receives representations on a wide range of issues including badgers.

  English Nature advises there are likely to be in the region of 300,000 to 400,000 badgers in Great Britain.

  Hedgehogs
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had about the hedgehog population in England. [75077]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department regularly receives representations on a wide range of species issues including hedgehogs.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what evidence she has that the hedgehog population has declined disproportionately in certain regions of England. [75078]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government's scientific advisers, English Nature, consider that the hedgehog is under no conservation threat. The UK's total pre-breeding population stands at about 1,555,000; 1,100,000 in England, 310,000 in Scotland and 145,000 in Wales. English Nature is aware of a study into numbers of hedgehogs killed on roads by cars but advises that, as the study is not yet completed, it is too early to draw conclusions at this stage.

  The Department has let a research contract to design and pilot a multi-species terrestrial mammal monitoring project. This is due to conclude in November 2003.
  176W
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what evidence she has collated on a correlation between the growth of the badger population and a fall in hedgehog population in certain regions. [75081]

  Mr. Morley
  At present there is no comprehensive, standardised national monitoring of British mammals that embraces the full range of important species. Whilst a range of organisations undertake monitoring, not all mammals are included, surveys are often sporadic and the results distributed to only a limited extent.

  DEFRA therefore let a GB wide research contract entitled "Design and pilot a multi-species terrestrial mammal monitoring project" in June 2001, to the British Trust for Ornithology and the Mammal Society. The overall aim will be to design and pilot, using a volunteer network, a winter monitoring project involving both visual recording of mammals and the recording of their signs. This is intended to form a building block for an integrated mammal-monitoring system.

  The work will include an analysis of the results, including aspects such as accuracy, repeatability and the utility of the results, for monitoring mammal abundance and distribution and for the potential to assess long-term trends. The pilot scheme concludes in November 2003.

  As yet no population comparisons have been undertaken of species such as hedgehog and badger.

  Abandoned Cars
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many abandoned cars each local authority in England and Wales stated they had removed in their submissions to the Municipal Waste Survey 2000–01. [75174]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: Figures from the 2000–01 Municipal Waste Management Survey show that 288 local authorities in England and Wales, out of a total of 376, responded to the number of abandoned vehicles question in the Municipal Waste Management Survey 2000–01 in England and Wales. The authorities and the numbers of abandoned vehicles removed and destroyed reported are listed below:

  Local Authority

  Number of Abandoned vehicles

  Adur

  793

  Alnwick

  54

  Amber Valley

  147

  Arun

  590

  Ashford

  612

  Aylesbury Vale

  507

  Babergh

  391

  Barking and Dagenham

  2,761

  Barnet

  3,287

  Barnsley

  248

  Basildon

  1,529

  Basingstoke and Deane

  780

  Bassetlaw

  92

  Bath and NE Somerset

  796

  Bedford

  876

  Bexley

  1,356

  Birmingham

  5,466

  177W

  Local Authority

  Number of Abandoned vehicles

  Blaby

  113

  Blaenau Gwent

  960

  Blyth Valley

  110

  Bolsover

  249

  Boston

  65

  Bournemouth

  878

  Bracknell Forest

  707

  Bradford

  2,600

  Braintree

  554

  Breckland

  238

  Brent

  3,471

  Brentwood

  400

  Bridgnorth

  37

  Brighton and Hove

  4,000

  Bromley

  3,895

  Bromsgrove

  119

  Broxbourne

  1,393

  Broxtowe

  171

  Caerphilly

  1,800

  Calderdale

  441

  Cambridge

  261

  Camden

  1,629

  Cannock Chase

  30

  Canterbury

  809

  Caradon

  108

  Carmarthenshire

  120

  Carrick

  174

  Castle Point

  450

  Ceredigion

  150

  Charnwood

  153

  Chelmsford

  800

  Chesterfield

  45

  Chester-le-Street

  18

  Chichester

  600

  Chiltern

  195

  Christchurch

  73

  City of Bristol

  2,590

  City of Kingston-upon-Hull

  717

  City of London

  0

  Colchester

  319

  Conwy

  250

  Corby

  504

  Cotswold

  67

  County of Herefordshire

  368

  Craven

  0

  Crawley

  1,145

  Croydon

  2,878

  Dacorum

  1,150

  Darlington

  98

  Dartford

  483

  Daventry

  388

  Derby

  579

  Derbyshire Dales

  40

  Derwentside

  15

  Doncaster

  410

  Dover

  469

  Dudley

  234

  Durham City

  39

  Ealing

  3,754

  Easington

  14

  East Cambridgeshire

  330

  East Devon

  288

  East Dorset

  279

  East Hampshire

  209

  East Hertfordshire

  355

  East Lindsey

  226

  East Northamptonshire

  191

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  227

  East Staffordshire

  164

  Eastbourne

  631

  Eastleigh

  200

  Enfield

  4,711

  Epping Forest

  1,838

  Epsom and Ewell

  360

  178W

  Local Authority

  Number of Abandoned vehicles

  Erewash

  270

  Fenland

  176

  Flintshire

  100

  Forest Heath

  145

  Forest of Dean

  186

  Gateshead

  149

  Gloucester

  700

  Gosport

  496

  Gravesham

  884

  Great Yarmouth

  255

  Greenwich

  3,120

  Guildford

  724

  Gwynedd

  619

  Hackney

  2,700

  Hambleton

  96

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,430

  Harborough

  550

  Haringey

  6,500

  Harlow

  1,240

  Harrogate

  143

  Harrow

  1,914

  Hart

  256

  Hartlepool

  55

  Hastings

  1,100

  Havant

  897

  Havering

  1,250

  Hertsmere

  534

  High Peak

  87

  Hillingdon

  2,286

  Hinckley and Bosworth

  353

  Horsham

  173

  Hounslow

  2,247

  Ipswich

  785

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  Islington

  2,619

  Kennet

  54

  Kensington and Chelsea

  195

  Kerrier

  232

  Kettering

  350

  King's Lynn and West Norfolk

  271

  Kingston upon Thames

  739

  Kirklees

  287

  Lambeth

  3,308

  Leeds

  877

  Leicester

  1,416

  Lewes

  470

  Lewisham

  5,000

  Lichfield

  271

  Lincoln

  136

  Luton

  2,403

  Maidstone

  1,015

  Mansfield

  650

  Medway

  1,157

  Melton

  30

  Mendip

  250

  Merthyr Tydfil

  482

  Merton

  1,683

  Mid Bedfordshire

  584

  Mid Devon

  376

  Mid Suffolk

  145

  Mid Sussex

  347

  Mole Valley

  621

  Monmouthshire

  244

  New Forest

  474

  Newark and Sherwood

  289

  Newcastle-under-Lyme

  150

  Newham

  6,704

  Newport

  789

  North Cornwall

  266

  North Devon

  33

  North Dorset

  60

  North East Derbyshire

  70

  North East Lincolnshire

  267

  North Hertfordshire

  332

  179W

  Local Authority

  Number of Abandoned vehicles

  North Kesteven

  101

  North Lincolnshire

  135

  North Norfolk

  66

  North Somerset

  570

  North Tyneside

  451

  North Warwickshire

  133

  North West Leicestershire

  267

  Northampton

  1,682

  Norwich

  351

  Nottingham

  586

  Nuneaton and Bedworth

  183

  Oadby and Wigston

  58

  Oswestry

  129

  Oxford

  1,455

  Pembrokeshire

  487

  Plymouth

  1,779

  Poole

  649

  Portsmouth

  826

  Powys

  606

  Purbeck

  89

  Reading

  1,090

  Redbridge

  1,562

  Reigate and Banstead

  718

  Restormel

  266

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,201

  Richmondshire

  9

  Rother

  336

  Rotherham

  150

  Runnymede

  609

  Rushcliffe

  181

  Rushmoor

  375

  Rutland

  100

  Ryedale

  45

  Salisbury

  354

  Sandwell

  6,639

  Scarborough

  543

  Sedgefield

  80

  Sedgemoor

  377

  Selby

  120

  Sevenoaks

  498

  Sheffield

  100

  Shepway

  733

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  86

  Slough

  669

  Solihull

  275

  South Bedfordshire

  500

  South Cambridgeshire

  100

  South Derbyshire

  154

  South Gloucestershire

  987

  South Kesteven

  148

  South Norfolk

  116

  South Northamptonshire

  140

  South Oxfordshire

  418

  South Shropshire

  7

  South Somerset

  356

  South Staffordshire

  48

  South Tyneside

  415

  Southampton

  1,132

  Southend-on-Sea

  1,132

  Southwark

  1,934

  Spelthorne

  596

  St. Albans

  486

  St. Edmundsbury

  760

  Stafford

  37

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  26

  Stevenage

  598

  Stockton-on-Tees

  39

  Stoke-on-Trent

  250

  Stratford-on-Avon

  43

  Stroud

  51

  Suffolk Coastal

  165

  Sunderland

  197

  Surrey Heath

  226

  Sutton

  1,651

  180W

  Local Authority

  Number of Abandoned vehicles

  Swale

  738

  Swindon

  440

  Tamworth

  60

  Tandridge

  500

  Taunton Deane

  248

  Teesdale

  17

  Teignbridge

  741

  Telford and Wrekin

  1,332

  Tendring

  835

  Test Valley

  406

  Tewkesbury

  115

  Thanet

  950

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  264

  Three Rivers

  351

  Tonbridge and Mailing

  557

  Torbay

  354

  Torfaen

  668

  Torridge

  111

  Tunbridge Wells

  688

  Tynedale

  29

  Uttlesford

  250

  Vale of White Horse

  464

  Walsall

  976

  Waltham Forest

  2,716

  Wandsworth

  2,571

  Warwick

  137

  Watford

  822

  Waveney

  115

  Waverley

  343

  Wealden

  483

  Wear Valley

  40

  Wellingborough

  290

  Welwyn Hatfield

  1,000

  West Berkshire

  697

  West Dorset

  232

  West Oxfordshire

  290

  West Somerset

  64

  West Wiltshire

  113

  Westminster

  496

  Weymouth and Portland

  85

  Winchester

  263

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  488

  Woking

  352

  Wolverhampton

  381

  Worcester

  316

  Worthing

  310

  Wrexham

  231

  Wychavon

  90

  Wycombe

  1,155

  Note

  A total of 238 thousand abandoned vehicles was estimated for England and Wales in 2000–01, which includes an estimation for the non-responding authorities.

  Planning Applications
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many areas of outstanding natural beauty or SSSIs have been the subject of planning applications in each of the past 10 years. [76466]

  Alun Michael
  This level of information is not collected and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Agriculture Wages Board
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what economic assessment has been made of the cost of the recent
  181W
  Agricultural Wages Board settlement on (a) agriculture, (b) horticulture, (c) the soft fruit sector and (d) the top fruit sector. [75915]

  Alun Michael
  Following the Agricultural Wages Board annual pay negotiations on 3/4 July, an assessment of the impact of the proposed changes to be included in the 2002 Wages Order was issued by the Board's Secretariat on 5 August 2002. Copies were sent to all the people who requested further information on the Board's proposals. This showed the increased cost to the agriculture industry in England and Wales over the period 1 October 2002 to 30 June 2003, resulting from the proposed changes, to be between £57 and £69 million. These costings were derived from the Ready Reckoner prepared annually by Defra for the Board to use during the pay negotiations. Cost estimates for individual sectors of the industry were not prepared.

  Cost assessments were also prepared by the National Farmers Union and the Transport and General Workers Union. Defra statisticians also reviewed the results of the September 2001 Earnings and Hours Survey and submitted a paper to the Board showing how this would affect the Board's assessment of the impact of the 2002 proposals. In addition Defra economists prepared a paper for the Board, providing an update on the economic performance of each of the key sectors in the agriculture and horticulture industry. The Board's Secretariat has confirmed that all these papers were considered by a meeting of the Board's Working Party which took place on 27 August (immediately prior to the Board's Confirmation meeting on 29 August). This meeting was intended to ensure that both sides of the Board and the Independent members had a clear understanding of how the proposals would impact on both the employers' costs and workers' pay.

  Countryside and Rights of Way Act
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when section 63 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 will be implemented; what the legal and financial implications of this will be for local authorities; what incentive it will provide for them to ensure that their rights of way networks are kept fully open; and if she will make a statement. [76250]

  Alun Michael
  Following our recent consultation on implementation of section 63 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, we are now drafting regulations in the light of the 126 responses we received, with a view to commencing the provisions in early 2003.

  Local highway authorities are already under a duty to protect the rights of the public to use rights of way. Under the new burdens procedure, highway authorities collectively are being funded for the additional requirements imposed by section 63. The procedures will provide a formal means for any person to draw to the authority's attention paths which are being obstructed and to take court action where they fail to act. The provisions will encourage authorities to be more proactive in their attempts to keep rights of way free from obstructions, leading to improved access and use of rights of way.
  182W

  National Access Database
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 16 July 2002,Official Report, column 138W, on the National Access Database, when the results of the feasibility study into the National Access Database being conducted by the Countryside Agency will be published. [76214]

  Alun Michael
  The National Access Database feasibility study report has been received by the Agency. A research note outlining the findings of the feasibility study is now expected to be published in November 2002.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Sport Action Zones
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list by region the(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful bids for sport action zones. [75396]

  Mr. Caborn
  (a) The successful bids for sport action zones:

  East region—Luton;

  Yorkshire region—Bradford. South Yorkshire;

  West Midlands region—Birmingham;

  South West region—Cornwall and Isles of Silly;

  London region—North Lambeth/North Southwark;

  East midlands region—North Nottinghamshire/North Derby, Braunstone;

  North East region—Wear Valley;

  North West region—Liverpool, East Manchester, West Cumbria and Barrow.

  (b) The unsuccessful bids for sport action zones:

  South West region—Weston;

  South East region—North Kent, Milton Keynes, Reading, Southampton and Coastal Sport Action Zone (Thant);

  London region-North Lewisham, Tower Hamlets, Islington, North and East London;

  Camden neighbourhood, SCORE (Leyton Orient Community Sports Programme);

  North East region—Coalfields Sport and Leisure (Sunderland), Gateshead;

  North West region—Wythenshawe, Blackburn with Darwen, Oldham, St. Helens, Pendle.

  Sport England
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had with the Chief Executive of Sport England about his decision to resign. [75194]

  Mr. Caborn
  My Department was in close contact with David Moffett prior to the announcement of his resignation, and will continue to work closely with him and his successor at Sport England.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much has been spent on lottery tickets, broken down by constituency, since 1999. [76326]
  183W
  Mr. Caborn
  Information about National Lottery ticket sales is not collected by constituency. But the National Lottery Commission is able to provide information about sales broken down by postcode area, and I shall write to my hon. Friend with it as soon as possible

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Members' Access
  David Taylor
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what improvements are planned for Members' access to Information and Communications Technology on the Parliamentary Estate. [73623]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The Commission has adopted as a strategic objective the development and maintenance of an information infrastructure that is unified, consistent, seamless and accessible. There are a number of projects under way which will allow Members to derive greater benefits from Information and Communications Technology in their work.

  The House Administration as a whole is considering the Information Committee's recent report, Digital Technology: Working for Parliament and the public, which looks at ways of using Information and Communications Technology to bring the House and the public closer together, something which I know is important to the hon. Gentleman.

  Members' Guests
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, if the Commission will take steps to ensure that hon. Members may invite musicians from their constituency to play music in the House. [73624]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  Permission for musical performances is granted on a case-by-case basis by the Speaker. I understand that the Speaker has agreed to occasional performances provided that meetings and events in adjoining areas are not disturbed. Hon. Members who wish to have music performed at a private function in a refreshment room should direct their request to the Catering Committee, which advises the Speaker.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Speakers Lists
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the President of the Council, if he will bring forward proposals to publish lists of speakers in debates. [73622]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  This proposal was discussed in the recent report from the Modernisation Committee, and the Committee has undertaken to keep the matter under review with the Speaker and his deputies.
  184W

  PRIVY COUNCIL
  Members' Allowances
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Council, what plans the Commission has to give hon. Members additional allowances for members' staff in order to cope with exceptionally heavy workloads. [73625]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  This is not a matter for the Commission. The Speaker's Advisory Panel has power to consider this and make recommendations if they consider it appropriate. However, allowances were increased last July by at least 50 per cent. in order to meet the needs of our constituents and it may be best to wait until the new system has bedded in before considering whether further increases are merited.

  House of Lords Reform
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the President of the Council, if he will make a statement on House of Lords reform. [73626]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government's objective remains to complete the reform process on which it embarked in 1997. Whether progress is possible and how fast is now a matter for Parliament itself to influence in the light of the forthcoming report of the Joint Committee of both Houses. The Government has said it will not seek to influence the Joint Committee's deliberations. We will decide how best to proceed in the light of the Joint Committee's views and the opinions of both Houses as expressed in free votes on the options defined by the Joint Committee.

  EU Institution Visits
  Mr. Graham Allen
  To ask the President of the Council, what he is doing to encourage Members to take up the facility to visit EU institutions. [73627]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the House yesterday.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Council, what percentage of hon. Members have used the facility of a visit to an EU institution in each of the years for which figures are available; and what steps he has taken to encourage greater take up of this facility. [73725]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The number of hon. Members who have visited EU institutions under this scheme is as follows:

  Year

  No of Members

  Percentage (%)

  1998–9

  65

  9.9

  1999–00

  61

  9.3

  2000–1

  72

  10.9

  2001–2

  80

  12.1

  2002–3 (first six months)

  76

  11.5

  The "quick guide" to members' allowances contains details of the entitlement. This was sent out to all Members in May, and further copies are available from the Department of Finance and Administration.

  The House itself approved an amendment of the scheme on 9 May, to allow up to three visits each year to national parliaments of EU member states and those of candidate countries, in addition to EU institutions in Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg.
  185W
  I understand that Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) officials are ready to assist Members using the allowance, and I am pleased my hon. Friend has given me the opportunity to remind Members of its existence.

  Parliamentary Questions
  James Purnell
  To ask the President of the Council, when he plans to publish the Government's response to the Procedure Committee Report on Parliamentary Questions (HC622). [76748]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I have today laid before the House a copy of the Government's response to the Procedure Committee Report on Parliamentary Questions (Cm 5628). Copies of the response are available in the Vote Office, Libraries of the House and on my department's website www.privycouncil.gov.uk

  The House will debate the report of the Committee and the Government's response on 29 October.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Rwanda
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the return of displaced persons to Rwanda. [74895]

  Clare Short
  By mid 1994, out of Rwanda's population of roughly 8 million at the beginning of the 1990's, some 2 million had become internally displaced and a further 2 million had fled as refugees to neighbouring countries. The Government of Rwanda's policy of national reconciliation and its success in establishing a peaceful and stable country have led to the return of the vast majority of these displaced persons and refugees to their communities.

  There are three significant returns of displaced persons to Rwanda: of disarmed ex-FAR/Interahamwe soldiers and their families from the DRC; of Rwandan refugees from the eastern DRC, and; of Rwandan refugees from Tanzania.

  The Government of Rwanda hopes that some 25,000 ex-FAR/Interhamwe will be repatriated as the Pretoria Agreement is implemented. The Rwanda Demobilisation and Reintegration Programme provides for the return of ex-combatants and their families to their communities, for the counselling of ex-combatants and the communities to which they are returning, and significant economic assistance to ease the reintegration of ex-combatants into society. Special packages of assistance are available for child, female and disabled ex-combatants. The Government hopes that their withdrawal from the DRC will serve to increase the flow of the ex-combatants into the Programme. We judge that the Programme is well designed and well established, and have committed US$5 million to support it. We have also committed US$25 million to the equivalent regional demobilisation programme.

  UNHCR estimate that there were some 23,000 Rwanda refugees scattered through the Eastern DRC as at July 2002. UNHCR is assisting with the slow but steady return of these refugees to Rwanda. They advise
  186W
  that they have the structures and resources to continue to provide adequate food and shelter for this population.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of progress being made in Rwanda to achieve the 2015 targets for universal primary education. [74892]

  Clare Short
  Rwanda is largely on track to achieve the 2015 target for universal primary education and. in fact, has set a national target of achieving UPE by 2010. Primary enrolment has increased by over 50 per cent. since 1996, to nearly 1.5 million children in 2001. This represents a net enrolment ratio of around 75 per cent. for both boys and girls.

  There are still serious concerns about the quality of education provision at primary level and repetition (32 per cent.) and dropout rates (14 per cent.) are high, even by regional standards. The government of Rwanda has committed itself to improving the quality of education at all levels and reducing the wastage caused by unnecessary repetition.

  The UK government is providing a package of technical assistance worth approximately £13 million to support these efforts.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of children she estimates are enrolled in(a) private education and (b) state funded education in Rwanda; and what efforts have been made to increase state funded education in Rwanda. [74889]

  Clare Short
  There were an estimated 1.5 million children enrolled in primary schools in Rwanda in 2001. Private schooling plays a minimal role, accounting for less than 0.8 per cent. of the pupils. In the secondary sector, approximately 45 per cent. of the 140,000 students attend schools in the private sector, including church and community schools.

  The government of Rwanda has steadily increased its investment in the education sector over the past five years and in 2001 education made up over 25 per cent. of total government expenditure.

  The government of Rwanda has committed itself to achieving Universal Primary Education by 2010 and the UK government, along with other partners, will continue to provide support to this effort (including £10M budget support in 2002 which was linked to the education sector).

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessments her Department has made regarding the adequacy of shelter and food supplies for the returning population in Rwanda. [74894]

  Clare Short
  There are three significant returns of displaced persons to Rwanda: of disarmed ex-FAR/Interahamwe soldiers and their families from the DRC; of Rwandan refugees from the eastern DRC, and; of Rwandan refugees from Tanzania.

  The Government of Rwanda hopes that some 25,000 ex-FAR/Interhamwe will be repatriated from the DRC as the Pretoria Agreement is implemented. The Rwanda Demobilisation and Reintegration Programme

  187W
  provides support, including economic support, for the return and resettlement of these ex-combatants and their families into their communities. Tailored packages of assistance are available for child, female, chronically-ill and disabled ex-combatants. This, together with support from existing social and familial networks, should ensure that ex-combatants and their families are very well placed to meet their needs for food and shelter. My Department has provided £3.5 million for the Rwanda Demobilisation and Reintegration Programme and a further US $25 million to the equivalent regional Programme.

  UNHCR estimate that there were some 23,000 Rwanda refugees scattered through the Eastern DRC as at July 2002. UNHCR is assisting with the slow but steady return of these refugees to Rwanda. They advise that they have the structures and resources to continue to provide adequate food and shelter for this population.

  In October 2002, the Governments of Rwanda and Tanzania and the UNHCR signed the Tripartite Agreement allowing for the return of the 15,000–20,000 Rwanda refugees currently in Tanzania. UNHCR advise that they have the structures and resources to provide adequate food and shelter for this population.

  My Department will continue to monitor these exercises closely.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what guidance she has given concerning the repatriation and re-integration of soldiers and ex-fighters to Rwanda from the DRC. [74890]

  Clare Short
  I have congratulated President Kagame on his commitment to implementing the terms of the Pretoria Agreement with the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo by withdrawing Rwandan forces from the DRC. The UK has joined with the international community in condemning the renewed outbreak of hostilities by armed groups in the Eastern DRC following the Rwandan withdrawal, and calling upon all those directly involved or involved in supplying the armed groups to cease forthwith.

  We strongly support Rwandan plans for the disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration of its own soldiers and those Rwandan rebels in Congo who choose to return to Rwanda. We have committed $25 million to the World Bank's Multi-Country Demobilisation and Reintegration Programme for the Great Lakes region, under which Rwanda and the DRC will benefit, and are contributing a further $5 million directly to the Rwandan National Demobilisation and Reintegration Programme. But it is essential that hostilities in the DRC cease immediately, and that the parties to the Inter Congolese Dialogue move rapidly to agreement on an inclusive transitional government, so that a comprehensive demobilisation and reintegration process can get under way.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions have taken place with the Government of Rwanda concerning access to food, water and shelter for refugees and internally displaced persons in Rwanda. [74893]
  188W
  Clare Short
  There are three groups of refugees or internally displaced persons in Rwanda: Congolese refugees based in camps at Kibuye and Byumba; Rwandan refugees returning from Tanzania, and; Rwandan refugees returning from the eastern DRC. UNHCR is responsible for assisting the return of all three groups.

  My Department, acting through the local EU Presidency, has raised concerns with the Government of Rwanda over the intimidation of the Congolese refugees at Kibuye and Byumba, including through the closure of schools and the termination of supplies of firewood. We will continue to monitor the situation closely, drawing on UNHCR's advice.

  In October 2002, the Governments of Rwanda and Tanzania and the UNHCR signed the Tripartite Agreement allowing for the return of the 15,000–20,000 Rwanda refugees currently in Tanzania. UNHCR advise that they have the structures and resources to provide adequate water, food and shelter for this population. DFID has made no representations to the Government of Rwanda on this exercise, but we will continue to monitor the situation carefully.

  UNHCR estimate that there were some 23,000 Rwanda refugees scattered through the Eastern DRC as at July 2002. UNHCR is assisting with the slow but steady return of these refugees to Rwanda. They advise that they have the structures and resources to continue to provide adequate water, food and shelter for this population. DFID has made no representations to the Government of Rwanda on this exercise, but we will continue to monitor the situation carefully.

  Southern Africa
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps are being taken to ensure that short term food aid in southern Africa does not damage local food markets. [75056]

  Clare Short
  Humanitarian food aid into southern Africa will only meet 30 per cent. of the estimated 4 million tonne cereal deficit faced by the region. The commercial sector and governments are expected to import and distribute the bulk of the food requirements. Although some Governments are subsidising maize prices to keep them stable, prices are at historical highs throughout the region. As imports will be insufficient to build up stocks prices will remain high until the next harvest expected from April 2003. Local food prices next year will be determined by the size of the harvest.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on progress towards the diversification of farming in southern Africa. [75058]

  Clare Short
  Uncertainties and interference by governments in maize pricing and input supplies have resulted in many farmers planting a wider range of crops. Although most smallholders still plant maize, more are moving into cash crops that provide higher returns. DFID supports recovery programmes in southern Africa which are supplying seeds and planting materials for a range of crops including maize that will reduce the reliance on a single staple and ensure a wider and more varied diet.
  189W
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made to(a) European Union countries and (b) other foreign donors calling for increased funding for the United Nations Consolidated Appeal for the Southern African famine. [75054]

  Clare Short
  My officials have been in regular touch with representatives of donor agencies at country level to encourage adequate responses and I have had informal discussions with Ministers from the European Union and beyond.

  Malawi
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions her Department has had with the(a) IMF and (b) World Bank regarding the curtailment of a starter pack scheme for smallholder farmers in Malawi. [74883]

  Clare Short
  The Starter Pack Scheme has been replaced by the Targeted Inputs Programme financed by my Department and the Norwegian Government. The IMF and World Bank are fully aware of Malawi TIP arrangements, and that in 2002, the number of beneficiary poor farmer households, has been doubled to 2 million.

  Nepal
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether the food insecurity in Nepal has improved in recent months; whether she expects a humanitarian crisis in the mid and far west regions of Nepal to materialise; and if she will make a statement. [75111]

  Clare Short
  It is extremely difficult at present to obtain accurate information on the food situation in the hill districts of the Mid and Far West of Nepal, which have traditionally been areas of food insecurity. Recent reports suggest that food supply in those parts of the country has been affected by the poor monsoon this year, the migration of young men from conflict affected areas, and restrictions on movements and on the supply of food by Maoist and Government security forces. For example, in some mountain districts we estimate the millet crop will be only 80per cent. of normal levels.

  It is too early to say that there will be a humanitarian crisis in the Mid and Far West of the country. The greatest need at present is for more reliable information. DFID is monitoring the situation closely. DFID recently provided £115,000 to increase the capacity of the World Food Programme's Vulnerability and Monitoring Unit. We are also closely in touch with other organisations monitoring the situation including the UNDP, the International Nepal Fellowship and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

  In September I wrote, on behalf of Utstein ministers, to the Prime Minister of Nepal expressing concern over the situation and urging the Government to relax restrictions on the supply of food and medicines to conflict affected districts. The recent meeting of the international community in Kathmandu hosted by the PUSS FCO on 11 October also urged the removal of these restrictions.
  190W

  Poverty Relief
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial aid has been given to the national Governments of(a) Mozambique and (b) Botswana from (i) her Department, (ii) the European Union and (iii) the World Bank, in each year since 1999; and what efforts are being made to ensure that such aid is used effectively for the benefit of those in extreme poverty. [75070]

  Clare Short
  DFID's country programme expenditure was as follows:

  £000'S

  1998–99

  1999–00

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Mozambique

  26,281

  43,893

  41,281

  41,022

  of which financial aid

  20,107

  25,150

  20,426

  30,891

  Botswana

  3,275

  3,045

  2,481

  2,002

  of which financial aid

  54

  51

  49

  46

  Latest available figures for European Commission and World Bank expenditure are:

  £000,000'S

  1999

  2000

  EC

  World Bank

  EC

  World Bank

  Mozambique

  55.1

  48.2

  52 1

  62.1

  Botswana

  10.8

  -0.3

  2.9

  -0.3

  DFID's funds are spent in accordance with country strategies which focus on key poverty reduction priorities. Our strategy for Mozambique is now closely aligned with Mozambique's own poverty reduction plan, agreed last year. Our strategy for Botswana has recently been incorporated within a broader regional strategy for the middle-income countries of Southern Africa.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial aid has been given to the national Government of Namibia from(a) her Department, (b) the European Union and (c) the World Bank every year since 1999, and what efforts are being made to ensure that such aid is used effectively for the benefit of those in extreme poverty. [75052]

  Clare Short
  DFID's expenditure in Namibia was as follows:

  £000'S

  1998–99

  1999–00

  2000–01

  2001–02

  3,861

  3,571

  2,712

  2,017

  of which financial aid

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Latest available figures for the European Commission are:

  £000,000's

  1999

  2000

  28.7

  29.9

  There has been no significant World Bank financial aid since 1999.
  191W
  DFID's funds are spent in accordance with country strategies which focus on key poverty reduction priorities. DFID's strategy for Namibia has recently been incorporated within a broader regional strategy for the middle-income countries of Southern Africa.

  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when her Department's study of the linkages between wildlife and poverty will be completed; and what the terms of reference of the study are. [74877]

  Clare Short
  The Final Report of the Wildlife and Poverty Study, funded by my Department, should be available to DFID within the next fortnight, and for wider consultation thereafter. The Terms of Reference for Phase 2 of the Study will be placed in the Library of the House.

  World Food Programme
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list, by donor country, the contributions made to(a) the World Food Programme and (b) the UNHCR donor appeals for Afghanistan. [74878]

  Clare Short
  The general funding situation for humanitarian appeals are currently relatively well-funded—between 75 per cent. and 90 per cent. for the larger UN agencies I have placed in the library of the House of Commons details of the contributions made to WFP and UNHCR by donor countries.

  Flight Budgets
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what percentage of each division's budget has been spent on flights in each year since 1999; [74900]

  (2) what her Department's budget has been for flights, broken down by division, in each year since 1999. [74901]

  Clare Short
  Information in the format requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Information on flight spend held centrally by my Department's contracted travel agent is as follows:

  1999/2000: £7,189,382

  2000/2001: £8,526,819

  2001/2002: £8,748,097

  These figures do not include travel costs incurred by overseas offices booked through an overseas travel agent.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what advice is given to her Department's staff when booking flights with regard to(a) price and (b) budget. [74899]

  Clare Short
  In accordance with my Department's policy, staff will book the most efficient and economical means of travel, taking into account the full range of costs involved, to meet business needs.
  192W
  DFID's travel agent is contracted to provide a value for money service to staff including, where available, a choice of flights and costs. The travel agent also provides staff with advice on centrally negotiated government airfares.

  All official travel is authorised at appropriate levels to check for compliance with policy and budget.

  Food Requirements (Africa)
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the latest food aid requirements of(a) Zimbabwe, (b) Malawi, (c) Zambia, (d) Angola, (e) Mozambique, (f) Lesotho, (g) Swaziland and (f) Nambia. [75057]

  Clare Short
  The Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Vulnerability Assessment Committee of the Southern Africa Development Community recently estimated the following emergency cereal food requirements to the end of March 2003:

  Zimbabwe

  486,000 MT

  Malawi

  237,000 MT

  Zambia

  224,000 MT

  Mozambique

  48,000 MT

  Lesotho

  36,000 MT

  Swaziland

  20,000 MT

  In respect of Angola, the WFP appealed for funding to provide 305,598 MT to the end of 2003.

  In respect of Namibia, the preliminary findings of a World Food Programme drought assessment indicate a high cereal deficit in the north of the country through to the end of April 2003. The Government of Namibia estimates that relief assistance of both food and non-food items will be required for 340,000 vulnerable people, and expects to be able to meet US$ 9.5 million of the estimated US$ 14 million cost from its own resources.

  Botswana
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her Department's assessment is of the progress of reproductive health care in medical centres in Botswana. [74896]

  Clare Short
  Botswana has invested heavily in the delivery of basic services across the country, and is making significant progress in the provision of reproductive health care. The very high prevalence of HIV/AIDS will seriously affect progress towards all reproductive health goals. However, Botswana is making huge efforts to deliver good quality prevention programmes and medical care for those who are HIV +.This should help to strengthen reproductive health care systems more generally in the country's medical centres.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of UK assistance is spent on(a) care workers, (b) nurses, (c) medical centres and (d) HIV/AIDS programmes in Botswana. [74898]

  Clare Short
  The UK provides no direct support for care workers, nurses and medical centres in Botswana. Botswana, along with Lesotho, Swaziland and
  193W
  Namibia, benefits from a regional DFID HIV/AIDS programme worth over £7.5 million over five years. The programme has several strands, including strengthening the Ministry of Health's response in each country.

  Developing Countries
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the(a) Serious Fraud Office, (b) National Criminal Intelligence Service and (c) Financial Services Authority regarding a sharing of expertise in the development of institutions to tackle corruption and money laundering within developing countries. [75075]

  Clare Short
  My Department is funding a dedicated post within the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) to provide technical assistance to developing countries, and countries in transition, for strengthening financial intelligence systems to combat money laundering. The post became operational in September 2002 and will be supported initially for three years. One responsibility of the post will be to develop training materials appropriate for use in developing countries.

  DFID is also providing the necessary funds to enable NCIS to serve as the Secretariat for the Egmont Group, the international network of Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs). This support is for two years and commenced in October 2001. The Egmont Group plays a critical role in developing international collaboration in financial intelligence related to money laundering, including helping to establish new FIUs.

  In May 2002, DFID organised a conference for representatives from 14 developing countries to provide advice on how they can seek assistance from the United Kingdom in investigating, freezing and confiscating assets of criminal origin that are believed to be located in this country. The Serious Fraud Office contributed significantly to this event.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress is being made towards the creation of a universal representative set of indicators for the determination of good governance in developing countries. [75071]

  Clare Short
  There is no universally agreed set of governance indicators. The Government is promoting the use of governance indicators where that will serve the objective of improving the quality of government in developing countries. We have supported the development of the governance assessments that will form part of the peer reviews of African countries in the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD). We have urged developing countries to improve the quality of their public expenditure and financial management, most recently at the annual meetings of the Washington institutions, and proposed the wider use of expenditure tracking indicators to measure their progress. These objectives and indicators are included in DFID's Service Delivery Agreement of its Public Service Agreement.

  Nepal
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what funding the UK 194W
  Government are providing to Nepalese authorities for a HIV/Aids strategy; and if she will make a statement. [75110]

  Clare Short
  Since January 2001 DFID has contributed £1.7 million to a short-term targeted response to stabilise and contain the concentrated HIV/AIDS epidemic among female sex workers, their clients and injecting drug users.

  Part of this support has been used to assist with the development of the Government's national HIV/AIDS strategy which will set out priorities for actions over the next five years. The national HIV/AIDs strategy is expected to issue in the December 2002. I anticipate that DFID support to the strategy will amount to £15 million over 5 years or approximately 25 per cent. of the total cost of the national strategy.

  Malawi
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans are in place to ensue that smallholder farmers in Malawi have access to adequate seed and fertiliser for the 2002–03 agricultural season. [74882]

  Clare Short
  The 2002–03 Targeted Inputs programme is supplying inputs to two million small-holder farmers across Malawi. This follows a 2002 winter input programme, which benefited 300,000 households. These programmes provide seed and fertiliser for maize and major legume crops. My Department is working with Government, other donors and civil society organisations to ensure co-ordination of these activities and additional programmes for inputs to crop diversification, tools for cultivation and irrigation.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the Government of Malawi regarding plans about the decision to scale down the Universal Starter Pack programme. [74884]

  Clare Short
  The Starter Pack Scheme began in 1998–99 with universal provision of seeds and fertilisers to Malawian farmers. My Department agreed with the Government of Malawi that a Targeted Inputs Programme (TIP) should replace the Starter Pack Scheme from 2000/2001 to concentrate benefits on the poorest farmers. In 2002 the TIP has been doubled to provide for 2 million farming families as part of the co-ordinated response to the current food crisis. The number will be reviewed annually as part of a long-term National Food Security Strategy currently being developed by Government, donors and Civil Society.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her assessment is of the effectiveness of Food for Work programme in Malawi; and how many beneficiaries she estimates this has reached, since January 2002. [74879]

  Clare Short
  Programmes providing Food or Cash for work for the poor in Malawi are being supported by a number of agencies. Financial support is provided by the Malawi Government, donors and Civil Society Organisations. My Department plays a leading role in
  195W
  helping to ensure these programmes are effectively co-ordinated within a National Safety Nets Strategy. During 2002 DFID has supported a large number of government led initiatives aimed at the poorest members of rural communities, representing over 4 million days of employment.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will set out the allocation of development money allocated to the reconstruction of Afghanistan(a) in 2001–02, and (b) for each of the next three years; and if she will set out the total amount that has been spent for (i) 2001–02 and (ii) 2002–03. [75708]

  Clare Short
  At Tokyo in January we pledged £200 million over 5 years to Afghanistan, we did not divide this in to specific amounts for separate financial years. So far in the current financial year we have disbursed over £33 million of our budget of £55 million. In 2001–02 we gave approximately £60 million to Afghanistan for immediate humanitarian relief activities, including food aid and support for returning refugees. International support for such appeals has already provided some essential building blocks for longer term reconstruction: for example a polio vaccination programme has reached 6 million children and 3 million children are now back at school.

  Bushmeat Trade
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what direct assistance is given to customs officers in(a) South American and (b) West African countries to prevent the illegal trade in bushmeat. [75925]

  Clare Short
  DFID is not giving direct assistance to customs officers in South America or West Africa to prevent the illegal trade in bushmeat. DEFRA and HMCE ensure that importation to the UK complies with CITES controls on endangered species. DEFRA is carrying out an awareness-raising campaign in these regions aimed at reducing the illegal trade of meat into the UK. My Department's primary role is to support poverty reduction, which we see as key to ensuring the sustainable management of natural resources, including wildlife, in poor countries.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many endangered wild animal species are classified as bushmeat. [75924]

  Clare Short
  There is no formal classification of which endangered species constitute bushmeat within the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. However, a recent review of commercially valuable bushmeat species in Africa (CITES Document 11.44) concluded that of forty-two primary species caught and traded, eight species are "endangered" (i.e. listed on CITES Appendix 1) and one species (elephant) has some "endangered" populations. The 8 "endangered" species are Leopard, Chimpanzee, Bonobo, Gorilla, Mandrill, Drill, Diana guenon/monkey and Jentink's duiker.
  196W

  Famine (Africa)
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the impact that the spread of HIV/AIDS is having on the famine in Africa. [76102]

  Clare Short
  The HIV/AIDS epidemic poses a major threat to food security in Sub Saharan Africa, and has served to contribute to, and greatly exacerbate southern Africa's growing famine.

  HIV/AIDS is hitting agricultural productivity hard. In just two decades AIDS has killed seven million farmers in Africa and in some countries, households and villages are losing from 10–50 per cent. of agricultural productivity due to the disease.

  HIV/AIDS impacts on reduced food availability as workers become too ill to work the land, care for livestock and maintain essential machinery. At a family level food production has fallen by as much as 80 per cent. when the main producer is affected. This is especially true in areas such as Southern Africa, which uses labour-intensive farming methods.

  Goals to eradicate hunger and poverty must therefore include plans to combat the spread and the impact of the HIV epidemic through multi-sectoral HIV/AIDS prevention and care interventions.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether the Government intends to make additional resources available to support the prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS in the light of its contribution to the current famine in Africa. [76099]

  Clare Short
  DFID's overall programme in Africa is set to increase from 640 million pounds sterling this year to one billion pounds sterling by 2006 and HIV/AIDS will remain one of our highest priorities in the region. We will be focusing efforts on mainstreaming our response to HIV/AIDS across sectors, such as agriculture, education, health etc, to ensure that the impact of HIV/AIDS is better addressed.

  DFID spent over 55 million pounds in Africa on HIV/AIDS programmes and related health systems strengthening in the financial year 2000–2001. Reflecting our increased commitment to addressing HIV/AIDS, so far this year (2001–2002), we have committed an additional 180 million pounds to tackle HIV/AIDS in Africa. A further $200 million dollars (£140 million pounds approximately) has been pledged by the UK to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Ilois People
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what expenditure BIOT has undertaken on democratic representation of the Ilois people; and what is the current level of welfare spending. [74656]
  197W
  Mike O'Brien
  Although there has been no specific expenditure on welfare and democratic representation of the Chagossians (Ilois), the BIOT Government has funded the various stages of the recent feasibility study into the resettlement of the Chagos Archipelago, and had estimated £300,000 expenditure this year for the visit to the outer islands of the archipelago by the Chagossians in October 2002 which fell through due to the withdrawal of the vessel by the shipping company.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) pursuant to his answer of 21 June 2002,Official Report, column 633W, on Malcolm Rennie and Brian Peters, when the families of Brian Peters and Malcolm Rennie were informed of the report by HM Vice-Consul in Jakarta on the men's funeral service; [73422]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 21 June, 2002, Official Report, column 633W, on Malcolm Rennie and Brian Peters, whether information from interviews conducted by James Dunn in 1977 regarding the deaths of Malcolm Rennie and Brian Peters has been passed to the families. [73421]

  Mike O'Brien
  Foreign Office consular files are handled differently to other FCO records. Because of the transient nature of consular cases, papers on them are usually only kept for 7 years. Unlike most other Foreign Office papers, they are not part of the public record, and so are then destroyed.

  We therefore cannot confirm whether the information from the interviews conducted by James Dunn was passed to the families at the time. Nor are we able to confirm when the families were first informed of the report by the Vice Consul in Jakarta on the men's funeral service. Copies of the 1975 and 1976 political files on this subject hove now been passed to the families. The 1977 political files will be released under normal terms of the thirty year rule in 2008.

  Platon Obukhov
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the case of Platon Obukhov, arrested in Russia in 1996 on charges of spying for Britain; what recent representations he has made for his release; and if he will make a statement. [74920]

  Mike O'Brien
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has followed the case of Mr. Obukhov from a humanitarian point of view. Following his re-trial, on 17 May 2002 the Moscow City Court reaffirmed his conviction, but ruled that he could not be held criminally responsible for his actions, and that he should be sent to a psychiatric hospital for treatment.

  Istanbul
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many telephone lines are dedicated to dealing with queries from the general public in the British Consulate-General in Istanbul. [75049]
  198W
  Mike O'Brien
  There are two telephone lines. One is dedicated to the visa section only and the other deals with visa enquiries as well as all other enquiries to the British Consulate General.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what checks are made on the response times of the Consultate-General in Istanbul to queries left through the visa inquiry line. [75048]

  Mike O'Brien
  The Visa Section managers monitor this regularly to ensure that all telephone calls are answered quickly and helpfully. In accordance with UKvisas best practice guidelines, and with the published Service Standards for Central Government and its agencies.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations his Department has received regarding poor response times from queries left with the Consultate-General in Istanbul through the visa inquiry line. [75051]

  Mike O'Brien
  I am advised that this Department has not received any representations recently regarding poor response times.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the average response time of the Consultate-General in Istanbul for messages left by members of the public through the visa inquiry line was in the most recent available year. [75050]

  Mike O'Brien
  All telephone enquiries are responded to in accordance with Best Practice guidelines. The facilities available do not enable the average response time to be measured.

  Lebanon
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which nation's troops were stationed in the UN base in the Lebanon on the border with Israel near Mount Dov on 7 October 2000 near to the site of the kidnap of Benny Avraham, Adi Avitan and Umar Souad. [74875]

  Mike O'Brien
  An Indian battalion, assigned to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, was stationed there at that time.

  Kidnaps
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what measures he has undertaken in respect of the kidnap of Elchanan Tenenbium; [74874]

  (2) what discussions he has had with (a) The Syrian Government, (b) The Syrian Ambassador in London, (c) The Head of Hizbullah in respect of the kidnap of Elchanan Tenenbium; and what was the outcome of these discussions. [74873]

  Mike O'Brien
  HMG has made a number of representations to governments in the Middle East about the fate of Elchanan Tannenbaum and missing Israeli soldiers, and will continue to do so. Most recently
  199W
  our Ambassadors in Beirut and Damascus raised them with their host governments on 3 October 2002 and 19 September 2002, respectively. They took note of our interest. Also on 12 December 2001, our Ambassador in Beirut raised hostage taking in general terms with Hizballah. On each occasion we emphasised that hostage taking was wrong and that those holding hostages should free them at once.

  Our Ambassadorin Tel Aviv met families of the missing men, including Mr. Tannenbaum's son, on 9 September 2002.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will obtain a copy of the two video tapes in the possession of Taria Larsen of the UN showing the kidnap of Benny Avraham, Adi Avitan and Umar Souad on 7 October 2000. [74872]

  Mike O'Brien
  There are no videotapes or photographs of the abduction of the soldiers in the UN's possession: the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) did not witness or film the kidnapping. The UN has two related videotapes, which it has shared with the families of the abducted soldiers. These two videos are not available for release.

  The first tape—filmed by the Indian battalion assigned to UNIFIL on 8 October 2000—is of the attempted recovery of two UN vehicles. The UN did recover items from within them. But during the operation Hizbollah returned and claimed the vehicles. The second tape—filmed by an unknown person—showed the shelling of Israel Defence Forces positions along the Blue Line. Neither tape gives any indication about the fate of the kidnapped soldiers.

  Dr. Lesley McCulloch
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to secure the release of Dr. Lesley McCulloch from detention in Indonesia: and if he will make a statement. [75679]

  Mike O'Brien
  We have raised Lesley McCulloch's case with the Indonesian authorities a number of times and at high levels. We have urged the Indonesian authorities to process Ms McCulloch's case expeditiously. Our consular staff have visited Ms McCulloch and continue to give her all the assistance they properly can.

  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, dated 20 September, regarding Dr. Lesley McCulloch. [75680]

  Mike O'Brien
  My noble Friend, Baroness Amos, Minister responsible for Consular matters, replied to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute on 17 October.

  Diego Garcia
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government have taken in response to the High Court judgment in 2000 upholding the special military status of Diego Garcia. [75105]
  200W
  Mike O'Brien
  Following the High Court judgment, the BLOT Immigration Ordinance 1971 was replaced by the Immigration (Amendment) Ordinance 2000 which exempts Chagossians from the requirement to obtain a permit to return and reside in any part of the Territory except (for defence reasons) Diego Garcia. All other persons still require a permit to enter any part of the Territory.

  Saddam Hussein
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the meetings held between Saddam Hussein and British Ministers since July 1979. [75685]

  Mike O'Brien
  Since July 1979, the following Ministers have held meetings with Saddam Hussein:

  July 1979 Lord Carrington (Foreign Secretary)

  July 1980 Douglas Hurd (Minister of State, FCO)

  November 1981 John Biffen (Trade Secretary)

  March 1983 Douglas Hurd (Foreign Secretary)

  November 1984 Richard Luce (Minister of State, FCO)

  February 1988 David Mellor (Minister of State, FCO)

  Mordechai Vanunu
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with(a) his United States counterpart and (b) his counterparts in the European Union in respect of seeking early release of Mordechai Vanunu. [75452]

  Mike O'Brien
  We have not discussed Mr. Vanunu's detention with US or EU colleagues. But we have raised it with the Israeli authorities, most recently on 17 October when our Embassy in Tel Aviv did so with the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. They took note of our interest and agreed to keep the Embassy informed of developments. The Embassy in Tel Aviv will monitor Mr. Vanunu's parole hearing, which is expected to start on 29 October.

  Asylum Seekers
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times he has overturned a decision by an ECO to refuse admission to the UK of an applicant. [75655]

  Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has not overturned any entry clearance decisions. As Minister responsible for entry clearance, I have overturned one decision since my appointment as Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in May 2002.

  Entry Clearance
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many entry clearance operations he has visited since June 2001. [75656]

  Mike O'Brien
  When travelling overseas, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs makes every effort to meet staff—both UK based and locally engaged—working in all sections of our overseas missions, including in the entry clearance sections.
  201W

  Uganda
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Ugandan Government in respect of their closure of the Monitor newspaper. [75008]

  Mr. MacShane
  On 14 October the EU Presidency in Kampala, on behalf of the United Kingdom and other EU member states, raised our concerns about the closure of the Monitor newspaper with the Ugandan Minister of State for Information. The Presidency also underlined the importance the EU attaches to freedom of expression and the independence of the media. The Minister reassured the EU Presidency that the Monitor would reopen shortly.

  The Monitor reopened on 17 October.

PRIME MINISTER

  Nuclear Weapons (Russia)
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what matters in respect of United Kingdom support for the dismantling and clear-up of Russia's nuclear weapons, and the management of surplus former military fissile material, were discussed during his meetings in Russia on 10 October. [75874]

  The Prime Minister
  In our meeting and in the context of the G8 Global Partnership against the Proliferation of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction I impressed upon President Putin the need to conclude the necessary legal framework agreement quickly, in particular resolution of the issue of third party liability. As I confirmed to Parliament in July, the UK is prepared to commit up to $750m over ten years as part of the G8 Global Partnership initiative.

  Officials plan a further early meeting with the Russian authorities to try to conclude the UK/Russia bilateral agreement and the Multilateral Nuclear Environmental Programme for the Russian Federation (MNEPR) agreement.

  Winning the Generation Game
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Prime Minister, what progress has been made on each of the 75 conclusions in the Performance and Innovation Unit report, Winning the Generation Game: Improving Opportunities for People Aged 50–65 in Work and Community Activity, published in April 2002. [74730]

  Mr. McCartney
  I have been asked to reply.

  Progress report on the implementation of the Performance and Innovation Unit's report Winning the Generation Game has been placed in the library. It is also available on the internet at http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/innovation/about/impacts.shtml#WINNING.

  The Government will continue to report regularly on the implementation of policies affecting older people.
  202W

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Human Rights
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the Court of Appeal decisions in(a) R. v. Brent London Borough Council and others and (b) R v. Oxfordshire County Council's Exclusion Panel and Another on the necessity for Government guidance notes to be compliant with statute and the Human Rights Act 1998; and what future role she envisages for guidance notes. [75212]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The key point of the Court of Appeal's judgment in these consolidated cases, as far as my Department is concerned, is that the legislation enabling the Secretary of State to give guidance to headteachers, local education authorities and appeal panels in relation to the exclusion of pupils from school complies with the Human Rights Act 1998, and in particular with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to a fair hearing). So far as the guidance applicable to these cases was concerned, the Court went on to hold that neither its content nor the fact that the exclusion appeal panels had a statutory duty to have regard to it in determining the appellant pupils' appeals compromised the pupils' right to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal. However, the Secretary of State is mindful of the observations which the Court made with regard to using her powers to issue guidance and will bear them in mind when issuing revised guidance.

  As to the future, I envisage that the Secretary of State will continue to use her statutory powers to give guidance for the purposes of promoting fairness and consistency in decision-making.

  Educational Needs
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on what basis the ethnicity factor in the additional educational needs allocates extra resources to all ethnic groups; if she will publish the evidence that her Department has used to assess need under the AEN factor; how many children receive increased funding from the ethnicity factor with the AEN; how much funding was distributed under the ethnicity factor to local councils in the years 2000–01 and 2001–02; and what her Department's estimate is for next year. [74957]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Under the current system of Education Standard Spending Assessments (SSA), extra resources are allocated to LEAs in recognition of the additional educational needs of children in minority ethnic groups on the basis of country of birth data taken from the 1991 national census. The number of children covered is 12 per cent. of the total population of children under the age of 16. The amount of funding distributed using this factor was £434 million in 2000–01 and £448 million in 2001–02. The amount of funding to be distributed for Additional Educational Needs for 2003–04 will depend on decisions yet to be taken about the new formula for LEA funding to be introduced from April 2003. Those decisions will be informed by research undertaken by PricewaterhouseCoopers, a copy of
  203W
  whose report has been placed in the House Library, and by responses to the consultation on Local Government Finance, which ran from 8 July to 30 September.

  Disruptive Pupils
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures will be taken over the next year to ensure that disruptive pupils are removed from classes in the run up to major exams. [75098]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  We believe that schools should be orderly and disciplined places of learning at all times. In that context it is right that teachers and headteachers should have the power to remove disruptive pupils from the classroom. This may mean excluding them from school, for a fixed period or permanently, while maintaining their education in alternative provision.

  Since taking office the Government has devoted far greater resources than ever before to supporting teachers in dealing with disruptive behaviour in the classroom. There are now over 1,050 Learning Support Units in schools helping to tackle classroom disruption. Further expansion of our Excellence in Cities (EiC) and Excellence Clusters programmes will provide a further 140 Learning Support Units. The £66m package announced in the Budget will fund, among other things, more Learning Support Units, Behaviour and Education Support Teams and summer activities aimed at improving discipline.

  Exclusions
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she will introduce changes to the system of independent appeal panels. [75623]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Section 52 of the Education Act 2002 replaces the previous arrangements for exclusion appeal panels which have been in existence in various forms since being introduced by the Education (No 2) Act 1986.

  The new arrangements will be set out in regulations under section 52 which we plan to lay before the House in time to come into force in January 2003.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many exclusions have been overturned on appeal in the last six months. [75624]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Information on exclusion appeals is only collected on an annual basis. The latest figures available are for the 2000/01 school year, when 9,210 permanent exclusions gave rise to 983 appeals. 314 permanent exclusions were overturned on appeal—3 per cent. of the total number of permanent exclusions.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what legal powers she has to overturn a decision by an independent appeal panel. [75622]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Secretary of State has no legal powers to overturn a decision by an independent appeal panel.
  204W
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what changes there have been to the monthly average of(a) exclusions, (b) appeals and (c) successful appeals since the publication of the 2001–02 Education Bill. [75625]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  This information is not held centrally. My Department collects data on permanent exclusions and exclusion appeals annually in relation to the school year as a whole. Provisional data for the last school year—2001–02—will be published in a Statistical First Release in May 2003.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidelines there are for local education authorities to allocate funds for special needs teaching in schools broken down by type of school. [76119]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The allocation of funding to maintained schools by local education authorities is governed by regulations made under section 47 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. The current (2002) regulations give wide discretion to authorities in the factors and criteria to be used for the funding of special needs, both in mainstream schools and in special schools. In November 2001, the Department issued good practice guidance The Distribution of Resources to Support Inclusion, on approaches to the delegation and distribution of resources for meeting the needs of pupils with special educational needs and those with other additional needs in mainstream schools. From 2003 onwards the schools forums established under s.43 of the Education Act 2002 will advise local education authorities on their funding arrangements for special needs.

  Disabled Students (Access)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress has been made by each local education authority in developing strategies to improve accessibility for disabled pupils; and if she will make a statement. [76002]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  This information is not collected centrally. The statutory duty on local education authorities to improve accessibility for disabled pupils came into effect from 1 September 2002 and requires them to publish their strategies on 1 April 2003. OfSTED will be monitoring the implementation of this new duty, including the quality of local education authorities' accessibility strategies.

  The School Access Initiative was established in 1996 to help local education authorities improve the accessibility of their schools to disabled pupils. Over £174 million has been made available since that date, including some £70m in 2002–03. A further £300m will be available during 2003–04 to 2005–06.

  Asylum Seekers' Accommodation Centres
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the subject areas in the national curriculum that will not be available to children taught in asylum seekers' accommodation centres. [76141]
  205W
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 21 October]: All the National Curriculum subjects will be taught in accommodation centres. Departmental officials are working with the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) to agree how this commitment can be delivered to maximise the educational opportunities for children and young people who will be in these centres for a maximum of 9 months. There will also be intensive support provided to help them learn English.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills who will be responsible for identifying gifted and talented children in asylum seekers' accommodation centres. [76142]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 21 October]: On arrival in an accommodation centre, children will receive an initial assessment, covering their previous educational experience, attainment and knowledge of English. It will be the responsibility of the education contractor to conduct these assessments and, by so doing, identify any gifted and talented children. After which appropriate provision will be made, if necessary, (but exceptionally) outside the accommodation centres.

  Spell-It Research
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to incorporate the Spell-It infant research into mainstream schools. [76120]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  We were pleased to support this research in partnership with the Dyslexia Institute, York University, the Community Fund, WH Smith and the Dyslexia Institute's Bursary Fund.

  We will look carefully at the findings in the context of our interest in the role of early intervention in addressing special educational needs. Officials plan to meet with representatives of the Dyslexia Institute to discuss the findings and other issues associated with dyslexia and literacy.

  Separate Education
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to educate(a) children seeking asylum and (b) other children recently arrived in the UK separately from other children. [76140]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 21 October]: All recently arrived children, whatever their immigration status, are given the same opportunities as all other children to access education. The Department has no plans to provide separate education for unaccompanied asylum seeker children or for the vast majority of other children recently arrived in the UK.

  A minority of children whose families seek asylum and are destitute may be educated in accommodation centres which will provide a complete support package for the family, including education. This education will be of the same breadth and quality as that delivered in schools and will be specifically tailored to meet their particular needs. There will be also be intensive support provided to help them learn English and the education provision will be inspected by Ofsted.
  206W

  University Drop-out Rates
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her estimate of the drop-out rate at each English university for the last year for which figures are available is; and if she will make a statement. [76161]

  Margaret Hodge
  The available information on non-completion rates, showing figures for each HE institution in the UK, is contained in "Performance Indicators in Higher Education", published by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). Copies of the latest edition, covering students who entered HE in 1998/99, are available in the House library.

  The figures show an overall non-completion rate of 17 per cent., a figure which has stayed roughly constant since 1991–92. In 2000, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) published figures comparing estimates of non-completion in member countries, and these showed that the UK had the second lowest non-completion rate among OECD countries.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Human Rights Trials
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Advocate-General what steps she is taking to seek clarification of the law in relation to undue delay in trial contrary to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. [73601]

  The Advocate-General
  I intervened in the case of R v HMA which is a leading case concerning pre-trial delay. I appeared personally in the case before the Appeal Court in Scotland on 12–14 March and before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on 15–16 October 2002. Given that the case was only heard last week, it will be some time before the Judicial Committee issues its opinion.

  Devolution
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Advocate-General what devolution issues have been raised with her since 10 July under the Scotland Act 1998. [73600]

  The Advocate-General
  I refer my hon. Friend to my oral answer today,Official Report, c. 113.

SCOTLAND

  Pensioners
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on Government policies designed to raise the living standards of Scottish pensioners. [73576]

  Mrs. Liddell
  We have introduced the Minimum Income Guarantee for poorer pensioners; Winter Fuel Payments for people aged 60 and over; free TV licences for the over 75s; and will introduce the new pension credit next year. This will mean that no single pensioner need live on less than £100 a week and no pensioner couple on less than £154 a week.
  207W

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive about reform of the CAP. [73577]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have regular discussions with the Scottish Executive on a wide range of issues.

  Friends of Scotland Scheme
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, how many volunteers have been signed up to the Friends of Scotland scheme. [73578]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office has to date recruited well over 100 people in 16 countries.

  Regional Airports
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, if she will make a statement on regional airports in Scotland. [73579]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government's Consultation Document, "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: Scotland" seeks views on a number of important aspects of air services within Scotland including the future development of airports.

  These views will help inform the Government's forthcoming Aviation White Paper which will set out the long term strategy to provide the policy and infrastructural framework for the development of air services for all of Scotland over the next 30 years.

  Royal Navy Facilities
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what recent discussions she has had with Secretary of State for Defence on Royal Navy facilities in Scotland. [73580]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have regular discussions with the Secretary of State for Defence on a range of defence matters including Navy facilities in Scotland.

  HMNB Clyde represents one of, if not the, largest single site industrial employer in Scotland. The decision to base the Astute Class submarines at Faslane with an estimated service life of 20 years, alongside the existing Vanguard Class, will provide long term job security for many of the 5000 Naval Base employees.

  Meat Imports
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive and DEFRA regarding French action in preventing imports of Scottish meat and its effects on the Scottish agriculture industry. [73581]

  Mrs. McGuire
  I have regular discussions with the Scottish Executive and DEFRA on a wide range of issues.

  The French Government announced on 2 October that it had decided to lift the ban on British beef imports. Implementation of the decision is expected soon.
  208W

  Defence Jobs
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what recent assessment she has made of the number of defence-related jobs in Scotland. [73582]

  Mrs. McGuire
  In 2000 (the latest year for which figures are available) the total deployment of defence personnel in Scotland was 24,400 of whom 15,100 were service personnel and 9,300 were civilian employees. This represents around 9.2per cent. of UK defence personnel deployment.

  Benefits
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what steps she is taking to encourage the take-up of benefits by Scottish pensioners. [73583]

  Mrs. McGuire
  We are determined to improve take up. The Department for Work and Pensions have established their new Pension Service; we have revised and shortened the claim form for the Minimum Income Guarantee; and we are working with pensioner organisations and local authorities on a range of initiatives.

  Rosyth Ferry Service
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, if she will make a statement on the introduction of the ferry service from Rosyth to Europe. [73585]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The commencement earlier this year of Scotland's new direct ferry link with mainland Europe is a great boost to Scotland's environment with the potential for thousands of miles of lorry trips to be taken off our roads. It is more than just that though; it also improves our competitive position as an exporting nation and as a tourist destination. Exporters now have the option of a direct, regular & reliable route to our key markets in the heart of Europe and I would encourage freight companies to think carefully about making best use of this.

  The establishment of this historic new ferry service is yet another example of how effective co-operation between Scottish Ministers and the Government within the devolution settlement is delivering tangible benefits to Scottish people and businesses in their daily lives.

  Pensions
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what action she is taking to consult Scottish business and trade union interests on macro-economic issues relating to pensions. [73586]

  Mrs. McGuire
  My right hon. Friend and I have frequent meetings with business and trade union interests. The Government will publish a pensions Green Paper later this year which will initiate a wide-ranging consultation process.

  Universal Bank
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what discussions she has had with the Department for Trade and Industry and the Department for Work and Pensions regarding the Universal Bank. [73587]
  209W
  Mrs. McGuire
  I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues on a wide range of matters.

  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what discussions she has had with the Department for Trade and Industry and the Department for Work and Pensions regarding the Universal Bank. [73589]

  Mrs. McGuire
  I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues on a wide range of matters.

  Prisoner's Rights
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what steps she is taking to ensure that the rights of prisoners under Scottish law are considered in the debate on the Future of Europe with reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. [73588]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government is committed to maintaining a policy towards the EU that focuses on a Union that is more transparent, accountable, effective, and better able to deliver on issues which matter to its citizens. This provides our focus to the Future of Europe debate.

  In the context of the planned enlargement to 25 or more States, the framework for the debate on the Future of Europe amounts to a fundamental re-examination of the institutional architecture of the EU. The Government's priority is to make sure that any eventual changes are designed to make the EU better able to ensure, and more focussed upon, the delivery of results for the people of Europe.

  The Government is in regular contact with the devolved administrations, which are involved in the debate on the Future of Europe in line with the terms of the Concordat on the Co-ordination of EU Policy Issues.

  Drugs
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, when she last met the Home Secretary to discuss changes in drug classification, and its implications for the Scottish legal framework. [73590]

  Mrs. McGuire
  My right hon. Friend has regular discussions with the Home Secretary on a range of issues.

  The classification of drugs is a reserved matter and is governed by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, which applies across the United Kingdom. Any changes in classification will therefore apply in Scotland.

  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what steps she is taking to intensify the campaign against drugs in Scotland. [73596]

  Mrs. McGuire
  We are continuing to work with Home Office and Scottish Executive colleagues to stress the anti-drugs message and highlight drug control initiatives. The new Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 extends 210W
  to Scotland and will put in place an enhanced and effective system for seizing assets from drug related crime and other criminal activity.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what steps are being taken to ensure the enforcement of the national minimum wage in Scotland. [73591]

  Mrs. McGuire
  Inland Revenue has specialist enforcement teams based in Aberdeen and East Kilbride who are responsible for enforcing the national minimum wage in Scotland. The teams follow up complaints made by workers and third parties about non-compliance and use other Revenue risk based data to identify employers for enquiry. Since April 1999, the teams have conducted 1,910 inspections and recovered of over £660,000 in wage arrears for low paid workers in Scotland.

  Scottish Parliament
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, when she plans to announce the results of the consultation process on the size of the Scottish Parliament. [73592]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I hope to be able to announce a decision on the future size of the Scottish Parliament before the end of the year.

  Child Protection
  Mr. James Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, if she will create(a) a child-safeguarding board and (b) multi-agency child safeguarding teams in Scotland to increase the effectiveness of professionals in the field. [73593]

  Mrs. McGuire
  This is a devolved matter for the Scottish Executive.

  Gaelic Broadcasting
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what plans she has to encourage Gaelic broadcasting. [73594]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government set out its plans for a new body to oversee Gaelic broadcasting in the policy document that accompanied the draft Communications Bill published on 7 May. The new body would build on the strengths of the Gaelic Broadcasting Committee and have a broader representative base, including the main broadcaster interests and others responsible for the development of Gaelic language and culture. It would also have powers to develop a strategy for a Gaelic television and radio service to meet the aspirations of the Gaelic community.

  Ship Building
  Mr. Bill Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, if she will make a statement on the Scotland Office's role in promoting the shipbuilding industry in Scotland. [73595]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Shipbuilding, as a modern, innovative and technology intensive industry, continues to make an important contribution to the Scottish economy and has
  211W
  gained significant benefits from defence procurement. My Department and I will continue to ensure that the particular Scottish interests within UK shipbuilding are represented both at home and abroad. As such I was delighted to visit Scotstoun on 22 June to perform the launch ceremony for K DB Jerambak, the third Offshore Patrol Vessel on order from the Royal Brunei Navy.

TREASURY

  Euro
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if his Department has completed the preliminary technical work relating to five economic tests for the euro and if he will make a statement; [75718]

  (2) when he plans to start the assessment of the five economic tests for euro membership; and if he will make a statement. [75719]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 15 October,Official Report, column 607W.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which staff within Her Majesty's Treasury will carry out the assessment of the five economic tests for membership of the euro; and if he will make a statement. [75840]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) on 20 May,Official Report, column 105W.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his assessment of how the monetary transmission mechanism of the UK economy differs from that of the euro area. [75841]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government has said that it will complete an assessment of the five economic tests within two years of the start of this Parliament. The assessment has not yet started, but the necessary preliminary analysis—technical work that is necessary to allow us to undertake the assessment within two years as promised—is underway.

  As we set out in "Paper for the Treasury Select Committee on the Treasury's Approach to the Preliminary and Technical Work" issued on 6 September: A number of supporting studies will be published encompassing the preliminary and technical work … When the assessment is complete, the detailed supporting studies will be published alongside, all to be subject to intensive public scrutiny and debate." More detail on the supporting studies is given in the Paper.

  EU Growth and Stability Pact
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on progress in reforming the European Union Growth and Stability Pact. [75720]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government has consistently said that it supports a prudent interpretation of the Stability Pact, which takes into account the impact of the economic cycle, sustainability and the important role of public investment. We continue to discuss this with our EU colleagues.
  212W

  Indirect Taxation
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what improvements have been made to the collection of statistics published on 5 May 1998,Official Report, column 331; what plans he has to introduce new indices of indirect taxation; and if he will make a statement. [74556]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The statistics in question relate to "typical" families in the UK. The impact of indirect taxes on a typical family are imprecise as spending patterns vary widely between households with the same composition and income level. We have no plans to introduce new indices of indirect taxation.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many married women paying the reduced rate of National Insurance contributions opted to pay the full rate in each year since 1977; [74723]

  (2) how many married women who have paid reduced rate National Insurance contributions opted to buy back past years to increase their benefit entitlement, in each year since 1977. [74724]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of married women paying at the reduced rate of National Insurance contributions who opted to pay the full rate would only be available for the years requested at disproportionate cost. However, available estimates based on a 3 per cent. sample of the National Insurance Recording System (NIRS2) are in the table.

  Numbers of women opting to pay at the full rate after paying reduced rate contributions

  1997–1998

  12,100

  1998–1999

  14,900

  1999–2000

  11,600

  2000–2001

  7,200

  Current legislation does not allow married women the option to buy back years covered by a reduced rate election to increase their benefit entitlement.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the categories of people who had to pay reduced rate class 1 national insurance contributions; and, for each category, whether entitlement to contributory benefits was gained; [76114]

  (2) if he will list the categories of people given the option to pay reduced rate class 1 national insurance contributions (a) before and (b) after 5 April 1977; and, for each category, whether entitlement to contributory benefits was gained. [76113]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Married women and widows married before 5 April 1977 could elect, if the election was made before 12 May 1977, to pay reduced rate National Insurance contributions. The reduced rate contributions they elected to pay only covered them for Industrial Injuries Benefits. They did not build up entitlement to other contributory benefits in their own right. However, these women may receive a basic state pension based on their husband's contribution record when he retires and claims his state retirement pension.
  213W

  Plastic Bag Levy
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has carried out of the levy on plastic bags introduced in Ireland. [75596]

  John Healey
  The Government keeps under review developments and experience of relevant taxes in other countries. The Government currently has no plans to introduce a plastic bag tax.

  Digital Hearing Aids
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason VAT is levied on digital hearing aids. [75626]

  John Healey
  There is no VAT on digital hearing aids supplied to patients by the NHS. The provision of a digital hearing aid by way of business involves two supplies for the purposes of VAT: hearing equipment, which is charged with VAT at the standard rate, and a dispensing service, which is exempt from VAT.

  Long-standing formal agreements with our European partners mean that we are unable to change the existing VAT treatment for hearing aids.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to reduce the levels of smuggling of heroin from Afghanistan. [75419]

  John Healey
  The UK is pursuing a number of initiatives to reduce the levels of smuggling of heroin from Afghanistan, ranging from building the expertise of Afghan counter-narcotics officers to gathering and sharing intelligence with law enforcement partners about all aspects of the trade along the smuggling routes.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with ministers concerning opium production in Afghanistan and its likely effect on the availability of heroin in Britain; and if he will make a statement. [75420]

  John Healey
  Regular meetings are held at both Ministerial and official level to discuss a range of issues concerning Afghanistan, including opium production, poverty relief, reconstruction and security sector reform.

  Estate Sales
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what parts of the Customs and Excise estate have been sold, and to whom, since 1997; [75681]

  (2) what parts of the Inland Revenue estate have been sold, and to whom, since 1997. [75683]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The bulk of both Departments' properties was sold to Mapeley STEPS Ltd in April 2001 as part of a contract for the provision of serviced accommodation over a 20 year period. The number of properties sold to Mapeley STEPS Ltd by the Inland Revenue was 101 with a total area of approximately 387,000 square metres. The corresponding figures for Customs and Excise were 35 properties and an area of approximately 92,000 square metres.
  214W
  Other than the disposals in connection with the STEPS contract, no comprehensive central record of property disposals exists and one could only be reconstructed at disproportionate cost. But properties known to have been disposed of are:

  Inland Revenue

  Dundonald House. Bexhill on Sea sold to the Police Authority

  Stuart House, Edinburgh sold to G.A. Properties Ltd

  Montrose House, Glasgow sold to G.A. Properties Ltd

  Highland House, Manchester sold to London Regional (Manchester) Properties Ltd

  Holborn House, Stockport sold to London Regional (Manchester) Properties Ltd

  St. Johns House, Bootle sold to Bootle PFI solutions 1998 (2) Ltd

  Customs & Excise

  Portcullis House, Hull

  Custom House, Salcombe

  Custom House, Fowey

  Custom House, Stornoway

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what part of HM Treasury estate have been sold, and to whom, since 1997. [75682]

  Dawn Primarolo
  None.

  Online Tax Assessment
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list which(a) software and (b) hardware is not able to access the Inland Revenue's online assessment forms. [75163]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As to(a), the Inland Revenue only has available information relating to the software that can be used. Customers can either use the Inland Revenue's own software "SA Online" or software provided by a third party supplier. A list of approved commercial software is available on the Inland Revenue Website.

  The information sought under (b) is not available. The Inland Revenue is able only to advise what hardware is required to use the service. The service is compatible with the most popular hardware and software, and the Inland Revenue's requirements are in line with similar commercial products, such as Internet Banking.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of online assessment users failed to send their information due to(a) technical incompatability or (b) website failure. [75164]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested is not available.

  Insurance
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to act as an insurer of last resort in relation to employers' liability insurance and public liability insurance. [75851]

  Ruth Kelly
  None.

  Personal Pensions Sales
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of the cases reviewed under the FSA Review
  215W
  of personal pensions sales have indicated a financial loss necessitating compensation; and of these, in how many cases the reviewing company has (a) recompensed that financial loss and (b) yet to recompense that financial loss. [76321]

  Ruth Kelly
  The FSA Review indicated financial loss in 1,099,907 cases. Of these 1,006,173 cases have been recompensed, leaving 93,734 yet to be recompensed.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cases were reviewed and how many cases remain to be reviewed under(a) the Financial Services Authority Review of Personal Pensions Sales and (b) the FSA Review of Free Standing Additional Voluntary Contribution Sales. [76320]

  Ruth Kelly
  The latest information from the FSA is as follows:

  Number of Cases

  Personal Pensions

  Free Standing Additional Voluntary Contributions

  Reviewed

  1,570,079

  99,314

  To be reviewed

  41,028

  5,644

  Pension Annuities
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many respondents to the consultation document on annuities put forward the suggestion for a money back guarantee on the purchase of pension annuities; and in what way the views of these respondents were reflected in the analysis of the responses to the consultation. [76340]

  Ruth Kelly
  Out of a total of 601 responses, 29 included comments on the idea of a money back guarantee. The summary of responses published on 18 July gave a broad picture of the consultation feedback. The complete set of responses was placed in the Library on the same date.

  As indicated in the reply given on 18 July 2002 to the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger), Official Report, column 467W, any reforms to annuities will need to dovetail with simplification and other reforms being considered in the pensions Green Paper this autumn.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the proportion of(a) total income tax and (b) all taxes paid by the top 10 per cent. of income tax payers by income for each year since 1980–81. [76294]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It would only be possible to provide a reliable answer at disproportionate cost. Some of the information is, however, available in table 2.4 of Inland Revenue Statistics which is available on Inland Revenue's website www.inlandrevenue.goy.uk. Estimates for some earlier years are also available in table 2.3 of the 1993 edition of Inland Revenue Statistics which is available in the Library of the House.
  216W

  ECOFIN Council
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the outcome was of the ECOFIN Council held on 8 October; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [76605]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I attended the ECOFIN meeting on 8 October.

  The Presidency and Commission gave an oral progress report on negotiations with third countries on the draft EU Directive on Savings. It was decided that the Commission should continue negotiations on the basis of its current mandate.

  ECOFIN had an orientation discussion on the Presidency's proposed guidelines for an energy tax directive. The UK supported the Presidency's draft guidelines. ECOFIN will further consider the outstanding issues at its meeting on 5 November.

  On streamlining of economic reform processes and the review of the Employment Strategy, it was agreed that ECOFIN would have a full discussion in November, on the basis of a joint report by the Economic and Financial Committee (EFC) and Economic Policy Committee (EPC).

  Council held an orientation debate on the budgetary and financial aspects of enlargement ahead of the Brussels European Council on 24–25 October. Along with other Member States, the UK stressed the importance of enlargement taking place on a sustainable financial basis and the need for parallel progress on reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, including degressivity of direct payments.

  ECOFIN endorsed the Economic and Financial Committee's proposals on new arrangements for financial stability, supervision and integration. The proposals will now go for consultation with the European Parliament as well as industry and consumer organisations before adoption by ECOFIN in December.

  Council adopted conclusions on Macro-Financial Assistance and approved an updated Common understanding on economic issues for Russia.

  The Commission stated its intention to end the state aid exemption for aviation insurance from 31 October, and set out criteria for possible participation in a mutual insurance fund. The Presidency noted that any member state that wished to continue their state guarantee scheme beyond 31 October would have to apply for general state aid clearance in the normal way. The EFC will continue discussions on mutual insurance funds to inform future ECOFIN consideration.

  At the UK's request, the Commission was asked to produce clarification for EU Ambassadors in COREPER on the scope for an EDF (European Development Fund) contribution to financing the shortfall in the Highly Indebted Poor Countries initiative.

  No votes were taken at the meeting.
  217W

  Mortality Rates
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what the death rate is for(a) lung, (b) breast, (c) prostate, (d) ovarian and (e) leukaemia cancer patients within the NHS; and what the figures were for each year since 1997. [75785]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Gregory Barker, dated 22 October 2002:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your question asking what the death rate is for (a) lung, (b) breast, (c) prostate, (d) ovarian and (e) leukaemia cancer patients within the NHS; and what the figures were for each year since 1997. I am replying in his absence. (75785)

  The information that is available on deaths from cancer is given in the attached table, and relates to all those occurring in England and Wales in each year. It is likely that the vast majority of these will have had some contact with the NHS during their treatment, but it is not possible to state which were NHS patients.

  Age-standardised death rates1 per million: selected cancers, by sex England and Wales 1997–2000

  Trachea, bronchus and lung (162)

  Breast* (174)

  Ovary and other uterine adnexa (183)

  Prostate (185)

  eukaemia (204–208)

  Calendar year3

  Males

  1997

  649

  —

  —

  277

  66

  1998

  641

  —

  —

  274

  66

  1999

  609

  —

  —

  270

  66

  2000

  590

  —

  —

  257

  66

  Females

  1997

  285

  336

  115

  —

  43

  1998

  291

  327

  117

  —

  40

  1999

  289

  318

  112

  —

  44

  2000

  285

  310

  110

  —

  39

  1 Directly age-standardised to the European standard population.

  2 Cause of death was defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes given in brackets in the table

  3 Figures are for deaths occurring in each calendar year

  Cm 5570
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when Her Majesty's Treasury published the correction note to Cm 5570; for what reason it was necessary to make changes to the original document; what action has been taken to avoid such errors in future; and if he will make a statement. [76162]

  Mr. Boateng
  The note was published on 9 September 2002 to correct a number of typographical errors in the document. The Treasury makes every effort 218W
  to ensure that published documents are fully accurate and will continue to do so. However, where minor errors are identified after publication, it is right that these are corrected publicly.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of people using an incorrect national insurance number. [76182]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue as part of its normal business checks that people are using the right National Insurance numbers. When an error has occurred, we seek to correct it and inform the individual. It is not possible, except at disproportionate cost, to estimate the number of people who use an incorrect number.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many letters have been sent in the last five years to inform people that they have been using an incorrect national insurance number; and if he will make a statement. [76181]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is not possible to establish the number of letters sent in the last five years about incorrect National Insurance numbers except at disproportionate cost.

  CR74 Computer System
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the estimated cost is of the CR74 computer system. [76183]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue does not have an IT system called CR74. This is the internal name for a series of activities to enable Inland Revenue to manage its records better.

  Biofuels
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to increase the rebate on biofuels; and if he will make a statement. [75947]

  John Healey
  The Government's taxation plans are announced in the Chancellor's annual Budget statement.

  VAT
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many businesses(a) registered for VAT and (b) de-registered for VAT there were per 10,000 resident adult population in (i) the UK, (ii) the North West and (iii) Blackpool in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [75977]

  John Healey
  Customs currently maintain this data on VAT registration and deregistration on a national basis.

  The numbers of businesses registered and deregistered for VAT per 10,000 resident adult population in the UK in each of the last five years were:

  219W

  Year Ended 30 June

  Registered

  Deregistered

  1997

  41

  35

  1998

  43

  34

  1999

  42

  36

  2000

  41

  38

  2001

  40

  35

  Travel Insurance
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact on the travel insurance industry of recent events in Bali. [74961]

  Ruth Kelly
  I am not aware of any changes to the position of UK travel insurers following the recent tragedy in Bali.

  Equity Release Schemes
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he proposes to protect retired people in respect of equity release schemes. [75156]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury is giving the Financial Services Authority (FSA) responsibility for regulating mortgage business, including mortgage based equity release arrangements. In August, the FSA published CP 146 which sets out its approach to regulating mortgage sales including lifetime mortgages (the FSA's term for regulated equity release mortgages). It is expected that regulation of lifetime and other mortgages will come into force in October 2004.

  Departmental Websites
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the website links associated with his Department, including sites now dormant or closed, and indicating whether they are live, dormant or closed; what the start up costs were for each site listed; what the operating costs were in each year since start up for each site; which company hosted each site; what assessment takes place for each site; which company does the assessment; if he will place the assessment reports in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [75579]

  Ruth Kelly
  As well as the main Treasury web site (www.hm-treasury.gov.uk), the Treasury is also responsible for the following sites:

  Site name

  Start up costs

  www.addingitup.gov.uk

  £23,000

  www.euro.gov.uk

  £9,602

  The Government Economic Service's recruitment site (www.ges.gov.uk)

  £4,310

  Invest to Save web site (www.isb.gov.uk)

  £13,098

  Whole of Government accounts site (www.wga.gov.uk)

  £500

  The Commonwealth Finance Ministers Site (www.cfmm2002.org)

  £4,175

  Figures are exclusive of VAT unless otherwise indicated.

  For information on the start up costs of the recently relaunched main Treasury site, I refer the Hon member to the reply I gave to the member for Arundel & South Downs (Mr. Howard Flight), 19 December 2001, Official Report, column 321W.
  220W
  The Treasury was the first Government Department to have a web site and over the last eight years has developed and maintained a series of web sites. Complete start up and running costs for all Treasury related sites launched since 1994, including dormant and closed ones, could not be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.

  The Treasury's websites are hosted by commercial companies whose contracts are subject to regular review. Anticipated costs on hosting services over the next twelve months will be approximately £40,000 with another £50,000 spent on technical management and support. Information relating to the individual companies hosting the site could not be disclosed under Exemption 7 (Effective Management and Operation of the Public Services) of the Code of Conduct on Access to Government Information. The Treasury has not, to date, commissioned external companies to provide reports on its web sites.

  Penrose Inquiry
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to receive the report from Lord Penrose's inquiry into Equitable Life. [75397]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) on 15 October,Official Report, column 608W.

  Focus Group Research
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what use he and his Department has made of focus group research since June 2001; if he will identify for each research project the topics covered, the person or organisation carrying out the research, and the total cost; and if he will publish the research on his Department's website. [74998]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Treasury Estate
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask Chancellor of the Exchequer, what parts of HM Treasury estate have been sold, and to whom, since 1997. [75682]

  Dawn Primarolo
  None.

  Suicides
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what the average age-standardised mortality rate from suicide per 100,000 working-age adults was in 1998,(b) 1999 and (c) 2000. [75636]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Evan Harris, dated 22 October 2002:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your question asking what the average European age-standardised mortality rate from suicide per 100,000 working adults was in (a) 1998,(b) 1999 and (c) 2000. I am replying in his absence. (75636)

  221W
  The figures requested are given in the table below. Figures for men and women are shown separately, as different age groups are used to classify working age depending on sex.

  Age-standardised1 mortality rate for suicide and injury undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted2 for adults of working age3 by sex in England and Wales, 1998 to 2000

  rate per 100,000

  Calendar year4

  Men

  Women

  1998

  20 8

  5 5

  1999

  20.4

  5.7

  2000

  18.8

  5.8

  Sources:

  1 Directly age-standardised to the European standard population.

  2 Cause of death was defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes E950-E959 and E980-E989 excluding E988.8.

  3 Adults of working age were classified as men aged between 16 and 64 and women aged between 16 and 59.

  4 Figures are for deaths occurring in each calendar year

  Prostate Cancer
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of state for Health, when figures for the incidence of prostrate cancer in the UK as whole will be available. [75806]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Gregory Barker, dated 22 October 2002:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question concerning when figures for the incidence of prostate cancer in the UK as a whole will be available. (75806)

  The numbers of newly diagnosed cases and directly age standardised rates for prostate cancer in the United Kingdom and its constituent countries for 1998 are available and are given in the table below.

  Figures for the United Kingdom for 1999 are expected to be available early in 2003.

  Number of newly diagnosed cases and directly age standardised* registration rates per 100,000 males for prostate† cancer by country in the United Kingdom, 1998

  Number

  Rate

  United Kingdom

  22916

  67.4

  England

  19335

  67.6

  Wales

  1262

  68.1

  Scotland

  1839

  66.4

  N Ireland

  480

  61.2

  Notes:

  * Using the European Standard Population

  †International Classification of Disease Tenth Revision Code C61

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Sex Offenders
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many persons on the Sex Offenders Register are registered at addresses in Southampton, Portsmouth and Hampshire, and on the Isle of Wight; [23943]
  222W
  (2) how many persons on the Sex Offenders Register, registered at addresses on the Isle of Wight, were (a) never convicted of a sex offence and (b) convicted of a sex offence (i) within the last two years, (ii) 3–5 years ago, (iii) 6–10 years ago, (iv) 11–20 years ago and (v) more than 20 years ago; [23944]

  (3) how many persons on the Sex Offenders Register, registered at addresses on the Isle of Wight, were (a) never imprisoned as a result of a sex offence and (b) released from imprisonment for a sex offence (i) within the last two years, (ii) 3–5 years ago, (iii) 6–10 years ago, (iv) 11–20 years ago and (v) more than 20 years ago; [23945]

  (4) what offences have been committed in the last 10 years by those persons on the Sex Offenders Register who are registered at addresses on the Isle of Wight. [23946]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 19 December 2001]: The Sex Offenders Act 1997 requires offenders cautioned for, convicted of, or found not guilty by reason of insanity of an offence specified in Schedule One to the Act since the date of its implementation to notify their local police of their names, addresses, dates of birth and intentions to travel abroad for eight days or longer. There is, however, no register of sex offenders, as such; nor are sex offenders subject to the requirements of the Sex Offenders Act separately identified as such in criminal statistics.

  The Home Office has issued guidance to chief officers of police and probation in respect of their statutory duty under section 67 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 to make arrangements for the assessment and management of the risk posed by dangerous offenders. The guidance requires information about the number of registered sex offenders in each police area to be published. A copy of the relevant annual report, which reveals there are 713 registered sex offenders in Hampshire, translating to a rate of 40 per one hundred thousand of the population can be obtained from the Hampshire police or Probation Services. Detailed Information requested is not available centrally.

  Traffic Policing
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the UK police forces which have a dedicated traffic enforcement division, how many officers there were in the divisions; and what these figures were as a percentage of the force strength; [73427]

  (2) if he will list the UK police forces which have disbanded their dedicated traffic divisions in the last 10 years; [73428]

  (3) what the budget for traffic enforcement was in each police force for the last 10 years; and what each figure was expressed as a percentage of the force budget. [73429]

  Mr. Denham
  The two tables give the information readily available. Table 1 sets out for each police force in England and Wales in 2001–02 the number of officers in traffic posts ("traffic police"). Traffic police are defined as "staff who are predominantly employed on
  223W
  motorcycles or in patrol vehicles for the policing of traffic and motorway related duties". The definition does not include accident investigation, vehicle examination or radar duties. No records are kept centrally of which forces organise their traffic posts into dedicated traffic enforcement divisions or which forces have disbanded dedicated traffic enforcement divisions.

  Table 2 sets out for each force in England and Wales the net cost of traffic and road safety for the past two years, showing each force's spend on these as a proportion of the force budget. The table shows that, over the two-year period, spend on traffic and road safety increased as a proportion of the force budget in a significant number of forces.

  A thematic inspection report on road policing by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, published in 1998, identified an intelligence-led model for this activity, integrating traffic policing with other core activities and making more effective use of police resources. As forces increasingly adopt this approach, the number of dedicated traffic officers may reduce, but this does not necessarily reflect a lower level of enforcement. The increased use of cameras and other technology can allow a reduction in traffic officers whilst maintaining traffic targets/ enforcement levels. It also allows traffic officers to be appropriately targeted elsewhere. Reductions in the numbers of traffic officers, taken by themselves, can therefore be misleading.

  Table 1: Numbers of traffic police in 2001–02

  No of Traffic Police

  Total Strength

  Percentage of Force Strength

  Avon and Somerset

  214

  3,096

  6.9

  Bedfordshire

  6.9

  1,069

  6.5

  Cambridgeshire

  78

  1,362

  5.7

  Cheshire

  194

  2,059

  9.4

  Table 2: Traffic and road safety net costs 2000–01 TO 2001–02 (only 2 years available)

  Net cost of traffic & road safety 2000–01

  Spend as proportion of net budget requirement 2000–01

  Net cost of traffic & road safety 2001–02

  Spend as proportion of net budget requirement 2001–02

  Avon & Somerset

  £18,620,000

  10.25%

  £19,772,000

  10.42%

  Bedfordshire

  £4,377,000

  6.56%

  £4,646,000

  6.57%

  Cambridgeshire

  £6,173,000

  7.76%

  £8,054,000

  9.57%

  Cheshire

  £5,535,000

  4.81%

  £5,420,000

  4.45%

  City Of London

  £2,364,000

  4.08%

  £2,483,000

  4.16%

  Cleveland

  £3,949,000

  4.46%

  £4,073,000

  4.49%

  Cumbria

  £6,159,000

  9.14%

  £4,590,000

  6.50%

  Derbyshire

  £12,632,000

  11.37%

  £12,581,000

  10.76%

  Devon & Cornwall

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  Dorset

  £4,330,000

  5.34%

  £4,415,000

  5.22%

  Durham

  £4,946,000

  5.89%

  £5.503,000

  6.28%

  Dyfed-Powys

  £2,176,000

  3.69%

  £3,147,000

  5.00%

  Essex

  £8,479,000

  4.63%

  £9,312,000

  4.78%

  Gloucestershire

  £4,595,000

  6.70%

  £4,592,000

  6.36%

  Greater Manchester

  £8,545,000

  2.17%

  £23,590,000

  5.74%

  Gwent

  £4,637,000

  6.09%

  £4,717,000

  5.85%

  Hampshire

  £20,241,000

  9.89%

  £21,443,000

  9.92%

  Hertfordshire

  £12,424,000

  10.02%

  £10,679,000

  8.25%

  Humberside

  £8,170,000

  6.87%

  £10,700,000

  8.35%

  Kent

  £5,701,000

  2.95%

  £5,638,000

  2.73%

  Lancashire

  £16,518,000

  8.69%

  £17,388,000

  8.73%

  Leicestershire

  £5,420,000

  4.92%

  N/A

  N/A

  Lincolnshire

  £4,200,000

  5.79%

  N/A

  N/A

  Merseyside

  £13,772,000

  5.43%

  £16,317,000

  6.16%

  Metropolitan Police

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  224W

  Table 1: Numbers of traffic police in 2001–02

  No of Traffic Police

  Total Strength

  Percentage of Force Strength

  City of London

  25

  764

  3.3

  Cleveland

  67

  1,461

  4.6

  Cumbria

  108

  1,100

  9.8

  Derbyshire

  140

  1,848

  7.6

  Devon and Cornwall

  187

  3,053

  6.1

  Dorset

  81

  1,381

  5.9

  Durham

  113

  1,614

  7.0

  Dyfed-Powys

  75

  1,132

  6.6

  Essex

  254

  2,946

  8.6

  Gloucestershire

  64

  1,183

  5.4

  Greater Manchester

  421

  7,217

  5.8

  Gwent

  87

  1,333

  6.5

  Hampshire

  240

  3,480

  6.9

  Hertfordshire

  149

  1,825

  8.2

  Humberside

  136

  2,058

  6.6

  Kent

  104

  3,355

  3.1

  Lancashire

  220

  3,304

  6.7

  Leicestershire

  86

  2,100

  4.1

  Lincolnshire

  98

  1,198

  8.2

  Merseyside

  126

  4,125

  3.1

  Metropolitan Police

  602

  26,223

  2.3

  Norfolk

  114

  1,468

  7.8

  Northamptonshire

  61

  1,214

  5.0

  Northumbria

  178

  3,929

  4.5

  North Wales

  152

  1,506

  10.1

  North Yorkshire

  140

  1,417

  9.9

  Nottinghamshire

  111

  2,330

  4.8

  South Wales

  244

  3,222

  7.6

  South Yorkshire

  208

  3,199

  6.5

  Staffordshire

  34

  2,133

  1.6

  Suffolk

  68

  1,203

  5.7

  Surrey

  110

  1,992

  5.5

  Sussex

  174

  2,893

  6.0

  Thames Valley

  247

  3,762

  6.6

  Warwickshire

  95

  969

  9.8

  West Mercia

  325

  2,018

  16.1

  West Midlands

  385

  7,681

  5.0

  West Yorkshire

  336

  4,889

  6.9

  Wiltshire

  88

  1,157

  7.6

  225W

  Table 2: Traffic and road safety net costs 2000–01 TO 2001–02 (only 2 years available)

  Net cost of traffic & road safety 2000–01

  Spend as proportion of net budget requirement 2000–01

  Net cost of traffic & road safety 2001–02

  Spend as proportion of net budget requirement 2001–02

  Norfolk

  N/A

  N/A

  £6,081,000

  6.18%

  North Wales Police

  £8,583,000

  10.22%

  £6,427,000

  7.18%

  North Yorkshire

  £5,797,000

  7.03%

  £5,896,000

  6.87%

  Northamptonshire

  £3,534,000

  4.79%

  £4,040,000

  5.16%

  Northumbria

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  Nottinghamshire

  £2,227,000

  1.66%

  £7,431,000

  5.30%

  South Wales

  £11,425,000

  6.38%

  £13,697,000

  7.25%

  South Yorkshire

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  Staffordshire

  £8.755,000

  6.89%

  N/A

  N/A

  Suffolk

  £4,005,000

  5.46%

  £4,094,000

  5.27%

  Surrey

  £11,531,000

  9.12%

  £10,702,000

  8.74%

  Sussex

  £9.522,000

  5.46%

  £9,247,000

  5.03%

  Thames Valley

  £18.819,000

  7.90%

  £18,981,000

  7.53%

  Warwickshire

  £5,221,000

  8.84%

  £5,502,000

  8.82%

  West Mercia

  £13,910,000

  11.07%

  £15,861,000

  11.91%

  West Midlands

  £15,886,000

  4.02%

  £21,722,000

  5.29%

  West Yorkshire

  £17.936,000

  5.95%

  N/A

  N/A

  Wiltshire

  £4,769,000

  6.63%

  £4,930,000

  6.52%

  All England And Wales

  391,251,000

  5.03%

  £461,601,000

  5.65%

  Source:

  Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy Police statistics 2000–01 Actuals and 2001–02 Estimates. Total cost is not available separately for five forces, but overall figure reflects sum for all forces.

  Traffic and road safety includes traffic units; vehicle based armed response units; motorway patrol units; accident investigation units; road safety officers and speed management units.

  Roadside Checks
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many roadside checks undertaken by the Vehicle Inspectorate have had to be cancelled over the last 12 months owing to lack of police resources, broken down by police force. [73431]

  Mr. Denham
  The table gives details for each force area in England and Wales of the number of roadside checks undertaken, total Vehicle Inspectorate (VI) staff hours worked, hours lost by the VI owing to the lack of a police officer, and total police hours worked. Hours lost by the VI cover circumstances such as where police officers were called away at the time of the check to deal with local emergencies or where officers did not attend as arranged. Numbers of roadside checks where the police gave more than 24 hours' notice of cancellation or where a force could

  Area

  Police force

  No. of checks

  Total VI staff hrs

  VI lost hrs

  Total police hrs

  4

  Cumbria

  119

  2581.5

  0

  1032

  4

  Lancashire

  118

  2334

  9.5

  991.5

  5

  Derbyshire

  146

  3545

  18

  860

  5

  Greater Manchester

  181

  4698

  24.5

  1075.5

  5

  Cheshire

  75

  1993

  2.5

  440.5

  6

  Cheshire

  72

  2001

  20

  479

  6

  Mersey Tunnel

  43

  716.5

  10.5

  199.5

  6

  Merseyside

  84

  2821

  71

  522

  6

  North Wales

  54

  1430.5

  7.5

  358

  7

  Staffs

  57

  1133

  47.25

  266.75

  7

  West Mercia

  10

  140

  13

  24.25

  7

  West Mids

  19

  267.5

  0

  112.75

  7

  CPMG

  47

  1128

  59.33

  194.5

  8

  Warwickshire

  66

  1320

  0

  500

  8

  West Mercia

  72

  1575

  11

  1151

  8

  West Mids

  73

  1389

  22.5

  1141

  9

  Dyfed

  84

  1055

  27

  654

  226W
  not cover the desired number of checks because a senior police officer decided that the resources needed to go elsewhere are not recorded centrally.

  Much of the increasing demand on the police is generated by the current provision that only an officer in uniform can stop vehicles for such purposes as roadworthiness and emissions tests. The police are not always in a position to supply officers to assist the VI in this way, and the Government recognise that police involvement in VI roadside checks may not be seen as the most effective use of police resources. Provisions in the Police Reform Act 2002 enable Community Support Officers and accredited persons to be given the power to stop and direct vehicles for specific purposes. These include for tests by the VI of vehicles' roadworthiness and compliance with construction and use regulations. The Act also removes the present restriction on traffic wardens' powers to stop, so that they can also undertake such functions. These measures will benefit the VI by enabling them to have a higher level of guaranteed service.
  227W

  Area

  Police force

  No. of checks

  Total VI staff hrs

  VI lost hrs

  Total police hrs

  9

  Gwent

  51

  1295.5

  23.5

  658

  9

  South Wales

  84

  715.25

  7.75

  607.5

  10

  Avon & Somerset

  141

  2269

  8

  1260

  10

  Gloucester

  85

  928

  0

  546

  10

  Wiltshire

  92

  1175

  14

  870

  11

  Devon & Cornwall

  168

  3656

  160.5

  1812

  11

  Dorset

  82

  1300.5

  46.5

  1003.5

  11

  Avon & Somerset

  36

  833.25

  17.5

  509.75

  11

  British Transport

  0

  0

  0

  0

  12

  Hants

  22

  416.9

  11

  323

  12

  Thames Valley

  44

  742.75

  57.5

  440.25

  12

  Wiltshire

  2

  33

  0

  17

  13

  Metropolitan

  16

  378.5

  46

  76

  13

  Surrey

  110

  2815

  37

  647.55

  13

  Sussex

  105

  1882.1

  21

  604.17

  14

  Kent

  166

  3327.4

  64.25

  900.05

  14

  Sussex

  69

  1265.4

  48.5

  323.45

  15

  British Transport

  4

  55

  60

  20

  15

  Heathrow

  14

  275

  2

  65

  15

  Royal Parks

  0

  0

  0

  0

  15

  Metropolitan

  165

  3655

  93.75

  779.5

  15

  City of London

  14

  155

  0

  70

  16

  Metropolitan

  0

  0

  0

  0

  16

  Essex

  65

  1928.85

  10.5

  313.75

  16

  Herts

  58

  1449.5

  120.25

  742.5

  17

  Norfolk

  74

  1819

  130.5

  448.5

  17

  Suffolk

  20

  380.5

  0

  126

  17

  Lines

  0

  0

  0

  0

  18

  Bedfordshire

  7

  159

  4

  33.5

  18

  Northants

  19

  504.5

  69

  154

  18

  Thames Valley

  36

  1177.75

  131.5

  223.25

  18

  Leicestershire

  12

  274.5

  3

  157.5

  19

  Cambridge

  49

  677.5

  26.5

  459.5

  19

  Lines

  142

  2393.5

  24.67

  1480

  20

  Notts

  81

  2566

  4

  801.5

  20

  S Yorks

  107

  2552.5

  12

  846.5

  20

  W Yorks

  0

  0

  0

  0

  21

  Humberside

  44

  1330.5

  54.17

  239

  22

  N Yorks

  72

  1080.5

  16.83

  458.75

  22

  W Yorks

  68

  1431.5

  35

  745

  23

  Cleveland

  81

  1184

  0

  482

  23

  Northumbria

  121

  1879

  2.5

  704

  23

  N Yorks

  73

  1772

  2

  444

  23

  Durham

  88

  1170

  30

  516

  Total

  4007

  83032.65

  1783.75

  30891.22

  Street Crime
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the level of street crime changed in(a) Harrow and (b) London between January and the end of August. [74580]

  Mr. Denham
  The Home Office does not routinely publish monthly crime figures. Statistics collected by the Home Office and published on 14 October as part of the Street Crime Initiative show that street crime offences in the Metropolitan Police Area fell from 6,774 offences in the four weeks ending 30 January to 4,576 offences in the four weeks ending 28 August. This represents a reduction of 32 per cent. The definition of street crime is all robbery offences (commercial and personal) and snatch thefts.

  The information on street crime figures at borough level is not published by the Home Office.
  228W

  Illegal Parking
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has given, and what legislation is in place, regarding illegal parking. [73834]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Parking offences are contained in a number of Acts including the Highways Act 1980, the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. Guidance about illegal parking is given in the Highway Code.

  Enforcement of criminal parking offences is an operational matter for the police. The Road Traffic Act 1991 provided for the decriminalisation of most non-endorsable on-street parking offences and their enforcement by local authorities. Normally, where there is an infringement a local authority parking attendant would issue a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) to the transgressor. It is a matter for the local authority to

  229W
  ensure parking attendants are doing their jobs properly. Motorists can appeal to an independent parking adjudicator if they wish to dispute the issue of a PCN.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the co-ordination between organisations in response to any terrorist attack. [73849]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Since the attacks of 11 September, the Government has conducted a wide ranging review of the United Kingdom counter terrorist procedures and infrastructure, including physical and legislative measures to disrupt, deter and prevent terrorist activity. The Civil Contingencies Committee, which I chair, has led the review working systematically through all government departments, the emergency services, local authorities and the Devolved Administrations. In this way we are in a position to get advice on issues that require central leadership or facilitation. The arrangements are revised and tested through exercises to encourage continual improvement of our response arrangements.

  The Government's progress report "The United Kingdom and the Campaign against International Terrorism" published on 9 September, and placed in the Library, provides a summary of action taken to strengthen counter-terrorism measures within the United Kingdom.

  An external assessment by the House of Commons Defence Committee, detailed in their sixth report of session 2001–02 "Defence and Security in the United Kingdom", made further recommendations to which the Government are responding and which will help guide further work.

  To further enhance the capacity at the centre of Government to co-ordinate security, intelligence and consequence management matters and deal with risks and major emergencies should they arise, Sir David Omand KCB was appointed as Security and Intelligence Co-ordinator and Permanent Secretary to the Cabinet Office in June this year.

  Further information on the preparedness of the United Kingdom to respond to a major terrorist attack can be found on the website maintained by the Civil Contingencies Secretariat (CCS) at: http://www.ukresilience.infor/home.htm.

  Prisons
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received regarding capacity in prisons; and what plans he has to increase prison capacity. [73768]

  Hilary Benn
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State receives representations on a regular basis regarding capacity in prisons. These come from a wide variety of individuals and organisations.

  Her Majesty's Prison Service has already started an emergency building programme to increase capacity by 2,320 places by March 2003. The programme includes building modular temporary units and ready to use units at existing prisons and the deferment of some wing
  230W
  refurbishment schemes. The first of these schemes is already in operation. The Home Secretary also announced on 14 October that an additional £60 million would be provided to the Prison Service in 2003–04 to build further places to open next year. Further additional accommodation will be delivered during 2002 and 2004 as part of the expansion programmes at Her Majesty's Prison Hull and Birmingham.

  Airlines (Data Collection)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultation there has been on the revised rules under Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (Information) Order 2002; and what estimate he has made of(a) the additional time it will take for airlines to collect the data from passengers and (b) the potential delays caused by this procedure. [74084]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Following the issue of a consultation document in March this year, two rounds of consultation meetings between Home Officials and representatives of the air and sea industries took place between April and July and in August. A third round is scheduled to run from 22 October to 14 November.

  In addition, I met representatives of the industries on 11 July and my hon. Friend the Minister of State (Beverley Hughes) met them on 16 October, keeping our commitment to ensure that representatives of the industry have access to Ministers.

  These meetings have considered all the issues relevant to implementation, including how best to keep potential costs and delays to a minimum, while ensuring we are doing everything possible to disrupt and deter potential terrorists.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 24 June from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Amir Chaudhry; [74561]

  (2) when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 24 June from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Amir Chaudhry. [76237]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 18 October 2002.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 5 August from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Amanat Vilah. [74566]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 18 October 2002.

  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for West Worcestershire will receive answers to his letters of 28 August and 24 June about Ms Jackie Neilson. [76013]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: A reply to the hon. Member's letters of 24 June and 28 August is currently being prepared. I apologise for

  231W
  the considerable delay in responding to the issues he has raised; however, I can confirm that the constituent on whose behalf he contacted me was informed of the outcome of her application for a work permit on 14 August.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has considered the prospect of floating coastal accommodation centres for asylum seekers, and the cost and other implications thereof; and if he will make a statement. [75405]

  Beverley Hughes
  Site searching has continued as we said it would when we announced our shortlist for Accommodation Centre sites on 14 May. We have not ruled out the possibility of using floating accommodation centres for asylum seekers.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made to establish a system enabling the Home Office to identify the whereabouts of every asylum seeker during the period from application to final determination. [75435]

  Beverley Hughes
  We are making improvements in contact management as detailed in the current Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill. This states that asylum seekers in the proposed Accommodation Centres may be required to report daily within the Centre. We will seek to maintain contact with those asylum seekers who are dispersed. Those who do not require the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) accommodation will also be required to report. During

  Applications Received

  Total Initial Decisions

  Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave

  Refusals

  Quarter 1 2002

  2,840

  2,535

  220

  1,430

  890

  Quarter 2 2002

  3,420

  2,545

  195

  1,775

  575

  Notes:

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest five.

  2 Decision figures do not necessarily relate to applications received in the same period.

  p Provisional figures

  Data on initial decisions are independent of applications data, and do not all necessarily relate to applications lodged in the same period.

  There are no data available on asylum appeals lodged by nationality. The requested information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case records.

  In the first quarter (January to March) of 2002, an estimated 35 Iraqi principal asylum applicants were removed. This includes persons departing "voluntarily" after enforcement action had been initiated against them and persons leaving under Assisted Voluntary Return Programmes run by the International organisation for migration (IOM), and excludes dependants.

  Data on removals by nationality in the second quarter of 2002 are not yet available. This information will be published on 29 November on the Home Office
  232W
  the induction process asylum seekers will be informed of their obligations to provide up to date address details and to report as required. Provision of support will be conditional on complying with these requirements.

  The Immigration Service will manage the contact process actively. There are eight designated reporting centres which have been established throughout the country to assist in managing these reporting regimes. Contact management will be further enhanced by the use of a mobile reporting centre, by immigration staff using specified police stations for reporting and by visiting asylum seekers at their accommodation.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the latest estimated cost is of(a) building and (b) staffing the proposed pilot accommodation centres for asylum seekers. [75431]

  Beverley Hughes
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) gave to the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff) on 8 March 2002,Official Report, column 595W.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how may applications for asylum from Iraq were received in the first two quarters of 2002; how many were rejected; how many are subject to appeal; and how many removals have taken place. [75412]

  Beverley Hughes
  The table shows the number of applications received in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, and initial decisions1,2,p of Iraqi nationals for the first two quarters of 2002.

  Research, Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration 1.html.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he anticipates that the first pilot accommodation centre for asylum seekers will become operational. [75429]

  Beverley Hughes
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) of 18 June,Official Report, column 278W.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are being held in prison service accommodation; and if he will make a statement. [75423]

  Beverley Hughes
  The latest available information on the number of persons detained solely under Immigration Act powers relates to 29 June 2002. As at
  233W
  that date, 105 persons (to the nearest five) were being detained in Prison Service accommodation who are recorded as having claimed asylum at some stage.

  The routine use of Prison Service accommodation for immigration detainees ended at the beginning of this year, but it remains necessary to hold small numbers of detainees in prison for reasons of control and security. The figure of 105 may also include individuals who are held pending deportation on completion of custodial sentences.

  Information on Immigration Act detainees as at 28 September 2002 will be published on 29 November 2002 on the Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration 1.html.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what efforts he has made to renegotiate the bilateral agreement with France relating to the return of illegal entrants to France; and if he will make a statement. [75415]

  Beverley Hughes
  A bilateral "Gentleman's Agreement" between the UK and France operated in relation to asylum seekers from 1995 to 1997 and is still in force in relation to other illegal entrants. The first clause of that agreement stated that its application to asylum seekers would be superseded by the Dublin Convention when that came into force.

  We believe the most important thing is to stop the flow of clandestine immigrants from France to the UK in the first place. My right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary has developed a very constructive working relationship with his French counterpart, Mr. Sarkozy, and we are putting in place a broad range of measures which will drive this flow down. These include a commitment to closing the Sangatte centre, and tougher immigration controls and security measures.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the number of failed asylum seekers in the UK. [75416]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is unavailable, partly because it is not possible to determine the number of unsuccessful asylum seekers who leave the United Kingdom voluntarily without informing the Immigration Service of their departure.
  234W
  Information on asylum applications, decisions, appeals and removals is published regularly on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate web site at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of failed asylum seekers who were removed from the UK in the last 12 months were(a) in detention prior to removal and (b) at large prior to removal. [75413]

  Beverley Hughes
  The number of asylum seekers removed in the 12 months ending June 2002 is given in the table. More recent information is not yet available. Information on how many of these persons were in detention or at large prior to removal could be obtained only by examining individual case files at disproportionate cost.

  Asylum seekers removedp,1

  principal applicants removed

  Dependants removed

  Total asylum seekers removed

  July 2001 to June 2002

  9,890

  2,030

  11,920

  Notes:

  P Provisional data, rounded to the nearest five.

  1 Includes persons departing "voluntarily" after enforcement action had been initiated against them and persons leaving under Assisted Voluntary Return Programmes run by the International Organisation for Migration.

  Information on the number of asylum seekers removed in the third quarter (July to September) of 2002 will be published on 29 November on the Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/ immigration1.html.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what opportunities are available to those claiming asylum to change(a) caseworkers and (b) counsel allocated to them. [75482]

  Beverley Hughes
  It is open to applicants to change their representatives or counsel at any time, as they are engaged by the applicant and not allocated by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND). IND caseworkers are allocated according to the needs of the business, and it would not be open to the applicant to request a change, save in the most exceptional circumstances.
  235W

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assistance is afforded to asylum seekers to prepare their cases when they are unfamiliar with the English language; and if he will make a statement. [75483]

  Beverley Hughes
  Asylum applicants are provided with help in a language that they understand at all stages of the asylum process. Interpreters are available free of charge for all dealings with the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND).

  When an asylum application is made at a port or in country at a Screening Unit, an interpreter will be provided to help the applicant through the screening process. Where an applicant is given a Statement of Evidence Form (SEF) to complete they are provided with explanatory notes both in English and one of 33 languages. The explanatory notes set out what is expected of the applicant and the possible consequences should they fail to comply with our requests. An interpreter will be provided for any substantive interview conducted with the applicant. The applicant will previously have been asked on the SEF or during the screening process to give details of the language and dialect in which they would prefer to be interviewed.

  If an applicant is to be sent to the Oakington Reception Centre they will be given a leaflet, translated into 29 languages, which explains how their application will be considered. Interpreters are provided on site.

  Applicants who are referred to an Induction Centre receive various briefings in a language that they understand about the asylum process and how to claim support and accommodation.

  All the information supplied to the applicants includes details of how to find a representative to help with the application and details of organisations that provide assistance free of charge.

  If an asylum applicant receives a negative decision and chooses to appeal against that decision, they will be provided with an interpreter at any appeal hearing.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been forceably removed from the UK in(a) August, (b) September and (c) October. [75595]

  Beverley Hughes
  The latest available statistics on removals relate to 2001. These show that 48,155 persons (rounded to five) were removed from the United Kingdom under Immigration Act powers. This includes persons departing "voluntary" after being refused entry or after enforcement action had been initiated against them but excludes persons departing under the Assisted Voluntary Returns Programme run by the International Organisation for Migration.
  236W
  I regret that data for the months requested are not currently available.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of asylum seekers making in-country applications have applied having been in the country(a) less than one month, (b) from one to three months, (c) from three to six months, (d) from six months to one year and (e) more than one year in the last three years. [76539]

  Beverley Hughes
  I regret that the information is not available.

  Of the 20,400 applications lodged by principal applicants in the second quarter of 2002, 13,850 (68 per cent.) were lodged in-country. However, it is not possible to determine in what year these applicants first entered the United Kingdom, or whether they are currently living in the United Kingdom.

  Information on asylum applications is published regularly on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.

  Asylum Accommodation Centres
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to submit a planning notification to Wychavon District Council in relation to the proposed asylum accommodation centre at Throckmorton. [76261]

  Beverley Hughes
  We are liaising closely with Wychavon District Council. A planning notification will be submitted in due course.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made since June 2002 in the determination of the suitability of RAF Turnhouse for an asylum seeker accommodation centre. [75066]

  Beverley Hughes
  Those sites still under consideration, including RAF Turnhouse, are being evaluated under a wide range of criteria. We will reach a decision as soon as possible on the suitability of RAF Turnhouse. However, immediate priority is being given to the three sites for which it has been decided to submit planning notifications.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what impact the "Future Development of Air Transport" consultation document has had on the consideration of RAF Turnhouse as an asylum seeker accommodation centre; [75065]

  (2) what response his Department has made to the Department of Transport's "Future Development of Air Transport" consultation document regarding the options to expand Edinburgh Airport on land being considered for an asylum seeker accommodation centre. [75064]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Home Office and Department of Transport are aware of each others plans and are discussing the implications. We announced on May 14 that further work was required on the Edinburgh site before a decision could be taken on whether to submit a planning notification. An announcement will be made about our intentions in due course.
  237W

  Clandestine Immigrants
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he has discussed with his French counterpart the proposal of placing British officials in French cross-channel ports to assist in detecting clandestine immigrants coming to the UK via France; and if he will make a statement; [75444]

  (2) when he last met his French counterpart to discuss improving the situation concerning clandestine immigrants coming to the UK via Cherbourg, St. Malo, Caen and Le Havre; and if he will make a statement. [75445]

  Beverley Hughes
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary last met his French counterpart, Nicolas Sarkozy, on 26 September in Calais. Their discussions of measures to counter clandestine migration have concentrated for the most part on the Channel Tunnel and the port of Calais. However, the two Governments recognise that as the security of these two routes is tightened, clandestine illegal entrants may try to use other ports. On 26 September the two Ministers therefore discussed possibilities for extending UK Immigration Service presence to other French ports, as well as for posting of French officers to UK ports.

  Table 1: Initial asylum decisions in the United Kingdom1,2, 1997 to 2001

  Total Initial Decisions3

  Cases considered under normal procedures4

  Number of principal applicants Backlog clearance exercise5

  Total

  Granted asylum %

  Granted ELR %

  Refused

  Total

  Granted asylum or ELR %

  Refused under backlog %

  1997

  36,045

  36,045

  11

  9

  80

  —

  —

  —

  1998

  31,570

  31,570

  17

  12

  71

  —

  —

  —

  1999

  33,720

  21,305

  36

  12

  52

  12,415

  90

  10

  2000

  109,205

  97,545

  11

  12

  78

  11,660

  89

  11

  2001p

  119.015

  119.015

  9

  17

  74

  —

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest 5, with * = 1 or 2.

  2 Decision figures do not necessarily relate to applications received in the same period.

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

  4 Cases considered under normal procedures may include some cases decided under the backlog criteria.

  5 Cases decided under measures aimed at reducing the pre 1996 asylum application backlog.

  6 Includes some cases where the application has been refused on substantive grounds.

  P Figures for 2001 are provisional and subject to change.

  Table 2: Outcome of Asylum Appeals determined by adjudicators of the Immigration Appellate Authority, 1997–20011,2

  Number of principal appellants

  Total determined

  Allowed %

  Dismissed %

  Withdrawn %

  1997

  21,090

  6

  86

  8

  1998

  25,320

  9

  84

  7

  1999

  19,460

  27

  57

  16

  2000

  19,395

  17

  80

  2

  2001p

  43,415

  19

  79

  2

  Notes:

  1 Figures (other than percentages) rounded to the nearest 5.

  2 Appeals figures do not necessarily relate to initial decisions made in the same period.

  p Figures for 2001 are provisional and subject to change.
  238W

  Political Asylum
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion in percentage terms of applications for political asylum in the United Kingdom have met the criteria established in the Geneva Convention on refugees in the last five years. [74916]

  Beverley Hughes
  An estimated 19 per cent. of applications received in 2001 were granted refugee status, i.e. were successful in their application to be granted refugee status under the 1951 UN Convention. It is estimated that a further 23 per cent. were granted Exceptional Leave to Remain (ELR). These estimates include the outcomes of reconsidered cases and outcomes of appeals at the Immigration Appellate Authority. Of applications received in 2000, an estimated 19 per cent. were granted refugee status and a further 14 per cent. were granted ELR.

  This analysis is unavailable for other periods. Tables 1 and 2, show initial decisions and adjudicator appeals made in the last five years. However, the initial decisions made in each period do not all necessarily relate to the applications lodged in the same period, and similarly the appeals determined do not all necessarily relate to initial decisions made in that period. These data exclude the outcomes of any reconsidered cases.

  Information on asylum applications, initial decisions and appeals is published regularly on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate web site at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of appeals lodged in the United Kingdom against the refusal of an application for political asylum have been upheld in the last five years. [74917]

  Beverley Hughes
  The available information is given in the table.

  Figures include appeals against grants of exceptional leave to enter and remain. Appeals at different tiers (Immigration Appellate Authority and the Immigration Appeals Tribunal) do not necessarily relate to one

  239W
  another. The figures exclude subsequent appeals (court of appeal, judicial review and the House of Lords). When an asylum claim is certified under schedule 4 of the 1999 Act and the adjudicator agrees the certificate, there is no right to apply to the Tribunal for permission to appeal further. Only a minority of applications for leave to appeal to the Tribunal are granted.

  Appeals on Asylum Cases Determined by adjudicators of the IAA and outcomes, 1997–20011

  Asylum Appeals Determined by the IAA2

  Number Allowed3

  As % of Total Determined

  Number Dismissed3

  As % of Total Determined

  Number Withdrawn3

  As % of Total Determined

  1997

  21,090

  1,180

  6

  18,145

  86

  1,720

  8

  1998

  25,320

  2,355

  9

  21,195

  84

  1,770

  7

  1999

  19,460

  5,280

  27

  11,135

  57

  3,050

  16

  2000

  19,395

  3,340

  17

  15,580

  80

  475

  2

  2001p

  43,415

  8,155

  19

  34,440

  79

  825

  2

  Notes:

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest five.

  2 Based on information supplied by the Lord Chancellor's Department.

  3 Based on data supplied by the Presenting Officers Unit within the Home Office.

  P Provisional Figures.

  Appeals on Asylum Cases Determined by the LAT and outcomes, 1997–20011

  Appellant4

  Secretary of State4

  Asylum Appeals Determined by the LAT2,3

  Allowed

  Dismissed

  Withdrawn

  Allowed

  Dismissed

  Withdrawn

  1997

  1,375

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  1998

  1,090

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  1999

  1,790

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  2000

  2,635

  650 (32%)

  1,225 (59%)

  185 (9%)

  170 (46%)

  165 (45%)

  35 (10%)

  2001p

  3,190

  315 (21%)

  1,020 (70%)

  125 (9%)

  160 (53%)

  120 (40%)

  25 (8%)

  Notes:

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest five.

  2 Includes cases remitted back to the IAA (not shown on this table).

  3 Based on information supplied by the Lord Chancellor's Department.

  4 Based on data supplied by the Presenting Officers Unit within the Home Office.

  ..= not available.

  P Provisional Figures.

  Human Trafficking
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress his Department has made in the last 12 months in breaking up and/or bringing criminal charges against members of organised gangs who smuggle people into the UK; and if he will make a statement. [75406]

  Mr Bob Ainsworth
  The UK Government are determined to tackle organised immigration crime, both the smuggling and the trafficking of human beings. Reflex, the multi-agency task force was set up in 2000 specifically as the enforcement arm of our comprehensive strategy to combat organised immigration crime.

  Since April 2001, Reflex has launched 83 operations, disrupted or dismantled 15 organised crime groups involved in organised immigration crime, and arrested 135 facilitators of whom 40 have been charged and 35
  240W
  Information on asylum appeals is published quarterly. The next publication will be available from 29 November 2002 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate web site at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration 1.html.

  convicted. Currently, Reflex has 47 proactive operations underway and a further 55 under development.

  Reflex has posted a senior police officer and a chief immigration officer to Romania as part of a joint project with the Romanian authorities (Reflex Romania), to target organised immigration criminals involved in smuggling and trafficking through the region. It has also established a network of Immigration Liaison Officers (ILOs) who work with other Governments to encourage and support action to disrupt criminal gangs and create a joint intelligence structure. ILOs are already posted at nine key locations across Eastern Europe and the Balkans.

  Prague Airport
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the pre-clearance checks programme operating at Prague airport will be extended to other airports in Europe or elsewhere; and if he will make a statement. [75425]
  241W
  Beverley Hughes
  There are no plans at this time to deploy pre-clearance operations at any airport other than Prague.

  Czech Romanies
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Czech Romanies have, in each of the last three years,(a) applied for asylum in the UK, (b) been granted asylum and (c) been removed having failed to achieve asylum status. [75407]

  Applications received for asylum in the United Kingdom, and initial decisions1,2, 1999–2001 for nationals of the Czech Republic

  Number of principal applicants

  Applications received3

  Initial Decisions4

  Cases considered under normal procedures5

  Backlog clearance exercise6

  Granted asylum

  Granted ELR

  Refused

  Granted asylum or ELR under backlog criteria

  Refused under backlog criteria7

  1999

  1,790

  275

  *

  —

  275

  *

  —

  2000

  1,200

  1,800

  10

  10

  1,775

  *

  —

  2001p

  880

  895

  —

  5

  890

  —

  —

  Notes: l Figures rounded to the nearest 5, with * = 1 or 2.

  2 Decision figures do not necessarily relate to applications received in the same period.

  3 May exclude some cases lodged at Local Enforcement Offices between January and March 2000.

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

  5 Cases considered under normal procedures may include some cases decided under the backlog criteria.

  6 Cases decided under measures aimed at reducing the pre 1996 asylum application backlog.

  7 Includes some cases where the application has been refused on substantive grounds.

  P Provisional figures

  Czech principal asylum applicants removedP,E,1,2

  1999

  n/a

  2000

  n/a

  2001

  800

  Notes: Figures rounded to the nearest five.

  P Provisional data, subject to change.

  E Data have been estimated due to data quality issues.

  1 Includes persons departing "voluntarily" after enforcement action had been initiated against them, and persons leaving under Assisted Voluntary Return Programmes run by the International Organisation for Migration.

  2 Nationality breakdown of dependants removed is not available.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy relating to Romanies from the Czech Republic seeking asylum. [75899]

  Beverley Hughes
  Applications for asylum made by Roma from the Czech Republic are considered on their individual merits, in accordance with our obligations under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention.

  The objective country information about the situation for Roma in the Czech Republic shows that asylum claims based on discrimination against Roma are manifestly unfounded. The independent Immigration Appeal Tribunal have also reached this conclusion.

  Brussels Station
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has officials placed at Brussels station to ensure that passengers who wish to enter the UK have the correct documentation; and if he will make a statement. [75403]
  242W
  Beverley Hughes
  It is not possible to say how many asylum applicants from the Czech Republic are of Romany origin. Data on the ethnic origin of asylum seekers are not collated centrally and are therefore not available; the number of those who applied would only be available by examination of individual case-files at disproportionate cost.

  The tables show the number of applications, initial decisions and removals of nationals of the Czech Republic for the last three years.

  Beverley Hughes
  Discussions are under way to extend juxtaposed controls to the Brussels Eurostar service. In advance of this UK immigration officials arrived at the Gare du Midi in Brussels on 13 October to take part in a series of exercises. Whilst at the station they operate in an advisory capacity to assist and support Belgian officials in checking the documentation of Eurostar passengers travelling to the UK.

  Sick Leave
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Home Office staff have taken(a) periods of sick leave of over one month and (b) early retirement because of work related stress and depression since 1992. [75205]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Home Office has not retained records on length of sick leave by staff from 1992. But for the period September 2001 to September 2002, records show that the Home Office had 694 staff out of a total of 11,666 on sick leave for more than one month, where one month is defined as 28 working days.

  Records are not maintained by the Home Office which enable ill-health retirements to be separately identified as work related. Our records indicate that at 15 March 2001 for the previous 12 months, 327 early retirements were in the mental disorder category. But some mental disorders are not stress related and some stress related sickness manifests itself in a physical condition.

  Capital Punishment
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will undertake a review of his policy on capital punishment. [75101]
  243W
  Hilary Benn
  No.

  Police Officers
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to increase the time police officers can spend on the streets rather than dealing with paperwork. [74926]

  Mr. Denham
  We are committed to tackling the administrative burdens and inefficient working practices that keep officers off the streets. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary established a Taskforce, under the Chairmanship of Sir David O'Dowd, to identify ways in which forces can free up the time of front line officers. The Taskforce's report was published on 17 September and contained 52 recommendations to increase the presence of police in communities. This is a vital opportunity to change the culture of the police service and bring about a real difference to the everyday lives of officers on the front line.

  We have now set up a Steering Group, co-chaired by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Home Office, to take forward these recommendations. We are working with key stakeholders to reduce bureaucracy in police stations, on the streets and in court.

  Rebka Fessenhale
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the case of Rebka Fessenhale who is claiming asylum; and if he will make a statement. [75481]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Home Office received representations from sources including the hon. Member and Ms Fessenhale's representatives in relation to her case.

  Ms Fessenhale's appeal hearing took place on 4 September 2002 and the determination was reserved by the Adjudicator. The outcome of the appeal is now awaited.

  IND
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the backlog of asylum cases at the IND is. [75650]

  Beverley Hughes
  There were 35,300 asylum applications awaiting an initial decision on 30 June 2002, less than half the 87,800 on 31 December 2000. This figure relates to the number of cases i.e. the number of principal applicants.

  Information on the number of cases awaiting an initial decision (including work in progress) is published quarterly on the Home Office website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration 1.htm.

  Forensic Pathology Services
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government have for the provision of forensic pathology services in England and Wales. [76737]
  244W
  Mr. Denham
  Forensic pathologists play a crucial role in the criminal justice system. Their principle function is the conduct of post-mortem examinations in cases of suspicious or sudden deaths to determine the cause and time of death. This information is critical to homicide investigations.

  I have now seen the report of the independent review of the provision of forensic pathology services, which I commissioned last year.

  The review recommended that: the decline in numbers of forensic pathologists should be reversed through a sustained training programme; improved administrative arrangements should be put in place to monitoring service levels and ensure that standards are maintained; steps should be taken to ensure that there are improved facilities for the conduct of post-mortem examinations.

  The Government are considering this report and will reach decisions after the review has been discussed by the Policy Advisory Board on Forensic Pathology.

  Burglaries
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many burglaries were estimated to have been(a) reported and (b) unreported in (i) urban, (ii) rural and (iii) suburban areas for each year since 1979. [75183]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: The following tables show the numbers of burglaries per 10,000 households for urban, rural and suburban areas, as measured by the British Crime Survey. There is no commonly agreed definition of rural areas. Results here use the Office for National Statistics (ONS) District Level Classification in order to provide the urban, suburban and rural breakdown. The ONS classification of areas was revised for authorities in 1999. The revision produced a different hierarchical structure hence there is little direct comparability with the results of the original classification. Therefore, it is not possible to give the figures for the most recent sweep of the British Crime Survey (BCS).

  Numbers of reported incidents per 10,000 households

  Urban

  Suburban

  Rural

  England and Wales

  1999

  482

  298

  257

  373

  1997

  664

  298

  289

  478

  1995

  697

  424

  402

  549

  1993

  855

  398

  243

  580

  1991

  706

  331

  267

  481

  1987

  523

  254

  241

  388

  1983

  455

  267

  51

  325

  Notes:

  1 British Crime Survey.

  2 Note that estimates for 1995 to 1999 are not directly comparable with previous years due to new weighting of the data. Therefore, estimates from 1995 to 1999 may also vary from those previously published.

  3 Results for 1983 to 1997 should be treated with caution due to small sample sizes.
  245W

  Numbers of unreported incidents per 10,000 households

  Urban

  Suburban

  Rural

  England and Wales

  1999

  305

  152

  127

  216

  1997

  392

  196

  96

  275

  1995

  415

  158

  193

  286

  1993

  400

  179

  151

  275

  1991

  299

  133

  91

  197

  1987

  312

  188

  37

  224

  1983

  207

  154

  72

  167

  Notes:

  1 British Crime Survey.

  2 Note that estimates for 1995 to 1999 are not directly comparable with previous weighting of the data. Therefore, estimates from 1995 to 1999 may also vary from those previously published.

  3 Results for 1983 to 1997 should be treated with caution due to small sample sizes.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Greenhouse Gases
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by what percentage(a) greenhouse gas and (b) CO2 emissions in 2001 differed from those of 1990; and if she will make a statement. [75126]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  UK emissions data for the year 2001 will be finalised in March 2003 and submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in April next year, as required by the UK's international reporting obligations. UK data to the year 2000 reported and published last March show that total greenhouse gas emissions decreased by some 12.8 per cent. over the period 1990 to 2000. Carbon dioxide fell by about 7.5 per cent.

  Provisional carbon dioxide emissions estimates for 2001 are available. These indicate that emissions have reduced by about 6.1 per cent. between 1990 and 2001. The increase between 2000 and 2001 is attributed to outside temperature differences and an increase in coal consumption linked to an increase in gas prices relative to coal prices.

  Electronic Trading
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects the study commissioned by the office of the e-Envoy and DTI on making the UK the best place to trade electronically by the end of the parliament to be published; and if she will make a statement. [75121]

  Douglas Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  The study commissioned by the Office of the e-Envoy and DTI will be published in November and copies placed in the libraries of the House.

  Equality
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the next steps are in implementing the equal treatment Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC adopted in 2000 under Article 13 of the EC Treaty; and what progress has been made in taking 246W
  forward the Government's review of the long-term arrangements for offering advice, support and guidance on equality matters announced on 15 May. [76735]

  Ms Hewitt
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Women in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, has today published a summary of our plans to change existing equality legislation and to introduce new legislation to take forward implementation of the Employment and Race Directives—Equality and Diversity: The Way Ahead. We intend to make equality legislation as coherent and easy to use as possible. We have produced draft regulations to achieve these changes and are asking for comments on our proposals.

  This work builds on our current arrangements for tackling discrimination, and has been shaped by extensive consultation over the last two years. The key features will be:
  new legislation prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of religion and belief and sexual orientation in the areas of employment and vocational training; and
  important changes to the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

  We intend to have new provisions on race, religion and belief and sexual orientation in place in 2003, and on disability in 2004. We also intend to make some modifications to the Equal Pay Act in 2003, following consultation in Towards Equal Pay for Women. We will consult separately on proposals for legislation to prohibit discrimination on grounds of age, as well as the new Equal Treatment Amendment Directive.

  In addition, we are committed to getting the right framework to support equality legislation. We are. therefore, also publishing today a separate consultation paper—Equality and Diversity: Making it Happen. This considers the contribution of equality institutions to making equal opportunities a reality and to promoting equality and diversity across society, and sets out a range of options for future structures for these institutions, including a single equality commission. It considers a range of related issues, including the implications for Scotland and Wales and the regional and local dimension.

  We have arranged for copies of these documents and the draft legislation to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made on Government action to help close the pay gap between men and women. [76736]

  Ms Hewitt
  On Thursday 17 October, I launched a consultation on the design of the equal pay questionnaire. The Employment Act 2002 provides a new power to introduce an equal pay questionnaire into the Equal Pay Act 1970. We are seeking views by 10 January 2003 on a draft questionnaire, with the aim of bringing it into effect, subject to Parliamentary approval, in April 2003. The questionnaire will help women who think they may not be receiving equal pay to request key information from their employers before deciding whether to bring a case. In some cases this could lead to resolving or settling a claim rather than taking the tribunal route.
  247W
  The questionnaire is one of a raft of changes we are introducing to speed up and simplify equal pay cases; and it forms part of the Government's drive to close the pay gap between men and women. Also published on the Women and Equality Unit's website is a briefing paper "Equal Pay and Pay Gap—Update on Government Action". This provides an update on Government action to narrow the pay gap and progress made following the Government's response to Denise Kingsmill's report on Women's Employment and Pay (December 2001).

  Exports (Iran)
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many licence applications for the export of beryllium to Iran have been made in each year since 1997; how many applications have been granted; what quantity and value of beryllium has been exported to Iran in each year; what undertakings were sought about end-use; and what end-use monitoring has been undertaken. [74740]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The number of Standard Individual Export Licence applications that have been received and granted in each year since 2 May 1997, for the proposed export of beryllium to Iran, is one in 2001.

  Between 2 May 1997 and 17 September 2002, no Open Individual Export Licence applications were received or granted for the proposed export of beryllium to Iran.

  The DTI issued a licence in January for the export of 10 grams—less than half an ounce of beryllium to the University of Science and Technology in Tehran. Written assurances were received in relation to the use of this.

  End-use Monitoring is undertaken by the FCO.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects to grant an export licence to A. W. Plume Ltd in respect of their application of 20 August 2002 to export pneumatic and electrical components to Iran. [75859]

  Nigel Griffiths
  A decision has not yet been reached on the application from A. W. Plume Ltd in respect of the proposed export of pneumatic and electrical components to Iran, but will be taken as quickly as possible consistent with the need to give full consideration to the issues involved.

  Departmental Websites
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the website links associated with her Department, including sites now dormant or closed, and indicating whether they are live, dormant or closed; what the start up costs were for each site listed; what the operating costs were in each year since start up for each site; which company hosted each site; what assessment takes place for each site; which company does the assessment; if she will place the assessment reports in the Library; and if she will make a statement. [75580]
  248W
  Stephen Timms
  The Department does not keep this information centrally, and to gather all the information would incur disproportionate costs. The principal DTI web site is at http://www.dti.gov.uk, and this provides links to other web sites associated with the Department.

  SMEs
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 19 September 2002,Official Report, column 170W, on SMEs, when she expects the figures for 2001 to be made available; and if she will make a statement. [75216]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The 2001 figures are now available and include full-time and part-time employment.

  Employment (thousands, start 2001)

  Small (0–49 employees)

  Medium (50–249 employees)

  Large (250 + employees)

  Total

  9,809

  2,720

  10,092

  22,622

  Sources:

  Small and Medium Enterprise (SME)

  Statistics for the United Kingdom 2001,

  Small Business Service.

  Small businesses, accounted for over 99 per cent. of businesses, about 43 per cent. of non-government employment and 36 per cent. of turnover. In contrast the 7,000 largest businesses accounted for 45 per cent. of non-government employment and 49 per cent. of turnover.

  During 2000, employment in small businesses saw a rise in numbers in line with the UK increase of 2 per cent. Employment in medium sized business saw a 7 per cent. increase during the year, and large businesses saw a 1 per cent. increase.

  Small Business Service
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what operational targets she has set for the Small Business Service for 2002–03. [76733]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Small Business Service was established on 3 April 2000.

  The vision of the SBS is for the UK, by 2005, to be the best place in the world to start and grow a business. Its purpose is to build an enterprise society in which small businesses thrive and achieve their potential.

  The SBS will review its priorities regularly in response to the needs of small business. In line with the requirement for Executive Agencies to be given operational targets, I have set the following targets for the 2002–3 year:-
  Publish by October 2002 a strategy for the SBS for the years 2003–4 to 2005–6.
  10 per cent. increase in the number of people aged under 30 years participating in Enterprise Insight, Young Enterprise and STEP.
  Implement the small firms litmus test across government by March 2003.
  Reduce the gap in business start-up rates between the most and least disadvantaged local authority wards by 1 percentage point a year.

  249W
  By end 2002–3, establish and implement an accreditation system for Community Development Finance Institutions to enable businesses to benefit from the community investment tax credit in the 2002 Budget.
  Launch the "Bridges" Community Development Venture Fund (formerly known as the Community Development Venture Fund) by June 2002.
  Publish an action plan in response to consultation on a national strategy for start-ups by October 2002.
  Increase the market penetration and overall customer satisfaction level of the business Link operator network over 2001–2 levels.
  Improve small business access to finance, through:
  the 6 remaining Regional Venture Capital Funds to be launched by 31 December 2002;
  6 Investment Readiness demonstration projects to be underway by September 2002;
  Early Growth funds to invest in 200 small businesses by March 2003.
  Achieve recognition as an Investor in People in 2002–3.
  Improve on prompt payment performance from 2001–2 to achieve payment of 100 per cent. of valid invoices within 30 days.

  Energywatch
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when Energywatch's report and Account for November 2001 to March 2002 will be laid before Parliament. [76734]

  Mr. Wilson
  I laid a copy before each House of Parliament yesterday.

  Export Licences
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the countries identified as those where sustainable development is likely to be an issue in respect of applying criterion 8 in determining applications for export licences. [75226]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 31 July 2002, Official Report, columns 309–12W.

  Mobile Phone Operators
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects to receive the Deloitte and Touche audit of the UK mobile phone operators' compliance and implementation of the voluntary code; and if she will make this public. [75979]

  Stephen Timms
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: The Federation of the Electronics Industry has commissioned an independent review by Deloitte and Touche of the implementation by the five mobile phone licensees of their "Ten Commitments" to best practice in consultation about the siting of mobile phone base stations. The FEI expects to be able to publish this by the end of 2002.

  Broadband
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of households in the Torbay constituency have access to broadband lines; and if she will make a statement. [74859]
  250W
  Stephen Timms
  The Government do not compile figures for broadband connections broken down into individual constituencies. However, a map showing geographical availability broadband services can be found in the UK Online Annual Report (http://www.e-envoy.gov.uk/oee/oee.nsf/sections/ reports-anrep2001-images/$file/fig01.pdf).

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement about the role of her Department's broadband regional strategy; how many staff are employed by her Department to promote broadband; and what progress has been made in extending broadband to rural areas. [74934]

  Stephen Timms
  At a regional level, DTI is currently setting up a new regional broadband unit, whereby a broadband expert will be located in each of the English regions and the devolved administrations, with the aim of stimulating the take-up and availability of broadband across the UK. The work of this unit will therefore include looking at extending broadband to rural and remote areas. The Department has also provided the regions and devolved administrations with the £30 million Broadband Fund to develop innovative schemes and pilot projects to help extend broadband networks.

  When current recruitment exercises have been completed, the number of people employed by the Department to promote our broadband strategy will be around 20, which includes the regional broadband unit. The Department's UK Online for Business and Digital Content and Publishing teams also contribute to our broadband work.

  South West Regional Development Agency
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many officials are employed by the South West Regional Development Agency on ICT and related issues. [74936]

  Alan Johnson
  South West of England Regional Development Agency employs a regional ICT Strategy Manager who in turn employs 3 consultants to help with the RDA's ICT strategy development. Various staff in the RDA help support ICT development in the region, for example, the Innovation team of five, the Supply Solutions Team of six and a member of the RDA's skills team. There are also other staff members within the Enterprise and Innovation Directorate and the Development Directorate who contribute to the region's ICT development and related issues.

  Community Development Venture Capital Fund
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the private companies involved in the Community Development Venture Capital Fund. [75970]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 2 July 2002,Official Report, column 287W, which listed the private companies investing in the fund.
  251W

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPT

  Magistrates
  Julian Brazier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, when she last met representatives of the Magistrates' Courts Central Council to discuss the future of magistrates' courts. [73608]

  Yvette Cooper
  I last met representatives of the Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees to discuss the future of magistrates' courts on 9 October 2002.

  Land Registry
  Mr. Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what plans the Government have to extend the powers of the Land Registry to adjudicate on cases of dispute of ownership on non-registered land in urban areas. [73609]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Government have no plans to extend the powers of the Land Registry to disputes relating to unregistered land. The Government's aim is to bring unregistered landowners within the scope of those powers by completing the land register for England and Wales.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Paul Clark
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what steps her Department is taking to alleviate the problems of victims of domestic violence. [73610]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government remain committed to tackling domestic violence.

  An Inter-Ministerial Group set up last November is working across Government on five key areas for action. My Department is responsible for leading work on improving the interface between the criminal, civil and family law. We aim to identify ways to make the process less distressing for victims by working with stakeholders and voluntary organisations at local and national level to develop a more integrated approach that tackles the impacts of domestic violence as part of the justice process.

  Mr. David Lepper
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what support her Department offers to voluntary organisations giving assistance to victims of domestic violence. [73611]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  We work very closely with local and national organisations which support victims of domestic violence. I recently set up a new Advisory Group to help the Department to develop further its domestic violence policy and to understand better issues that concern survivors of domestic violence and those who support and represent them. We also work closely with a number of local initiatives, such as the Leeds Cluster Court Project and "Standing Together", offering advice and support and providing a link to the other Government Departments involved, such as the Home Office and the CPS.
  252W

  Office for the Supervision of Solicitors
  Mr. Jonathan Djanogly
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, if she will make a statement on the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. [73612]

  Mr. Desmond Swayne
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, if she will make a statement on the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. [73614]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  We have serious concerns about the performance of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS), which is being monitored closely. The Lord Chancellor has warned the OSS that unless swift and substantive improvements are made across the board, he will not hesitate to implement his reserve powers which allow for the establishment of a Legal Services Complaints Commissioner.

  Legal Aid
  Mr Ian Lucas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what steps she is taking to increase the number of advocates carrying out criminal and legal aid work. [73613]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  None. The Government are not aware of any shortages or of any solicitors or defendants having difficulty in obtaining the services of an advocate. My Department and the Legal Services Commission continue to monitor the situation.

  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, if she will make a statement on measures his Department is taking to improve the provision of legal aid advice services. [73617]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has worked with the Legal Services Commission to establish the Community Legal Service, to improve access for all to good quality civil legal and advice services. Community Legal Service Partnerships, now covering nearly all areas of England and Wales, are central to this policy and are responsible for coordinating service delivery based on local priority needs. The Community Legal Service Fund, which replaced Legal Aid, provides funding for those services now being delivered under these new arrangements.

  Dispute Resolution
  David Cairns
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what role her Department plays in alternative means of dispute resolution [73615]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The introduction of the Civil Procedure Rules in 1999 imposed, for the first time, a duty on courts to encourage and facilitate the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The Rules also seek to influence the behaviour of parties in the pre-litigation period through pre-action protocols, which further encourage parties to settle their disputes by using ADR.
  253W
  In March 2001 the Lord Chancellor announced that all Government Departments and their Agencies had pledged to consider and use ADR to resolve disputes involving them in all suitable cases, wherever the other party accepts it.

  In addition, a number of courts in England and Wales have set up court based pilot mediation schemes, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor.

  "Justice for All"
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when she next expects to meet with members of the lay magistracy to discuss the administration of justice following the publication of the "Justice for All" White Paper. [73616]

  Ms Yvette Cooper
  Following the publication of the Criminal Justice White Paper, "Justice for All", I met a number of Magistrates' representative bodies to discuss the White Paper, and these meetings will continue as we develop our proposals. In addition a letter was sent to all Magistrates informing them of our proposals.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Lord Chancellor will reply to the letter of 17 September from the hon. Member for Nottingham, North on the legality of action on Iraq. [74983]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The letter of 17 September was sent to the right hon. Harriet Harman MP, the Solicitor General, at the Law Officers' Office, and not to the Lord Chancellor nor any minister in the Lord Chancellor's Department. The Solicitor General will reply to the letter shortly.

  Allocations 'millions

  97–98

  98–99

  99–00

  00–01

  01–02

  02–03

  Health Authority

  10.7

  0

  68.5

  66

  12.35 rev 64 cap

  93.5 rev 83 cap

  Local Authorities

  69

  116

  63

  129

  132

  133

  Allocations to local authorities for mental health services are made through the mental health grant. These funds are ring fenced and audited to ensure that expenditure is on mental health services.

  Departmental Activities (Isle of Wight)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the activities pursued by his Department that have had a particular impact on the Isle of Wight since 7 June 2001. [57674]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: This information can only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  The Departmental Report for the Department sets out the aims and objectives for the Department, and describes the main activities which support them. It covers different business areas for which the
  254W

  Transsexual People
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make it her policy to refer to transsexual people rather than transsexuals in Government documents and in material that will form parliamentary records. [75744]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  My Department has already adopted this convention. In so far as I am able to ensure this, all official documents published in the future on this subject should refer to transsexual people or transsexual persons, rather than transsexuals.

  Germany
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when she next intends to visit Germany. [75653]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  At present, neither I, my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor, nor my Ministerial colleagues have plans to visit Germany.

HEALTH

  Mental Health Services
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money was allocated to(a) health authorities and (b) local authorities for spending on mental health services in each year since 1997; how much of that money was spent on mental health services; and how much was ring-fenced. [39786]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 1 March 2002]: Health authorities receive general allocations and unless funds are ring-fenced, decisions are made locally as to the specific services these are allocated to. In addition to general allocations, additional allocations for mental health made to health authorities since 1997 are set out in the table below.

  Department is responsible: public health, the National Health Service, social care and departmental management. It sets out resources committed to each, the results that are being achieved and the priorities for the future. The 2001 report can be found on the following website: hhtp://www.doh.gov.uk/dohreport/ report 2001.

  The 2002 Departmental Report will be published shortly.

  EU Management Committees
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the EU Committee of senior officials on public health is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if he will make a statement. [64826]
  255W
  Mr. Lammy
  The Committee of Senior Officials on Public Health (CSOPH) meets twice a year. This year's meetings are on 3 July and 4 December.

  The Committee is made up of senior officials with responsibility for national health care systems. Each member state is entitled to nominate one representative and one alternate. The UK representative and his alternate represent all UK Health Departments.

  No CSOPH representative has yet come from the Scottish Executive.

  Patient Rights
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residents with preserved rights were reassessed as being outside the scope of social services and entitled to free continuing care under the ruling in ex parte Coughlan for each strategic health authority in the last year. [64853]

  Jacqui Smith
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Children's Hospices
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the Government have invested in children's hospices in England and Wales in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000 and (e) 2001; and what the projected level is in 2002. [66700]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Kolathuv Unni
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will order a public inquiry into the case of Mr. Kolathuv Unni including(a) his recruitment back into the NHS and (b) the conduct of the General Medical Council; and if he will make a statement. [68747]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: We have no current plans to hold a public inquiry. The Department has taken steps to strengthen recruitment procedures in the National Health Service to safeguard patients. Mr. Unni remains suspended from the medical register. The General Medical Council are considering further action following the decision to impose a prison sentence on Mr. Unni. The GMC is also consulting on proposals to reform its registration process.

  NHS Walk-In Centres
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the usage rates of the NHS walk-in centres; and if he will make a statement. [74200]

  Mr. Hutton
  In aggregate, usage of National Health Service walk-in centres has increased from 0.575 million visits in 2000–01 to an estimated 1.4 million in 2002–03. As NHS walk-in centres are a pilot scheme we do not routinely publish performance data on individual centres. Monthly usage rates from March 2000 to August 2001 were, however, published in the independent national evaluation report by the University of Bristol. This is available on the University's website at www.epi.bris.ac.uk/wic/.
  256W

  Health Protection Agency
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how consultants in communicable disease control will be managed after completion of the work of the Health Protection Agency; and if he will make a statement. [74818]

  Ms Blears
  The strategy document Getting Ahead of the Curve proposed that consultants in communicable disease control should transfer to employment by the Health Protection Agency. They would continue to operate at local level, and would have new opportunities for training, career development and the acquisition of special knowledge in areas of health protection.

  NHS Funding Formula
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation has made with regard to its review of the Your NHS Funding Formula. [75140]

  Mr. Hutton
  The advisory committee on resource allocation's (ACRA) terms of reference are to advise the Secretary of State for Health on the distribution of resources across primary and secondary care. ACRA is an expert body whose membership is made up of individuals with a wide range of relevant experience and expertise from within and outside the National Health Service. ACRA does not conduct formal consultations.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether the new funding formula will take into account the number of people who have private medicine when assessing need; [74956]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the reform of the funding system for the NHS and the options, method of consultation and timetable for the review; and whether the review will take into account the number of people who have access to private medical treatment. [76277]

  Mr. Hutton
  The existing formula used to allocate National Health Service resources has been reviewed by the advisory committee on resource allocation (ACRA). The intention is that reducing health inequalities will be a key criterion for allocating NHS resources to different parts of the country. We are currently considering ACRA's recommendations. ACRA does not conduct formal consultations. I cannot at this stage anticipate the outcome. Later this autumn when we announce the revenue allocations for the next three years we will explain changes to the formula.

  NHS Patients (Out-of-area Treatment)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the health authorities in England which indicate populated islands, showing the expenditure per person on those islands to assist with travel for treatment. [75201]

  Mr. Hutton
  Health authorities with populated islands are:

  Essex

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  Kent and Medway

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear

  South West Peninsula

  257W

  Cumbria and North Lancashire

  Information on expenditure per head to assist with travel for treatment is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding is made available to health authorities which include populated islands to recognise and assist with the costs of patients' travel for mainland treatment; and what the criteria are for the allocation of such funds. [75199]

  Mr. Hutton
  There is no specific adjustment for island populations in the formula used to allocate funding to health authorities and primary care trusts.

  Foot Care
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of the results of the consultation on chiropody and podiatry services; and if he will make a statement. [76003]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Health Professions Council (HPC), which regulates chiropody and podiatry alongside eleven other health professions, concluded its consultation on 30 September. The HPC will analyse the feedback it has received and produce a document summarising the replies, which they aim to publish in November.

  Acute Services Trusts
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those NHS acute services trusts which operate hospitals more than 50 miles apart, listing the number of beds in service at each such hospital. [76111]

  Mr. Hutton
  The only National Health Service trust that falls into the over 50-mile category is United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust. Information on the number of beds in service at each of the relevant hospitals is shown below:

  Hospital

  Bed numbers and type

  Gainsborough

  Nil

  Spalding

  28 healthcare and elderly

  Skegness (in A&E Minor)

  3 acute recovery

  Grantham

  190 acute

  Lincoln

  700 acute

  Louth County

  140 acute

  National Service Framework for Older People
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many councils have reviewed their eligibility criteria for adult social care to ensure they do not discriminate on the basis of age as part of the milestones set out in the National Service Framework for Older People. [75702]

  Jacqui Smith
  Following publication of the Fair access to care services guidance in May 2002, councils are in the process of reviewing their eligibility criteria for adult social care. They should have completed their reviews and be ready to operate revised eligibility criteria by April 2003. By implementing the guidance councils will fulfil the first stage requirement of standard one of the national service framework for older people with respect to rooting out age discrimination.
  258W
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many(a) specialist multi-disciplinary teams and (b) interfaces for care for older people throughout hospitals have been identified as part of the milestones set out in the National Service Framework for Older People; [75704]

  (2) how many strategic and operational plans, including initial action to address identifed age discrimination, he (a) has received and (b) expects to receive as part of the milestones set out in the National Service Framework for Older People; [75706]

  (3) how many of the intermediate care joint investment plans have been agreed, as set out in the National Service Framework for Older People milestones; [75700]

  (4) which general hospitals have (a) submitted and (b) not submitted plans to introduce a specialised stroke unit by 2004 as part of the milestones set out in the National Service Framework for Older People. [75705]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information about progress against the April 2002 milestones set within the national service framework (NSF) for older people is currently being collected.

  National Health Service organisations have not been asked to submit centrally their plans to tackle any age discrimination identified in their audits of age-related policies, their intermediate care investment plans, or their plans to introduce specialised stroke units. Monitoring against the NSF milestones will provide the information needed centrally about progress in these areas.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultation his Department has undertaken with housing and social services to ensure that the Better Care, Higher Standards charter is working, as set out in the milestones of the National Service Framework for Older People; and what areas of the charter have been found to have shortcomings. [75703]

  Jacqui Smith
  When the national Better Care, Higher Standards charter was published in December 1999, we undertook to carry out a review of its effectiveness after three years. We plan to complete this review by March 2003. This will include consultation with representatives of local councils.

  Microbiologists
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many microbiologists were employed by the NHS; and what the vacancy rate for microbiologists was in each of the last five years, broken down by(a) region and (b) trust. [75707]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Emergency Readmissions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what target he has set to reduce emergency readmissions into hospital. [75712]
  259W
  Jacqui Smith
  The target set for 2002–3 is for no growth in emergency readmissions from the 2001–2 baseline of 5.4 per cent.

  Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the budget of Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services over each of the last three years; and what the budget for CAMHS will be for each of the next three years. [75713]

  Jacqui Smith
  In the three years to the end of March 2003 we will have invested an additional £105 million in child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) provided by health and social services. On 16 October my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Health, announced that CAMHS would receive an additional investment of £140 million over the next three years through increased grants to social services.

  In addition we have just set, in the priorities and performance framework, new capacity assumptions for health and social care which require a 10 per cent, per annum increase in CAMHS.

  Bioterrorism
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the most recent assessment of the risk of a bioterrorist attack against the UK. [75191]

  Mr. Hutton
  There is no evidence of a specific threat. The Department has contingency plans to respond to the deliberate release of a biological agent and keeps these plans under constant review.

  General Practitioners
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners in the south-east are operating a closed-list policy. [75503]

  Ms. Blears
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many GP surgeries in(a) London and (b) South East England have (i) opened and (ii) closed in each of the last five years. [75524]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Adur, Arun and Worthing PCT
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements for profit-related pay and bonuses have been made for senior executives of the Adur, Arun and Worthing PCT. [75514]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: I am advised by Surrey & Sussex Strategic Health Authority that no performance related pay or bonuses have been paid to senior executives at Adur, Arun and Worthing Primary Care Trust.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners left their positions in the Adur, Arun and Worthing PCT area in the last year; and why. [75500]
  260W
  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: The information requested is shown in the table.

  Unrestricted Principals and Equivalents (UPEs)1Leavers in England and Adur, Arun & amp Worthing PCT: 2000–01

  Numbers

  Sept 2000–Sept200l2

  England

  1313

  of which:

  Adur, Arun & Worthing PCT

  7

  Notes:

  1 UPEs includes GMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs and PMS Salaried.

  2 Leavers are defined as those UPEs reported in the Department of Health's annual GP census in one year but not in the following year.

  Leavers will include both career breaks and wastage.

  Data based on censuses as at 30 September 2000 & 2001

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services

  Statistics.

  Information on the reasons for leaving is not collected.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners vacancies are open in the Adur, Arun and Worthing PCT area. [75501]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: The information requested is not collected centrally.

  NHS Overseas Nurses' Advice Line
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much it cost to establish the NHS Overseas Nurses' Advice Line. [75560]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: The cost of setting up and training staff for the National Health Service Overseas Nurses' Advice Line was £7,767.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) nurses and (b) non-medical staff are employed on the NHS Overseas Nurses' Advice Line. [75561]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: There is a pool of non-medical call operators who are employed on behalf of a number of clients that handles calls to the NHS Overseas Nurses' Advice Line. In addition, there is a dedicated team of staff with health careers expertise who are able to offer advice on supervised practice and National Health Service careers.

  Hepatitis C
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has issued to NHS dentists treating sufferers of hepatitis C. [75496]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: We have issued guidance to the National Health Service in 1998 on protecting clinical health care workers such as dentists from infection with blood-borne viruses, including hepatitis C.
  261W
  The General Dental Council (GDC) has issued guidance to dentists which stresses the importance of taking appropriate measures to prevent cross-infection and of taking account of relevant guidance from the Department and the British Dental Association. The GDC has also advised dentists that it is unethical to refuse to treat a patient solely on the grounds that the person has a blood-borne virus or any other transmissible disease or infection.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many PCTs offer interferon combination drugs to hepatitis C sufferers. [75498]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer on 21 October 2002]: The Department does not hold information centrally on the number of primary care trusts (PCTs) that currently offer combination drug therapy for hepatitis C.

  From 1 January 2002, PCTs are under a statutory obligation to provide appropriate funding for treatments or drugs which have been recommended by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting times are for hepatitis C sufferers to see a liver specialist, broken down by strategic regional health authority area. [75536]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: The Department does not hold information centrally on the average waiting times for patients with hepatitis C to see a specialist.

  Patients diagnosed with hepatitis C are likely to be referred to physicians within the gastroenterology or infectious diseases specialities. Average outpatient waiting times for first appointment in these specialties in 2000–2001 by National Health Service region are shown in the table.

  Outpatient waiting times 2001–02, speciality gastroenterology: Trust based data by Region— effective length of wait from receipt of general practitioner written referral to first outpatient attendance (weeks)

  Region

  Average waiting time (median) weeks

  Northern & Yorkshire

  8.1

  Trent

  6.9

  West Midlands

  8.4

  North West

  9.4

  Eastern

  7.4

  London

  8.3

  South East

  7.4

  South West

  10.3

  England

  8.1

  Outpatient waiting times 2001–02, speciality infectious diseases: Trust based data by Region—effective length of wait from receipt of GP written referral to first outpatient attendance (weeks)

  Region

  Average waiting time (median) weeks

  Northern & Yorkshire

  4.3

  Trent

  6.3

  West Midlands

  5.6

  North West

  4.3

  London

  3.1

  South East

  3.2

  South West

  2.0

  262W

  Outpatient waiting times 2001–02, speciality infectious diseases: Trust based data by Region—effective length of wait from receipt of GP written referral to first outpatient attendance (weeks)

  Region

  Average waiting time (median) weeks

  England

  3.4

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce screening for hepatitis C. [75495]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer on 21 October 2002]: Our consultation paper, Hepatitis C Strategy for England, which was published on 14 August 2002, proposes that individuals at increased risk of infection or with otherwise unexplained liver disease should be offered testing for hepatitis C.

  The United Kingdom national screening committee has not recommended the introduction of antenatal screening for hepatitis C in the absence of a proven safe and effective intervention to prevent infant infection and limited evidence about the natural history and treatment of children infected with hepatitis C. This advice is in line with United States and European consensus statements. However, antenatal settings might provide an opportunity to offer hepatitis C testing to women at increased risk of infection.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on hepatitis C public awareness campaigns last year. [75563]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer on 21 October 2002]: Our consultation paper, Hepatitis C Strategy for England, which was published on 14 August 2002, identifies the need for a campaign to raise public awareness of hepatitis C. This campaign will be developed taking account of responses to the consultation exercise and meetings with stakeholders from the National Health Service and voluntary and community sectors.

  In the last financial year, 2001–2002, we made £90,000 in section 64 grant funding available to the British Liver Trust and Mainliners for activities connected to the provision of information to professionals and the public on hepatitis C. We also produced a hepatitis C briefing pack for health professionals, which included a patient leaflet for use in consultations at a cost of approximately £130,000.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Department's estimate is of the number of hepatitis C sufferers; and how many are receiving treatment in the NHS. [75742]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on Thursday 2 May 2002, Official Report column 998W and the reply I gave him on Tuesday 14 May 2002, Official Report, column 630W.

  Available Beds
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the average daily number of available beds in wards open overnight in all specialities in England in(a) 1979 and (b) 1990–91 to 1995––96; [75634]
  263W
  (2) if he will list the average daily number of (a) general and acute, (b) acute, (c) day only, (d) mental illness, (e) learning disability and (f) maternity beds open overnight in England in (i) 1979 and (ii) 1990–91 to 1995–96. [75635]

  Year

  All specialities (exc. day only)

  General & acute

  Acute

  Mental illness

  Learning disability

  Maternity

  Day only

  1979

  361,670

  203,864

  148,725

  89,045

  50,122

  18,640

  1990–91

  255,479

  116,788

  116,788

  55,239

  23,379

  14,170

  3,068

  1991–92

  242,677

  115,140

  115,140

  50,278

  21,383

  13,770

  3,399

  1992–93

  232,201

  112,862

  112,862

  47,308

  18,519

  13,167

  3,972

  1993–94

  219,476

  109,713

  109,713

  43,532

  16,269

  12,521

  4,908

  1994–95

  211,812

  108,008

  108,008

  41,827

  13,211

  11,971

  5,699

  1995–96

  206,136

  108,296

  108,296

  39,477

  12,676

  11,358

  6,541

  Note:

  Information on beds open day only were collected from 1987–88— no equivalent data are available for 1979.

  Source:

  Department of Health forms KH03, SH3

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what representations his Department has received concerning alleged correlation between instances of leukaemia clusters and nuclear power stations in the UK.[75794]

  Ms Blears
  The Black advisory group was commissioned in 1983, by the then Minister of Health, to investigate reports of a high incidence of leukaemia occurring in young people living in the vicinity of the Sellafield nuclear site. In their report, Black 1984, the advisory group confirmed that there was a higher incidence of leukaemia in young people resident in the area. They also concluded that the estimated radiation dose from the Sellafield discharges and other sources, received by the local population, could not account for the observed leukaemia incidence on the basis of knowledge available at that time. The uncertainties in the available data led the advisory group to make recommendations for further research and investigation.

  The committee on medical aspects of radiation in the environment (COMARE) was established in November 1985 in response to the final recommendation of the report of the independent advisory group chaired by Sir Douglas Black. Its terms of reference are to
  "assess and advise Government and the Devolved Administrations on the health effects of natural and man-made radiation in the environment and to assess the adequacy of the available data and the need for further research".

  COMARE has now published seven reports and has also published several statements into allegations of cancer clusters around nuclear installations. Details can be found on the committee's web site at www.open.gov.uk/doh/comare.htm

  Obesity
  Mr. Barry Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what plans his Department has to tackle obesity. [74056]

  Ms Blears
  The Government are committed to tackling the rising trend in obesity. The prevention and management of obesity are at the heart of many of the
  264W
  Mr. Hutton
  The average daily number of available beds in wards open overnight, by sector, for 1979 and 1990–91 to 1995–96 is given in the following table:

  Government's priority areas, as highlighted in the NHS Plan and national service frameworks, particularly those outlining action on CHD and diabetes. The Department is taking an integrated approach with cross-Government work at national, regional and local levels, where action is focused on improving diet and increasing physical activity levels, and includes:
  The Five-a-day programme to increase fruit and vegetable intakes, including the National School Fruit Scheme, and work with industry to increase provision and access.
  Initiatives with the food industry (including manufacturers and caterers) to improve the overall balance of diet including salt, fat and sugar in food, working with the Food Standards Agency.
  The Food in Schools and National Healthy Schools programmes, addressing food and nutrition in schools.
  The Welfare Foods scheme is being reviewed, in line with the NHS Plan commitment to use the resources more effectively to ensure children in poverty have access to a healthy diet.
  Increased support for breastfeeding, which is accepted as the best form of nutrition for infants to ensure a good start in life.
  PE and sports programmes for young people and the community in general, together with the School Sport Co-ordinator programme.
  A new programme for community physical activity pilots, led by primary care trusts.
  Guidance issued by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence on anti-obesity drugs and surgery.
  Local action to tackle obesity and physical inactivity, informed by advice from the Health Development Agency on what works.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for newspaper, television and radio campaigns concerning obesity, weight loss and healthy living. [74462]

  Ms Blears
  We have no plans to run specific campaigns on obesity, weight loss and healthy living, although we will be extensively publicising the Five-a-day programme from the New Year. We have also funded the British Dietetic Association, as part of
  265W
  their Weight Wise campaign, to undertake project work on consumer messages and communication methods relating to weight management.

  The prevention and management of obesity are at the heart of many of the Government's priority areas, as highlighted in the NHS Plan and national service frameworks, particularly those outlining action on CHD and diabetes. Other commitments are also likely to have a positive impact on the prevention and management of obesity, including the infant feeding initiative, the national school fruit scheme, the food in schools programme and work with the food industry to address the sugar, fat and salt content of the diet. There is also substantial cross-government work to increase physical activity levels.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for the reform of labelling requirements for food products. [72343]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 17 October 2002]: The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has adopted a wide-ranging action plan to tackle the issues consumers have identified as priorities for improving food labelling. The FSA is pressing for changes to European law and international standards and has established a number of working groups to explore the potential for voluntary improvements.

  Non English-Speaking Medical Staff
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of NHS

  All NHS Doctors by country of qualification

  England at 30 September 20011

  number (headcount)

  All countries of qualification

  United Kingdom

  Rest of EEA

  Elsewhere

  All Doctors of which

  100,320

  69,950

  4,870

  25,500

  GPs2

  31,840

  26,000

  1,250

  4,580

  Notes:

  1 2001 is the most recent data available which details all NHS doctors.

  2 All Practitioners includes GMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs, PMS Salaried GPs, Restricted Principals, Assistants, GP Registrars, Salaried Doctors (para 52 SFA), PMS Other and GP Retainers.

  3 HCHS shows Hospital, Public Health medicine and Community Health Services (HCHS) staff excluding medical hospital practitioners and medical clinical assistants, most of whom are also GPs working part time in hospitals.

  Figures are rounded to the nearest ten

  Due to rounding, totals may not equal the sum of component parts

  Sources:

  Department of Health 2000 medical and dental workforce census

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics

  Delivering the NHS Plan, published in April 2002, provides the latest forecasts for growth in the National Health Service workforce. By 2008, we expect the NHS to have net increases over the September 2001 staff census of at least 15,000 consultants and GPs. We anticipate that international recruitment will contribute towards this figure and our international recruitment assumption for consultants and GPs is 1,000 by 2005.
  266W
  medical staff who are not English-speaking; and what provision is made for linguistic tuition for non-English speaking NHS medical staff. [74931]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: All medical staff employed in the National Health Service are English-speaking. Doctors are not permitted to work in the NHS until they are able to demonstrate that they possess good English language skills. Medical staff from outside the European Economic Area are required to pass the international English language testing system examination before they are eligible for registration with the General Medical Council and work in the UK. European Economic Area nationals are not required to take the international English language testing system examination to register with the General Medical Council. They are required, however, to demonstrate their language competency to their employer. The procedures for this are set out in guidance for NHS employers: Health Service Circular 1999/137.

  Training courses in English language are available throughout the UK at further education colleges. There are also special training courses to prepare doctors for the international English language testing system examination, most of which are provided free of charge to students.

  Overseas Medical Staff
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of NHS consultants, doctors and nurses who will be employed from(a) the EU and (b) outside the EU over the next five years. [74932]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: The following table shows the number of doctors, general practitioners (GPs) and consultants who qualified in the United Kingdom, within the rest of the European Economic Area and elsewhere.

  We anticipate that by 2005, compared to 1999, up to 35,000 extra nurses may be working in the NHS, who have been trained overseas.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors from abroad started work in the NHS in the last year; and how many of them have subsequently ceased working. [75516]
  267W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: Information on the number of doctors from abroad who join and leave the National Health Service is not available.

  Public Health Laboratory
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from health professionals regarding the transfer of the Public Health Laboratory to the NHS. [75506]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: A number of representations were received, both welcoming the proposals and raising concerns, which we sought to address in the final decisions on which laboratories would transfer to the National Health Service. This was announced on 3 September 2002.

  Doctor Training
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of medical training courses for doctors in the UK deals with ICT in the NHS. [75510]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: Individual university medical schools determine their own undergraduate medical curriculum in the light of recommendations from the General Medical Council's (GMC) education committee, which has the statutory responsibility to determine the extent and knowledge and skill required for the granting of primary medical qualifications in the United Kingdom.

  The education committee's most recent recommendations on undergraduate medical education are contained in Tomorrow's Doctors, which was published in July 2002.

  The GMC's recommendations on general clinical training in the pre registration house officer (PRHO) year cover medical informatics, including how to use information storage and retrieval systems effectively. As part of their in-service training PRHOs are expected to

  RPL: Worthing & Southland Hospitals NHS Trust

  Day Case

  Elective Inpatient

  Non-Elective Inpatient

  Mean Average

  Mean Average

  Mean Average

  HRG Code

  HRG Label

  Unit Cost £

  Unit Cost £

  Unit Cost £

  B02

  Phakoemulsification cataract extraction with lens implant

  939

  1,086

  1,687

  B03

  Other cataract extraction with lens implant

  719

  866

  N/A

  E04

  Coronary bypass

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  H02

  Primary hip replacement

  N/A

  4,457

  6,577

  H04

  Primary knee replacement

  N/A

  4,989

  6,474

  Notes:

  1 The following information was submitted by Worthing & Southlands Hospitals NHS Trust as part of their 2001 submission for reference costs. The figures relate to the financial year 2000–01.

  2 Some procedures can be undertaken as a day case and/or inpatient, e.g. cataracts. Both have different costs, as shown above.

  3 This Trust did not report any activity for coronary artery bypass grafts in 2000–01.
  268W
  become familiar with the information technology facilities of the hospital or health centre in which they are training.

  The content and standard of postgraduate medical training is the responsibility of the UK competent authorities, the Specialist Training Authority for specialist medicine and for general practice, the Joint Committee on Postgraduate Training for General Practice. These bodies have a vested interest in ensuring that doctors are prepared for practice— both in hospital and in general practice— including proficiency in the use of information and communication technology in the National Health Service.

  Eczema
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) children and (b) adults suffer from eczema; and what plans he has to tackle this. [75566]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: Eczema is a very common condition, with prevalence estimated as eight to twenty per cent, for children and two to ten per cent, for adults: one to two and a half million and one to four million respectively in England and Wales. Most cases in children are of mild to moderate severity but eczema can, in some circumstances, cause severe morbidity in adults.

  The action on dermatology programme (AoD) has been looking at how services are organised and the resources used and this should help in the management of eczema. It is expected that the dermatology guidance will be published soon. Around £35 million has been awarded for AoD capital projects.

  Operation Costs
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average cost to the NHS is of(a) hip replacements, (b) knee replacements, (c) heart bypass surgery and (d) cataracts performed by the Worthing and Southlands Hospital Trust. [75741]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: The information requested is shown in the table.
  269W

  PCTs
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements for profit-related pay and bonuses have been made for PCT management in England and Wales. [75513]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: Arrangements for performance-related pay and bonuses for primary care trust management is a matter for local determination. The Department has issued guidelines on pay but, in line with the Government's decision to decentralise the decision-making and control, it is for trusts locally to make and justify their own decisions. Copies of the guidelines have been placed in the Library.

  Information in respect of the arrangements for Wales should be sought from the National Assembly for Wales.

  Acute Beds and Managers
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) acute beds and (b) managers there are in the NHS; and what these figures are as a relative proportion. [75502]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 21 October 2002J: The average daily number of acute beds in England for 2001 is 107,956. This represented an extra 700 beds since 2000—the first increase in general and acute beds in 30 years. This is one third of the way towards the NHS Plan target of 2,100 extra general and acute beds by April 2004.

  There are 26,285 (whole time equivalent) senior managers and managers working within the administration and estates areas of the National Health Service in England as at September 2001. The Government made a commitment to save £1 billion from management costs over five years from 1997–98. We are on course to do so and will publish the results once final accounts have been cleared and data analysed.

  Electronic Appointment Technology
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the terms of his contract with EDS to supply electronic appointment technology to the NHS; and if he will list the other firms that were invited to tender for the contract to supply electronic appointment technology to the NHS. [75521]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: No contract has been awarded to EDS to supply electronic appointment system technology to the National Health Service.

  In line with the information technology procurement strategy proposed for the national programme for IT in the NHS, a selection process is underway using the NHScat managed services framework to identify and select a single "prime service partner" for electronic booking. The successful prime service partner will be contracted to provide and supply software products and planning and implementation services to local health communities jointly with potential systems and services suppliers.
  270W
  All companies on the NHS national framework agreement (NHScat), who were successful in the managed services category, were invited to submit proposals to become the prime service partner for the electronic booking project. The selection process is ongoing. A detailed evaluation was held of the twelve companies listed to provide IT managed services within the NHScat framework. These are BT Health, Computer Science Corporation (CSC), EDS, Elonex, Fujitsu Services, Hewlett Packard, Integris, Specialist Computer Centres (SCC), SX3, Siemens, Unisys, and Viglen. Following that, EDS and BT Health have been invited to put forward detailed proposals as potential IT managed service prime service partners for electronic booking systems. Any award of contract will be subject to successful conclusion of negotiations and approval of a formal business case.

  The selection process is being conducted under the supervision of the NHS Purchasing and Supplies Agency.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to reply to the hon. Member for Nottingham North's letters of Friday 16 August and 8 August. [74869]

  Jacqui Smith
  A reply was sent to my hon. Friend on 14 October.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for Spelthorne will receive a reply to his letter dated 22 August in relation to correspondence with the Surrey and Sussex Health Authority dated 17 April about Mr. G. Smith, a constituent. [74802]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 15 October 2002]: A reply was sent on 17 October.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Bed and Breakfast Accommodation
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many families there are in bed and breakfast accommodation in the last three years for which figures are avilable, broken down by local authority.[74203]

  Mr. McNulty
  Showing available information reported by local authorities in England on the total number of households—including couples and single persons without children—accommodated in bed and breakfast units under statutory homelessness provisions at the end of March in each year since 1999 is avaiblable in the Library.

  National and regional figures are presented in a quarterly Statistical Release, and an accompanying Supplementary Table also summarises reported information at local authority level. Both of these are also available in the House library and via the ODPM website.
  271W
  Earlier this year the Government announced a new commitment to ensure that by March 2004 no family with children will be placed in B&B other than in an emergency, and even then for no more than 6 weeks. This was accompanied by changes in Housing Benefit subsidies to make leasing self-contained temporary accommodation more cost effective, and an additional £35 million to help local authorities find alternatives to Bamp;B.

  Local Government Finance
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the per capita central Government funding for local

  Revenue Support Grant and Redistributed NNDR

  £ Thousand

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Revenue Support Grant (cash terms)1

  5,530

  5,527

  5,496

  6,157

  5,849

  National Non-Domestic Rate (cash terms)1

  3,743

  4,063

  4,595

  4,615

  5,231

  Total (cash terms)

  9,273

  9,590

  10,091

  10,772

  11,080

  Total (real terms at 2001–02prices)2

  9,917

  10,013

  10,308

  10,772

  10,810

  Notes:

  1 Source: Local Government Finance Settlements

  2 Real terms calculated using the GDP deflator

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what level of rate support grant has been received by Milton Keynes Unitary Authority in each of the last five years at 2002 prices(a) in total and (b) per head of population. [75911]

  Revenue Support Grant and Redistributed NNDR

  £ Thousand

  1998–99

  1999–200

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Revenue Support Grant (cash terms)1

  71,942

  74,490

  72,924

  80,691

  73,976

  National Non-Domestic Rate (cash terms)1

  46,461

  51,080

  58,517

  58,183

  64,530

  Total (cash terms)

  118,403

  125,570

  131,441

  138,874

  138,506

  Total (real terms at 2001–02 prices)2

  126,622

  131,112

  134,267

  138,874

  135,128

  Total (at 2001–02prices) per head (£)2,3

  691

  715

  733

  754

  733

  Notes:

  1 Source: Local Government Finance Settlements

  2 Real terms calculated using GDP deflator

  3 Amounts per head have been calculated using mid-year population estimates for the appropriate year from the Office for National Statistics (ONS). Figures for 2001–02 and 2002–03 use the mid-2001 population estimates, which are based on the results of the 2001 census. Population estimates for earlier years are based on uprating from the 1991 census, and these will be revised by ONS at a later date.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what provision he will make to fire authorities spending above their SSAs when he revises the SSA formula for fire; and if he will make a statement. [73940]

  Mr. Leslie
  Statutory responsibility for the provision of fire services rests locally with the fire authority.

  We invited comments on options for changes to the formulae for the distribution of revenue support grant for local authority services, including fire, in a consultation period which ran from 8 July to 30 September. Our proposals will be announced in the provisional local government finance settlement later this year.
  272W
  government expenditure has been for each London borough for the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [75109]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what level of rate support grant has been received by Cambridge City Council for the last five years at 2002 prices. [75007]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Cambridge City Council received the following revenue support grant and redistributed national non-domestic rates between 1998–99 and 2002–03.

  Mr. Raynsford
  Milton Keynes Unitary Authority received the following revenue support grant and redistributed national non-domestic rates (NNDR) between 1998–99 and 2002–03(a) in total and (b) per head of population.

  The total provision for revenue funding for fire and other local authority services is considered in the spending reviews. Under Spending Review 2002, announced in July, the fire service share of Total Standard Spending in England will be increased by £61.6 million (4 per cent.) for 2003–04 and by increases of £70 million (4.4 per cent.) and £50 million (2.9 per cent.) in the following two years.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action he plans to take to deploy additional military
  273W
  resources to Somerset in the event of industrial action by the Fire Brigades Union; and if he will make a statement. [75632]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In the event of an industrial action by the Fire Brigades' Union, 5 Green Goddesses, 3 Breathing Apparatus Rescue Teams and 1 Regional Equipment Support Team will be based in Somerset. However resources are not tied to a particular authority and will be used flexibly to respond to incidents where the need is greatest.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what contingency plans he has in the event of strikes in the Fire Service during the winter of 2002–03. [75476]

  Mr. Leslie
  In the event of a strike by the Fire Service basic fire cover will be provided by the armed services. Firefighting cover will be provided by military personnel operating 827 Green Goddesses. They will be supported by 331 Breathing Apparatus Rescue Teams reinforced by 59 Regional Equipment Support Teams. In all about 19,000 military personnel will be engaged in this exercise.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures are in place to ensure that the Fire Service has adequate resources and equipment. [73389]

  Mr. Leslie
  Statutory responsibility for the provision of fire services rests locally with the fire authority. However, a fire authority may not reduce its establishment without the approval of the Secretary of State under section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947. Consent is only given when he is satisfied that the national standards of fire cover will be maintained. Fire authorities are inspected regularly by HM Fire Services Inspectorate as to the manner in which they are performing their functions.

  Under Spending Review 2002 the fire service share of Total Standard Spending in England will be increased by £61.6 million (4 per cent.) for 2003–04 and by increases of £70 million (4.4 per cent.) and £50 million (2. per cent.) in the following two years.

  There have also been substantial increases in fire service capital provision for England and Wales, with an increase of 67 per cent. in 2001–02. A further increase of 3.4 per cent. is planned for 2003–04 and this level of credits will be maintained for 2004–05 and 2005–06. An additional £200 million in PFI credit approvals has already been earmarked for the fire service, and a further £50 million in PFI credits will be made available to the service in both 2004–05 and 2005–06.

  £43 million will be provided under the Capital Modernisation Fund for mass decontamination equipment, supported by an additional £13 million in revenue funding. We have said that we shall fully fund the new fire service radio replacement strategy. Among other funding initiatives, we are providing £15 million additional funding over three years from 2003–4 for community fire safety and arson reduction initiatives, targeting socially deprived areas.

  Under the Central Local Partnership, we will continue to work closely with fire service stakeholders in England and Wales in the Fire Service Expenditure Forecasting Group to assess future funding pressures.
  274W
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if he plans to bring the firefighters working in the Retained and Volunteer Duty System up to the same standard of training and pay as their whole time counterparts; [73392]

  (2) What the pay levels are of members of the Emergency Fire Control Staff; and what proposals he has to bring wages in line with firefighters of equivalent rank. [73391]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As announced on 5 September, an independent review of the Fire Service is being conducted by Professor Sir George Bain. The review will look at the future organisation and management of the fire service in the United Kingdom, including retained and voluntary firefighters. In that context it will look at pay and conditions of service. It would not be appropriate, therefore, for me to pre-empt the outcome of the review.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the recent discussions with the Fire Brigades Union; and what conclusions have been reached. [73393]

  Mr. Leslie
  Following discussions with the Fire Brigades Union and other interested parties, on the 5 September my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions announced an independent review of the Fire Service. The review will be conducted by Professor Sir George Bain, who has an outstanding record in industrial relations and academia, including key roles at the London Business School, ACAS and the Low Pay Commission. He will be assisted by Sir Anthony Young, a past President of the TUC, and Sir Michael Lyons, who until recently was the Chief Executive of Birmingham City Council.

  Housing
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) when(a) he and (b) other Ministers from his Department have attended meetings of the Affordable Housing Unit; [76283]

  (2) when the Affordable Housing Unit will make a progress report on its remit to work with partners and stakeholders to increase significantly the supply of affordable housing in high demand areas; [76284]

  (3) what progress has been made by the Affordable Housing Unit towards its remit to work with partners and stakeholders to increase significantly the supply of affordable housing in high demand areas. [76285]

  Mr. McNulty
  In his statement of 18 July, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister set out the need for a step change in housing supply in order to provide decent, affordable homes for people wherever they live, and to do that by promoting sustainable communities, including a series of policy measures which will help increase the supply of housing including affordable housing. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has said that he will return to the House at the turn of the year with a major statement on how this programme will be taken forward.

  Following my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's statement the work of the Affordable Housing Unit has been extended to take account of this

  275W
  wider remit and the unit has been renamed the Planning, Housing and Growth Unit to reflect this. Research, which the Unit has commissioned, on topics such as airspace development and financial incentives for affordable housing is published as part of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's research programme and Ministers meet with officials regularly as part of the process of policy development.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his estimate is of the amount of land required to accommodate the Government's housing targets by 2016. [74855]

  Mr. McNulty
  No such estimates are made. Annual rates of housebuilding for each region are set out in regional planning guidance. At the local level, we expect local authorities to plan to meet housing requirements in the most sustainable way. The policy is set out in Planning Policy Guidance note 3,Housing, which provides for better use of land by encouraging sustainable densities and consideration of previously-developed sites before greenfield land.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects to publish a review of London housing strategy. [76331]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government Office for London and the Housing Corporation published the 2002 edition of the London Housing Statement in August 2002. The Government Office will be working with partners on the production of a London Housing Strategy by September 2003.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average length of time was between an application for rehousing under the Seaside and Country Homes Scheme and nomination to a property in the last 12 months. [74151]

  Mr. McNulty
  276 days.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what has been the annual rate of reletting of council housing stock in each year since 1972. [74261]

  Mr. McNulty
  Centrally available information collected from local authorities annually since 1979–80 is presented below.

  Local Authority Stock Lettings to New and Existing Tenants: England

  Total Lettings

  as a% of stock

  1979–80

  411,800

  8.6

  1980–81

  444,000

  9.2

  1981–82

  414,700

  8.6

  1982–83

  438,800

  9.0

  1983–84

  429,100

  9.1

  1984–85

  429,300

  9.3

  1985–86

  437,000

  9.6

  1986–87

  430,200

  9.6

  1987–88

  425,800

  9.6

  1988–89

  410,200

  9.5

  1989–90

  390,300

  9.3

  1990–91

  400,900

  9.9

  1991–92

  406,500

  10.4

  1992–93

  399,900

  10.4

  1993–94

  404,900

  10.8

  1994–95

  407,900

  11.1

  1995–96

  415,200

  11.6

  1996–97

  422,000

  12.2

  276W

  Local Authority Stock Lettings to New and Existing Tenants: England

  Total Lettings

  as a%, of stock

  1997–98

  403,900

  11.9

  1998–99

  378,900

  11.4

  1999–2000

  354,000

  11.1

  2000–01

  326,600

  10.8

  Note:

  Lettings include mutual exchanges and transfers of existing tenants, and lettings made to new tenants on either secure or non-secure tenancies.

  Source:

  DOE/DTLR/ODPM Housing Investment Programme returns (annual)

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he has had with local authorities about the Housing Mutual model to encourage housing transfer. [74515]

  Mr. McNulty
  Ministers have had no discussions with English local authorities about the Housing Mutual model to encourage housing transfer.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the rate of change was in house prices in the past five years, broken down by region. [73964]

  Mr. McNulty
  The rate of change in house prices in the past five years, by region, is estimated to have been as follows:

  Region

  North East

  + 33.7%

  North West

  + 54.8%

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  + 49.6%

  East Midlands

  + 72.4%

  West Midlands

  + 65.4%

  East

  + 92.6%

  London

  + 110.0%

  South East

  + 94.6%

  South West

  + 97.0%

  England

  + 82.7%

  Wales

  + 56.1%

  Scotland

  + 27.5%

  Northern Ireland

  + 66.1%

  United Kingdom

  + 77.1%

  Sources:

  ODPM Survey of Mortgage Lenders

  Increase in the regional house price indices between Q2 1997 and Q2 2002.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent action has been taken to address the Housing shortages in(a) Glasgow and (b) the UK. [74419]

  Mr. McNulty
  Following devolution, housing policy in Scotland. Wales and Northern Ireland is a matter for the relevant devolved administrations.

  Regional Planning Guidance requires planning bodies to strategically examine housing need, including the need for affordable housing, across their areas. We also expect local authorities to plan to meet their housing needs.

  However, we recognise the need for more affordable homes in England, and have substantially increased resources to address this. Funding for the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme

  277W
  (ADP) for next year will be £1. 2 billion, almost double the figure for 2000–2001. This should deliver 22,700 homes next year.

  My right hon. Friend, the Deputy Prime Minister will return to the House at the turn of the year with a comprehensive long-term programme of action to tackle supply and demand issues, as promised in his statement of 18 July 2002, Official Report, Hansard, (col. 438).

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent action has been taken to ensure that(a) the right to buy is not abused and (b) people are able to have the option of buying their homes. [74421]

  Mr. McNulty
  We are concerned about abuses of the Right to Buy scheme and we have commissioned research into their scope and extent. The results will be available by the end of this year. We are considering what can be done about such abuses, but we have no plans to end the Right to Buy scheme.

  Under its devolved powers, the Scottish Parliament has passed legislation introducing a Modernised Right to Buy for new tenants in Scotland, to take effect from 30 September 2002.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent measures have been taken to improve the quality and conditions of social housing in(a) Glasgow and (b) the UK. [74420]

  Mr. McNulty
  Responsibility for housing in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is a matter for the relevant devolved administrations.

  For England we have set a Public Service Agreement target to bring all social housing up to a decent standard by 2010.

  To help ensure delivery against this target we have set up a Delivery Unit to work with Government Offices and the Housing Corporation to ensure local authorities and housing associations quantify the level of non-decent housing in their stock and put in place a strategy for dealing with the problem, backed up by a very significant increase in resources since 1997.

  Local Authority

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–00

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Barking and Dagenham

  2 x 2 bed

  3 x 2 bed

  4 x 2 bed

  4

  1 x bedsit

  1 x 1 bed

  3 x 3 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  Barnet

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x l bed

  0

  2 x bedsit

  2 x 1 bed

  3 x 2 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  2 x 2 bed

  1 x 4 bed

  Bexley

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x l bed

  1 x l bed

  0

  Brent

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  0

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  Bromley

  2 x 1 bed

  1 x l bed

  2 x l bed

  0

  1 x 1 bed

  3 x 1 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  1 x 5 + bed

  Camden

  2 x bedsit

  1 x l bed

  6 x 1 bed

  7

  3 x bedsit

  1 x 1 bed

  4 x 1 bed

  3 x 2 bed

  3 x 2 bed

  6 x 1 bed

  2 x 1 bed

  3 x 2 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  3 x 3 bed

  2 x 2 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 4 bed

  1 x 4 bed

  City of London

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x l bed

  1 x bedsit

  1

  1 x bedsit

  1 x 2 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  278W
  The emphasis on delivery is paying dividends and we are on track to meet our interim target of bringing a third of the worst social housing up to a decent standard by 2004.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many applicants are on the waiting list for a nomination to a property under the Seaside and Country Homes Scheme. [74150]

  Mr. McNulty
  On 30 September 2002 there were 564 applicants on the waiting list for a nomination to a property under the Seaside and Country Homes Scheme.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what research his Department has undertaken into the impact of relets of council housing of the introduction of the Right-to-Buy scheme. [74262]

  Mr. McNulty
  We have commissioned research into the scope and extent of abuses of the Right to Buy scheme. The results will be available by the end of this year.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what assessment he has made of the impact of the Seaside and Country Homes Scheme on easing pressure on social housing in London; [74152]

  (2) how many and what size of properties were released by nominees from London boroughs to the Seaside and Country Homes Scheme in each year since 1979, broken down by region. [74149]

  Mr. McNulty
  The number of London Lettings released by the operation of the scheme in recent years are listed in the table below. This represents a useful contribution to easing pressure on social housing in London.

  The number of households rehoused under the Seaside and Country Homes Scheme by property size are as follows. Figures prior to 1996–97 are not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. For 1999–00 (when the management of the Scheme was moved from North British Housing Association to HOMES) figures are not available by property size.
  279W

  Local Authority

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–00

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Croydon

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x bedsit

  4 x 1 bed

  7

  6 x 1 bed

  3 x 1 bed

  2 x 1 bed

  3 x 3 bed

  3 x 2 bed

  3 x 2 bed

  2 x 3 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  2 x 3 bed

  1 x 4 bed

  Ealing

  2 x l bed

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  4

  1 x 2 bed

  1 x l bed

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  2 x 3 bed

  1 x 4 bed

  Enfield

  5 x 1 bed

  1 x bedsit

  1 x 1 bed

  5

  1 x 2 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  2 x 2 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  3 x 2 bed

  2 x 3 bed

  4 x 2 bed

  2 x 3 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  Greenwich

  1 x 3 bed

  5 x l bed

  9 x 2 bed

  6

  5 x l bed

  3 x l bed

  3 x 2 bed

  9 x 2 bed

  2 x 3 bed

  4 x 2 bed

  3 x 2 bed

  2 x 3 bed

  3 x 3 bed

  3x3 bed

  3 x 4 bed

  Hackney

  1 x bedsit

  8 x l bed

  3 x bedsit

  13

  1 x bedsit

  1 x l bed

  6 x 2 bed

  5 x 2 bed

  3 x 1 bed

  2 x 1 bed

  2 x 2 bed

  6 x 3 bed

  10x3 bed

  9 x 2 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  2 x 3 bed

  1 x 5+ bed

  6 x 3 bed

  1 x 4 bed

  Hammersmith & Fulham

  2 x l bed

  3 x l bed

  4 x 2 bed

  1

  2 x 2 bed

  1 x bedsit

  3 x 2 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 4 bed

  1 x 4 bed

  Haringey

  1 x l bed

  2 x l bed

  7 x 2 bed

  13

  2 x bedsit

  2 x 1 bed

  3 x 2 bed

  3 x 2 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  4 x 3 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  5 x 3 bed

  2 x 3 bed

  1 x 4 bed

  Harrow

  1 x 2 bed

  2 x l bed

  1 x 1 bed

  0

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  Havering

  4 x l bed

  3 x 1 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  4

  3 x 1 bed

  3 x 2 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  4 x 2 bed

  3 x 3 bed

  2 x 3 bed

  Hillingdon

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  0

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  2 x 3 bed

  Hounslow

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x l bed

  1 x bedsit

  6

  1 x 2 bed

  4 x 1 bed

  2 x 2 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  4 x 3 bed

  3 x 2 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  2 x 3 bed

  Islington

  4 x 1 bed

  1 x bedsit

  2 x 1 bed

  12

  5 x 1 bed

  3 x 1 bed

  5 x 2 bed

  2 x 1 bed

  4 x 2 bed

  3 x 2 bed

  4 x 2 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  5 x 2 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  5 x 3 bed

  4 x 3 bed

  1 x 4 bed

  2 x 4 bed

  2 x 4 bed

  1 x 4 bed

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x l bed

  1 x bedsit

  2

  1 x bedsit

  1 x bedsit

  2 x 2 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  Kingston upon Thames

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x bedsit

  I

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  Lambeth

  3 x l bed

  1 x l bed

  4 x bedsit

  11

  2 x 1 bed

  1 x l bed

  9 x 2 bed

  5 x 2 bed

  2 x 1 bed

  4 x 2 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  3 x 3 bed

  6 x 3 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  3 x 3 bed

  3 x 3 bed

  1 x 4 bed

  2 x 4 bed

  4 x 3 bed

  1 x 4 bed

  3 x 4 bed

  Lewisham

  2 x l bed

  3 x l bed

  2 x l bed

  6

  2 x 1 bed

  2 x 1 bed

  3 x 2 bed

  9 x 2 bed

  4 x 2 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  6 x 2 bed

  2 x 3 bed

  6 x 3 bed

  3 x 3 bed

  5 x 3 bed

  3 x 3 bed

  1 x 4 bed

  1 x 4 bed

  Merton

  1 x l bed

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  2

  2 x 2 bed

  1 x l bed

  1 x 2 bed

  2 x 3 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  Newham

  1 x bedsit

  2 x 1 bed

  2 x 1 bed

  13

  16 x 1 bed

  2 x l bed

  6 x 1 bed

  10x2 bed

  10x2 bed

  7 x 2 bed

  10 x 2 bed

  12x2 bed

  3 x 3 bed

  5 x 3 bed

  7 x 3 bed

  10 x 3 bed

  4 x 3 bed

  2 x 4 bed

  3 x 4 bed

  1 x 4 bed

  4 x 4 bed

  Redbridge

  2 x 1 bed

  2 x 2 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  0

  2 x 1 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  Richmond upon Thames

  1 x 2 bed

  1 x bedsit

  0

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  Southwark

  4 x l bed

  1 x bedsit

  7 x 1 bed

  14

  4 x 1 bed

  2 x 1 bed

  11 x 2 bed

  6 x 1 bed

  7 x 2 bed

  5 x 2 bed

  8 x 2 bed

  10 x 3 bed

  8 x 2 bed

  8 x 3 bed

  12 x 3 bed

  6 x 3 bed

  3 x 4 bed

  5 x 3 bed

  1 x 4 bed

  1 x 4 bed

  1 x 5+ bed

  280W 281W

  Local Authority

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–00

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Sutton

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  3

  1 x 2 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x 5 + bed

  1 x 2 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  2 x 3 bed

  Tower Hamlets

  2 x 1 bed

  1 x bedsit

  1 x bedsit

  10

  10 x 1 bed

  4 x 1 bed

  4 x 2 bed

  6 x 1 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  4 x 2 bed

  2 x 2 bed

  4 x 3 bed

  7 x 2 bed

  3 x 2 bed

  2x3 bed

  3 x 3 bed

  3 x 3 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 4 bed

  1 x 4 bed

  1 x 4 bed

  Waltham Forest

  2 x 1 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  8

  2 x 1 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  5 x 2 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  3 x 2 bed

  2 x 2 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  Wandsworth

  1 x 1 bed

  2 x 1 bed

  4 x 1 bed

  3

  2 x 2 bed

  2 x 1 bed

  3 x 2 bed

  2 x 2 bed

  4 x 2 bed

  2 x 3 bed

  2 x 2 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  2 x 3 bed

  2 x 3 bed

  Westminster

  1 x bedsit

  1 x bedsit

  1 x 4 bed

  2

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x bedsit

  3 x 1 bed

  3 x 1 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x 4 bed

  Total

  5 x bedsit

  8 x bedsit

  11 x bedsit

  10 x bedsit

  4 x bedsit

  58 x 1 bed

  63 x 1 bed

  46 x 1 bed

  69 x 1 bed

  47 x 1 bed

  85 x 2 bed

  86 x 2 bed

  85 x 2 bed

  51 x 2 bed

  54 x 2 bed

  47 x 3 bed

  53 x 3 bed

  43 x 3 bed

  65 x 3 bed

  51 x 3 bed

  12 x 4 bed

  10 x 4 bed

  5 x 4 bed

  10 x 4 bed

  10 x 4 bed

  4 x 5+ bed

  Moves from RSLs (location and property size not recorded)

  —

  —

  9

  8

  9

  25

  Total

  207

  224

  199

  166

  214

  191

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many appeals against the valuation of a property being sold under the right-to-buy scheme have been submitted in London in each year since 1980; and how many of those appeals resulted in a reduction in the valuation. [74267]

  Mr. McNulty
  Figures for the number of appeals against right-to-buy valuations in London are only available from 1992 onwards, information prior to this date is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. They are as follows:

  Year

  Appeals against valuations by local authorities

  Appeals against valuations by Registered Social Landlords

  1992–93

  2,311

  27

  1993–94

  1,300

  25

  1994–95

  757

  18

  1995–96

  705

  4

  1996–97

  715

  2

  1997–98

  920

  6

  1998–99

  1,041

  4

  1999–2000

  1,615

  39

  2000–01

  2,008

  42

  2000–02

  1,758

  80

  Totals

  13,130

  247

  Information on the number of appeals that resulted in a lower valuation is not held centrally, and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  A review of the system for valuing properties for Right to Buy purposes is in progress. The results will be made publicly available when the project is completed.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the popularity of the Seaside and Country Homes Scheme among older tenants in London. [74153]
  282W
  Mr. McNulty
  No recent assessment has been made of the popularity of the Scheme.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to require boroughs in London which have received above expected Approved Development Programme funding from the Housing Corporation to make a proportion of new lettings available to applicants from boroughs with lower than expected ADP funding. [74260]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Housing Corporation will be working closely with London boroughs to agree a framework across London for the pooling of nominations for new lettings on a sub-regional basis, similar to those in existence under the London Housing Partnership programme, to widen choice and promote cohesive communities.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the impact that the Rent Rebate Subsidy Limitation regulations have on a local authority's capacity to finance the revenue costs of concierge security schemes. [74148]

  Mr. McNulty
  Each local authority has a responsibility to balance its Housing Revenue Account, and to decide what services it can provide taking account of its income e.g. from rents and HRA subsidy.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to establish separate funding provision for(a) new social and affordable housing, (b) repair and regeneration of social sector stock, and (c) funding of housing market renewal; and if he will make a statement. [73944]

  Mr. McNulty
  The 2002 spending review settlement has provided an extra £1.4 billion for housing over three years. This will help to provide well-designed, affordable homes where they are needed, improve stock
  283W
  conditions in both the social and the private sectors, and tackle low demand through significant funding for the pathfinder projects.

  Current arrangements channel most funding for new affordable housing through the Housing Corporation, and for repair of social stock through local authorities.

  My right hon. Friend The Deputy Prime Minister announced on 18 July 2002, Official Report, Hansard, (col. 438) that he plans to bring housing investment into a single regional pot, to ensure that housing investment decisions are brought together with planning for housing, and linked with regional economic and transport strategies. He is carefully considering the best way forward and will announce the details in due course.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to expand the Seaside and Country Homes Scheme. [74154]

  Mr. McNulty
  There are currently no plans to expand the Seaside and Country Homes Scheme. However, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is working with HOMES, North British Housing Association and the London Borough of Bromley (on behalf of the London Boroughs) to review the workings of the scheme in order to improve the efficiency of its operation.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many households in London are one or more bedrooms below the bedroom standard, broken down by local authority. [74145]

  Mr. McNulty
  The information requested for London, together with comparable data for England, are given in the table below.

  Information for individual local authorities is not held centrally, and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Households Below the Bedroom Standard1 : 2001–022

  Thousand

  Per cent.

  London

  175

  6

  England

  501

  2

  Source:

  Survey of English Housing, ODPM

  1 Bedroom standard is an indicator of occupation density. A notional number of bedrooms are allocated to each household in accordance with its age/sex/marital status composition and the relationship of the members to each other. This is then compared with the actual number of bedrooms (including bed-sitters) available for the sole use of the household.

  2 Information for 2001–02 is provisional.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what research he has commissioned into the Housing Health and Safety Rating System since July 2001; what the terms of reference are for that research; who is undertaking it; and when he expects it to be published. [74143]

  Mr. McNulty
  We are currently running three research projects relating to the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The first, which began in January 2001, is to develop the statistics to support the system, and is being carried out by Warwick University with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. The second, which began in August 284W
  2001, is an evaluation project, by DTZ Pieda, to identify the practical lessons to be learned from the publication of Version 1 of HHSRS in July 2000. The third, which began in September 2001, is to produce the guidance needed to assist local authorities in the application of HHSRS specifically to houses in multiple occupation, and is being carried out by the Building Research Establishment. Reports on these projects are expected to be published by the end of this year. This work will inform the production of Version 2 of HHSRS, which we expect to commission in time for publication next autumn as part of a comprehensive package of guidance.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent assessment he has made of the size and type of accommodation suitable as an alternative to LA and RSL tenants underoccupying their current accommodation; and what measures he has taken to encourge LAs and RSLs in areas of high demand to ensure that this type of accommodation is included in new developments. [74156]

  Mr. McNulty
  No such assessment has been carried out by the Government. However, local authorities in their role as strategic housing authorities are required to assess the type of accommodation required in their areas. Local authorities may also require a proportion of affordable housing as part of new developments, often built by Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) and funded by the Housing Corporation. RSLs must ensure that bids for capital investment in social housing fit with local authority and regional priorities and the Housing Corporation's National Investment Strategy.

  Over the next 10 years, the Government will encourage councils and housing associations to set their rents to within 5 per cent. of the levels given by a national formula that reflects a property's size, location and condition. This will give tenants the choice over paying more for a larger property in a high cost area, or saving money by renting a smaller property.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to replace the current overcrowding standards; and if he will make a statement. [74144]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government have no immediate plans to replace the overcrowding standard. But they are considering the extent to which overcrowding can be tackled through a new health and safety enforcement regime for housing, based on the new health and safety rating system.

  The Government intend to legislate to introduce the new enforcement regime as a replacement for the fitness standard when Parliamentary time allows.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent assessment he has made of the impact of concierge security schemes on antisocial behaviour in local authority tower blocks. [74147]

  Mr. Tony McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has not made a recent assessment of the impact of concierge security schemes on antisocial behaviour in local authority tower blocks.
  285W

  Local Authority Capital Receipts
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer of 7 May 2002,Official Report, column 22W, on local authority capital receipts, concerning his intention to pool housing capital receipts from debt-free authorities (a) what proportion of the receipts will be pooled, (b) on what basis and to which other local authorities the money will be redistributed, (c) on what date this arrangement will be implemented; (d) how this arrangement will encourage existing debt-free authorities to remain so and others to become debt-free, (e) whether the new arrangements will apply to clawbacks from previous large scale voluntary transfers of council housing and (f) how these proposals will help those local authorities who have difficulties in providing additional affordable housing due to the high price of buildings. [76525]

  Mr. McNulty
  Our consultation paper "The Way Forward for Housing Capital Finance", issued in August, sought views on the detailed mechanism of the capital receipts pooling regime. The consultation period ended last Friday and we will make a further announcement when we have considered the responses. As the then Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) said in her reply on 7 May 2002,Official Report, Hansard (col. 21–22W) these changes will be introduced alongside the wider changes to the local authority capital finance system which required primary legislation; the timing of this is still to be decided.

  The proposal is about sharing out funding for investment fairly among local housing authorities. The current arrangements for redistributing the spending power of capital receipts do not apply to all authorities. Debt-free authorities are exempt—they retain all their capital receipts, and so finance substantially more investment from receipts than other authorities, regardless of their relative need to spend.

  There is no good reason for this anomaly. Pooling will ensure that capital resources are better targeted, so that all housing authorities have the access they need to fund new affordable housing and bring their stock up to decent standard. Without this, either investment in housing by the most needy authorities would need to fall, or substantial increases in taxes would be necessary to make good the money that debt-free authorities retain.

  Compulsory Purchase
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many homes have been compulsorily purchased using central Government funding in each year since 1980. [75966]

  Mr. McNulty
  This information requested is not held centrally, and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Affordable Housing
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many affordable housing units have been built in each year since 1980. [75969]
  286W
  Mr. McNulty
  The figures for the number of permanent dwellings completed in England since 1980–81 by Registered Social Landlords and Local Authorities are given in the table below. The total numbers of completions, including private enterprise figures have also been given for comparison purposes.

  Number of Permanent Dwellings Completed: England

  Thousands

  Fin Year

  Registered Social Landlords

  Local Authority

  RSL plus LA

  All Dwellings

  1980–81

  19.9

  73.7

  93.6

  201.2

  1981–82

  15.0

  47.6

  62.6

  161.0

  1982–83

  10.8

  29.5

  40.2

  153.0

  1983–84

  14.8

  29.5

  44.3

  179.3

  1984–85

  13.4

  28.7

  42.0

  179.1

  1985–86

  10.9

  22.0

  32.9

  168.3

  1986–87

  10.4

  19.1

  29.5

  184.6

  1987–88

  11.2

  16.2

  27.4

  194.9

  1988–89

  10.8

  16.1

  26.9

  199.0

  1989–90

  10.9

  14.7

  25.6

  174.1

  1990–91

  14.6

  13.0

  27.5

  160.0

  1991–92

  16.0

  7.1

  23.1

  155.1

  1992–93

  24.0

  2.6

  26.5

  142.5

  1993–94

  30.2

  1.5

  31.7

  147.7

  1994–95

  31.4

  0.9

  32.2

  158.0

  1995–96

  30.2

  0.8

  31.0

  154.6

  1996–97

  24.6

  0.5

  25.1

  146.2

  1997–98

  21.4

  0.3

  21.7

  149.6

  1998–99

  18.9

  0.2

  19.1

  138.6

  1999–00

  17.4

  0.1

  17.5

  141.8

  2000–01

  16.6

  0.4

  17.0

  133.7

  2001–02

  14.4

  0.1

  14.6

  130.3

  Source:

  ODPM Housing statistics

  Martin Linton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what advice he has given to local planning authorities on planning approval for affordable housing developments and creating mixed communities. [75170]

  Mr. McNulty
  Planning policies for affordable housing are set out in Planning Policy Guidance note 3,Housing, and in Circular 6/98, Planning and Affordable Housing. Local authorities are expected to plan to meet the housing requirements of the whole community, including those in need of affordable housing. To encourage mixed and balanced communities, local authorities should ensure that new housing developments help to secure a better social mix by avoiding the creation of large areas of housing of similar characteristics.

  Planning Guidance Notes
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Court of Appeal decisions in(a) R. v Brent London Borough Council and Others (b) R. v Oxfordshire County Council's Exclusion Panel and Another on planning guidance notes and what plans he has to withdraw paragraph 98 of PPG8 so that local planning authorities may be able to take into account health affects and concerns relating to telephone masts. [75213]

  Mr. McNulty
  Planning Policy Guidance Note 1 "General Policy and Principles" clearly states that in principle any consideration which relates to the use and development of land is capable of being a planning
  287W
  consideration. Whether a particular consideration falling within that broad class is material in any given case will depend on the circumstances.

  The Courts have also held that the Government's statements of planning policy are material considerations which must be taken into account, where relevant, in decisions on planning applications. These statements cannot make irrelevant any matter which is a material consideration in a particular case. But, where such statements indicate the weight that should be given to relevant considerations, decision-makers must have proper regard to them. If they elect not to follow relevant statements of the Government's planning policy, they must give clear and convincing reasons (E C Grandsen and Co Ltd v SSE and Gillingham BC 1985).

  Current planning guidance on telecommunications is set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 (revised) (PPG8). PPG8 states that health considerations and public concern can in principle be material considerations in determining applications for planning permission and prior approval. Whether such matters are material in a particular case is ultimately a matter for the courts. It is for the decision-maker (usually the local planning authority) to determine what weight to attach to such considerations in any particular case.

  However, it is the Government's firm view that the planning system is not the place for determining health safeguards. It remains central Government's responsibility to decide what measures are necessary to protect public health. In the Government's view, if a proposed mobile phone base station meets the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines for public exposure it should not be necessary for a local planning authority, in processing an application for planning permission or prior approval, to consider further the health aspects and concerns about them.

  I have no plans to withdraw paragraph 98 from PPG8.

  Starter Home Initiative
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the classes of key workers that have benefited and stand to benefit from the starter home initiative in London so far; and what decision he has made on which groups of key workers will benefit in the next round of funding. [75168]

  Mr. McNulty
  £146 million Starter Home Initiative funding was allocated in September 2001 to help 4,600 key workers in London into home ownership by March 2004. The key workers in London benefiting from the Initiative are primarily teachers, police and health workers; and also some social workers, care workers, transport workers and fire fighters. We are considering, as part of our long term programme of action for housing, how key workers can best be targeted for housing assistance beyond March 2004, and will make an announcement about this at the turn of the year.
  288W
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many homes for key workers, by London borough, have been built or are under construction through the starter home initiative; and how many start-ups are expected in 2003–04. [75169]

  Mr. McNulty
  The majority of Starter Home Initiative (SHI) funding is helping key workers to buy existing properties on the open market. As at the end of September 2002, some 460 key workers across London had purchased homes with SHI assistance. A further 4,140 in London should be helped through the Initiative by March 2004.

  Backland Development
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the lack of explicit guidance on backland development in the present PPG3 signifies a relaxation of the controls on backland development outlined in the 1992 guidance; and if he will make a statement. [75908]

  Mr. McNulty
  There is increased emphasis in the new PPG3 on securing well-designed residential environments, which offer housing opportunities for all in the community in the most sustainable way. Local authorities and developers are expected to think imaginatively about designs and layouts which make good use of previously developed land in urban areas without compromising the quality of the environment. In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should reject poor design.

  National Land Use Database
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will require local authorities to publish lists of sites submitted to the National Land Use Database; and when he intends to issue such a requirement. [74980]

  Mr. McNulty
  Aggregate figures for local authorities for 2001 were published on 12 September 2002. A list of sites is on the NLUD web site (www.nlud.org.uk) and is available without charge to the public sector under licence. The information for an individual local authority can also be made available to the private sector with the agreement of the local authority concerned. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is working to secure agreement on making the information more widely available.

  Regional Governance
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the proposed size of an individual constituency in an elected regional assembly in the north-west of England. [76218]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The size of an individual constituency will depend on the total number of members of the assembly in each region. As set out in chapters 6 and 7 of the Regional Governance White Paper, an assembly would have between 25 and 35 members in total, mainly depending on its size of population, and around two-thirds of members would represent individual constituencies. The average population per constituency in the north-west would therefore be between around 290,000 (with 23 constituency members) and around 420,000 (with 16 constituency members).
  289W
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what criteria will be used to determine the level of support necessary in Cheshire for the establishment of a regional assembly in the North West of England; and what level of turnout will be used as the democratically legitimate measure for an affirmative vote in any proposed referendum on regional Government in the North West of England. [76217]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As the Regional Governance White Paper,Your Region, Your Choice, said, the primary factor in deciding where a referendum should be held will be the level of interest in holding a referendum in each of the eight regions. A subsidiary factor will be the need to avoid unnecessarily distracting local government with unitary reviews where there is only limited demand for a referendum (paragraph 9.3).

  An affirmative vote at a referendum will occur if a majority of those voting at the referendum vote in favour of establishing an elected assembly for their region.

  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the outcome of the consultation on the White Paper on Regional Governance. [74098]

  Mr. Nick Raynsford
  The White Paper Your Region, Your Choice formally invited comments on stakeholder involvement with elected regional assemblies; the closing date for responses was 31 August 2002. But the White Paper also offered the opportunity for general views to be submitted—there is no deadline for these views and comments are still being received.

  To date, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has received around 1,100 representations on the White Paper, of which around 200 offered comments on stakeholder involvement with elected assemblies

  In addition, we have received around 1,500 postcards in support of the Cornish Constitutional Convention campaign for a referendum on establishing a Cornish Assembly.

  We are currently undertaking detailed assessments of stakeholder responses, and of general responses to the White Paper. These will be published on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website later in the year. We will then set out our further proposals on stakeholder involvement, taking into account views expressed in the consultation.

  It remains the case that we intend to introduce a Bill to provide for referendums and associated local government reviews as soon as Parliamentary time allows, with the aim of enabling the first referendums to be held during this Parliament.

  Vacant Dwellings by Tenure in Devon by Local Authority Area at 1 April 2001

  Local authority1

  Registered Social Landlord2

  Other Public1

  Other Private1

  of which: Owner occ.1

  Total

  East Devon

  27

  18

  0

  2740

  2693

  2785

  Exeter

  40

  56

  2

  820

  #

  918

  Mid Devon

  18

  15

  0

  841

  698

  874

  North Devon

  0

  23

  0

  2475

  2050

  2498

  Plymouth

  417

  161

  297

  3633

  2943

  4508

  South Hams

  0

  24

  0

  4576

  #

  4600

  290W

  Home Buying and Selling
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will publish the consultation paper on the seller's pack and reform of the home buying and selling system. [75462]

  Mr. McNulty
  A major consultation paper "The Key to Easier Home Buying and Selling" was published in December 1998. The consultation found wide-ranging support for the introduction of a seller's pack in England and Wales. We are committed to making it easier for people buying and selling homes through the introduction of a seller's pack, and the necessary legislation will be reintroduced as soon as Parliamentary time allows. Following discussions with representatives of consumers and the main professional and trade bodies, we intend to publish shortly two further consultation papers dealing with the detailed contents of the seller's pack and the application of the seller's pack in areas where property values and demand are very low.

  High Hedges
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proposals he has to bring forward legislation relating to the control of high hedges and trees. [75166]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government are committed to legislation, that would give local authorities in England and Wales powers to deal with complaints about high hedges, as soon as Parliamentary time can be found.

  HMOs
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many fatalities and serious injuries there have been in houses of multiple occupation by local authority area in each of the past 10 years. [75879]

  Mr. McNulty
  The information requested is not held centrally, and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Empty Dwellings
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many dwellings he estimates are empty in each local authority area in Devon, broken down by(a) local authority, (b) RSL, (c) MOD, (d) other public sector and (e) the private sector; and how many of these are owner-occupied. [74857]

  Mr. McNulty
  The number of empty dwellings in each local authority area in Devon at 1 April 2001 broken down by tenure is shown in the table below.
  291W

  Vacant Dwellings by Tenure in Devon by Local Authority Area at 1 April 2001

  Local authority1

  Registered Social Landlord2

  Other Public1

  Other Private1

  of which: Owner occ.1

  Total

  Teign bridge

  12

  5

  0

  2741

  #

  2758

  Torbay

  0

  56

  0

  299

  #

  355

  Torridge

  12

  7

  0

  1000

  #

  1019

  West Devon

  0

  17

  24

  477

  425

  518

  Total

  526

  382

  323

  19602

  #

  20833

  Notes:

  #—not known

  Sources:

  1 ODPM's 2001 Housing Strategy Statistical Appendices completed by local authorities

  2 Housing Corporation's Regulatory and Statistical Return (RSR) completed by RSLs

  Information on empty MOD stock is not held centrally at local authority (or county) level, and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. These dwellings should be included in the local authorities' estimates of "Other public" sector vacants in the above table.

  Local Authority Social Housing Grant
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what plans he has to abolish the local authority social housing grant and replace it with increased resources to the approved development programme to support the priorities of regional housing statements; [76382]

  (2) what proposals he has to convert the current local authority repayable loans to registered social landlords into one-off grants. [76383]

  Mr. McNulty
  The local authority social housing grant (LASHG) enables those local authorities with the necessary capital resources to make a loan to Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) for new or improved social housing, which is then reimbursed by the Housing Corporation. It is a demand-led mechanism, with no link to relative need to spend.

  We have been consulting on options for replacing this system with one that targets resources to areas with the greatest housing need. We have invited comments on two alternatives—providing resources through the Approved Development Programme, or replacing LASHG with a regime in which local authorities make grants direct to RSLs.

  The consultation period ended last Friday and we will make a further announcement when we have considered the responses.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the monthly running costs of the Millennium Dome were in the last six months. [73802]
  292W
  Mr. McNulty
  The total running cost* expenditure on the Dome incurred in the six months up until the end of July 2002 (the last month for which final figures are available) was £1.618 million. This is made up according to the following monthly breakdown:

  Month

  Cost

  Feb

  £290,000

  Mar

  £302,000

  April

  £255,000

  May

  £277,000

  June

  £244,000

  July

  £250,000

  Note:

  * Monthly costs include rates, utilities, security and maintenance, and English Partnerships' staff costs on management and maintenance of the Dome. Costs are calculated on an accruals basis and may be subject to reassessments, by the relevant authorities, of rates or other charges included in the cost of managing and maintaining the Dome.

  These costs, and other costs incurred by English Partnerships since they took ownership of the Dome on 1 July 2001, will be recovered from sale proceeds.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the total cost of the Millennium Dome to public funds has been. [73801]

  Mr. McNulty
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC), which was responsible for building the Dome and running of the Millennium Experience, was allocated £628 million of National Lottery funds from the Millennium Commission for the Millennium Experience, which included the associated national programme of events across the UK as well as the Dome at Greenwich. NMEC is currently in solvent liquidation and it is expected that some £25 million of this grant facility will not be required.

  Up to the end of July this year, English Partnerships (EP) had incurred a total cost of £21.4m. This includes, from 1 July 2001—when EP took over the ownership of the Dome—£3.3m for the management, maintenance and security of the Dome; £6.5m for decommissioning the contents of the Dome and its site in preparation for the future long term use; and £4.9m in connection with the sale process. It also includes £6.7m for the previous competition to find a long-term use for the Dome. All of these costs incurred by EP in relation to the Dome will be recovered from sale proceeds.
  293W

  Second Homes (Council Tax)
  Andrew George
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the responses given to his Department's consultation exercise on second homes and council tax. [76087]

  Mr. Leslie
  An analysis of the responses to the consultation exercise is already available on the website of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and I have

  Year

  2000

  No agreements signed

  2001

  Agreements signed with

  Birmingham City Council

  Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council

  Cambridgeshire County Council

  London Borough of Camden

  Coventry City Council

  Derbyshire County Council

  Kent County Council

  London Borough of Lewisham

  Middlesborough Council

  Milton Keynes Council

  Newcastle City Council

  London Borough of Newham

  Norfolk County Council

  London Borough of Richmond upon Thames

  Sheffield City Council

  Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council

  Sunderland City Council

  Surrey County Council

  Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council

  Warwickshire County Council

  Buckinghamshire County Council

  East Riding of Yorkshire Council

  Leeds City Council

  Peterborough City Council

  2002

  Agreements signed with

  Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council

  London Borough of Bromley

  Cheshire County Council

  London Borough of Croydon

  Derby City Council

  Devon County Council

  Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

  Durham County Council

  Essex County Council

  London Borough of Greenwich

  London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

  Halton Borough Council

  Hampshire County Council

  Herefordshire County Council

  Kirklees Metropolitan Council

  Leicester City Council

  Lincolnshire County Council

  Liverpool City Council

  Manchester City Council

  Medway Council

  Portsmouth City Council

  Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council

  Salford City Council

  Slough Borough Council

  London Borough of Southwark

  Staffordshire County Council

  Stoke-on-Trent City Council

  Suffolk County Council

  London Borough of Sutton

  Swindon Borough Council

  Telford and Wrekin Council

  294W
  now placed a copy of this analysis in the House Library. I hope to be able to announce our decisions on the way forward shortly.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list for each year since 2000 the public service agreements made by his Department. [76175]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Listed below are details of the Local Public Service Agreements signed by this Department and the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions since 2000.
  295W

  Year

  London Borough of Tower Hamlets

  Warrington Borough Council

  Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council

  Wiltshire County Council

  Worcestershire County Council

  York City Council

  Property Prices (Taunton)
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the effects of the change in property prices in Taunton since 1999; and if he will make a statement. [74110]

  Mr. McNulty
  According to the Department's Survey of Mortgage Lenders, house prices in south-west England rose by 31.8 per cent. during the three years 1999 to 2001. According to HM Land Registry figures the average price of residential property sold in Taunton Deane was £85,097 in 1999 and £109,530 in 2001.

  Homeownership is affordable for most people. Homeowners are benefiting from low interest rates, low unemployment and robust income growth. For people purchasing a home in south-west England during 2001, total mortgage payments averaged 17.44 per cent. of their income. This compares to 28.42 per cent. of income in 1990, and is lower than 1999 (17.91 per cent.) and 2000 (19.43 per cent.).

  However, we are well aware that there can be serious problems for many first time buyers in areas of high demand. We are committed to improving people's housing choices, and to ensuring that everyone has the opportunity of a decent home. Our aim is to deliver new affordable housing where it is needed most, in more sustainable forms.

  Data Protection
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister in relation to communications data as defined in RIPA, how many officials from his Department he estimates will be authorised to seek access to communications data; how many times officials have sought access to such data from communications providers including Internet service providers under the Data Protection Act 1998 in the last year; and if he will make a statement. [74588]

  Mr. Leslie
  No officials in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister or its Agencies are engaged in law enforcement activities requiring them to be authorised to access communications data as defined in Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

  Parish Councillors (Model Code of Conduct)
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to request parish councils to indicate how many of their parish councillors have been resigned in response to the introduction of the Model Code of Conduct for Parish Councils. [74229]

  Mr. Leslie
  We have no plans to request such information from parish councils.
  296W

  Personation
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures he proposes to introduce to prevent personation for the local elections to be held on 1 May 2003. [74760]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have no evidence to suggest that personation will be a significant problem at local elections in May 2003, and have no plans to introduce any new specific measures to prevent personation.

  In our prospectus, issued in September 2002, inviting councils to propose pilot voting schemes in the May 2003 local elections, we have made clear that such schemes would need to ensure that any new method of voting is at least as secure, if not more secure, than conventional electoral practices. The Electoral Commission will, as required by statute, be consulted before any pilot schemes are approved. The programme of pilots itself will be looking at new ways to incorporate specific measures to test security and fraud.

  Congress of Local and Regional Authorities
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the(a) national budgetary contribution to, (b) role of and (c) national representation to the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities; when he last met representatives from that group; and if he has made representations on this body to the Foreign Office in the context of the Convention on the Future of Europe. [73861]

  Mr. Leslie
  Member states of the Council of Europe (CoE), including the UK, make no direct budgetary contribution to the Congress of local and Regional Authorities of Europe (CLRAE), which is a consultative body within the CoE consisting of local and regional elected representatives from each of the 44 member states. CLRAE is funded through the CoE's ordinary budget as provided by member states and as agreed by the CoE's Committee of Ministers.

  CLRAE has a Regional and a Local Chamber, membership of which is on the basis of nomination by member states' governments according to the requirements of the CLRAE founding charter. The UK has 9 full and 9 substitute seats in each Chamber. The UK's nomination procedure provides for a balanced representation of local and regional interests; all UK appointees must hold an electoral mandate in a UK local authority, the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales, the Northern Ireland Assembly, or the GLA.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met the leader of the UK's CLRAE delegation at the recent World Environment Conference in Johannesburg. Within the Central Local Partnership my right hon.

  297W
  Friend the Minister for Europe and I regularly meet representatives of local government, including members of the UK CLRAE delegation, to discuss European issues, including the work of the Convention on the Future of Europe.

  Homelessness
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many families were living in bed and breakfast accommodation in(a) East Worthing and Shoreham and (b) West Sussex in each year since 1997. [73926]

  Mr. McNulty
  The East Worthing and Shoreham Parliamentary constituency is covered by Adur DC and part of Worthing DC. Information reported by these and other councils in West Sussex on the total number of households—including couples and single persons without children—accommodated in bed and breakfast units under statutory homelessness provisions at the end of March in each year since 1997 is summarised below.

  Homeless Households in Bed and Breakfast Accommodation as at 31 March *

  Adur DC

  Worthing DC

  All DCs in West Sussex

  1997

  not reported

  39

  65 (estimated)

  1998

  5

  47

  79

  1999

  3

  37

  74

  2000

  3

  37

  74

  2001

  14

  72

  81

  2002

  17

  18

  128

  Note:

  * includes households accommodated pending completion of enquiries by the local authority.

  Sources:

  1997: PI(E) housing return (quarterly)

  1998 onwards: Housing Investment Programme returns (annual)

  Earlier this year the Government announced a new commitment to ensure that by March 2004 no family with children will be placed in B&B other than in an emergency, and even then for no more than 6 weeks. This was accompanied by changes in Housing Benefit subsidies to make leasing self-contained temporary accommodation more cost effective, and an additional £35 million to help local authorities find alternatives to B&B.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he last met the Director of the Homelessness Unit. [73927]

  Mr. McNulty
  My right hon. Friend, the Deputy Prime Minister regularly meets officials in the course of his official duties.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent estimate he has made of the level of homelessness; how he defines a homeless person; and if he will make a statement. [74658]

  Mrs. Barbara Roche
  At the end of June 2002 81,170 households in England were living in temporary accommodation, including over 6,500 families with children in bed and breakfast hotels, and around 600 people were sleeping rough on any one night.
  298W
  Under the homelessness legislation (Housing Act 1996), a person is "statutorily homeless" if they do not have accommodation which they have a legal right to live in, which is physically available to them and which it would be reasonable for them to continue to occupy.

  In March 2002, the Homelessness Directorate published a report "More than a Roof", which outlined the Government's new approach to tackling homelessness funded by £125 million over this year. The Homelessness Act 2002 will also bring about radical change in the way that central and local government. and all other partners, work together to tackle homelessness. For the first time ever, local authorities will be required to carry out a review and develop a strategy for their area that prevents homelessness and provides solutions for people who are, or who may become homeless.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures he is taking to tackle homelessness in rural areas. [73988]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Homelessness Directorate's report "More than a roof", sets out specific measures to tackle homelessness backed up by a £125 million investment over the next year. The Homelessness Directorate has provided a total of over £3.7 million to local authorities in rural areas over the next year to fund schemes such as mediation services for family and couples in relationship difficulties; additional support for women fleeing domestic violence; rent deposit guarantee schemes to help homeless people find housing in the private sector; court and landlord advice services to reduce evictions; and debt and welfare counselling to help people sustain their tenancies.

  Pathfinder Renewal Project
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will announce the resources allocation for the Pathfinder Renewal Project. [74248]

  Mr. McNulty
  The 2002 spending review settlement has provided an extra £1.4 billion for housing. This will help to provide well-designed, affordable homes where they are needed, improve stock conditions in both the social and the private rented sectors, and tackle low demand through significant funds for the pathfinder projects. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is giving careful consideration to the best use of this additional funding to deliver sustainable communities. My right hon. Friend has said that he will report back to the House at the turn of the year.

  Local Government
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister where responsibility will lie for(a) police, (b) waste disposal and (c) fire services in new unitary authorities. [73354]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Regional Governance White Paper,Your Region, Your Choice, published in May. sets out the Government's plans to establish unitary local authorities in place of existing county and district councils in those regions where people vote in a referendum for elected regional assemblies. In any region where the Government decides that a referendum

  299W
  should take place, the Boundary Committee for England will carry out a review and recommend the best unitary arrangements for the two-tier parts of that region. A referendum will then be held to see whether people support the creation of an elected assembly. The new unitary arrangements will be implemented if—but only if—a majority of those voting in the referendum voted for an elected regional assembly.

  Where new unitary arrangements are introduced, we would expect that existing police authorities would remain in place. Appointments to these authorities would be made either by unitary districts or by the unitary county council, depending on the new unitary structure.

  There are currently combined fire authorities in former county areas which have only unitary local authorities; and also in areas where there are one or more unitaries, district councils and a county council. Where changes lead to district-based unitaries in future, we would expect there to be a combined fire authority, but where they lead to a unitary county with no existing or new district-based unitaries, we would expect the county council to remain responsible for providing fire services. This is without prejudice to our consideration of any recommendations on the organisation of the fire service that Professor Sir George Bain's recently announced review might make.

  Waste disposal is currently a responsibility of county councils and would become a responsibility of unitary authorities where these are established in future in regions that have an elected assembly.
  300W

  Local Authority Referendums
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what has been the average turnout for referendums held by local authorities to establish opinion on local issues. [74215]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Information about turnout for those referendums which local authorities hold voluntarily is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. The average turnout in binding referendums which councils held between June 2001 and October 2002 on whether or not their area should have a directly elected mayor was 29 per cent., within a range of 10 per cent. to 64 per cent.

  Rural Housing
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans his Department has to encourage the provision of more affordable housing in rural communities. [73831]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government recognise that there is a shortage of affordable housing in many rural towns and villages. The need can be for both homes to rent and to buy.

  We expect all local authorities to develop housing strategies and to develop local housing need assessments as part of their long-term plans. We believe that judicious use of their planning powers can deliver more affordable housing.

  By next year, we expect to deliver around 9,000 affordable homes annually in rural areas, including 3,000 in small settlements. Of these, a proportion will be for low-cost home ownership.

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

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before business begins, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I will be making the Keynote Address at the Records Management in Government Conference, in Bristol, on Thursday 24th October, when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Information Technology Practitioners
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the numbers currently being trained in information technology systems support in the United Kingdom are adequate.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I can confirm that the supply of specialist information technology practitioners is forecast to meet foreseeable demand. The specialist ICT labour market, however, is dynamic and subject to fluctuation. We continue to monitor it closely and to work with our partners in education and industry to maintain the long-term supply of skills needed to meet the demands of the modern economy.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, is he aware that the key skills shortages in the industry are at level 3 and level 4 and that we are currently totally failing to meet that demand? It is estimated that, next year, for example, there will be 280,000 unfilled vacancies in the industry. We desperately need to train people up to that level. In schemes such as Learn Direct, the Government have been addressing only the need at level 2, which is the GCSE equivalent, rather than the need at level 3 which is the A-level equivalent. How do the Government propose to meet this very serious and critical skills shortage?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Baroness has identified an area of some concern, but I have some good news for her. In 2001, just under 70,000 further education students in the United Kingdom completed a level 3 or higher ICT course, which is a 230 per cent increase on the 1998 figure. Although I recognise that we need to increase performance and the numbers coming through in this
1212
field, there is a clear indication that the number of students enrolling and succeeding in these courses is increasing.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, can the Minister enlighten us about what is happening in the regions? It is very difficult to receive broadband in some of the regions. How can schools, local postmasters and farming communities readapt to a new world if they do not have access to broadband or anyone to teach them how to use it?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for identifying another crucial issue. There is no doubt at all that access to broadband is absolutely crucial for regional development, regional economies and, as he rightly identified, relatively small-scale organisations such as SMEs, all of which require access to these opportunities. I therefore assure the noble Lord that the Government are taking the issue very seriously. He has rightly identified an issue of crucial concern in the development of regional policy and regional economies.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the Minister accept that many good, bona fide IT providers were let down by the failure of the Individual Learning Account scheme? Will there be a replacement scheme? If so, will it include higher-level technology as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right that withdrawal of the ILA scheme created a gap. We are working to replace the scheme, and considerable efforts are being made to ensure that people are able to engage in this training. We seek to develop relationships with the private sector whereby those who provide the systems also provide the training at a reasonably low cost. IT learning opportunities are increasing very significantly. There has, for example, been an encouraging increase in the number of people enrolled on part-time and full-time courses developed over the past few years. We therefore accept that we must replace the ILA. I hope that the noble Baroness will recognise that the Government are taking steps on the supply side to ensure that such courses are provided.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, what provision have the Government made for broadband in rural areas where cable provision is obviously impossible? What is the Government's attitude to bringing broadband to those remote rural areas?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as I indicated a few moments ago, this is a challenging and testing problem. We all know the difficulties of providing these resources in areas where it is exceedingly difficult to install cable. Indeed, we recognised that fact a few years ago when we addressed the issue of television channels. We also recognise that, in terms of the private market, there are limited returns on provision in certain parts of the country. I assure the noble Lord

1213
that the overall thrust of our policy on devolution and the regions obliges us to pay serious attention to opportunities in rural areas and the regions. I assure him that the Government regard that as an important priority.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, will the Minister consider whether people in their fifties with IT skills who have been made redundant in various parts of the country—IT skills are not always the preserve of young people—could become trainers or consultants to small and medium-sized enterprises and to clusters of farms? That could be a wonderful outcome both for those who have the relevant skills and for the people they would train.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the House will recognise that that is a most constructive suggestion against the background of the problems in certain parts of industry which have resulted in a substantial number of well-qualified people dropping out of employment over the past 18 months or so. We should ensure not only that those skills are not lost but also that they are used to the public good. We are considering ways of providing a strategy developed through local LSCs whereby those skills are employed to the benefit of the community.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, given the thrust of the noble Baroness's original Question, can the Minister tell us whether the National Hi-Tech Crime Unit is now fully staffed?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am straying a little out of area if I refer to that unit, but as I understand the position, serious attempts have been made to increase the numbers employed in the unit. However, I shall have to write to the noble Earl with regard to whether the unit is fully staffed.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, does the Minister see a correlation between the shortage of level 4 quality graduate specialists in this area and the difficulty of providing, recruiting and retaining enough competent information technology and computer scientists in the university sector as salaries outside the university sector are exceptionally high? There is a real problem here which may well not apply across all areas of academic discipline. Will the Minister consider discussing the matter with Universities UK?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord has rightly identified a particular problem in higher education which relates to the number of students coming through. I emphasise that the number of computer science graduates has increased substantially in recent years. However, I recognise the point that the noble Lord makes; that is, that university salaries for the particular skills we are discussing are not always competitive with those
1214
offered elsewhere. I am sure that the Minister would be only too pleased to discuss the matter with higher education institutions.

Palace of Westminster: Security
2.45 p.m.
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of alleged political espionage in the Northern Ireland Office, what action they will take, including consultation with the House authorities, to ensure that a similar situation has not occurred and will not occur in the Palace of Westminster.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, there has been no suggestion emerging from the investigation that there is any similar activity in the Palace of Westminster. There are arrangements in place in the Palace to prevent breaches of security. The House authorities rightly never discuss the details of such security arrangements. If there was fear of a security breach in the Palace, it would be the responsibility of Scotland Yard in conjunction with the House authorities to investigate that matter.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that comprehensive Answer. However, does he not agree with me that Sinn Fein has seriously abused the democratic process and that the surest way to ensure that the Palace of Westminster is not contaminated by Sinn Fein spy rings is to withdraw all privileges, including access to the Palace, from Sinn Fein until it has met the Prime Minister's demand made last week to disband PIRA and become true democrats?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we need to bear in mind that a police investigation is going on. As I advised your Lordships a few days ago, whether we like or despise the proposed defendants, they still have their democratic rights. Your Lordships recently discussed the question of privileges in the Palace of Sinn Fein Members of Parliament. That is a matter, of course, for the relevant House committee in the usual way, subject to the endorsement of the House.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that the Northern Ireland Executive had to be suspended because the terrorists with whom Sinn Fein is associated refused to forswear violence? In those circumstances what possible justification can there be for Sinn Fein members, who have disqualified themselves from serving in government in Northern Ireland and who refuse to take their seats and do their work as MPs in the other place, to be rewarded with accommodation and lavish expenses to the tune of £100,000 each a year at the expense of the British taxpayer?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord knows, as we have been over this matter on many occasions, that the decisions to which he refers are

1215
essentially, in the overwhelming majority of cases, questions for the House of Commons. I personally believe—I think that the House would agree—that the decision taken by Dr Reid to suspend the Assembly was absolutely right. It was supported by the United States administration and the Government of the Irish Republic. It is an extremely important step. However, I cannot give answers to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, on matters which are essentially within the jurisdiction of the House of Commons.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord assure the House that all the systems of electronic messaging are as secure as they can be?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the Security Service has been asked to carry out a thorough root and branch scrutiny of the arrangements in the Northern Ireland Office. That is under way at the moment. I shall not, of course, be able to announce the results of that inquiry for obvious reasons.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, the discovery of the alleged republican spy ring at Stormont has raised fears that such activities are taking place right across government both in Northern Ireland and here on the mainland. Not all of your Lordships might be aware that the Home Civil Service and the Northern Ireland Civil Service are quite separate entities. Can the noble and learned Lord assure me that the security requirements for entry to the ranks of the Northern Ireland Civil Service are as stringent as those to comparable ranks of the Home Civil Service and, if not, why not?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I can give that assurance, but, nevertheless, it is important that we take every additional step which is why I answered the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, in the way that I did. There is a security assessment being carried out at the moment.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether the Government have any longer any doubt that Mr Gerry Adams is a member of the IRA's Army Council?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is not an answer that I am capable of giving.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, the newspapers report that the three IRA men who are held in Colombia have given as their reasons for being there that they wanted to get to know the people, admire the natural beauty and study the peace process as practised in Colombia. Does the noble and learned Lord believe that any of those three reasons apply to the gentlemen—I have to call them that—who are now here representing Sinn Fein and could he tell me what is the point of them being here? What are they doing for the peace process?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not know the nature of the defence of the defendants in
1216
Colombia. A trial is about to start. However, I can say, having defended many people in criminal trials on many occasions, that the ingenuity of the human mind knows few limits.

Work-related Stress
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made by the Health and Safety Commission on its work on stress.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, the Health and Safety Commission has identified work-related stress as a priority programme in achieving its PSA targets. The commission has commissioned considerable research—for example, on the impact on work performance—and the HSE has published new guidance and last week launched a new website that gives practical information and which will help to share best practice on measures that work. It is a 10-year programme and it is designed to change workplace culture and to ensure that all aspects; of employees' welfare are taken seriously.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful reply. Is she aware that last week, which was the European health and safety week, the Andrea Adams Trust (of which I am president), Amicus (of which I am a member) and the Work Foundation launched a new initiative on bullying at work? Does she agree that bullying is one of the great concerns affecting working people and that it causes stress for them?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, my Lords, I am indeed aware of and welcome that initiative. Bullying and harassment have no place in today s work environment and are unacceptable wherever they occur. Employees should be able to work without fear of bullying from employers—or, indeed, from anyone else. As noble Lords will be aware, the Government take that seriously. We made a manifesto commitment in 2001 to work with managers and employees to tackle the problem. As a result, the Health and Safety Executive is constructing management standards and is in the process of forming an advisory committee to feed into that work, which we hope will be in place by 2004–05.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, does the Minister agree that what some people call stress others describe: as stimulation? There is a gradient between the two. Will she give an assurance that before the Health and Safety Executive makes any fresh regulations, in this or other fields, it will undertake a cost-benefit analysis of what the regulations will cost and what burdens will be placed on employers?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I certainly accept that the response to stress may very well vary

1217
with the personality of individuals; that is obviously assumed. Stress may range from violence at work from clients and bullying and harassment to physical problems associated with noise and vibration, unfortunate and inadequate supervision and inappropriate prioritising of work. Those are real issues that can and often do translate into physical illness. For example, we know from the 1990s Finnish study on cardiovascular mortality—the figures date from 1973 onwards—that those who experience work-related stress are twice as likely to die of heart disease. It can also lead to stomach upsets, fatigue and headaches as well as to serious mental health problems. While the noble Lord is right to suggest that people's capacity to cope with stress may vary, none the less employers have a responsibility to ensure that the workplace does not make employees ill.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords—
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords—
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. Having listened with rapt attention to the Minister, does she agree that it appears that we shall have to try to define stress before we start a regulation?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. That is why the Health and Safety Executive has defined stress as an adverse reaction to excessive pressures. In its recent literature to employers it spelt out what those pressures might include, such as increased workload, lack of management support and some of the issues that I identified in response to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, including bullying, the lack of a proper job description and unmanaged change. We are trying not to place burdens on business or to introduce excessive regulation but to change a workplace culture in order to improve performance, job satisfaction and therefore productivity.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that apart from the areas that she has already outlined in relation to stress, a key factor must be increasing national competitiveness and welfare at work, when one considers that the cost to the British economy is more than £3 billion a year?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. Coming new to this field, I was startled by the figures. The latest statistics that I have are for 1995, when 19.5 million days were lost to sickness from work, and one-third of them—6.5 million days—were lost to stress-related complaints and illnesses. I emphasise that one-third of all days taken for sickness from work were related to stress.
1218
The cost to employers, as my noble friend said, is in the order of one-third of a billion pounds and to society nearly £4 billion a year.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords—
Baroness Sharples: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Cross Bench!
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I appreciate the Minister's definition of stress but I refer her to the paper that defines stress as a sense of lack of control over one's own destiny; she referred to that paper, which showed higher mortality. Will she explain how the Health and Safety Executive might change attitudes not only in the workplace but across the whole of society to ensure that people have a greater sense of control over their own destiny? Much stress occurs not only in employment—it relates to a sense of a lack of control outside employment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right in so far as she goes, but the lack of control over one's working conditions is only one component of stress. Some people may prefer a structured environment with clear directions about what to do. I believe that stress is an interplay between the pressures of the workplace and the personality that someone brings to it. Good employers can help to produce a culture that is beneficial not only to the individual but also to the business because it increases productivity, reduces absenteeism, improves turnover and reduces sickness. I am sure that we are all looking for that outcome.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, is the Minister aware that yesterday I went to have a medical check-up, which is now available to noble Lords as well as to Members of the Commons? One of the points that was accentuated was whether one suffered stress in your Lordships' House!
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I believe that that would depend on which political party one belongs to.
Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, as a result of the Government's many initiatives to get people who have been excluded from work back into work—many of those people are disabled—stress will occur in new areas? Are the Government seeking to ensure that those people will be able to talk to their employers about stress and that employers will be given guidance on how to understand those new areas of stress?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sure that that is right. When employers ask the HSE how best to reduce stress in the workplace, one of its recommendations—apart from having proper grievance procedures and so on—is to interview people on a one-to-one basis when they return from

1219
sickness-related absence to establish how stress can be reduced in future. I am glad that the noble Lord emphasised that mental illness can be created by stress and that the physical conditions that may follow can be as much of an impairment or disability as a physical illness.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Health and Safety Commission required that when the new line between Stirling and Alloway opens, the operating procedures will be to have two signalmen on one shift to process five trains because one signalman cannot pull the levers and deal with the computer? Surely the only stress that those people will suffer will be boredom.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend will understand if I pass on the specifics of that question. I agree with noble Lords who suggested that if there is one thing worse than over-pressure at work; it is the absence of work altogether.

Economic Growth
2.59 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the economic growth rate in the second quarter of 2002 and how does it compare with the second quarter of 2001.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, United Kingdom gross domestic product expanded by 0.6 per cent in the second quarter of 2002, compared with 0.3 per cent in the second quarter of 2001. The United Kingdom economy has performed relatively well during the current global slowdown. Growth last year was the fastest in the G7 and, unlike many of our major competitors, the United Kingdom economy has avoided any declines in output since the beginning of 2001.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. Nevertheless, knowing that he will not wish to anticipate the Chancellor's autumn Statement, will he confirm that the Government are facing a shortfall in revenues at a time of increased public expenditure? Does he agree that, if the shortfall is dealt with by further taxation on top of the April increases in national insurance yet to come, then the chances of the economic run-down continuing are very likely, whereas, if the Government cover the shortfall with increased borrowing, at least the Chancellor's golden rule will be maintained?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Too right, my Lords! I shall certainly not anticipate the Pre-Budget Report, which will be made by the Chancellor next month.
1220
However, I am a little surprised by what the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said about an economic run-down. I gave the figures for the first two quarters. Our general experience is that there is a greater increase in gross domestic product in the second half of the year than in the first half. However, none of that affects the fact that the public finances are in an exceptionally good state. In 1997, net debt as a proportion of gross domestic product was 44 per cent; it is now 31 per cent. In fiscal terms, we are in very good shape.
Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister accept that over the past three years our share of total EU inward investment has halved and that the level of trade in goods with other EU countries as a percentage of GDP has fallen? Does he further accept that those factors are now adversely affecting our growth rate and will continue to do so until we join the euro-zone?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are moving a long way from the Question, but we are used to that in this House, are we not? The answer is: no. In the time that has elapsed since the establishment of the euro, it would be far too early to say what our share will be. There are reports of a great increase in trading between different countries within the euro-zone. However, our position still remains to be seen.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, is it not the case that, due to changes in our economic growth rate, it may not be possible to avoid mirroring what is happening in many other industrial countries? However, the difference is that we have built up a considerable surplus year by year. The proper way to manage that surplus is to ensure that it is available for contra-cyclical changes over the next year or two. Is that not the proper way to manage an economy?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. It is because of the hard decisions that we took in the years immediately following 1997 that public finances are now in a healthy state. Because of that, it is possible for us to maintain our position under the golden rule and under our rules on sustainable investment. We are succeeding in doing both those things.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, following the first part of the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, will the Minister say whether he believes that the euro is helping or hindering Germany?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord asks whether the euro is helping or hindering Germany. That follows from a Question about our economic growth rate. I do not think so.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, in view of the poor progress of the economy so far this year, does the

1221
Minister believe that the Chancellor's forecast of economic growth for this year and the next is hopelessly optimistic and, if not, why not?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we make forecasts of economic growth at two-yearly intervals, in contrast with previous governments, who made them less frequently. The next forecast will be made at the time of the Pre-Budget Report.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, could not anyone with a bank account tell the Government why they will have to admit in a few weeks' time that their figures are wrong? Is that not because in each month this year they have had five times more money going out than they have had coming in?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a very nice way of expressing the situation, I must say. Only an advertising man could do that. But the truth is that our fiscal situation is as I described it in my earlier answers. We now have a net debt of just over 30 per cent compared with 40 per cent when we came into office. Under those circumstances, the monthly figures to which the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, refers have to be seen in perspective.
Lord Peston: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that he agrees with my noble friend Lord Sheldon? When, because of world forces, an economy moves ahead rather less rapidly than was the case, it would be foolhardy beyond belief to raise taxes and cut public expenditure. What matters is that my right honourable friend the Chancellor has adopted the correct policy. That policy involves considering the situation over the cycle and over the medium term. This is the first time in a great many years that that has happened in the economy. He should not in any circumstances be deflected from that very sensible policy.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thought I had agreed with my noble friend Lord Sheldon. I certainly agree with my noble friend Lord Peston. A feature of our present levels and of our plans for government consumption and investment is that not only are they valid in their own right—in other words, they are directed at producing better public services for the people in this country—but, in cyclical terms, they are the right thing to do from an economic policy point of view.

Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Rooker will repeat a Statement being made in another place on the fire dispute.

Animal Health Bill
3.7 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Foot-and-mouth disease]:
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 3, at end insert—
"( ) In the Animal Health Act 1981 (c. 22) (in this Act referred to as the 1981 Act) before Paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 insert—
"(A1) The Secretary of State shall give priority to a "vaccinate to live" policy prior to causing to be slaughtered animals on premises where no infection has been detected."
The noble Countess said: My Lords, I declare my interest as the wife of a family farmer. We have Black Welsh Mountain sheep, Blonde d' Aquitaine cattle and a flock of goats.
In the aftermath of the foot and mouth disease epidemic and the bloodbath that accompanied it, almost everyone who has spoken in the many debates on the Bill has remarked on its somewhat callous opening clause. I tabled Amendments Nos. 1 and 9 in an attempt to persuade—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Countess will forgive me. I hope that noble Lords will allow us to hear what the noble Countess is saying.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I have tabled Amendments Nos. 1 and 9 in an attempt to persuade the Minister that it would be politic to begin with a statement that does not give the impression that the Bill gives a permit to kill every animal in sight.
At the time of the epidemic, there was a hot debate on the pros and cons of vaccination. Was it effective? Would the meat be affected? Indeed, would the meat be saleable? Would not vaccinated animals still be infected? Would they not be carriers? Some of those questions are red herrings; most have now been answered. Both the science and the technology in this field are moving forward at a rapid pace. In the awful event that we should have another serious outbreak of foot and mouth disease, we should be better equipped scientifically, technically and practically to cope with controlling its spread. It could well be that vaccination will not provide the complete answer, but it should be given priority.
Experts giving evidence to the European Parliament's temporary committee on foot and mouth disease as well as to the UK-based inquiries have demonstrated their indecisiveness as to what part a vaccination policy should play in the event of a future outbreak of the disease. I quote from the European Parliament's temporary committee working document dated 16th September 2002. At paragraph 52 the rapporteur states:
"Mass culling of livestock and the subsequent destruction of meat can be ethically justified only by special socio-economic grounds. Decisions must be taken in a transparent manner: otherwise, it would be difficult to persuade those sections of the

1223
population who suffer most from a non-vaccination policy to provide the necessary co-operation during a future FMD outbreak".
In Committee, I said that we were governed by consent. If a government are to govern effectively in this country, the laws that they make must be reasonable and enforceable. In recent years, there have been several occasions on which a lack of consent has made enforcement difficult, if not impossible. I think instantly of the poll tax legislation enacted by the Conservative government. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that the 20-day standstill rule is being flouted, simply because it is unreasonable, unworkable and unenforceable.
Difficult as it may be for the so-called "man on the Clapham omnibus" to understand, most livestock keepers have a bond with their animals that is almost as strong as the bond that they have with their family. They are also hard-headed realists. They know that, when an animal has been exposed to a disease, it must be dealt with appropriately. They find it tough to accept that a healthy animal that has had no contact with any infection must die, when there might be a means of protecting it from disease.
Equally, I recognise that farming has rotten apples, generally known as rogues. They are the wheeler-dealers of this world who own or rent numerous small parcels of land over a large area. They pay scant regard to biosecurity or animal welfare, and they trade animals as stockbrokers trade shares. Family farmers are still the major keepers of livestock in the UK. Most have a long association with the land and with their animals. It is painful and insulting for them to find themselves bracketed with the rogues by others who have little knowledge of farming or farming practices and who get their information from the exaggerated literature produced by some animal welfare organisations. I acknowledge and accept the need for strict controls, but there is room for a little humanity. Even the law can have a sympathetic face.
In Amendment No. 9, I ask the Secretary to State to ensure that an animal must be shown to be infected by foot and mouth disease before she can have it slaughtered. I understand that it is possible to differentiate between animals that are carrying antibodies as a result of vaccination and those with antibodies resulting from infection. If the animals have not been infected and have been vaccinated, they present no infective risk. It is the same as our measles vaccination: once we are vaccinated, we are not infective.
The Minister assured us on a number of occasions that the Secretary of State would take into account a vaccinate-to-live policy. For reasons of openness and humanity, I ask noble Lords to ensure that that policy appears in the Bill. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, despite our best efforts this morning, the groupings have gone slightly awry. With the noble Countess, Lady Mar, we intended that Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 9 would be grouped. I am not sure how Amendment No. 2 dropped out at the
1224
last minute, but, with the leave of the House, I shall re-group the amendments. It might save a little time, which is something of which the Minister will approve. I shall speak in support of the amendment that the noble Countess so ably moved, and I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 2 and 9.
It is interesting that it has taken until this stage in the Bill's passage for the issue of vaccination to come before your Lordships' House. One of the reasons is that we were waiting hopefully for the Government to make their own proposals to write vaccination as an option—a preferred option—into the Bill. There are several reasons why that is necessary. One is simply to change the balance of the Bill. The issue has been discussed in detail, and I remember the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford speaking eloquently about it in Committee.
At the moment, the Bill is widely seen as a slaughter Bill. The Minister denies that, but the way in which the Bill is written means that the emphasis is on slaughter, rather than vaccination. We have now seen the Anderson and Follett reports and the public's reaction to the appalling scenes that took place during the epidemic, as people desperately tried to fight it. I shall read to the House what the Minister said on the Bill's second day in Committee. Our amendments are merely a statement of what the Minister now says is government policy. The Minister said:
"The Government's preference, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made clear in July, is that a vaccinate-to-live policy should be used wherever possible, in line with the Royal Society report. However, there will be scenarios where vaccinate-to-slaughter may be appropriate".—[Official Report, 7/10/02; col. 23.]
The implication is that there will be scenarios where slaughter on its own will be appropriate.
The Minister has said on several occasions that the Government's preferred first option in a future outbreak would be vaccination and that vaccinate-to-live should be used wherever possible. It could not be clearer than that, but the Bill still launches straight into slaughter. We support the noble Countess's amendment and we tabled Amendment No. 2 because we want to see vaccination-to-live written into the Bill as a strategy for dealing with a future outbreak.
Amendment No. 2 stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Livsey of Talgarth. There are two parts to the amendment. The first part sets out a sequential test that the Secretary of State should apply in the case of a future outbreak and in planning for such an outbreak. The test would require the Secretary of State to consider, first, biosecurity measures, secondly, vaccination-to-live, thirdly, vaccination for possible later slaughter and—only finally—slaughter. It sounds like a long and complicated procedure, but it is not necessarily so. Decisions could, if necessary, be made quickly. It is important that decisions are made in that order in the case of future outbreaks and that that sequence should underlie planning for future outbreaks.
The Minister may say that planning for future outbreaks is not for the Bill but for the protocol that he will produce, which will be welcome, or for his

1225
contingency plan, which will also be welcome. However, we tabled the amendment because we wanted the Minister to tell us where such a system for making decisions would be set out. So far, the information provided by the Minister, including a letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, suggests that the protocol will, yet again, be all about slaughter, rather than giving fair, objective and balanced consideration to the alternatives.
The second part of the amendment probes the Government to see how they believe that they have the legal power to carry out an extensive compulsory vaccination programme to create a firebreak or as a ring vaccination or vaccination of an area—Yorkshire, for example. Where do they believe that they have those powers under existing legislation? I am no expert on existing legislation, but I read the 1981 Act and cannot find those powers. I can find the powers for compulsory vaccination, which appear in Section 16(1), but they do not appear to cover preventive vaccination of such a kind on a large scale. So mine is a probing amendment to discover where the Government believe that they have those powers and, if they do not have them or if, as they say in relation to the slaughter powers, they are ambiguous, why they do not propose to use the Bill to write them into legislation.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I rise to support both the amendment tabled by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I share the noble Lord's view that it is astonishing that it is only now that we are to consider vaccination. I was not present for the Committee stage but I read the Official Report. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said consistently that he still needs the powers for contiguous cull. His argument for that relies on the Lessons to be Learned report, but seems to glide over some of the strongest recommendations of the Royal Society of London, the Royal Society of Edinburgh and earlier reports from Devon, all of which roundly condemn the cull policy and strongly recommend vaccination as a prior tool of future policy. That does not appear anywhere in the Bill, other than in amendments such as that moved by the noble Countess.
I hope that the House will support the amendments. Otherwise, we shall be left with a Bill that has been roundly condemned by everyone who was a victim of the contiguous cull—which, as we all know, was hugely costly in both human and financial terms. This is largely the same Bill as before, with some changes proposed on the fringes by the Government. It does not address the central point—whether we are doing the right thing—but gives the Government more powers to cull contiguously. In other words, it continues the same bankrupt policy that was perpetrated on the country last year. We should respond to the reports. The Government have not formally responded to any of the reports that they commissioned; yet here is a Bill that purports to deal with some of their recommendations.
1226
We should take the amendments seriously. I do not know whether there will be a Division on them, but if there is I shall certainly support them.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I hope that the Government will take seriously the amendments tabled by the noble Countess, Lady Mar. During the passage of the Bill, the Government have not taken sufficiently into account the view held by many farmers and others closely concerned with the farming industry. The Government have never really looked at themselves from that other point of view and realised how much they are mistrusted and hated. It is no exaggeration to say that many people believe that there is a culture in what used to be the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that has not seriously changed as a result of its change of name: a culture of addiction to slaughter, belief in slaughter and preferment of slaughter, rather than the consideration of any other means.
I was telephoned today by a land agent in Devonshire who told me what happened on two farms there in June during the last outbreak. He was present on one of the farms and had been talking to a policeman. When his back was turned, the policeman jumped on his back, brought him to the ground, handcuffed him and he was subsequently charged. The Crown Prosecution Service admitted that there was absolutely no case and said that the arrest had been unlawful. There is case after case such as that, and the Government have not yet done anything to eradicate the deep suspicion and dislike of the department.
Clause 2 is entitled, "Extension of power to slaughter"; and Clause 3 is entitled, "Slaughter of vaccinated animals". There, in two headings, we have the counsel of despair or, to put it another way, the record of the department's addiction to the policy of slaughter. I hope that the Government will not be in too much of a hurry to reject the amendments.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, I am not sure that the amendment is a classic piece of drafting, but I support it because of the importance that I attach to the completion of preparations for a vaccinate-to-live policy to be applied, if appropriate, in any future outbreak of foot and mouth disease. I have made that point several times but, for me, it is the most important point in our decisions on future policy on foot and mouth disease. It is essential that we do not neglect it but write it into the Bill.
I once again recall that the Royal Society report identified several important issues to be resolved and considered that,
"With significant effort by DEFRA, that should be possible by the end of 2003".
That is what we are aiming at and we need to achieve it. The issues identified in the report were: the clear acceptance that meat and meat products from vaccinated animals could enter the food chain; the validation of marker vaccines; the trade implications; the precise vaccination strategy; and all of the practical issues concerning storage, and so on.

1227
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, kindly sent me a copy of his letter to the noble Earl, Lord Peel, which states that DEFRA is considering two types of test for the presence of the foot and mouth disease virus: the simple, so-called 15-minute test; and the longer, at present laboratory test called the RT-PCR test. I shall not weary your Lordships with the translation of those initials into scientific wording, although I know it. Those are clear priorities. We must ensure that that is carried forward. That is why it would be useful to write that into the Bill to show that we are, in a sense, strengthening the possibilities for slaughter but that our objective is to arrive at a vaccinate-to-live policy, which 99.9 per cent of the British population will support.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am surprised by the amendments because we discussed the matter in Committee at some length. Those who support the "vaccinate to live" approach, with which we all agree, refuse to read the Bill as drafted. We know what lies behind the Bill. Although the tests are extremely encouraging, there is still no satisfactory scientific proof that we can distinguish between an animal that has been vaccinated and an animal that is carrying the disease.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but we must be correct. There is a test that will distinguish between them.
Lord Carter: Yes, my Lords, but it has not been subject to peer review or accepted by the Government and the veterinary authorities.
The Government will grasp with both hands any opportunity to prevent the mass culling of animals. In moving her amendment, the noble Countess, Lady Mar, said that it may well be that vaccination is not the complete answer. That summarises the case. Vaccination may well not be the complete answer—at present, it is not. As soon as it is, any Government in their right mind would grasp it. After the experience of last year, no Government will go in for mass culling if there is any opportunity of an alternative such as vaccinate-to-live. However, it is in the Bill already, as I pointed out a number of times in Committee. Noble Lords come to the debate with preconceived ideas—I did myself when I was in Opposition—and they will not read the Bill.
New Section 16A proposed in Clause 3 states:
"This section applies to any animal which has been treated with vaccine for the purpose of preventing the spread of foot and mouth disease".
That is all animals that have been vaccinated. Subsection (2) states:
"The Secretary of State may cause to be slaughtered any animal to which this section applies".
If that clause read, "shall cause to be slaughtered", I would support the amendment. It does not say that. It gives the Government the option of slaughter or vaccinate-to-live. I am arguing that the option of vaccinate-to-live is in the Bill.
1228
In Amendment No. 2 subsection (1)(b) says:
"vaccination of animals without the requirement of subsequent slaughter".
It is in the Bill already. I have just read it. I urge noble Lords to understand that the Government will accept any alternative to mass slaughter if possible. However, that would be extremely irresponsible before scientific proof is available. There are some encouraging tests. We all hope that they will be successful and that the Government will grasp at them. I am sure that they will.
However, until there is satisfactory scientific proof to distinguish between an animal that has been vaccinated or one that is within the 21 days of incubation of the disease, the Government must have the option of slaughter. The Government will not slaughter if it can be avoided. That is my understanding.
However, I ask noble Lords to read the Bill as drafted. It allows the option of vaccination-to-live, which I am sure the Government will grasp, when possible.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he say where in the present Bill is the priority that is included in the present amendment?
Lord Carter: My Lords, how can the Government allow a priority for an untested test? Giving that priority in advance of being assured scientifically, and without veterinary advice that that test is acceptable, would be extremely irresponsible. I ask noble Lords to be realistic about that. We know the agony that everybody went through last year. Does anybody believe that any government in their right mind will slaughter animals when there is an alternative? Until there is acceptable, scientific proof that can distinguish between an animal that has been vaccinated and an animal that is incubating the disease, it is extremely irresponsible to give priority to vaccination-to-live.
Lord Renton: My Lords, surely the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and to the Government generally is the application of the simple age-long principle that prevention is better than cure. By prescribing that there shall be vaccination, the amendment of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, applies that principle.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Bill states:
"The Secretary of State may cause to be slaughtered".
Therefore, the animals can be vaccinated. I am sure we shall hear from the Minister that that will be the Government's first priority, but at this stage they cannot accept that vaccination-to-live should be the priority.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am not suggesting that there should never be slaughter. Vaccination may sometimes fail. However, that is the application of the principle. I believe that we should support it.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I, too, would like to support my noble friend and the amendments. Despite

1229
what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, says, I feel that they are a vital safeguard. Having been sandwiched in at home with outbreaks of foot and mouth literally at the top and the bottom of the garden, every single animal at home was slaughtered. Needless to say, all the tests proved negative. To my dying day I shall be haunted by the sight of the executioners waiting at the bottom of the road to move into my neighbours' farms. Again, all their animal tests proved negative.
My noble friend's amendment makes such good common sense and we must not forget the vast experience that she has in animal health husbandry. It must be virtually second to none. I urge the Minister most strongly to consider the amendments.
Lord Moran: My Lords, it is generally agreed that there are now two options for dealing with the problem of uninfected animals which are near an outbreak: either slaughtering them, as last time, or vaccinating them to live. It is generally accepted that one or other option may be appropriate in different circumstances. However, I believe that the balance is wrong because the emphasis is entirely on slaughter. I make no apology for reminding your Lordships of my comments on 7th October (col. 29) when I quoted a speech by Commissioner Byrne. I repeat what the Commissioner said because I do not believe that the Government have taken any notice of it:
"It is no longer acceptable to the public that large numbers of animals can be slaughtered and destroyed now that new diagnostic tests have been developed and are available which differentiate between infected and vaccinated animals".
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, will note that the commissioner takes that seriously. He continued:
"the Commission is of the view that emergency vaccination should be moved to the forefront of the response mechanism in the event of future outbreaks…vaccination had been viewed as a weapon of last resort. It is now time to break with this approach".
I believe that is the motive behind my noble friend's amendment, which I support. I support much of what has been said by subsequent speakers. Amendment No. 7 proposes a new clause headed "Disease control (slaughter) protocol". There is nothing about vaccination. It seems that the whole wording reflects a policy of killing uninfected animals, instead of giving emergency vaccination. Both possibilities should exist. There should be more in the Bill reflecting the possibility of emergency vaccination because that is clearly a valid possibility.
I hope that the Minister can give us reassurance and will seek to correct the balance—the wording, more than the actual provision—to ensure that the matter is reflected in a fair way. That would be reassuring to many fanners and to many of your Lordships.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Moran. I also support both those amendments. At the risk of repeating what I said in Committee, it is a matter of presentation, style and perception. If a dispassionate observer were to write a critique of what has happened with this legislation during the past year, it would be
1230
clear that there has been a process of evolution and development. In the wake of foot and mouth, when slaughter was the only known policy—or the policy that was agreed and imposed, which even the NFU wanted to maintain in the face of those who were advocating vaccination—it was natural that the Government were conscious that some culls had been frustrated. Therefore, a Bill was needed to make it possible to act quickly in cases where frustration might occur again in a future outbreak.
That was understandable. That was the genesis of the Bill. The whole issue has changed enormously from a year ago. The Government have made many concessions. I am grateful to the Minister for withdrawing the word "immaterial". There is a possibility that I might give your Lordships a rendition of the Te Deum in thanksgiving for that change. However, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for whom I have a lot of sympathy, seems to be creating an unnecessary problem. He says that vaccination is on the face of the Bill. That is true, but it is secretly tucked away in Clause 3. It is there by implication. It is actually on the face of the Bill, but one has to read rather a lot before one comes to it.
Lord Carter: My Lords, if the right reverend Prelate will give way—
The Countess of Mar: Order! Order! My Lords, perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that we are at the Report stage.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am allowed to respond. I can tell the noble Countess that I know the rules. I can respond to an intervention which mentions me and asks me a question. I am saying that the provision is on the face of the Bill:
"This section applies to any animal which has been treated with vaccine".
It is not hidden away—it is there!
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I acknowledge that the provision is printed in Clause 3, but it is not at the front of the Bill. It is not what the Bill appears to be about. The two amendments that we are discussing try to put it at the front and make it prominent and clear that this is what we want to see happening. In Committee, the Minister said—the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, quoted his words—that we want to put the provision on the face of the Bill before we get into the slaughter procedures, which are the fall-back position. I believe that all of your Lordships are agreed that now slaughter should be the fall-back position and the last resort.
That is why the sequential test, set out in Amendment No. 2, is helpful. Perhaps the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will consider the wording of that amendment. It says:
"the Secretary of State must have regard to a sequential test".
That is not to say that he must do certain things if in a particular circumstance the test is found to be unreliable. There is genuine disagreement about the

1231
matter. Commissioner Byrne has claimed that there is a reliable test, but the noble Lord, Lord Carter, says that it is not yet reliable enough. If there is a sequential series of tests and if there is any doubt about the reliability of the tests, the possibility of slaughter remains as a last resort.
These amendments are important to the farming community because they put at the front of the Bill our present position and the ideal to which we aspire. It is conceivable that if we were to pass Amendment No. 1 in the name of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, which inserts the words "shall give priority", the Government will say, "Well, actually we are still not quite sure enough to be willing to accept that". I would support that amendment and I believe that the European Parliament report is strong and authoritative enough to enable us to do that with conviction. I would also support Amendment No. 2 because it sets out the sequential test.
However, I am puzzled that the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, still cannot understand why the presentation of the Bill matters so much to the perception of the farming community. I fervently hope that the Government will accept the amendments. I believe they are desperately needed by farmers who are still deeply resentful about the tone of the Bill and the hangover from the time when it originated. We have moved on from there and we need to recognise that in the wording of the Bill.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I shall be brief. I support both amendments tabled by the noble Countess, Lady Mar. I shall return to the matter when I deal with my Amendment No. 19, particularly subsection (4), dealing with the exercise of powers. That is relevant to the speeches which were made by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Moran. I shall not deal with the matter now, but it is crucial to balance vaccination as against slaughter.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Moran, hit the nail on the head by raising the issue of the presentation and tone of the Bill. During the last session of the Committee stage we began to think that the Minister was coming to realise that its wording could not be more unsympathetic to the farming industry. It is time that the clauses were softened in the interest of presentation.
I began to feel that the Minister had learnt that when he kindly sent everyone involved in the Committee stage detailed letters of changes that were to be made, generally showing concern about our debates. However, when one read no fewer than four separate articles in today's edition of The Times showing the draconian measures that the Government were likely to bring in primary legislation to deal with foot and mouth, one began to wonder whether we were going to go through all this again.
In addition, after the Secretary of State's incredible mistake in Paris yesterday, farming came through a bad day according to what one read in the newspapers.
1232
As a Minister, I have been once or twice to the food fair in Paris and I realise how important publicity is, whatever one's view of the food that is put before one. To feel that the best British roast beef was being spurned at that critical moment was a serious lapse.
The amendment put forward by the noble Countess is most valuable because it puts a requirement on the Government to think for a moment or two before beginning a slaughter procedure. Clause 1 is all about slaughter, slaughter, slaughter, slaughter! There is not a word about vaccination. After all, the first clause is supposed to be the most important clause in a Bill. Acceptance of the amendment will show to the agricultural industry, the veterinary profession and the general public that before slaughter the Government will spend a few minutes considering whether vaccination is the right policy.
I cannot see what is wrong with that. Why on earth cannot we do it? Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Carter, says about there being umpteen opportunities later in the Bill, Clause 1 is the first which comes to everyone's mind. It is right that the Government should have to pause before they take action to consider whether they should vaccinate or slaughter.
The agricultural industry wants the Government to think for just a moment before taking action. Once they have taken action, nothing can redeem the poor animals which have been slaughtered. Later we will deal with the problems raised in today's newspaper about the valuation, which sounds draconian. So let us have a more sympathetic approach to a most fearful moment in a farmer's life; seeing his stock being slaughtered. I have seen it and believe that we must assure the agricultural industry that the Government will not take that step without thinking about vaccination.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment. During Question Time today we discussed stress. Stress among fanners is a huge problem and the stress of having lost their stock will remain with many of them for the rest of their lives.
Our breeding stock and milking cows are special. I hope that the Minister can put priority on some of the animals as regards vaccination. Much more research needs to be done into various vaccinations and I hope that the amendment will be carried so that priority will be given to vaccination.
There are more dangerous diseases in our community than foot and mouth. Foot and mouth is not a real killer to humans and not enough work is being done on various infectious diseases. Therefore, I believe that the amendments should be supported by your Lordships.
Lord May of Oxford: My Lords, first, I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for his consistent courtesy in keeping us abreast of the various amendments, many of which are tabled in response to earlier debates. I want to speak in support of Amendment No. 1 because, unfortunatelv, I continue

1233
to be unhappy with the asymmetry which remains in the Bill, reflecting its drafting at a time long before there had been considered appraisal in the light of experience. In particular, the amendment addresses what we ought to be considering. I agree that we should be giving clearer powers for preventive slaughter, but they should be symmetric and perhaps deferential to reactive vaccination.
Furthermore, the amendment gives the Government a priority to come through. Overlying all the provisions should be clear, inescapable legislation that requires preparations to have been thought through in advance and annually rehearsed. That, too, remains hinted at but not spelled out in anything like the draconian detail that the slaughtering powers are spelled out in the Bill. Until those asymmetries are remedied, I will support amendments such as this and all kindred amendments.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, the Minister can surely be in no doubt about the strength of feeling around the Chamber today on the three opening amendments.
As my name is linked with that of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, on Amendment No. 1, it is natural that I refer to it first. The amendment calls for the Government to give priority to a vaccination-to-live policy. The number 13 is considered unlucky. Our thirteenth speaker, the very well respected noble Lord, Lord May, certainly is not unlucky in any way. He has served with great distinction. The words that he has added to those of the 12 previous speakers are an enormous contribution to the weight of argument in the Chamber today.
Noble Lords in the Chamber are not asking that vaccination should be the only policy. Let us make that clear before we go further. If an animal is infected the animal should be slaughtered, whether or not it has had to be vaccinated first. If it has become infected, slaughter is the only option.
The noble Lord, Lord May, touched on the fact that we started considering the Bill back in November last year, nearly a whole year ago. Since then things have moved on enormously. We have had the various reports. The noble Lord, Lord May, served on one of the bodies. I hope that we have learned something from them. Some noble Lords may place greater importance on different aspects. Amendment No. 1, standing in my name and that of the noble Countess, does not state that this should be the only way that we should deal with the matter, but asks that the Secretary of State should give priority to a "vaccinate-to-live" policy.
In Committee we had a long debate, as we have had again today, on strategy. I find it disappointing that the Government have not accepted the weight of argument behind my amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, says that there is reference to vaccination in the 1981 Bill. I do not think that "may" give consideration to it is the same as Amendment No. 1, which raises the profile further and states, "shall give priority" to it. The two are not the same.
1234
Other noble Lords have raised extremely important points. I do not want to go over those again. Perhaps I may pick up on what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford said and remind the House that when we considered the question of vaccination last year, when the outbreak was at its height, the National Farmers Union was asked for its opinion on a vaccination policy. Those noble Lords who were involved at the time will remember that they circulated a 20-question questionnaire. They did that because at that stage there were no answers to some of the questions with regard to a vaccination-to-live policy—as to whether the science was there and whether it was possible to implement it. That was back in March or April last year. The reports have been issued since then. We have had time to consider the matter. More importantly, there has been the European report. They have all moved us along. It would be great folly to resist an amendment of this kind, which gives a steer to the Government in saying that we believe that the Government should give priority to a 'vaccinate-to-live' policy.
I should like to comment on all the other contributions. That would not be right at this stage. The case has been well made by each noble Lord who has spoken. Obviously my name is attached to Amendment No. 1, but I very much support the amendments tabled by noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I hope that the Government listen to the weight of argument that has been put forward again today on this matter.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the right reverend Prelate and others have rightly explained the genesis of the Bill. It was brought forward in the first place because the Government found in the course of the disease that there were certain powers which they lacked or which needed clarifying. This House, in its wisdom, declined to pursue the Bill and to look at the powers that were lacking until it had the advice of the various committees of inquiry that were looking into the conduct of the disease and the way forward.
We now have the results of those committees of inquiry. Their recommendations are reflected in the clause as it stands and in the Government's general approach. The reason why vaccination in this form is not in this clause is because we already have that power under Section 16 of the Animal Health Act 1981. That option already exists. We do not need an additional clause to provide for that option in the Bill. The Bill addresses gaps in the powers of the Government. It might be tidier and presentationally more desirable, and softer and more acceptable, to put in something which is already in law. However, your Lordships will know that that is not the normal procedure of the legislative process. We are dealing here with powers that we do not currently have.
One such power is the power of preventative slaughter. There is an explicit recommendation in the Anderson report that the power needs to be clarified. It should be clear that we have a power of preventative

1235
slaughter. That is what the clause is about. It is not intended to explain the total strategy in relation to any future outbreak. It is intended to give us that power which we lacked and which we would need in a future outbreak.
That is not in any sense incompatible with the recommendations of the Royal Society and the comments by Commissioner Byrne that in future we must give greater weight to the option of vaccination. And if we go down the vaccination road we should give preference to vaccination-to-live rather than the vaccination-to-kill, which was the option that we considered but did not pursue during the course of the epidemic, and which the Netherlands did pursue during the course of the epidemic.
We have accepted the recommendations of the Royal Society that greater weight in first resort priority should be given to a vaccinate-to-live policy. That however is not what these clauses seek. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, was the first person in the debate to refer to what is obvious; that whatever policy one takes to prevent the spread of the disease, stamping out the disease in the first place does require, and will continue to require, the destruction of diseased stock. The Royal Society and the Anderson report also indicate that that requires the destruction of other animals on the premises where the disease is present. That would be prevented by both Amendments Nos. 2 and 9, which restrict the exemption from the vaccination requirement to animals which have been infected.
In dealing with the disease, we would also deal with the situation of direct contact, whether between animals or between human beings, which may or may not be on the same premises. That again would be dealt with by the stamping out process in the Follett recommendations, in the Anderson recommendations and indeed what is being contemplated in Europe. So if the House wants to go along with what we have been recommended to follow by the inquiries, then we do not go along with any of the proposals before us in this group of amendments.
Although Amendment No. 1 is slightly less restrictive, it would still prevent the slaughter of—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain to the House why he asserts that these amendments are restrictive. Is it because there is an absolute discretion by the Secretary of State that is being restricted? Or, if it is not that, and we come to that later, what is it?
4 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the point I am making is that the Royal Society report recommends not that we should adopt vaccination in all circumstances, but that the option of vaccination should be given primary weight at the point extending beyond the diseased premises and direct contact. These amendments suggest that we do so before that. Where a contiguous cull, a three-kilometre cull, a preventive firebreak, or whatever, is being contemplated, the Royal Society
1236
suggests that at that point the option of first resort should be to vaccinate-to-live. Whether or not we would put it precisely in those terms, the Government recognise that that is a shift of approach and one that we broadly accept.
These amendments require that vaccination shall be the option of first resort at a "closer to the disease" stage. That is not in line with what Follett recommends; it is not in line with what Anderson recommends—which is, in effect, the clause as it stands—nor is it in line with what Commissioner Byrne said is the direction in which Europe is likely to move.
Another consideration is that the Royal Society also recognised—the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, referred to this point—that we are not yet in a position, should the disease break-out, God help us, tomorrow, immediately to resort to vaccinate-to-live in the way in which ideally we would move in line with the Royal Society report. That report suggests that we need to look at issues of diagnostics and their validation; issues of logistics; and issues relating to the acceptability of vaccinated meat and milk from vaccinated animals. Those issues have to be resolved, as do certain European issues, before we can fully implement the Royal Society report in regard to the first resort of vaccinate-to-live.
It is to be hoped that that can be done fairly rapidly, certainly within the next two years, but, as of now, it is not an available option. Therefore requiring us to give priority to vaccinate-to-live, as these amendments do, not only relates to a situation beyond that recommended in the Royal Society report but would not be deliverable for at least the next 18 months to two years, even if everything went well.
It is important that we have on the statute book all the powers that the committees of inquiry have suggested we should have. This clause is about giving us one of those powers; others of those powers are spread throughout the remainder of the Bill; others already exist.
I indicated in one of my communications to noble Lords that government Amendment No. 8 requires the Secretary of State to give reasons for adopting one strategy as against another in the course of any epidemic. That is spelt out in some detail. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has tabled an amendment to that amendment which requires that, if vaccinate-to-live is not adopted, part of the Secretary of State's explanation should indicate why. Although I do not entirely agree with the wording of the amendment, I agree in principle that that should be part of the Bill.
That, surely, is where we should require the Secretary of State to explain why we have gone for a policy other than vaccination. But it is not in this area because this is not the area where priority for vaccination-to-live is recommended by the Royal Society.
Those who advocate this policy should recognise two things. First, that what they are advocating in these clauses is not recommended by the committees of inquiry. Secondly, I should point out to those who

1237
purport to speak for the farming industry that, by and large, the provisions now in the Bill are supported by representatives of the farming community. It is wrong to say that they are resented or opposed by British farming in general; they are not. For obvious reasons, British farmers are as anxious as anyone that the Government should have a full armoury of weapons with which to contain any future outbreak of this terrible disease, or any equivalent disease.
I recognise the passion and concern of those who advocate these amendments that we should clearly shift to giving a greater priority to vaccination—which the Government accept—but the way suggested in the three amendments is not appropriate. It is not in line with what has been recommended.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his offering. That is about all I can say for it. I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have supported me, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Moran, for repeating what he said in Committee and for reminding us what the Commissioner thinks about the Bill and our activities. I am also grateful to the right reverend Prelate, who reminded us of the human aspects of the Bill, and to the noble Lord, Lord May, for promoting a balance in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, was somewhat disingenuous. I said that vaccination was not the whole answer. I accept that viruses—belonging, as they do, to Mother Nature—can change very quickly and that a vaccine might not be available for a particular strain of virus when it hits this country. So I accept that vaccination may not be the whole answer. My amendment does not propose that vaccination should be the whole answer. It merely seeks that the Secretary of State should give priority to vaccination.
The Minister appears to be under an illusion. I go on to state in my amendment:
"prior to causing to be slaughtered animals on premises where no infection has been detected".
That is very important. Obviously I accept that infected animals need to be killed and that animals on the same premises, which are very likely to have been in contact with infected animals but are not yet showing signs of disease, should be killed. I have no problem with that whatever. However, I do have a problem in accepting that animals which have had no contact with any other diseased animal and which are showing no signs of infection—and which, if they are vaccinated, will be of no danger whatever to any other animal—must be killed. That is all I am saying.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, does the noble Countess accept that Amendments Nos. 2 and 9 relate only to infected animals and that Amendment No. 1 would restrict anything beyond infected animals to the same premise? Does she accept that direct contact can take
1238
place between animals which are kept at a premise different from the one in which the original disease was detected?
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I accept that also. But it is quite likely that such animals would be vaccinated. I understand that the vaccination takes only two or three days to work.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to the fact that tests to distinguish between an animal that has been infected and an animal that has been vaccinated have not yet been validated. These tests were validated quite a long time ago and deal with the RNA. I believe the noble Lord was referring to field diagnostic kits not being validated. There is a difference between the two. The field diagnostic kits are intended to cut down the time it takes to diagnose a sick animal.
I cannot accept the Minister's explanations. I must test the feeling of the House.
4.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 171; Not-Contents, 123.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Denham, L.

Addington, L.

Dholakia, L.

Alderdice, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Ampthill, L.

Dundee, E.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Arran, E.

Elles, B.

Astor, V.

Elton, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Erroll, E.

Avebury, L.

Ezra, L.

Barker, B.

Falkland, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Fearn, L.

Blatch, B.

Flather, B.

Bledisloe, V.

Freyberg, L.

Boardman, L.

Geddes, L.

Boothroyd, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Glentoran, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Goodhart, L.

Brightman, L.

Goschen, V.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Greaves, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Greenway, L.

Byford, B.

Hamwee, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hanham, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Henley, L.

Carrington, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Higgins, L.

Chalfont, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Hooson, L.

Colwyn, L.

Howe, E.

Condon, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Jacobs, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

1239

Jopling, L.

Rees, L.

Kimball, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Rennard, L.

Kingsland, L.

Renton, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Lewis of Newnham, L.

Rogan, L.

Liverpool, E.

Roper, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Luke, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Lyell, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Sandberg, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Seccombe, B.

McNally, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Selsdon, L.

Mar, C. [Teller]

Sharman, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Sharples, B.

May of Oxford, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Slim, V.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Moran, L. [Teller]

Stewartby, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Strange, B.

Naseby, L.

Taverne, L.

Noakes, B.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Northbourne, L.

Tebbit, L.

Northesk, E.

Tenby, V.

O'Cathain, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Oxford, Bp.

Tope, L.

Palmer, L.

Trumpington, B.

Peel, E.

Waddington, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Wakeham, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Walpole, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Warnock, B

Platt of Writtle, B.

Weatherill, L.

Plumb, L.

Wigoder, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Prior, L.

Wilcox, B.

Rawlings, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Razzall, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Redesdale, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Ahmed, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Alli, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Amos, B.

Crawley, B.

Andrews, B.

David, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Bach, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Barnett, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Desai, L.

Berkeley, L.

Dixon, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Donoughue, L.

Billingham, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Blackstone, B.

Dubs, L.

Borrie, L.

Elder, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Bragg, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Brett, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Brookman, L.

Filkin, L.

Burlison, L.

Fitt, L.

Carter, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Chan, L.

Gale, B.

Christopher, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

1240

Goudie, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Mitchell, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Morgan, L.

Gregson, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Grenfell, L.

Nicol, B.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Orme, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Ouseley, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Harrison, L.

Peston, L.

Haskel, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Haskins, L.

Radice, L.

Hattersley, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hayman, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Richard, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Rooker, L.

Hoyle, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Sheldon, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Simon, V.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Islwyn, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Jordan, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Levy, L.

Varley, L.

Lipsey, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Whitaker, B.

McCarthy, L.

Whitty, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Wilkins, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Fire Service Dispute
4.20 p.m.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, with permission, I shall repeat a Statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the Fire Service pay dispute.
"I am sure that Members from all sides would agree that firefighters do a magnificent job. We greatly appreciate the contribution that they and staff in the other emergency services make to public protection. They are rightly held in high regard for their professionalism and dedication. As a previous Secretary of State for Transport, I have visited some terrible scenes of disaster and you cannot but admire what the firefighters do.
"Fire Service pay is the responsibility of their employers, the local fire authorities, and the Fire Brigades Union. The negotiating process started earlier this year and the FBU lodged its claim on 28th May. The Fire Brigades Union demanded a 40 per cent no strings attached pay increase for

1241
firefighters, a 50 per cent increase for control room staff and a review of the 1978 formula that governed their wages. That formula has done a good job over the years. Since 1997 firefighters' pay has increased by 20 per cent. Over the same period pay for police and teachers has increased by 19 per cent.
"Only two years ago Andy Gilchrist, the General Secretary of the Fire Brigades Union said:
"Our wages remain ahead of other essential public sector workers precisely because we have maintained the formula".
The old formula solved the last pay dispute and has kept the peace for 25 years. The employers responded to the FBU's claim by indicating that any significant pay increase had to be matched by modernisation. But little progress was made in negotiations over the summer because the FBU refused to consider the employers' modernisation proposals.
"I want to be particularly clear on one point about the negotiations over the summer. At no point did the Government intervene in the negotiating process. Sir Jeremy Beecham, the leader of the Local Government Association, has made that clear on numerous occasions. And I made it absolutely clear that we had played no part in the negotiations when I met Andy Gilchrist on 8th August. Andy Gilchrist accepted that position, but made it clear that the FBU wanted a 40 per cent increase and no inquiry.
"On 2nd September the employers offered the FBU a 4 per cent increase, plus an agreement to establish a new formula that would link increases in firefighter pay to increases in the economy in general. The employers also invited the FBU to join with them in asking for an independent review to be established. And they gave an undertaking that any increase in pay agreed by the review would be backdated to the 7th November pay settlement date. By any standards that was a reasonable offer. None the less, the FBU rejected the offer.
"It was then clear that there was no prospect of a solution being found through the normal negotiating process. The employers made it clear that the negotiations had broken down, and made a request for a Government review. In those circumstances the House will recognise that the Government could not stand to one side.
"Fire disputes are different from most disputes. People's lives are put at risk. Government have a responsibility to secure people's safety. So we acted quickly and decisively. On 5th September, just three days after negotiations broke down, we set up an independent review. All sides, including the Fire Brigades Union, were asked for their input on the terms of reference. We secured the services of Professor Sir George Bain to conduct the review. Sir George is widely respected and has enormous experience of industrial relations. He is a former principal of the London Business School and a member of the ACAS panel of arbitrators. He was chair of the Low Pay Commission. The TUC and
1242
the employers nominated one member each to support him. The TUC nominated Sir Tony Young and the employers nominated Sir Michael Lyons.
"This is an exceptional team. It is a team with the right expertise and the right background to provide a fair and balanced assessment of the way ahead. Every relevant body, with the exception of the FBU, has submitted evidence to the review. The review is making excellent progress and will produce a report by mid-December. Yet still the FBU refuses to take part in the review. Still it has announced a programme of strikes covering 36 days before Christmas. It will not even suspend its industrial action until the review has reported. This is despite an offer from the employers to extend the mandate period in which the FBU strike ballot result is valid for another four weeks. If the FBU accepted that offer they could take industrial action without another ballot if, having seen the Bain report, they still felt it necessary. So industrial action is completely unnecessary and completely unjustified. The FBU's position is simply indefensible.
"I turn now to the plans that the Government have put in place to secure public safety in the event of industrial action by the Fire Brigades Union. Following the FBU claim and the initial response by the employers, the Government undertook prudent planning on the basis of the FBU's threat to initiate a national strike. The Fire Service is a large and complex operation. It involves some 47,000 firefighters in England and Wales and over 3,000 appliances operating from 1,600 fire stations. Our focus has been on taking what steps we can to safeguard life, and so far as possible protect property, when the normal fire cover is not available. Detailed planning began in August, and training started on the 28th of that month—before the pay negotiations had broken down.
"The plans are based on support from the Armed Services, and the acceptance by the police of additional responsibilities during industrial action. There are three main elements to the plans. First, on the assumption that fire control centres will not be operating during the strike, arrangements have been made for Fire Service 999 calls to be redirected. Every call will be answered. Secondly, emergency cover will be provided by a range of appliances staffed by Army, RAF and Naval crews. Nationwide, there will be 827 Green Goddesses, which will be able to provide only a basic firefighting capability. There will also be 331 specialist breathing apparatus rescue teams and 59 rescue equipment support teams which will offer specialist skills. Thirdly, on Friday, immediately after the FBU's announcement of their programme of strikes, the Government made available basic safety guidance and information to the public and to business. This is being supplemented by a range of other measures including a public information campaign on radio and television; a mail drop to some 4 million households; and a letter to the 15,000 largest businesses giving specific advice on fire

1243
safety and general health and safety issues. I can assure the House that the contingency arrangements are now in place.
"If the Fire Brigades Union goes ahead with its strike on Tuesday, 29th October, the military and police, assisted by those firefighters and fire officers who choose to continue to work, will be in a position to provide a basic emergency service. Members of the public should continue to call 999 in case of emergency and each call will receive a response. However, the military will not be able to respond to emergency calls as quickly as the normal Fire Service. The emergency crews will have fewer specialised capabilities than the normal Fire Service. And they are likely to be unfamiliar with the incident site and the local geography.
"In this situation, I have messages for the public, business, and the Fire Brigades Union. To the public, I urge you to take sensible precautions in your homes to prevent a fire occurring in the first place. To managers, safety representatives and others in industry and commerce, my message is to work on the basis that your normal activities continue during the strikes. However, the single most important step that you should take is to check that all existing fire safety provisions are in place and fully effective. My message to the FBU is—think again.
"Despite the wide range of measures that we have put in place, there is no doubt that the risk of loss of life and property will be higher when Fire Brigades Union members are refusing to work.
"My right honourable friend the Member for Greenwich therefore met Andy Gilchrist yesterday to urge him to clarify the extent to which the union would continue to provide a response to life-threatening incidents, whether house fires, major transport incidents or terrorist attacks. Mr Gilchrist agreed to consider this with his executive tomorrow and to let the Government have a quick response. I hope that that response will be constructive.
"Mr Speaker, we face a very serious situation. The House can be assured that I will keep the House fully informed at every opportunity".
My Lords, that completes the Statement.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Deputy Prime Minister's Statement. Everyone in this country depends on firemen, who give a highly efficient and professional service, for which we pay them tribute. As a resident of Kensington, I know the skill with which they dealt with the terrible Paddington rail disaster, and the fact that their skills in releasing trapped passengers were greatly needed. However, the current threat cannot be justified, and we do not condone the action that is being taken in support of an unrealistic wage claim.
The seriousness of the situation cannot be underestimated. The country faces having no professional fire service on 36 days between now and Christmas, when the 5th November will be
1244
celebrated—for the whole of that month—when there is renewed concern about terrorist activity, and during the darkest time of the year, when fires and accidents are bound to occur.
Of course the Army and other armed forces have been called in to provide backup using the Green Goddess fire engines, which are a far cry from the specialist vehicles used by the Fire Service. My first question to the Minister is: why has the Army not been trained to use proper fire engines, and why does there not appear to be a contingency plan to enable it to do so? If firemen are intent on withdrawing their service, they should not be able to make fire engines unavailable for emergencies, as they do not own them. I appreciate that arrangements would have to be made to stop the need to cross a picket line daily, but I would be grateful for the Minister's views on the matter. That provision would equip the Army and put them in a much better position to deal with the situation. Our soldiers are intelligent enough given training to operate these machines. What action has been taken to free these publicly owned vehicles for emergency services, or what thoughts have there been on the matter? One life lost as a result of these engines sitting idly in their sheds would be one life too many wasted.
I make no comment on the demands of fire-fighters. Although I heard what the Deputy Prime Minister said about the Government not intervening in negotiations, I understand that the employers organisation was going to make an offer in early July. Will the Minister confirm whether that offer—I appreciate that it had been achieved at that stage—was delayed by the prospect of the setting up of an independent inquiry by the Deputy Prime Minister? If that is correct, why was it delayed until early September?
Is it also correct that the Fire Brigades Union is not giving evidence to the inquiry? Even though the inquiry was only recently implemented, it will not report for a further six weeks. Can it not be hurried up, particularly since the report has now been pre-empted by the proposed action? If it could report sooner, it would be in everyone's interest, including that of the fire-fighters, who at some stage will have to reach a settlement with their employers, who are not the Government but the local authorities. In reality they will have to reach a settlement that will not match their highest demands, but it should be reached as soon as possible and it should be informed by the inquiry.
I agree with the Minister that the tribunal that has been set up consists of people who are appropriate to deal with the complexities of this pay demand. In the interests of hastening the result, will the Government make available any resources necessary to speed the conclusion of the deliberations to bring some prospect of an early resolution to this calamitous dispute? In his Statement, the Deputy Prime Minister properly drew attention to the need for everyone to be extra vigilant to prevent fire and accidents and to have fire prevention and fire-fighting equipment to hand. However, we already have the threat of the withdrawal of tube trains on the deep lines, as a result of action proposed by Mr Crow. What other major services

1245
could be subject to such proposed action? Who will decide whether they are in danger—union leaders, Ministers, employers? There must be considerable concern about health and safety, including that of the workforce, but follow-on action could make the situation even worse. I note that this matter is not referred to in the Minister's Statement.
There is one further matter to which I should like a reply. That is the question relating to insurance liability. To whom can victims of strike action turn in the case of a fire, serious action or major disaster that the Fire Service would normally have dealt with? Are their insurance policies invalidated by the strike action? If so, who will help them out of their dilemma? The public should be given an answer to that.
This is a terrible day. I hope that good sense will yet prevail, that the inquiry can be speeded up and that the union will wait for the outcome before taking action. If not, we must rely, as in the past, on our valiant forces, and they deserve our support.
4.38 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is considerable sympathy and support for a fair and just pay settlement for fire-fighters? Does he also accept that over recent years the whole trade union movement has done much to modernise and adapt to the 21st-century needs of its members, and that this dispute therefore takes place against considerable public good will? Yet, that good will becomes fractured by a tendency on the part of certain trade unions to target the vulnerable and the public as leverage in disputes, which cannot be tolerated. Does the Minister recall his noble friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, on the subject of public service disputes, telling this House on 18th April 2002:
"It is not a question of ending the right to strike but a matter of ending the need to strike".—[Official Report, 22/5/02; col. 1162.]
Is it not true that the Government have been somewhat complacent about the public service while the storm clouds have gathered? On the 22nd May, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, told this House:
"I must ask the question: what is the problem being identified of industrial disputes in the public sector? Clearly, there are threats of disputes. There are new leaders of public sector trade unions who have been elected on the basis of threatening greater militancy. But the facts do not bear out the claim that there is a new problem of industrial disputes in the public sector".—[Official Report, 22/5/02; cols. 871–72.]
I doubt that the noble Lord would repeat that statement today, yet the Government were warned of gathering disputes and different attitudes. Have the Government done too little too late to address grievances building up in the public sectors, including problems related to housing costs and others? Those problems have created what my old friend Joe Gormley used to call, "platforms for malcontents to stand on".
In such circumstances, will the Minister not agree that it would be better if No. 10 desisted from over-macho press briefings? Those around No. 10 may feel that a good industrial dispute should be added to the
1246
Prime Minister's battle honours, but that would be a mistake. What examination are the Government making of the broader problems of public sector pay? Do we face a series of guerrilla disputes in the public sector, with each settlement feeding off the previous one? In that case, will not the Government simply see their much-vaunted increase in public expenditure seep away in inflationary wage demands?
In the light of this dispute and others pending, does the Minister see a need to review the Employment Relations Act 1999? What has happened to the review of that Act, which was supposedly under way?
On the specifics of the dispute, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has already asked what access the military will have to firefighting equipment other than the Green Goddesses. Will they have no access or limited access? How is the issue being handled? I also echo the noble Baroness's request for the Bain inquiry to be brought forward.
What discussions have taken place with Mr John Monks of the TUC on its code of conduct about disputes? Is the TUC being asked to produce guidance on intimidatory picketing of those who are continuing to work?
The Minister mentioned the 1978 formula. Is it dead? What offer would have been on the table under that formula? Are the Government prepared to fund a Bain settlement?
Finally, safety is very important. The Deputy Prime Minister called on everyone to examine the safety issue. If that issue is now going to be used as a guise for secondary picketing, the range of the dispute will be extended.
I hope that recent weeks have blown away the last complacency from the Government. For probably the first time in the 30 years that I have known him, I am on the same side as the Deputy Prime Minister in calling for the FBU to think again.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful for the response from the two Front Benches. I shall do my best to answer the points raised. The Army is not trained to use the equipment. I do not know how many noble Lords have been on a modern appliance. They are like the Starship Enterprise. They are way beyond the appliances that existed in 1977. The advance in technology has been enormous. It takes the best part of three months to do the training. With the best will in the world, it would not have been prudent or justified on political, economic or industrial relations grounds to say just after the claim was lodged in May or during the negotiations in June or July, before they broke down, "By the way, boys in the fire brigade, can we just send the Army into the odd fire station one day a week to train on your equipment for when you go on dispute?". Just posing the question shows how unrealistic that would be.
The strikes are not going to be like in 1977, but will come in several-day periods. In those circumstances, it would be impractical and counter-productive to ask that the equipment be used for training purposes on

1247
the days when the FBU members are not on strike, because they will be on standby to deal with emergency services. Taking equipment out of a station and using it somewhere else could cause it to malfunction or it could be sent back in the wrong working mode. That would be asking for real trouble and it is not a runner. Everyone will appreciate that that is a serious practical consideration.
There is no evidence of government interference in the negotiations. I know that rumours and allegations have circulated about who said what at various meetings and who gave nods and winks, but we have at no time interfered with the stance of the employers on what they were going to offer or when they were going to offer it, in either private or public meetings.
The Fire Brigades Union would help to speed up the inquiry if it were to make its case. As has been said elsewhere, during disputes in the 1970s, the National Union of Mineworkers never failed to turn up at the Wilberforce inquiry and others to make what it regarded as a powerful case and to have it listened to in the inquiry that was to come up with a solution as well as in the court of public opinion.
At the end of the day, there will have to be a solution, just as in 1977. The issue was hotly contended, but everybody knew that there would have to be a settlement. The formula was the solution to the 1977 dispute. That formula has stood the test of time, but the employers accepted that it would have to be reviewed. Looking at another formula was part of the employers' offer. The top quartile of the median manual industrial earnings does not have the same rank as in 1977. That was on offer to be discussed, but the offer was not accepted. As I said in the Statement that I repeated, the FBU could suspend the strike for four weeks, remain fully legal with the strike, wait for the result of the Bain inquiry, regardless of whether it gave evidence, and then decide what to do. That seems a wholly reasonable course of action for the union.
I have no evidence that the tribunal is short of resources. I am grateful for the contributions about the make-up of the tribunal. Sir George Bain, Sir Michael Lyons and Sir Tony Young are all people of experience and balance who can be trusted to come up with an independent assessment of the situation. However, their job would be a lot easier if the FBU gave evidence. I cannot for the life of me understand why the FBU is not prepared to put its case.
The decision on whether the activity of another employer is safe is the legal responsibility of that employer, acting on the advice of the health and safety authorities. It is not for trade union leaders—or for Ministers—to say whether an activity is safe for the public. The relevant employer must make that decision, acting on the advice of the health and safety authorities, which also operate under statutory independence when giving their advice.
The question about insurance is not an unimportant matter. I cannot give a detailed answer, but discussions are ongoing with leaders in the insurance industry. We shall make a statement at the appropriate time, as soon as possible.
1248
A point was raised about the dispute taking place against a background of public good will. We accept that the trade unions have modernised over recent years. There is no going back. There is a different framework of industrial legislation relating to disputes compared with 25 or 30 years ago. The FBU's claim was lodged only on 28th May. The Government cannot be accused—well, we can be accused of anything, but I do not think we are guilty—of complacency. The breakdown occurred on 2nd September. By 5th September we had set up the inquiry. The FBU was told about this and was asked by telephone conversation and by letter on 3rd September whether it wished to be involved in writing the terms of reference for the inquiry and to have an input and representation at the inquiry. We have never received a response to the telephone conversations or the letter. That is most unfortunate for everybody concerned.
I know nothing, as a humble Minister of State, about briefings from No. 10. The Deputy Prime Minister is responsible for the department that deals with the fire service and I have repeated his Statement. That remains the Government's stated position. There is no issue of being gung-ho or otherwise. We want a settlement. We do not want the dispute. We do not think that the Fire Brigades Union wants the dispute. There ought to be a much better way of solving the problem that has generally arisen without having to go on strike. Inquiries are one way of doing that. Sometimes we have had strikes and disputes over whether we should have an inquiry. People have gone on strike in the past to demand an inquiry. In this case the inquiry is up and running, so there is no justification for a dispute. The TUC's guidance, issued after the 1978 difficulties, stands. We hope that everyone concerned will abide by it.
I was asked whether a new formula was on offer. The prospect of a new formula was on offer, but what that formula would be was a matter for discussion. However, the dispute was called and the FBU said that it wanted 40 per cent now with no inquiry on modernisation or anything else and no discussions. I cannot say what the formula would have been, other than what I have said in the Statement.
Finally, I was asked whether the Government would accept what comes out of Professor Bain's inquiry. No government can be committed to responding to the results of an inquiry that has been set up independently and to which a key party to the dispute has not given evidence. Sir George Bain may come up with a package. He may well suggest a sum of money and a formula, but also suggest some changes in working practices to pay for some of it. How can we say yes at this point? We may be talking about a package; one cannot say. The one way to encourage the delivery of a decent package as a result of this inquiry is for the FBU to agree to give evidence to it.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, notwithstanding the refusal of the FBU to participate in the Bain inquiry, and bearing in mind that it may persist in that

1249
unhelpful attitude, can my noble friend the Minister say whether there is any possibility of the Government accepting a suggestion that I believe has been put forward in both Houses; namely, that the conclusion of the Bain inquiry should be significantly advanced from, say, 9th December of this year to a date in November? I recognise that the Government have no locus in this process because it is a matter for the Bain inquiry. However, will my noble friend pass on that suggestion to Sir George Bain at once?
Lord Rooker: Yes, my Lords; that is naturally the case. I do not know what the response from the Bain inquiry would be. However, it would be much easier to produce a quicker report if all the evidence could be put before the inquiry; for example, evidence from the FBU. There is nothing to suggest that there is a shortage of resources, but we are talking about an independent inquiry consisting of people of good will who are taking evidence from all parties that they can possibly reach. As a result of these statements and other discussions, I simply hope that the FBU will see that it is in its interests to outline its case not to the megaphones of the media and to the tabloid newspapers but to Sir George Bain and his inquiry. The union should also suspend any idea of action until he has reported. That can be done quite legally. Indeed, the employers have said that they would be prepared to increase the mandate of the strike ballot.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the changes made to employment law immediately after 1979 was the outlawing—the removal—of legal immunity for secondary action taken by groups of workers who are not involved in a dispute to bring pressure to bear on the employer who is involved? Is it not correct that the Government have done nothing to reverse that reform, and yet there are already threats by railmen and other workers to the effect that they may withdraw their labour ostensibly on safety grounds? Can the Minister give the House an assurance that the Government will support all those who combat secondary action of that kind, if necessary by invoking the law?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, we shall support all lawful processes. The noble Lord is quite right to say that we have not changed the issue about legal immunity. Trade union leaders do not own the safety of employees; safety representatives are crucial in that respect. The record of the trade union movement in improving industrial safety in this country is second to none. It is something for which it fought for years. Part of the reason for the start of the trade union movement was to secure better and safer working conditions for its members. However, the latter should not be used as a proxy in another dispute.
All this has come as a result of Royal Commissions, on which trade unions have been represented—for example, the Robbins Commission—and the work of the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive. The independent health and safety
1250
authorities are the relevant, lawful people who decide whether or not activities have to be suspended because of lack of safety cover. It is not a matter for trade union leaders to decide. If they do so without the advice of the health and safety authorities, quite clearly they may leave themselves liable.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I hope that the Government will not become involved in a debate in this House about the merits of the dispute. I do not like the idea of arguments across the Chamber about the merits of a particular case. As the person who actually invented the formula, I am especially concerned about this issue. It has been stated in newspaper reports that the Government consider that 40 per cent is too much. Can my noble friend the Minister tell the House where the Government got that conclusion from? That is partly what is queering the pitch. The Government have announced that 40 per cent is too much. It was not too much a few months ago when MPs were awarded a 40 per cent increase, but it is too much now. Why? This must mean that the Government now have some kind of norm in their mind. In the old days this was called having an incomes policy. Can my noble friend the Minister say what is a reasonable figure when you know in advance of an investigation and subsequent report that 40 per cent is too much?
Further, if I understand my noble friend correctly, he said that as a result of representations from the employers in this case the Government agreed to set up an independent inquiry. Is that also a movement in policy? Both this Government and the previous government have generally said over the past 20 years that they did not like inquiries, conciliation, or arbitration. And they got rid of the comparability commission. Moreover, we do not allow the Civil Service to go to the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal. But now local government employers come along and, as a result, the Government establish the Bain inquiry, while repeating that 40 per cent is too much.
Does this mean that another employer, faced with an equally serious dispute, could demand such an inquiry? Indeed, the Government would find themselves in a very difficult position if, after Bain, they did not accede to such a request. And what the Government give to the employers they must surely give to the unions. Let us suppose that another union demands an independent inquiry chaired by Sir George Bain. What would the Government say in response? Are they changing their policy, or not changing their policy? I am not against them changing their policy, but they had better take this matter away and think about what they are doing: are they going for incomes policy, or for arbitration? I do not expect to receive an answer this afternoon. But they should reconsider these matters and make up their minds.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, with great respect to my noble friend, I should point out that he asked me not to get involved in the merits of the dispute. Therefore, I shall certainly not argue the case about which percentage is the right one. I recognise the analogy made with Members of the other place, but let us just

1251
think about it. The Top Salaries Review Body is an independent body to which MPs gave evidence on their case, but they did not, as it were, fix the results of the inquiry. The FBU should follow the line taken by MPs and give evidence to the independent body, make their case, and then await the outcome. That is the analogy that I draw between the two groups. We should not play off one against the other.
I should add that MPs actually deferred their pay increases for many years in the hope that others would follow their example. However, it did not work out quite as they expected.
Lord Prior: My Lords, the Minister may be glad to know that I shall not ask him as belligerent a question as was posed a short while ago from the other side of the House. Such disputes are extremely difficult and delicate. One has to be very careful what one says. But when otherwise reasonable and responsible people vote 9:1 in favour of strike action, one is bound to ask what is the underlying cause that leads people to adopt such a position.
Can the Minister outline the Government's view on what has caused reasonable people to vote in this manner? If they have not, as yet, found out anything in that respect, can the Minister confirm that the Government are making every effort to discover what lies behind the dispute? It must be much more than just a simple pay issue.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, in a way, I accept the thrust of the noble Lord's question when people vote 9:1 in favour of such action. I do not know the exact figures, but I believe I said that the total number of fire service personnel today is 47,000. The vast majority of those members will have joined the service since 1977 in the knowledge that there was a stable tried-and-tested formula for wage increases based on the outcome of the previous dispute. In fact, it was a formula that most trade unions would have given their hind teeth for in the past, even though it stymied free collective bargaining because it was actually a formula that gave the pay increase each year.
When, two years ago, the person who is now the general secretary of the FBU said that the formula had done a good job, that did not ring any warning bells to the effect that there was something wrong with the formula. In just two years out of 25, I do know what has caused Mr Gilchrist to move from saying that the formula had done a good job and given good salaries to saying now that it is an absolute travesty and needs burying. Clearly there is a problem here. But, given the fact that the general secretary made that comment just two years ago, it is not one that has festered over the years as some people might think.
Baroness Michie of Gallanach: My Lords, I do not think that the Minister has said anything yet about retained fire fighters. As he knows, they are part-time but very efficient and professional fire fighters who provide a tremendous service to the rural areas of this
1252
country, particularly in the highlands of Scotland. Retained fire fighters do not strike, but have they been invited to give evidence to the review body?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not have specific details about that. However, the employers accepted that retained fire fighters' pay should be improved; in fact, one of the accepted claims was that their pay should be improved. As far as I know, Professor Bain and his colleagues are taking evidence from all the relevant parties who wish to provide it. I am sure that retained fire fighters will be invited to give evidence. I pay tribute to the service that they provide. They provide, almost by definition, an incredibly localised community service in our rural areas. We would not be able to fight fires in those areas without them.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I declare an interest. I was Home Secretary at the time of the previous dispute and—with Mr Terry Parry, of the Fire Brigades Union—played a part in settling it. I also played a small part in the TUC's development of a code of practice for dealing with safety matters. These two issues are still relevant. What has changed is that, whereas the previous dispute occurred in days of high inflation, we now have low inflation, which has a bearing on pay awards. Does my noble friend believe, as I still do, that the way forward is through the TUC code of practice?
The pay inquiry will not report until December. Meanwhile, inaccuracies about the dispute are reported daily, particularly in relation to the role of the Green Goddesses, written by people who have never seen a Green Goddess or thought about how they can be used. The Green Goddesses are kept at a storage base in the East Midlands. They are looked after carefully and have had limited use. There is not a snowball's chance in hell of their replacing the vehicles of the modern fire service. People who argue that, prove that they know nothing about the matter. We require a period of calm and quiet to settle this dispute, and I hope that we shall have that.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I remember the role that he played in the acrimonious 1977 dispute, when I was just a humble Back Bencher in the other place. The fact is that the formula solved that dispute; it was the key. At the time, people always ask why a formula could not have been dreamt up seven or eight weeks earlier. We accept that the formula needs to be re-examined. The way to do that, however, is to sit down round the table. There is plenty of time to do that before going on strike.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, over the weekend, the Minister's colleague in another place, Mr Nick Raynsford, said that he thought that train operating companies would operate normally. However, surely that is a matter for the companies and for the Health and Safety Executive. Or will the Government be offering advice to the train operating companies? If the Health and Safety Executive tells the train operating companies that it is safe to run their services, but the

1253
companies are unable to obtain insurance cover because of the national strike, will the Government stand behind them in relation to cover, as they did for the airlines after September 11th last year?
Lord Rooker: As I said, my Lords, discussions on insurance are in progress. As I also said, however, it is up to employers, on the advice of the health and safety authorities, to decide whether it is safe to run the service they are providing. If they receive advice from the health and safety authorities that they can run their service, I cannot see why insurance cover should be an issue.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the saving of life should be the paramount consideration in emergencies? Will the Government therefore consider making cutting equipment available to servicemen? The use of such equipment in car crashes, and even in coach and train crashes, can be a critical factor in saving lives.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, reverting to the original Statement, Mr Gilchrist was asked yesterday about the FBU's views in relation to life-threatening circumstances. He was also reminded of the TUC code—an aspect of the club to which all the trade unions have signed up. He said that he would discuss the matter with his executive and come back to the Government; I believe that my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister said that the FBU would come back tomorrow. I accept the noble Lord's point that the saving of life is the paramount consideration.
Lord Christopher: My Lords, this is not a dispute that will be solved through textbooks. The noble Lord, Lord Prior, asked a fundamental question: why did more than 90 per cent of firemen vote to go on strike? I ask my noble friend the Minister to reflect on the fact that the 1977 formula—I shall, if I may, add a little to the history given by my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees—was not accepted by firemen; it was imposed on their leadership by the then TUC general council. I know that because I was there. We sent Terry Parry out to tell his massed ranks, who filled Great Russell Street, that the dispute had to be settled on the basis of that formula. I was not entirely surprised by that because, at the time, no one could see the value of the formula. Every general secretary has had a similar situation in his own union at some time.
In a few days, the dispute will have started, and the most difficult thing will be to persuade people to stop. Although I completely accept what my noble friend the Minister said about the Government not interfering, there are reports, which I believe are accurate, that firemen do not believe that. Reports of offers of 15 or 16 per cent have been bandied about, and they are either true or untrue. There are also stories about comments by a member of the Bain committee, and they are either true or untrue. I believe that the first task should be to endeavour to remove that misunderstanding. As the Minister said, it is a misunderstanding.
1254
I believe that it would be a great mistake for the Bain committee to hurry its report. The problems with the fire service go much deeper than the matter of pay. There are also problems with, for example, the fire service pay structure. The fire brigades compare their pay structures with those for the police. The formula broke down because of advances made by those without a formula. Bain needs to have enough time to address all of those issues.
If I am correct about that, and if we are to reach a settlement, will the Minister just consider a way of reaching an interim offer and giving some assurances about the intent of the Bain committee? If we return to some of the thinking I have heard expressed today, we shall be returning almost to 1926. References to the law will not help one jot. This is the most heavily supported dispute for a very long time and it needs to be dealt with in a manner likely to produce a settlement. I believe that that will be possible only with an interim settlement which entails waiting for Bain.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I accept my noble friend's warning about the law. However, I think that I have answered the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, to the best of my ability. I do not think that it was a provocative question. The Government have not sought to change the law in respect of immunity for secondary action. I think that that is a straightforward position. As for the other points, however, surely the way of getting answers about what might have been offered on a given day or in various meetings is for the parties to give evidence to the inquiry. Let the independent inquiry decide who said what and the root issues in fire service pay. People have accepted that the formula needs changing but the fact of the matter is that the formula—
Lord Christopher: My Lords, the firefighters do not believe it is independent.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I was about to say to my noble friend that I believe that the formula is based on the higher quartile of top manual industrial earnings. It is not a question of people who are not a party to the formula getting ahead; the industrial structure of this country today is not even remotely like that of 1977. One can therefore appreciate that the formula needs to be reviewed; that point has been conceded. The best body to decide that is the inquiry.

Animal Health Bill
5.10 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 1.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 9, leave out "thinks" and insert "decides"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 3 asks the Government to think again and substitute the word "decides" for the word "thinks" on page 1, line 9, of the Bill. I apologise for labouring the point but I am concerned that the Bill should stand the test of time. By now the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, must know every dash, comma, dot and interpretation of it. I am sure that he recalls clearly the many arguments that we put forward at different stages. I am also certain that he knows exactly what he has or has not committed the Government to. However, three or four Ministers down the road and after a couple more departmental reorganisations, I fear that all that detail will be lost. Therefore, I am anxious that we make it clear on the face of the Bill that where the Minister is required to take an active part in the decision-making, he does so. The Bill currently states,
"the Secretary of State thinks".
I believe that that is parliamentary language, but I hope that the Minister will accept the word "decides" that I propose as it clearly implies that the Secretary of State will go through a conscious and rational process. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the amendment. It governs the exercise of powers, which are referred to in Amendment No. 19. I refer to the exercise of powers under Clauses 5 to 7.
The word "thinks" confers an absolute discretion which is not justiciable, whereas the word "decides"—that is, a decision—is justiciable and affords judicial review as to the grounds of the decision. A decision would have to be based on some ground and that ground would be a report from an inspector or a series of inspectors' reports. That could be safeguarded on judicial review and that would afford a reasonable measure of safeguard within the law. As I say, I support the amendment.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, the group of amendments we are discussing concerns the debate in Committee which became famous for the depth of its philosophical insight as regards whether something was material or immaterial and what "immaterial" meant. No doubt the Government will shortly move their amendment to remove the word "immaterial". However, there were two aspects to the "immaterial" debate. One concerned the question of what the word meant—the Government amendment deals with that matter and makes it starkly clear—the other concerned whether what it meant was or was not a good thing.
It is our view that new Section 1A is badly phrased. The Government are saying in effect that certain things do not matter in any decision whether to slaughter. In other words, anyone who says that an animal cannot be slaughtered because it is not infected, has not been in contact with or exposed to infection or has been vaccinated will be told to go away because those things do not matter. It appears that any animal can be slaughtered which the Secretary of State in his or her wisdom thinks should be slaughtered. We have tabled an amendment to make clear that animals can
1256
be slaughtered only under certain circumstances. We believe that animals can be satisfactorily treated with vaccine against foot and mouth disease. We have tabled the amendment to establish the difference in thinking between ourselves and the Government. I do not think that there is a cat in whatever's chance of the Minister accepting the amendment but it is an important statement of principle and illustrates why the fundamental philosophy behind the Bill is wrong.
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, one cannot possibly have someone just thinking something. I give the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, the benefit of the doubt in that I know that he thinks about what he is doing. Whether he thinks correctly or thinks wrongly is a matter of judgment as between my judgment and his, both of which may be wrong. The point is that Ministers must decide, not just think. A decision implies intellectual rigour. For the benefit of those of a less historical frame of mind than myself, it was Abbe Sieves who said, "gouverner, c'est choisir"; in other words, to govern is to make decisions. So governments have to make decisions and be held accountable for those decisions. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has to decide a matter, not just to think in a woolly way. I know that his intellectual processes are rather more rigorous than that, but perhaps those of some of his successors might not be.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I was astonished when the noble Lord found it impossible to accept the noble Countess's amendment. Here is one which I should have thought is almost equally easy for the Government to accept. As has been pointed out, the word "thinks" is very subjective. Indeed, one of our problems is that the Government do not seem to have thought enough about the Bill. Perhaps they should rethink it altogether. However, on the face of it, to use "thinks" as opposed to "decides" seems to me to introduce a quite unnecessary piece of vagueness. If the Government do not accept so simple a measure as this amendment, all I can say is that it is just one more instance of the Government being absolutely wedded to a stonewall defence of a very bad Bill.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, this group of amendments includes some issues of terminology which one can argue about and one of serious principle. As regards the issues of terminology, the Government's Amendment No. 4, which I shall move shortly, recognises that the use of the term "immaterial" in the Bill as currently drafted gives rise to a somewhat negative response. We did not intend to imply that the relevant issues did not matter, rather that they would not determine the matter. They could well be taken into account and they may well be the most important issues but they will not of themselves determine or constrain the relevant decision.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford is no longer present. He promised us a Te Deum with regard to the amendment. That reflects the view of the

1257
House that the word "immaterial" is offensive. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will accept my amendment to remove it.
I should like to be as accommodating with regard to Amendment No. 3. It may appear a little perverse of me not to be. I assure the noble Baroness that I engage in conscious and rational decisions, as I know that she sometimes doubts that. On this occasion, the problem is that the clause is an amendment to the Animal Health Act and consistency with the phraseology of that Act is necessary. Throughout, that Act uses the word "thinks". Whatever weight one may put on the views of the noble Earl and the noble Baroness, my advice is that we should maintain consistency. Therefore, with regret to some extent, I cannot agree to Amendment No. 3.
With Amendment No. 5, we come to an important issue of principle. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, rightly said that the issue is not whether we use the word "immaterial" but what processes are involved. The amendment would reverse the intent of the clause, which is, as I said in relation to the previous group of amendments, to give effect to the clear recommendation of the Anderson inquiry that the Government should unambiguously give themselves powers to carry out preventive slaughter in certain situations. That is what the clause attempts to do. I know that some noble Lords oppose that but if the House believes that we are following the advice of the committees that we commissioned, it should agree to the clause and its intent. Amendment No. 5 would reverse that and constrain the slaughter powers to what they currently are. I know that that is what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, wants, but it is not what the Anderson committee advised us to do and it is not what the Government advise the House to do. I therefore most strongly resist Amendment No. 5.
Baroness Byford: I do not know whether I thank the noble Lord for that response to my amendment, which I regard as an important amendment. It would give powers to the Minister to slaughter. Proposed new Clause 1(2) states:
"In sub-paragraph (1)…after paragraph (b) insert—
'(c) any animals the Secretary of State thinks'".
I am not minded to press the amendment to a vote but, in view of the slight encouragement in the Minister's response, I hope that he will ask the department to consider the proposal again. The issue is not about the word "immaterial"—we shall come to that later and I do not want to labour it at this stage. The Bill will give the Secretary of State powers relating to animals that he "thinks"—rather than "decides"—
"should be slaughtered with a view to preventing the spread of foot-and-mouth disease".
That is an important issue, not a minor one. I thank those noble Lords who supported the amendment. I hope that the Minister will seek further advice and return to the issue at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Gould of Potternewton): My Lords, I have to inform noble Lords that if Amendment No. 4 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 5 for reasons of pre-emption.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 13, leave out from beginning to "whether" and insert "The Secretary of State may exercise the power under sub-paragraph (1)(c)"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for having listened to the arguments that were advanced in Committee. We support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 6 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 2 [Extension of power to slaughter]:
[Amendment No. 6A not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
"DISEASE CONTROL (SLAUGHTER) PROTOCOL
In the 1981 Act the following sections are inserted after section 32A (as inserted by section 2 above)—
"32B DISEASE CONTROL (SLAUGHTER) PROTOCOL

(1) This section applies to a power exercisable by the Secretary of State under—

(a) paragraph 3(1)(c) of Schedule 3;

(b) such other provision of that Schedule (as amended by an order under section 32A(1)(a)) as the Secretary of State by order specifies;

(c) such other provisions of this Act relating to the control of disease as the Secretary of State by order specifies.

(2) The Secretary of State must prepare a document (the disease control (slaughter) protocol) indicating—

(a) the purposes for which any power to which this section applies will be exercised;

(b) the principal factors to be taken into account in deciding whether to exercise the power;

(c) the procedure to be followed in deciding whether in any circumstances or description of circumstances the power is to be exercised;

(d) the procedure to be followed by persons who have functions in relation to the exercise of the power;

(e) the means by which a particular decision to exercise the power may be reviewed.

(3) After preparing a draft of the disease control (slaughter) protocol the Secretary of State—

(a) must send a copy of the draft to such persons and organisations as he thinks are representative of those having an interest in the exercise of the power;

(b) must consider any representations made to him about the draft by such persons and organisations;

(c) may amend the draft accordingly.

(4) After the Secretary of State has proceeded under subsection (3) he must publish the protocol in such manner as he thinks appropriate.

(5) The Secretary of State must from time to time review the protocol and if he thinks it appropriate revise the protocol.

1259

(6) Subsections (2) to (4) apply to a revision of the protocol as they apply to its preparation.

(7) The power to make an order must be exercised by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(8) It is immaterial that anything done for the purposes of subsections (2) to (4) is done before the passing of the Animal Health Act 2002.

32C PROTOCOL: EXERCISE OF POWERS

(1) A power to which section 32B applies must not be exercised unless the protocol mentioned in that section has been published and has not been withdrawn

(2) Any act which is done in contravention of subsection (1) is done without lawful authority.

(3) If a person who has any function in relation to the exercise of a power to which section 32B applies fails to act in accordance with the protocol he is not by reason only of that failure liable in any civil or criminal proceedings.

(4) But the protocol is admissible in evidence in such proceedings and a court may take account of any failure to act in accordance with it in deciding any question in the proceedings.""

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to help to allay the concerns expressed in this House and elsewhere about the use of the new slaughter powers. It places in the Bill our commitment to publish a disease control (slaughter) protocol, which will indicate the procedures that the Government will follow if we decide to exercise the new preventive slaughter power and the relevant factors that we will have to take into account when deciding to exercise that new power. The intention is to consult fully on the protocol with all stakeholders. As experience and science change, it could be reviewed regularly.
Another condition is that the new preventive slaughter power could not lawfully be used without the prior publication of the protocols; in other words, we could not use the powers without explaining in what circumstances we would do so. Our intention is that the use of the new slaughter power should be as open and transparent as possible. With the publication of the protocol, coupled with the requirement to publish reasons for using a preventive power, the Bill will achieve the reassurance that has been sought from a number of quarters about how the powers in Clause 1 will be used. I beg to move.
Lord Greaves Lord Greaves moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 7, Amendment No. 7A:
Line 14, leave out "prepare a document" and insert "make an order"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I seek advice from someone: am I speaking to all of the amendments grouped with Amendment No. 7A? The noble Lord, Lord Carter, nods his head. He seems to be running proceedings today, so I shall accept his advice. I am grateful to him—on this occasion, at least.
I turn to the purpose of Amendment No. 7A and those grouped with it. As the Bill is drafted, the disease control (slaughter) protocol is a document on which the Secretary of State will consult and he will take account of what people say but he will be able to issue it in whatever way he wishes—he will be able to publish
1260
it in whatever form he thinks necessary. We seek to change that and make the document an order or statutory instrument that is published in the normal way for statutory instruments; that is, it would be subject, if the amendment is agreed to, to the negative resolution procedure, which would not be terribly onerous. However, the statutory instrument would be presented to Parliament and could if necessary be debated by Parliament. We believe that that is a necessary safeguard in relation to a high-profile and controversial matter. It would ensure that the Government know that there is a backstop if what they propose in the protocol is not acceptable. The statutory instrument could be debated by Parliament and in extremis rejected by Parliament.
We are not proposing a huge step; we do not believe that our approach will prevent the Government from doing what they want to do. We believe that it is a democratic safeguard, which, in this case, should be provided. That is what Amendment No. 7A would do. It is the core amendment in this group.
Most of the remaining amendments in this group would change the word "protocol" to "regulations". It has been suggested that the word "protocol" is too weak and that the word "regulations" would be more appropriate. I have no strong feelings about that—our advice is that the word "regulations" is better than "protocol". Amendment No. 7A is at the heart of the matter and we seek to push the Minister in relation to it.
Amendment No. 7D in this group also suggests that, as part of the protocol, the Minister should have to state the reasons for carrying out a cull of animals rather than deciding on vaccination or other options. In a sense, this forms part of the debate that we had earlier today. It had to be raised at this point because it affects a new amendment proposed by the Minister. However, the issue forms part of the vaccination debate and I hope that the Minister will be able to accept Amendment No. 7D, or, at least, the principles behind it, and to write it into the protocol.
I begin by referring to the protocol in wider terms. We believe that the disease-control protocol and the contingency plan, which, in a later amendment, the Minister will propose should be on the face of the Bill, are both important documents. We have already seen the draft protocol and the interim contingency plan and believe that the criticisms expressed about the Bill and its lack of balance apply in both cases. In both, the emphasis is still heavily on slaughter and heavily against vaccination. We accept that the Minister is moving slowly towards accepting vaccination as an option, but it seems to us that the balance that we require is not there.
I consider the contents of the protocol and the contingency plan, which we shall discuss later, to be crucial. That is another reason why we believe that the protocol should be made by order. We believe that it should be a statutory instrument and debatable by this House and by the other place. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I want to ask the Minister a question, of which I had given him notice, relating to the amendment. With regard to this amendment, this new clause and other clauses of the same nature in the Bill, it would be helpful to all noble Lords to know the relation of the Bill to the work on foot and mouth now being carried out in Brussels.
When I spoke in the debate on 7th October, I mentioned that Commissioner Byrne had said that a draft directive was to be put forward, but, of course, at that stage I had not seen it. Now I have, thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, who kindly lent me his copy. I made a copy of the draft for myself and arranged for the Library also to have a copy so that it could make it available to other noble Lords. It is a very long and detailed draft, which no doubt the Minister and his department will consider and discuss.
However, I do not understand how the Bill fits in with the impending directive. In particular, I do not know when it is likely that the directive will come into force. But it seems to me that, if the Bill is passed in the relatively near future, there is a danger that it may become out of date and be superseded by powers that the Commission will propose that the EU as a whole should take in relation to the whole European Union. It is clearly proposing that arrangements should be made to cover the whole Union with regard to foot and mouth and possibly other animal diseases. It would be a great help to me and, I imagine, to other noble Lords to know how the Bill meshes with the impending directive, when the directive is likely to be issued and whether the Bill will be affected or unaffected by it.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, perhaps I may add one or two points to those made by my noble friend Lord Greaves and also mention one or two issues which the noble Lord, Lord Moran, raised. We feel very strongly that protocols do not have enough force. My experience of protocols in legislation occurred, in the main, during the passage of the Government of Wales Bill in the other place. When the Secretary of State was at a somewhat loose end when asked difficult questions, he said that a protocol on the matter would be introduced, and we had a long list of protocols. I would not say that they amounted to pages and pages but there were certainly large numbers of them. That is why we feel strongly that force should be given to this matter.
The other general point that I want to make is that the title refers to disease control, but then references are made only to slaughter. I do not want to pre-empt anything that the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, will say because he, too, very kindly showed me the draft EU directive. However, I shall mention one item in the directive which concerns control by vaccination in the case of a disease spreading severely.
Clearly, many different tools are used in controlling disease. If one is to have a disease-control slaughter protocol, then perhaps one should consider disease-control in other respects, too. I believe that that is important and it was underlined in the Royal Society
1262
report by Sir Brian Follett, who said something similar to what I said in relation to the EU proposal. In view of what the Minister said earlier about testing and matters of that kind—I believe that we shall return to those issues in this debate—perhaps in a year or 18 months we shall be given definitive explanations of these matters. None the less, we believe that the protocol could be cast far more widely, that it should be ordered and, at the same time, have rather more force.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Livsey. The meaning of the word "protocol" is woolly when applied to legislation. It is also far more firm to make an order rather than prepare a document. I believe that this group of amendments should definitely be supported.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I want to say a few words about the amendment. First, I should like to hear the Minister's response concerning the difference between a protocol and an order. I believe we all accept that that needs to be clarified. We need to be told where one or the other might fit in and whether the protocol or the regulations are stronger. I suspect that regulations are stronger than a protocol, but my legal language is not very good.
Secondly, following the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, is the Minister in a position to give us an indication as to when a response will be made by our Government to the European Parliament's working group 5A, to which we referred earlier? That would help. Can he also say when the European Parliament is likely to put forward the proposal formally? At present, it is at a working group stage. I know that this is the Report stage of the Bill but it is difficult for us to comment on the matter because we need to hear what the Minister has to say. Therefore, I hope that any questions will be raised before the Minister sits down because we need clarification on those points.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, this group of amendments seeks, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, to turn the protocol into secondary legislation.
The protocol is designed to explain what needs to be taken into account when these new powers are used. These new powers relate to slaughter. We already have powers which relate to vaccination. The protocol is therefore only used to explain the circumstances in which the new powers would be used. It will not describe or constrain the whole strategy. It may well be that in most circumstances vaccination would be the preferred option. It will describe where we might in present circumstances use these new powers and only these new powers because that is the only part of the legislation that requires this degree of explanation.
Explanation is not the same as secondary legislation. It is more flexible than secondary legislation. Circumstances will change. The nature of the disease and outbreak may change and experience abroad may change. Indeed, to turn to the point made

1263
by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, there may be developments at the European level which would need to be taken into account in the protocol. It is unlikely that there will be developments in Europe that would give us more powers than we already have on vaccination, or more powers than we need—if we adopt the clause as it stands—on slaughter. The balance may well change as the EU moves more in favour of vaccination than has been the case historically. But it will not alter the fact that we need both powers.
As to the timetable of European consideration, the proposition has just been put on the table and the discussion is ongoing. It could be some time before we get to a position where this is substantively discussed at the political level and a considerable time after that before it has been through the parliamentary and the Council of Ministers processes and actually passes into European legislation.
At that point the protocol may need to reflect that development, but we are not at that stage now. We are unlikely to be at that point for some considerable time. So we must recognise what the protocol is for. It is an explanation, not a legislative tool. If we were to change its nature, it would be a piece of legislation, albeit secondary legislation, subject—as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, suggested—to the negative procedure, which would need a positive decision in order for it to be debated in the House. Although it would be a relatively low-key piece of legislation, if the circumstances of animal disease control changed we would have to change the provisions.
That is not what we need in this process. For those who may be the recipients of action under the clause we need to explain what are the limits, what things need to be taken into consideration and when were the Government to decide to go down the slaughter road. Turning that protocol into secondary legislation does not seem to be appropriate. I believe that it would be somewhat strange in terms of legislative procedures were we to go down that road. I suspect that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee would have to take a view on the matter. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, will not pursue this and that we shall have the protocol relating to this particular new power and not to the totality of the strategy of disease control.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked why we have used slaughter rather than vaccination. The protocol is intended to cover the general issue of matters that have to be taken into consideration. The next group of amendments relates to explanation in particular circumstances. The noble Lord's Amendment No. 8A—which I have already indicated I propose in principle to accept—states that the Secretary of State must include an explanation of why he proposes to use slaughter rather than vaccination. It is not appropriate to include that in a provision that sets out what has to be taken account of in the protocol. I hope that with that explanation this group of amendments is not pursued.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. He has strengthened my view that this should be a document that is placed before Parliament. The protocol, at the moment, would be a document which is published and issued by DEFRA in the name of the Secretary of State, but in which Parliament has no locus whatever.
The Minister said that it would be an explanation of where the slaughter powers may be used and that that is different from secondary legislation. But secondary legislation very often is a matter of clarifying, explaining and setting out in more detail—which surely this will involve—what the primary legislation actually means and how it will be carried out. Secondary legislation is very often of that nature. So it seems to me to be appropriate.
The Minister also said that the legislation may have to change. Of course it may have to change. That is very often why secondary legislation is used in particular cases. To put something in concrete in primary legislation might prevent easy change, whereas secondary legislation is a relatively easy process of changing the details of legislation. There is no question of doing that quickly. Subsection (6) of the Minister's proposed new clause covering the disease control (slaughter) protocol states that if the Secretary of State wishes to change the protocol:
"Subsections (2) to (4) apply to a revision of the protocol as they apply to its preparation".
Those subsections state that the Secretary of State has to prepare a document. He will have to prepare the revision of the document. It must indicate the purposes for which any power to which it applies will be exercised; the principal factors to be taken into account; the procedure to be followed in deciding whether in any circumstances or description of circumstances the power is to be exercised; the procedure to be followed by persons who have functions in relation to the exercise of the power; and the means by which a particular decision may be reviewed. So it is complicated stuff. That has to be published.
Then the Secretary of State has to consult. He must send a copy of the draft to such persons and organisations as he thinks are representative of those having an interest in the exercise of the power; consider those drafts; and amend the draft accordingly. So it will be quite a time-consuming procedure anyhow. Therefore, it is not something that can be done in a matter of days, or two or three weeks.
Turning this into the normal kind of parliamentary order, secondary legislation or statutory instrument—of which we receive great long lists every week, and look at some of them and wonder what they mean—is hardly a major imposition. But it does mean that the protocol, and amendments to the protocol when they occur, are laid before Parliament. We and Members of the other place will have a chance to look at them and, if we feel that they are wrong, to raise that matter. That is a fundamental safeguard. It is not a great imposition on the Government; it is hardly any imposition

1265
whatever. What the Minister says strengthens my view that this is what we should do. I therefore beg leave to listen to the Minister for a minute.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have had the advantage of seeing the draft protocol. It is in a form that is intended to explain the use of the new power rather than to give traditional and more precise powers, which is the normal purpose of secondary legislation. Can the noble Lord, with his knowledge of secondary legislation, see how that protocol, which has been generally welcomed, could be turned into secondary legislation? I cannot see that. There are other ways that Parliament might wish to debate it, but as a piece of secondary legislation I do not think that that will work. It would certainly not be normal procedure in this House or in the other place.
Lord Moran: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, he has not answered the question that I put to him. I realise that it will inevitably take some time for the process of the draft directive to go towards finality. But, for the purposes of the Bill, is he proposing simply to ignore the work that is going on, or does he envisage a short life for the Bill until that comes through?
Lord Whitty: No, my Lords. If the approach adopted at European level has legal force, it will come through the normal process for dealing with European legislation. The point I am making is that whatever strategy the European Commission decides in future that we should follow, it will require both powers of slaughter and vaccination. It may shift significantly, as Commissioner Byrne has implied, towards vaccination in the wider sense, even if slaughter is used for the diseased animals and their immediate circle. But it will require both powers, so the clause will not be affected. In all circumstances, we will need the option of those powers; the European Union may direct us to a greater priority for one set of powers than for the other, but we shall need both.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I remind your Lordships that my noble friend the Minister has finished responding and has sat down. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, raised an issue and my noble friend was merely clarifying it. On this occasion, the Minister has long since sat down.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I thank your Lordships for those multiple interventions. The Minister may well be right to say that the way in which the protocols are phrased at present is not appropriate for statutory instrument. If the amendment were carried, we might well have to rephrase it in the language appropriate for statutory instrument, but the basic content and substance of the protocol is appropriate for an instrument before Parliament. I seek to test the opinion of the House.
5.51 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): The Question is that Amendment No. 7A shall be agreed to. As many are of that opinion will say, "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content". I think the Contents have it. Clear the Bar.
Division called.
The Lord Chancellor: Tellers for the Contents have not been appointed, pursuant to Standing Order 53. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the "Not-Contents" have it.
[Amendment No. 7B not moved.]
Earl Peel Earl Peel moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 7, Amendment No. 7C:
Line 22, after "exercised" insert ", which shall include the application of such methods of detecting disease in animals as may be available"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I start by declaring an interest: I own land on which livestock farming takes place.
I welcome the Minister's amendment, Amendment No. 7, in principle, but there undoubtedly remains a strong divergence of opinion about the most effective methods of controlling foot and mouth disease.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl would give way for a moment. I hope that noble Lords who need to have conversations will leave the Chamber. We on the Front Bench cannot hear the noble Earl.
Earl Peel: My Lords, the noble Baroness seems to have had a miraculous effect on the House. A deathly hush has come upon us.
To repeat, there remains a divergence of opinion about the most effective methods of controlling foot and mouth disease. Even after the recent epidemic with all its horrific consequences, there is still no line on whether slaughter or vaccination is the most effective approach—although earlier we decided that vaccination would clearly be a preferable option.
However, if there is one point on which we can all agree, it must be that every effort has to be made to mitigate the slaughter of uninfected animals. From everyone's perspective, the sight of those mass slaughters must be reduced to a minimum. They had a traumatic effect on rural people, farmers and visitors. The whole country was deeply moved by what it saw. Inevitably, many thousands of animals were slaughtered that were not infected by foot and mouth disease. It is incumbent on all of us to ensure that that does not happen again. Many figures are bandied around, but I read recently that only 1 per cent of slaughtered sheep were actually infected by foot and mouth disease.
Consequently, I am certain that everyone wants a sufficiently rapid diagnostic testing system to be developed that can be used on the farm, thus

1267
determining whether foot and mouth disease is present before a wholesale slaughter is undertaken. Such a mechanism would bring enormous confidence to the relationship between the State Veterinary Service and the farming industry and reduce the conflicts and tensions that inevitably build up during such traumatic times.
In his letter of October 14th to me, the Minister kindly confirmed that there were two types of rapid test for the presence of the foot and mouth virus. One of the tests is described by the Minister as,
"a pen-side test that takes 15 minutes and is similar to home pregnancy tests".
That is an interesting turn of phrase; perhaps the Minister has more experience of such matters than I have. The other method is more sophisticated. I shall not describe it to your Lordships; I certainly do not understand it. Although a portable version of that method has now been developed in the USA, it is still relatively difficult to perform in field conditions. Clearly, it is only a question of time before the difficulties are overcome or a company comes forward with an alternative foolproof system. My amendment would include in the Government's amendment, Amendment No. 7—relating to the disease control protocol—the provision that, when such methods become available, their use will be mandatory.
In his letter, the Minister said:
"When validated diagnostic tests for field use become available, DEFRA will ensure that the State Veterinary Service has access to them".
I welcome that important first step, but there is a world of difference between allowing access to something and giving a firm commitment to use it. Given the enormous implications of the slaughter policy, it would be odd—to say the least—or even disingenuous not to use appropriate equipment that would give a foolproof answer as to whether such methods were necessary. Apart from anything else, the saving to the Government in compensation alone, if unaffected animals were not slaughtered, would be enormous. If such equipment were available and the Government were satisfied that it worked, it should be incumbent on vets to use it. Why have it, if it is not to be used to optimum effect?
I leave your Lordships with a final thought. We should imagine the case of a farmer who has had his herd destroyed in circumstances in which it was deemed expedient to do so. How will he feel, knowing that such a testing system existed and that officials chose not to use it? A lingering doubt will remain with that fanner for the rest of his life.
When we were discussing Amendment No. 1, tabled by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, I scribbled down something that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said. He said that the Government would grasp with both hands any opportunity to find ways of preventing mass slaughter. My simple amendment would go a long way to achieving what the noble Lord seeks. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I support the noble Earl's amendment, although I would go further and say that the Government should use expertise from outside government. The Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, will remember that Dr Colin Fink approached DEFRA with a test that would have differentiated between vaccinated animals and animals that were diseased. Because the scientists in DEFRA had not invented the equipment themselves, they would not hear anything about it. I summarise drastically what happened, but I do not wish to see it happen again. We must use the most up-to-date equipment available, and that requirement should be written into the Bill.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I strongly support the noble Earl's amendment. It is far-sighted, and, as he said, it does not commit the Government to immediate action. When the technology is in place, it should be used.
Professor Fred Brown worked at Pirbright on various tests for foot and mouth disease. However, because of funding difficulties there, he now lives and works in the United States. The testing that has been referred to is at an advanced stage. There may soon be two alternative tests available, one of which was referred to earlier. The amendment is prudent and would ensure that, when such technological advances were made, we could benefit from them.
One of the principles enunciated in the draft European Commission report is that rapid diagnosis is a key factor in tackling and preventing the disease. The amendment would assist that process.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Earl was kind enough to quote what I said about an earlier amendment. That was, of course, a personal view. Although I support the Government, I no longer speak for the Government.
We all understand what the noble Earl is driving at, but I am not sure that the amendment is required. It will be interesting to hear the Minister's view. The government amendment is rather complicated. Subsection (2)(b) of the proposed new clause refers to,
"the principal factors to be taken into account in deciding whether to exercise the power".
Before the government officer can exercise the power of slaughter, he or she must take into account all the principal factors. If there is a diagnostic test available and the Government have decided not to use it, which would be extraordinarily unlikely, the Government would not be taking the principal factors into account, as that would be one of those factors. I suspect that the Government would be subject to judicial review on that. I shall be interested to see whether my noble friend agrees.

1269
Subsection (2)(b) of the new clause already deals with the point that the noble Earl made so persuasively. The amendment is, therefore—to use a favourite word that appears in all briefings—otiose.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Peel has already fallen over backwards to be reasonable and modest in his amendment. I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, seemed to agree with it. My noble friend's proposal—he will correct me if I misunderstood—is that, if effective diagnostic equipment is available, it must be used. My noble friend nods his agreement; I am relieved that I have got it right. The amendment seems reasonable.
The Government will, once again, convey the wrong impression, if they do not accept the amendment. They will give the impression that they are wedded to culling and that they are reluctant to accept anything that dents the armoured plating of their attitudes. I shall be shocked if the Minister cannot accept such an exceedingly modest amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I studied the face of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and of the Minister while the noble Earl spoke. I expected to see them wreathed in smiles and with their arms open to welcome the amendment.
The amendment is sensible and desirable. It is not otiose. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, subsection (2)(b) of the new clause refers to,
"the principal factors to be taken into account in deciding whether to exercise the power".
However, if we are to take into account the state of diagnostic testing as a factor, why should we not say so? There is something strange about the way the Government are declining to say what they say they believe. They are wanting it to be assumed; to be taken for granted.
I can see no conceivable justification for the Government not accepting the amendment. It has the advantage of providing for the steady development of the science which we know is continuing. It is not asking for anything which is beyond where we actually are—the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. We are in a changing situation. Amendment No. 7C provides for the best available diagnostic testing to be used at whatever stage we have reached when the need arises. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I have not intervened previously, but surrounded in my part of Wales by farms where sheep were culled when they were certainly not infected, I feel strongly about these issues. I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, who has played a notable part in debates and knows more about the issues than any one of us.
I, too, noted the remarks made in an earlier debate by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. My reaction was different to that of my noble friend Lord Peel. I am
1270
sure that if the noble Lord, Lord Carter—a man who has great experience in agricultural matters—was in charge and coping in the local area, he would act as he says all Ministers are bound to act. However, enough happened during that episode for us to have considerable doubts that those in charge will always act sensibly or will take account of the requirements unless they are clearly spelled out. The experience that we encountered during that lamentable episode should encourage the Government to write down the rules very clearly so that there can be no doubt where responsibilities lie—not just of Ministers sitting in this place, or presiding over the state, but of those who administer the business on the ground. I support my noble friend Lord Peel. I hope that he will press his amendment.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I support my noble friend's modest amendment. I hope that it is accepted by the Government in the light of the costs and the emotional stress and strain experienced last time. We all agree that we do not want to go through that again. The tremendous advances in science are recognised. I hope that the weight of argument put from all sides of the House will enable the Minister to accept this humble amendment.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint. The amendment is to a new clause which states what aspects should appear in the protocol. Clearly, subsection (2)(b) and (c) would need to involve the circumstances of the technology for testing. They would be principal factors in subsection (2)(b). The circumstances under which the power is exercised are in subsection (2)(c).
The amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, would constrain either one of those provisions. The House will be familiar with the argument—a legalistic one—that if one designates certain of the principal factors or certain of the circumstances, other circumstances do not have the same weight in law. It is already an indirect procedure, but its inclusion would suggest that subsection (2)(c) in Amendment No. 7 was limited by reference to the technology rather than anything else.
The noble Earl described precisely where we are in terms of technology. There are twin-track operations, but neither has yet reached a point where they could be "rolled out" for full field application with full validation for our own, EU and OIE purposes, in a crisis or emergency. It is hoped that that will soon be the case. Even then the availability and the application will take time to be generalised. Therefore, a situation could arise where in some circumstances of an epidemic, diagnostic testing would be available. In others, because of the typography, the limit of the kits, or the limits of the people who could use the kits, diagnostic testing could not be used. Therefore, a degree of flexibility is required.

1271
I assure the noble Earl, Lord Peel, that subsection (2)(b) which relates to principal factors and subsection (2)(c) which relates to circumstances, includes using up-to-date technology and the protocol can spell that out. To put it in this clause would limit the terms of the protocol and therefore limit the facts that the Secretary of State would be bound to take into account in pursuing a slaughter option. I understand why the proposition is put forward. In certain circumstances, the protocol may move to a position that says testing is mandatory. Until we get to those circumstances it is not sensible to put that on the face of the Bill as a limiting prescription of what should and should not be in the protocol.
Therefore, I hope that on both procedural and operational grounds the noble Earl, Lord Peel, will not pursue the amendment.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have supported me. I am particularly grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who, I know, has not played a great part in the Bill but whose knowledge is well respected. I am grateful for his words.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, in his inimitable fashion, managed to produce what I can describe only as the Chief Whip's smokescreen. It is effective; we have seen it many times before. The noble Lord basically says that my amendment is unnecessary. Perhaps it is unnecessary, but let us not worry if we have a belt and braces. Nothing could be more effective. I do not understand what the noble Lord was trying to achieve by his remarks.
The issue is the point made by the Minister. We have not, as yet, reached a situation where such diagnostic tests are effective. I acknowledge that; we all acknowledge that. Amendment No. 7C is designed to ensure that when they are up and running and are effective they will be used. I repeat: what is the point of having them if we do not use them? It should be incumbent on the veterinary service to use that. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, says that my amendment compromises flexibility. I simply do not subscribe to that view. I wish to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
6.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7C, as an amendment to Amendment No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 186; Not-Contents, 127.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Addington, L.

Attlee, E.

Alderdice, L.

Avebury, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Barker, B.

Arran, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Astor, V.

Biffen, L.

1272

Blaker, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Blatch, B.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Boardman, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Bowness, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Liverpool, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Luke, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Lyell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Burnham, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Byford, B.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

McNally, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Maddock, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mancroft, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Mar, C.

Coe, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Colwyn, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Cox, B.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Monson, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Moran, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Denham, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dholakia, L.

Newby, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Noakes, B.

Dundee, E.

Northbrook, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Northesk, E.

Elles, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Elton, L.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Ezra, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Falkland, V.

Onslow, E.

Fearn, L.

Palmer, L.

Feldman, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Flather, B.

Parkinson, L.

Fookes, B.

Patten, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Peel, E. [Teller]

Freeman, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Garel-Jones, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Geddes, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Glentoran, L.

Plumb, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Greaves, L.

Pym, L.

Greenway, L.

Rawlings, B.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Razzall, L.

Hambro, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hamwee, B.

Rees, L.

Hanham, B.

Rennard, L.

Hanson, L.

Renton, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Henley, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Rogan, L.

Higgins, L.

Roper, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Hogg, B.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Hooper, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hooson, L.

Sandberg, L.

Howe, E.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Seccombe, B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Selsdon, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Sharman, L.

Jacobs, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Sharples, B.

Jopling, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Kimball, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kingsland, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Kirkham, L.

Stewartby, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

1273

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Strange, B.

Wakeham, L.

Swinfen, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Taverne, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Tebbit, L.

Walmsley, B.

Tenby, V.

Walpole, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Warnock, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Weatherill, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Wigoder, L.

Tope, L.

Wilcox, B.

Waddington, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L. [Teller]

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Ahmed, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Alli, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Andrews, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Hoyle, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Bach, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Barnett, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Berkeley, L.

Islwyn, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Billingham, B.

Judd, L.

Blackstone, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Borrie, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Bragg, L.

Levy, L.

Brett, L.

Lipsey, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Listowel, E.

Brookman, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McCarthy, L.

Burlison, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Chan, L.

Christopher, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Mishcon, L.

Crawley, B.

Morgan, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

David, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Nicol, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Orme, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Parekh, L.

Desai, L.

Patel, L.

Dixon, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Donoughue, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dubs, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Elder, L.

Puttnam, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Radice, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Filkin, L.

Rea, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Richard, L.

Gale, B.

Sawyer, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gilbert, L.

Sheldon, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Simon, V.

Goldsmith, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Goudie, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Grenfell, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Tomlinson, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Uddin, B.

Harrison, L.

Varley, L.

Haskins, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hayman, B.

Warner, L.

1274

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Whitaker, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Whitty, L.

Wilkins, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.30 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 7D to 7Q, as amendments to Amendment No. 7, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 7, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
"EXPLANATION OF PREVENTIVE SLAUGHTER
In the 1981 Act the following section is inserted after section 32C (as inserted by section (Disease control (slaughter) protocol) above)—
"32D EXPLANATION OF PREVENTIVE SLAUGHTER

(1) This section applies to a power exercisable by the Secretary of State under—

(a) paragraph 3(1)(c) of Schedule 3;

(b) any other provision of that Schedule as amended by an order under section 32A(1)(a).

(2) The Secretary of State must not exercise a power to which this section applies unless before he first exercises the power in relation to any description of circumstances he publishes his reasons for the exercise of the power in relation to the circumstances of that description.

(3) If the Secretary of State does not comply with subsection (2) in relation to any description of circumstances anything done in connection with the exercise of the power in such circumstances must be taken to have been done without lawful authority.""

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we all hope that the Government will never have to have recourse to the preventive slaughter power, but should we have to do so we must be open about the reason for using it. That is the reason for the amendment. It will enshrine in the Bill a requirement for the Secretary of State to publish the reasons for using the new slaughter power in any given set of circumstances before the power is exercised. We fully intend for any use of the new slaughter power to be as open and as transparent as possible.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I speak briefly to Amendment No. 8A, which is grouped with this amendment. We have already made clear that vaccination will be considered as a disease control option in any future outbreak. It follows that if we decide that the new slaughter power should be used, in publishing the reasons for using it we must explain why the alternative options are not appropriate. However, we understand the concern that mention of the reasons for not using vaccination should be explicit on the face of the Bill. We therefore accept the principle of Amendment No. 8A and give a commitment to make the necessary amendment to the Bill at Third Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I am provisionally grateful to the Government. I shall be eternally grateful if I am happy with their wording. I am sure that my wording is brilliant and far better than anything the Government can come up with. But I do not expect them to agree to that and I await with interest the Government's amendment at Third Reading.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, I welcome the requirement for an explanation of preventive slaughter in Amendment No. 8. This is related to everything that we have discussed today. An explanation of that policy is important because it makes it more transparent for those concerned with the problem.
Subsection (2) obliges the Secretary of State first to publish his reasons for the exercise of his or her power to carry out a preventive slaughter. In principle, this is extremely important because we are likely to be dealing with animals in a firebreak hole, which may well be some distance from the outbreak of the infection. At the very least, the owners of such, almost certainly healthy, animals deserve a satisfactory explanation of why the Secretary of State proposes to slaughter them. As I am sure we all accept, the decision has to be based on sound, published veterinary and scientific advice, and not on wider factors such as social and economic considerations.
Subsection (3) of the proposed new Section 32D states that if the Secretary of State does not comply with the requirement to publish a statement of reasons before proceeding to slaughter, then his or her action must be taken to have been done without lawful authority. I merely ask: what does that mean? The animal will have been slaughtered; is it intended that the owners will be able to sue the Secretary of State for damages because he or she had failed to comply with the procedure set down in statute? I pose the question. We should welcome clarification on this point.
I believe that we have to find a description of "circumstances", to include details of the area affected. That could mean that if the epidemic spread, the Minister would have to make separate statements for each area—for Devon, for Warwickshire, for Cheshire, for Cumbria, or wherever it may be. Therefore we need to proceed and push for the detail of where the Secretary of State will publish and for what reasons. Will he or she use various regional offices, NFU offices and so on, to do that? It is a matter that must be taken further.
My only other point relates to subsection (2) of the preventive slaughter clause in Amendment No. 8. I should like an explanation of the explanation. Subsection (2) states:
"The Secretary of State must not exercise a power to which this section applies unless before he first exercises the power in relation to any description of circumstances he publishes his reasons for the exercise of the power in relation to the circumstances of that description".
What on earth does that mean? I have read it several times—and I read into it—but I am concerned for those who may be affected by the Bill who are reading it for the first time. They may think that a bit of gobbledegook has been written into the Bill that is
1276
totally unnecessary and uncalled for. In accepting the amendment—I am delighted that Amendment No. 8A, which completes the clause and which we fully support, is to be accepted—I would merely ask the Minister to consider rewording subsection (2) and putting it into English.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Plumb. The Plain English Campaign would love this for its gobbledegook prize.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I should hate to fall foul of the Plain English Campaign. Noble Lords have probably read the text too often. The first time I read it, the text seemed absolutely clear. If one continues to read it, it may become less so. I shall consider whether there is a simpler way to express its meaning. I believe that it means that the Secretary of State may not do what he or she is not legally entitled to do. But that is my précis, and I shall check. It does not sound to me like lawyers' language.
In answer to the first question of the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, the subsection does not of itself create a right to damages. It means that the Government need to take it into account. They could obviously be subject to court proceedings should that be appropriate in individual circumstances. It is almost impossible to answer a hypothetical question in this context. What would happen if a Secretary of State acted without his or her power is an impossible question to answer because it would depend on the circumstances. We are defining in the legislation the powers that the Secretary of State will have. If the noble Lord is not happy with that explanation, I shall write to him and send copies of the letter to other noble Lords.
Whether it should be an area-by-area publication because of regional and local variations will of course depend entirely on the circumstances. Whether it was an outbreak such as that in the 1960s, where it was contained geographically, or whether it affected a wider area or dispersed areas, would govern the way publication was made. But publication would have to be reasonably available for those who needed the information.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 8A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 8, not moved.]
Clause 3 [Slaughter of vaccinated animals]:
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 40, leave out from "compensation" to end of line 41 and insert "in accordance with subsections (4A) and (4B).
(4A) In the case of an animal treated with vaccine for the purpose of preventing the spread of foot-and-mouth disease—

(a) if the animal was infected with foot-and-mouth disease the compensation is the value of the animal immediately before it became so infected;

(b) in any other case the compensation is the value of the animal immediately before it was slaughtered.

1277
(4B) In the case of an animal treated with vaccine for the purpose of preventing the spread of a disease specified by order under subsection (1) the compensation is of such an amount as may be prescribed by order of the Secretary of State.
(4C) In arriving at a value under subsection (4A) above no account is to be taken of the fact that the animal had been treated with vaccine as mentioned in that subsection."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 13.
I said earlier that, in adopting a vaccination strategy, the Government's presumption would be that a vaccinate-to-live strategy would be appropriate, but that there could be circumstances in which a vaccinate-and-kill policy might still be necessary. In those circumstances—the circumstances pursued in the Netherlands during the last epidemic—the question arises of compensation for animals which are vaccinated and are then compulsorily slaughtered.
There are strong grounds for clarifying that position. There is, in particular, a need to ensure maximum compliance with the vaccination process in the first place: if animals subsequently had to be slaughtered, farmers would receive the same compensation as they would for non-vaccinated animals. That is what the amendment prescribes. I commend it to the House.
Amendment No. 13 would simply add a reference to the order-making power for diseases other than foot and mouth; namely, the proposed new subsection (4B) in Amendment No. 10. As we discussed in Committee, the position regarding compensation for other diseases is not consistent with the 100 per cent compensation in FMD cases; so different considerations would apply. The amendment simply makes the cross-reference. So far as concerns foot and mouth, Amendment No. 10 would make it clear that 100 per cent compensation would be available in that case. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for writing to us on this amendment. His letter clearly said that he had listened to the weight of argument about the levels of compensation for slaughtered FMD vaccinates. We are grateful to him for introducing this amendment. It helps to allay the fears of farming colleagues outside this Chamber.
I should still like to draw the House's attention to the rider which the Minister adds to his letter. It relates to a matter that we shall need to address in the long term. I do not raise this issue to worry the Minister now. He said that we should be aware that the general and wider issue of harmonising compensation regimes for animal diseases are being reviewed. The way in which these matters are taken forward may be a subject for debate at a later date. In the mean time, I thank the noble Lord for having listened to the weight of argument in Committee and for his courtesy in responding to us all.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, we on these Benches thank the Minister for introducing this provision. We feel that it offers great assurance following our earlier debates.
1278
The issue of the valuation of vaccinated animals is very important. I point out to the Minister that the supermarket industry ought to take due note of what is going on. During the last foot and mouth outbreak, it was said that there was no market for vaccinated animals. If this is done properly, the supermarkets will take due note and will pay a fair price. What happens in this respect may give the industry grounds for confidence.
6.45 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I find it extraordinary that there is still dispute as regards what the supermarkets think about vaccinated animals. Animals are being vaccinated all the time. We give our sheep Heptovac vaccinations twice a year against all kinds of nasty diseases. Poultry are vaccinated on a regular basis—as are cattle. What on earth is different in people's minds between vaccination for foot and mouth and all the other vaccinations? I am very pleased that the noble Lord has seen fit to introduce this amendment. I am grateful to him.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I agree totally with the noble Baroness that we need to banish this idea, and the Government have it in their power to do so.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 40, leave out from "compensation" to end of line 41 and insert "equal to the full market value of the vaccinated animal at the time of vaccination or at the time of slaughter, whichever is the greater."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 15 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Peel.
The recent foot and mouth outbreak has now been analysed in three fact-finding reviews: that of the National Audit Office; the Anderson inquiry; and the Follett inquiry. All three agree that analysis of the figures indicates that action—and inaction—by the Government and by government departments resulted in the slaughter of millions of healthy, unaffected animals.
On the face of it, the owners and keepers of contiguously culled animals were innocent of any active involvement in the spread of foot and mouth. Their animals were not infected; there were no dangerous contacts involved. The decision to end the lives of most of those animals was not taken by vets or farmers to spare them unnecessary suffering. It was taken in pursuit of a government reaction to the situation that they faced. Even the slaughter on official welfare grounds was caused by government-imposed restrictions, not by any failing on the part of the farming community or the vets responsible for the health and well-being of those animals.
Farmers lost income. They incurred costs for which they had not budgeted, not least on expensive disinfectants—some of dubious worth. Their cash-flows were seriously disrupted and many are still

1279
suffering emotionally. Many of those affected have received no compensation at all. More successful farmers than I would say that there are three major decisions which govern their success each year: what to grow; when to start; and when to harvest. In the case of animals, that is rendered as: when to go to market.
If the Government interfere, they should do so in a way which gives farmers the best possible recompense, while at the same time maintaining openness in their calculation. The Government were not ready for the foot and mouth outbreak. The rules on compensation had not been examined for some time—or had not been examined seriously. Mistakes were made, as has been recognised by the Government and by the Minister. I agree that this should not happen again. But do not penalise the farmers of the future for the inadequacies of the past. I beg to move.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, the valuation exercise has been interesting. Some valuations are turning out to be extremely silly. It is self-evident that if you put a pile of pound notes in front of someone and say, "Help yourself", that person will help himself. You cannot blame people for helping themselves. As was reported in The Times this morning, the National Audit Office has cited cases of major over-valuation and over-compensation. That brings government, the farming industry and everyone else involved into disrepute.
Surely it is essential that the basis of the valuation is clear and precise. It should not be open to doubt. Following the last outbreak, some people did not receive money; I am afraid that others received too much. It would be wrong for those involved in the farming industry not to recognise that. I hope that this amendment will make the basis of the valuation clearer from everyone's point of view. I hope that we are talking about a fair market valuation—that is important—not an over-inflated one, but even less an under-inflated one. That is what we must aim at. In that way, people will not use the valuation as a means of blaming others when things go wrong—which happened to a certain extent in the last outbreak.
Earl Peel: My Lords, it may be helpful if I speak to Amendment No. 15. It is grouped with Amendment No. 11.
Disregarding any changes that the Minister wishes to implement in the future—we have seen further evidence of that in the press today; some noble Lords may find it somewhat disquieting—at present the Government compensate owners at the full market value. However, with vaccination likely to play a much greater role in any subsequent outbreak, the compensation issue becomes less generous. Farmers may find themselves worse off if their animals are vaccinated but not slaughtered. Amendment No. 10 deals with slaughtered animals which have been vaccinated. Amendment No. 15 deals with those animals which have been vaccinated but are not slaughtered because they did not contract the disease.
As many noble Lords will be aware, there was some debate during the foot and mouth crisis as to whether vaccination was a viable or desirable option. It has
1280
always been alleged that the Prime Minister met with Ben Gill, the President of the National Farmers Union, to discuss the issue. Ben Gill said that he would be happy for vaccination to take place provided that those animals were accepted into the food chain. I understand that that idea was dropped for the simple reason that retailers, in particular the supermarkets, said that they were reluctant to accept such animals.
I am sure the Minister will tell us if that is a gross simplification of events. However, if there is any truth in the matter, it highlights the difficulty for farmers with vaccinated animals. There appears to be a stigma against vaccinated animals. Farmers are likely to be worse off and they will receive no compensation unless the animals are slaughtered.
Another possible situation is that a two-tier market may develop by which farmers are paid a lesser rate for vaccinated stock. New subsection (4C) of Amendment No. 10 states:
"In arriving at a value under subsection (4A) above no account is to be taken of the fact that the animal had been treated with vaccine".
One can deduce from that that the Government are aware that discounted values for vaccinated animals exist, and are likely to exist, thus creating a two-tier market. Should such cases occur, surely the whole vaccination policy will become discredited and farmers will be encouraged to pursue the old slaughter policies—the one thing that we are attempting to get away from.
I fully acknowledge that this a difficult issue for the Government. I also believe that on medical grounds there is no reason why vaccinated animals or their produce should not enter the food chain. But this reluctance to accept vaccinated animals appears to exist. That conflicts with the point which the Minister explained in his letter to me which states:
"The acceptance of products from vaccinated animals entering the food chain is critical to the viability of a vaccinate-to-live policy".
I am sure we all subscribe to that.
It is a probing amendment. I acknowledge that for the Government to embark on a full compensatory scheme for vaccinated animals would be totally inappropriate. However, we have a real problem which needs to be addressed. How do the Government propose to overcome the problem and give those farmers with vaccinated animals the confidence that those animals and their produce will be received into the food chain without discounted values? Presumably discussions are taking place with the Food Standard Agency, the Consumer Council and in particular the retailers. We deserve an explanation as to how the problem can be resolved if the Government will not step in to offer compensation, thus discriminating against those vaccinated animals when there is compensation for slaughtered animals.
We deserve an explanation from the Minister as to how he and his department will ensure that vaccinated animals are not discriminated against in the market

1281
place; otherwise I fear that the vaccination scheme will be discredited. Farmers will lose confidence in it. That is the one message we do not want to give out.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I support the noble Earl. There is consumer resistance to beasts which have been vaccinated or given hormones in order to fatten. The public are naturally suspicious about anything unnatural occurring to livestock.
Now is the time for the Government to be clear about the exact procedures if—heaven forbid—there were another outbreak. There is added concern about the future valuation of livestock, with a corps of valuers and fixed prices for a cow, ewe, ram and so on. As I have said in previous debates on the Bill, the word "compensation" is an anomaly. While one is paid a sum of money for the value of the sheep or cow on the day it was slaughtered, it in no way compensates for the loss of profits over the three or four years ahead from a flock of sheep or a herd of dairy cattle.
The Bill should state clearly who will do the valuation: whether it is to be a mutual decision between the farmer and the department or from a national list of valuers. Is the valuation to be undertaken as at present? There has been some criticism but in the early days by and large it was fair. Farmers want to know the position as regards vaccinated stock. As the noble Earl said, there will be repercussions on the value of a beast which has been vaccinated because the public do not like the thought of buying vaccinated meat.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, the noble Countess reminded us that there is a long precedent of animal products which have been injected with all kinds of vaccines coming into the food chain. Sheep are routinely injected for pulpy kidney disease and other sheep diseases. There seems to be no problem about their coming into the food chain. Anyone who knows the industry knows that animals injected with these vaccines come commonly into the food chain.
I hope that the Minister will outline the measures taken to protect the public who are offered vaccinated meat. I assume that before a vaccine for farm animals is licensed for use by the agricultural industry, the relevant scientific bodies have examined, tested and monitored it, and that the Minister is told that it is safe to put it on the market. I imagine that such vaccines are subject to the same process as medicines that are licensed for human use. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether the foot and mouth vaccine has been the subject of studies comparable to those carried out previously on the other vaccines to which the noble Countess and I referred. I am not sure what the monitoring process consists of, but we need to know at this stage whether the foot and mouth vaccine has been cleared by the scientific bodies.
As the noble Earl, Lord Peel, said, Amendment No. 11 is a probing amendment. The same applies to
1282
Amendment No. 15. Everything depends on what the Government mean by the words at the bottom of page 2 of the Bill—
"compensation of such an amount as may be prescribed by order of the Secretary of State".
Everything depends on what the Minister tells us about the Government's intended approach. If the basis is not satisfactory, we must return to the matter at Third Reading to ensure that specific terms on the exact amount that the Government have in mind, which the House and Parliament understand, are written into Clause 3. If there is just a vague assessment of the amount, we ought to insist at Third Reading on inserting a much more specific provision.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am horrified to feel so many negative vibes. What is the farming community doing? It should be promoting its animals and saying that they are being vaccinated to keep them healthy and to provide the public with healthy meat.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, of course the Medicines Control Agency vets the medicines that are given to animals just as much as it does our medicines. Why are we farmers not saying that our animals are being kept healthy by vaccinating them? Why are we whinging about supermarkets? Why are we not telling them that there is nothing wrong with vaccinated meat?
I can see no reason for the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Peel. There is no need to compensate for a vaccinated animal that is still healthy. The farming community must get up off its bottom and stop expecting the Government to do absolutely everything for it. We hear constantly about what the Government must do. I agree that the Food Standards Agency can encourage and support, but it is up to us as farmers to promote our products. We are not doing that; we are expecting somebody else to do it throughout.
Earl Peel: My Lords, before the noble Countess sits down, is she telling us that to the best of her knowledge—which, we acknowledge, is very considerable—that there is no two-tier market between non-vaccinated and vaccinated animals, and that retailers show no prejudice towards vaccinated animals?
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the only real two-tier market that I know of is the organic and non-organic one. Some organic animals are vaccinated but most are not. That is the only time when there should be a two-tier market.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, during the foot and mouth outbreak, vets in Argentina stated clearly in an interview that all meat leaving Argentina, as a susceptible country, had been vaccinated. I am pretty sure that some of it found its way from certain regions of Argentina to supermarket shelves in this country. We need to be forthright in acknowledging that vaccinated meat is available already and that if British animals are involved, a two-tier market should not

1283
occur. The noble Earl is quite right to table a probing amendment on the matter to see what the Minister says about it.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—and I know this is a trick—discussion about inoculated Argentine animals has taken place in the House previously. At that time, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that he would respond to me on the issue. I am not making an accusation, but I feel that he was not entirely sure of the facts. I hope that the noble Lord can press the Minister to answer the question on inoculated animals from Argentina, Uruguay, and other countries, which I am certain are coming into this country. You will appreciate that I am trying to get around a procedural point.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Earl should know that it is two strikes and he is out.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I can only say to the noble Earl that I have already made that point.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, during his first, helpful intervention, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, pointed out that there were problems with the compensation system. Those problems are being addressed.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 15 suggest that we create a two-tier compensation system. However, rather than end a tendency to a two-tier market of vaccinated and non-vaccinated meat, such a system would encourage it. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, over-simplified history but nevertheless it was indicated at one point that food-chain processors and supermarkets would not accept vaccinated meat or milk. As the noble Countess spelt out, that is not rational nor is it practised. Indeed, to answer the noble Earl's second point, consumers in supermarkets here and throughout Europe do not seem to differentiate between vaccinated meat, which is imported in accordance with European standards, and non-vaccinated meat. So, there should not be a problem; there is only a slight hangover problem.
The point is made not just in my letter to the noble Earl. The Follett report by the Royal Society states that if we are to adopt a vaccinate-to-live policy as mainstream, meat and meat products from vaccinated animals must enter the food chain normally; that is to say, on the same terms as the product of a non-vaccinated animal. That is a pre-condition to the success of a vaccination-to-live policy. It is rational, and, if we are all to support a vaccinate-to-live policy, it would be helpful for the farming industry, retailers and processors to make that clear. I hope that we support it; in which case it would be inappropriate to have separate prices for vaccinated and slaughtered animals. Compensation for vaccination as such would not therefore arise. To do something different, as the noble Earl's amendment suggests—as, to an extent, does the noble Baroness's—would be to go in the wrong direction. We should encourage the industry as a whole—the whole food chain, including consumers—to accept, as in practice they do, that
1284
vaccinated meat and meat from a healthy animal are one and the same in quality and in every other regard. That is a sine qua non of an effective general vaccinate-to-live policy.
I hope that I have answered the point and that it will not be pursued.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, the Minister will realise that we were seeking clarification. It is difficult when half the people do not understand the implications of a vaccinate-to-live policy. I agree with the noble Countess, Lady Mar, that there are chickens and all sorts of other regularly inoculated meats coming in. One of our problems is that it is common practice, but people are not aware of it. The House needs to recognise that the foot and mouth outbreak highlighted many myths and misunderstandings about the way in which some of our livestock are produced. I hope that the Minister takes that point away and considers it. People saw animals burned on pyres and thought that there was something wrong with the meat. That is why the issue has arisen.
The Minister is aware that we are pressing for a vaccinate-to-live policy. However, unless we all understand the options and deal with the issue head-on, the public will feel that many questions are left unanswered.
I am grateful to the Minister for his response to the amendment. I hope that what other colleagues have said shows that there is still a hurdle to overcome. We need much better general understanding of the issue. Although I accept that vaccination was mentioned last time the issue was raised, the Government did not answer the question then. They said that they would take the view of the industry and of consumers, but there was no outcome. The issue has dragged on and here we are six months later without it having been answered or addressed.
I hope that the amendments have given us a chance to clarify the current position and the Government's thinking on where we are going. Before Third Reading, the industry and others interested in the issue will have a chance to make representations to us if they are still unhappy. I am grateful to the Minister for what he said, but we still have quite a long way to go. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Turner of Camden): My Lords, I must tell your Lordships that if Amendment No. 12 is carried, I cannot call Amendment No. 13 because of pre-emption.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, line 4, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
"( ) No order may be made under subsection (4) unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 40. Disease of any kind is costly and emotionally racking. In the normal course of events, it is dealt with case by case in an atmosphere

1285
of practised care. When disease assumes epidemic proportions, regular routines are superseded. Regional and national priorities take precedence and obviously the Government take the lead. Whatever happens, Parliament should be required to examine the proposed actions and do its best to ensure that they are timely, proportionate, well managed and even-handed.
The Bill uses the positive resolution procedure for orders authorising slaughter to prevent the spread of disease, orders instigating vaccination against foot and mouth and orders for testing samples from animals possibly affected by diseases other than foot and mouth. Why, then, have the Government chosen to water down the effectiveness of Parliament's scrutiny on three issues: compensation for the slaughtered or vaccinated animals; orders under the scrapie provisions; and the additional diseases on the list in the schedule?
Will the Minister clarify the situation? I do not see why some issues require positive resolutions and others fall under the negative resolution procedure. The aim of the amendments is to tease out the Government's thinking. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, obviously, during the drafting of a Bill there has to be discussion about which parliamentary procedure is most appropriate for individual provisions. We felt that the negative resolution procedure was the most appropriate level of scrutiny for both the issues highlighted by the noble Baroness.
The noble Baroness referred to the need for matters to be dealt with in a timely way. That is one factor. However, some parliamentary scrutiny is retained. It is a matter of judgment.
The House has the benefit of the considerations of the delegated powers scrutiny committee. The fact that the committee did not object to the provision shows that it understood, on balance, the judgment that was taken.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her response. I have to ask again whether the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has examined the Bill since it was altered in Committee, or are we assuming that it considered only the Bill as originally designed?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, my understanding is that the provisions to which the noble Baroness refers are not new and therefore the delegated powers scrutiny committee has already had an opportunity to consider them.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 3, line 4, leave out "(4)" and insert "(4B)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Earl Peel Earl Peel had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
"COMPENSATION FOR VACCINATED ANIMALS WHICH ARE NOT SLAUGHTERED
In the 1981 Act the following section is inserted after section 16A (as inserted by section 3 above)—
"16B Compensation for vaccinated animals which are not slaughtered

(1) This section applies to any animal which has been treated with vaccine for the purpose of preventing the spread of foot-and-mouth disease or such other disease as the Secretary of State may by order specify under section 16A of this Act, and which the Secretary of State has not caused to be slaughtered.

(2) For any animal to which this section applies the Secretary of State must pay compensation in respect of any diminution in the value of the animal which is attributable to the treatment of the animal with vaccine.""

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have spoken to the amendment and I moved it earlier, but I should like to take this opportunity to reply to what the Minister said. I was a little disappointed—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I believe that the noble Earl has to move his amendment in order to have it before the House. He may not speak to it unless it has been moved.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I moved the amendment earlier.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Earl spoke to the amendment, but he did not move it.
Earl Peel: My Lords, in that case, I am sure that the noble Baroness is absolutely right. In proposing the amendment, I shall respond to the comments made by the Minister.
I was a little disappointed by what the Minister said; he did not appear to recognise what I believe to be the possibility of a two-tier market. I was extremely interested to hear the noble Countess, Lady Mar, say that it was up to farmers to persuade the supermarkets. Farmers have been trying to persuade supermarkets for a long time, without a great deal of success. I hope that we shall be able to ensure that the difficulty of a possible two-tier market will not manifest itself.
I was simply seeking an unequivocal assurance from the Minister that if such a difficulty arose, his department would make every effort with the consumer councils, the Food Standards Agency and all the various bodies concerned to ensure that the farmers with vaccinated animals received an amount equivalent to that received by farmers selling non-vaccinated animals or their produce. I hope that the Minister will do that, but I cannot see much point in pursuing the issue now.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Scrapie]:
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 3, line 11, at end insert—
"(2) The Schedule shall not come into force until either—

(a) transmissible bovine spongiform encephalopathy is found to occur naturally in sheep, or

(b) there is a reliable biochemical test that differentiates fully between scrapie and bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or

(c) the route of transmission of scrapie becomes known."

The noble Countess said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 17, tabled in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Livsey, and to Amendment No. 18, which stands in my name. In addition, I propose to speak to Amendment No. 48. Although it has not been included in this group of amendments on the groupings list, this amendment refers to "genetically susceptible sheep" and, therefore, applies to this grouping. I apologise to the House for not picking up that omission before this point.
I am deeply unhappy about this part of the Bill. We are being asked to legislate on the basis of incomplete knowledge. The science of genetics is new, fascinating and exciting. However, it is in its infancy. This part of the Bill seems to be based upon the obsessive supposition that sheep are the hidden repository for BSE, which, in turn, is the cause of variant CJD in humans.
We know that scrapie has been endemic in the UK national flock for more than 250 years. I am reliably informed that it was mentioned in the Bible. Humans have eaten almost every part of the animal for all of that time; indeed, one of my childhood treats was poached sheeps' brains on toast. Scientists have repeatedly tried to infect sheep with BSE by natural means and have failed. They are now saying that perhaps their susceptibility to scrapie is masking a susceptibility to BSE. How long is a piece of string? What exactly is the risk? Are we not more in danger of obliterating a part of the genetic pool of our sheep flock—a pool that has been built up over many centuries to provide us with wool and meat of excellent quality from sheep that are hardy and good mothers and well adapted to our regional variabilities?
Among others, the noble Lord, Lord May, advised us in Committee to exercise caution. We have only to look at the DEFRA website. After a brief description of the work being done on the Cheviot flock at the Institute for Animal Health in Edinburgh, the author of the website acknowledges:
"Cheviots' coating for alanine at [codon] 136 (with glutamine at 171) are still susceptible to certain different strains of scrapie (often called 'C-type scrapie') as well as BSE… Thus, because it seems as if resistance is not absolute, breeding policies that aim to produce one particular genotype may produce a population that is resistant to one strain of scrapie, but render the flock more susceptible to other strains".
1288
I am very concerned about this situation. The website continues:
"Breeding sheep that are homozygous for arginine at codon 171 may therefore prove to be beneficial in an effort to increase scrapie resistance, but gene frequencies in some breeds will inevitably render some breeding programmes difficult if other desirable characteristics are not to be lost in selecting for scrapie resistance".
I have in mind resistance to foot rot, which is a horrible disease in sheep. It is extremely painful for the animal, and very prevalent. The website also points out that that there are sheep in Australia and in New Zealand that are genetically susceptible to scrapie, and yet both those countries are considered to be scrapie free.
The website directs us to the Scientific Opinion of the Scientific Steering Committee of the European Commission, entitled The Policy of Breeding and Genotyping of Sheep—that is to say, the issue of whether sheep should be bred to be resistant to scrapie. This opinion was adopted by the committee in July 1999. I shall resist the temptation to précis the whole paper, interesting though it is. In its conclusions, the working group concludes that,
"the possibility that sheep may harbour a latent scrapie infection exists"—
at this stage, a possibility, not a certainty. The paper continues to say:
"If BSE would have infected sheep, which is not certain today, and if BSE transmits and behaves in sheep in a manner similar to scrapie, for which there are some experimental indications, then a similar strategy for BSE and scrapie should be adopted"—
there are many "ifs".
The working group recommends that the European Union should analyse and evaluate the breeding programmes current in a number of European countries, including the United Kingdom; and that individual EU countries should start to genotype large numbers of animals in order to acquire a view on the distribution of the genotypes in their national flocks. I know that this is already being done in the UK: we know which breeds of sheep are more susceptible to scrapie than others.
The working group further recommends that strong consideration should be given to the use of appropriate resistant strains of sheep, coupled with the development of, and extensive use of, validated diagnostic tests. I know that that is beginning to be done under the National Scrapie Plan. However, there is a "but", which I consider to be rather a big but. The group says:
"Before embarking on large scale breeding of sheep towards maximal resistant genotypes, according to the different breeds involved, consideration should be given to the phenotypic characteristics".
I am sorry that the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, is not able to be with us this evening. However, I gather that he is making a good recovery from his operation. I wonder whether noble Lords recall him telling us about the Scottish Blackface sheep. There has not been a case of scrapie in Scottish Blackface sheep, yet, according to current knowledge, they are very genetically susceptible. Are we going to wipe out 95 per cent of the Scottish Blackface sheep in order to fulfil the requirements of this part of the Bill?
For many years MAFF, and now DEFRA, monitored flocks of sheep and herds of goats—I had to bring goats into my remarks—under a voluntary scrapie scheme. We have never belonged to this scheme. I have to tell the Minister that we have now withdrawn from the National Scrapie Plan. My husband became very unhappy about the way that the plan was going, and about the requirement that we should kill nearly one-third of our sheep because they were susceptible. Therefore, as participation was voluntary, we have now withdrawn.
Sheep from designated "scrapie monitored" flocks have been regarded as scrapie free. For breeding purposes, scrapie-free sheep command a premium. Many of these sheep fall into the "susceptible" category, and I have mentioned the Scottish Blackface breed. We still have a good deal to learn about TSEs and genetics. I fear that we are about to run before we can walk. Our successors will never forgive us if we wipe out a whole chunk of biodiversity, especially our rare breeds, for reasons about which we are presently unsure; in other words, does scrapie cause BSE and does BSE cause CJD? I beg to move.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I am pleased to support the amendment moved by the noble Countess. In doing so, I shall speak to Amendment No. 17, which is tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Livsey of Talgarth, and also comment briefly on Amendment No. 18.
In many ways, from an emotional point of view, many of us would like to support Amendment No. 18. However, if the House were to pass such an amendment, it would extend the constitutional powers of this Chamber somewhat; in effect, it would be tantamount to denying the Government legislation to which they are entitled. Therefore, we are unable to support the amendment on those grounds. However, we support Amendment No. 16, which has been moved by a Member of this House who possibly knows more about this subject than most noble Lords in this place. The noble Countess's expertise proved to be extremely valuable during the Committee stage.
In tabling Amendment No. 17, we are seeking to take account of the extended and fascinating debates on the subject that took place in Committee which I am sure many of us found both educative and interesting. It was necessary to undertake considerable research in order to be able to take part in such debates, but that experience was most interesting. Two issues emerged during our discussions in Committee. I shall not go into the technical details involved because we are on Report and such information has been reported in Hansard.
The first point is that the science involved is only partially understood, but its understanding is increasing quite quickly. Indeed, the whole understanding of genotyping, and so on, is relatively new and has only been really understood in recent years. However, like the science surrounding it, such understanding is progressing at a rapid pace. When the
1290
Minister wrote to me about scrapie—a copy of his letter was sent to other noble Lords—he set out a large number of research projects that are currently underway. We all look forward to reading the results of such research.
The emphasis, however, is always on the statement, "We look forward to seeing the results of this or that". The fact is that we still do not know a very great deal. In two, four or five years, an approach that seemed necessary may no longer seem necessary. The fact that the science is changing quickly is one reason to support Amendment No. 17. We believe that the clause and schedule relating to scrapie should come into effect only on an affirmative resolution of this House and of the other place. The amendment would ensure that, should the Government decide to implement the provisions, we are able to ask whether the provisions as set out in the Bill are still appropriate.
Another point which clearly emerged from our consideration in Committee was that the Government themselves are not clear on exactly when they want to bring this legislation into effect. Various noble Lords asked the Minister for a date, but he—in his usual charming way, trying to sound positive—evaded the issue. He did not clearly tell us whether it would be six months, one year, two years or three years. One reason he gave for being unable to answer was that the voluntary National Scrapie Plan is still in its early stages. One reason he gave for wanting Clause 4 as a backup was that it would encourage people to take part in the National Scrapie Plan, take-up for which, in its first year, has not been as high as he had hoped.
Noble Lords and others have suggested that there are many good reasons for low take-up. In the aftermath of the foot and mouth outbreak, for example, people have had other things on their minds. We said that the plan may gather pace, and the Minister agreed. However, he said that he wants this legislation on the statute book so that people are aware of the plan. He wants the legislation essentially as a stick, with the National Scrapie Plan as a carrot. Although carrots may not be the right image to use in relation to all animals, I am sure that the goats owned by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, would eat them as well as almost anything else. It is the carrot-and-stick approach.
We are saying in Amendment No. 17 that the House, having scrutinised the Bill and attempted to persuade the Government to improve it, should let the Government have this legislation. When they seek to put the legislation into effect, however, we should as a precaution require them to explain why they are seeking to do so. An affirmative resolution would achieve that objective. It would not be a huge imposition on the Government and it would not cause substantial delay.
Scrapie is not a rampaging, highly infectious disease, but an endemic disease which has been around for perhaps 200 or 300 years. Although we want to get rid of it as best as we can, we should have time at the appropriate stage to reflect on whether the Government's objectives are right. Amendment

1291
No. 17 would achieve that objective. It would enable the House to consider not only the issues raised in Amendment No. 16, but issues that may arise in the future. Given continuing research, we may not yet know what those issues will be. We therefore ask the Government to accept Amendment No. 17 as plain common sense.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, my name is linked with that of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, in proposing Amendment No. 16. I shall not rehearse the issues raised by the amendment, as the noble Countess has already done so very fully and eloquently. I believe that the Minister is already well aware of the noble Countess's reservations about TSEs and the scrapie provisions.
I feel that we have made some progress, albeit only a little, in that the Government now recognise that rare breeds are a special case. I think that they must therefore realise why so many of us are concerned about the scrapie provisions. As we have consistently made our case in relation to these provisions—on Second Reading, in Committee and today—I would be disappointed if the Minister did not accept some of these amendments. There is genuine concern, both inside the House and outside it, about the provisions—which, as other noble Lords have said, are not emergency provisions. Scrapie therefore differs from some of the matters that we dealt with in Committee and on Report. We support Amendment No. 17, and I hope that the Government will accept it.
As I said, I do not need to add anything to the very clear remarks on Amendment No. 16 made by the noble Countess, Lady Mar. She and I share great concern about the whole issue of scrapie. Noble Lords may remember, for example, our earlier explicit debates on the research done on cow brains that should have been done on sheep brains. However, that is in the past. Research is currently being done to investigate specific scrapie issues, but it is not yet finished and only partly understood. It therefore seems only sensible to restrict the way in which these provisions are implemented. Accordingly, I support this group of amendments, particularly Amendment No. 17, which will be moved shortly by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the rigid criteria in Amendment No. 16 would prevent the acceleration by compulsory means of the National Scrapie Plan, which aims to reduce and eventually eradicate scrapie from the GB national flock. This initiative is strongly endorsed by the stakeholder groups and by SEAC. Let us not forget that scrapie is an extremely nasty and invariably fatal neurological disease. Measures to eradicate it are supported by the vast majority of stakeholders.
I accept that the noble Countess, Lady Mar, is not one of those who supports the plan. However, there remains a theoretical risk that BSE could be found in sheep, masked by scrapie. It is therefore important to achieve a flock that is resistant to scrapie, and to BSE
1292
if it is there, within an acceptable time span. To activate these powers only when the presence of BSE is confirmed would be akin to closing the stable door once the horse has bolted.
We shall, of course, involve all stakeholder groups in discussions of what would be a practical time-scale for the introduction of compulsory powers. I therefore cannot accept this amendment.
I turn to Amendment No. 17. Order-making powers in the scrapie provisions will be subject to the negative resolution statutory instrument procedure. I tell the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that requiring an affirmative resolution procedure for activation of the entire clause is unnecessary and would be very time-consuming. He asked when the clause will be activated, and the reply remains, only as and when it is deemed necessary. However, I assure him that there would be public consultation in advance of the activation of these powers so that all interested organisations could comment.
I turn to Amendment No. 18 and some of the aspects of Amendment No. 48. This part of the Bill deals with the powers to enable us to safeguard human health by making sheep resistant to TSEs through a speeding up of the National Scrapie Plan. The National Scrapie Plan is a long-term programme aiming to reduce and eventually eradicate scrapie from the national sheep flock. It is strongly supported by the sheep sector and other stakeholders. It is also endorsed by SEAC and the Food Standards Agency. At present it is voluntary. Farmers who enter it have their sheep genotyped to establish whether they are genetically resistant to scrapie, with breeding controls then being imposed on susceptible sheep, as the noble Countess recognised. It remains a theoretical risk that BSE could be found in sheep, masked by scrapie. It is important therefore to achieve a flock which is resistant to scrapie—and BSE, if it is present—within a reasonable time span. We shall continue to involve the sheep industry in discussions on what the practical time-scale should be.
The Food Standards Agency has specifically called on the Government to speed up TSE eradication in this country. The Bill would give us the powers, if necessary, to accelerate the process by compulsory means. Supplementary regulations would need to be made before we could activate the powers. I must stress that we would consult all stakeholders before we activated the powers and would discuss the time-scale.
Phenotype characteristics were mentioned. The Government's Amendment No. 51 will ensure that genotypes are taken into account when considering applying a restriction notice. I am sure that the noble Countess knows that, although the European Commission published proposals which set minimum requirements for EU-wide genotyping involving initial voluntary participation, becoming compulsory at a later date, they have been subject only to fairly limited discussion and the outcome is uncertain.

1293
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that we discussed with the industry in great detail the issue of rare breeds. That is why the exception has been made. If we listen to the industry and have regard to its view about rare breeds, but that is then used as an argument to change the whole policy, the Government may be tempted not to listen. I know that the noble Baroness would not want that and will be pleased that we have reached an agreement on rare breeds.
We are unable to accept the amendment. Ultimately, the Government must be able to safeguard human health, respond to the Food Standards Agency, to the future of our sheep industry and to its role in the rural economy.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I listened with great care to what the noble Baroness said. I say again that there is still not a shred of evidence that sheep scrapie causes CJD in humans. It is all supposition and theory. I could float a theory that multiple sclerosis was caused by sheep and huge amounts of money could be spent investigating that. We still have not got to the bottom of the matter.
I refer again to phenotyping. Every single sheep was killed in Iceland and sheep that were apparently scrapie free were brought in. Scrapie is now again found in certain valleys in Iceland. Shetland has a high incidence of scrapie in sheep. Yet, as I said, Scottish Blackface sheep do not appear to get scrapie. In Australia and New Zealand sheep do not appear to get scrapie. We need to look not only at genetics but also at phenotypes. Certain animals may have a genetic propensity to contracting a disease but they do not actually get it. We need to know why they do not get it. Much research needs to be devoted to that.
I am perfectly happy to withdraw my amendment but I wholeheartedly support that of the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Livsey. I shall also withdraw Amendment No. 18 when we reach it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Greaves Lord Greaves moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, line 11, at end insert—
"( ) This Part shall not come into effect unless an order has been laid before, and approved by, a resolution of each House of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I say two things to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington. First, to avoid any doubt, we on these Benches wholeheartedly support the voluntary National Scrapie Plan—let no one think or suggest that we do not. Secondly, as we would expect, the noble Baroness explained to us in some detail the amount of public consultation that would be undertaken before the provision we are discussing was brought into effect. However, that nullifies her argument that introducing an affirmative resolution would cause huge delay. The preparatory processes could clearly take place at the same time as
1294
that. The additional delay involved in having an affirmative resolution is not that great in the context we are discussing. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I did not deploy the argument that such a measure would involve delay, but rather the argument about it being time consuming and unnecessary in the context of the widespread consultation.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. However, any time that was consumed would be our time. I argue that that would be time well worth spending. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
7.46 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 17) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 99; Not-Contents, 103.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Alderdice, L.

Mancroft, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Mar, C. [Teller]

Attlee, E.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Avebury, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Barker, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Byford, B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Monson, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Moran, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Newby, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Noakes, B.

Colwyn, L.

Northbrook, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Northesk, E.

Dahrendorf, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Onslow, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Fearn, L.

Parkinson, L.

Fookes, B.

Peel, E.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Plumb, L.

Goodhart, L.

Razzall, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Redesdale, L.

Greaves, L. [Teller]

Rennard, L.

Hamwee, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Hanham, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Rogan, L.

Henley, L.

Roper, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hooson, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Seccombe, B.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Jacobs, L.

Selsdon, L.

Jopling, L.

Sharman, L.

Kimball, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Sharples, B.

Liverpool, E.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Luke, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Lyell, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Tebbit, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Maddock, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

1295

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Walpole, L.

Tope, L.

Wigoder, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Wilcox, B.

Walmsley, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Alli, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Andrews, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Barnett, L.

Hoyle, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Berkeley, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Judd, L.

Billingham, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Borrie, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Brett, L.

McCarthy, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Brookman, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Burlison, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Carter, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Chandos, V.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Morgan, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Nicol, B.

Crawley, B.

Orme, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Parekh, L.

David, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Desai, L.

Radice, L.

Dixon, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rea, L.

Dubs, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Elder, L.

Richard, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sheldon, L.

Filkin, L.

Simon, V.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Gale, B.

Strange, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Tenby, V.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Goudie, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Varley, L.

Grabiner, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Grenfell, L.

Whitaker, B.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Whitty, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Wilkins, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Harrison, L.

Haskins, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.56 p.m.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.55 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.57 until 8.55 p.m.]
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 19:
Before Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
"EXERCISE OF POWERS

(1) On or before entry upon land or premises under the provisions of sections 5 to 7, a copy of the sworn information shall be presented with the warrant for entry.

(2) On conviction of an offence under section 16(16) (inserted by section 5 of this Act), 66A(2) (inserted by section 6 of this Act) or 62F(8) (inserted by section 7 of this Act) of the 1981 Act the court is to be satisfied that the required assistance was reasonable and proportionate in all the circumstances.

(3) The provisions of subsections (1) and (2) may be suspended by statutory instrument subject to affirmative resolution of each House if requisite in the national interest.

(4) In implementation of sections 5 to 7 of this Act the Secretary of State may issue a Code of Practice as to slaughter, and vaccination, of animals a draft of which has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is concerned with the exercise of powers under the Bill. Proposed new subsection (1) seeks to ensure that the information on which the writ of entry is granted is presented with the writ, save at a time of national emergency, which under subsection (3) would suspend this amendment. It would be suspended by Parliament under statutory instrument.
In a sense, this is—I do not know how to describe it—a quadrilateral Bill. It is concerned with the slaughter or vaccination of animals, either in times of national emergency or at any other time. There is no precedent for such a Bill. Either we have emergency legislation or we do not. Therefore, there is no precedent for the amendment, which, when there was no national emergency in the opinion of Parliament, would restore to Parliament the business of Parliament and, to the judiciary, the business of the judiciary.
At the outset, I should explain with gratitude that long before today I had a constructive and enjoyable discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. Although we cannot agree on most things, and probably never shall, we agreed on one thing—that this was a matter that should be dealt with through this type of amendment and not scattered around the Bill, as it was at Committee stage. We agreed that it was certainly a matter which had not been debated and which was worthy of debate. Naturally, the noble Lord never gave any form of commitment.
The exercise of powers is geared to slaughter under Clauses 5 to 7, albeit mitigated by the amendment of the noble Countess, which now gives priority to the policy of priority of vaccination. That exercise of powers is governed by Clause 1(1) as amended, Clause 1(2), and Clause 1(3) as amended. But, as amended, what should be done to prevent disease is dependent upon what the Secretary of State thinks, which is not justiciable on judicial review, and not upon what he decides, which would be justiciable under judicial review. As I said previously, there is here an absolute discretion.
What the Secretary of State decides is justiciable because the grounds for his decision are subject to judicial review. What will the grounds be? They will be some reports of inspectors or veterinary practitioners. They may be in-house reports from the department, which, of course, would be privileged. But the reports of the inspectors and the veterinary practitioners would not be privileged. They would be examined by a court in order to decide where, for example, a decision to slaughter—not to vaccinate—was such as any reasonable Secretary of State properly directing himself could have made.
That information would have been incorporated in a report on which the application for a writ of entry was granted, which is not disclosed until after the animal has been slaughtered or vaccinated. This at a time when Parliament, by statutory instrument, has not declared a state of national emergency under Subsection (3) of the amendment.
I understand the noble Lord's position as a Minister of the Crown; he must understand mine as a very ordinary lawyer who has led his life and earned his living at the Bar. The noble Lord said in Committee that Ministers have to act reasonably. But one cannot really rely on that because every six months or so the High Court decides otherwise and returns a decision for reconsideration.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in total good faith, suggested that the word "thinks" was used—it is obviously in his brief, but that brief is a little unsatisfactory—because it was used in the 1981 Act. That Act was not geared to slaughter in a national emergency. Therefore, when the noble Lord says—again obviously from his brief—that it was used to maintain consistency in drafting when drafting amending legislation, with respect, that makes no sense at all.
The court must be satisfied that priority—and I give one example again—was given to the policy of vaccination to live. That is the effect of Amendment No. 1 of the noble Countess, whom I am delighted to see at this hour in her place. One can ask the noble Lord—I asked before—what is this resistance? What was restrictive about her amendment? Was it just that the court would have to be satisfied that the requirements of the amendment had been complied with? I do not know.
It comes to this. Unless the amendment were to be accepted in principle, the Secretary of State gives no reasons for slaughter. The owner or keeper can never know the grounds on which entry was granted for slaughter unless, after slaughter, there is a judicial review. But that is small comfort either to the animals or to the keeper.
There would be no judicial hearing of any kind—no appeal to the court that granted the warrant, no judicial review and no safeguard. This at a time when there is no national emergency. And what are the grounds? Delay. And what would be the delay? It would be minimal. Similar considerations to failing to
1298
give required assistance under pain of fine and imprisonment are referred to in subsection (2) of the amendment.
Under subsection (4) there are the codes of practice which no doubt, particularly in the light of the amendment of the noble Countess, will be issued to deal not only with aspects of the system likely to be sought on slaughter but also on vaccination. Assistance which is not given renders those who fail to give it liable to fine and imprisonment.
The 29th paragraph of the 10th report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights was referred to in Committee but, as I seek to make a constructive case, perhaps by leave I may again refer to one short passage from it. It states:
"We consider it desirable for a copy of the information sworn by the inspector in support of the application for a warrant to be served on the occupier, together with a copy of the warrant, when the warrant is executed; in order to reduce the risk of arbitrariness"—
a word that I have never used, but I have taken it straight from the report—
"and to make judicial review of the warrant an effective remedy for any violation of Convention rights".
That is the advice of the committee.
In conclusion—I apologise for speaking at such length at such an hour—other than at a time of national emergency, all of your Lordships will appreciate that the separation of powers is the bedrock of our unwritten constitution, of which this House is the sole guardian. For the sake of administrative convenience, in fulfilment of the Quentine prophecy, what has happened? Parliament proposes to confer its powers to the Executive and to stifle the powers of the judiciary. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, my noble friend raises important issues. He has spelt his case out clearly so, apart from supporting the thoughts behind his well-presented case on the use and exercise of the powers, I shall not elaborate. He has clearly covered it all.
I hope that the Minister will be able to allay some of our fears. As my noble friend said, there will be no appeal until after the animals have been slaughtered. It is not an emergency. As I said, a writ of entry will not be disclosed until after the animals have been slaughtered and, with vaccination now playing such a high part in consideration of future disease control, we ask the Minister carefully to consider the new clause. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, perhaps I may speak briefly in support of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. With respect to the noble Lord, he cited paragraph 27 of the Joint Committee on Human Rights report, but it is significant. That report was, on the whole, favourable towards the Government and not unduly critical of the provisions of the Bill even as originally drafted. Many of your Lordships were surprised by the tolerance for what appeared to be infringements of human rights in the

1299
Bill, but the Joint Committee took the line that we may be faced with a crisis and that severe measures were justified.
However, one of the clearest sections of the report suggests that such information should be served, and it is extremely important that that should be done. Granted the general tenor of the report, it is particularly significant that that recommendation is so clear. For that reason, I strongly support what the noble Lord said.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, perhaps I may add my support to that for my noble friend. It strikes me that the progress of the Bill has been somewhat unusual. The great virtue of the amendment—the Government should appreciate this virtue—is that it draws the distinction between what might be described as normal statutory powers and those required in a national emergency. In so doing, the amendment guarantees that due judicial process—and, indeed, natural justice—is adhered to.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I, too, willingly support the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. In what may be regarded as rather a long speech, I heard the noble Lord, Lord Carter, whispering, "Are they paid by the minute?". We all think that about the lawyers in this House, because they all tend to go on a bit. That is a stock joke about them. However, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, does himself a disservice by saying that he is just an ordinary lawyer. He is by no means an ordinary lawyer and he would not be in your Lordships' House if he were. His service to the House has proved otherwise. The noble Lord made some valid points. He pulled together many factors that should have been pulled together in the earlier stages of the Bill's progress.
I must make one major criticism of the Minister. The big amendments that we have considered this evening have been too big for Report stage. We needed more time to discuss them, and we have failed the farming community by not being able to discuss them properly. I am disappointed that we did not have the amendments when we were in Committee, as we should have done. After all, the Minister had all summer to produce the amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, made some good points in his amendment, and they should be accepted.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, we agree with that. The amendment refers to sworn information, required assistance, suspension by statutory instrument and the provision of a code of practice for slaughter. Those relate to important principles, and they have rightly been brought to our attention. The addition of such principles would strengthen the Bill and the rights of individuals who stand to lose a great deal and have some of their liberties infringed.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has moved the amendment in an attempt to provide a general clause that would qualify a large part of the Bill, rather than doing it section by section. The noble Lord has raised certain principles. Neither the specific details nor the mechanism that the noble Lord proposes is appropriate, and I shall explain why. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, may have a point about the lateness of some of the amendments, but I have tried to keep noble Lords who were involved with the Bill informed of my intentions.
Our amendments meet many of the anxieties expressed at earlier stages, particularly those relating to the warrant procedure and the use of slaughter powers. Since the Bill was first produced and since the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, produced his previous version of the amendment, we have committed ourselves to serving a copy of the warrant on the occupier at the time of entry; keeping a warrant record; limiting the definition of persons from whom an inspector can ask assistance; publishing the animal disease slaughter protocol that we discussed this evening; and requiring the Secretary of State to publish reasons for adopting slaughter powers. Those are all substantial constraints on the powers about which the noble Lord expresses continued anxiety. There are now substantial procedures that Ministers and government authorities must go through to exercise the powers to which the amendment refers.
The problem with the mechanism suggested by the noble Lord is that it defines a situation in peacetime, as opposed to a situation of national emergency. The powers are not for peacetime. A foot and mouth disease epidemic will—automatically, immediately and instantaneously—be a national emergency, as would be an outbreak of any of the other diseases referred to at various points in the report to which the same approach might be extended. Therefore, we are discussing powers that would be exerted in a national emergency in any case.
A national emergency could come upon us suddenly, and it would cause severe delay to oblige the Government to come to this House and to the other place to seek approval to suspend the provisions of the clause in order to trigger the necessary powers. That delay would be right at the beginning. We are not talking about a delay in the operation of powers of entry, slaughter or vaccination; the amendment would mean that, right at the beginning of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease, the Government would not have access to the full plethora of measures that this Bill and other legislation would otherwise provide.
When foot and mouth disease broke out, one of the major criticisms of the Government was that we did not act quickly enough. The criticism was that we did not have the powers immediately to hand, so that we could deploy them in a policy of slaughter or, as advocated by many—including, in the light of the reports that we have received, the Government—vaccination. If we had had to seek powers, we might as well have relied on emergency powers in the first place.

1301
The disease is no respecter of parliamentary timetables. Despite what many of us may think, this House sits for only half the year, in terms of the number of days. In terms of the number of hours—hours are important, when disease breaks out—it sits for rather less than that. It may not seem to be thus sometimes, but that is the case. Noble Lords may recall that, on the day that foot and mouth disease broke out, we heard a Statement from my noble friend Lady Hayman; the other place was not sitting. Had we to come to Parliament to trigger the powers that we considered necessary, what would we do if the disease broke out at a time that was not convenient for your Lordships or—even more likely—convenient for the other place?
Therefore, I do not believe that the mechanism proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, of "unsuspending" the powers—if I can use a word that is probably not in the dictionary—would work. Either the Government directly put the limitations in the Bill or we accept that the limitations already proposed, and some others that we are about to debate, will limit the power.
It is important to recognise that those powers will be exerted only when there is an outbreak of a serious disease or, in the immediate period, in relation to foot and mouth disease. Therefore, the distinction between peacetime and a national emergency is theoretical because the powers will be used only in a period of national emergency. While I appreciate the attempt to put a general provision on the face of the Bill, the mechanism chosen by the noble Lord would not be appropriate.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for engaging in a constructive discussion. Frankly, that is the only way in which we can resolve constitutional affairs in this House. I thank all noble Lords on all sides of the House at this hour who have supported the amendment.
I do not want to take much time, but there is a problem which has been acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. It is a novel situation in which in peace-time an emergency situation can arise at any time. The Bill, as he put it, covers both. There is no necessity for any distinction—I hope I do not do an injustice and I invite the noble Lord to intervene if I am wrong—to be made because the Minister will always operate the matter fairly, sensibly and reasonably.
With respect, that does not accord with my experience at the Bar. I have spent half my time fighting cases where Ministers have not acted reasonably, sensibly and so forth. I quite understand that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and many others believe that they do. But I know they do not. I say in an irenic spirit that we start from different ends. We look at the matter from different ends of a telescope.
The idea of having a statutory instrument in this extraordinary dual situation or quadripartite situation is not unusual from a constitutional point of view. If
1302
there is an emergency situation it is not a Minister of State who decides; it is Parliament. The only way that can be done quickly—and I agree with the noble Lord that it must be done quickly—is by Parliament, at the drop of a hat, bringing forward a statutory instrument. That is all that is needed. I am not asking that the noble Lord should agree with me—I do not believe he ever will—but that he should take time to consider the debate and give a further response to the points that I have raised.
When bringing a case before the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House we had to present a written case and at the end give brief reasons. Those reasons were most difficult to draft because of the perversity of the noble and learned Lords who always looked at the end first. My brief reason for objection as regards the Bill is that it sets an untoward precedent which affords a manifest injustice. I ask the Minister to muse on that perhaps with some understanding.
In view of the general support that I have received, which I did not expect or seek, from all sides of the House, and in view of the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment so that we may continue a debate on the basis of further constructive thought.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.30 p.m.
Clause 5 [Treatment: power of entry]:
Lord Greaves Lord Greaves moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 34, leave out from "informed" to end of line and insert "in writing of the decision to apply for the warrant and of the reasons for that decision including a copy of the sworn information, and has been notified of the time and place at which he may make representations to the justice of the peace about whether the warrant should be issued"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 20 heads a group of amendments most of which stand in the name of my noble friend Lord Livsey and myself. They attempt to tackle some of the problems highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. I am sorry, I meant the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I hesitate to suggest that the two have anything in common—well, not a great deal. I had better get on before I dig my hole much deeper.
These amendments attempt to tackle some of the problems which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, highlighted—and some other problems, too—based around the decisions taken on them by magistrates, the serving of the warrants and the right of people to make representations to the magistrates. They also attempt to deal with the related issue of what happens when premises are unoccupied or the occupier is absent.
In respect of those and other areas, the Minister has made considerable changes to the Bill since it first came to your Lordships' House. He has built in many "constraints", as he called them. However, in this area most of them have not been constraints as much as clarifications. They are welcome because the position is now much clearer. Attempts have been made to make the procedures used in different circumstances

1303
more uniform and much of what the Minister has done has led to greater openness in the Bill. That, too, is most welcome.
However, there remains a series of deep concerns about what happens when people wish to enter premises either for the treatment of animals, for the slaughter of animals or for the testing of animals. The provisions relating to those three areas are substantially uniform and these amendments would make uniform changes to them. The first amendment requires the reasons for the decision to be provided in writing. We believe that that is important and that a copy of the information should be provided, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway.
My second point concerns the ability of people to make representations to a JP. The letter sent to noble Lords by the Minister implied that the Lord Chancellor's Department does not have a high opinion of this suggestion; that different procedures apply for obtaining warrants generally and for making representations to JPs and magistrates, and that it was not a good idea.
It may be that the three areas should be treated differently and that provisions for making representations are needed only in cases of slaughter. The Minister may say that slaughter is often very urgent, as is vaccination, but there is a difference between the purpose of a warrant for entry for slaughter and any other warrant—that is, that its effect is irrevocable and terminal. In most other cases, no matter what unfortunate things may happen to people—they may be arrested, have their property removed, or whatever—the situation can be reversed. In the case of slaughter, it cannot. It may be said that the same is true in cases of treatment, although clearly the remedy and effect being sought is a great deal less traumatic.
I concede that uniform amendments to these different categories may not be the way forward. We are still searching for an ideal way of providing, in such traumatic circumstances, adequate civil rights to the owners, the farmers and the occupiers concerned, in a way that will not seriously affect the purpose of the operation. We all accept that at the height of an epidemic speed is of the essence.
In proposing the amendments, I do not believe that we have achieved a final, ideal solution. I do not believe that the Bill as it stands is adequate for meeting people's concerns or that the amendments on these matters put forward from other sides of the House have yet achieved the ideal. More discussion and thought is required. However, the problem is there; it has to be faced up to and improvements still have to be made to the Bill.
As to the question of what should happen where people turn up at unoccupied premises or where the occupier is absent but it is known, or it can reasonably be found out, where he is, the Government have not yet come forward with an adequate solution to this problem. If you go to a village and want to get access to a farm—and the farmer is in that village or nearby
1304
and can be easily found—it is not reasonable simply to put up a notice at the unoccupied premises and to go away and assume that it has been seen. That is not reasonable in those circumstances.
If it is known that the owner is a long way away and cannot be contacted, or if his telephone number cannot be found or he cannot be contacted easily on the telephone, that is a different circumstance. But where he can be contacted, either because he is nearby and people know where he is or because a telephone number on which he can be contacted is known—and is perhaps displayed on the premises—it is not reasonable to ignore that and to proceed as though he was not there.
We believe that these questions need to be answered. We hope that the Government will look to see whether they can come at least some way towards meeting us on them. These are matters to which we shall have to return at Third Reading. I beg to move.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, the noble Lord has introduced his amendment with great diffidence, but he has put his finger on an aspect of the Bill that has greatly troubled me, as I indicated in Committee, and continues to do so.
One of the lasting legacies of the foot and mouth outbreak, which has led to continuing resentment, was the sense of powerlessness in the face of the authorities on the part of those faced with people attempting to get into their premises to slaughter their stock.
I accept that a balance has to be struck between the need to control disease urgently and the rights of the owners of the animals—the landowners and farmers. I appreciate that the paramount consideration in the Minister's mind—stung as he and his colleagues were by criticisms of their department—is that they should have the powers to act as swiftly as possible.
However, we are talking not about diseased animals, not about animals which are dangerous contacts, but about those that are healthy and which the Minister is considering using as some form of "fire-break". It seems to me that the minimum that those farmers should have the right to expect is to be told why entry to their premises is required and what the basis of the application is; to be told when and where the application is to be made; and to be given a chance to be heard.
The Minister said in Committee that that would cause delay—and so it will; but it will be a minimal delay in the circumstances. It is always inconvenient to authorities when lawyers are brought in. But surely, if you are going to destroy someone's healthy stock, which is the proposal here, you must give that person the opportunity to be heard at an early stage of the warrant.
This is not a parallel with an arrest warrant or a search warrant. If granted, it will result in the destruction of the animals. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has said, what on earth is the point of subsequent judicial review if your herd is lying dead on the floor of your barn?

1305
These amendments may not be perfect, but they strike at a matter which I urge my noble friend the Minister to address. If it is not addressed, that feeling of powerlessness in the face of the authorities will be translated into this Bill as well, and he will be storing up even greater resentment if these powers—heaven forfend!—ever have to be used in the future.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, I could not agree more strongly with the noble Baroness. The amendment picks up points in amendments that I tabled in Committee. I felt strongly that it was essential that anyone who found that his premises were about to be entered by the authorities and his livestock killed should have the right to know when he could make representations to a justice of the peace. I strongly support the suggestion that an occupier should be,
"notified of the time and place at which he may make representations",
to a magistrate. Such a provision is essential.
It could, of course, mean a delay. I accept that. I hope that in replying the Minister will not stress that aspect too much. If the process is properly organised, the delay could be very small indeed. Writing these kinds of provisions into the Bill has the added advantage that farmers will be less likely to make appeals in an attempt to avoid their livestock being killed.
In this context, I was struck by the Minister's letter to the noble Countess dated 17th October. The letter is headed "Animal Health Bill". The Minister has headed a number of paragraphs in the letter "Appeals information from North Yorkshire". I live in North Yorkshire. Happily, my farm was not affected by that dreadful outbreak. As I told noble Lords in Committee, we had outbreaks of foot and mouth disease less than 10 miles from us to the east, north and west but, happily, not to the south into the great pig-producing areas of the Vale of York. Happily, the disease did not strike us.
However, in North Yorkshire there were a good many appeals. In the letter to the noble Countess, the Minister refers to 55 local appeals. The Government repeatedly referred to those appeals as being in the Thirsk area. It caused huge offence in the area where I live. The Minister may recall my correspondence with him. In an extraordinarily ignorant way, the Government referred to all those appeals as being in the Thirsk area whereas many were not.
I have not referred to this issue in previous debates. However, I wish to put on record today that the way in which the Government referred to so many of the outbreaks in North Yorkshire as being in the Thirsk area—they were not—caused huge offence. Many were many miles from the Thirsk area where I live.
I declare an interest. Many years ago, as a young man I was a member of the NFU executive for the Thirsk branch. I commend the Government, at last, for referring to North Yorkshire rather than the Thirsk area. I apologise to noble Lords for perhaps appearing too parochial, but the offence caused by the
1306
Government's ignorance needs putting right. The reference in the paragraphs in the letter to "Appeals information from North Yorkshire" (rather than the Thirsk area) will be widely welcomed. It is a situation where there is great rejoicing when the sinner repenteth.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. In terms of balance and natural justice, it is in many ways the most important amendment to the Bill that noble Lords will address.
It is imperative that there should be a fair balance between the occupier and those who wish to enter his land and, if necessary, slaughter his stock. I can see no reason whatsoever why the occupier should not have information which is available to the justice of the peace and be able to attend such a meeting to present his case. That seems to me basic and natural justice.
It is important to note two supporters of the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, is a former Minister of Agriculture. If he can support the amendment, knowing the implications involved, I see no reason why the Government cannot accept it. If the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, is not concerned from a legal perspective that unnecessary delays are likely to take place, that is another good reason why the Government should accept the amendment. In Committee, I made the relatively mundane but important point that it is appropriate that the Bill gives the new department an opportunity to show the farming fraternity that they care and that they consider farmers' viewpoint. This amendment, almost more than any other, displays that feeling of mutual trust. It is for that reason, more than any other, that I regard it as an imperative part of the legislation. I see no reason whatsoever why the Government should reject it. It is fundamental, and I hope that the Minister will listen very carefully to what has been said.
9.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, there are two points in this amendment. The first picks up on the matter that we discussed in connection with Amendment No. 19, which relates to providing a copy of the sworn information to the person whose premises are being approached. Clause 62B(1) of the Bill as it is printed provides:
"If a justice of the peace is satisfied on sworn information in writing that the first condition is satisfied…he may issue a warrant".
There is no reason why the sworn information should not be taken with the warrant. The Minister said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that the process would involve a delay. It would involve no delay at all, because if the sworn information is available there is no reason why it should not be taken to the farmer with the warrant.
The second question is whether that person should have a right of representation. The Minister will say that that will involve delay, and it will. It could be done within a tight period, which need not be longer than 24 hours. When that minimal delay, with the enormous gain in good will that there could be if the possibility

1307
of representation were offered, is compared with the inordinate delays that took place last year, it is as nothing. We would have less delay and there would be an enormous increase in good will. This makes real sense. Arguments that the provision of sworn information would create delay are unsustainable. Of course there would be some delay if there were a possibility of representation, but it would be well worth it in order to achieve the good will.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, we are discussing an important group of amendments, and I do not think that the noble Lord has disconnected his first amendment from that group. Rather facetiously, I thought about the length of time that MAFF took to reply to my letters. However, under the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, correspondence comes back and forth much more quickly than it used to do. He has seen an improvement in that regard. The delay in issuing information in writing may not be as great as it would have been if MAFF still reigned supreme. There is no problem with having pro forma letters, on which dates and times can be inserted. There should be no delay in that regard, so the Minister cannot plead delay as a problem. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, pointed out that we are not talking about slaughtering animals, but about vaccinating them, and about having healthy animals. A little delay will not hurt.
I strongly support Amendment No. 20A, which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, tabled. In this situation I can see no reason why an application for admission to premises giving advance notice would defeat the object of entering premises. We want farmers' co-operation; we do not want to upset them or to cause more problems. Amendment No. 20A should certainly be accepted.
The other amendments all apply to dealing with occupiers who are absent. The noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Livsey, have done a good job pulling this group of amendments together and I support them.
Lord Carter: My Lords, this discussion has been very interesting to listen to, but I am a little surprised that not a single contributor has referred to the 10th report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights—a committee that includes the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Lester of Herne Hill. The committee examined this aspect of the Bill very carefully. The report says:
"As Article 8(2) [of the ECHR] has been interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights, an entry to premises, or the issue of a warrant, must, in order to be justified—

a) be in accordance with the law,

b) be intended to advance one of the legitimate aims listed in Article 8(2), and

c) be a proportionate response to a pressing social need to pursue that aim".

The committee then examined all the procedures and requirements in the Bill—including the requirement to obtain a warrant from a justice of the peace before entering premises without the occupier's consent and without giving notice, and all the rest of
1308
it—and concluded that it was satisfied that the powers the Government are undertaking do not impinge on human rights. That was before the amendments introduced by my noble friend the Minister. I am surprised that not one person who has contributed to the debate or supported the amendment has referred to the fact that the Joint Committee of both Houses, which contains great specialist knowledge and expert advice on human rights, does not find that the powers contained in the Bill contravene human rights.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I have just quoted from that report. I had it in my hand and referred to Paragraph 27, as did the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. What the noble Lord says is simply not true; two Members of this House have quoted from that report.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate beat me to it. I thought that perhaps we had been listening to a different debate. I was only cross that I had not brought my copy of the report in with me, so I was very glad that the noble Lord referred to it.
We strongly support Amendment No. 20. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 20A. Noble Lords from all sides of the House have raised genuine concerns about this part of the Bill. It is one of the most important aspects that we shall consider. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, spelt the issue out simply. Why is the entry required? Where? When? Is there a chance to be heard? The point cannot be made more briefly or directly. That sums up everything that we said in Committee and are saying again tonight.
We are all anxious to avoid the unnecessary killing of healthy animals if at all possible. We need to give those whose animals may be killed in this way the chance to be heard and to be told what is going on. My noble friend Lord Peel referred to basic and natural justice, which seems to be missing in this bit of the Bill. He felt that the Government had an opportunity to reach out and restore some of the confidence that has been shaken in the farming industry. As I go around, the same frustrations are often raised with me: do the Government understand or care or do they not really mind whether we produce our own food and have our own livestock? Would it not be easier to get rid of the whole lot? There is great concern. It would be immensely helpful if we could allay some of those fears.
In Committee the Minister told us that his legal advisers are not in favour of placing more than is strictly necessary on the face of the Bill. Our contention is that paragraph (b), which would be deleted by Amendment No. 20A, is not only unnecessary, but likely to encourage the sort of behaviour by officials that leads to even greater suspicions and recalcitrance on the part of those whom they are trying to investigate. Many will remember one or two incidents that happened during our last outbreak. A farmer has a flock of sheep. The inspector wants to check them for foot and mouth. The inspector phones up and there is nobody at home. His task is

1309
urgent, so he goes to a JP and seeks a warrant using the first condition and the second part of the third condition as an excuse. If he is successful, he will have been spared the palaver of giving the farmer notice of entry and the reasons for it. Clearly, as other noble Lords have observed tonight, reasons must be given and there must be some recourse available.
If feelings are running high locally, does the Minister recognise that this is what I call a "Catch-all-22" with regard to my Amendment No. 20A? I thank the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for her support. I believe that the Minister has enough powers under the Bill without paragraph (b). Therefore, when he responds, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will accept our argument.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I respect the views expressed from all parts of the House on the issue, but I disagree with them very centrally. We are talking about one of the powers in the Bill that I personally feel was lacking the last time round. The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, referred to misinterpretation of what we call the "Thirsk area". I am not quite as repentant as he suggests, but the statistics certainly relate to North Yorkshire and the patterns of the area because that is the way we keep statistics. However, the occasion of the Thirsk outbreak would, of course, cover the wider area. Thirsk was a new outbreak in that the outbreak in the west of North Yorkshire had been there for some time.
The outbreak in that area of North Yorkshire was both new and very dangerous. As the noble Lord rightly said, it threatened the pig herds of East Riding and of the East Midlands. Moreover, had the disease moved in the wrong direction, we would have been involved in mandatory slaughter or mandatory vaccination—and, therefore, market negation at that point—of all the pigs in those intensive pig farms. As a consequence, many people's livelihoods would have been substantially destroyed.
The noble Baroness says that we must make a gesture that recognises the concerns of the farming community. I should point out to her that all the Bill's provisions are aimed at protecting livestock farming in this country. All the Government's actions were directed towards that aim—some of them worked, but some of them did not work well. However, there was too much delay in the culling of contiguous premises and this threatened the whole process. There are people who object to the contiguous cull, and who say that vaccination is required. But vaccination would also require swift action in these areas.
I do not believe that any Minister of agriculture faced with a new outbreak that threatened huge parts of the pig and livestock industry in a key part of the country would have been happy with the fact that delays were built into the process which threatened to slow down the way in which the disease was being controlled. Those people who we are trying to protect in such areas also have human rights and, indeed, rights to their property. Therefore, it is important for swiftness to be written into these procedures.
1310
It is also important for reasonableness to be included. We have accepted that greater safeguards on reasonableness should be built into the Bill than was the case with the original format. We have written that into the legislation in terms of the conditions of the warrant procedure, and in many other parts. As my noble friend Lord Carter pointed out, the original Bill was not challenged in this respect by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. We have made it more "bomb proof "from the human rights point of view as a result of these additional safeguards.
The key issue here is representation. Inevitably, delay arises from the ability to make representations on this procedure. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was good enough to mention, it is also true that that does not apply in any other warrant procedure. Moreover, speed is not so much of the essence in some of those other procedures as in the case where one is trying to control a raging epidemic. I should stress that these provisions do not take away all rights from the occupier; indeed, he has the right to make representations to the DVM; the right to seek a High Court injunction, which could block a warrant; and, although this is post facto, there is also the judicial review process as a fall-back. So it is not the case that there is no means of redress, or of delay, open to the occupier.
In normal circumstances, however, the process that we are proposing—the warrant-issuing proposal, which very closely follows warrant-granting proposals in other contexts—is the swiftest way of getting the authority to act. That is what we need. We accept that people have to act with reasonableness, but we also have safeguards in that regard. The magistrate, for example, has to have regard to reasonableness in all aspects of the matter. So we do have a balance between swiftness and reasonableness. To go further and build in an inevitable delay in terms of representations is a safeguard too far for me and could endanger large parts of the rest of the livestock industry. I do not believe that it would in any sense be in the interests of the farming community to build in that delay.
On the face of it, there is a slightly different argument in relation to unoccupied premises, which some of these amendments deal with. I can certainly understand that people might feel that they could be caught out if they were inadvertently down the road when the inspector called. There again, however, the authorities will have to act with reasonableness, and the magistrates will have to be persuaded that the authorities acted with reasonableness. It would not be reasonable if the inspector failed to contact the occupier although he knew, or could reasonably be supposed to know, that the occupier was easily contactable although he or she was not on the premises. The magistrate could find that that was not reasonable, and a court could subsequently find that it was not reasonable. The thread of reasonableness, therefore, already runs through all of these powers.
We therefore do not need this additional requirement. It could even be counterproductive to impose a requirement of reasonableness in relation to this power when there is no such requirement in

1311
relation to the other powers. In normal situations, reasonableness runs through all of the qualifications to the actions of the authorities.
We have a situation in which swiftness is essential, and in which reasonableness has been built in substantially more than it was in the original Bill—which was itself in this respect given a very clean bill of health by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. But noble Lords wish to build in another safeguard which will inevitably cause delay. I do not think that there is a strong human rights argument for doing that. Rather, I think that the human rights and property rights of the rest of the farming community need to prevail over the view that we should provide the occupier of particular premises with an additional delaying process. Such premises may not be diseased, but in the judgment of the authorities—and regardless of whether they are adopting a vaccination or slaughter policy—they are an essential part of preventing the spread of the disease.
Therefore, despite the widespread support on all sides of the House for this group of amendments, I cannot accede to their central point. In the light of what I have said, I hope that they will not be pursued.
10 p.m.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, although I was not terribly encouraged by what he said, I thank the Minister for that reply. I thank all noble Lords who took part in the debate. I also thank the Minister for taking part, but not for what he said. I tell the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, that I am not usually known for being diffident; perhaps I need some time after the dinner break to get going again.
I have several comments on the Minister's reply. I do not think that any of us are challenging the central powers which he seeks. We are certainly not trying to do so in these amendments. He said that the central point of the Bill was to provide the Government with powers that the Secretary of State lacked in the recent outbreak. We are not challenging those powers. We are simply considering some of the ways in which those powers should be constrained to ensure reasonable behaviour.
I am not sure that the discussion of human rights and the Human Rights Act is a fundamental aspect of this debate. I see the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights as a floor below which things should not fall. If things are seen to fall below that, a contravention or problem will arise which clearly has to be dealt with.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I wish to add to my noble friend's remarks. I believe that, when talking about speed, the Minister mentioned delays that may occur as a result of representations being made to magistrates. However, in rural areas magistrates are easily accessible. I believe that that argument is the thin end of the wedge in terms of claiming that such a process would take a long time; it would not.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for those comments. As regards the point that I
1312
was making about human rights, just because something does not obviously and immediately contravene the convention and the Human Rights Act does not mean that it should automatically take place. Many things which we would not wish to see occur, or would wish to see improved, would not fail the very stark test of contravening the Human Rights Act and the convention. That is a slight red herring.
The Minister said that a thread of reasonableness runs through everything—the whole of life, all legislation, the whole of government, everything that government officials ever do, everything that magistrates and everyone connected with them ever do, and through everything that people contracted to all those bodies ever do. If that was the case, we would not need any laws at all as everyone would behave completely reasonably under all circumstances. We could simply rely on a system of voluntary mutuality for us all to behave reasonably with everyone else and the world would be a rather more ideal place than it is now. The reason we have laws and rules and regulations is that often people do not behave reasonably. Even when they are meant to behave reasonably, they behave in an arbitrary manner or they behave in an unreasonable manner unwittingly because of the circumstances in which they find themselves.
We must remember that the powers we are discussing, particularly the slaughter powers and the compulsory vaccination powers, will be exercised under conditions of great stress—stress for communities, farmers, people who own livestock and occupy the relevant premises, and stress for the whole community. I refer also to stress among magistrates and everyone else. We all observed what happened in last year's outbreak. In such situations people are under great stress. When they are under great stress, they do unreasonable things. All kinds of unreasonable events occurred that should not have taken place under the rules that were laid down. Therefore, we can assume that in stressful circumstances human beings will behave in ways which are not only unreasonable but which they regret later.
The idea that the whole world is wonderful and everyone is reasonable is not something that I can accept. It seems to me that if the rules require reasonableness—I refer in that connection to unoccupied premises or to premises where people are absent—there is no harm in including that in the Bill. If it is not included, it may be said of certain people, "They may be at the church just down the road but they are not on the farm and therefore we shall ignore them", or, "They may be on their other holding at the other end of the village", or, "They may be in the pub", or, "They may be at their grandmother's across the road", or whatever. Simple inquiries may ascertain where the relevant people are and enable a warrant to be served in a proper way. When people are under stress and under great pressure to achieve things quickly, standards slip and, therefore, that is when it

1313
is even more important that the rules put the matter in black and white. As I say, I do not agree with the Minister's comments as regards unoccupied premises.
I believe that the House will want to return to these issues. There may be a fundamental division of opinion. The Minister may say that he cannot go even halfway to accommodate us, or accommodate us at all. If that is the case, there will have to be a showdown. I should regret that because it would be helpful if we could achieve some consensus in this area. Despite what the Minister said, perhaps during the next fortnight some efforts may be made to achieve that. I give notice that this matter will have to be debated again. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No, 20A:
Page 4, line 1, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I listened with care to what the Minister did—or did not—say in response to my amendment. This matter involves a catch-all situation and extra powers will given to the Minister, although I do not believe that he needs them. I am not happy with the Minister's response and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
10.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 20A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 41.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Jopling, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Kimball, L.

Attlee, E.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Barker, B.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Bridgeman, V. [Teller]

Mar, C.

Burnham, L.

Northbrook, L.

Byford, B.

Northesk, E.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Peel, E.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Plumb, L.

Ferrers, E.

Selborne, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Greaves, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Wilcox, B.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Alli, L.

Crawley, B.

Andrews, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Desai, L.

Borrie, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Burlison, L.

Gale, B.

Carter, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Goldsmith, L.

1314

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Grenfell, L.

Parekh, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Rea, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Harrison, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Judd, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Whitaker, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Whitty, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.20 p.m.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 4, line 16, after "of" insert "the affected"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 22, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 29, 37 and 56. Perhaps I may point out to noble Lords that Amendment No. 56 appears twice on the groupings list. However, I believe that it is relevant to this group and therefore I shall speak to it now.
I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, amended the wording of the Bill to reflect some of the concerns expressed by myself and other Members of the House. He has not, however, gone far enough to protect people on a farm from the demands of overwork and perhaps being harassed by an inspector, who in turn is being hassled by a boss to achieve the object set him.
The amendment seeks the insertion of the words "the affected" animals—not "infected" animals. We contend that not everyone would feel able to give assistance to an inspector needing help. He would be quite within his rights, as they are currently laid down in the Bill, to call upon, for example, a stable girl, or a daughter or someone living in the household, to assist. She might well be doubly qualified because she has charge of some other animals on the premises. But she might well have nothing to do with the animals that the inspector wishes help with; for example, a stable girl who for particular reasons is petrified of cows, and, knowing little about them, is not able to give the kind of help that the Minister through his inspector seeks. If such a person is coerced into helping and an accident occurs while giving that assistance, who will be liable? Who covers someone who, when asked to give assistance, is perhaps not able and not capable of giving it?
In Committee, the Minister clarified and narrowed the number of people who can be reasonably expected to give assistance. But because the Bill refers to "animals" rather than "affected animals", I believe that the Minister would welcome the insertion of this word. I beg to move.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, I support my noble friend on this. The Bill at the moment states:
"The following persons fall within this subsection—
(a) the occupier of the premises",
and then,
"a person appearing to the inspector to have charge of animals on the premises".
There are so many ways that one could have people on premises in charge of animals who have nothing whatever to do with animals which might or might not be affected in a foot and mouth outbreak.
Nowadays, far fewer people in the countryside are involved in agriculture than when I was a young man and starting farming in the 1950s. As a consequence, there are on a good deal of farms premises that are part of the farm but which are let for entirely non-farming purposes.
I cite an example from the top of my head. Let us say that a house on a farm is part of the farm premises and is occupied by someone who carries on a business breeding dogs—nothing whatever to do with the farm but occupying premises that are part of the farm. Why should someone be involved in all of the legislation who appears to the inspector,
"to have charge of animals on the premises",
when that person may have charge of the breeding of dogs on the premises but knows nothing about cattle, sheep or pigs kept on the premises?
The amendment is entirely appropriate. The Bill should state that the only people who fall under the subsection are persons appearing to the inspector to have charge of animals on the premises that are affected by the outbreak that we are discussing.
As I speak, I can think of another example. A farm that neighbours mine in North Yorkshire has set up a side enterprise in which they breed and sell ornamental fish. When they come to stay, my grandchildren love to go to that farm either to look at or to purchase fish for their aquarium. But those fish are animals.
Nowadays, people on farms are considering alternative enterprises. Years ago, I was one of the first Ministers to encourage alternative enterprises on farms and give public money to support them. Because there was insufficient money to be made from farming, many farming families have arranged for interested people to occupy houses or other premises to carry out enterprises which, through a rental, provide revenue for the farming business but which are totally separate and run by different people from the farming enterprise.
I have cited two examples—dog breeding and fish breeding—that could perfectly well fall under the provision. I plead with the Minister to understand the point. He may not have previously considered such a situation, although I thought that we explained it in Committee. Something must be done to detach from the legal process and legislation people who are totally separated from the enterprise of the farm on which animals are or could be affected by an outbreak of disease. We should concentrate the effect of the law on
1316
those who are solely concerned with animals that may be affected by the disease. I hope that the Minister will take that point.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I have much sympathy with the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, but I suspect that the Minister will refer us to the parent Act, which tells us what are animals. It includes neither dogs nor fish. It would be helpful to make the amendment, but, unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, went off at a tangent.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I spoke at some length in Committee, so I shall be brief. There are other situations: there are cottages on farms that have become empty and farmhouses that have fallen empty. In our part of the world, many barns have been converted into accommodation. An inspector who came from a different area, where there were farm animals, might appropriate the help of some of the people living there. Opposite where I live, there is a barn complex in which 12 people live. Yet there are animals close by. The amendment would be sensible.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Countess made my point for me, although she took the effect away with her subsequent sentence.
I thought that I explained previously that in this context and others we were working on the basis of the Animal Health Act 1981 in which animals are defined as animals being susceptible to the disease. That does not include horses, fish or dogs. If we qualify that by saying "affected animals", there will be an argument about which of the susceptible animals are affected by the order or by the requirements of the inspector. It would be a confusing amendment as animals are already defined as animals that are susceptible. All such animals could be covered by a request for assistance. The amendment is not appropriate.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am disappointed that the Minister considers my amendment inappropriate. I heard what he said, and it is an oversight on my part that I did not re-check. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 4, line 29, leave out "issue" and insert "approval by the justice of the peace, which date shall be clearly visible on the warrant"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 23, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 28, 35 and 54.
When we discussed my amendment, Amendment No. 235, in Committee, it evoked support from all parts. The Minister promised to re-examine the matter, and I acknowledged that there needed to be more work on the wording. As it now stands, the amendment would tie the date on the warrant firmly to the date on which it was approved. I seem to remember

1317
that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said that my previous amendment did not mean that the warrant had been signed and approved on the same day. I remember that the noble Countess, Lady Mar, said that some warrants were available pre-signed. It was not my intention to allow that. I hope that the new amendments will be accepted and will provide greater clarity.
At the time, the Minister invoked legal advice to the effect that the Bill should not contain unnecessary material. I agree, but this phrase is not unnecessary. The foot and mouth disease outbreak brought into the open the hostility of the Government towards the fanning community. There was deep suspicion and unhappiness on all sides, as there still is. We have heard evidence that magistrates signed undated warrants. Detective novels, some of which have been filmed or televised, suggest that that practice still goes on, and we should say that it should not. To make sure that it does not, it should be made clear in the Bill that it is illegal. I beg to move.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, I shall listen with enormous interest to what the Minister says, if he decides to oppose the amendment. It would take extraordinary ingenuity to find reasons to oppose my noble friend's proposal. What possibly could be wrong with putting on the document the date on which it was approved by the justice of the peace, which should be clearly visible on the warrant?
Should the Minister seek to oppose the amendment he is being unnecessarily pedantic. I cannot conceive a single reason why it should be opposed. Even the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is assiduous in supporting the Government's line during the proceedings of the Bill to the extent that some of us wonder whether he is still on the Government's payroll. Even the noble Lord, Lord Carter, could not think of a single reason to oppose the amendment, which I consider the most reasonable amendment put before your Lordships today.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Lord obviously has not noticed: I support the Government only when they are right.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, this section of the Bill has been strengthened to include a requirement that the authorities must retain a copy of the warrant, a copy of the record, any steps taken to effect the warrant to enter the premises, and actions taken on the premises. That is compared with the last time we discussed this issue. The Bill will be strengthened and those records will need to be kept for at least 12 months. Therefore, if there is a dispute concerning the date, that will be covered by those additional requirements.
However, I must say that my legal advice remains the same. There is no requirement for this provision to be stated on the face of the Bill, but I cannot think of any other rational argument against the amendment. Therefore, I am prepared to accept it.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, the Minister has made my night. I have to tell him, if he hadn't, I would have
1318
voted again, and happily lost again. I am grateful to him—I know we have laughed in rejoicing—but it is a simple amendment that will be warmly welcomed. I thank the Minister warmly for that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Slaughter: power of entry]:
Lord Plumb Lord Plumb moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 5, leave out lines 6 and 7 and insert—
"( ) In this section and sections 62B, 62C and 62D "premises" excludes dwelling houses and buildings being used for non-agricultural purposes."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 24 refers to the exclusion of dwelling houses and buildings being used for non-agricultural purposes. The amendment follows, in practical terms, many of the sentiments that were expressed in Amendment No. 20 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, as well as many of my noble friends on this side of the House, on warrant to access.
The question is: what do they find when they get access? They find a very different situation that is moving rapidly on a regular basis. Increasingly, premises encompass activities which have nothing to do with the farming business. The farmhouse may have been sold off to a businessman or even an NHS consultant. The farmer and his family may have moved to the cottage that formerly housed the cowman, and so forth. We all understand the regular and continual move that is taking place and putting premises to alternative use.
Many outbuildings have been renewed and restored, and rented to companies employed in the advance of modern technology. I could take many from this House to farms near me in the Midlands where that is taking place at a rapid pace. Many of the enterprises use techniques and equipment which demand an environment that is more reminiscent of a food factory than a primary producer. It should be clear that inspectors have no right to demand entry to premises which they are told are not part of the farm; nor to those which indicate by name-plate signs in the window and so forth that they are separate entities.
This will become an ever-growing problem. It is part of the diversification process that is taking place. In today's business of farming, it is inevitable that it will continue. It will create a problem—I can see it coming—because of the enormous change in the use of buildings. I hope that the Minister will therefore accept our amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I support the amendment. It is important and it spells out many of the factors I emphasised earlier about buildings and the various people living in them. On a lighter note, it so happens that in the village where I live two former farm properties are occupied by psychiatrists. It is therefore possible that the inspector will receive a shock if he knocks on the door!
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. The only objection I can see the Minister

1319
raising is in relation to the lady who kept her sheep in the sitting room and barricaded them in. On the whole, householders ought to be allowed to have their privacy and the Human Rights Act allows them to have that. I support the noble Lord, Lord Plumb.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the provisions under the clause are all subject to reasonableness and proportionate use. It would probably be regarded as disproportionate—although not in this House—to cull psychiatrists. The issue is not what the house is mainly used for; it is whether there are animals in it or whether there is a reasonable supposition that animals are in it. There is not just the odd example of sheep and goats being kept in the house; it occurs frequently because they are kept as pets or because people are trying to avoid the effects of the cull or access to vaccination or testing.
We therefore must provide the authorities with the ability to have access to any building where animals can reasonably be expected to have been kept. A blanket exclusion of dwelling houses and other non-agricultural buildings would inhibit that. Therefore I cannot accept the amendment as drafted.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. He has dealt with only one aspect of the matter. It could well be that 50 people are in the one dwelling and all are involved in different businesses. It could well be that they are in different buildings or even sharing buildings. Therefore, it is not a question of animals being in the houses. It is a question of people being in the houses, an inspector going in with a warrant and not knowing what his responsibilities are or who is allowed to move if disease breaks out on the farm.
We aired the matter fairly fully in Committee and I have raised it again today. I shall withdraw the amendment but we shall return to it at the next stage. In the event of another outbreak, it is a matter of great concern that we recognise the change in farming practice, the use of buildings and the number of people who are in them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 25 to 29 not moved.]
10.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 6, line 39, leave out from "premises" to end of line 42.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House will notice that Amendment No. 30 stands in the names of myself and the noble Baronesses, Lady Byford and Lady Wilcox. That is because had the amendment been moved on the previous occasion I would have accepted it. This time I have made it clear beforehand that I intend to accept the amendment.
Amendment No. 30 seeks to remove the power to test for antibodies existing in animals which were kept on the premises during the period of 56 days prior to the day on which the veterinary inspector enters the premises. Having listened to earlier discussions, I accept that the amendment will clarify the power
1320
needed. It will have two effects: it will remove the reference to the 56-day period and it will clarify that the power to carry out tests on samples for antibodies applies only to animals present on the premises at the time of the inspection. It is a useful clarification. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, when noble Lords saw the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, attached to my amendment they probably wondered what was going on. The Minister, quite properly, wrote to me and confirmed that he would have accepted my amendment on the previous occasion. I cannot think why we did not move it at the time, but that is a day gone by. I am grateful that he realised that, as it stood, the clause was not correct. He has added his name to the amendment, and that defect will now be rectified.
Is the Minister accepting my Amendment No. 31? It follows exactly the same argument and I assume that he will accept it.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I, too, am concerned about paragraph (b). How is an inspector to know whether an animal at any time was infected by disease? It is very difficult for him to detect. I support the noble Baroness's amendment.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am advised that Amendment No. 31 would have a rather different effect. It would remove the power to test for disease in animals which were kept on premises or were at that time infected with a disease. That is rather different from Amendment No. 30, which deals with the time limit and the distinction between animals which were there and animals which were not. I am happy to clarify that with the noble Baroness. If necessary, we can return to the issue on Third Reading.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I had not appreciated that there were grounds for the Minister's concerns. To me it seems that the same logic behind Amendment No. 30 would apply to Amendment No. 31. I am grateful to the Minister for his indication that he will take the matter away and think about it, and perhaps come back on Third Reading to clarify the position.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 31 to 35 not moved.]
Lord Plumb Lord Plumb moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 8, line 11, at end insert "specified"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Minister seems to be in a good mood at the moment and I hope that he will accept at least one of my amendments.
If an inspector is going on to a farm to make tests or take samples, he is obviously going there for a purpose. When he arrives he will state that purpose—"I need to take blood samples from your cows" or, say, as we are looking at all diseases and not only one disease, "I need to take blood samples from any animals liable to catch African horse sickness". The point we seek to make in Amendment No. 36 is that he should not be able to exploit a loophole in the law to use his visit to take

1321
samples for a totally unrelated purpose. It is obvious that the Government sincerely believe that the position of farmers is somewhat obstructive. That is how farmers see it. They are terribly nervous at the moment, and terribly concerned, and they read it in the newspapers.
Therefore, I am making the point to the Minister that one is concerned about the behaviour of officials following the last outbreak. It has led to a climate of suspicion and considerable fear in the countryside. I hear that regularly, as I am sure do many other noble Lords, from farmers and others. The important issue is that we should try to work together to ensure that everything that happens from now on is open, transparent and above board—and, above all, is seen to be so. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as moved by the noble Lord, the amendment is difficult to resist. However, I am not in quite such a good mood. The word "specified" is open to some degree of ambiguity. Clearly, the inspector will have to go in and specify what range of animals is covered. The word could imply that he has to specify each animal. That would be difficult. Because of that ambiguity, I cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, I am sad to hear that. I rather felt that the Minister was coming all the way with me, and I was doing my best to persuade him that this was an amendment that he could accept. However, he has made his position absolutely clear. Therefore, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with a privilege amendment; the amendment was considered and agreed to.
London Local Authorities Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with amendments and a Special Report made; the Bill was re-committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee and it was ordered that the Special Report be printed.
London Development Agency Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time and referred to the Examiners.

Milford Haven Port Authority Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments were considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at eight minutes before eleven o'clock

  Rural Poverty
  Rural Poverty
  Age Discrimination
  Age Discrimination
  Service Families: Children's Education
  Service Families: Children's Education
  Physical Activity for Older People
  Physical Activity for Older People
  Angling: Lottery Sports Fund Grants
  Angling: Lottery Sports Fund Grants
  Angling: Sport England Funding
  Angling: Sport England Funding
  Army: Non-natural Deaths
  Army: Non-natural Deaths
  Defence Stores Management
  Defence Stores Management
  Accidents Involving Police Cars
  Accidents Involving Police Cars
  Forensic Pathology Services
  Forensic Pathology Services
  Advisory Group on Programmes of Study for Potential Citizens
  Advisory Group on Programmes of Study for Potential Citizens
  National Insurance: Employers' Contributions
  National Insurance: Employers' Contributions
  Diego Garcia
  Diego Garcia
  British Nationals Resident in Ireland
  British Nationals Resident in Ireland
  Senegal: Export of Machine Guns
  Senegal: Export of Machine Guns
  United Kingdom Special Representative for Georgia
  United Kingdom Special Representative for Georgia
  Azerbaijan and Armenia: OSCE Arms Embargo
  Azerbaijan and Armenia: OSCE Arms Embargo
  Iraq: Demining Equipment Licence
  Iraq: Demining Equipment Licence
  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business
  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business
  Northern Ireland: Police Resources
  Northern Ireland: Police Resources
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  London Traffic Congestion Charge: Payment Options
  London Traffic Congestion Charge: Payment Options